At the request of his mother he vvorketh his first miracle, turning vvater into vvine at a mariage in Galilee, although the time of his manifestation be not yet come. 1• Then in Hierusalem at Pasche, being but one, and yet obseure, he throweth out of the Temple most miraculously al the marchantes. 28 And being yet of the blind Ievves asked a signe, he signifieth so long before, that they should kill him, but he vvil rise againe the third day. 2• Vvhich also presently they vvould doe, but that he knovving their falses hartes (though many beleeue in him) vvil not t• ri• among them.
1And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.Tre giorni dopo vi fu uno sposalizio in Cana di Galilea: ed era quivi la Madre di Gesù.AND the third day there vvas a mariage made in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of IESVS vvas there.Et die tertia nuptiæ factæ sunt in Cana Galilææ, et erat mater Jesu ibi. 2And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.E fu invitati, anche Gesù co' suoi discepoli alle nozze.And IESVS also vvas called, and his Disciples to the mariage.Vocatus est autem et Jesus, et discipuli ejus, ad nuptias. 3And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.Ed essendo venuto a mancare il vino, disse a Gesù la Madre: Ei non hanno più vino.And the vvine failing, the mother of IESVS saith to him, They haue no vvine.Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Jesu ad eum: Vinum non habent. 4And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.E Gesù le disse: Che ho io da fare con te, o donna? Non è per anco venuta la mia ora.And IESVS saith to her, Vvhat is to me and thee vvoman? my houre commeth not yet.Et dicit ei Jesus: Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier ? nondum venit hora mea. 5His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.Disse la Madre a coloro, che servivano: Fate quello, che ei vi dirà.His mother saith to the ministers, Vvhatsoeuer he shal say to you, doe ye.Dicit mater ejus ministris: Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite. 6Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece.Or vi erano sei idrie di pietra preparate per la purificazione Giudaica, le quali contenevano ciascheduna due in tre metrete.And there were set there sixe vvater-potters of stone, according to the purificatiō of the Ievves, holding euery one tvvo or three measures.Erant autem ibi lapideæ hydriæ sex positæ secundum purificationem Judæorum, capientes singulæ metretas binas vel ternas. 7Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.Gesù disse loro: Empite d'acqua quelle idrie. Ed essi le empirono fino all'orlo.IESVS saith to them, Fil the vvater-pottes vvith vvater. And they filled them vp to the toppe.Dicit eis Jesus: Implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum. 8And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it.E Gesù disse loro: Attignete adesso, e portate al mastro di casa. E ne portarono.And IESVS saith to them, Dravv novv, and carie to the cheefe stevvard. And they caried it.Et dicit eis Jesus: Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclinio. Et tulerunt.
9And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,E appena ebbe fatto il saggio dell'acqua convertita in vino, il mastro di casa, che non sapeva, donde questo uscisse (lo sapevan però i serventi, che avevano attinta l'acqua): il mastro di casa chiama lo sposo,And after the cheefe stevvard tasted the vvater made vvine, and knevv not vvhence it vvas, but the ministers knew that had dravvne the vvater: the cheefe stevvard calleth the bridegrome,Ut autem gustavit architriclinius aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam: vocat sponsum architriclinius, 10And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.E gli dice: Tutti servono da principio il vino di miglior polso: e quando la gente si è esilarata, allora danno dell'inferiore: ma tu hai serbato il migliore fin ad ora.and saith to him, Euery man first setteth the good vvine: and vvhen they haue vvel drunke, then that vvhich is vvorse. But thou hast kept the good vvine vntil novv.et dicit ei: Omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod deterius est. Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc. 11This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.Così Gesù in Cana di Galilea diede principio a far miracoli: e manifestò la sua gloria, e in lui crederono i suoi discepoli.This beginning of miracles did IESVS in Cana of Galilee: and he manifested his glorie, and his Disciples beleeued in him.Hoc fecit initium signorum Jesus in Cana Galilææ; et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli ejus. 12After this, he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples: and they remained there not many days.Dopo di ciò andò con la sua Madre, e coi fratelli, e co' suoi discepoli a Cafarnaum: e vi stettero per poco tempo.After this he vvent dovvne to Capharnaum him self and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and there they remained not many daies.Post hoc descendit Capharnaum ipse, et mater ejus, et fratres ejus, et discipuli ejus: et ibi manserunt non multis diebus. 13And the pasch of the Jews was at hand: and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.Ed era prossima la Pasqua dei Giudei, e Gesù si portò a Gerusalemme:And the Pasche of the Ievves vvas at hand, and IESVS vvent vp to Hierusalem:Et prope erat Pascha Judæorum, et ascendit Jesus Jerosolymam:
14And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting.E trovò nel tempio della gente, che vendeva bovi, e pecore, e colombe, e banchieri, che sedevano a banco.and he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheepe and doues, and the bankers sitting.et invenit in templo vendentes boves, et oves, et columbas, et numularios sedentes. 15And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen: and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.E fatta quasi una frusta di cordicelle di giunco, tutti coloro scacciò dal tempio, e le pecore, e i bovi, e gittò per terra il denaro de' banchieri, e rovesciò i loro banchi.And vvhen he had made as it vvere a vvhippe of litle coardes, he cast them al out of the temple, the sheepe also and the oxen, and the money of the bankers he powred out, and the tables he ouerthrevv.Et cum fecisset quasi flagellum de funiculis, omnes ejecit de templo, oves quoque, et boves, et numulariorum effudit æs, et mensas subvertit. 16And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic.A quelli poi, che, vendevano le colombe, disse: Togliete via di qua queste cose, e non vogliate convertire la casa del Padre mio in bottega di traffico.And to them that sold doues, he said, Take avvay these things hence, and make not the house of my father, a house of marchandise.Et his qui columbas vendebant, dixit: Auferte ista hinc, et nolite facere domum patris mei, domum negotiationis. 17And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.E i suoi discepoli si ricordarono, che sta scritto: Lo zelo della tua casa mi ha consumato.And his Disciples remembred that it is vvritten, The zeale of thy house hath eaten me.Recordati sunt vero discipuli ejus quia scriptum est: Zelus domus tuæ comedit me. 18The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou shew unto us, seeing thou dost these things?Si rivolser però a lui i Giudei, e gli dissero: Con qual segno mostri tu a noi di poter fare queste cose?The Ievves therfore ansvvered and said to him, Vvhat signe doest thou shevv vs, that thou doest these things?Responderunt ergo Judæi, et dixerunt ei: Quod signum ostendis nobis, quia hæc facis ? 19Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up.Rispose loro Gesù: Disfate questo tempio, e io in tre giorni lo rimetterò in piedi.IESVS ansvvered and said to them, Dissolue this temple, and in three daies I vvil raise it.Respondit Jesus, et dixit eis: Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud.
20The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days?Replicarono adunque i Giudei: Questo tempio fu fabbricato in quarantasei anni, e tu lo rimetterai in piedi in tre giorni?The Ievves therfore said, In fourtie and sixe yeres vvas this temple built, and vvilt thou raise it in three daies?Dixerunt ergo Judæi: Quadraginta et sex annis ædificatum est templum hoc, et tu in tribus diebus excitabis illud ? 21But he spoke of the temple of his body.Or egli parlava del tempio del suo corpo.But he spake of the temple of his body.Ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. 22When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this: and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had said.Quindi è, che allora quando fu risuscitato da morte, si ricordarono i suoi discepoli, come egli aveva detto questo, e credettero alla Scrittura, e alle parole di Gesù.Therfore vvhen he vvas risen againe from the dead, his Disciples remembred, that he said this, and they beleeued the scripture and the vvord that IESVS did say.Cum ergo resurrexisset a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli ejus, quia hoc dicebat, et crediderunt scripturæ et sermoni quem dixit Jesus. 23Now when he was at Jerusalem, at the pasch, upon the festival day, many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did.Nel tempo poi, che egli stette in Gerusalemme per la Pasqua, e per la solennità, molti credettero nel suo nome, vedendo i miracoli, che egli faceva.And vvhen he vvas at Hierusalem in the Pasche, vpon the festiual day, many beleeued in his name, seeing his signes vvhich he did.Cum autem esset Jerosolymis in Pascha in die festo, multi crediderunt in nomine ejus, videntes signa ejus, quæ faciebat. 24But Jesus did not trust himself unto them: for that he knew all men,Ma quanto a Gesù egli non fidava loro se stesso, perché tutti conosceva,But IESVS did not commit him self vnto them, for that he knevv al,Ipse autem Jesus non credebat semetipsum eis, eo quod ipse nosset omnes, 25And because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was in man.E perché non avea bisogno, che alcuno rendesse testimonianza d'un altro: conciossiachè da se stesso sapeva quel, che fosse nell'uomo.and because it vvas not needeful for him that any should giue testimonie of man: for he knevv vvhat vvas in man.et quia opus ei non erat ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine: ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine.
2:1
2:3
Witham
They have no wine. The blessed virgin Mother was not ignorant of the divine power of her Son, and that the time was come when he designed to make himself known to the world. She could not make her request in more modest terms. (Witham)
2:4
Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour's answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet) ---See the like forms of speech, Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; etc.
My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim.
Exodus vii
Christ's first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)
2:6
Witham
Two or three measures,[Ver. 6. Metretas binas vel ternas, ana metretas duo e treis. See Walton's preface to his first volume, p. 42, and others, de ponderibus et mensuris.] called metreta. Both the Latin and Greek text, by the derivation, may signify a measure in general, according to the Rhemish translation: but metreta was a particular measure of liquids: yet, not corresponding to our firkins, I could not think it proper with the Protestant and M. N. to put two or three firkins. (Witham)
2:10
Witham
When men have well drank,[Ver. 10. When they have drank well: cum inebriati fuerint, otan methusthosi. See Legh. Crit. Sac. on the word methuo.] or plentifully; this is the literal sense: nor need we translate, when they are drunk, being spoken of such company, where our Saviour, Christ, his blessed Mother, and his disciples, were present. See (Genesis 43:34.; 1 Machabees 16:16.), where the same word may be taken in the same sense. (Witham)
2:11
Calmet
This was the first miracle which Jesus had performed in public, and to manifest his glory; but Maldonatus is of opinion that he had before wrought many miracles, known to the blessed Virgin and St. Joseph; which gave her the confidence to ask one now. This opinion is no way contrary to the evangelist. His disciples believed in him. They had believed in him before or they would not have followed him. This confirmed their faith. (Calmet)
2:15
Witham
He drove them all out of the temple. According to St. Chrysostom (hom. lxvii. in Matt.) this casting out was different from that which is there related, (Matthew 21:12.) (Witham)
Haydock
How could the Son of the carpenter, Joseph, whose divinity was yet unknown to the people, succeed in expelling so great a multitude from the temple! There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: "The house of my Father," into our Saviour's mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. (Haydock)
Haydock
Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and St. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God's Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy. (1 Corinthians 3:17.) Which in a spiritual sense may be understood of the soul of man, which is the living temple of the living God. (Haydock)
2:20
Witham
Six and forty years, etc. This many understand of the time the second temple was building, from the edict of Cyrus to the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes. Others, of the enlarging and beautifying the temple, which was begun by Herod the great, forty-six years before the Jews spoke this to our Saviour. (Witham)
Usher
Interpreters are much embarrassed by these words; as the building of the temple, which then existed, had been finished in much less than 46 years. Herod renewed the temple from the foundations, and spent in that work only nine years and a half. It was begun 46 years before the first Pasch at which our Saviour appeared. (Usher, ad an. Mundi 3987.)
But this prince, according to Josephus, continued to make new building and embellishments to the very time in which the Jews uttered these words: it is now 46 years, etc.
2:24
Calmet
Trust himself to them. The Fathers generally understand these words, to them, to refer to those who believed in him, mentioned in the preceding verse. Though they believed in him, he did not trust himself to them, because he knew them. He knew their weakness, their inconstancy, their unsteadiness. He knew they would abandon him on the first occasion; and that his passion, his cross, his doctrines, would be a subject of scandal. St. Augustine compares these first believers to catechumens. They believe in Christ, confess his name, and sign their foreheads with his cross: but Jesus Christ does not trust himself to them; he does not trust to them the knowledge of his mysteries; he does not reveal to them the secrets of his religion. (Calmet)
The catechumens were not allowed to be present at the holy mysteries of the sacrifice of the mass, but went out after the instruction of the gospel; whence the first part of the mass was frequently called the mass of the catechumens.
2:4
What is that to me, etc.... These words of our Saviour, spoken to his mother, have been understood by some commentators as harsh, they not considering the next following verse: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye, which plainly shows that his mother knew of the miracle that he was to perform, and that it was at her request he wrought it; besides the manner of speaking the words as to the tone, and the countenance shown at the same time, which could only be known to those who were present, or from what had followed: for words indicating anger in one tone of voice, would be understood quite the reverse in another.
2:1
Liturgia The Gospel vpō the 2 Sunday after the Epiphanie.
2:2
2. IESVS also vvas called.) Christ with his presence honoureth and approueth Mariage. By his vouchsauing to come with his to the Mariage, he approueth the custome of the Faithful in meeting at honest fostes and recreations for maintenance of loue, Cyril. in 2 peace, and amitie among them selues: he reproueth the heresie of Tatian, Marcion, and such like condemning wedlocke: Io. c. 22. lastly (as S. Cyril saith) he sanctifieth and blesseth the Mariage of the Faithful in the new Testament, making it a new creature in him, and discharging it of the manifold maledictions and disorders wherein it was before. By which benediction the often diuorces, remariages, and pluralities of wiues, and the womens seruile subiection and imparitie in that case, be redressed and reduced to the primitiue institution, and so Christian mariage made a Sacrament. See S. Aug. de nupt. & concup. li. 1 6. 10 & 21. li. 1 de adult. coniug. c. 8.
2:3
3. They haue no vvine.) Our Lady many vvaies vnderstood that now the time approched of manifesting him self to the world by miracles and preaching, Our Ladies intercession. and nothing doubted but that he would now being at her request. Whereby we learne that Christ ordinarily giueth not his graces, but humbly asked and requested there vnto, and that his mothers intercession is more then vulgarly effectual, and that he denieth her nothing.
2:4
4. What is to me and thee?) Translatours of holy Scriptures. Because this speach is subiect to diuers senses, we keepe the wordes of our text, left by turning it into any English phrase, we might straiten the holy Ghosts intention to some certaine sense either not intended, or not onely intended, and so take avvay the choise and indifferencie from the reader, vvhereof (in holy Scripture specially) al Translatours must bevvare. Christ then may meane here, what is that, woman, to me & thee being but strāgers, that they want wine? as some interpret it. or (which is the more proper vse of that kinde of speach in holy write) what haue I to doe with thee? that is, why should I haue respect to thy desire in this case? In matters touching my charge & the cōmission of my father for preaching, working miracles, and other graces, I must not be tied to flesh and bloud, which vvas not a reprehēsion of our Lady, or significatiō that he vvould not heare her in this or other things pertaining to Gods glorie or the good of men, for the euent shovveth the contrarie. but it vvas a lesson to the companie that heard it, and namely to his Disciples, that respect of kinred should not dravv them to doe any thing against reason, or be the principal motion vvhy they doe their dueties, but Gods glorie.
2:5
5. Whatsoeuer he shal say.) By this you see, Our lady doubteth not but Christ vvil graūt her petition. our Lady by her diuine prudence and entiere familiaritie and acquaintance with al his maner of speaches, knew it was no checke to her, but a doctrine to others: and that she had no repulse, though he seemed to say his time was not yet come to worke miracles: not doubting but he would begin a litle before his ordinary time for her sake, as S. Cyril thinketh he did: li. 2 in Io. c. 23. and therfore she admonisheth the waiters to marke wel, & to execute whatsoeuer Christ should bid them doe.
1•. Cast them out.) By this chastising corporally the defilers and abusers of the Temple he doth not onely shew his power, Profaners of Gods Church are to be punished in soul & body by the Spiritual power. that being but one poore man he could by force execute his pleasure vpon so many sturdy fellowes: but also his soneralne authoritie ouer al offenders, and that not vpon their soules onely, as by excommunication and spiritual penalties, but so far as is requisite for the execution of spiritual iurisdiction, vpon their bodies and goods also. That the Spiritualtie may learne, how far and in what cases, for iust zeale of Christs Church, they may vse and exercise both spiritually and temporally their forces and faculties against offenders, specially against the prophaners of Gods Church, according to the Apostles allusion 1 Cor. 3. If any defile the Temple of God, him vvil God destroy.
•4. IESVS committed not him self,) S. Augustine applieth this their first faith and beleefe in Christ, The B. Sacrament is not to be giuen to nouices or yonglings in faith. sodenly raised vpon the admiration of his wonders, Tract. in Io. 11. but yet not fully formed or established in them, vnto the faith of Nouices or Catechumen: in the Church: and Christs not committing his Person to them as yet, to the Churches like warinesse and wisedom, in not opening not giuing to them our Lord in the B. Sacramēt, because al were not to be trusted with that high point without ful trial of their faith.
2:9
He that seeth water turned in to wine, nedeth not dispute or doubt hovv Christ changed bread into his body.
2:12
Liturgia The Gospel vpō Munday in the fourth vveeke of Lent.
2:18
Concordanza Ps. 68, 10.
2:19
Concordanza Mt. 26. 61. 27, 40.
2:1
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… And he taught in their synagogues, and was glorified [35] by every man. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood [36] up to read. And he was given the book of Isaiah the prophet. And Jesus opened the book and found the place where it was written,
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. A Treatise on the Soul 17
… On this false principle it was that Marcion actually chose to believe that He was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body. Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee;
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Baptism 9
… How mighty is the grace of water , in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water : if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water ; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials;
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Monogamy 8
… while that “man gluttonous and toping,” the “frequenter of luncheons and suppers, in the company of publicans and sinners,” sups once for all at a single marriage,
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Refutation of All Heresies 5.3
… and (yet) Anacreon affirms that it speaks to himself, in language mute, as to what sort he must become—that is spiritual, not carnal—if he shall listen in silence to the concealed mystery. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which Jesus changing made into wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true beginning of miracles
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 29
… He is bruised and wounded, but He healeth every disease and every infirmity. He is lifted up and nailed to the Tree, but by the Tree of Life He restoreth us; yea, He saveth even the Robber crucified with Him; yea, He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mingled with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… thou art pure even after marriage. I will take the risk of that. I will join you in wedlock. I will dress the bride. We do not dishonour marriage because we give a higher honour to virginity. I will imitate Christ, the pure Grooms-man and Bridegroom, as He both wrought a miracle at a wedding, and honours wedlock with His Presence.
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.14
… for David says to the Father, “Thou, Lord, hast holpen me and comforted me ,” and the great Apostle applies to the Father the same language, when he says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who comforteth us in all our tribulation ”; and John, in one of his Catholic Epistles, expressly gives to the Son the name of Comforter
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 44
3. Having then said these words, “He came out of the house.” Seest thou, how He both rebuked them, and did what they desired? Which He did also at the marriage.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Chap. ii. ver. 1, 2 . “On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. And Jesus was called to the marriage. And the mother of Jesus was there, and His brethren.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 46.13
… We shall enter the very caves where in the time of persecution and famine the companies of the prophets were fed. If only you will come, we shall go to see Nazareth, as its name denotes, the flower of Galilee. Not far off Cana will be visible, where the water was turned into wine.
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 48.11
… But for the sake of brevity, I will here adduce but one passage, and that of such a kind that no one, I think, will be found to gainsay it save some one who wishes to prove himself malicious or mad. In describing our Lord’s visit to the marriage at Cana in Galilee,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 69.6
… The Lord’s forerunner at Salem (a name which means peace or perfection) makes ready the people for Christ with spring-water. The Saviour Himself does not preach the kingdom of heaven until by His baptismal immersion He has cleansed the Jordan. Water is the matter of His first miracle
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.17
… Thus, too, the evangelist comes to give the narrative about Nathanael. Further, he informs us that on the third day, when He was yet in Galilee, Jesus wrought the miracle of the turning of the water into wine at Cana.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.44
… For this latter writer mentions that, after Jesus had been baptized, He went into Galilee at the period when He turned the water into wine; and that, after a sojourn of a few days in Capharnaum, He left that district and returned to the land of Judæa, and there baptized a multitude about the Jordan, previous to the time when John was imprisoned.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… And there, although the evangelist himself mentions His mother by that very name, He nevertheless addresses her thus: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.24
Virginity is the rule of life among the angels, the property of all incorporeal nature. This we say without speaking ill of marriage: God forbid! (for we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence
2:2
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
[22] And on the third day there was a feast in Cana, a city of Galilee; and the [23] mother of Jesus was there:
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Good of Marriage 3
… nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead. Therefore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put away a wife, save because of fornication, but also in that He came by invitation to a marriage,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 73.0
On the words of the Gospel, John ii. 2 , “and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.”
2:3
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
[22] And on the third day there was a feast in Cana, a city of Galilee; and the [23] mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also and his disciples were invited to the [24] feast.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.11.5
5. That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Ver. 3 . “And when they wanted wine, His mother saith unto Him, They have no wine.”
2:4
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
[22] And on the third day there was a feast in Cana, a city of Galilee; and the [23] mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also and his disciples were invited to the [24] feast. And they lacked wine: and his mother said unto Jesus, They have no wine. [25]
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.16.7
… This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come”
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. The Refutation of All Heresies 7.15
… And so there will be the restitution of all things which, in conformity with nature, have from the beginning a foundation in the seed of the universe, but will be restored at (their own) proper periods. And that each thing, says (Basilides), has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient (witness ) when He observes, “Mine hour is not yet come.”
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Defence of His Flight. (Apologia de Fuga.) 13
… because He took our body, and exhibited in Himself human infirmity.) Now of this cause John has written thus, ‘They sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come .’ And before it came, He Himself said to His Mother, ‘Mine hour is not yet come
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
… and though the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father’s works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.4
45. Tell me, Lord, when Thou sawest Thy Father incarnate, and walking upon the sea, for I know not, I hold it impious to believe this thing of the Father, knowing that Thou only hast taken our flesh upon Thee. When sawest Thou the Father at a marriage-feast, turning water into wine?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Ver. 4 . “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 85
Ver. 24 . “These things the soldiers did.” But He on the Cross, committeth His mother to the disciple, teaching us even to our last breath to show every care for our parents. When indeed she unseasonably troubled Him, He said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 4
… Neither is there anything to compel us to a denial of the mother of the Lord, in the circumstance that this word was spoken by Him: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 119.1
… Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.” This, without a doubt, was the hour whereof Jesus, when about to turn the water into wine, had said to His mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”
Socrate Scolastico † 440 d.C. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.8
… For he took on himself our nature, and exhibited in himself the affections of our infirmity, which John has thus indicated: ‘Then they sought to take him; but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.’ Moreover, before that hour came, he himself said to his mother, ‘Mine hour is not yet come;’
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth; at another He rebukes her as her Lord.
papa san Gregorio I Magno † 604 d.C. Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 10.39
… What then He knew in it He knew not from it, because God, made man, knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Deity: as also at the marriage, when the Virgin Mother said that wine was wanting, He replied, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come (
2:5
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
[22] And on the third day there was a feast in Cana, a city of Galilee; and the [23] mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also and his disciples were invited to the [24] feast. And they lacked wine: and his mother said unto Jesus, They have no wine. [25] And Jesus said unto her, What have I to do with thee, woman? hath not mine [26] hour come?
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Baptism 13
… For the law of baptizing has been imposed , and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 22
Ver. 5. “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.”
2:6
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… and the [23] mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also and his disciples were invited to the [24] feast. And they lacked wine: and his mother said unto Jesus, They have no wine. [25] And Jesus said unto her, What have I to do with thee, woman? hath not mine [26] hour come? And his mother said unto the servants, What he saith unto you, do. [27]
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.30
… And therefore, in accordance with that word of our Lord which we have already cited, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 22
Ver. 6, 7 . “And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus said unto them, Fill the waterpots with water; and they filled them up to the brim.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 3.13
… These are his words when treating of it: “He who says that he abides in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked.
2:7
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… and his mother said unto Jesus, They have no wine. [25] And Jesus said unto her, What have I to do with thee, woman? hath not mine [26] hour come? And his mother said unto the servants, What he saith unto you, do. [27] And there were there six vessels of stone, placed for the Jews’ purification, such as [28] [Arabic, p. 20] would contain two or three jars.
san Metodio d'Olimpo † 311 d.C. Oration on the Palms 1
… They saw a paralytic, who had grown up, as it were, and become one with his infirmity, at His bidding loosed from his disease. They saw Lazarus, who was made an exile from the region of death. They heard that He had walked on the sea. They heard of the wine that, without previous culture, was ministered;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Profit of Believing 32
… He used to lead fools by faith, you lead by reason. He used to cry out, that He should be believed in, ye cry out against it. He used to praise such as believe in Him, ye blame them. But unless either He should change water into wine,
2:8
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… hath not mine [26] hour come? And his mother said unto the servants, What he saith unto you, do. [27] And there were there six vessels of stone, placed for the Jews’ purification, such as [28] [Arabic, p. 20] would contain two or three jars. And Jesus said unto them, Fill the vessels [29] with water. And they filled them to the top.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 22
… but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”
2:9
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… [27] And there were there six vessels of stone, placed for the Jews’ purification, such as [28] [Arabic, p. 20] would contain two or three jars. And Jesus said unto them, Fill the vessels [29] with water. And they filled them to the top. He said unto them, Draw [30] out now, and present to the ruler of the feast. And they did so .
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Concerning Virgins 3.1.1
… “You,” said he, “my daughter, have desired a good espousal. You see how great a crowd has come together for the birthday of your Spouse, and none has gone away without food. This is He, Who, when invited to the marriage feast, changed water into wine.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 3.1
… secretly working by the spiritual quality of their body abiding still in them, assume somewhat from the inferior and more bodily elements, which, being fitted to themselves, they may change and turn like a garment into any corporeal appearances they will, and those appearances themselves also real, as real water was changed by our Lord into real wine;
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 3.5
… Who draws up the sap through the root of the vine to the bunch of grapes, and makes the wine, except God; who, while man plants and waters, Himself giveth the increase? But when, at the command of the Lord, the water was turned into wine with an extraordinary quickness, the divine power was made manifest, by the confession even of the foolish.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.4
… Marvel at these things, awake; at His unusual works, thou canst wonder, are they greater than those which thou art accustomed to see? Men wondered that our Lord God Jesus Christ filled so many thousands with five loaves; and they do not wonder that through a few grains the whole earth is filled with crops. When the water was made wine,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 91.2
… And yet there were some works that Christ did which none other man did: as, when He fed the five thousand men with five loaves, and the four thousand with seven; when He walked on the waters, and gave Peter power to do the same; when He changed the water into wine;
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… And giving this lesson in another place the Lord said to the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
2:10
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… And they filled them to the top. He said unto them, Draw [30] out now, and present to the ruler of the feast. And they did so . And when the ruler of the company tasted that water which had become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants knew, because they filled up the water), the ruler of the company called [31] the bridegroom,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 4
… This betokened the copiousness, as the fire did the vehemence. This nowhere happened in the case of the Prophets: for to uninebriated souls such accesses are not attended with much disturbance; but “when they have well drunken,” then indeed it is as here, but with the Prophets it is otherwise.
2:11
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 5
… but thou hast kept the good wine until [32] now.
Eusebio di Cesarea † 339 d.C. The Church History of Eusebius 3.24.11
… that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 21
Here it is worth while to enquire whence it came into His mother’s mind to imagine anything great of her Son; for He had as yet done no miracle, since the Evangelist saith, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 73.2
… And when He had overcome the devil’s temptation, “Angels came and ministered to Him.” He then who had so great power, why did He not do the one, and do the other? Read, yea, recollect what thou hast just heard, when He did this, when, that is, He made of the water wine; what did the Evangelist add? “And His disciples believed on Him.”
2:12
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.1
… Now when He was at Jerusalem at the passover at the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did. But Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them, for that He knew all men, and because He had no need that any should bear witness concerning man. For He Himself knew what was in man.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 12 . “After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days.”
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 13
13. The last proposition of Helvidius was this, and it is what he wished to show when he treated of the first-born, that brethren of the Lord are mentioned in the Gospels. For example, “Behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.” And elsewhere,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.17
39. But further, as to John’s statement, that “after this He went down to Capharnaum, He and His mother, and His brethren and His disciples; and they continued there not many days;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
12. Then, after noticing the few days spent in Capharnaum, the evangelist comes again to the temple, where he states that Jesus spoke of the temple of His body in these terms: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up:”
2:13
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 2.22.3
… Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judæa], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, “Go thy way, thy son liveth.” Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.11
“And the passover of the Jews was at hand.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.15
… I conceive it to be impossible for those who admit nothing more than the history in their interpretation to show that these discrepant statements are in harmony with each other. If any one considers that we have not given a sound exposition, let him write a reasoned rejoinder to this declaration of ours.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.16
… and in doing so we entreat Him who gives to every one that asks and strives acutely to enquire, and we knock that by the keys of higher knowledge the hidden things of Scripture may be opened to us. And first, let us fix our attention on the words of John, beginning, “And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.28
… With the Apostle Paul let us seek joyfully to say, “I can do all things in Christ Jesus strengthening me.” We have also to notice that in a former passage
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 2.18
… that after this He came into the land of Judæa along with His disciples, and tarried there with them, and baptized; and then in what follows at this point the evangelist says: “And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came, and were baptized: for John was not yet cast into prison.”
2:14
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
[1] And when Jesus entered Jerusalem, he went up to the temple of God, and found [2] there oxen and sheep and doves. And when he beheld those that sold and those that bought, and the money-changers sitting,
san Girolamo † 420 d.C. The Letters of St. Jerome 125.20
… and without either scourge of cords or words of chiding he has overthrown the chairs of them that sell doves, that is, the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He has upset the tables of Mammon and has scattered the money of the money-changers; zealous that the house of God may be called a house of prayer and not a den of robbers.
2:15
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 21.31
31. He cleansed the temple of those who made merchandise of God, and trafficked in the things of Christ, imitating Christ
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 38
… If He tarry long in Egypt, call Him out of Egypt by a reverent worship of Him there. Travel without fault through every stage and faculty of the Life of Christ. Be purified; be circumcised; strip off the veil which has covered thee from thy birth. After this teach in the Temple, and drive out the sacrilegious traders.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.21
21. Invited, then, by these praises, Christ enters His temple,
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.10
… And in the same way he delivered over others, of whom he says, "Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." And the Lord Christ drove out the impious merchants from the temple with scourges; in which connection we also find advanced the testimony of Scripture, where it says, "The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up."
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.12
… Why did they dare to say, we know not whence He is? “Because the zeal of Thine House hath eaten Me up:” that is, because I have persecuted in them their own iniquities, because I have not patiently borne those whom I have rebuked, because I have sought Thy glory in Thy House, because I have scourged them that in the Temple dealt unseemly:
2:16
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… and he threw down their money, and upset their tables, and the seats of [3] them that sold the doves; and he was teaching, and saying unto them, Is it not written, My house is a house of prayer for all peoples? and ye have made it a den [4] for robbers.
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Against Praxeas 21
… that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He called it “His Father’s house,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen De Principiis 2.4.1
… is His footstool,” harmonize most clearly with the words of the prophet, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool?” And also when casting out of the temple those who sold sheep, and oxen, and doves, and pouring out the tables of the money-changers, and saying, “Take these things, hence, and do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise,”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.25
… and many more, of which I shall speak in due time,—and yet, in the face of these constant expressions of His humility, to charge Him with presumption because He calls God His Father, as when He says, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up , or, Ye have made my Father’s house an house of merchandise
san Cirillo di Gerusalemme † 386 d.C. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 7.6
… to whose honour the former temple also, over against us here, was built. For we shall not tolerate the heretics who sever the Old Testament from the New , but shall believe Christ, who says concerning the temple, Wist ye not that I must be in My Father’s house ? and again, Take these things hence, and make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 84
This cry rent the veil, and opened the tombs, and made the house desolate. And He did this, not as offering insult to the temple (for how should He, who saith, “Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise”),
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 16 . (“Make not My Father’s house) an house of merchandise.”
2:17
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… and he was teaching, and saying unto them, Is it not written, My house is a house of prayer for all peoples? and ye have made it a den [4] for robbers. And he said unto those that sold the doves, Take this hence, and [5] make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. And he suffered not any [6] one to carry vessels inside the temple.
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Duties of the Clergy 2.30
… Let zeal for God search you through, and devour you, so that each one of you may say: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. ” An apostle of Christ was called the zealot. But why do I speak of an apostle? The Lord Himself said: “The zeal of thine house hath eaten Me up.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 17 . “Remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.14
… He might also accuse Christ of jealousy, because in narrating His driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, the evangelist quotes as applicable to Him the words, "The jealousy of Thine house hath eaten me up;"
2:18
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… and ye have made it a den [4] for robbers. And he said unto those that sold the doves, Take this hence, and [5] make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. And he suffered not any [6] one to carry vessels inside the temple. And his disciples remembered the scripture, [7] The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.20
“The Jews then answered and said unto Him, What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
And it is evident both from the times, and from their reply. For there He came at the very passover, but here much before. And there the Jews say, “What sign showest thou us?”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 18 . “What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
6. Observe also the very lie of the false witnesses in the Gospel, and see how it is about Resurrection. For when to the Lord had been said, “What sign showest Thou to us, that Thou doest these things?”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
“‘What sign shewest Thou unto us seeing that Thou doest these things?’
2:19
sant'Ignazio di Antiochia † 108 d.C. Epistle to the Smyrnæans: Shorter and Longer Versions 2
… not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, “The Word was made flesh;” and again, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;”
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… And he suffered not any [6] one to carry vessels inside the temple. And his disciples remembered the scripture, [7] The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up. The Jews answered and said unto him, [8] What sign hast thou shewn us, that thou doest this?
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 5.6
… for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.” Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however,” it is said, “of the temple of His body.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 18
… Nature pronounces God’s sentence: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Even the man who has not heard the sentence, sees the fact. No death but is the ruin of our limbs. This destiny of the body the Lord also described, when, clothed as He was in its very substance, He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On Modesty 16
… for “the Word was made flesh.” “Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power;” on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him. And accordingly, “Know ye not your bodies (to be) members of Christ?” because Christ, too, is God’s temple. “Overturn this temple, and I will in three days’ space resuscitate it.”
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. Five Books in Reply to Marcion 4
Denote our bodies: God’s true temple He,
sant'Ippolito † 235 d.C. Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 6
… The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one in like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple,
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 3.32
… And He “took His life,” when He manifested Himself to His disciples, having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen Against Celsus 8.19
… When He knew that wicked men might aim at the destruction of the temple of God in Him, but that their purposes of destruction would not prevail against the divine power which had built that temple, He says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.…This He said of the temple of His body.”
san Tascio Cecilio Cipriano † 258 d.C. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 1.16
… and I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son: and his house shall obtain confidence, and his kingdom for evermore in my sight.” Also in the Gospel the Lord says: “There shall not be left in the temple one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.” And “After three days another shall be raised up without hands.”
Antipapa Novaziano † 258 d.C. A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 21
… Although, however, I must hasten to other matters, I do not think that I must pass over this point, that in the Gospel the Lord declared, by way of signifying His majesty, saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.12
… No one shall take it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command have I received from the Father : and again, when asked to shew a sign concerning Himself, that they might believe in Him, He says of the Temple of His body, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.12
… so, though He died of His own accord, He feared because He was to die. If any think so, let them ask “To which was death terrible, to His Spirit or to His body?” If to His body, are they ignorant that the Holy One should not see corruption , that within three days He was to revive the temple of His body
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.59
… What is the meaning of this command He received? God could not lay it down, that is, die, or take it up again, that is, come to life. But neither did the body receive the command to take it up again; it could not do so of itself, for He said of the Temple of His body, Destroy this temple and after three days I will raise it up
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. Homilies on the Psalms 53.14
… He looks down upon His enemies to whom He once said: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.26
… For when the ruthless men wished to prove the image to be the truth, and to destroy that true habitation which we surely believe His union with us to be, He threatened them not; but knowing that their crime was against themselves, He says to them, ‘Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.11
… He became obedient (and he tells us that He became obedient in this wise, namely, by becoming for our sakes flesh, and a servant, and a curse, and sin),—even then, I say, the Lord of glory, Who despised the shame and embraced suffering in the flesh, did not abandon His free will, saying as He does, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
san Gregorio di Nissa † 395 d.C. Against Eunomius 2.13
Before passing on, however, to what follows, I will further mention the one text, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.103
103. Wilt thou know how free? “I am become as a man that hath no help, free among the dead.” And well is He called free, Who had power to raise Himself, according to that which is written: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.2
14. We, however, can easily show that the words treat of the Son’s action, for the Son Himself indeed raised His own Body again, as He Himself said: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it again.”
sant'Ambrogio † 397 d.C. Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.8
… What new school has sent out these Epicureans? Not a school of philosophers, as they themselves say, but of unlearned men who preach pleasure, persuade to luxury, esteem chastity to be of no use. They were with us, but they were not of us,
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Against Marcionists and Manichæans 1
… who shall raise him up?” Here he called death a slumbering and a sleep, and with death he combined the resurrection when he said “who shall raise him up?” No one indeed save he himself—wherefore also Christ said “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again,” and again “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 43
3. Therefore He said elsewhere also, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up:”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
What then? was it not told to the people? you may say. It was indeed told to the people also, but not so plainly. For, “Destroy,” saith He, “this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
“But false witnesses came, and said, This fellow said, I will destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.” And indeed He had said, “In three days,” but He said not, “I will destroy,” but, “Destroy,” and not about that temple but about His own body.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… And that expression also, that it is “from them” He is taken up, is not idly added. And of the Resurrection indeed Christ Himself bears witness (because of all things this is, next to the Nativity, nay even above the Nativity, the most wonderful: His raising Himself to life again): for, “Destroy,” He says, “this Temple, and in three days I
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
… Fifthly, from the Resurrection; for He first and He alone raised Himself: and this Himself too said to be above all a miracle sufficient to stop the mouths even of them that behaved shamelessly. For, “Destroy this Temple,” He says, “and in three days I will raise it up” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 17
Further: if he ascribe unto the Father the Resurrection of Christ, let not this at all disturb thee. For not as though Christ were powerless, hath he put this down, for He it is Himself who saith, (S.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on First Corinthians 41
… For surely it was not one Jonah that was swallowed up and another that was cast out upon dry land. And why did He also say, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up?” For that which was destroyed, the same clearly He raised again. Wherefore also the Evangelist added, that “He spake of the temple of His body.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homilies on Second Corinthians 29
… but it was indifferent with him to mention either Father or Son. For when he said, “the Power of God,” he said by His own Power. For that both He Himself raised it up and sustains it, hear Him saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Commentary on Galatians 1
… v. 15 .) Then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadows of their earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched these bodies, could raise the dead, but He could not raise Himself? Is not this manifest madness, a great stretch of folly? Hast thou not heard His saying, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up?” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 19 . “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… As in another place he doth this very thing, when he perceiveth that something was said in one way, and understood in another; as, “Destroy this Temple,” said Christ, “and in three days I will raise It up” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 46
… i. 29 .) “But for all that, they knew it not.” I know they did not; nay, neither did the disciples understand. For if as yet they had no clear knowledge of the Resurrection, and so knew not what, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 66
[2.] Seest thou that they were ignorant on most points, because He did not reveal to them? For when He said, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
… On this account He rebuked Peter at the first, because for one who has been in death to overcome death, is great glory. And this is what He said of Himself, “When I am lifted up, then ye shall know that I Am” ( c. viii. 28 ); and again, “Destroy this Temple” (
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 8
… And was it for this cause that He was “exceeding sorrowful, and said, If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me”? ( Matt. xxvi. 38, 39 .) Yet He nowhere prayed the Father concerning His resurrection, but on the contrary He openly declares, “Destroy this temple and within three days I will raise it up.” (
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 16.41
… No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself, and take it again.” So the lion roared, so He fulfilled what He said. For to this power what is added about the resurrection refers, “Who shall awake him?” This means that no man but Himself has raised Him, who also said of His own body, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. City of God 18.35
… the first, to wit, of which he says, “And He shall come suddenly into His temple;” that is, into His flesh, of which He said in the Gospel, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 2.28
… and ignorance of the consulship in which our Lord was born, and that in which He suffered, has led some into the error of supposing that He was forty-six years of age when He suffered, that being the number of years He was told by the Jews the temple (which He took as a symbol of His body) was in building.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 4.5
… And in this number of years the temple was built, because in that number of sixes the body of the Lord was perfected; which being destroyed by the suffering of death, He raised again on the third day. For “He spake this of the temple of His body,”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Enchiridion 56
… not the Holy Spirit only, but the Father also, and the Son, who says of His own body, through which He was made Head of the Church upon earth (“that in all things He might have the pre-eminence):” “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.10
10. What reason have you for saying that the law of Moses is pure Paganism? Is it because it speaks of a temple, and an altar of sacrifices, and priests? But all these names are found also in the New Testament. "Destroy," Christ says, "this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;"
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.33
… nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, “They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 2.13
… And did the Son also raise Himself? Assuredly He did. For He said of the temple, as the figure of His own body, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.2
… He raised up Himself, who in Himself was alive, but in His Body that was to be raised was dead. For not the Father only, of whom it was said by the Apostle, “Wherefore God also hath exalted Him,” raised the Son, but the Lord also raised Himself, that is, His Body. Whence He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.7
… “But this He spake of the temple of His body.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 110.3
… “For what things soever the Father doeth,” not other things, but “these also doeth the Son,” not in a different way, but “in like manner.” And in this way He also raised up even His own self. For to this effect he said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 41.11
… hear out of the Gospel, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 57.7
… wherefore God also hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above every name.” Ye have heard of the Father raising again and exalting the Son; hear ye how that He too Himself His flesh hath raised again. Under the figure of a temple He saith to the Jews, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
… “Destroy this Temple,” He saith, “and in three days I will raise it up.” And they said, “In forty and six years was builded this temple, and wilt Thou in three days raise it up?”
Giovanni Cassiano † 435 d.C. The Conferences of John Cassian 9.34
… For just as the blessed Apostle declares that the Father brought about the resurrection of His body, saying: “And God the Father, who raised Him from the dead,” so also the Son testifies that He Himself will raise again the Temple of His body, saying: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Counter-statements of Theodoret 1
… Things that are undergoing mixture do not remain what they were, and to assert this in the case of God the Word and of the seed of David would be most absurd. We must obey the Lord when He exhibits the two natures and says to the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… according to the flesh, wherein God visibly made his habitation and dwelt, and we assert this not of conjecture, for He who is by nature the Son of this God when predicting the destruction and resurrection of the temple distinctly instructs us by His teaching when He says to the murderous Jews, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 2
… God the Word did not take His beginning from the Virgin, but being coeternal with His own Father He of infinite kindness deigned to unite to Himself the first fruits of our nature, undergoing no mixture but in either substance appearing one and the same, as it is written ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
Eran. —And where doth the Lord shew that the body was being offered? Or are you going to bring me once more that well worn passage “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”?
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 4.1.5
… The Evangelist calls the flesh a tabernacle, and says that God the Word tabernacled therein. “The Word,” he says, “was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Now if He was made flesh by mutation, He did not dwell in flesh. But we have been taught that He dwelt in flesh; for the same Evangelist in another place calls His body a temple.
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 146
… First he states that the assumed nature derives its descent from the loins of David; secondly that He took not a body only, but also an immortal soul, and thirdly that He delivered body and soul to death, and, after taking them again, raised them as He would. His own words are “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… For there was an union of two natures. Wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord; but we do not destroy the union; we believe it to have been made without confusion, in obedience to the word of the Lord to the Jews, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
papa san Leone I Magno † 461 d.C. Letters 15
… for as it truly died and was buried, so it was truly raised the third day. For this the Lord Himself also had announced, saying to the Jews, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
san Giovanni Damasceno † 749 d.C. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.27
… Even so , he said, as Christ rose again. Moreover, that the resurrection of the Lord was the union of uncorrupted body and soul (for it was these that had been divided) is manifest: for He said, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
2:20
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… And he suffered not any [6] one to carry vessels inside the temple. And his disciples remembered the scripture, [7] The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up. The Jews answered and said unto him, [8] What sign hast thou shewn us, that thou doest this? Jesus answered and said unto [9] them, Destroy this temple, and I shall raise it in three days.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.22
The Jews therefore said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building,
san Gregorio Taumaturgo † 270 d.C. Twelve Topics on the Faith 9
If any one says that Christ suffers change or alteration, and refuses to acknowledge that He is unchangeable in the Spirit, though corruptible
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 20 . “Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On Christian Doctrine 2.16
… And the number of years the temple was in building, which is mentioned in the gospel
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. On the Holy Trinity 4.5
9. And not without reason is the number six understood to be put for a year in the building up of the body of the Lord, as a figure of which He said that He would raise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For they said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building.”
2:21
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… The Jews answered and said unto him, [8] What sign hast thou shewn us, that thou doest this? Jesus answered and said unto [9] them, Destroy this temple, and I shall raise it in three days. The Jews said unto him, This temple was built in forty-six years, and wilt thou raise it in three days? [10]
Tertulliano † 220 d.C. On the Resurrection of the Flesh 18
… although He was at the same time bearing about with Him “a soul that was trembling even unto death,” but which did not fall through death, because even the Scripture informs us that “He spoke of His body.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.23
… But in an ogdoad of years the house is finished in the eighth month of the eighth year after its foundation.
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 66.6
… “Destroy this Temple,” He saith, “and in three days I will raise it up.” And they said, “In forty and six years was builded this temple, and wilt Thou in three days raise it up?” And the evangelist explaining what it was, “But this,” he saith, “spake Jesus of the Temple of His Body.”
Teodoreto di Cirro † 458 d.C. Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
… Or with your conceited self-sufficiency are you going to quote me the words of the Evangelist? “But He spake of the temple of his body. When therefore He was risen from the dead His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them and they believed the Scripture and the words which He had said.”
2:22
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 32
… Jesus answered and said unto [9] them, Destroy this temple, and I shall raise it in three days. The Jews said unto him, This temple was built in forty-six years, and wilt thou raise it in three days? [10] But he spake unto them of the temple of his body, that when they destroyed it, he [11] [Arabic, p. 122] would raise it in three days.
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.27
… and one of these others is faith. “Now I believe in part,” we may say, “but when that which is perfect is come, then the faith which is in part will be done away.” As with knowledge, so with faith, that which is through sight is far better, if I may say so, than that which is through a glass and in an enigma.
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.42
… What, I ask, is the meaning of being born from Him? Can it mean, perchance, being created by Him? Does the Evangelist lie in saying that He was born from God, while the heretic more correctly teaches that He was created? Let us all listen to the true character of this teacher of heresy. It is written, He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
Ver. 22 . “When He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.”
2:23
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 15
[12] And many believed in him when they saw the signs which he was doing. [13, 14] But Jesus did not trust himself to them, for he knew every man, and he needed not any man to testify to him concerning every man; for he knew what was in man.
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 2.22.3
… First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, “For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did,”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.28
“Now, when He was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He did. But He, Jesus, did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all (men) and because He needed not that any should testify of man, for he Himself knew what was in man.”
sant'Ilario di Poitiers † 367 d.C. De Trinitate or On the Trinity 6.42
… and hear what is the true faith which believes in the Son. The words which follow are these;— He that denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath both the Son and the Father
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 109.2
… Was Joseph of Arimathea, who begged His body from Pilate, and of whom this same evangelist John testifies that he was already His disciple? Were His mother, Mary, and other women who, we know from the Gospel, had been prior to that time His disciples? Were those with Him then, of whom this evangelist John frequently says, “Many believed on Him”?
2:24
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 15
[12] And many believed in him when they saw the signs which he was doing. [13, 14]
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 24
Ver. 24 . “But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. The Harmony of the Gospels 4.4
… that is to say, that their thoughts and desires could not be concealed from Him. Thus John puts it very clearly in the following passage: “But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew what was in man.”
2:25
Taziano il Siro † 180 d.C. The Diatessaron 15
[12] And many believed in him when they saw the signs which he was doing. [13, 14] But Jesus did not trust himself to them,
sant'Ireneo di Lione † 202 d.C. Against Heresies 3.9.3
… But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech. For “He needed not that any should testify to Him of man, for He Himself knew what was in man.”
Origene † 254 d.C. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.14
“ Have ye understood all these things? They say, Yea. ” Christ Jesus, who knows the things in the hearts of men,
Arnobio † 327 d.C. The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen. (Adversus Gentes.) 1.46
… Was He one of us, who ordered the breath that had departed to return to the body, persons buried to come forth from the tomb, and after three days to be loosed from the swathings of the undertaker? Was He one of us, who saw clearly in the hearts of the silent what each was pondering,
sant'Atanasio di Alessandria † 373 d.C. Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.27
… and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of ‘what was in man,’ and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me.
san Gregorio Nazianzeno † 389 d.C. Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy 102
They play the same trick with the word that describes the Incarnation, viz.: He was made Man, explaining it to mean, not, He was in the human nature with which He surrounded Himself, according to the Scripture, He knew what was in man;
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Homily on the Paralytic Let Down Through the Roof 6
… For if the Father alone knows the heart, how does the Son know the secrets of the mind? “For He Himself” it is said, “knew what was in man;”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. To My Lady 3
… “For there arose” it is said, “a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a certain Jew about purifying.”
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 24
Ver. 25 . “And needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 50.1
… For if he saw himself to be a dissembler now, if he had known himself at this time to be full of duplicity and guile, then he did not know with Whom he was speaking. For He it is of whom the Evangelist says, “He had no need that any one should testify to Him of man, for He Himself knew what was in man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 38.16
… when He convinced them out of their own mouth, they wished to seem to be His friends. “But He needed not that any should testify of man, for He Himself knew what was in man;”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.2
… or make the tree evil, and the fruit thereof evil.” Why wilt thou whiten thee, wall of mud? I know thy inward parts, I am not deceived by thy covering: I know what thou holdest forth, I know what thou coverest. “For there was no need for Him, that any one to Him should bear testimony of man: for He knew Himself what was in man.”
sant'Agostino d'Ippona † 430 d.C. Expositions on the Book of Psalms 64.6
… he that shooteth an arrow deceiveth, in order to strike. For the arrow smiteth, before it is foreseen to come to wound. But whom could the lyings in wait of the human heart escape? Would they escape our Lord Jesus Christ, who had no need that any one should bear witness to Him of man? “For Himself knew what was in man,”
2:1
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxi. [al. xx.] 1
Our Lord being known in Galilee, they invite Him to a marriage: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Galilee is a province; Cana a village in it.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxi. 1
They invite our Lord to the marriage, not as a great person, but merely as one they knew, one of the many; for which reason the Evangelist says, And the mother of Jesus was there. As they invited the mother, so they invited the Son: and therefore, Jesus was called, and His disciples to the marriage: and He came, as caring more for our good, than His own dignity. He who disdained not to take upon Him the form of a servant, disdained not to come to the marriage of servants.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. In Verb. Dom. Serm. xli
Let the proud man blush to see the humility of God. Lo, among other things, the Son of the Virgin comes to a marriage; He who, when He was with the Father, instituted marriage.
san Beda † 735 d.C. Hom. 2d Sund. after Epiph.
His condescension in coming to the marriage, and the miracle He wrought there, are, even considering them in the letter only, a strong confirmation of the faith. Therein too are condemned the errors of Tatian, Marcion, and others who detract from the honour of marriage. For if the undefiled bed, and the marriage celebrated with due chastity, partook at all of sin, our Lord would never have come to one. Whereas now, conjugal chastity being good, the continence of widows better, the perfection of the virgin state best, to sanction all these degrees, but distinguish the merit of each, He deigned to be born of the pure womb of the Virgin; was blessed after birth by the prophetic voice of the widow Anna; and now invited in manhood to attend the celebration of a marriage, honours that also by the presence of His goodness.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. viii. c. 4
What marvel, if He went to that house to a marriage, Who came into this world to a marriage. For here He has His spouse whom He redeemed with His own blood, to whom He gave the pledge of the Spirit, and whom He united to Himself in the womb of the Virgin. For the Word is the Bridegroom, and human flesh the bride, and both together arc one Son of God and Son of man. That womb of the Virgin Mary is His chamber, from which he went forth as a bridegroom. (Ps. 19:5)
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
Nor is it without some mysterious allusion, that the marriage is related as taking-place on the third day. The first age of the world, before the giving of the Law, was enlightened by the example of the Patriarchs; the second, under the Law, by the writings of the Prophets; the third, under grace, by the preaching of the Evangelists, as if by the light of the third day; for our Lord had now appeared in the flesh. The name of the place too where the marriage was held, Cana of Galilee, which means, desire of migrating, has a typical signification, viz. that those are most worthy of Christ, who burn with devotional desires, and have known the passage from vice to virtue, from earthly to eternal things. The wine was made to fail, to give our Lord the opportunity of making better; that so the glory of God in man might be brought out of its hiding place: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxi. 1, 2
But how came it into the mother’s mind to expect so great a thing from her Son? for he had done no miracle as yet: as we read afterwards, This beginning of miracles did Jesus. His real nature, however, was beginning now to be revealed by John, and His own conversations with His disciples; besides that His conception, and the circumstances of His birth, had from the first given rise to high expectations in her mind: as Luke tells us, His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. (Luke 2:51) Why then did she never ask Him to work a miracle before? Because the time had now come that He should be made known. Before He had lived so much like an ordinary person, that she had not had the confidence to ask Him. But now that she heard that John had borne witness to Him, and that He had disciples, she asks Him confidently.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
She represents here the Synagogue, which challenges Christ to perform a miracle. It was customary with the Jews to ask for miracles. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. viii. c. 5
Some who derogate from the Gospel, and say that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, try to draw an argument for their error from this place; for, how, say they, could she be His mother to whom He said, What have I to do with thee? Now who is it who gives this account, and on whose authority do we believe it? The Evangelist John. But he himself says, The mother of Jesus was there. Why should He say it, unless both were true. But did He therefore come to the marriage to teach men to despise their mother?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxi. [al. xx.] 2
That He greatly venerated His mother, we know from St. Luke, who tells us that He was subject unto His parents. For where parents throw no obstacle in the way of God’s commands, it is our duty to be subject to them; but when they demand any thing at an unseasonable time, or cut us off from spiritual things, we should not be deceived into compliance.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Symbolo Serm. ii. c. 14. [5]
To mark a distinction between His Godhead and manhood, that according to His manhood He was inferior and subject, but according to His Godhead supreme, He saith, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxi. [al. xx.] 2
And for another reason, viz. to prevent any suspicion attaching to His miracles: for these it was proper should be asked for by those who wanted them, not by His mother. He wished to shew them that He would perform all in their proper time, not all at once, to prevent confusion; (xxii. [al. xxi] 1). for He saith, Mine hour is not yet come; i. e. I am not yet known to the persons present; nay, they know not that the wine hath failed; let them find out that first; he who perceives not his want beforehand, will not perceive when his want is supplied.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. viii. c. 9. et seq. sparsim
Or it was because our Lord as God had not a mother, though as man He had, and the miracle He was about to work was the act of His Divinity, not of human infirmity. When therefore His mother demanded a miracle, He, as though not acknowledging a human birth, when about to perform a divine work, said, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if He said, Thou didst not beget that in Me, which works the miracle, My Divinity. (She is called woman, with reference to the female sex, not to any injury of her virginity.) But because thou broughtest forth My infirmity, I will acknowledge thee then, when that very infirmity shall hang on the cross. And therefore He adds, Mine hour is not yet come: as if to say, I will acknowledge thee when the infirmity, of which thou art the mother, shall hang from the cross. He commended His mother to the disciple, when about to die, and to rise again, before her death. But note; just as the Manicheans have found an occasion of error and pretext for their faithlessness in our Lord’s word, What have I to do with thee? in the same way the astrologers support theirs from the words, Mine hour is not yet come. For, say they, if Christ had not been under the power of fate, He would never have said this. But let them believe what God says below, I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again: (John 10:18) and then let them ask, why He says, Mine hour is not yet come: nor let them on such a ground subject the Creator of heaven to fate; seeing that, even were there a fatality in the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be under the dominion of the stars. And not only had Christ nothing to do with fate, as ye call it; but neither hast thou, or any other man. Wherefore said He then, Mine hour is not yet come? Because He had the power to die when He pleased, but did not think it expedient yet to exert the power. He was to call the disciples, to proclaim the Kingdom of heaven, to do marvellous works, to approve His divinity by miracles, His humility by partaking of the sufferings of our mortal state. And when He had done all, then the hour was come, not of destiny, but of will, not of obligation, but of power.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quoniam in Galilaea notus erat dominus, vocant eum ad nuptias; unde sequitur et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae
Alcuinus
Galilaea est provincia, in qua est Cana viculus
Chrysostomus
Vocant autem ad nuptias dominum, non tamquam magnificum aliquem, sed simpliciter tamquam notum, et unum multorum: unde hoc Evangelista declarans ait et erat mater Iesu ibi: sicut enim matrem vocaverant, ita et filium; unde sequitur vocatus est autem Iesus et discipuli eius ad nuptias: et accedit; neque enim ad dignitatem respiciebat suam, sed ad beneficium nostrum. Qui enim non dedignatus est formam servi accipere, neque dedignatus est ad nuptias venire servorum
Augustinus de Verb. Dom
Erubescat igitur homo esse superbus, quoniam factus est humilis Deus. Ecce inter cetera filius virginis venit ad nuptias, qui cum apud patrem esset, instituit nuptias
Beda
Quod etiam ad nuptias venire dignatus est, iuxta litteram, fidem recte credentium confirmat. Porro Tatiani et Marcionis, ceterorumque qui nuptiis detrahunt, perfidia quam sit damnabilis insinuat. Si enim toro immaculato et nuptiis debita castitate celebratis culpa inesset, nequaquam dominus ad has venire voluisset. Nunc autem quia bona est castitas coniugalis, melior continentia vidualis, optima perfectio virginalis, ad probandam omnium electionem graduum, discernendum tamen meritum singulorum, ex intemerato Mariae virginis utero nasci dignatus est; e prophetico viduae Annae ore mox natus benedicitur; a nuptiarum celebratoribus iam iuvenis invitatus, has praesentia suae virtutis honorat
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid autem mirum, si in illam domum ad nuptias venit qui in hunc mundum ad nuptias venit? Habet enim hic sponsam, quam redemit sanguine suo, et cui pignus dedit spiritum sanctum, quam sibi coniunxerat in utero virginis. Verbum enim est sponsus, et sponsa caro humana; et utrumque unus filius Dei, et idem filius hominis. Ille uterus virginis Mariae thalamus eius est, unde processit tamquam sponsus de thalamo suo
Beda
Nec vacat a mysterio quod die tertia nuptiae factae referuntur. Primum quidem saeculi tempus ante legem, patriarcharum exemplo; secundum sub lege, prophetarum scriptis; tertium sub gratia, praeconiis Evangelistarum, quasi tertiae diei luce, mundo refulsit, in quo dominus in carne natus apparuit. Sed et hoc quod in Cana Galilaeae, idest in zelo transmigrationis, eaedem nuptiae factae perhibentur, typice denuntiat, eos maxime gratia Christi dignos existere qui zelo fervere piae devotionis, ac de vitiis ad virtutes, de terrenis ad aeterna norunt transmigrare. Discumbente autem ad nuptias domino, vinum defecit, ut vino meliore per ipsum facto manifestaretur gloria latentis in homine Dei; unde sequitur et deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum: vinum non habent
Chrysostomus
Dignum autem est quaerere, unde venit in mentem matri magnum quid imaginari de filio: neque enim ante miraculum fecerat; sequitur enim hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus. Sed revelari incipiebat et a Ioanne, et ab his quae ad discipulos dixerat; sed ante haec omnia ipsa conceptio, et ea quae post nativitatem facta sunt maximam ei de puero imposuerunt aestimationem; unde Lucas dicit: Maria conservabat omnia verba haec, conferens in corde suo. Cuius igitur gratia non ante ad miraculum eum incitavit? Nam antea ut unus multorum ita conversabatur; unde non praesumebat ei mater tale quid dicere; quia vero audivit quod Ioannes ei testificatus est, et quod discipulos iam haberet, de reliquo confidenter rogat
Alcuinus
Significat etiam in hoc loco synagogam quae Christum provocat ad faciendum miraculum: familiare enim est Iudaeis miracula inquirere. Sequitur et dicit ei Iesus: quid mihi et tibi, mulier?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quidam derogantes Evangelio, et dicentes quod Iesus non fuit natus de Maria virgine, hinc argumentum sumere conantur erroris sui, ut dicant: quomodo erat mater eius cui dixit quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Sed quis hoc narravit, ut credamus quia hoc dominus dixit? Nempe Ioannes Evangelista. At ipse dixit et erat ibi mater Iesu. Quare hoc, nisi quia utrumque verum est? Sed numquid ideo venit ad nuptias, ut doceret matres contemni?
Chrysostomus
Sed quod valde venerabatur matrem, audi Lucam enarrantem, qualiter subditus parentibus erat. Nam ubi quidem parentes nihil impediunt eorum quae sunt secundum Deum, debitum est subici eis; quando autem non tempore debito aliquid quaerunt, et abscindunt nos a spiritualibus, non ex hoc fallaris
Augustinus de symbolo
Ut ergo distingueret inter Deum et hominem, quia secundum hominem minor et subditus erat, secundum autem Deum supra omnes erat, dixit quid mihi et tibi est, mulier?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed et propter aliam causam, ut non suspecta essent miracula quae fiebant (ab his enim qui indigebant, rogari oportuerat, non a matre), voluit ostendere quoniam omnia decenti tempore operatur, non simul omnia faciens: quia confusio quaedam esset; et ideo sequitur nondum venit hora mea; idest, nondum cognitus sum his qui adsunt. Sed neque sciunt quoniam defecit vinum: sine eos primum hoc sentire: qui enim necessitatem non praesentit, neque beneficii grandem suscipiet sensum
Augustinus
Vel ideo quia dominus noster, secundum quod Deus erat, matrem non habebat; secundum quod homo erat, habebat matrem. Miraculum autem quod facturus erat, secundum divinitatem facturus erat, non secundum infirmitatem humanam. Miraculum tamen exigebat mater; at ille tamquam non agnoscens viscera humana, operaturus facta divina, dixit quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Tamquam dicat: quod in me facit miraculum, non tu genuisti, deitatem meam. Dicitur autem mulier secundum femineum sexum, non secundum corruptionem integritatis. Sed quia genuisti infirmitatem meam, tunc te cognoscam cum ipsa infirmitas pendebit in cruce; unde subdit nondum venit hora mea; quasi dicat: ibi te agnoscam cum pendere in cruce infirmitas coeperit, cuius et mater es. Commendavit enim matrem discipulo, prius matre moriturus, et ante mortem matris resurrecturus. Videte autem ne forte quomodo invenerunt Manichaei occasionem perfidiae suae, quia dixit dominus quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Sic inveniant mathematici occasionem fallaciae, quia dixit nondum venit hora mea. Dicunt enim: vides quia sub fato erat Christus, quia dixit nondum venit hora mea. Credant autem Deo dicenti: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et iterum sumendi eam; et quaerant quare sit dictum nondum venit hora mea: nec ideo iam sub fato ponant conditorem caeli: quia si esset fatum de sideribus, non poterat esse sub necessitate siderum conditor siderum. Adde quod non solum Christus non habuit quod appellas fatum; sed nec tu, aut ille, aut quisquam hominum. Quare ergo dixit nondum venit hora mea? Quia in potestate habebat quando moreretur; sed nondum videbat esse opportunum ut illa potestate uteretur. Vocandi erant discipuli, annuntiandum erat regnum caelorum, faciendae erant virtutes, commendanda erat divinitas domini in miraculis, commendanda erat humanitas domini in ipsa compassione mortalitatis. At ubi tantum fecit quantum sufficere iudicavit, venit hora, non necessitatis, sed voluntatis; non conditionis, sed potestatis
2:5
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxii. [al. xxi.] 1.
Although He had said, Mine hour is not yet come, He afterwards did what His mother told Him, in order to shew plainly, that He was not under subjection to the hour. For if He was, how could He have done this miracle before the hour appointed for it? In the next place, He wished to shew honour to His mother, and mate it appear that He did not go counter to her eventually. He would not put her to shame in the presence of so many; especially as she had sent the servants to Him, that the petition might come from a number, and not from herself only; His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
As if she said, Though He appear to refuse, He will do it nevertheless. She knew His pity and mercifulness. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Hydriæ1 are vessels to hold water: hydor being the Greek for water.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Vessels to hold water were there, after the manner of the purifying of Jews. Among other traditions of the Pharisees, they observed frequent washings.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxii. [al. xxi.] 2.
Palestine being a dry country, with few fountains or wells, they used to fill waterpots with water, to prevent the necessity of going to the river, if they were unclean, and to have materials for washing at hand. To prevent any unbeliever from suspecting that a very thin wine was made by the dregs having been left in the vessels, and water poured in upon them, He says expressly, According to the manner of the purifying of the Jews: which shews that those vessels were never used to hold wine.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. ix. c. 7
A firkin is a certain measure; as urn, amphora, and the like. Metron is the Greek for measure: whence metretæ1. Two or three, is not to be taken to mean some holding two, others three, but the same vessels holding two or three. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxii. 2
But why did He not work the miracle before they had filled the waterpots, which would have been much more wonderful; inasmuch as it is one thing to change the quality of some existing substance, another to make it that substance out of nothing? The latter miracle would be the more wonderful, but the former would be the more easy of belief. And this principle often acts as a check, to moderate the greatness of our Lord’s miracles: He wishes to make them more credible, therefore He makes them less marvellous; a refutation this of the perverse doctrine of some, that He was a different Being from the Maker of the world. For we see He performs most of His miracles upon subject-matter already existing, whereas were He contrary to the Creator of the world, He would not use a material thus alien, to demonstrate His own power. He did not draw out the water Himself which He made wine, but ordered the servants to do so. This was for the sake of having witnesses of the miracle; And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
The Triclinium is a circle of three couches, cline signifying couch: the ancients used to recline upon couches. And the Architriclinus is the one at the head of the Triclinium, i. e. the chief of the guests. Some say that among the Jews, He was a priest, and attended the marriage in order to instruct in the duties of the married state.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxii. 2
Or thus; It might be said that the guests were drunken, and could not, in the confusion of their senses, tell whether it were water or wine. But this objection could not be brought against the attendants, who must have been sober, being occupied wholly in performing the duties of their service gracefully and in order. Our Lord therefore bid the attendants bear unto the governor of the feast; who again would of course be perfectly sober. He did not say, Give to the guests to drink.
sant'Ilario † 367 d.C. iii. de Trin. c. 5
Water is poured into the waterpots; wine is drawn out into the chalices; the senses of the drawer out agree not with the knowledge of the pourer in. The pourer in thinks that water is drawn out; the drawer out thinks that wine was poured in. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavour of wine was produced; not that a weak dilution was obtained, by means of some strong infusion, but that which was, was annihilated; and that which was not, came to be.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxii. 2, 3
Our Lord wished the power of His miracles to be seen gradually; and therefore He did not reveal what He had done Himself, nor did the ruler of the feast call upon the servants to do so; (for no credit would have been given to such testimony concerning a mere man, as our Lord was supposed to be,) but He called the bridegroom, who was best able to see what was done. Christ moreover did not only make wine, but the best wine. And (the ruler of the feast) saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now. The effects of the miracles of Christ are more beautiful and better than the productions of nature. So then that the water was made wine, the servants could testify; that it was made good wine, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom. It is probable that the bridegroom made some answer; but the Evangelist omits it, only mentioning what it was necessary for us to know, viz. the water being made wine. He adds, This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. (Hom. xxiii. 1.). It was very necessary to work miracles just then, when His devoted disciples were all collected, and present at the place, attending to what was going on.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xx
Should any say that there is not sufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. (c. 1) (Hom. xxi. 2). Now if He had performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much more so, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles at so early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a phantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. ix
This miracle of our Lord’s, turning the water into wine, is no miracle to those who know that God worked it. For the Same that day made wine in the waterpots, Who every year makes wine in the vine: only the latter is no longer wonderful, because it happens uniformly. And therefore it is that God keeps some extraordinary acts in store for certain occasions, to rouse men out of their lethargy, and make them worship Him. Thus it follows, He manifested forth His glory.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
He was the King of glory, and changed the elements because He was their Lord.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. 1
He manifests His glory, as far as related to His own act; and if at the time many knew it not, yet was it afterwards to be heard and known of all. And His disciples believed on Him. It was probable that these would believe more readily, and give more attention to what went on.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Evang. l. ii c. xvii. [38.]
If now for the first time they believed on Him, they were not His disciples when they came to the marriage. This however is a form of speech, such as saying that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; not meaning by this that he was an Apostle then. In the same way when we hear of Christ’s disciples being invited to the marriage, we should understand not disciples already, but who were to be disciples.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. ix. c. 5
But see the mysteries which lie hid in that miracle of our Lord. It was necessary that all things should be fulfilled in Christ which were written of Him: those Scriptures were the water. He made the water wine when He opened unto them the meaning of these things, and expounded the Scriptures; for thus that came to have a taste which before had none, and that inebriated, which did not inebriate before.
san Beda † 735 d.C. in v. 1
At the time of our Lord’s appearing in the flesh, the sweet vinous taste of the law had been weakened by the carnal interpretations of the Pharisees.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. ix. 5. et sq.
Now if He ordered the water to be poured out, and then introduced the wine from the hidden recesses1 of creation, He would seem to have rejected the Old Testament. But converting, as He did, the water into wine, He shewed us that the Old Testament was from Himself, for it was by His order that the waterpots were filled. But those Scriptures have no meaning, if Christ be not understood there. Now we know from what time the law dates, viz. from the foundation of the world. From that time to this are six ages; the first, reekoning from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from that time to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. The six waterpots then denote these six ages of prophecy. The prophecies are fulfilled; the waterpots are full. But what is the meaning of their holding two or three firkins apiece? Had He said three only, our minds would have run immediately to the mystery of the Trinity. Nor perhaps can we reject it, even though it is said, two or three: for the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Ghost may be understood by consequence; inasmuch as it is the love between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Ghost. (c. 17.). Nor should we pass over another interpretation, which makes the two firkins alluded to the two races of men, the Jews and the Greeks; and the three to the three sons of Noah.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
The servants are the doctors of the New Testament, who interpret the holy Scripture to others spiritually; the ruler of the feast is some lawyer, as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, or Saul. When to the former then is committed the word of the Gospel, hid under the letter of the law, it is the water made wine, being set before the ruler of the feast. And the three rows1 of guests at table in the house of the marriage are properly mentioned; the Church consisting of three orders of believers, the married, the continent, and the doctors. Christ has kept the good wine until now, i. e. He has deferred the Gospel till this, the sixth age.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quamvis dixerit nondum venit hora mea, postmodum fecit quod mater dixerat; ut etiam ex hoc sufficiens esset demonstratio quod non subiectus est horae. Si enim horae subiciebatur, qualiter debita hora nondum facta hoc fecit? Deinde et propter honorem matris, ut non finaliter ei contradicere videretur: neque eam tot praesentibus erubescere faceret: adduxerat enim ad eum ministros, ut a pluribus fieret petitio; unde sequitur dicit mater eius ministris: quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite
Beda
Quasi dicat: licet abnegare videatur, tamen faciet: noverat enim eum mater pium et misericordem. Sequitur erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. Hydriae vocantur vasa aquarum receptui parata; Graece enim aqua hydor dicitur
Alcuinus
Vasa autem aquarum receptui parata erant secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, quia inter alias Pharisaeorum traditiones etiam hoc observabant ut crebro se lavarent
Chrysostomus
Quia vero inaquosa est Palaestina, et non erat multis in locis fontes et puteos invenire, replebant hydrias aqua, ut non currerent ad flumina, si quando immundi fierent; sed de prope haberent purgationis modum. Ne autem quidam infidelium suspicarentur quoniam, faece intus remanente, deinde aqua immissa, vinum subtilissimum factum esset, propterea ait secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, ostendens quod illa vasa numquam vini receptacula facta erant
Augustinus in Ioannem
Metretas enim dicit mensuras quasdam, tamquam si diceret urnas, amphoras, vel aliud huiusmodi. Metron enim mensuram dicunt Graeci: inde appellatae metretae. Quod autem ait binas vel ternas, non ita accipiendum est quod aliae binas, aliae ternas; sed eaedem ipsae caperent binas quae etiam ternas. Sequitur dixit eis Iesus: implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum
Chrysostomus
Sed quare antequam implevissent hydrias aqua, non fecit signum? Quod multo mirabilius esset: quia scilicet aliud est substantiam in aliam qualitatem transmutare, et ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. Hoc quidem mirabilius est, sed non ita videtur credibile multis. Propterea enim multoties a miraculorum magnitudine abstinet, volens magis credibile esse quod fiebat. Cum hoc et perversa dogmata evertit. Quia enim sunt quidam qui mundi conditorem alium esse dicunt, plura miraculorum ex subiectis substantiis facit; si enim contrarius ei esset qui conditor est mundi, non utique alienis uteretur ad propriae virtutis demonstrationem. Non autem ipse aquam hausit, et tunc vinum ostendit, sed hoc iubet ministris, ut eos testes haberet eius quod fiebat; unde sequitur et dicit eis Iesus: haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino
Alcuinus
Triclinium ordo trium lectorum; clini enim lectum significat. Architriclinus princeps triclinii, idest primus inter convivas, qui more antiquo in lectis discumbebant; unde quidam architriclinum intelligunt aliquem ex sacerdotibus Iudaeorum, qui nuptiis interesse poterant, ut illos instruerent qualiter nuptiis uti deberent
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Quia aliqui possent dicere quod convivae ebrii erant, et sensus iudicantium corruptus, ut nescirent utrum aqua vel vinum esset; hi autem quibus ministratio conviviorum credita est, maxime vigiles sunt, unum opus habentes ut ornate et ordinate omnia disponantur; ideo in testimonium eorum quae fiebant dixit dominus ferte architriclino, propter evigilantem eius sensum: et non dixit: propinate discumbentibus
Hilarius de Trin
Aqua igitur hydriis infunditur, vinum calicibus hauritur: infundentis scientiae sensus non convenit haurientis. Qui infuderunt, hauriri aquam existimant: qui hauriunt vinum, infusum arbitrantur; unde sequitur ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset (ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam), vocat sponsum architriclinus. Non autem aquae simplicitas defecit, et vini sapor natus est; non per transfusionem potioris obtinetur quod infirmius est; sed aboletur quod erat, et quod non erat coepit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Paulatim autem dominus volebat cognosci suorum signorum virtutem; et ideo neque ipse revelabat quod factum est, neque ministros architriclinus vocavit; non enim esset eis creditum de puro homine existimato tale testimonium reddentibus: sed vocat sponsum, qui maxime poterat conspicere quod fiebat. Non simpliciter autem Christus vinum, sed vinum optimum fecit; unde sequitur et dicit ei: omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id quod deterius est. Talia enim sunt Christi miracula, ut multo his quae per naturam fiunt, speciosiora et utiliora fiant. Igitur aqua vinum facta ministros testes habuit; boni vero vini factio architriclinum et sponsum. Probabile autem est et sponsum aliquid respondisse; sed Evangelista hoc praetermittit, tangens solum id quod necessarium est scire, scilicet quoniam vinum aquam fecit; unde statim subdit hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae. Tunc enim signa maxime necessarium erat facere, quando discipuli iam congregati erant devoti et attendentes his quae fiebant, manifeste aderant. Si vero dixerit quis non esse argumentum sufficiens ut hoc sit principium signorum, quia additur in Cana Galilaeae, quasi contingat alibi prius esse facta, dicemus, quod et antea diximus, quia Ioannes dicit: ut manifestetur Israeli, propterea veni baptizans. Si vero secundum primam aetatem miracula fecit, nequaquam indigebant Israelitae alio manifestante eum. Qui enim in brevi tempore ita per miraculorum multitudinem claruit, ut eius nomen manifestum fieret omnibus; multo magis si puer existens a prima aetate miracula fecisset: nam et ea quae fierent, inopinabiliora existimarentur ab infante facta, et tempus amplius esset. Decenter autem non incepit signa facere ex prima aetate: existimassent enim phantasiam esse incarnationem, et ante opportunum tempus cruci eum tradidissent livore liquefacti
Augustinus in Ioannem
Hoc autem miraculum domini quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit. Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die in hydriis qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus; sed hoc assiduitate amisit admirationem: itaque servavit sibi Deus inusitata quaedam quae faceret, ut tamquam dormientes homines ad se colendum mirabiliter excitaret; propter quod sequitur et manifestavit gloriam suam
Alcuinus
Quia ipse est rex gloriae, qui sicut dominus elementa mutabat
Chrysostomus
Et hoc quantum ex parte sua: etsi vero tunc multi non cognoverunt, sed tamen omnes postea erant miraculum audituri. Sequitur et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius: hi enim debebant credere et facilius, et cum diligentia attendere his quae fiebant
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Sed si tunc in eum crediderunt, nondum erat discipuli cum ad nuptias vocati sunt; sed illo more locutionis hoc dictum est quo loquimur cum dicimus apostolum Paulum in Tharso Ciliciae natum: neque enim tunc iam erat apostolus. Ita discipulos Christi invitatos ad nuptias cum audimus, non iam discipulos, sed qui futuri erant discipuli intelligere debemus
Augustinus
Illa autem mysteria quae in isto miraculo domini latent, videte. Oportebat impleri in Christo quae de illo scripta erant. Illa erat aqua; fecit autem de aqua vinum, cum aperuit eis sensum, et exposuit Scripturas: sic enim sapit quod non sapiebat, et inebriat quod non inebriabat
Beda
Apparente enim domino in carne, vinosa legalis sensus suavitas paulatim coeperat ob carnalem Pharisaeorum interpretationem a prisca sua virtute deficere
Augustinus
Si autem iussisset aquam effundi, et ipse mitteret vinum ex occultis creaturae finibus, videretur Scripturas veteres improbasse. Cum autem ipsam aquam convertit in vinum, ostendit nobis quod et Scriptura vetus ab ipso est: nam iussu ipsius impletae sunt hydriae. Sed nihil sapit illa Scriptura, si non ibi Christus intelligatur. Novimus autem legem ex quibus temporibus narret, idest ab exordio mundi; inde usque ad hoc tempus quod nunc agimus, sexta aetas est: nam prima aetas computatur ab Adam usque ad Noe, secunda a Noe usque ad Abraham, tertia ab Abraham usque ad David, quarta a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, quinta usque ad Ioannem Baptistam, sexta inde usque ad finem saeculi. Sex ergo illae hydriae sex aetates significant, quibus non defuit prophetia. Impletae sunt prophetiae, plenae sunt hydriae. Quid est autem quod capiebant metretas binas vel trinas? Si trinas tantum diceret, non curreret animus noster nisi ad mysterium Trinitatis. Sed forte nec sic debemus inde sensum avertere, quia dixit binas vel trinas: quia nominato patre et filio, consequenter et spiritus sanctus intelligendus est. Oportet enim intelligi caritatem invicem patris et filii, quod est spiritus sanctus. Sed est et alius intellectus non praetermittendus: binae enim metretae intelliguntur in duobus generibus hominum, idest Iudaeis et Graecis; tres autem propter Noe tres filios significandos
Alcuinus
Ministri autem sunt doctores novi testamenti, qui Scripturas aliis sacras spiritualiter interpretantur; architriclinus autem est aliquis legisperitus, ut Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Saulus. Dum ergo talibus Evangelii verbum committitur, quod in littera legis occultabatur, quasi vinum de aqua factum architriclino propinatur. Et bene in domo nuptiarum tres ordines discumbentium describuntur: quia Ecclesia tribus ordinibus fidelium constat: coniugatorum, continentium et doctorum. Optimum autem vinum Christus usque adhuc servavit, idest Evangelium usque ad sextam aetatem distulit
2:12
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii
Our Lord being about shortly to go up to Jerusalem, proceeded to Capernaum, that He might not take His mother and brethren every where about with Him: After this he went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples, and they continued there not many days.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. in Joan. 1, 2
The Lord our God is He, high, that He might create us; low, that He might create us anew; walking among men, suffering what was human, hiding what was divine. So He hath a mother, hath brethren, hath disciples: whence He hath a mother, thence hath He brethren. Scripture frequently gives the name of brethren, not to those only who are born of the same womb, or the same father, but to those of the same generation, cousins by the father’s or mother’s side. Those who are unacquainted with this way of speaking, ask, Whence hath our Lord brothers? did Mary bring forth again? That could not be: with her commenced the dignity of the virgin state. Abraham was uncle of Lot, and Jacob was nephew to Laban the Syrian. Yet Abraham and Lot are called brethren; and likewise Jacob and Laban.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Our Lord’s brethren are the relations of Mary and Joseph, not the sons of Mary and Joseph. For not only the blessed Virgin, but Joseph also, the witness of her chastity, abstained from all conjugal intercourse.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Ev. c. ii. c. xvii. [39.]
And His disciples; it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, were of their number or not at this time. For Matthew first relates that our Lord came and dwelt at Capernaum, and afterwards that He called those disciples from their boats, as they were fishing. Is Matthew perhaps supplying what he had omitted? For without any mention that it was at a subsequent time, he says, Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brethren. (Matt. 4:18) Or is it better to suppose that these were other disciples? For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, call not the twelve only, but all who believing in God were prepared for the kingdom of heaven by our Lord’s teaching, disciplesa. (id. cap. 18). How is it too that our Lord’s journey to Galilee is placed here before John the Baptist’s imprisonmentb, when Matthew says, Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and Mark the same? Luke too, though he says nothing of John’s imprisonment, yet places Christ’s visit to Galilee after His temptation and baptismc, as the two former do. We should understand then that the three Evangelists are not opposed to John, but pass over our Lord’s first coming into Galilee after his baptism; at which time it was that He converted the water into wine.
Eusebio † 339 d.C. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. iii. c. 24
When copies of the three Gospels had come to the Evangelist John, he is reported, while he confirmed their fidelity and correctness, to have at the same time noticed some omissions, especially at the opening of our Lord’s ministry. Certain it is that the first three Gospels seem only to contain the events of the year in which John the Baptist was imprisoned, and put to death. And therefore John, it is said, was asked to write down those acts of our Saviour’s before the apprehension of the Baptist, which the former Evangelists had passed over. Any one then, by attending, will find that the Gospels do not disagree, but that John is relating the events of a different date, from that which the others refer to.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. 1
He did not perform any miracle at Capernaum, the inhabitants of which city were in a very corrupt state, and not well disposed to Him; He went there however, and stayed some time out of respect to His motherd.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
He did not stay many days there, on account of the Passover, which was approaching: And the Jews’ passover was at hand.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 14
But what need of saying, of the Jews, when no other nation had the rite of the Passover? Perhapse because there are two sorts of Passover, one human, which is celebrated in a way very different from the design of Scripture; another the true and Divine, which is kept in spirit and in truth. To distinguish it then from the Divine, it is said, of the Jews.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
And He went up to Jerusalem. The Gospels mention two journeys of our Lord to Jerusalem, one in the first year of His preaching, before John was sent to prison, which is the journey now spoken of; the other in the year of His Passion. Our Lord has set us here an example of careful obedience to the Divine commands. For if the Son of God fulfilled the injunctions of His own law, by keeping the festivals, like the rest, with what holy zeal should we servants prepare for and celebrate them?
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. c. 6, 7
In a mystical sense, it was meet that after the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the banquet and wine, our Lord should take His mother, brethren, and disciples to the land of consolation (as Capernaum signifiesf) to console, by the fruits that were to spring up and by abundance of fields, those who received His discipline, and the mind which had conceived Him by the Holy Ghost; and who were there to be holpen. For some there are bearing fruit, to whom our Lord Himself comes down with the ministers of His word and disciples, helping such, His mother being present. Those however who are called to Capernaum, do not seem capable of His presence long: that is, a land which admitteth lower consolation, is not able to take in the enlightenment from many doctrines; being capable to receive few only.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Or Capernaum, we may interpret “a most beautiful village,” and so it signifies the world, to which the Word of the Father came down.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
But He continued there only a few days, because he lived with men in this world only a short time.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 16
Jerusalem, as our Saviour Himself saith, is the city of the great King, into which none of those who remain on earth ascend, or enter. Only the soul which has a certain natural loftiness, and clear insight into things invisible, is the inhabitant of that city. Jesus alone goes up thitherg. But His disciples seem to have been present afterwards. The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up. But it is as though in every one of the disciples who went up, it was Jesus who went up.
Il testo latino
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quoniam autem paulo post dominus Hierosolymam ascensurus erat, Capharnaum adiit, ut non ubique fratres et matrem secum trahat; unde dicitur post haec descendit Capharnaum ipse et mater eius et fratres eius et discipuli eius; et ibi manserunt non multis diebus
Augustinus in Ioannem
Hic est autem dominus Deus noster excelsus, ut nos faceret; humilis, ut nos reficeret; ambulans inter homines, patiens humana, abscondens divina. Ecce habet matrem, habet fratres, habet et discipulos. Inde fratres unde matrem. Fratres enim Scriptura nostra appellare consuevit non eos solos qui nascuntur ex eodem utero aut ex eodem patre; sed ex eodem gradu, velut compatrueles aut consobrinos. Unde ergo fratres domino? Num enim Maria iterum peperit? Absit: inde coepit dignitas virginum. Abraham patruus erat Lot, et Iacob Laban Syrum habebat avunculum; et utrique dicti sunt fratres
Alcuinus
Fratres ergo domini dicuntur cognati Mariae vel Ioseph, non filii Mariae vel Ioseph: quia non solum beata virgo, sed etiam Ioseph testis castitatis eius ab omni actione coniugali immunis permansit
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Quod vero dicit et discipuli eius, incertum est utrum iam illi adhaeserant etiam Petrus, et Andreas, et filii Zebedaei. Matthaeus enim primo narrat quod venerit et habitaverit in Capharnaum, et postea quod eos de navibus piscantes vocaverit. An forte Matthaeus quod praetermiserat recapitulavit? Quia sine ulla consequentis temporis differentia dixit: ambulans iuxta mare Galilaeae, vidit duos fratres, an potius alii discipuli fuerunt? Scriptura enim evangelica et apostolica non solum illos duodenos appellat discipulos eius, sed omnes qui in Deum credentes ad regnum caelorum magisterio eius erudiebantur. Illud etiam requirendum est, quomodo hic dicit, antequam Ioannes Baptista missus esset in carcerem, Iesum venisse in Galilaeam: cum Matthaeus dicat: cum autem audisset quod Ioannes traditus esset, secessit in Galilaeam: similiter etiam et Marcus. Lucas etiam nihil quidem dicit de tradito Ioanne: sed post Baptismum et tentationem Christi dicit eum iisse in Galilaeam, sicut illi duo. Unde intelligitur tres Evangelistas non Ioanni Evangelistae contraria narrasse, sed praetermisisse primum domini adventum in Galilaeam posteaquam baptizatus est, quando illic aquam convertit in vinum
Eusebius Eccles. Hist
Cum enim trium Evangeliorum ad Ioannem Evangelistam notitia pervenisset, probasse quidem dicitur fidem et veritatem dictorum; deesse tamen vidit aliqua, et ea maxime quae primo praedicationis suae tempore dominus gesserat: certum est enim quod in superioribus tribus Evangeliis haec videntur sola contineri quae in eo gesta sunt anno quo Ioannes Baptista vel inclusus est in carcere, vel punitus. Et ideo rogatus dicitur Ioannes apostolus ut ea quae praeterierant priores ante traditionem Ioannis, salvatoris gesta conscriberet. Unde si quis diligenter consideret, inveniet Evangelia non dissonare; sed alterius temporis gesta esse quae scribit Ioannes, alterius vero quae ceteri
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Neque enim in Capharnaum miraculum ullum tunc operatus est: qui enim civitatem habitabant illam, non sane se habebant ad Christum, sed erant valde corrupti: ideo tamen accedit et parum ibi trahit tempus propter eum qui ad matrem erat honorem
Beda
Ideo etiam non multis diebus ibi manserunt, propter festum Paschae, quod iam appropinquabat; unde sequitur et prope erat Pascha Iudaeorum
Origenes in Ioannem
Sed quid intendit ibi appositio Iudaeorum? Non enim nationis alterius Paschae solemnitas fuerat. Forsan vero quia quoddam est Pascha humanum eorum qui procul a proposito Scripturae celebrant illud, quoddam vero divinum et verum, quod in spiritu et veritate perficitur. Ad distinctionem ergo divini dicitur Iudaeorum. Sequitur et ascendit Hierosolymam
Alcuinus
Bis in Evangeliis legitur Iesum ascendisse Hierosolymam: semel in primo anno praedicationis, dum adhuc Ioannes non erat missus in carcerem; de hoc ascensu nunc agitur; et iterum illo anno quo erat passurus. Dedit autem nobis exemplum dominus quanta cura divinis subdi debeamus imperiis. Si enim ipsa Dei filius decreta legis a se data implebat, celebrans solemnitates cum ceteris hominibus, quanto studio bonorum operum servi debent solemnitates et praevenire et celebrare?
Origenes
Mystice autem, cum facta est nuptiarum praeparatio in Cana Galilaeae, descendit una cum matre, fratribus et discipulis in Capharnaum, quae interpretatur ager consolationis. Oportebat enim post vini alacritatem, ad agrum consolationis, una cum matre et discipulis ascendere salvatorem, consolaturum in futuris fructibus et in agrorum multitudine suscipientes disciplinam eius, et animam quae illum spiritu sancto concepit, et iuvandos ibi. Sunt enim quidam fructificantes, ad quos dominus ipse descendit una cum verbi ministris atque discipulis, adiuvans huiusmodi praesente matre sua. Videntur autem qui Capharnaum ducti sunt, non capere diuturnam apud se Iesu praesentiam: quoniam illuminationem quae de pluribus dogmatibus est, inferioris consolationis agellus non capit, cum paucorum capax existat
Alcuinus
Vel Capharnaum villa pulcherrima est, et significat mundum, in quem verbum patris descendit
Beda
Non multis autem diebus ibi mansit, quia parvo in hoc mundo tempore cum hominibus conversatus est
Origenes
Est autem Hierosolyma civitas regis magni, velut ipse salvator ait, ad quam nullus eorum qui manent in terris conscendit nec ingreditur: sed quaelibet anima quae naturalem obtinet celsitudinem et acumen intelligibilium perspicuum, eius civitatis est incola, ad quam solus Iesus ascendisse dicitur. Videntur tamen post discipuli fore praesentes dum recolunt zelus domus tuae comedit me; sed quasi in quolibet discipulorum Iesus ascendit
2:14
san Beda † 735 d.C.
Our Lord on coming to Jerusalem, immediately entered the temple to pray; giving us an example that, wheresoever we go, our first visit should be to the house of God to pray. And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. (Mat. 21)
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 4
Such sacrifices were prescribed to the people, in condescension to their carnal minds; to prevent them from turning aside to idols. They sacrificed sheep, and oxen, and doves.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
Those however, who came from a distance, being unable to bring with them the animals required for sacrifice, brought the money instead. For their convenience the Scribes and Pharisees ordered animals to be sold in the temple, in order that, when the people had bought and offered them afterwards, they might sell them again, and thus make great profits. And changers of money sitting; changers of money sat at the table to supply change to buyers and sellers. But our Lord disapproving of any worldly business in His house, especially one of so questionable a kind, drove out all engaged in it.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 5
He who was to be scourged by them, was first of all the scourger; And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drore them all out of the temple.
Teofilatto † 1107
Nor did He cast out only those who bought and sold, but their goods also: The sheep, and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables, i. e. of the money changers, which were coffers of pence.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 16
Should it appear something out of the order of things, that the Son of God should make a scourge of small cords, to drive them out of the temple? We have one answer in which some take refuge, viz. the divine power of Jesus, Who, when He pleased, could extinguish the wrath of His enemies however innumerable, and quiet the tumult of their minds: The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought. (Ps. 32, 33:10) This act indeed exhibits no less power, than His more positive miracles; nay rather, more than the miracle by which water was converted into wine: in that there the subject-matter was inanimate, here, the minds of so many thousands of men are overcome.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. de Cons. Ev. l. ii. c. 67
It is evident that this was done on two several occasions; the first mentioned by John, the last by the other three.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 17
John says here that He drove out the sellers from the temple; Matthew, the sellers and buyers. The number of buyers was much greater than of the sellers: and therefore to drive them out was beyond the power of the carpenter’s Son, as He was supposed to be, had He not by His divine power put all things under Him, as it is said.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
The Evangelist sets before us both natures of Christ: the human in that His mother accompanied Him to Capernaum; the divine, in that He said, Make not My Father’s house an house of merchandize.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. in Joan. c. 2
Lo, He speaks of God as His Father, and they are not angry, for they think He means it in a common sense. But afterwards when He spoke more openly, and shewed that He meant equality, they were enraged. In Matthew’s account too, (c. 21) on driving them out, He says, Ye have made it (My Father’s house) a den of thieves. (21:13.) This was just before His Passion, and therefore He uses severer language. But the former being at the beginning of His miracles, His answer is milder and more indulgent.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. in Joan. c. 4
So that temple was still a figure only, and our Lord cast out of it all who came to it as a market. And what did they sell? Things that were necessary for the sacrifice of that time. What if He had found men drunken? If the house of God ought not to be a house of merchandize, ought it to be a house of drunkenness?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. 2
But why did Christ use such violence? He was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many things which appeared to them transgressions of the Law. That He might not appear therefore to be acting contrary to God, He did this at His own peril; and thus gave them to understand, that He who exposed Himself to such peril to defend the decency of the house, did not despise the Lord of that house. For the same reason, to shew His agreement with God, He said not, the Holy house, but, My Father’s house. It follows, And His disciples remembered what was written; The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
His disciples seeing this most fervent zeal in Him, remembered that it was from zeal for His Father’s house that our Saviour drove the ungodly from the temple.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Zeal, taken in a good sense, is a certain fervour of the Spirit, by which the mind, all human fears forgotten, is stirred up to the defence of the truth.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 9
He then is eaten up with zeal for God’s house, who desires to correct all that he sees wrong there; and, if he cannot correct, endures and mourns. In thine house thou busiest thyself to prevent matters going wrong; in the house of God, where salvation is offered, oughtest thou to be indifferent? Hast thou a friend? admonish him gently; a wife? coerce her severely; a maid-servant? even compel her with stripes. Do what thou art able, according to thy station.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
To take the passage mystically, God enters His Church spiritually every day, and marks each one’s behaviour there. Let us be careful then, when we are in God’s Church, that we indulge not in stories, or jokes, or hatreds, or lusts, lest on a sudden He come and scourge us, and drive us out of His Church.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 16
It is possible even for the dweller in Jerusalem to incur guilt, and even the most richly endowed may stray. And unless these repent speedily, they lose the capacity wherewith they were endued. He finds them in the temple, i. e. in sacred places, or in the office of enunciating the Church’s truths, some who make His Father’s house an house of merchandize; i. e. who expose to sale the oxen whom they ought to reserve for the plough, lest by turning back they should become unfit for the kingdom of God: also who prefer the unrighteous mammon to the sheep, from which they have the material of ornament; also who for miserable gain abandon the watchful care of them who are called metaphorically doves, without all gall or bitternessh. Our Saviour finding these in the holy house, maketh a scourge of small cords, and driveth them out, together with the sheep and oxen exposed for sale, scatters the heaps of money, as unbeseeming in the house of God, and overthrows the tables set up in the minds of the covetous, forbidding them to sell doves in the house of God any longer. I think too that He meant the above, as a mystical intimation that whatsoeveri was to be performed with regard to that sacred oblation by the priests, was not to be performed after the manner of material oblations, and that the law was not to be observed as the carnal Jews wished. For our Lord, by driving away the sheep and oxen, and ordering away the doves, which were the most common offerings among the Jews, and by overthrowing the tables of material coins, which in a figure only, not in truth, bore the Divine stamp, (i. e. what according to the letter of the law seemed good,) and when with His own hand He scourged the people, He as much as declared that the dispensation was to be broken up and destroyed, and the kingdom translated to the believing from among the Gentiles.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 6
Or, those who sell in the Church, are those who seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. They who will not be bought, think they may sell earthly things. Thus Simon wished to buy the Spirit, that he might sell Him: for he was one of those who sell doves. (The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.) The dove however is not sold, but is given of free grace1; for it is called grace.
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
They then are the sellers of doves, who, after receiving the free grace of the Holy Spirit, do not dispense it freely2, as they are commanded, but at a price: who confer the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is received, if not for money, at least for the sake of getting favour with the people, who bestow Holy Orders not according to merit, but favour.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 7
By the oxen may be understood the Apostles and Prophets, who have dispensed to us the holy Scriptures. Those who by these very Scriptures deceive the people, from whom they seek honour, sell the oxen; and they sell the sheep too, i. e. the people themselves; and to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For that which is cut off from the one Church, (1 Pet. 5:8) who taketh away, except the roaring lion, who goeth about every where, and seeketh whom he may devour?
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
Or, the sheep are works of purity and piety, and they sell the sheep, who do works of piety to gain the praise of men. They exchange money in the temple, who, in the Church, openly devote themselves to secular business. And besides those who seek for money, or praise, or honour from Holy Orders, those too make the Lord’s house a house of merchandize, who do not employ the rank, or spiritual grace, which they have received in the Church at the Lord’s hands, with singleness of mind, but with an eye to human recompense.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. c. 5
Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge of small cords, and then scourging those who were carrying on the merchandize in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin. So then when men suffer for their iniquities, let them be sure that it is the Lord making a scourge of small cords, and admonishing them to change their lives: which if they fail to do, they will hear at the last, Bind. him hand and foot. (Mat. 23)
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loco.
With a scourge then made of small cords, He cast them out of the temple; for from the part and lot of the saints are cast out all, who, thrown externally among the Saints, do good works hypocritically, or bad openly. The sheep and the oxen too He cast out, to shew that the life and the doctrine of such were alike reprobate. And He overthrew the change heaps of the money-changers and their tables, as a sign that, at the final condemnation of the wicked, He will take away the form even of those things which they loved. The sale of doves He ordered to be removed out of the temple, because the grace of the Spirit, being freely received, should be freely given.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 16
By the temple we may understand too the soul wherein the Word of God dwelleth; in which, before the teaching of Christ, earthly and bestial affections had prevailed. The ox being the tiller of the soil, is the symbol of earthly affections: the sheep, being the most irrational of all animals, of dull ones; the dove is the type of light and volatile thoughts; and money, of earthly good things; which money Christ cast out by the Word of His doctrine, that His Father’s house might be no longer a market.
Il testo latino
Beda super Matth
Dominus Ierusalem adveniens, continuo templum oraturus addit, nobis dans exemplum ut quocumque properamus, domum Dei primo ingrediamur, dominum deprecaturi; unde dicitur et invenit in templo vendentes boves et oves et columbas
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sacrificia enim illi populo pro eius carnalitate talia data sunt, quibus teneretur ne ad idola deflueret; et immolabant boves et oves et columbas
Beda
Sed quia de longinquo properantes quae iussa sunt immolari domino, secum ferre non poterant, eorum pretia deferebant: unde nacta occasione, haec animalia in templo Scribae et Pharisaei vendi instituerunt, ut venientes emerent et offerrent, eademque oblata ipsi aliis venderent; et sic sua lucra accumularent. Unde et nummularii ad hoc sedebant ad mensam, ut inter emptores venditoresque hostiarum prompta esset pecunia: unde subditur et nummularios sedentes. Dominus autem nolens aliquid in domo sua terrenae esse negotiationis, neque eius quae honesta putaretur, negotiatores omnes expulit foras
Augustinus
Et qui flagellandus erat ab eis, prior illos flagellavit; unde sequitur et cum fecisset quasi flagellum de funiculis, omnes eiecit de templo
Theophylactus
Neque solum eos eiecit qui vendebant et emebant, sed etiam res eorum; unde subditur oves quoque et boves et nummulariorum effudit aes, et mensas evertit, scilicet nummularias, quae erant quasi vasa denariorum
Origenes
Consideremus autem, ne forte enorme videatur quod Dei filius captis funiculis parat sibi flagellum ad eiciendum de templo. Unum tamen refugium ad horum responsionem relinquitur divina potestas Iesu, ut cum volebat posset iracundiam hostium suffocare, quamvis essent innumeri, et sedare mentium turbines: dominus enim dissipat cogitationes gentium. Praesens autem historia in nullo minorem potestatem praetendit his quae ab eo miraculosius edita sunt: quinimmo constat hanc maiorem demonstrare potentiam miraculo quo aqua conversa est in vinum: eo quod illic inanimata subsistit materia, hic vero tot millium hominum domantur ingenia
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Manifestum est autem non semel, sed iterato hoc factum esse a domino. Sed illud primum commemoratur hic a Ioanne, istud ultimum a ceteris tribus
Origenes
Et Ioannes quidem hic dicit quod expulit vendentes de templo; Matthaeus autem ait quoniam expulit vendentes et ementes. Multo autem maior numerus erat ementium quam vendentium; quorum expulsio transcendebat dignitatem eius qui reputabatur filius carpentarii; nisi quod divina potestate sibi omnes subiecit, ut dictum est
Beda
Commendatur autem in hac lectione utraque Christi natura: humana quidem, in hoc quod matrem comitem habuisse perhibetur; divina vero, in hoc quod verus Dei filius demonstratur; sequitur enim et his qui vendebant columbas dixit: auferte ista hinc, et nolite facere domum patris mei domum negotiationis
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ecce patrem vocat, et non irascuntur: aestimant enim simpliciter eum dicere; sed quia postea apertius loquebatur, ut solam repraesentaret parilitatis intelligentiam, propterea saeviebant. Et Matthaeus quidem dicit quod eiciens eos dicebat: nolite facere domum meam speluncam latronum: illud enim fecit ad passionem veniens, ideo durioribus sermonibus utebatur; hoc autem in principio signorum fecit; unde non ita aspera, sed remissa quodammodo increpatione utitur
Augustinus
Ecce templum illud figura adhuc erat, et eiecit inde dominus omnes qui ad nundinas venerant. Et quae ibi vendebant? Quae opus habebant homines in sacrificio illius temporis. Quid si ibi ebriosos inveniret? Si negotiationis non debet fieri domus Dei, potationis fieri debet?
Chrysostomus
Sed cuius gratia tali vehementia Christus usus est? Quia enim in sabbato curaturus erat, et multa facturus quae videbantur eis esse legis transgressio, ut non videatur Deo contrarius, hoc cum periculo fecit, dans intelligere quod qui periculis se exponit pro bono ornatu domus, dominum domus non contemnit: et ideo, ut ostenderet sui consonantiam ad Deum, non dixit: domum sanctam, sed domum patris mei. Et propter hoc etiam subditur recordati vero sunt discipuli eius quia scriptum est: zelus domus tuae comedit me
Beda
Discipuli enim videntes in eo hunc ferventissimum zelum, recordati sunt quia zelo domus patris salvator eiecit impios de templo
Alcuinus
Zelus, cum in bono accipitur, est quidam fervor animi, quo mens relicto humano timore pro defensione veritatis accenditur
Augustinus
Comeditur ergo zelus domus Dei, qui omnia quae videt ibi perversa cupit emendare: et si emendare non potest, tolerat et gemit. Si ergo in domo tua ne quid perversum fiat satagis, in domo Dei, ubi salus proposita est, debes pati, quantum in te est, si quid perversi videris? Amicus est? Admoneatur leniter; uxor est? Severissime frenetur; ancilla est? Etiam verberibus compescatur. Fac quicquid potes pro persona quam portas
Alcuinus
Mystice autem quotidie Deus spiritualiter suam Ecclesiam intrat, et qualiter ibi unusquisque conversetur attendit. Caveamus ergo ne in Ecclesia Dei fabulis, vel risibus, vel odiis, vel cupiditatibus vacemus, ne improvisus veniens nos flagellet, et de Ecclesia sua eiciat
Origenes in Ioannem
Possibile enim est Hierosolymitanum quoque delicto subiacere, et capacissimos deviare: quod nisi post delictum citissime convertantur, capacitatem amittunt. Invenit igitur in templo, idest in sacris, vel in enuntiatione ecclesiastici sermonis, quosdam qui patris domum, domum negotiationis constituebant, qui scilicet venales exponunt boves, quos oportet servare ad aratrum, ne retrocedentes non disponantur ad regnum Dei; qui etiam praeferunt mammonam iniquitatis ovibus, ex quibus habent ornatus materiam; qui etiam solertiam columbarum privata qualibet amaritudine vilipendunt. Cum ergo hos invenerit salvator in domo sacrata, facto de funiculis flagello fugat illos una cum venalibus ovibus et bobus suis, et spargit aeris pondera velut indigna in domo Dei retineri, subvertitque constitutas tabulas in animabus avarorum, et mandat ne ulterius in domo Dei columbae vendantur. Arbitror autem et exemplum ipsum statuisse per praedicta secretius, ut intelligamus per hoc, si quid agi debeat erga sacram illam oblationem a sacerdotibus, non debere ritu sensibilium oblationum agi, nec legem observari debere, ut carnales Iudaei volebant: nam Iesu propellente boves et oves, iubente auferri columbas, quae ut plurimum offerebantur iuxta consuetudinem Iudaeorum, et subvertente mensas materialium nummorum non expresse, sed figuraliter continentium divinas impressiones, ea scilicet quae secundum legis Scripturam videbantur honesta, et utente eo in plebem flagellis, dissolvenda et dispergenda haec erant, translato regno ad eos qui ex gentibus crediderunt
Augustinus
Vel vendentes in Ecclesia sunt qui quae sua sunt quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi. Venale habent totum, quia volunt redimi. Simon ideo volebat emere spiritum sanctum, quia vendere volebat: erat enim de illis qui columbas vendunt: etenim in columba apparuit spiritus sanctus: columba autem non est venalis; gratis datur, quia gratis vocatur
Beda
Vendunt igitur columbas qui acceptam spiritus sancti gratiam non gratis, ut praeceptum est, sed ad praemium dant; qui manuum impositionem, qua spiritus sanctus accipitur, etsi non in quaestum pecuniae, ad vulgi tamen favorem tribuunt; qui sacros ordines non ad vitae meritum, sed ad gratiam largiuntur
Augustinus
Boves autem intelliguntur apostoli et prophetae, qui nobis Scripturas sacras dispensaverunt. Qui ergo ipsis Scripturis fallunt populos a quibus quaerunt honores, vendunt boves, vendunt et oves, idest ipsas plebes, et cui vendunt, nisi Diabolo? Quidquid enim de unica Ecclesia praeciditur, quis tollit nisi leo rugiens?
Beda
Vel oves sunt opera munditiae et pietatis. Vendunt ergo oves qui humanae gratia laudis pietatis exercent. Nummos mutuo dant in templo qui aperte terrenis rebus in Ecclesia deserviunt. Domum etiam domini faciunt domum negotiationis, non solum hi qui propter sacros ordines pretium pecuniae vel laudis vel honoris quaerunt; verum etiam hi qui gradum vel gratiam spiritualem, quam in Ecclesia domino largiente perceperunt, non simplici intentione, sed cura humanae retributionis exercent
Augustinus
Signum autem quoddam nobis ostendit dominus, quod fecit flagellum de resticulis, et inde negotiationem in templo facientes flagellavit. Etenim unusquisque in peccatis suis restem sibi texit, dum peccata addit peccatis. Quando ergo aliquid patiuntur homines propter iniquitates suas, agnoscant quia dominus facit flagellum de resticulis, et adhuc admonet eos ut mutent se: nam si se non mutaverint, audient in fine: ligate illi manus et pedes
Beda
Facto igitur de funiculis flagello, illos eiecit de templo: quia de parte sortis sanctorum eiciuntur qui inter sanctos positi, vel ficte bona, vel aperte faciunt opera mala. Oves quoque et boves eiecit: quia talium vitam pariter et doctrinam ostendit esse reprobam. Nummulariorum quoque effudit aes, et mensas subvertit; quia damnatis in fine reprobis, etiam ipsarum quas dilexerunt rerum tollet figuram. Venditionem columbarum de templo auferri praecepit: quia gratia spiritus, quae gratis accipitur, gratis dari debet
Origenes
Potest etiam per templum intelligi anima studiosi, propter inhabitans verbum Dei, in qua ante doctrinam Iesu constiterant terrestres et bestiales motus. Signum autem terrestrium motuum bos est, quoniam est agri cultor; insensatorum autem motuum ovis, quod est pluribus animalibus irrationalius; levium vero atque inconstantium mentium signum est columba; eorum vero qui boni videntur, signa sunt aera, quae Christus verbo doctrinae expellit, ut non ultra domus patris eius sit forum
2:18
Teofilatto † 1107 hoc loco.
The Jews seeing Jesus thus acting with power, and having heard Him say, Make not My Father’s house an house of merchandize, ask of Him a sign; Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign shewest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou doest these things?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. 2
But were signs necessary for His putting a stop to evil practices? Was not the having such zeal for the house of God, the greatest sign of His virtue? They did not however remember the prophecy, but asked for a sign; at once irritated at the loss of their base gains, and wishing to prevent Him from going further. For this dilemma, they thought, would oblige Him either to work miracles, or give up His present course. But He refuses to give them the sign, as He did on a like occasion, when He answers, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign he given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet; (Mat. 12:39) only the answer is more open there than here. He however who even anticipated men’s wishes, and gave signs when He was not asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a crafty design in it. As it was, Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
For inasmuch as they sought a sign from our Lord of His right to eject the customary merchandize from the temple, He replied, that that temple signified the temple of His Body, in which was no spot of sin; as if He said, As by My power I purify your inanimate temple from your merchandize and wickedness; so the temple of My Body, of which that is the figure, destroyed by your hands, on the third day I will raise again.
Teofilatto † 1107
He does not however provoke them to commit murder, by saying, Destroy; but only shews that their intentions were not hidden from Him. Let the Arians observe how our Lord, as the destroyer of death, says, I will raise it up; that is to say, by My own power.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. x. in Joan c. 11.
The Father also raised Him up again; to Whom He says, Raise Thou me up, and I shall reward them. (Ps. 41:10) But what did the Father do without the Word? As then the Father raised Him up, so did the Son also: even as He saith below, I and My Father are one. John 10:30.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. 3
But why does He give them the sign of His resurrection? Because this was the greatest proof that He was not a mere man; shewing, as it did, that He could triumph over death, and in a moment overthrow its long tyranny.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 20
Both those, i. e. both the Body of Jesus and the temple, seem to me to be a type of the Church, which with lively stones is built up into a spiritual house, into an holy priesthood; according to St. Paul, Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (1 Cor. 12:27) And though the structure of stones seem to be broken up, and all the bones of Christ scattered by adversities and tribulations, yet shall the temple be restored, and raised up again in three days, and stablished in the now heaven and the new earth. For as that sensible body of Christ was crucified and buried, and afterward rose again; so the whole body of Christ’s saints was crucified with Christ, (each glorying in that cross, by which He Himself too was crucified to the world,) and, after being buried with Christ, hath also risen with Him, walking in newness of life. Yet have we not risen yet in the power of the blessed resurrection, which is still going on, and is yet to be completed. Whence it is not said, On the third day I will build it up, but, in three days; for the erection is being in process throughout the whole of the three days.
Teofilatto † 1107
The Jews, supposing that He spoke of the material temple, scoffed: Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will Thou rear it up in three days?
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
Note, that they allude here not to the first temple under Solomon, which was finished in seven years, but to the one rebuilt under Zorobabel. (Ezra 4:5) This was forty-six years building, in consequence of the hindrance raised by the enemies of the work.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. c. 22
Or some will reckon perhaps the forty and six years from the time that David consulted Nathan the Prophet on the building of the temple. David from that time was busy in collecting materials. But perhaps the number forty may with reference to the four corners of the temple allude to the four elements of the world, and the number six, to the creation of man on the sixth day.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. iv. de Trin. c. 9. [v.]
Or it may be that this number fits in with the perfection of the Lord’s Body. For six times forty-six are two hundred and seventy-six days, which make up nine months and six days, the time that our Lord’s Body was forming in the womb; as we know by authoritative traditions handed down from our fathers, and preserved by the Church. He was, according to general belief, conceived on the eighth of the Kalends of April, (March 24) the day on which He suffered, and born on the eighth of the Kalends of January1. (Dec. 25) The intervening time contains two hundred and seventy-six days, i. e. six multiplied by forty-six.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. b. lxxxiii. Quæst. 2. 5. f.
The process of human conception is said to be this. The first six days produce a substance like milk, which in the following nine is converted into blood; in twelve more is consolidated, in eighteen more is formed into a perfect set of limbs, the growth and enlargement of which fills up the rest of the time till the birth. For six, and nine, and twelve, and eighteen, added together are forty-five, and with the addition of one (which1 stands for the summing up, all these numbers being collected into one) forty-six. This multiplied by the number six, which stands at the head of this calculation2, makes two hundred and seventy-six, i. e. nine months and six days. It is no unmeaning information then that the temple was forty and six years building; for the temple prefigured His Body, and as many years as the temple was in building, so many days was the Lord’s Body in forming.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. in Joan. Tr. x. c. 12
Or thus, if you take the four Greek words, anatole, the east; dysis, the west; arctos, the north; and mesembria, the south; the first letters of these words make Adam. And our Lord says that He will gather together His saints from the four winds, when He comes to judgment. Now these letters of the word Adam, make up, according to Greek figuring, the number of the years during which the temple was building. For in Adam we have alpha, one; delta, four; alpha again, one; and mi, forty; making up together forty-six. The temple then signifies the body derived from Adam; which body our Lord did not take in its sinful state, but renewed it, in that after the Jews had destroyed it, He raised it again the third day. The Jews however, being carnal, understood carnally; He spoke spiritually. He tells us, by the Evangelist, what temple He means; But He spake of the temple of His Body.
Teofilatto † 1107 ad loc. fin.
From this Apollinarius draws an heretical inference: and attempts to shew that Christ’s flesh was inanimate, because the temple was inanimate. In this way you will prove the flesh of Christ to be wood and stone, because the temple is composed of these materials. Now if you refuse to allow what is said, Now is My soul troubled; (John 12:27) and, I have power to lay it (My life) down, (ib. 10:18) to be said of the rational soul, still how will you interpret, Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend My spirit? (Luke 23:46) you cannot understand this of an irrational soul: or again, the passage, Thou shall not leave My soul in hell. (Ps. 16:11)
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. in Joan. c. 23
Our Lord’s Body is called the temple, because as the temple contained the glory of God dwelling therein, so the Body of Christ, which represents the Church, contains the Only-Begotten, Who is the image and glory of God.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiii. in Joan. 3
TWO. things there were in the mean time very far removed from the comprehension of the disciples: one, the resurrection of our Lord’s Body: the other, and the greater mystery, that it was God who dwelt in that Body: as our Lord declares by saying, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. And thus it follows, When therefore He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Alcuino † 804 d.C.
For before the resurrection they did not understand the Scriptures, because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost, Who was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39) But on the day of the resurrection our Lord appeared and opened their meaning to His disciples; that they might understand what was said of Him in the Law and the Prophets. And then they believed the prediction of the Prophets that Christ would rise the third day, and the word which Jesus had spoken to them: Destroy this temple, &c.
Origene † 253 d.C. t. x. c. 27
But (in the mystical interpretation) we shall attain to the full measure of faith, at the great resurrection of the whole body of Jesus, i. e. His Church; inasmuch as the faith which is from sight, is very different from that which seeth as through a glass darkly.
Il testo latino
Theophylactus
Quia Iudaei videbant Iesum talia facere cum potestate multa, et dicentem nolite facere domum patris mei, domum negotiationis: signum ab eo petunt; unde dicitur responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed numquid signa opus erant ut ea quae male fiebant cessare faceret? Nonne zelum talem accipere pro domo Dei maximum signum virtutis erat? Non autem illius prophetiae meminerant; sed signum petebant, simul quidem de suo turpi lucro impedito dolentes, simul autem et per hoc prohibere eum volentes: opinantur enim eum aut provocare ad miracula, aut cessare ab his quae fiebant. Propterea non dat eis signum, sicut et petentibus signum respondit dicens: generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Sed tunc quidem manifestius, nunc autem obscurius respondet idem. Non autem is utique qui non petentes praeoccupat, et signa dat, hic petentes avertisset, nisi mentem eorum cognovisset dolosam; sequitur enim et dixit eis: solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud
Beda
Quia enim signum quaerebant a domino, quare solita commercia proicere debuerit ex templo; respondit: quia ipsum templum significabat templum corporis sui, in quo nulla prorsus esset alicuius macula peccati; quasi dicat: sicut inanimatum templum a vestris commerciis sceleribusque mea expio potestate, ita et hoc corporis mei templum, cuius istud gestat figuram, vestris manibus dissolutum, tertia die resuscitabo
Theophylactus
Nequaquam tamen illos ad homicidium provocat dicens solvite; sed hoc eis affectantibus, non sibi esse absconditum demonstrat. Audiant autem Ariani, quomodo dominus mortis destructor dixit excitabo, virtute videlicet propria
Augustinus in Ioannem
Resuscitavit eum quidem et pater, cui dicit: excita me, et reddam illis. Sed quid fecit pater sine verbo? Quomodo ergo eum pater resuscitat, sic et filius resuscitavit: quia filius dixit: ego et pater unum sumus
Chrysostomus
Propter quid autem signum resurrectionis dat eis? Quoniam scilicet hoc maxime erat quod ostendebat eum non esse hominem purum, posse adversus mortem statuere triumphum, et tyrannidem eius longam velociter dissolvere
Origenes
Utraque autem, scilicet et corpus Iesu et templum, exemplar mihi fore videntur Ecclesiae, eo quod ex vivis lapidibus construitur in domum spiritualem, in sacerdotium sanctum, et propter illud: vos estis corpus Christi et membra de membro. Quamvis autem dissolvi lapidum videatur structura ac dissipari omnia ossa Christi adversitatibus tribulationum; instaurabitur tamen templum, ac resuscitabitur die tertia, quae in novo caelo et nova terra praesens erit. Sicut enim illud Christi corpus sensibile crucifixum est ac sepultum, et postea resurrexit; sic et totale sanctorum Christi corpus concrucifixum est Christo: quilibet enim eorum in nullo alio gloriatur nisi in cruce Christi, per quam ipse crucifixus est mundo. Sed et consepultus est Christo et resurrexit cum eo, quia in quadam novitate vitae ambulat. Sed secundum beatam resurrectionem nondum surrexit; unde non scriptum est: tertia die restaurabo illud, sed in tribus diebus: perficitur enim eius erectio in omnibus tribus diebus
Theophylactus
Iudaei enim de inanimato templo putantes eum hoc dicere, deridebant eum; unde sequitur dixerunt ergo Iudaei: quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, et tu in tribus diebus excitabis illud?
Alcuinus
Et notandum, quod non de prima aedificatione, quae a Salomone septem annis perfecta est, sed de reaedificatione, quae facta est sub Zorobabel per quadraginta et sex annos impedientibus inimicis respondebant
Origenes
Vel dicit aliquis, quadraginta et sex annorum exsurgere computum, ex quo David allocutus est Nathan prophetam consulens de constructione templi, ex tunc satagens ad congregandam materiam templi. Animadverte vero si possibile est quadragenarium numerum statui erga templum propter quatuor elementa mundi, ac senarium propter hoc quod homo sexto die creatus est
Augustinus de Trin
Vel hic numerus perfectioni dominici corporis apte congruit; quadragies enim sexies seni fiunt ducenta septuaginta sex; qui numerus dierum complet novem menses et sex dies. Ipsa autem perfectio corporis domini tot diebus ad partum producta comperitur, sicut a maioribus traditum suscipiens Ecclesiae custodit auctoritas. Octavo enim Kalendas Aprilis conceptus creditur, quo et passus; natus autem traditur octavo Kalendas Ianuarii. Ab illo ergo die usque ad istum computati ducenti septuaginta sex reperiuntur dies, qui senarium numerum quadragies sexies habent
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest
Dicitur etiam conceptio humana sic procedere, et perfici primis sex diebus, quasi lactis habeat similitudinem, sequentibus novem diebus convertatur in sanguinem, deinde duodecim diebus solidetur, reliquis decem et octo diebus formetur usque ad perfecta lineamenta omnium membrorum; et in reliquo tempore usque ad tempus partus magnitudine augeatur. Sex autem et novem et duodecim et decem et octo in unum coacti, fiunt quadraginta quinque: addito ergo uno fiunt quadraginta sex; qui si fuerint multiplicati per ipsum senarium numerum, qui huius ordinationis caput tenet, fiunt ducenti septuaginta sex, idest novem menses, et sex dies. Non ergo absurde quadraginta sex annis dicitur fabricatum esse templum, quod corpus eius significabat; ut quot anni fuerint in fabricatione templi, tot dies fuerint in corporis dominici perfectione
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Quia dominus noster de Adam corpus accepit, non de Adam peccatum traxit; templum corporeum inde sumpsit, non iniquitatem, quae de templo pellenda est. Si autem facias quatuor nomina Graeca, anatoli, quod est oriens, dysis, quod est occidens, Arctos, quod est Septemtrio, mesembria, quod est meridies, capita verborum Adam habent. A quatuor enim ventis dominus collecturum se dicit electos suos cum venerit ad iudicium. Habent autem litterae nominis Adam numerum secundum Graecos; et ibi invenitur quadragintasex annis aedificatum templum. Habet enim Adam alpha, quod est unum; et delta, quod quatuor; et alpha, quod est unum; et mi, quod est quadraginta: et sic habet quadragintasex. Sed Iudaei, quia caro erant, carnalia sapiebant; ille spiritualiter loquebatur, et de quo templo diceret, per Evangelistam nobis aperuit; sequitur enim ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui
Theophylactus
Ex hoc autem Apollinarius contradictionem sumit, volens ostendere, quod caro Christi esset inanimata, eo quod templum sit inanimatum: ergo carnem Christi et lapidem et lignum facies, quia ex his templum consistit. Si autem quod dicitur: anima mea turbata est; et: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam; nequaquam de anima rationali dici dixeris; ubi pones illud: in manus tuas, domine, commendo spiritum meum? Non enim hoc de anima irrationali intelligere poteris: neque quod dicitur: non derelinques animam meam in Inferno
Origenes
Ideo autem corpus domini templum intelligitur, quia sicut templum gloriam Dei continebat habitantem in ipso, sic corpus Christi repraesentans Ecclesiam, unigenitum continet, qui est imago Dei et gloria
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Duo autem erant quae obstabant discipulis ne interim intelligerent: unum ipsa resurrectio; alterum vero, quod maius erat, scilicet quod Deus erat qui in illo corpore habitabat; quod dominus occulte ostenderat, dicens solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Et ideo subditur cum ergo resurrexisset a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli eius quia hoc dicebat de corpore suo, et crediderunt Scripturae, et sermoni quem dixit Iesus
Alcuinus
Ante resurrectionem enim non intelligebant Scripturas, quia nondum acceperant spiritum sanctum; sed in die resurrectionis apparens dominus aperuit discipulis sensum ut intelligerent quae de ipso scripta erant in lege et prophetis; et tunc crediderunt Scripturae prophetarum, qui praedixerunt Christum tertia die resurrecturum, et sermoni quem dixit Iesus solvite templum hoc
Origenes in Ioannem
Secundum anagogem vero, complementum fidei attingemus in magna resurrectione totius corporis Iesu, idest Ecclesiae eius; cum fides quae est ex specie, multum differat ab ea quae est per speculum in aenigmate
2:23
san Beda † 735 d.C. in loc.
The Evangelist has related above what our Lord did on his way to Jerusalem; now He relates how others were affected towards Him at Jerusalem; Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His Name, when they saw the miracles which He did.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. c. 30
But how was it that many believed on Him from seeing His miracles? for he seems to have performed no supernatural works at Jerusalem, except we suppose Scripture to have passed them over. May not however the act of His making a scourge of small cords, and driving all out of the temple, be reckoned a miracle?
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxiv. 1
Those had been wiser disciples, however, who were brought to Christ not by His miracles, but by His doctrine. For it is the duller sort who are attracted by miracles; the more rational are convinced by prophecy, or doctrine. And therefore it follows, But Jesus did not commit Himself unto them.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xi. in Joan. c. 2. 3
What meaneth this, Many believed in His Name—but Jesus did not commit Himself unto them? Was it that they did not believe in Him, but only pretended that they did? In that case the Evangelist would not have said, Many believed in His Name. Wonderful this, and strange, that men should trust Christ, and Christ trusts not Himself to men; especially considering that He was the Son of God, and suffered voluntarily, or else need not have suffered at all. Yet such are all catechumens. If we say to a catechumen, Believest thou in Christ? he answers, I do believe, and crosses himself. If we ask him, Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of man? he knows not what we sayk, for Jesus has not committed Himself to him.
Origene † 253 d.C. tom. x. c. 28
Or, it was those who believed in His Name, not on Him, to whom Jesus would not commit Himself. They believe on Him, who follow the narrow way which leadeth unto life; they believe in His Name, who only believe the miracles.
san Giovanni Crisostomo † 407 d.C. Hom. xxv. 1
Or it means that He did not place confidence in them, as perfect disciples, and did not, as if they were brethren of confirmed faith, commit to them all His doctrines, for He did not attend to their outward words, but entered into their hearts, and well knew how short-lived was their zeal1. Because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man. To know what is in man’s heart, is in the power of God alone, who fashioned the heart. He does not want witnesses, to inform Him of that mind, which was of His own fashioning.
sant'Agostino † 430 d.C. Tr. xi. c. 2
The Maker knew better what was in His own work, than the work knew what was in itself. Peter knew not what was in himself when he said, I will go with Thee unto death; (Luke 22:33. ver. 61) but our Lord’s answer shewed that He knew what was in man; Before the cock crow, thou shalt thrice deny Me.
san Beda † 735 d.C.
An admonition to us not to be confident of ourselves, but ever anxious and mistrustful; knowing that what escapes our own knowledge, cannot escape the eternal Judge.
Il testo latino
Beda
Superius Evangelista narravit quid dominus Ierusalem adveniens gesserit; nunc vero eodem Hierosolymis commorante, quid ab aliis erga eum actum fuerit refert; unde dicitur cum autem esset Hierosolymis in Pascha in die festo, multi crediderunt in nomine eius, videntes signa quae faciebat
Origenes
Respiciendum autem quomodo ex signis eius plerique videntes credebant in eum. Non enim dicitur prodigia fecisse Hierosolymis, nisi forte, cum facta sint, in Scripturis non habeantur. Animadverte vero si possibile est in miraculis deputari quod fecerit flagellum ex funiculis, et cunctos ex templo propulerit
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Prudentiores autem fuerant discipuli, qui ad Christum accesserant, non propter signa sed propter doctrinam; nam grossiores quidem per signa trahuntur, rationabiliores vero per prophetias seu doctrinam; unde subditur ipse autem Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid sibi vult hoc illi credebant in nomine eius, et ipse Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis? An forte non credebant ei, et fingebant se credidisse? Sed non diceret Evangelista multi crediderunt in nomine eius. Magna ergo res et mira. Credunt homines in Christum, et Christus non se credit hominibus, praesertim quia filius Dei est, et utique volens passus est, et si nollet, nunquam pateretur. Sed tales sunt omnes catechumeni. Si dixerimus catechumeno: credis Christo? Respondet: credo, et signat se. Si interrogemus eum: manducas carnem filii hominis? Nescit quid dicimus, quia Iesus non se credidit ei
Origenes in Ioannem
Vel dicendum, quod Iesus non se credidit credentibus in nomine eius, et non in illum. In illum enim credunt qui angustam viam vadunt ducentem ad vitam: qui autem credunt signis, non in eum, sed in nomine eius credunt
Chrysostomus
Vel hoc dicit, quia non confidebat in eis ut in discipulis perfectis, neque committebat eis omnia dogmata, ut iam firmiter fidelibus fratribus: non enim intendebat exterioribus verbis, ad mentem eorum intrans, et tempus opportunum manifeste sciens; unde sequitur eo quod ipse nosset omnes, et quia opus non erat ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine: ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine. Scire enim ea quae sunt in corde hominum, est Dei, qui solus corda plasmavit. Non indiget ergo testibus, ut propriorum plasmatum mentem addiscat
Augustinus
Plus etiam noverat artifex quid esset in opere suo, quam ipsum opus quid esset in semetipso. Nam et Petrus non noverat quid in ipso esset quando dixit: tecum ero usque ad mortem; sed dominus noverat quid esset in homine, dicens: priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis
Beda
Quapropter monemur ut nunquam de conscientia nostra securi simus, sed semper solliciti formidemus: quia quod nos latet, aeternum arbitrum latere non valet
2:1
ET DIE TERTIA FACTAE SUNT NUPTIAE IN CANA GALILAEAE; ET ERAT MATER JESU IBI. — « Die tertia, » a Christi abitu in Galilaeam et a vocatione Philippi, cap. I, vers. 43. Hoc enim ultimum est tempus a Joanne nominatum. Ita Origenes, Jansenius, Toletus et Franciscus Lucas. Aut potius « die tertia » a visitatione et conversione Andreae et Petri, cap. I, vers. 35. Illa enim die coepit Jesus colligere discipulos iisque se patefacere; inde ergo Joannes computat hic diem tertiam, quo iisdem plane se patefecit ostenditque se esse Messiam, per conversionem aquae in vinum. Haec ergo est chronotaxis horum Christi dierum. Christus baptizatus fuit a Joanne anno Christi aetatis 31, die 6 januarii, uti habet Ecclesiae et Patrum traditio. Eadem die a prandio secessit in desertum, ibique jejunavit per 40 dies. Coepit ergo jejunium die 7 januarii, finiit die 15 februarii; inde rediit in Nazareth, ibique mansit per 45 dies; mox 56 die a baptismo, ait S. Epiphanius, haeresi 51, puta die 1 martii, Judaei miserunt legatos ad Joannem Baptistam, qui rogarent an ipse esset Christus? abnuit Joannes, dixitque Jesum esse Christum, uti audivimus, cap. I, vers. 19. Inde postero die, puta 2 martii, venit Jesus ad Joannem, unde Joannes eum digito ostendens: « Ecce, inquit, agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi, » cap. I, vers. 29. Sequenti die, puta 3 martii, Joannes idem repetiit, et coram discipulis duobus testatus est: unde illi visitarunt Jesum, unusque ex eis Andreas fratrem suum Petrum ad Christum adduxit, cap. I, vers. 35. In sequenti crastino, puta die 4 martii, Jesus ivit in Galilaeam, ibique vocavit Philippum, vers. 43: fuit hoc crastinum dies secunda ab adventu Andreae et Petri ad Christum; inde die tertia, puta die 5 martii, nuptiae hae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae. Unde S. Epiphanius, loco citato, ait nuptias has factas die 60 a baptismo Christi. Porro, idem S. Epiphanius, contra reliquos Patres et communem Ecclesiae sensum, opinatur Christum baptizatum fuisse a Joanne, die 8 novembris, ac proinde inde sexagesimo die, scilicet die 6 januarii factas esse has nuptias in Cana, ibique Jesum aquam in vinum vertisse, scilicet in festo Epiphaniae, quo ante 30 annos, Magi duce stella venerant ad Christum in Bethlehem, ibique eum adorarant. Additque in memoriam tanti miraculi, etiamnum eodem die 11 mensis Tybi (quae apud nos est 6 januarii) quosdam fontes in vinum converti. Audi eum: « Quapropter etiam in multis locis usque in hunc diem, hoc fit quod tunc factum est divinum signum, in testimonium incredulis, velut testantur in multis locis fontes ac fluvii in vinum conversi: Cibyrae quidem, urbis Cariae fons, qua hora hauserunt ministri, et ipse dixit: Date architriclino. Testatur et in Gerasa Arabiae fons similiter. Nos bibimus de Cibyrae fonte; fratres vero nostri de eo qui est in Gerasa, in Martyrum templo, sed et multi in Aegypto de Nilo hoc testantur: quare in undecimo Tybi, apud Aegyptios omnes hauriunt aquam, et reponunt, tum in ipsa Aegypto, tum in multis regionibus. » Hinc nonnulli putant sequenti anno, qui fuit Christi 32, recurrente eadem die 6 januarii, nuptias hasce celebratas in Cana. Verum illas eodem anno, quo baptizatus est Christus, puta duobus mensibus a baptismo Christi, contigisse liquet ex historia gestorum Christi, quam per singulos dies (uti paulo ante ostendi) hic pertexit Joannes. Ita Baronius et alii. Additque Baronius ex Nicephoro locum hunc nuptiarum in Cana Galilaeae, a S. Helena, Constantini Magni matre, insigni ecclesia ibidem erecta fuisse decoratum et nobilitatum. Simon ergo viso hoc Christi in nuptiis suis miraculo, sponsae et mundo valedicens, secutus est Christum, ab eoque in 12 Apostolorum numerum est cooptatus; atque hac de causa Christus nuptias ejus adiit; atque eas adeundo, nuptias quidem honoravit, sed eum ab illis ad se evocando caelibatum et apostolatum nuptiis praestare declaravit. Tropologice: quomodo anima sancta per fidem, spem, castitatem, charitatem, religionem, quasi sponsa nubat Christo, fuse ostendi, II Corinth. XI, 2, ad illa: « Despondi vos uni viro Virginem castam exhibere Christo. » Ipsa ergo est nympha Christi, quae relictis omnibus mundi illecebris, amorem omnem in Christum transfert, illique caput, id est mentem sensusque omnes obnubit et velat, ut supra nubes in coelo cum eo jugiter versetur, illique se totam dedicat et consecrat. Quare illi optime conveniunt nuptiarum etyma, quae assignat Festus, dum ait: Nuptias nonnulli a Graeco dictas censent; Graeci enim novam nuptam vocant νύμφην; Cornificius, quod nova petantur conjugia; Curiatius, quod nova ratio fiat; Aelius et Cincius, quod flammeo (velo nuptiali) caput nubentis obvolvatur, quod antiqui « obnubere » vocarunt, ob quam causam legem Parentam jubere caput ejus obnubere, qui parentem necasset, quod est obvolvere. Hoc ultimum secutus Varro, lib. IV De Lingua Latina: Neptunus dicitur, inquit, quod mare terram obnubit, ut nubes coelum: a nuptu, id est opertione, ut antiqui: a quo nuptiae nuptusque. Sic S. Isidorus, lib. IX Etymolog., cap. VIII: Nupta, inquit, dicta, quod vultus suos velent, translatum nomen a nubibus (nubes), quibus tegitur coelum. Unde et nuptiae dicuntur, quod ibi primum nubentium capita velantur; obnubere enim cooperire est, cujus contraria innuba, hoc est innupta, quae adhuc vultum suum non velat. Hucusque Isidorus. Talis Christi nympha fuit S. Dympna virgo et martyr, quae ob formam a patre, Hyberniae rege, in conjugem appetita, fugiens in Brabantiam, in oppido Geel, non longe ab Antverpia, patris manu obtruncata, nobile pro castitate obiit martyrium: unde meruit ut energumeni ejus sacra lipsana visitantes, a daemonibus liberentur. Visitavi olim ejus templum, et virginem reveritus colui. Exstat Vita ejus apud Surium die 15 maii. Dices: Cur ergo Deus idem miraculum conversionis in vinum quotannis renovavit, die 6 januarii? Respondeo: Causa est, quod Ecclesia illo die istud miraculum celebrat, esto illo die non contigerit; voluit enim Ecclesia tria miracula quibus Christus se primo mundo patefecit, eodem Epiphaniae, id est apparitionis Christi, die recolere et celebrare; scilicet primo, adventum et adorationem Magorum duce stella; secundo, baptismum Christi, in quo vox Patris intonuit: « Hic est Filius meus dilectus; » tertio, conversionis aquae in vinum in Cana. E tribus hisce duo priora contigerunt eodem die, scilicet sexta januarii, tertium vero post duos menses contigit, die 6 martii, ut dixi. Quod ergo illo die canit Ecclesia: « Hodie vinum ex aqua factum est ad nuptias, » idem est ac si diceret: Hodie ejus rei memoria apud fideles recolitur et in Ecclesia publice quotannis celebratur. Ita Baronius, imo S. Augustinus, serm. 127 De Temp.; S. Maximus, serm. De Epiphania et alii. Simili modo olim in plerisque locis Occidentis, paschali tempore, quo solemne baptisma in Ecclesia peragi consuevit, e sicco aridoque fonte lapideo, copiosae ad baptismi usum aquae exundare consueverunt, non quidem ad ipsam insinuandam diem, qua baptizatus est Christus, sed quod tunc temporis solemne baptisma in Ecclesia peragi consuevit. NUPTIAE. — Syrus, convivium, scilicet nuptiale. Quaeres cujus fuerint hae nuptiae, et quis in iis fuerit sponsus. Beda, Rupertus, Lyranus, Carthusianus hic, et S. Thomas, II II, Quaest. CLXXXVI, art. IV, ac Dom. Soto, in IV, dist. 27, Quaest. I, ad 4, et alii putant sponsum fuisse S. Joannem Evangelistam, moti auctoritate S. Augustini, qui hic, praefat. in Joannem, ait: « Joannem Dominus de fluctivaga nuptiarum tempestate vocavit. » Verum dico sponsum hic non fuisse S. Joannem; nam S. Joannes semper fuit virgo, unde nunquam uxorem duxit: hac enim de causa Christo fuit charissimus, et discipulus ille quem diligebat Jesus, quasi virgo virginem, qui virginitatis propositum per matrimonium nunquam infregisset, imo nunquam infringere destinasset, sed in eo constans per omnem vitam perstiturus erat. Ita docent S. Ignatius, Hieronymus, Augustinus, Epiphanius et alii, quos citat et sequitur Baronius, anno Christi 31. Quare quod S. Augustinus ait: « Joannem Dominus de fluctivaga nuptiarum tempestate vocavit, » intellige « nuptiarum » non initarum, sed ineundarum, seu quas inire potuisset et more gentis inire debuisset, q. d. Christus Joannem juvenem advocavit ad se, ne de nuptiis ineundis cogitaret. Verisimilius ergo idem Baronius, secutus Nicephorum, lib. VIII Histor., cap. XXX, censet sponsum in hisce nuptiis fuisse Simonem Apostolum, qui a Cana hac cognominatus est Cananaeus. IN CANA GALILAEAE. — Addit to Galilaeae, ad distinctionem alterius Cana, sive Chana, quae erat sita in tribu Aser, juxta Sidonem, unde et Sidoniorum vocabatur, licet ipsa quoque esset in Galilaea, scilicet superiori, quae gentium dicebatur, de qua Josue XIX, 28, atque ejus incola fuit mulier Cananaea, cujus filiam Christus a daemone liberavit, Matth. XV, 22. Haec vero nuptiarum Cana sita erat in tribu Zabulon, in medio Galilaeae, puta in Galilaea inferiore, supra vallem Carmelon, quatuor circiter horis distans a Ptolemaide, tribus vero a Nazareth. Ita S. Hieronymus, in Locis Hebr.; Adrichomius, Franciscus Lucas, Maldonatus et alii. ET ERAT MATER JESU IBI. — « Vocata tanquam familiaris ab his qui nuptias celebrabant, » ait Euthymius: Simon enim Chananaeus, qui erat hic sponsus, fuit filius Cleophae, qui erat frater Josephi, sponsi B. Virginis, ut dixi Lucae III, 23. Josephi hic et deinceps non fit mentio, quia ipse jam obierat, ut ex hoc loco colligit S. Epiphanius, haeres. 8; Franciscus Lucas, Baronius et alii, licet ex adverso S. Cyprianus (vel quisquis est auctor), tract. De Passione Domini; et S. Ambrosius, in cap. XXIII S. Lucae, opinentur Joseph adhuc fuisse superstitem in passione Christi, ac aequanimiter tulisse S. Joannem a Christo sibi praeferri in cura B. Virginis.
2:2
2. VOCATUS EST AUTEM ET JESUS, ET DISCIPULI EJUS, AD NUPTIAS. — Tanquam consobrinus sponsi, puta Simonis Cananaei. Porro Jesus « vocatus, ait S. Chrysostomus, nuptiis adfuit, in quibus non suae dignitati, sed nostrae consuluit utilitati; » nimirum ut primo consanguineis hunc honorem deferret, eorumque nuptias sua praesentia honestaret; secundo, ut daret exemplum humilitatis, adiens pauperum nuptias; unde S. Chrysostomus: « Qui non est dedignatus, inquit, formam servi accipere, non est dedignatus ad nuptias venire servorum; » S. Augustinus, serm. 41 De Verbis Domini: « Erubescat, ait, homo esse superbus, quoniam factus est humilis Deus: ecce venit ad nuptias, qui cum apud Patrem esset, instituit nuptias; » tertio, ut in iis sponsorum paupertati et famae consuleret, convertendo aquam in vinum; quarto, ut per hoc miraculum se discipulis patefaceret, eisque se Messiam esse ostenderet; ita Cyrillus; quinto, ut nuptias approbaret, ac sua praesentia sanctificaret, itaque refelleret Encratitas et Tatianos mox futuros, qui nuptias quasi sordidum diaboli inventum damnabant. Ita S. Augustinus, serm. 41 De Temp.; Cyrillus, Euthymius, Ammonius, in Catena, et Beda, homil. in Dominica II post Epiphaniam, quem audi: « Si nuptiis debita castitate celebratis culpa inesset, non ad eas Dominus venisset: bona castitas conjugalis, melior continentia vidualis, optima perfectio virginalis. Itaque Christus ex Virgine nascitur, a prophetico viduae Annae ore benedicitur, ad nuptias invitatus venit. » ET DISCIPULI EJUS. — Quaeres, unde et qui fuere hi discipuli Jesu? nam Jesus necdum collegerat Apostolos: non enim collegit eos nisi post incarcerationem S. Joannis Baptistae, ut patet Matth. IV, 12, haec autem contigerunt ante incarcerationem Joannis, ut patebit cap. III, vers. 24. Respondeo: Verisimile est discipulos hos fuisse Nathanaelem et Philippum, forte etiam Petrum et Andream, qui, cap. I, 40, tertio ab hoc die Jesum viserant illique quasi magistro ad tempus adhaeserant: nam postea ad suam piscationem et naves redierunt; unde a Christo vocati ad apostolatum, constanter ei adhaeserunt, Matth. IV.
2:3
3. ET DEFICIENTE (Graece ὑστερήσαντος, id est cum defecisset, eo quod pauper sponsus parum vini procurasset) VINO, DICIT MATER JESU AD EUM: VINUM NON HABENT — sponsi cognati nostri; q. d. Consule ergo, o fili, eorum verecundiae, ne coram invitatis confundantur; scio enim te id posse, cum sis Dei Filius, ac hoc tuam charitatem decere aeque ac providentiam, ut hic miraculum patrando, te esse Messiam discipulis tuis et convivis omnibus ostendas. Ita S. Cyrillus, Chrysostomus et alii. Audi S. Bernardum, serm. in Dominicam primam post Octavam Epiphaniae: « Compassa est enim eorum verecundiae, sicut misericors, sicut benignissima. Quid, de fonte pietatis procederet nisi pietas? Quid, inquam, mirum, si pietatem exhibent viscera pietatis? Nonne qui pomum in manu sua tenuerit dimidia die, reliqua diei parte pomi servabit odorem? Quantum igitur viscera illa virtus pietatis affecit, in quibus novem mensibus requievit? Nam et ante mentem replevit quam ventrem, et cum processit ex utero, ab anima non recessit. » Nota modestiam Virginis; non enim postulat imperando, vel rogando: Fili, procura eis vinum; sed tantum eorum necessitatem indicat, aitque: « Vinum non habent, » non dubitans Jesum pro sua providentia et charitate illis successurum; sic quoque Martha et Magdalena, aegrotante Lazaro, miserunt ad Jesum nuntios, ut is eum sanaret, nec tamen id expresse petunt, sed tantum dicunt: « Domine, ecce quem amas infirmatur. » Amanti enim sufficit infirmitatem amati indicare: « Non enim amas et deseris, » ait S. Augustinus. Audi S. Bernardum, serm. 2 De B. Virgine: « Et iis quidem sermo certissimus index ingenitae mansuetudinis, et virginalis verecundiae fuit. Aliorum quippe verecundiam suam reputans, sustinere non potuit, non potuit vini dissimulare defectum. Ubi sane increpata est a filio (tanquam mitis et humilis corde), nec illi respondit, nec tamen desperavit, ministros admonens facere quod diceret eis. » Porro, certa fiducia impetrandi, tacite vinum hic a filio produci postulat mater, eo quod per 30 annos, quibus cum illo familiariter vixerat, ab eo intellexisset eum missum a Patre, ut per coelestem doctrinam et miracula homines ad se et ad Deum converteret; imo dubitari nequit quin Christus, valedicens matri, iturus ad baptismum Joannis, indeque orsurus suum praedicandi officium, id ipsum expresse matri significarit: quare ipsa opportunum hic tempus rata, quo Jesus per miraculum sibi jam praedicare incipienti auctoritatem et fidem conciliaret, idipsum intrepide poscit a filio, non dubitans quin Christus id facturus esset, tum ut matri et cognatis satisfaceret, tum ut sibi suaeque dignitati et officio prospiceret. Tropologice: S. Bernardus, serm. 2 in Domin. I post Octavam Epiphaniae, loquens de mysticis animae cum Deo nuptiis: « Hic, inquit, nonnunquam vinum deficit, gratia scilicet devotionis et fervor charitatis. Quoties mihi necesse est, fratres, post lacrymosas querimonias vestras, exorare matrem misericordiae, ut suggerat suo benignissimo filio, quoniam vinum non habeatis? Et ipsa, dico vobis, charissimi, si pie a nobis pulsata fuerit, non deerit necessitati nostrae, quoniam misericors est et mater misericordiae. »
2:4
4. ET DICIT EI JESUS: QUID MIHI ET TIBI EST, MULIER (q. d. Quid mihi tecum in hac re est negotii)? NONDUM VENIT HORA MEA. — Nota, B. Virgo non ex ostentatione aut intempestive, insolenter vel indiscrete petiit hoc a filio miraculum fieri, uti opinantur S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus et Euthymius; sed ex necessaria charitate et pietate: ita S. Cyrillus, Bernardus et alii: ergo in ipsa nulla fuit culpa: ergo non vera fuit Christi reprehensio; reprehendere tamen illam videtur, ut non ipsam, sed nos doceret in operibus theandricis, sive in rebus divinis et miraculis, uti parente nil habent juris et auctoritatis, ita nec eorum affectibus et desideriis, sed tantum Deo et charitati illa esse danda et exhibenda. Vide dicta Lucae II, 49 et 51. Sensus ergo est, q. d. Tu, o mater, in hac re mihi non es mater, sed quasi mulier extera, quia a te humanitatem accepi, non divinitatem, cujus ex hoc miraculum patrare, non secundum tua et cognatorum desideria, sed juxta voluntatem Dei Patris mei: juxta illam ergo illud patrabo, quando venerit tempus et hora a Deo decreta. Audi S. Augustinum hic, tract. 10: « Dicta est mulier secundum femineum sexum, non secundum corruptionem integritatis. » « Non dixit: Mater, sed: Mulier, tanquam Deus, inquit Euthymius. » « Significat, ait Beda, se divinitatem, qua miraculum erat patrandum, non temporaliter accepisse de matre, sed per aeternitatem semper habuisse de Patre, » q. d., ait Glossa Interlinearis: Quid est commune deitati meae et tibi matri secundum carnem? Non tu genuisti deitatem meam, quae facit miraculum, ait S. Augustinus. Addit S. Chrysostomus: Ita loquitur, ne suspectum esset miraculum (fictum, et ex composito simulatum); ab his enim qui indigebant, rogari oportuerat, non a matre. NONDUM VENIT HORA MEA — qua scilicet opportune hoc miraculum edam; volo enim adhuc paulisper exspectare, donec vinum omnino deficiat, idque omnes convivae sentiant et videant, ut clarius et magis pium miraculum appareat, utque omnes advertant me hoc miraculum patrasse, itaque in me credant; qui enim necessitatem non praesensit, nec beneficium magnopere sentiet. Ita S. Chrysostomus. Aliter quoque idem S. Chrysostomus et Theophylactus, q. d. Nondum venit hora mea, quia statui primum miraculum facere in Jerusalem, utpote metropoli Judaeae; sed ad preces tuas, o mater, propositum mutabo faciamque illud hic in Cana Galilaeae. Aliter quoque S. Augustinus, q. d. Nondum venit hora passionis meae, qua ostendam quid tibi et mihi sit, o mater, scilicet, me ex te veram assumpsisse naturam humanam tuumque esse filium, q. d., ait S. Augustinus: Cum infirmitas mea pendebit in cruce, cujus mater es, tunc te agnoscam: commendavit enim matrem discipulo. Non est autem quod hic Mathematici occasionem sumant erroris, quasi Christus sub fato fuerit; nec enim sub necessitate siderum est eorum conditor: in potestate habebat quando moreretur, sed ea uti nondum erat opportunum: vocandi prius erant discipuli, annuntiandum regnum coelorum, faciendae virtutes, commendanda divinitas in miraculis et humilitas in passione mortalitatis: ubi vero tantum fecit, quantum sufficere judicavit, venit hora non necessitatis, sed voluntatis; non conditionis, sed potestatis. Haec S. Augustinus fuse, ideoque ejus verba plura in pauca contraxi. Verum haec symbolica et mystica sunt, non litteralia.
2:5
5. DICIT MATER EJUS MINISTRIS: QUODCUMQUE DIXERIT VOBIS, FACITE. — Tacet modeste mater, jureque cedit filio, utpote Dei Filio; alioqui enim, ait S. Bernardus, dicenti: « Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? » vere respondere potuisset: « Quid matri est et filio? » Nam, ut ait Interlinearis et alii, etsi negare videtur filius, scit mater pietatem ejus, et ideo fiducialiter imperat ministris. Et S. Gaudentius Brixianus in haec verba: « Non mandaret, ait, mater: Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite, nisi Spiritu Sancto post partum plena, faciendi a Christo vini ex aqua universum ordinem praevidisset. » Sic et Eucherius ac Beda. Inde S. Bernardus, homil. 2 in haec verba: « Manifeste, inquit, jam video, quod non velut indignans, aut confundere volens Virginis matris teneram verecundiam, dixerit: quia mihi et tibi? sed propter nos, ut conversos ad Dominum jam non sollicitet carnalium cura parentum. » Nam Christus mox obsequens matri, ut illam honoraret, miraculum patravit. Audi S. Chrysostomum: « Et licet ita responderit, maternis tamen precibus obtemperavit, etc., ut matri honorem exhiberet, et non contumax videretur matri, neve genitricem tam multis praesentibus pudore afficeret. » Et Cyrillum: « Quartus honor debeatur parentibus ostendit, cum statim ad actum propter matrem accessit. » Et Euthymium: « Nam quod eam plurimum honoraret, et ex aliis multis manifestum est, et ex eo quod ipsius complevit exhortationem. » Porro, in his Virginis matris verbis, mira elucet ejus mansuetudo, pietas, charitas, prudentia, fiducia, constantia animique magnitudo.
2:6
6. ERANT AUTEM IBI LAPIDEAE HYDRIAE SEX POSITAE SECUNDUM PURIFICATIONEM JUDAEORUM, CAPIENTES SINGULAE METRETAS BINAS VEL TERNAS. — « Hydriae, » Varro, lib. IV De Lingua Latina, interpretatur aquales (hydor enim est aqua), id est vasa aquaria ad continendam aquam: hydriis ergo hic usus est Christus, ut clarius constaret nil in eis fuisse vini, ac consequenter clarior esset aquae in vinum conversio, in hydriis sive vasis aquariis mox ab ipso facienda. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Theophylactus et alii. SECUNDUM PURIFICATIONEM JUDAEORUM — qua Pharisaei, juxta traditiones suas, inter epulas saepe religionis causa manus lavabant; ut si quid immundum in mensa tetigissent, aqua ex hydriis sumpta se expiarent et purificarent. Vide dicta Marci VII, 3. Tropologice: S. Bernardus, serm. 1 in Domin. 1 post Octavam Epiphaniae: Sex hydriae purificatoriae, inquit, sunt sex virtutes animam purificantes. Audi eum illas enarrantem: « Prima hydria et prima purgatio in compunctione est, de qua legimus: Quoniam in quacumque hora ingemuerit peccator, omnium iniquitatum ejus non recordabor. Secunda vero, confessio est. Omnia enim in confessione lavantur. Tertia, eleemosynarum largitio. Hinc enim habes in Evangelio: Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis. Quarta, remissio injuriarum, secundum quod orantes dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Quinta est afflictio corporis, unde et oramus, ut mundi per abstinentiam Deo canamus gloriam. Sexta est obedientia praeceptorum, sicut audierunt discipuli, quod utinam audire mereamur et nos: Vos mundi estis propter sermonem, quem locutus sum vobis. Nimirum quia non erant sicut hi quibus dicitur: Sermo meus non capit in vobis; sed in auditu verbi obaudierant ei. » Reliqua deinde ita explicat et applicat: « Aqua replentur, ut in timore Dei custodiantur, quoniam timor Domini fons vitae; aqua, inquam, timor Domini est, etsi minus sapida, sed optime refrigerans animam noxiis desideriis aestuantem. » Et paucis interjectis: « Sed divina virtute aquae mutantur in vinum, quando perfecta charitas foras mittit timorem; dicuntur autem lapideae hydriae, non tam propter duritiam, quam stabilitatem; capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. Duae metretae duplex timor, ne forte trudi in gehennam, ne forte ab aeterna vita contingat excludi. » CAPIENTES SINGULAE METRETAS BINAS VEL TERNAS. — Metreta graece idem est quod mensura, ita dicta apo tou metresai, id est a metiendo. Metreta aequalis est Hebraeo ephi sive bato, continens congios decem, ait Dioscorus, lib. V; vel, ut S. Epiphanius, lib. De Ponde. et mensuris, duodecim: congius autem sex continet sextarios, foliettas octo. Breviter Jansenius ex Roberto Cenali, qui post Budaeum accuratius de mensuris scripsit: Metreta, inquit, continet 72 sextarios Atticos, id est libras mensurales 108, hoc est Parisinos quartarios 12 et paulo amplius, hoc est pocula Belgica (vulgo potten) duodecim. Verum adverte hic sextarium fuisse triplicem, scilicet Romanum, qui continebat 20 uncias aquae vel vini; Atticum, qui 15, et Hebraeum, qui 13 duntaxat uncias continebat, idemque erat quod Hebraeum log. Hic autem Hebraeus accipiendus videtur. Quare metreta continens 72 sextarios 13 unciarum, continebat 72 libras et totidem uncias (libram enim accipio vulgarem 12 unciarum), quae unciae efficient sex libras, ut universim fiant 78 librae. Quare metreta continebat boccales italicos 13 et foliettas duas. Unum enim boccale continet 4 libras et 4 uncias, id est uncias 64. Folietta vero est quarta pars boccalis, continens uncias 16. Quare hydriae, quae vulgo ostenduntur, quasi reliquiae nuptiarum in Cana Galilaeae, videntur supposititiae; sunt enim metretis jam dictis minores, et facile portatiles. Vide quae de mensuris annotavi in fine Pentateuchi. Hydria ergo continens duas metretas, continebat 27 boccales. Sex ergo hydriae continebant 162 boccales: tantum ergo vini ex aqua hic effecit Christus; sin hydriae tres metretas continebant, quaelibet hydria continebat 40 boccales et duas foliettas: quare sex hydriae continebant 240 boccales cum 12 foliettis, puta pene integram vini bottam; botta enim Romana continet boccales 256. Sic ergo pene bottam vini hic in instanti produxit Christus. Denique Franciscus Lucas: Metreta, inquit, idem erat Graecis quod Hebraeis bath, sive batus. Bath autem continet sex hin, hin 12 log, log sex ova gallinacea communia: quare bath, sive metreta, capit ova 432.
2:7
7. DICIT EIS JESUS: IMPLETE HYDRIAS AQUA, ET IMPLEVERUNT EAS USQUE AD SUMMUM. — Quaerit S. Chrysostomus: « Sed cur ipse (Christus) hydrias aqua non implevit, deinde in vinum vertit, sed ministris implendas mandavit? » Respondet recte ut miraculi ipsos testes haberet, qui aquam hausissent, ne qua fraus, ne quod praestigium putaretur. AD SUMMUM — ne, si quid vacui mansisset, Christus aquae vinum potens superfudisse putaretur, quod aquae subjectae vini saporem communicaret, ac consequenter non mutasse aquam in vinum.
2:8
8. ET DICIT EIS JESUS: HAURITE NUNC, ET FERTE ARCHITRICLINO. ET TULERUNT. — « Haurite, » q. d. Ex hydriis magnis haurite, et promite in poculis minoribus, quae portatilia sunt, ac ferte ad architriclinum, ut is, qualis sit hic potus, quale, inquam, et quam praestans vinum, dijudicet. Haec enim dicens Christus, subito omnipotenti sua vi, totam aquam sex hydriarum in vinum convertit. Audi Nonnum: « Subito factum est miraculum, et versicolor aqua mutavit fluore rubescente colorem niveum in liquorem vini nigri. » « Quid enim, ait Cyrillus, omnipotenti Deo difficile, aut quomodo qui a nihilo ad esse res omnes provocat, non multo facilius unum ad aliud permutabit atque traducet? » « Sed cur, interrogat Chrysostomus, antequam implerentur, ex nihilo non fecit miraculum, quod longe fuisset admirabilius? » Respondet: « Hoc profecto mirabilius, non tamen ita credibile, et quod tam facile potuisset multitudini persuaderi: hac de causa miraculorum magnitudinem nonnunquam consulto imminuit, ut facilius crederentur. » Ex hac conversione aquae in vinum, Patres probant conversionem panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi in Eucharistia, adduntque majus videri miraculum, quod Christus aquam in vinum, quam quod vinum in sanguinem converterit; vinum enim propinquius est sanguini, quam sit aqua vino. Ita S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, catechesi 4 Mystag.; S. Cyprianus, in epist. Contra Aquarios; S. Irenaeus, lib. III, cap. XI, et Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. I, epist. 393. Qui quaerens cur Christus hoc miraculum voluerit esse primum? Respondet mystice, ut quod legi deerat, suppleret: « Quoniam namque, inquit, illa in aquis duntaxat baptizabat, ipse suo cruore sacram initiationem perfecit, utrumque in seipso miscens, ac legem cum gratia copulans; » aqua enim symbolum fuit legis veteris, quae omnia per aquam purificabat, sed purificatione corporali duntaxat. Vinum vero symbolum est sanguinis Christi, qui in cruce fusus animas expiat; Christus enim vinum in sanguinem suum convertit in Eucharistia. Christus ergo initio suae praedicationis mutans aquam in vinum, significabat se legem Mosaicam, instar aquae insipidam et frigidam, conversurum in Evangelium gratiae, quae instar vini est generosa, sapida, ardens et efficax. ARCHITRICLINO. — S. Gaudentius (et ex eo Baronius, qui asserit hanc esse traditionem): Nuptiae, ait, cum fierent apud Judaeos, unus e sacerdotibus dabatur, qui morem disciplinae legitimae gubernaret, curamque pudoris ageret conjugalis, simul et convivii apparatum, ministros atque ordinem dispensaret: inde Architriclinus, id est triclinii, sive mensarum et convivii praefectus dicebatur, qui apud Gentiles Modimperator vocabatur, de quo multa dixi Eccli, cap. XXXII, vers. 1. Unde non mirum huic honestati, adeoque honesto nuptiarum convivio Christum et B. Virginem interfuisse. Jubet ergo Christus aquam in vinum a se conversam ferri architriclino, quia is ex officio et sollicitudine magis sobrius erat, aeque ac saporum vinorumque magis peritus, ideoque optime de hoc vino ejusque bonitate et excellentia judicare poterat, et miraculum hoc Christi apud omnes celebrare. Ita S. Chrysostomus et Theophylactus. ET TULERUNT — liquorem ex hydriis in scypho haustum, quem jam in vinum esse conversum suspicabantur ex odore et colore. Verisimile est enim Christum aquam in vinum rubrum convertisse, tum quia in Palaestina non nisi vini rubri est usus; tum quia id asserit Nonnus, Franciscus Lucas et alii; tum ut clarius appareret vere aquam in vinum esse conversam. « Tulerunt » ergo gaudentes se ad tantum miraculum Christi assecutos et cooperatos esse; non parum enim ad hoc miraculum contulit, ipsorum promptum in haurienda aqua ministerium et obedientia.
2:9
9. UT AUTEM GUSTAVIT ARCHITRICLINUS AQUAM VINUM FACTAM (id est vinum in quod aqua erat conversa), ET NON SCIEBAT UNDE ESSET, MINISTRI AUTEM SCIEBANT, QUI HAUSERANT AQUAM, VOCAT SPONSUM ARCHITRICLINUS, 10. ET DICIT EI: OMNIS HOMO PRIMUM BONUM VINUM PONIT; ET CUM INEBRIATI FUERINT, TUNC ID QUOD DETERIUS EST: TU AUTEM SERVASTI BONUM VINUM USQUE ADHUC. — « Gustavit: » non credidit omnino odori et colori rubro esse vinum; sed insuper gustavit, ac deprehendit optimum et praestantissimum esse hoc vinum; gustus enim certius de vino judicat, quam visus vel odoratus.
2:10
ET CUM INEBRIATI FUERINT (id est exhilarati). — Ebrietas enim saepe in Scriptura vocatur liberalior potus mentem exhilarans, sed rationis usu eam non privans: si enim convivae hi vere fuissent ebrii, utique Jesus eis aquam in vinum non mutasset; fovisset enim et auxisset eorum ebrietatem; sed potius potioni finem imposuisset, eosque domum amandasset. Idem fecisset beata Virgo. TUNC ID QUOD DETERIUS. — Ratio est, quod stomachus vino refertus, minus recte judicat de vino, sed qualecumque vinum, esto deterius sit, judicat esse bonum, et priori simile, quia ipsum sapit et eructat; ipso enim est plenus. Hic est typus fallacis mundi, qui initio res speciosas oculis objicit, deinde sub iis deteriores et viles inducit, itaque sui amatores decipit et illudit. TU AUTEM SERVASTI BONUM VINUM USQUE ADHUC. — Hinc liquet praestans fuisse hoc vinum, utpote opus Christi et divinum; Dei enim perfecta sunt opera. Sic panes a Christo multiplicati ad alendum quatuor hominum millia, fuere sapidissimi instar manna. « Ejusmodi enim sunt Christi miracula, ait Chrysostomus, ut quae natura perfecta sunt, longe pulchriora melioraque reddantur, ita et in aliis distortum membrum quod sanabat, validius reddebat. » Omnia haec concinne acta et ordinata fuere a Christo, ut testatius et celebrius foret miraculum. Architriclinus enim vocavit sponsum, sciscitans unde esset hoc vinum? Ille se nihil de eo scire respondit: quare a ministris rei seriem intelligentes, adierunt hydrias, atque omnes eodem vino praestanti plenas repererunt: quare in Jesu auctoris et benefactoris sui laudes erumpentes, ipsi ingentes egere gratias, ac miraculum convivis omnibus enarrarunt et celebrarunt. Jesus vanam gloriam fugiens recessit, prius monens ut vino hoc moderate uterentur, ad Dei laudem et gratiarum actionem. Addit Franciscus Lucas: Singuli stupore et gaudio pleni aliquid ex vino illo ex aqua facto, etiam secum in vasculis domum auferre contenderunt, quod vel darent aliis quoque gustandum, vel ad longam servarent memoriam.
2:11
11. HOC FECIT INITIUM SIGNORUM JESUS IN CANA GALILAEAE; ET MANIFESTAVIT GLORIAM SUAM (suam omnipotentiam et divinitatem), ET CREDIDERUNT IN EUM (id est credere perrexerunt, in fide ejus confirmati sunt) DISCIPULI EJUS — quinque superius nominati, scilicet Andreas cum socio, Petrus, Philippus et Nathanael. INITIUM. — Hinc passim Patres et interpretes docent hoc miraculum fuisse absolute primum, quod Christus publice fecit, ad fidem praedicationi suae faciendam. Hinc ergo refellitur liber De Infantia Salvatoris, quem damnat Gelasius Pontifex, quasi ab haereticis confictum, in quo narratur Christum, dum puer esset, publice miracula patrasse; nil tamen vetat, ait Maldonatus, si eum privata subinde fecisse concedamus, ac per miraculum subinde inopiae parentum succurrisse fateamur: unde iis animata fuisse videtur mater, ut simile hic a Christo miraculum fieri peteret, et constanter idipsum ab eo exspectaret. Verum poterat Christus succurrere necessitati matris, peculiari aliqua providentia, citra miraculum. Hinc collige hoc miraculum mox a baptismo Christi contigisse: nam post baptismum statim coepit praedicare et doctrinam suam miraculis confirmare, uti superius ostendi. Quaeres, cur Christus voluit primum hoc suum esse miraculum? Respondeo: Quia maxime congruum erat illud loco, tempori et personis. Per hoc enim statim innotuit omnibus suis cognatis, civibus et Galilaeis. Vinum enim est potus nobilissimus, qui Deum et homines laetificat, Judic. cap. IX, 13. Unde Noe statim a diluvio vinum adinvenit fuitque typus Christi hic vinum efformantis, Genes. IX. Vide quae de vini commodis dixi Eccli. cap. XXXI, vers. 33 et seqq. Rursum Christus hoc miraculo ostendit se esse qui, ut ait S. Augustinus, « omni anno hoc facit in vitibus, » dum in eis succum aqueum in vinum convertit. « Hoc ergo miraculo, ait S. Chrysostomus, manifeste ostendit se eum esse, qui in vitibus aquam transmutavit, et qui pluviam per vitis radicem in vinum vertit, cum quod in planta longiori temporis spatio efficitur, id repente in nuptiis operatus est. » Quid enim aliud est vinum, nisi aqua in vite radiis solis percocta? Symbolica causa est, quod vinum aptissimum sit symbolum gratiae, charitatis, devotionis, fervoris, fortitudinis, quas suis suggerit Christus. Unde S. Bernardus, in Sententiis: « Triforme, ait, vinum est in scypho Dei, rubicundum in longanimitate Sanctorum, quod laetificat Isaac in aegritudine; album in remuneratione justorum, quo inebriatur Noe; nigrum et acidum in damnatione pravorum, quod Jesus gustat, sed non vult bibere. » Allegorica causa fuit, quod hae nuptiae repraesentabant connubium Christi cum humana natura, factum in incarnatione Christi: unde hoc quoque factum est tertio die, id est tertio mundi statu; primus enim status fuit in lege naturae, secundus in lege Mosis, tertius in lege Christi. Idipsum pariter factum est in Galilaea Gentium, quia Christus ad illud vocat omnes Gentes. Item in Cana Galilaeae, hoc est in possessionis transmigratione, id est in populo Christiano, qui est possessio Christi, ejus sanguine empta, ideoque e terra in coelum transmigrat. Hic Christus dat vinum, id est Evangelicam doctrinam et gratiam, quae mentem fidelis laetificat et inebriat; item vinum in sanguinem Christi conversum in Eucharistia, de quo Zacharias, cap. IX, vers. ultim.: « Quid, inquit, bonum ejus est, et quid pulchrum ejus, nisi frumentum electorum, et vinum germinans virgines? » Ubi multa dixi de hoc vino. Tropologica causa fuit, ut per hasce nuptias et vinum significaret conjunctionem et quasi connubium animae nostrae, per gratiam et charitatem, cum Christo et Deo. Haec enim fit in Cana Galilaeae, id est in possessione istius mundi, ex quo in coelum assidue transmigramus. Adest mater Jesu, id est virginalis castitas, et discipulorum Christi simplicitas et fides in Jesum, qui, cum humiliter agnoverimus vinum devotionis et fervoris nobis deficere, illudque ab eo flagitaverimus, ipse aquam, quae est in sex hydriis, id est omnem animae nostrae virium dissolutionem et mollitiem convertet in vinum sapidum coelestis gratiae, quo non tantum nos, sed et alios recreemus, inebriemus, ac amore Dei incalescere faciamus. Anagogice, nuptiae agni perficientur in coelo, ubi Christus dabit nobis vinum novum et nectar divinum. Tunc enim inebriabimur ab ubertate domus Dei, et torrente voluptatis suae potabit nos. Vide dicta Apoc., I, 19 et seq.
2:12
12. POST HOC DESCENDIT CAPHARNAUM IPSE, ET MATER EJUS, ET FRATRES EJUS, ET DISCIPULI EJUS, ET IBI MANSERUNT NON MULTIS DIEBUS. — Peractis nuptiis in Cana, Jesus cum matre et suis rediit domum, puta in Nazareth, quae quia altiori loco sita erat, hinc Jesus ex illa proficiscens Capharnaum, quae urbs erat loco decliviore ad mare Galilaeae, dicitur eo descendisse. Causa descensus fuit, quod Jesus nollet in Nazareth, utpote urbe ignobili et exili, ubi a suis civibus quasi faber et fabri filius contemnebatur, praedicationis et doctrinae suae sedem constituere, sed ad hoc destinabat Capharnaum, utpote urbem ob mare et merces celebrem, et populis frequentem, ut ad plures praedicationis suae fructus dimanaret, uti patet Matth., IV, 13. Porro hic descensus, et hoc iter Christi contigit ante incarcerationem Joannis Baptistae, ut clare colligitur ex cap. III, 24, et cap. IV, 1, alius ergo fuit hic Christi descensus, ab illo de quo agit Matth. IV, 13. Ille enim contigit post incarcerationem Joannis, cum Christus de facto habitationem suam transtulit Capharnaum, ibique publicam suae doctrinae et praedicationis scholam aperuit. Hic vero eamdem duntaxat praeparare, et quasi inchoare coepit, ut pluribus innotesceret, pluresque discipulos colligeret. Fuit ergo hic obiter, et quasi in transitu, ut scilicet inde pergeret Hierosolymam, ad instans Pascha celebrandum. Ita Jansenius. ET FRATRES EJUS — id est cognati et consobrini Christi, puta Jacobus Minor, Joseph, Simon et Judas, Matth. XIII, 55. Item Joannes et Jacobus Major: hos enim avide verba sua coelestia audientes, paulo post in discipulos, ac tandem in Apostolos elegit.
2:13
13. ET PROPE ERAT PASCHA JUDAEORUM, ET ASCENDIT JESUS HIEROSOLYMAM. — Fuit hoc primum Pascha, tertio mense Nisan, sive martio, post Christi baptismum, qui contigit die 6 januarii.
2:14
14. ET INVENIT IN TEMPLO VENDENTES BOVES ET OVES, ET COLUMBAS, ET NUMULARIOS SEDENTES.
2:15
15. ET CUM FECISSET QUASI FLAGELLUM DE FUNICULIS, OMNES EJECIT DE TEMPLO, OVES QUOQUE ET BOVES, ET NUMULARIORUM EFFUDIT AES, ET MENSAS SUBVERTIT.
2:16
16. ET HIS QUI COLUMBAS VENDEBANT, DIXIT: AUFERTE ISTA HINC, ET NOLITE FACERE DOMUM PATRIS MEI, DOMUM NEGOTIATIONIS. — Haec omnia explicui, Matth. XXI, 12. Tantum nota aliam esse hanc ejectionem vendentium e templo, ab illa de qua agit Matth. XXI: illa enim contigit paulo ante passionem Christi, haec vero initio praedicationis ejusdem; hanc enim pie et recte, et ordine congruo, Christus a religione et domo Dei ordiri voluit, ex ea ejiciendo vendentes illam profanantes. Idem Christi exemplo faciat visitator, reformator et concionator Apostolicus.
2:17
17. RECORDATI SUNT VERO DISCIPULI EJUS, QUIA SCRIPTUM EST (Psal. LXVIII, 10): ZELUS DOMUS TUAE COMEDIT ME. — Zelus hic fuit justa Christi indignatio, ait Euthymius, aut potius ardor et aestus animi, ad amoliendum ea quae Deum (quem summe amabat) Deique honorem offendebant, qui proinde iram et indignationem, quasi cotem assumpsit, ut eo se acueret, et audacter se, suam vitam et famam, pro tuendo Dei honore exponeret. Hoc enim fecit Christus hic coram avaris et superbis Scribis et Pharisaeis sibi aversantibus. Sensus ergo est, q. d. « Zelus, » id est fervor ardensque studium procurandae gloriae templi tui, in quo tu, o Domine, quasi in domo tua habitas; atque indignatio, quam in vendentes, qui illud profanant et pessumdant, concepi, « comedit me, » id est absorbuit me; Symmachus: consumpsit, exedit me, sicut ignis ferrum, ignis illud consumit et in se transmutat, ut jam non ferrum, sed merus ignis esse videatur. Quaerit S. Augustinus: « Quis comeditur zelo domus Dei? » ac respondet: « Qui omnia, quae forte ibi videt perversa, satagit emendare; non quiescit si emendare non potest, tolerat, gemit, et apud se dicit: Tabescere me fecit zelus meus, quia obliti sunt verba tua inimici mei, » Psal. CXVIII, 139. Unde Beda hic: « Zelemus et nos, fratres, inquit, domum Dei; si viderimus fratrem, qui ad domum Dei pertinet, superbiae tumidum, detractionibus assuetum; si ebrietati servientem, si luxuria enervatum, si iracundia turbidum, si alii cuiquam vitio substratum, studeamus, in quantum facultas suppetit, castigare, polluta ac perversa corrigere: et si quid de talibus emendare nequimus, non sine acerrimo mentis sustinere dolore, et maxime in ipsa domo orationis, ubi corpus Dei consecratur, ubi angelorum praesentia semper adesse non dubitatur, ne quid ineptum fiat, ne quid nostram fraternamve orationem impediat, totis viribus agamus. » Plura de zelo dixi Deuter. XXXII, 10, et Eccli. XLVIII, 4; ad illa: « Surrexit Elias quasi ignis, et verbum ipsius quasi facula ardebat. » Elias enim zelans pro Deo, fuit typus Christi zelantis pro domo Dei. Vide et quae de zelo Pauli dixi, prooemio in Acta Apostolorum, num. 99 et alibi.
2:18
18. RESPONDERUNT ERGO JUDAEI, ET DIXERUNT EI: QUOD SIGNUM OSTENDIS NOBIS, QUIA (quod) HAEC FACIS? — q. d. Quod miraculum profers, quo ostendas te vendentes praeter morem ejicere e templo, auctoritate accepta a Deo? nam ab homine, v. g. a pontifice, vel a praeside te nullam habere scimus. Insinuaverat enim Christus se a Deo missum, imo se esse Dei Filium, nam dixerat vers. 16: « Nolite facere domum Patris mei domum negotiationis. » Petunt ergo ut ipse miraculo probet se esse Dei Patris Filium, et Messiam; sicut Moses signa et prodigia de coelo ostendit, ait Rupertus, quibus Pharaoni et Aegyptiis demonstravit se a Deo mitti, ad educendum Hebraeos. JUDAEI — scilicet ementes et vendentes, quos e templo ejecerat, eorumque fautores et amici, vel patroni, praesertim sacerdotes et Scribae; hos enim pungebat et urebat Christi animositas, quod ab eo et lucris suis privati, et publica ignominia notati forent.
2:19
19. RESPONDIT JESUS, ET DIXIT EIS: SOLVITE TEMPLUM HOC, ET IN TRIBUS DIEBUS EXCITABO ILLUD. — Apposite auctoritatem suam in templum probat, per potestatem suam reaedificandi templum. TEMPLUM HOC — puta corpus meum, quod Christus hic manu ad pectus admota demonstrabat. Ubi nota, corpus Christi vocari templum, quia in eo inhabitabat plenitudo divinitatis, non tantum per gratiam, ut inhabitat in nobis, sed corporaliter et personaliter, Coloss. II, 9. Ita Cyrillus, q. d. Vos, o Judaei increduli, petitis a me signum sive miraculum, en ego vobis illud assigno; nimirum meam a morte resurrectionem, quod quidem vobis, quia increduli estis, obscurum nunc est, sed illud paulo post intelligetis, vel facile intelligere poteritis, cum me videbitis die tertia resurgere: inde enim cognoscetis, quis, qualis et quantus ego fuerim; nimirum me fuisse dominum corporis mei, ut illud ad libitum mori sinam et rursum vivificem; ac consequenter me multo magis templi hujus esse dominum, utpote quod corporis mei sit typus et umbra, ac proinde potestatem me habere vos vendentes et ementes ex illo ejiciendi. Ita Beda. Porro, Christus corpus suum potius vocat « templum, » quam aliud quippiam, quia lis haec in templo et de templo agebatur, eo quod ex illo vendentes ejecisset, q. d. Ut sciatis, o Judaei, me dominum esse templi, « solvite, » id est permitto ut solvatis, ac scio reipsa vos soluturos templum corporis mei, cum me crucifigetis et occidetis, et ego intra tres dies, propria virtute, ait Cyrillus, resuscitabo illud, quasi dominus illius, ac multo magis templi vestri materialis et inanimis, quod tantum figura est templi animati et divini, puta corporis mei. « Solvite, » dixit, ait Euthymius, non adhortans eos ad suam interfectionem; sed quia cognovit quod facturi erant, figurativo sermone praedixit: solvite ergo, sive in terram subvertite, ab anima separate, et conjunctionem, quae cum illa est, dissolvite. » Ita Euthymius.
2:20
20. DIXERUNT ERGO JUDAEI: QUADRAGINTA ET SEX ANNIS AEDIFICATUM EST TEMPLUM HOC, ET TU IN TRIBUS DIEBUS EXCITABIS ILLUD? — Nota: ter aedificatum fuit templum Judaeorum: primo, a Salomone, per septem annos, III Reg. VI, 1. De hoc non agitur hic, tum quia fuit perfectum annis septem, non 46; tum quia jam pridem combustum et funditus eversum fuit a Chaldaeis, quare a Christo hic designari non potuit. Secundo, post reditum e captivitate Babylonica templum a Chaldaeis combustum, reaedificatum fuit a Zorobabele et sociis, anno primo Cyri, regis Persarum, usque ad annum sextum Darii Hystaspis, I Esdrae III, 6, quod spatium multi putant fuisse 46 annorum, de iisque hic loqui Judaeos. Ita S. Chrysostomus, Beda, Theophylactus, Euthymius, Eucherius, Toletus, Jansenius, Maldonatus hic, et Eusebius, in Chronicon, qui annos 46 sic computant. Cyrus regnavit annos 30, Cambyses, ejus filius et successor, annos novem, Magi annum unum, quibus successit Darius Hystaspis, cujus anno sexto perfectum fuit templum: adde omnes hos annos, et invenies 46. Verum hic computus errat; nam annus primus Cyri, quo ipse Judaeis dedit facultatem reaedificandi templum, intelligitur non regni, quo scilicet ipse coepit regnare in Perside, regnavitque deinde per 30 annos; sed monarchiae, quo scilicet ipse, capta Babylone et occiso Balthazare, monarchiam a Babyloniis transtulit ad se et Persas, ac simul Judaeos in Babylone captivos liberavit liberosque in Judaeam remisit, data simul potestate reaedificandi templi. Quae omnia fecit Cyrus anno 27 regni sui, qui fuit primus monarchiae ejus, quae tantum tres annos duravit; nam Cyrus tres tantum annos regnavit ut monarcha; tertio enim anno occisus est a Temyri, regina Scytharum. Id ita esse ostendi I Esdrae III, 6; quare ab anno primo Cyri, quo coepit fabrica templi, usque ad sextum Darii, quo finita est, non fluxere 46 anni, sed 15 duntaxat: Cyrus enim tres annos regnavit ut monarcha, huic successit filius Cambyses, qui post Cyrum patrem sex duntaxat annis regnavit, deinde Magi per septem menses, denique Darius Hystaspis, cujus anno sexto consummatum fuit templum. Adde omnes hos annos, et invenies quindecim duntaxat. Fieri tamen potuit, ut Judaei chronologiae profanae ignari, computarint hic non 15, sed 46 annos; quia scilicet computabant annos 30 regni Cyri, non tres monarchiae duntaxat: eodem errarint tam multi Interpretes eruditi, Graeci et Latini, quos paulo ante citavi. Potuerunt ergo Judaei hic annos 46 tribuere fabricae templi Zorobabelis, et de eo hic loqui. Tertio, templum hoc reaedificatum fuit ab Herode Ascalonita, qui infantes occidit in Bethlehem, ac ut regnum Judaeae sibi suisque posteris assecuraret et a Judaeis haberetur verus Messias, templum eis novum erexit. Et de eo hic loqui Judaeos valde est verisimile, ex pronomine hoc, quod praesens demonstrat templum, cum duo priora jam pridem essent quasi diruta, ut demonstrari non possent. Coepit autem Herodes hanc suam tertii templi fabricam, anno regni sui 18, tunc enim suam de aedificando templo voluntatem indicavit, teste Josepho, lib. XV Antiq., cap. XIV. Quare cum Christus natus sit sub annum regni Herodis 35, uti ostendi Lucae II, 1, sequitur a coepto hoc tertio Herodis templo usque ad nativitatem Christi fluxisse 16 annos, quibus adde annos 30 vitae Christi, habebis 46, quos quaerimus: anno enim 30, quo Christus baptizatus est, haec Christi cum Judaeis disputatio contigit, initio praedicationis suae. Ita Baronius, anno Christi 31. Dices: Josephus loco citato asserit Herodem octo annis perfecisse templi fabricam, ubi ergo sunt 46 anni? Respondeo, Herodem octo annis perfecisse templum, quoad primarias templi partes, scilicet Sanctum, et Sanctum Sanctorum; tamen multis deinde annis in eodem expoliendo per se et posteros suos laborasse, usque ad annum Christi 30, nam in exstruendis atriis, porticibus omnique ejus ornatu intrinseco et extrinseco, tamdiu laborarunt octodecim hominum millia, teste eodem Josepho, lib. XX Antiq., VIII. Sensus ergo est, q. d. Per 46 annos in hoc templo erigendo et ornando laborarunt, et etiamnum laborant octodecim hominum millia; et tu solus tantumdem spatio tridui efficies? Denique nonnulli censent Judaeos loqui de utroque templo, scilicet Zorobabelis et Herodis; hoc enim tam duplex, quam simplex, sive unum idemque fuit templum: Herodes enim non tam novum templum exstruxit quam vetus Zorobabelis ornavit; partem enim ejus deposuit duntaxat, ut altius, augustius et ornatius erigeret, uti ex Hegesippo et aliis nervose probat Vilalpandus, lib. V De Templo, disput. 4, cap. LXVIII et LXIX, idemque ego multis ostendi Aggaei II, vers. 10. Templum ergo a Zorobabele 15 annis aedificatum, postea per plures annos auctum et ornatum fuit a Machabaeis, a Simone, Oniae filio Pontifice, Eccli. L, 1, et ab Herode, quorum annos omnes si computes, facile reperies 46. Ita Arias et Franciscus Lucas hic, ac noster Gaspar Sanchez, Zachar. I, 12. Sic Basilica S. Petri Romae nova (veteri Constantini Magni diruta) aedificata est per centum annos, ac etiamnum in ea continuo aedificari videmus, nunc turres, nunc altaria, nunc sacella, nunc columnas, nunc testitudinem, nunc incrustationem, etc. Symbolice, 46 anni fabricae templi significant totidem diebus fabricatum esse corpus Christi. Audi S. Augustinum, lib. XIV De Trinit., cap. V: « Numerus hic perfectioni corporis Christi congruit; quadragesies enim sexies seni, fiunt ducenta septuaginta sex, scilicet novem menses et sex dies; tanto autem tempore perfectio corporis Christi ad partum perducta; conceptus enim VIII kalendas aprilis, quo et passus, natus VIII kalendas januarii. » Idem, lib. LXXXIII, Quaest. LVI: « Dicitur conceptio humana sex primis diebus lactis habere similitudinem, sequentibus novem converti in sanguinem, deinde duodecim solidari, reliquis octodecim perfecte formari, deinde usque ad partum augeri, qui numerus facit quadraginta quinque, addito uno (quod significat summam) quadraginta sex: quae multiplicata per senarium, qui est hujus ordinationis caput, fiunt ducenti septuaginta sex; itaque quot anni fuerunt in fabricatione templi, tot fuerunt in perfectione corporis Domini. » Idem, in Joan. hic tract. 10: « Christus de Adam corpus accepit; Graece autem anatole est Oriens, dysis Occidens, arktos Septentrio, mesembria Meridies, quorum primae litterae faciunt nomen ADAM, nempe a quatuor ventis colligendi electi, cum venerit Dominus ad judicium. Habent et litterae nominis Adam numerum quadraginta sex, secundum Graecos; a enim notat unum, d quatuor, rursum a unum, et m quadraginta: ita fiunt quadraginta sex. » Eadem habet Beda, S. Cyprianus (vel quisquis est auctor), tract. De Sion et Sina; Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. VI Strom., et alii. Tropologice: anima fabricat sibi templum virtutis et perfectionis, servando quatuor Evangelia et decalogum (quater enim ducta in 10 faciunt 40, qui est numerus solidus, virtutis solidae et perfectae index) per senarium hujus hebdomadae, id est vitae.
2:21
21. ILLE AUTEM DICEBAT DE TEMPLO CORPORIS SUI. — Quaerit S. Chrysostomus: « Quare dubitantibus non aperuit se templum carnem suam appellare? » ac respondet: « Quoniam ipsius verbis fidem non habebant, » imo si id aperuisset, Judaei irrisissent eum, et pejus eum tractassent.
2:22
22. CUM ERGO RESURREXISSET A MORTUIS, RECORDATI SUNT DISCIPULI EJUS, QUIA HOC DICEBAT, ET CREDIDERUNT SCRIPTURAE ET SERMONI QUEM DIXIT JESUS. — « Et crediderunt Scripturae, » quae Christum a morte resurrecturum praedixit, quam ipsi antea non intellexerunt, sed tunc demum intellexerunt, cum eamdem reipsa in Christi resurrectione completam viderunt. Talis Scriptura est Psalm. xv, 10: « Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. » Et Oseae vi, 3: « Vivificabit nos post duos dies, in die tertia suscitabit nos. » ET SERMONI QUEM DIXIT JESUS — Scilicet « Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. » Crediderunt huic sermoni, cum viderunt Christum die tertio resurgentem; intellexerunt enim Christum de resurrectione corporis, non de resuscitatione templi, metaphorice locutum fuisse.
2:23
23. CUM AUTEM ESSET HIEROSOLYMIS IN PASCHA IN DIE FESTO (q. d. In die festo Paschae), MULTI CREDIDERUNT IN NOMINE EJUS — id est in nomen ejus; puta eum vere gerere et prae se ferre nomen Messiae, sive eum vere esse Messiam, hoc est Christum, uti ipse se nominabat, et a fidelibus publica fama nominabatur et celebrabatur. Hebraeis enim idem est « credere Deo et credere in Deum, » uti recte probat Jansenius; licet S. Augustinus ea hic distinguat. VIDENTES SIGNA (miracula) EJUS, QUAE FACIEBAT — ut iis probaret se esse Christum.
2:24
24. IPSE AUTEM JESUS NON CREDEBAT SEMETIPSUM EIS, EO QUOD IPSE NOSSET OMNES. — « Non credebat, » id est « non confidebat; » licet enim sciret eos in se credere, tamen sciebat pariter eos esse mutabiles, et facile ab hac fide posse resilire ac perverti a tot Pharisaeis et Scribis suis hostibus, ipsorum enim magna erat tum auctoritas, tum vis et potestas. Ita S. Chrysostomus et Euthymius. Qua de causa Christus cum iis, nec secure, nec diu versatus est, sed abiit in alia Judaea loca, ut patebit cap. sequenti, vers. 22. Sciebat enim non tantum quid jam cogitarent et facerent, sed et quid deinceps contra se cogitaturi et facturi erant, scilicet quod ipsum persequerentur usque ad mortem et crucem.
2:25
25. ET QUIA OPUS EI NON ERAT, UT QUIS TESTIMONIUM PERHIBERET DE HOMINE; IPSE ENIM SCIEBAT QUID ESSET IN HOMINE. — Scrutabatur enim cor cujusque, an constans esset, an levis et inconstans. Quocirca, ut ait S. Chrysostomus, « non curabat exteriora verba, qui in ipsos animos ingreditur, qui in humanas cogitationes irrumpit, qui eorum fervorem mox infrigescere cognoscebat: non opus erat Jesu testibus, ad eas quas formarat mentes cognoscendas. Plus noverat artifex quid esset in opere suo; » addit S. Augustinus: « quam ipsum opus, quid esset in semetipso. Creator hominis noverat quid esset in homine, quod ipse creatus homo non noverat. Haec enim dignitas, ait Cyrillus, vero Deo solummodo, nec ulli creaturarum attribuitur, esse καρδιογνώστην, novisseque hominis animum, nullis exterioribus argumentis declaratum. » Unde Psalmista, Psalm. xxxii, vers. 15: « Qui finxit sigillatim corda eorum, qui omnia opera eorum intelligit. » Ita Franciscus Lucas, Jansenius, Barradius et alii. Tropologice Beda: « Nunquam simus, inquit, de nostra conscientia securi, sed semper sollicite formidemus; quod enim nos latet, aeternum arbitrum latere non potest. »
2:1
Supra Evangelista ostendit dignitatem verbi incarnati, et evidentiam eius multipliciter; hic consequenter incipit determinare de effectibus et operibus quibus manifestata est mundo divinitas verbi incarnati, et primo narrat ea quae Christus fecit in mundo vivendo, ad manifestationem suae divinitatis; secundo quomodo Christus suam divinitatem monstravit moriendo; et hoc a XII cap. et ultra. Circa primum duo facit: primo enim ostendit Christi divinitatem quantum ad dominium quod habuit supra naturam; secundo quantum ad effectus gratiae, et hoc in III cap. ibi erat homo ex Pharisaeis Nicodemus nomine et cetera. Dominium autem Christi super naturam proponitur nobis per hoc quod naturam mutavit: quae quidem mutatio facta est a Christo in signum primo discipulis ad confirmandum; secundo vero turbis ad credendum, ibi post hoc descendit Capharnaum. Mutatio autem naturae ad confirmandos discipulos in nuptiis facta est, in quibus convertit aquam in vinum; et hoc est quod dicit nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae: ubi primo describuntur nuptiae; secundo illi qui nuptiis interfuerunt, ibi erat autem mater Iesu; tertio describitur ipsum miraculum patratum, ibi et deficiente vino et cetera. Describit autem nuptias primo quidem quantum ad tempus; unde dicit et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt, scilicet postquam praedicta de vocatione discipulorum fecerat. Postquam enim manifestatus fuerat testimonio Ioannis, voluit etiam seipsum manifestare. Secundo vero, quantum ad locum; unde dicit in Cana Galilaeae. Galilaea namque provincia est, Cana viculus quidam in ipsa provincia. Quantum autem ad litteram pertinet, sciendum est, quod circa tempus praedicationis Christi est duplex opinio. Quidam namque dicunt, quod a Baptismate Christi usque ad passionem eius, fuerint duo anni et dimidius. Et secundum hos, hoc quod hic legitur de nuptiis, eodem anno factum est quo Christus baptizatus est. Sed his contrariatur sententia et consuetudo Ecclesiae: nam in festo Epiphaniae trium miraculorum commemoratio fit, scilicet adorationis magorum, quae fuit primo anno nativitatis dominicae; et Baptismi Christi, quo baptizatus est eodem die, revolutis triginta annis; et de nuptiis, quae sunt factae eodem die, revoluto anno. Ex quo sequitur quod ad minus unus annus elapsus fuit a Baptismo usque ad nuptias. In quo quidem anno nil aliud legitur dominus fecisse nisi quod dicitur Matth. IV de ieiunio in deserto, et de tentatione a Diabolo, et ea quae hic Ioannes refert de testimonio Baptistae et conversione discipulorum. A nuptiis autem coepit publice praedicare et miracula facere usque ad passionem, ita quod duobus annis cum dimidio publice praedicavit. Mystice autem per nuptias intelligitur coniunctio Christi et Ecclesiae, quia, ut dicit apostolus Eph. V, 32, sacramentum hoc magnum est, dico autem in Christo et in Ecclesia. Et illud quidem matrimonium initiatum fuit in utero virginali, quando Deus pater filio humanam naturam univit in unitate personae, unde huius coniunctionis thalamus fuit uterus virginalis; Ps. XVIII, 6: in sole posuit tabernaculum suum. De istis nuptiis dicitur Matth. XXII, 2: simile est regnum caelorum homini regi, qui fecit nuptias filio suo, tunc scilicet quando Deus pater humanam naturam verbo suo copulavit in utero virginali. Publicatum autem fuit, quando Ecclesia sibi per fidem coniuncta est; Oseae II, 20: sponsabo te mihi in fide et cetera. De istis nuptiis dicitur Apoc. XIX, 9: beati qui ad caenam nuptiarum agni vocati sunt. Consummatum autem erit, quando sponsa, idest Ecclesia, introducetur in thalamum sponsi, in caelestem scilicet gloriam. Nec vacat a mysterio quod die tertio nuptiae factae sunt. Primus namque dies est tempus legis naturae; secundus tempus legis scriptae; tertius vero dies tempus gratiae, in quo dominus incarnatus nuptias celebravit; Oseae VI, 3: vivificabit nos post duos dies: in die tertia suscitabit nos. Locus autem congruit mysterio: Cana enim interpretatur zelus; Galilaea vero transmigratio. In zelo ergo transmigrationis hae nuptiae celebrantur, ut denuntiet eos maxime Christi coniunctione dignos existere qui zelo piae devotionis ferventes transmigrant de statu culpae ad gratiam Ecclesiae, Eccli. XXIV, 26: transite ad me, omnes qui concupiscitis me etc., et de morte ad vitam, idest de statu mortalitatis et miseriae, ad statum immortalitatis et gloriae; Apoc. XXI, 5: ecce nova facio omnia. Consequenter cum dicit erat autem mater Iesu ibi, describuntur personae invitatae: ubi agitur de tribus, scilicet de matre, de Iesu, et de discipulis. De matre quidem, cum dicit et erat mater Iesu ibi. Quae quidem praemittitur, ut ostendatur quod Iesus adhuc ignotus erat, et non vocatus ad nuptias sicut insignis persona, sed ex quadam familiaritate, tamquam notus, et unus aliorum: sicut enim vocaverunt matrem, ita et filium. Vel forte prius invitatur mater, quia ambigebant de Iesu, an invitatus venturus esset ad nuptias propter summam religiositatem, quam videbant in eo, et quia non viderunt eum se immiscuisse conviviis. Et ideo puto quod primo consuluerunt matrem, an Iesus esset vocandus. Et ideo signanter dixit Evangelista primo matrem adesse iam in nuptiis, et Iesum postmodum fuisse vocatum. Et hoc est quod sequitur vocatus est Iesus. Voluit autem Christus nuptiis interesse primo quidem ut daret nobis humilitatis exemplum: neque enim ad dignitatem suam respiciebat, sed quomodo dignatus est formam servi accipere, ita non dedignatus est ad nuptias venire servorum, ut dicit Chrysostomus. Et ideo Augustinus: erubescat homo esse superbus, quoniam factus est humilis Deus. Nam inter cetera humilia quae fecit filius virginis, venit ad nuptias, qui eas, cum esset apud patrem, instituit in Paradiso. Et de hoc exemplo dicitur, Matth. XI, v. 29: discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde. Secundo vero, ut errorem quorumdam excluderet, qui nuptias damnant, quia, ut dicit Beda si thoro immaculato, et nuptiis debita castitate celebratis, culpa inesset, nequaquam dominus ad has venire voluisset. Quia ergo ad nuptias venit, insinuat quod sit damnabilis eorum perfidia qui nuptiis detrahunt. I Cor. VII, 36: non peccat mulier, si nubat. De discipulis vero agitur, cum dicit et discipuli eius. Mystice autem in nuptiis spiritualibus est mater Iesu, virgo scilicet beata, sicut nuptiarum consiliatrix, quia per eius intercessionem coniungitur Christo per gratiam; Eccli. XXIV, 25: in me omnis spes vitae et virtutis. Christus autem, sicut verus animae sponsus, ut dicitur infra III, 29: qui habet sponsam, sponsus est. Discipuli vero ut paranymphi, quasi coniungentes Ecclesiam Christo, de quo uno dicebatur II Cor. XI, 2: despondi vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. Et quia in istis nuptiis materialibus aliquid de miraculo pertinet ad matrem, aliquid ad Christum et aliquid ad discipulos, ideo consequenter cum dicit et deficiente vino etc. ostendit quid pertineat ad matrem, quid ad Christum et quid ad discipulos. Ad matrem quidem pertinet miraculi procuratio; ad Christum autem miraculi consummatio, et hoc ibi erant ibi lapideae hydriae sex etc.; ad discipulos vero miraculi contestatio, ibi hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus. Gessit ergo, quantum ad primum, mater Christi, mediatricis personam; et ideo duo facit: primo enim interpellat ad filium; secundo erudit ministros, ibi et dicit mater eius ministris et cetera. Circa primum quidem duo ponuntur. Primo matris interpellatio; secundo filii responsio, ibi dixit ei Iesus: quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? In matre autem interpellante, primo quidem nota pietatem et misericordiam. Ad misericordiam enim pertinet ut quis defectum alterius reputet quasi suum: misericors enim dicitur, quasi miserum habens cor super miseria alterius; II Cor. XI, 29: quis infirmatur, et ego non infirmor?
2:3
Quia ergo virgo beata misericordia plena erat, defectus aliorum sublevare volebat; et ideo dicit deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum. Secundo reverentiam eius ad Christum: ex reverentia enim quam ad Deum habemus, sufficit nobis ei tantum defectus nostros exponere, secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 10: domine, ante te omne desiderium meum. Qualiter autem nobis Deus subveniat, non est nostrum inquirere; quia, sicut dicitur Rom. VIII, v. 26, nam quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus. Et ideo mater eius defectum aliorum simpliciter exposuit, dicens vinum non habent. Tertio, virginis sollicitudinem et diligentiam: quia usque ad extremam necessitatem non distulit, sed deficiente vino, idest dum esset in deficiendo, iuxta illud quod dicitur in Ps. IX, 10 de Deo: adiutor in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione. Sed quaerit Chrysostomus: quare ante non incitavit Christum ad miracula? Nam de virtute eius erat instructa per Angelum, et confirmata per multa quae viderat circa ipsum fieri, quae omnia conservabat, conferens in corde suo, ut dicitur Lc. II, 51. Cuius ratio est, quia antea ut unus aliorum conversabatur: unde quia non viderat tempus opportunum, hoc facere distulit. Nunc vero post Ioannis contestationem et post discipulorum conversionem, confidenter Christum ad miracula facienda provocat, gerens in hoc figuram synagogae, quae est mater Christi: nam familiare est Iudaeis miracula requirere; I Cor. I, 22: Iudaei signa petunt. Dicit ergo ei vinum non habent. Ubi sciendum est, quod ante incarnationem Christi, triplex vinum deficiebat, scilicet iustitiae, sapientiae et caritatis, seu gratiae. Vinum enim mordicat, et quantum ad hoc iustitia dicitur vinum. Lc. X, 34, Samaritanus vinum et oleum apposuit vulneribus sauciati, idest cum dulcedine misericordiae severitatem iustitiae; Ps. LIX, 5: potasti nos vino compunctionis. Vinum etiam laetificat cor, iuxta illud Ps. CIII, 15, vinum laetificat cor hominis, et quantum ad hoc dicitur vinum sapientia, cuius meditatio maxime laetificat; Sap. VIII, 16: non habet amaritudinem convictus illius. Vinum similiter inebriat, Cant. V, v. 1: bibite, amici, et inebriamini, carissimi, et secundum hoc caritas dicitur vinum, Cant. c. V, 1, bibi vinum meum cum lacte meo. Et dicitur caritas etiam vinum ratione fervoris; Zach. IX, 17: vinum germinans virgines. Et quidem iustitiae vinum deficiebat in veteri lege; in qua iustitia imperfecta erat. Sed Christus eam perfecit; Matth. V, 20: nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plusquam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum. Deficiebat etiam vinum sapientiae, quae erat occulta et figuralis, quia, ut dicitur I Cor. X, 11, omnia in figura contingebant illis. Sed Christus eam manifestavit; Matth. c. VII, 29: erat enim docens eos, sicut potestatem habens. Sed et vinum caritatis deficiebat ibi: quia acceperant spiritum servitutis tantum in timore. Sed Christus aquam timoris convertit in vinum caritatis, quando dedit spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus, abba pater, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 15, et quando caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris, ut dicitur Rom. V, 5. Consequenter cum dicit dixit ei Iesus etc. ponitur responsio Christi: ex qua quidem responsione triplicis haeresis occasio sumpta est. Manichaei namque dicunt Christum non habuisse verum corpus, sed phantasticum. Valentinus asserit Christum attulisse corpus caeleste, dicens quod, quantum ad corpus, Christus nihil pertinet ad virginem. Et huius erroris fulcimentum sumit per hoc quod dicit ei Iesus. Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Quasi dicat: nihil a te suscepi. Sed hoc est contra auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae: dicit enim apostolus, Gal. IV, 4: misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere: non enim posset dici ex ea factus, nisi ex ea aliquid sumpsisset. Arguit praeterea contra eos Augustinus, dicens: quomodo scis, quod dominus dixit quid mihi et tibi? Respondes, quia Ioannes Evangelista hoc narrat. Sed ipse etiam Evangelista dicit de virgine quod erat mater eius. Si ergo credis Evangelistae in eo quod narrat Iesum dixisse matri: quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Credas etiam in hoc ei quod dicit: et erat mater Iesu ibi. Ebion autem dicens ex virili semine Christum conceptum, et Elvidius, qui dicit quod virgo post partum non permansit virgo, sumpserunt erroris fulcimentum ex hoc quod dicit mulier, quod videtur corruptionem importare. Sed hoc est falsum, quia mulier in sacra Scriptura quandoque importat solum sexum femineum, secundum illud Gal. IV, 4: factum ex muliere et cetera. Et hoc patet etiam per hoc quod Adam ad Deum loquens de Eva, dixit: mulier quam dedisti mihi sociam, dedit mihi de ligno, et comedi, Gen. III, 12. Constat enim tunc Evam adhuc virginem fuisse, cum adhuc esset in Paradiso, ubi non cognoverat eam. Unde hoc quod hic dicitur mulier, non importat corruptionem, sed determinat sexum. Sumpserunt etiam Priscillianistae erroris occasionem ex hoc quod dixit nondum venit hora mea, dicentes, omnia ex fato accidere, et facta hominum certis horis esse subiecta, et etiam Christi: unde propter hoc dixit nondum venit hora mea. Sed hoc est falsum de quolibet homine. Cum enim homo liberam electionem habeat, libera autem electio competat ei ex hoc quod rationem et voluntatem habet, quae quidem sunt immaterialia: manifestum est quod homo quantum ad electionem nulli corpori subiicitur, sed potius dominatur. Immaterialia enim nobiliora sunt materialibus, et ideo dicit philosophus, quod sapiens dominatur astris. Praeterea, hoc multo minus locum habet in Christo, qui est dominus et conditor siderum. Unde per hoc quod dixit nondum venit hora mea, intelligitur hora passionis, sibi, non ex necessitate, sed secundum divinam providentiam determinata. Contra eos etiam est quod dicitur Eccli. XXXIII, 7: quare dies diem superat? Respondet: a domini scientia separati sunt; idest, divina providentia distincti sunt adinvicem, non a casu. His ergo exclusis, investigemus huius dominicae responsionis causam. Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Et quidem, secundum Augustinum, in ipso sunt duae naturae, divina scilicet et humana; et quamvis idem Christus sit in utraque natura, ea tamen quae conveniunt ei secundum humanam naturam, distincta sunt ab his quae conveniunt ei secundum divinam. Miracula autem facere competit ei secundum divinam naturam, quam accepit a patre; pati vero secundum humanam, quam accepit a matre.
2:4
Et ideo matri exigenti miraculum, respondit dicens quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Ac si dicat: illud quod in me facit miracula, non accepi a te, sed illud unde patior; idest secundum quod competit mihi pati, scilicet humanam naturam, a te accepi; et ideo tunc te cognoscam, cum ipsa infirmitas pendebit in cruce. Et ideo subdit nondum venit hora mea; quasi dicat: cum venerit hora passionis, ibi te matrem recognoscam. Unde et in cruce pendens matrem discipulo commendavit. Secundum Chrysostomum vero, aliter exponitur. Dicitur enim quod beata virgo fervens zelo honoris filii, voluit quod statim antequam opportunum esset, Christus miracula faceret; et ideo Christus, matre haud dubio sapientior, eam repressit. Noluit enim prius facere miraculum, quam sciretur defectus: quia ex hoc fuisset minus notum et minus credibile, et ideo dicit quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Quasi dicat. Quid me molestas? Nondum venit hora mea; idest, nondum cognitus sum his qui adsunt. Sed neque defectum vini sentiunt; sine primo hoc sentire, quia cum necessitatem cognoverint, maius reputabunt beneficium quod recipient.
2:5
Quamvis autem mater repulsa sit, tamen de filii misericordia non diffidit; ideo consequenter monet ministros, dicens quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite, in quo quidem consistit totius iustitiae perfectio. Perfecta namque iustitia est Christo in omnibus obedire; Ex. XXIX, 35: omnia quae praecepit nobis dominus faciemus. Hoc autem verbum omnia quaecumque dixerit vobis facite, non convenit dici nisi de solo Deo, homo enim aliquando potest errare. Unde in talibus quae sunt contra Deum, hominibus obedire non tenemur; Act. V, 29: oportet obedire Deo magis quam hominibus. Deo autem, qui non errat nec falli potest, in omnibus obedire debemus. Consequenter cum dicit erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae, ponitur consummatio miraculi per Christum: circa quod primo describuntur vasa in quibus miraculum patratum est; secundo designatur materia miraculi, ibi dixit eis Iesus: implete hydrias aqua; tertio insinuatur miraculi demonstratio et approbatio, ibi dixit eis Iesus: haurite nunc.
2:6
Vasa autem in quibus miraculum patratum est, ponuntur sex; et est quod dicit erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex. Ubi sciendum est, quod sicut Mc. VII, 2 ss., dicitur, Iudaei observabant multas ablutiones corporales, et Baptismata calicum et vasorum: unde quia erant in Palaestina, in qua est defectus aquarum, habebant vasa in quibus servabatur aqua purissima, qua se, et vasa crebro lavarent. Et ideo dicit, quod erant ibi sex lapideae hydriae, idest vasa ad conservandum aquam, ab hydros, quod est aqua, posita secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, idest ad usum purificationis, capientes singulae metretas, idest mensuras, binas, vel ternas: metros enim Graece, mensura Latine dicitur. Et, ut dicit Chrysostomus, vasa ista deferuntur ad tollendam miraculi suspicionem: tum propter eorum puritatem, ne posset aliquis suspicari quod aqua saporem vini sumpsisset ex faecibus vini prius in eis repositi, nam vasa illa erant secundum purificationem, et ideo purissima oportebat ea esse; tum etiam propter vasorum quantitatem, ut evidenter pateat quod aqua tot vasorum in vinum mutari non potuisset, nisi virtute divina. Mystice vero per sex hydrias significantur sex aetates veteris testamenti, in quibus erant corda hominum receptiva Scripturarum Dei parata, et proposita in exemplum vivendi, ut dicit Glossa. Hoc vero quod dicit metretas, secundum Augustinum, refertur ad Trinitatem personarum. Et dicuntur binae, vel ternae, quia quandoque in sacra Scriptura tres personae distinctim ponuntur, secundum illud Matth. ult., 19: baptizantes eos in nomine patris, et filii, et spiritus sancti, quandoque vero duo tantum, scilicet pater et filius, in quibus intelligitur persona spiritus sancti, qui est connexio amborum, secundum illud infra XIV, 23: si quis sermonem meum servabit, pater meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus. Vel binas propter duas conditiones hominum, Iudaeorum scilicet, et gentilium, ex quibus propagata est Ecclesia. Vel ternas propter tres filios Noe, ex quibus propagatum est humanum genus post diluvium.
2:7
Consequenter cum dicit dixit eis Iesus: implete hydrias aqua, agitur de miraculi materia. Sed circa hoc insurgit quaestio quare non ex nihilo, sed ex materia praeiacente hoc miraculum factum est: ad quod triplex ratio assignatur. Una est secundum Chrysostomum, et litteralis, quia ex nihilo aliquid facere, maius est et mirabilius, quam facere aliquid ex subiecta materia; sed non est ita evidens et credibile multis. Et ideo volens magis credibile esse quod fiebat, ex aqua fecit vinum, capacitati hominum condescendens. Alia ratio est, ad confutandum perversa dogmata. Quidam namque sunt (ut Marcionistae et Manichaei) qui dixerunt alium esse conditorem mundi, quam Deum, et omnia visibilia ab illo, idest Diabolo, condita esse. Et ideo dominus plura miracula etiam ex substantiis creatis, et visibilibus fecit, ut ostendat ipsas substantias bonas esse, et a Deo creatas. Tertia ratio est mystica. Ideo enim noluit ex nihilo vinum facere, sed ex aqua vinum fecit, ut ostenderet se non omnino novam doctrinam condere et veterem reprobare, sed adimplere; ut dicitur Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere: dum quod figurabat vetus lex, et promittebat, Christus exhibuit, et aperuit; Lc. ult., 45: aperuit illis sensum ut intelligerent Scripturas. Voluit autem per ministros hydrias impleri aqua, ut eos, eius quod fiebat, testes haberet: unde infra dicitur: ministri autem sciebant et cetera. Consequenter cum dicit et dixit eis Iesus etc. ponitur miraculi publicatio.
2:8
Statim enim quod hydriae impletae sunt, aqua in vinum conversa est; et ideo statim dominus miraculum publicat, dicens haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino, ubi primo ponitur mandatum Christi examinatorem eligentis; secundo sententiam architriclini degustantis, ibi ut autem gustavit architriclinus et cetera. Dixit ergo eis, scilicet ministris, haurite nunc, scilicet vinum de hydriis, et ferte architriclino. Ubi sciendum est, quod triclinium est locus ubi sunt tres ordines mensarum, et dicitur triclinium a triplici ordine lectorum: cline enim in Graeco lectum significat. Nam antiqui in lectis accumbentes consueverant comedere, ut maximus Valerius narrat. Et ideo dicunt in Scripturis accumbere et recumbere. Architriclinus ergo dicitur primus et princeps inter convivas. Vel aliter, secundum Chrysostomum, architriclinus erat qui erat ordinator et dispensator totius convivii. Quia vero sollicitus nondum aliquid gustaverat, voluit dominus quod ipse iudicaret de eo quod factum erat, et non convivae, ne aliquis posset miraculo detrahere, dicens eos ebrios esse, et eorum sensus per comestionem corruptos, ita quod non possent discernere, an vinum esset, vel aqua. Sed, secundum Augustinum, architriclinus erat maior inter discumbentes, ut dictum est; et ideo, ut eius sententia acceptabilior fieret, voluit in eo quod factum erat habere sententiam praesidentis. Mystice autem, qui hauriunt aquam sunt praedicatores; Is. XII, 3: haurietis aquas in gaudio de fontibus salvatoris. Architriclinus autem est aliquis legisperitus, puta Nicodemus, Gamaliel et Paulus. Dum ergo talibus verbum Evangelii committitur, quod latebat in littera legis, quasi vinum de aqua factum architriclino propinatur: qui hoc degustans approbat fidem Christi. Consequenter cum dicit ut autem gustavit architriclinus, ponitur examinantis iudicium: ubi primo inquirit veritatem facti; secundo profert sententiam, dicens omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit.
2:9
Dicit ergo ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset, quia ignorabat aquam vinum factam miraculo per Christum, ministri autem sciebant cuius ratio est, quia hauserant aquam; vocat sponsum architriclinus, ut veritatem inquirat, et de vino sententiam proferat; unde subdit omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit et cetera. Ubi, secundum Chrysostomum, hoc considerandum est in miraculis Christi, quod omnia perfectissima fuerunt; unde et socrui Petri perfectissimam sanitatem restituit, ut statim surgens ministraret, ut dicitur Mc. I, 30 et Mt. c. IX, 6. Paralyticum etiam ita perfecte sanitati restituit quod statim surgens, et sublato lecto iret in domum suam, ut dicitur infra V, 9. Hoc etiam in isto miraculo apparet: quia non qualecumque vinum de aqua fecit, sed optimum quod poterat esse.
2:10
Et ideo dicit architriclinus omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id quod deterius est, quia minus bibunt, et quia vinum bonum in quantitate sumptum, cum quantitate cibi magis gravat; quasi dicat: unde est tale vinum, quod tu servasti usque adhuc? Contra consuetudinem scilicet faciens. Competit autem mysterio. Nam aliquis dicitur mystice primo bonum vinum ponere, qui alios decipere intendens, errorem quem intendit non proponit primo, sed quae alliciant auditores, ut postquam inebriati et allecti fuerint ad consensum suae intentionis, perfidiam manifestet; et de isto vino dicitur Prov. XXIII, 31: ingreditur blande, et in novissimo mordebit sicut coluber. Dicitur autem aliquis primo bonum vinum ponere, qui a principio suae conversionis sancte et spiritualiter vivere incipiens, tandem in vitam carnalem degenerat; Gal. III, 3: sic stulti facti estis, ut cum spiritu coeperitis, nunc carne consummemini? Christus vero non primo vinum bonum ponit: quia a principio amara et dura proponit; Mt. VII, 14: arcta est via quae ducit ad vitam. Sed quanto plus homo in eius fide et doctrina procedit, tanto plus dulcoratur, et maiorem suavitatem sentit; Prov. IV, 11: ducam te per semitam aequitatis, quam cum ingressus fueris non arctabuntur gressus tui. Item in mundo isto amaritudines et tribulationes patiuntur omnes qui pie volunt vivere in Christo; infra XVI, 20: amen, amen dico vobis, quia plorabitis et flebitis vos et cetera. Sed in futuro delectationes et gaudia suscipient; unde et sequitur: tristitia vestra vertetur in gaudium. Rom. VIII, 18: existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae revelabitur in nobis. Consequenter cum dicit hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus, ponitur miraculi contestatio per discipulos facta. Ex quo habetur quod falsa est historia de infantia salvatoris, in qua recitantur multa miracula facta a Christo adhuc puero existente; si enim hoc verum esset, non utique Evangelista diceret hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus. Et ratio quare non in pueritia miracula fecit, assignata est supra, ne ea scilicet homines phantastica reputarent: ergo hac de causa hoc miraculum, scilicet de aqua vinum, fecit in Cana Galilaeae Iesus, quod est initium signorum, quae fecit Iesus postea. Et manifestavit gloriam suam, idest potentiam qua gloriosus est; Ps. c. XXIII, 10: dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae. Et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius. Sed quomodo crediderunt? Iam enim discipuli erant, et ante crediderant.
2:11
Sed dicendum est, quod aliquid dicitur esse aliquando non secundum quod nunc est, sed secundum quod futurum est; sicut dicitur quod Paulus apostolus natus est Tharso Ciliciae: non quod ibi sit natus apostolus, sed quod futurus apostolus, ibi natus fuit; ita dicitur hic et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius, scilicet qui erant discipuli eius. Vel dicendum, quod ante crediderunt ei sicut bono viro, iusta et recta praedicanti; sed modo crediderunt in eum tamquam in Deum et cetera.
2:12
Supra Evangelista posuit signum quod fecit Christus pertinens ad virtutem immutativam naturae, ad discipulorum confirmationem; hic consequenter agit de signo resurrectionis ad eamdem virtutem pertinente, quod proposuit Christus ad turbarum conversionem. Circa hoc ergo miraculum duo facit Evangelista. Primo ponit miraculi proponendi occasionem; secundo ipsius miraculi praenuntiationem, ibi responderunt ergo Iudaei et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describit locum; secundo narrat factum, quod fuit occasio miraculi proponendi, ibi et invenit in templo vendentes oves et boves. Locus autem in quo hoc fuit, est Ierosolyma: et ideo Evangelista gradatim ostendit quo ordine Ierusalem dominus venerit. Primo ergo ostendit quomodo in Capharnaum descendit; secundo vero quomodo Ierosolymam ascendit, ibi et prope erat Pascha. Circa primum tria facit. Primo assignat locum quo descendit; secundo, describit societatem quam habuit; tertio innuit moram quam protraxit. Locus quidem quo descendit est Capharnaum; et ideo dicit post hoc, scilicet miraculum de vino, descendit Capharnaum. Videtur, quantum ad historiam pertinet, huic dicto contrariari quod dicitur Matth. IV, v. 12 s., scilicet quod dominus descenderit Capharnaum post incarcerationem Ioannis. Hoc autem quod hic refert Evangelista, totum factum est ante incarcerationem Ioannis. Respondeo dicendum, quod ad huius quaestionis intelligentiam sciendum est, quod sicut ex ecclesiastica historia habetur, reliqui Evangelistae, scilicet Matthaeus, Marcus et Lucas narrationem evangelicam inceperunt ab eo tempore quo Ioannes fuit inclusus in carcere. Unde statim Matth. IV, 12, post Baptismum, et ieiunium, et tentationem eius, texere incepit suam narrationem ante incarcerationem Ioannis, dicens: cum audivisset Iesus quod traditus esset Ioannes etc., et similiter Marcus; unde dicit: postquam autem traditus est Ioannes, venit Iesus in Galilaeam et cetera. Ioannes vero Evangelista qui supervixit aliis, cum trium Evangelistarum ad ipsum notitia pervenisset, dictorum fidem et veritatem probavit; tamen, quia vidit aliqua deesse, illa scilicet quae primo praedicationis suae tempore, ante Ioannis incarcerationem, dominus gesserat, ideo ad preces fidelium ipse Evangelium suum altius inchoans, ea quae praeterierant, priora, ante traditionem Ioannis, domini gesta conscripsit, scilicet a primo anno quo baptizatus est; ut in eius Evangelii serie apparet. Secundum hoc ergo Evangelistae non dissonant; sed quia dominus bis Capharnaum descendit, semel ante incarcerationem Ioannis, de quo agitur hic, et semel post incarcerationem eius, de quo agitur Matth. IV, 13 et Lc. IV, 31. Capharnaum autem interpretatur villa pulcherrima, et significat mundum istum, qui habet decorem ex ordine et dispositione divinae sapientiae; Ps. XLIX, 11: pulchritudo agri mecum est. Descendit ergo dominus in Capharnaum, idest mundum istum, cum matre, et fratribus, et discipulis. Nam in caelis dominus patrem habet sine matre, in terris matrem sine patre; et ideo signanter matrem solum nominat. In caelis etiam fratres non habet; sed est ipse unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris: supra I, 18. In terris vero est primogenitus in multis fratribus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, v. 29. In terris habet discipulos quos doceat mysteria divinitatis, quae ante hominibus ignota fuerant, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. I, 2, novissime diebus istis locutus est nobis in filio et cetera. Vel Capharnaum interpretatur ager consolationis: per quod signatur omnis homo qui fructum bonum facit; Gen. XXVII, 27: ecce odor filii mei sicut odor agri pleni. Et talis homo dicitur ager consolationis, quia dominus consolatur, et gaudet de profectu eius; Is. LXII, 5: gaudebit dominus super te etc., quia de eius bono Angeli gaudent; Lc. XV, v. 10: gaudium est Angelis Dei super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente. Dicit ipse, et mater. Societas eius fuit primo matris; unde dicit et mater eius, quia enim ad nuptias venerat, et fuerat miraculi procuratrix, reducebat eam dominus Nazareth, quae erat villa in Galilaea, in qua Capharnaum metropolis erat. Secundo fuit fratrum; unde dicit et fratres eius et cetera. Ubi cavendi sunt duo errores, scilicet Elvidii dicentis, quod beata virgo post Christum alios filios habuit, et hos dicit fratres domini, quod est haereticum: quia fides nostra tenet, quod mater Christi sicut fuit virgo ante partum, ita et in partu, et post partum virgo permansit. Item error quorumdam dicentium, Ioseph ex alia coniuge filios genuisse, et hos vocari fratres domini, quod Ecclesia non tenet. Et ideo Hieronymus eos improbat: nam dominus in cruce pendens virginem matrem virgini discipulo custodiendam dimisit. Cum ergo Ioseph fuerit specialis custos virginis et etiam salvatoris in pueritia, credibile est eum virginem fuisse. Et ideo sane intelligentes, fratres domini dicimus consanguineos virginis matris, in quocumque gradu, vel etiam Ioseph, qui putabatur pater; et hoc quidem secundum consuetudinem Scripturae, quae communiter consanguineos fratres appellat. Unde Gen. XIII, v. 8: ne quaeso sit iurgium inter me et te: fratres enim sumus, dicit Abraham ad Lot; cum tamen esset nepos eius. Et attende, quod separatim nominat fratres et discipulos: quia non omnes consanguinei Christi, eius discipuli erant. Unde infra VII, 5 dicitur: nondum credebant in eum fratres eius. Tertio socii eius fuerunt discipuli sui: unde dicit et discipuli eius. Sed ex hoc insurgit quaestio, qui fuerint eius discipuli. Videtur enim, secundum Matthaeum, quod primi qui conversi sunt ad Christum, fuerint Petrus et Andreas, Ioannes et Iacobus; sed hi vocati sunt a Christo post incarcerationem Ioannis, ut patet Matth. IV, v. 18 ss. non videtur ergo quod descenderint cum Christo in Capharnaum, ut hic habetur, cum hoc fuerit ante Ioannis incarcerationem. Sed ad hoc duplex est responsio. Una, secundum Augustinum, de consensu Evangelistarum, quod Matthaeus non servat ordinem historiae, sed illud quod praetermiserat recapitulans, ea narrat post Ioannis incarcerationem quae ante facta fuerant. Unde sine ulla temporis consequentis differentia dixit: ambulans Iesus iuxta mare Galilaeae, vidit duos fratres etc., non addens post hoc vel in diebus illis. Alia est, secundum eumdem, quod discipuli domini, in Evangelio dicuntur non solum illi duodecim quos elegit dominus, et apostolos nominavit, ut habetur Lc. VI, 13, sed etiam omnes qui in eum credentes, eius magisterio ad regnum caelorum erudiebantur. Potuit ergo esse quod quamvis illi duodecim nondum eum secuti fuissent, nihilominus tamen aliqui alii qui sibi adhaeserunt, hic eius discipuli nominentur. Sed prima responsio melior est. Moram autem contraxit ibi parvam; unde dicit et ibi manserunt non multis diebus. Huius ratio est, quia cives Capharnaum non se exhibuerunt devotos ad suscipiendum doctrinam Christi, quia erant valde corrupti; unde et Matth. XI, 23 dominus eos obiurgat, quod nec ad virtutes in eis factas, nec ad doctrinam Christi poenitentiam egerunt, dicens: et tu, Capharnaum, numquid ad caelum exaltaberis? Usque in Infernum descendes: quia si in Sodomis factae fuissent virtutes quae factae sunt in te, forte mansissent usque in hanc diem. Et tamen quamquam mali essent, descendit illuc, ut deduceret matrem ad cuius consolationem et honorem ibidem aliquamdiu moratur. Mystice autem signatur per hoc quod aliqui multis sermonibus Christi immorari non possunt, sed pauca ad eorum illuminationem de multis sufficiunt, propter intellectus eorum imbecillitatem. Unde apud tales Christus paucis documentis immoratur ut Origenes dixit; secundum illud infra XVI, v. 12: multa habeo vobis dicere; sed non potestis portare modo.
2:13
Consequenter cum dicit et prope erat Pascha, manifestat locum quo ascendit. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo innuit occasionem ascensus; secundo ponit ascensum, ibi et ascendit Iesus. Occasio autem ascensus fuit Pascha Iudaeorum. Ex. XXIII, 17 praecipitur quod ter in anno omne masculinum praesentetur coram domino, et inter illos terminos unus erat Pascha Iudaeorum. Quia ergo dominus venit ut doceret omnes humilitatis et perfectionis exemplum, voluit legem, quamdiu statum habuit, observare: non enim venit legem solvere, sed adimplere, ut ipse dicit Matth. V, v. 17. Ex quo, quia Pascha Iudaeorum imminebat, Ierusalem ascendit. Nos ergo ad eius exemplum deberemus sollicite divina praecepta servare. Si enim ipse Dei filius decreta legis a se datae implebat, celebrans solemnitates; quanto studio bonorum operum deberemus nos eas et praevenire, et celebrare? Notandum est, quod in Evangelio Ioannis in tribus locis fit mentio de Pascha, scilicet hic, et infra VI, 4, ubi fecit miraculum de panibus, ubi dicitur: erat autem proximum Pascha, dies festus Iudaeorum; et infra c. XIII, 1, ubi dicitur: ante diem festum Paschae. Unde secundum hoc Evangelium, habemus quod post miraculum de vino Christus praedicavit duobus annis, et quantum est a diebus Baptismi usque ad Pascha; nam hoc quod fecit hic, fuit prope Pascha, ut hic dicitur, et postea, revoluto anno, prope aliud Pascha fecit miraculum de panibus, et tunc Ioannes fuit decollatus. Unde Ioannes circa Pascha decollatus fuit; quia, ut dicitur Matth. c. XIV, 13, statim post decollationem Ioannis, Christus secessit in desertum, et ibi fecit miraculum de panibus: quod quidem miraculum fuit factum prope Pascha, ut dicitur infra VI. Sed tamen festum huius decollationis celebratur eo die quo caput eius inventum est. Postea, in alio Paschate, passus est Christus. Secundum opinionem ergo illorum qui dicunt, quod miraculum factum in nuptiis, et ea quae hic dicuntur, eodem anno gesta sunt quo baptizatus est Christus, a Baptismo Christi usque ad eius passionem fuerunt duo anni et dimidius: et ideo, secundum eos, Evangelista dicit prope erat Pascha Iudaeorum, ut ostendat quod ante paucos dies fuerat baptizatus. Sed Ecclesia tenet contrarium. Credimus enim quod eodem die quo dominus baptizatus est, revoluto anno, factum fuerit miraculum de vino; et postea revoluto anno, prope Pascha, Ioannes fuerit decollatus; et quod ab isto Paschate circa quod Ioannes fuit decollatus, fuerit unus annus usque ad Pascha in quo Christus passus est. Unde oportet aliud Pascha a Baptismo Christi usque ad miraculum de vino intermedium esse, de quo nullus Evangelista facit mentionem: et sic, secundum quod Ecclesia tenet, Christus tribus annis et dimidio praedicavit. Ait autem Iudaeorum, non quod alterius nationis homines Pascha celebrarent, sed duplici de causa. Una quia quando aliqui festum aliquod sancte et pure celebrant, dicitur illud domino celebrare; cum vero nec pure, nec sancte celebrant, non domino, sed sibi solemnizant; Is. I, 14: Kalendas vestras, et festivitates vestras odivit anima mea; quasi dicat: quia vobis, et non mihi celebratis, non placent mihi; Zach. VII, 5: cum ieiunaretis, numquid ieiunium ieiunastis mihi? Quasi dicat, non, sed vobis. Quia ergo isti Iudaei depravati erant, et eorum Pascha indebite celebrabant, ideo Evangelista non dicit: prope erat Pascha domini, sed Iudaeorum. Vel hoc dicit ad differentiam nostri Paschae: nam Pascha Iudaeorum erat figurale, utpote immolatione agni figuralis celebratum; sed nostrum Pascha verum est, in quo recolimus veram passionem agni immaculati; I Corint. V, 7: Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Ascensus fuit in Ierusalem; et ideo dicit et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam. Ubi nota, secundum ordinem historiae, Iesum bis circa festum Paschae Ierosolymam ascendisse, et expulisse de templo ementes et vendentes. Semel quidem ante incarcerationem Ioannis, quod hic Evangelista commemorat, alia vice, imminente Paschate, et tempore passionis, quod narrat Matthaeus. Nam frequenter dominus similia facta operatus est, sicut patet de duplici illuminatione caecorum: una Matth. IX, 28, et alia Mc. c. X, 46 ss. Et similiter bis eiecit ementes et vendentes de templo. Mystice autem ascendit Ierosolymam, quae interpretatur visio pacis, et significat aeternam beatitudinem: in quam ascendit, et suos transduxit. Sed non vacat a mysterio, quod in Capharnaum descendit, et postmodum Ierosolymam ascendit. Nisi enim descendisset primum, non competisset ei ascendere: quia, ut dicitur Eph. IV, 10, qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit. Non facit autem mentionem de discipulis in ascensu ad Ierosolymam: quia discipulorum ascensus est ex ascensu Christi; infra III, 13: nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis.
2:14
Consequenter cum dicit et invenit in templo vendentes oves et boves etc. narrat Evangelista factum quod movit Christum ad signum resurrectionis proponendum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat Iudaeorum vitium; secundo innuit Christi remedium, ibi et cum fecisset quasi flagellum etc.; tertio subdit prophetiae oraculum, ibi recordati vero sunt discipuli et cetera. Circa primum sciendum, quod Diabolus insidiatur his quae Dei sunt, et ea nititur corrumpere. Inter cetera autem quibus sancta corrumpit, praecipuum est vitium avaritiae; unde dicitur Is. LVI, 11: pastores eius nescierunt intelligentiam, omnes in viam suam declinaverunt: unusquisque ad avaritiam suam a summo usque ad novissimum. Quod quidem ab antiquis temporibus Diabolus fecit. Nam sacerdotes veteris testamenti, qui instituti erant ut divinis vacarent, avaritiae studebant. Praeceptum autem erat a Deo in lege, quod in certis solemnitatibus domino immolarent aliqua animalia; ad quod quidem praeceptum implendum de prope venientes ad templum, secum animalia ducebant, illi autem qui a remotis veniebant, non valebant animalia ducere de domibus suis. Quia ergo oblationes huiusmodi cedebant in utilitatem sacerdotum, ne deessent animalia de remotis venientibus ad offerendum, providerunt ipsi sacerdotes ut animalia in templo venderentur; et ideo faciebant ea in templo, idest in atrio templi, exponi ad vendendum. Et hoc est quod dicit et invenit dominus in templo vendentes oves, et boves, et columbas et cetera. Ubi primo facit mentionem de duobus animalibus terrestribus, quae secundum legem domino offerri poterant, scilicet de bove et ove. Tertium vero animal terrestre, quod offerebatur capra scilicet, annumeratur cum ove: similiter etiam turtur annumeratur cum columba. Et quia contingebat aliquando aliquos ad templum venire, qui nec animalia secum ducebant, nec pecuniam, unde emere non valebant; ideo sacerdotes aliam avaritiae artem adinvenerant, ut scilicet in templo constituerent nummularios et campsores, qui praedictis non habentibus pecuniam mutuarent. Et licet usuram inde non reciperent, quia hoc erat in lege prohibitum, loco tamen eius quaedam collibia, idest parva munuscula et vilia recipiebant. Et haec ipsa in utilitatem sacerdotum cedebant; et hoc est quod dicit et nummularios sedentes scilicet in templo, paratos ad pecuniam mutuandam. Sed hoc quidem mystice tripliciter intelligi potest. Primo enim per vendentes et ementes significantur illi qui ecclesiasticas res vendunt, vel emunt: nam bona ecclesiastica spiritualia, et eis annexa, significantur per oves, et boves, et columbas. Ipsa consecrata quidem, et confirmata sunt ex doctrinis apostolorum et doctorum, qui significantur per boves; Prov. XIV, 4: ubi plurimae sunt segetes, ibi manifesta fortitudo bovis. Item ex sanguine martyrum, qui significantur per oves. Unde in persona eorum dicitur in Ps. XLIII, et Rom. VIII, 36: aestimati sumus ut oves occisionis. Item dona spiritus sancti, quae significantur per columbas: quia, ut dicitur supra I, 32, spiritus sanctus in specie columbae apparuit. Omnia ergo haec vendunt, scilicet doctrinam apostolorum, sanguinem martyrum et dona spiritus sancti, quicumque bona ecclesiastica spiritualia, et eis annexa vendere praesumunt. Secundo, contingit aliquos praelatos, seu Ecclesiarum praepositos, etsi non manifeste per simoniam, occulte tamen per negligentiam boves, et oves, et columbas vendere, tunc scilicet quando tantum inhiant temporalibus lucris, et occupantur in eis, et negligunt spiritualem salutem subditorum: nam per hoc vendunt oves, et boves, et columbas, idest tria genera hominum eis subditorum. Scilicet praedicatores et operatores, qui significantur per boves; Is. XXXII, 20: beati qui seminatis super omnes aquas, immittentes pedem bovis et asini. Quia praelati debent ordinare boves, idest doctores et sapientes cum asinis, idest rudibus et simplicibus. Vendunt etiam activos, et ministeriis vacantes, qui significantur per oves, infra X, 27: oves meae vocem meam audiunt etc.; II Reg. ult., 17: isti, qui oves sunt, quid fecerunt? Vendunt et contemplantes, qui significantur per columbas; Ps. LIV, 7: quis dabit mihi pennas sicut columbae et volabo? Tertio per templum Dei potest intelligi spiritualis anima, ut dicitur I Cor. III, 17: templum Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos. Tunc ergo homo vendit in templo oves, et boves, et columbas, quando in anima bestiales motus retinet, pro quibus homo vendit se Diabolo. Nam per boves, qui agriculturae deserviunt, significantur terrena desideria; per ovem, quae est animal stultum, significatur hominis stoliditas; per columbas vero hominis instabilitas: quae quidem Deus de cordibus hominum expellit.
2:15
Et ideo statim ponitur domini remedium, cum dicit et cum fecisset quasi flagellum de funiculis, omnes eiecit de templo: ubi dominus apposuit remedium et operis, et verbi, ut doceret eos qui curam habent Ecclesiae, subditos facto et verbo debere corrigere. Et ideo circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponitur remedium quod adhibuit facto; secundo remedium quod adhibuit verbo, ibi et his qui vendebant columbas dixit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo eiecit homines; secundo oves et boves; tertio effudit pecuniam. Eiecit quidem homines flagello, et hoc est quod dicit et cum fecisset quasi flagellum de funiculis, quod quidem non potuit fieri nisi virtute divina; nam, et Origenes dicit, quod divina potestas Iesu poterat cum volebat accensam iracundiam hominum suffocare, sicut sedare mentium turbines; Ps. XXXII, v. 10: dominus dissipat cogitationes hominum. Facit autem flagellum de funiculis, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, de peccatis nostris sumit materiam, unde nos puniat: ipsa enim protelatio peccatorum, secundum quod peccata peccatis adduntur, funiculi dicuntur; Prov. V, v. 22: funibus peccatorum suorum constringitur; Is. V, 18: vae qui trahitis iniquitatem in funiculis et cetera. Sicut ergo eiecit de templo negotiatores, ita nummulariorum aes effudit, et mensas subvertit. Attende, quod si ista, quae videbantur aliquo modo licita, quasi ad cultum Dei ordinata, de templo eiecit, quanto magis si invenisset aliqua illicita? Ideo autem eos eiecit, quia sacerdotes in hoc non intendebant honorem Dei, sed utilitatem propriam. Unde dicitur Ez. XLIV, 8: posuistis custodes observationum mearum in sanctuario meo vobismetipsis. Ostendit autem dominus zelum ad ea quae sunt legis, ut ex hoc ipso confutaret pontifices et sacerdotes, qui erant ei de lege calumniam illaturi. Per hoc etiam quod huiusmodi eiecit de templo, dedit intelligere quod appropinquabat tempus quo sacrificia legis cessare debebant, et verus Dei cultus ad gentes transferri; Matth. c. XXI, 43: auferetur a vobis regnum et cetera. Similiter etiam ut ostenderet eorum damnationem qui spiritualia vendunt; Act. VIII, 20: pecunia tua tecum sit in perditione. Consequenter cum dicit et his qui columbas vendebant, dixit etc., ponit remedium quod adhibuit verbo. Ubi notandum est, quod simoniaci primo quidem fugandi sunt de Ecclesia. Sed quia adhuc dum vivunt, per liberum arbitrium possunt se convertere, et adiuti a Deo ad statum gratiae redire, non sunt desperandi. Si vero non convertuntur, tunc quidem non fugantur, sed ligantur ab illis, quibus dicitur, Matth. XXII, 13: ligatis manibus et pedibus eius, mittite eum in tenebras exteriores. Et ideo dominus hoc attendens, primo quidem admonet; secundo rationem admonitionis inducit, ibi et nolite facere et cetera. Monet quidem venditores columbarum eos increpando, quia per eos signantur illi qui vendunt dona spiritus sancti, scilicet simoniaci.
2:16
Rationem huius inducit, cum dicit: et nolite facere domum patris mei, domum negotiationis. Is. I, 16: auferte malum cogitationum vestrarum ab oculis meis. Attende autem, quod Matth. XXI, 13 dicit: nolite facere domum meam speluncam latronum, hic vero dicit: domum negotiationis, quod dominus ideo fecit ut, sicut bonus medicus, primo a levioribus incipiens, postea dura proponeret. Hoc enim quod hic factum dicitur, primo factum fuit: unde in ipso principio, non latrones, sed negotiatores eos vocat. Sed quia ex eorum duritia adhuc a tali negotiatione non cessabant, ideo dominus alia vice eos expellens de quo agitur in Mc. c. IX, 15 ss. durius eos increpat, vocans latrocinium quod primo vocaverat negotiationem. Dicit autem domum patris mei, ad excludendum errorem Manichaei, qui dicebat, quod Deus veteris testamenti non fuerat pater Christi, sed Deus novi. Sed si hoc verum esset, cum templum fuisset domus veteris testamenti, non utique Christus dixisset templum domum patris sui. Sed quare non sunt turbati Iudaei de hoc quod hic vocat Deum patrem suum, sicut dicitur infra V, 18, quod propter hoc eum persequerentur? Ad quod dicendum est, quod Deus est pater aliquorum per adoptionem, puta iustorum, et hoc non erat novum apud Iudaeos; Ier. III, 19: patrem vocabis me, et post me ingredi non cessabis. Sed per naturam solius Christi est, Ps. II, 7: dominus dixit ad me: filius meus es tu, scilicet verus et naturalis; et hoc inauditum erat apud eos. Et ideo quia Christus se verum Dei filium dicebat, Iudaei persequebantur ipsum; infra V, 18: propter hoc persequebantur Iudaei Christum, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum; sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se Deo faciens. Cum autem hic Deum vocat patrem, dicebant de eo quod esset per adoptionem. Quod autem domus Dei non debeat fieri domus negotiationis, habetur Zach. c. ult., 21: non erit ultra mercator in domo domini exercituum in die illo. Et in Ps. LXX, v. 16 secundum aliam litteram: quoniam non cognovi negotiationem, introibo in potentias domini.
2:17
Consequenter cum dicit recordati sunt vero discipuli eius etc. ponit prophetiae oraculum, quod quidem scriptum est in Ps. LXVIII, 10: zelus domus tuae comedit me. Ubi sciendum, quod zelus proprie dicit quamdam intensionem amoris, qua intense diligens, nihil sustinet quod amori suo repugnet. Et inde est quod viri diligentes intense uxores, nec in eis sustinentes aliorum consortium, utpote amori eorum contrarium, zelotypi dicuntur. Ille igitur proprie zelum Dei habet qui nihil patienter sustinere potest contra honorem Dei, quem maxime diligit; III Reg. c. XIX, 10: zelo zelatus sum pro domino exercituum et cetera. Nos autem debemus diligere domum domini, secundum illud Ps. XXV, 8: domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae. Et intantum debemus diligere quod zelus eius nos comedat: dum si quid contrarium fieri videbimus, studeamus etiam quantumcumque cari nostri sint qui hoc facient, removere, nec timeamus propter hoc aliqua mala perpeti. Unde dicitur in Glossa: bonus zelus est fervor animi, quo quis mortis abiecto timore, pro defensione veritatis accenditur. Eo comeditur, qui quaelibet prava quae viderit, corrigere satagit; et si nequit, tolerat, et gemit.
2:18
Posita occasione signi exhibendi, hic consequenter Evangelista manifestat signum exhibendum: et primo ponit signum quod exhibetur; secundo ponit fructum factorum signorum, qui sequitur, ibi cum autem esset Ierosolymis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur signi postulatio; secundo signi exhibitio, ibi respondit Iesus, et dixit eis: solvite templum hoc etc.; tertio signi exhibiti intellectus, seu conceptio, ibi dixerunt ergo ei: quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc et cetera. Signum autem postulatur a Iudaeis; et hoc est quod dixit responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis? Ubi sciendum est, quod in eiectione negotiatorum de templo per Iesum, duo considerari poterant in Christo: rectitudo et zelus, quae pertinent ad virtutem; et potestas, seu auctoritas. Sed de virtute et zelo Christi, quibus praedicta fecerat, non oportebat peti signum a Christo; cum unicuique liceat operari secundum virtutem. De auctoritate tamen eius, qua eos de templo expellit, signum ab eo quaeri poterat; cum hoc non cuilibet liceret facere, sed auctoritatem habenti. Praetermisso igitur Iudaei zelo et virtute, signum petunt de eius auctoritate; et ideo dicunt quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis? Idest, quare cum tanta potestate et auctoritate nos expellis? Non videtur hoc esse tui officii. Simile dicunt, Matth. XXI, 23: in qua potestate haec facis? et cetera. Signum autem quaerunt: quia familiare erat Iudaeis, signum quaerere, utpote per ea ad legem vocati; Deut. ult., 10. Non surrexit ultra propheta in Israel sicut Moyses, quem nosset dominus facie ad faciem, in omnibus signis atque portentis. Et, I Cor. c. I, 22, Iudaei signa quaerunt. Ideo David in persona Iudaeorum conqueritur, dicens, Ps. LXXIII, 9: signa nostra non vidimus. Quaerebant autem signum, non ut crederent, sed quasi desperantes, quod signum ostendere non posset, et sic eum reprimerent et impedirent. Quia ergo prave quaerebant, non dedit eis signum apertum, sed occultum in figura, scilicet signum de resurrectione. Unde dicit respondit Iesus, et dixit eis etc. in quo ponitur signi postulati exhibitio. Ideo autem dat eis signum resurrectionis futurum, quia in hoc maxime virtus divinitatis eius ostenditur. Non enim puri hominis est ut se excitaret a mortuis; sed solum Christus, qui fuit inter mortuos liber, hoc virtute suae divinitatis fecit. Simile etiam signum ostendit eis. Matth. XII, 39: generatio prava, et adultera signum quaerit; sed signum non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Et licet utrobique dederit signum occultum et figurale; illud tamen manifestius, istud vero obscurius fuit. Notandum autem, quod ante incarnationem dedit Deus signum futurae incarnationis, Is. VII, 14: ipse dominus dabit vobis signum: ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium etc.; similiter et ante resurrectionem dedit signum de resurrectione futura: quia istis duobus maxime virtus divinitatis commendatur in Christo. Nihil enim mirabilius fieri potuit quam quod Deus factus est homo, et quod humanitas in Christo, post eius resurrectionem, immortalitatis divinae particeps effecta est; Rom. VI, 9: Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur (...) quod enim vivit, vivit Deo, idest ad similitudinem Dei. Sed attendenda sunt verba signi dati. Nam Christus corpus suum templum dicit: cuius ratio est, quia templum dicitur in quo Deus inhabitat etc. secundum illud Ps. X, 5: dominus in templo sancto suo. Et inde est quod anima sancta, quam Deus inhabitat, dicitur templum Dei; I Cor. III, 17: templum Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos. Quia ergo in corpore Christi divinitas inhabitat, ideo corpus Christi est templum Dei, non solum secundum animam, sed etiam secundum corpus; Col. II, 9: in quo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter. Et in nobis quidem habitat Deus secundum gratiam, scilicet secundum actum intellectus et voluntatis, qui non est actus corporis, sed animae tantum; sed in Christo habitat secundum unionem in persona: quae quidem unio non solum ipsam animam, sed et corpus includit; et ideo ipsum corpus Christi est templum Dei. Ex hoc autem Nestorius, sui erroris occasionem sumens, dicit verbum Dei unitum humanae naturae secundum inhabitationem tantum; ex quo sequitur quod alia sit persona Dei, alia hominis in Christo. Et ideo dicendum est, quod inhabitatio Dei in Christo refertur ad naturam, quia alia est divina natura, alia humana in Christo; sed non ad personam, quae est eadem in Christo Dei et hominis, scilicet persona verbi, ut dictum est supra. Hoc igitur supposito, circa hoc signum dominus duo facit. Primo quidem praenuntiat suam mortem futuram; secundo vero resurrectionem. Mortem quidem praenuntiat cum dicit solvite templum hoc. Christus enim mortuus fuit, et ab aliis occisus, Matth. XVII, v. 22: et occident eum, eo tamen volente: quia, ut dicitur Is. LIII, 7, oblatus est quia ipse voluit. Et ideo dicit solvite templum hoc, idest corpus meum. Et non dicit, solvetur, ne intelligas eum seipsum occidisse; sed dicit solvite, quod non est imperantis, sed praenuntiantis, et permittentis. Praenuntiantis quidem, ut sit sensus solvite templum hoc, idest, solvetis; permittentis vero, ut sit sensus solvite templum hoc, idest, facite de corpore meo quod vultis, illud vobis expono, sicut dicit Iudae, infra XIII, 27: quod facis, fac citius: non quidem imperans ei, sed eum eius arbitrio derelinquens. Dicit autem solvite, quia mors Christi est solutio corporis eius, aliter tamen quam aliorum hominum. Nam corpora aliorum hominum solvuntur per mortem usque ad incinerationem carnis, et pulverationem: qualis quidem solutio non fuit in Christo; quia, ut dicitur in Ps. XV, 10, non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Fuit ibi tamen solutio per mortem, quia anima separata est a corpore, ut forma a materia, et quia sanguis separatus est a corpore, et quia corpus eius perforatum est clavis et lancea.
2:19
Resurrectionem autem praenuntiat cum dicit et in tribus diebus excitabo illud, scilicet corpus; idest a mortuis suscitabo. Non autem dicit excitabitur, nec excitabit illud pater, sed ego excitabo: ut ostendat se propria virtute a mortuis resurgere. Nec tamen negamus quin pater eum a mortuis suscitaverit, quia, ut dicitur Rom. c. VIII, 11, qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis. Et in Ps. XL, 11: tu autem, domine, miserere mei, et resuscita me. Sic ergo Deus pater Christum suscitavit a mortuis, et Christus propria virtute resurrexit; Ps. III, 6: ego dormivi, et soporatus sum, et exurrexi, quia dominus suscepit me. Nec est in hoc contrarietas, quia eadem est virtus utriusque: unde quaecumque pater facit, haec similiter, et filius facit: infra V, 19. Nam si pater eum suscitavit, et filius; II Cor. ult., 4: nam si crucifixus est ex infirmitate, sed vivit ex virtute Dei. Dicit autem et in tribus diebus et non post tres dies, quia non diebus tribus completis in monumento permansit; sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, est synecdochica locutio, in qua ponitur pars pro toto. Origenes autem huius locutionis mysticam rationem assignat, dicens: corpus Christi verum est templum Dei, quod quidem corpus figurat corpus mysticum, idest Ecclesiam; I Cor. XII, 27: vos estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro. Et sicut in corpore Christi habitat divinitas per gratiam unionis, ita et in Ecclesia per gratiam adoptionis. Et quamvis corpus istud mystice dissolvi videatur adversitatibus tribulationum, quibus affligitur, tamen suscitatur in tribus diebus, scilicet in die legis naturae, et in die legis scriptae, et in die legis gratiae; quia, etsi in his diebus, quantum ad aliquos corpus dissolvatur, quantum ad aliquos tamen vivit. Et ideo dicit in tribus diebus, quia huius resurrectio spiritualis in tribus diebus perficitur. Sed post tres dies perfecte resuscitabimur, non solum quantum ad primam resurrectionem, sed etiam quantum ad secundam; Apoc. XX, v. 6: beatus qui habet partem in resurrectione secunda. Consequenter cum dicit dixerunt ergo Iudaei etc. ponitur signi exhibiti intellectus, et primo quidem ponitur intellectus falsus, conceptus a Iudaeis; secundo vero intellectus verus, conceptus ab apostolis, ibi ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. Falsus autem intellectus Iudaeorum erat quia credebant quod Christus diceret hoc de templo materiali, in quo tunc erat; et ideo secundum hunc intellectum, respondent de templo materiali, et dicunt quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, scilicet materiale, in quo sumus, et in tribus diebus excitabis illud? Sed contra hoc est obiectio litteralis. Nam templum in Ierusalem per Salomonem fuit aedificatum, et ut habetur III Reg. c.
2:20
VI, 1 s. a Salomone fuit consummatum septem annis, quid est ergo quod hic dicit quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc? Respondeo. Dicendum, secundum quosdam, quod hoc non est intelligendum de prima aedificatione templi, quae completa est a Salomone septem annis: nam templum quod Salomon aedificaverat, destructum fuit a Nabuchodonosor, sed intelligendum est de reaedificatione facta sub Zorobabel, postquam reversi fuerunt a captivitate, sicut legitur in libro Esdrae quae quidem multis impugnantibus undique inimicis, intantum impedita et dilata fuit, quod non potuit consummari templum usque ad quadragesimum sextum annum. Vel dicendum, secundum Origenem, quod intelligitur de templo Salomonis: quod quidem dicitur aedificatum quadraginta et sex annorum tempore, ut numeretur tempus ab eo die quo David mentionem fecit de aedificatione templi, consulens super hoc Nathan prophetam, ut habetur II Reg. VII, 2 s., usque ad consummationem perfectam per Salomonem: nam ex illo die David incepit praeparare materiam et necessaria ad aedificationem templi. Et si diligenter dictum tempus consideretur, ascendit ad numerum quadraginta sex annorum. Quamvis autem Iudaei intentionem suam referrent ad templum materiale, tamen, secundum Augustinum, potest referri ad templum corporis Christi: quia, sicut ipse dicit in Lib. LXXXIII quaest., conceptio et formatio humani corporis perficitur quadraginta quinque diebus hoc modo. Primis enim sex diebus corporis humani conceptio, quasi lactis habet similitudinem; novem vero diebus sequentibus convertitur in sanguinem; duodecim inde diebus solidatur in carnem; sed decem et octo reliquis diebus formatur usque ad perfecta lineamenta omnium membrorum. Isto ergo numero sex, novem, duodecim et octodecim in unum coacto, exurgit numerus quadraginta et quinque, cui addito uno propter sacramentum unitatis, sunt quadraginta sex. Sed ex hoc insurgit quaestio: quia huius processus formationis non videtur habere locum in corpore Christi, quia in ipso instanti conceptionis formatum fuit et animatum. Sed dicendum, quod licet in corporis Christi formatione sit aliquid singulare, quia in ipso instanti corpus Christi fuit perfectum quantum ad omnia lineamenta membrorum, non tamen quantum ad debitam corporis quantitatem; et ideo in utero virginis tamdiu permansit quousque ad quantitatem debitam perveniret. Accipiamus autem dictum numerum suprapositum, scilicet senarium, qui primus erat et quadraginta sex, qui erat ultimus; et ducamus unum in alterum: ex eis surgunt ducenta septuaginta sex. Dividendo ergo tot dies in menses, dando cuilibet mensi triginta dies sunt novem menses et sex dies. Recte ergo quadraginta et sex annis templum dicitur aedificatum esse, quod significabat corpus Christi, ut insinuet, quod tot anni fuerunt in fabricatione templi quot fuerunt dies in perfectione corporis Christi: nam ab octavo Kal. Aprilis in quo Christus fuit conceptus, et (ut creditur) passus, usque ad octavum Kal. Ianuarii sunt tot dies, scilicet ducenti septuaginta sex, quod numerus surgit ex senario ducto in quadraginta et sex. Ex hoc etiam numero Augustinus (ut patet per Glossam) aliud intelligit mystice. Dicit enim, quod ex litteris nominis Adam multiplicatis, secundum numerum quem more Graecorum ipsae litterae important, surgit numerus quadraginta et sex. Nam a in Graeco secundum numerum importat unum, cum sit prima littera in alphabeto; d vero secundum ordinem importat quatuor. Addito ergo uno quod importat a, et quadraginta quod importat m, habemus quadraginta et sex. In quo significatur quod corpus Christi assumptum est de corpore Adam. Item secundum Graecos ex primis litteris acceptis ex nominibus quatuor partium mundi componitur hoc nomen Adam: scilicet anathole, quod est oriens; disis quod est occidens; Arctos, quod est Septemtrio; mesembria, quod est meridies: in quo significatur quod Christus ex Adam carnem assumpsit, ut congreget electos suos a quatuor partibus mundi; Matth. XXIV, 31: congregabit electos suos a quatuor ventis.
2:21
Consequenter cum dicit ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui, ponitur intellectus signi verus, conceptus a discipulis, et primo ponitur ipsorum intellectus; secundo vero unde apostoli hoc conceperunt, ibi cum ergo surrexit et cetera. Dicit ergo: Iudaei hoc dixerunt ignorantes, sed Christus non sic intelligebat, immo intelligebat de templo corporis sui; et hoc est quod dicit ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. Qua autem ratione corpus Christi dicatur templum, dictum est supra. Et ex hoc Apollinaris occasionem erroris sumens, dixit, quod caro Christi esset materia inanimata, quia templum est res inanimata. Sed in hoc decipitur: quia cum dicitur quod corpus Christi est templum, est metaphorica locutio, in qua quidem locutione non attenditur similitudo quantum ad omnia, sed quantum ad aliquid, scilicet quantum ad inhabitationem, quod quidem refertur ad naturam, ut dictum est supra. Praeterea hoc manifeste apparet per auctoritatem sacrae Scripturae, cum dicit ipse Christus: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam.
2:22
Unde autem apostoli hunc verum intellectum conceperunt, ostendit consequenter Evangelista, cum subdit cum ergo surrexisset a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli eius et cetera. Nam ante resurrectionem difficile erat hoc intelligere: primo quia per hoc ostendebatur quod in corpore Christi erat vera divinitas, alias non potuisset dici templum; et hoc tunc temporis intelligere, humanam capacitatem excedebat. Secundo quia in hoc facit mentionem de passione et resurrectione, cum dicit excitabo illud, quod nullus discipulorum adhuc audierat. Unde quando Christus resurrectionem et passionem suam expressit apostolis, Petrus hoc audiens, scandalizatus est, dicens: absit a te, domine (Matth. XVI, 22). Sed post resurrectionem, quando iam plene cognoverant Christum esse Deum, per ea quae circa passionem et resurrectionem ostenderat, et quando sacramentum resurrectionis ipsius didicerant tunc recordati sunt discipuli eius quia hoc dicebat de corpore suo, et tunc crediderunt Scripturae, scilicet prophetarum; Oseae VI, 3: vivificabit nos post duos dies, et tertia die suscitabit nos; Ionae II, 1: erat Ionas in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus. Et inde est quod in ipsa die resurrectionis aperuit illis sensum ut intelligerent Scripturas. Et sermoni eius, quem dixit Iesus, huic scilicet, solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Analogice autem per hoc datur nobis intelligi, secundum Origenem, quod in ultima resurrectione naturae, erimus Christi discipuli, quando in magna resurrectione totum corpus Iesu, idest Ecclesia eius, certificabitur de his quae nunc per fidem aenigmatice cognoscimus; et tunc recipiemus fidei complementum, videndo per speciem quod nunc per speculum intuemur. Consequenter cum dicit cum autem esset Ierosolymis, ponit fructum consecutum ex signis, scilicet conversionem aliquorum credentium: et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit ipsos credentes, propter miracula; secundo ostendit quomodo Christus se habuit ad eos, ibi ipse autem Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis; tertio rationem assignat ad hoc, ibi eo quod ipse nosset omnes.
2:23
Fructus autem qui provenit ex signis Iesu magnus est, quia multi crediderunt, et conversi sunt ad eum; et hoc est quod dicit cum autem esset Ierosolymis in Pascha, in die festo, multi crediderunt in nomine eius, idest in eum, videntes signa quae faciebat. Nota autem, quod dupliciter aliqui crediderunt. Quidam namque propter miracula visa, quidam vero propter occultorum revelationem et prophetiam. Sed commendabiliores sunt qui propter doctrinam credunt, quia sunt magis spirituales, quam qui propter signa, qui sunt grossiores et magis sensibiles. Isti autem qui conversi sunt, sensibiles ostenduntur per hoc quod non propter doctrinam, sicut discipuli, sed videntes signa quae faciebat, crediderunt in nomine eius. I Cor. XIV, v. 22: prophetiae datae sunt fidelibus et cetera. Sed quaeritur hic quaenam signa viderunt facta a Iesu, cum nullum legamus eum tunc signum fecisse in Ierusalem. Ad hoc potest dupliciter responderi, secundum Origenem. Uno modo quod multa signa facta sint a Iesu ibi tunc temporis, quae hic non habentur; nam Evangelistae scienter multa praetermiserunt de miraculis Christi, cum tot fecerit quod non possent de facili scribi; infra ult., 25: multa quidem alia signa fecit Iesus: quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos qui scribendi sunt libros. Et hoc signanter Evangelista ostendit cum dicit videntes signa quae faciebat, quae iam praetermissa sunt, quia non fuit intentio Evangelistarum omnia signa Iesu conscribere, sed tot quot necessaria erant ad Ecclesiam fidelium instruendam. Alio modo, quia inter miracula potest maximum signum reputari, quod cum flagello facto ex funibus, hominum multitudinem Iesus de templo solus eiecerit.
2:24
Qualiter autem ad credentes se habuit, ostendit dicens ipse autem Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis, scilicet qui crediderant in eum. Sed quid est hoc quod homines credunt Deo, et ipse Iesus non credebat se eis? Numquid potuissent eum occidere, ipso nolente? Sed dicet aliquis, quod ideo non credebat se eis, quia sciebat eos ficte credere. Sed si hoc verum esset, non utique diceret Evangelista, quod multi crediderant in nomine eius, et tamen non credebat se eis. Et ratio est, secundum Chrysostomum, quia isti crediderunt in eum, sed imperfecte, quia nondum poterant attingere ad perfecta mysteria Christi, et ideo non credebat se eis, idest, secreta sua mysteria eis nondum revelabat: nam et ipsis apostolis multa non revelavit; infra XVI, 12: multa habeo vobis dicere; sed non potestis portare modo; I Cor. III, 1: non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus, sed quasi carnalibus. Et ideo notanter Evangelista, ut ostendat eos imperfecte credere, non dicit, quod credebant in eum, quia nondum credebant eius divinitatem; sed dicit in nomine eius: illud quod de eo, nomine tenus dicebatur, scilicet quod iustus, vel huiusmodi. Vel, secundum Augustinum, isti gerunt in Ecclesia typum catechumenorum, qui etsi credant in nomine Christi, Iesus tamen non credit se illis, quia Ecclesia non dat eis corpus Christi: quod quidem corpus, sicut nullus sacerdos conficere potest nisi in sacerdotem consecratus, ita nullus sumere debet nisi baptizatus. Ratio autem huius quod non credebat se eis, ostenditur ex perfecta Christi cognitione; unde dicit eo quod ipse nosset omnes. Licet autem homo ignorans debeat de quolibet praesumere bonum; tamen postquam veritas innotescit de aliquibus, debet se homo habere ad eos secundum eorum conditionem. Et quia Christum nihil latebat eorum quae sunt in homine, cum sciret eos imperfecte credere, non credebat se eis. Describitur autem cognitio Christi universalis, quia non solum familiares, sed etiam alios extraneos cognoscebat, et ideo dicit eo quod ipse nosset omnes, et hoc per potentiam divinitatis; Eccli. XXIII, 28: oculi domini multo plus lucidiores sunt super solem. Nam homo, etsi cognoscat alios, non tamen certam cognitionem de eis potest habere, quia non videt nisi ea quae apparent; et ideo opus est ei testimonio aliorum. Christus autem certissime cognoscit, quia intuetur cor: et ideo non erat ei opus ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine; immo ipse testis est, Iob XVI, 20: ecce in caelo est testis meus.
2:25
Perfecta, quia non solum quantum ad exteriora, sed etiam quantum ad interiora sua cognitio se extendit; et ideo dicit ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine, idest occulta cordis. Prov. XV, 11: Infernus, et perditio coram domino.
2:1
v. 1 etdie tertia, a die illa qua voluit exire in Galilaeam (1,853; Bar. Schz.) vel a colloquio cum Nathanael (Cai. lans. Schg.); cum enim de adventu in Galilaeam vel in Cana vel in Nazac reth facto nihil dicatur, etiam a tali adventu: computatio Ziequit intelligi; nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae , ut distinguatur ἃ Cana in tribu Aser (Ios. 19,28); videtur intelligendum esse hodiernum Kefr Kana (Kenna), distans a Nazareth itinere liorae ünius et semis (6 kilom.) in via quaea Sepphori Tiberiadem ducit (cf. ScAz. ; alii, uti Riess 10 ki- Jom. distare a Nazareth referunt); alii, uti Robinson, Ritter, Sepp etc. Kana el Dschelil assignànt; et erat. mater Iesu i5i;.colligunt aliqui matrem Iesu habitasse in Cana idque confirmari v. 3. δ. 12; verum quam debili, vel potius nullo fundamento id ásseratur legenti patet; nam defectum vini advertere, cum ministris loqui , nuptiis transactis descendere Capharnaum, profecto non supponunt domicilium stabile in Cana. Potius dici potest cum CÀr. Tol. Mald. referri eam vocatam seu invitatam esse, quia dicitur
11;.habetur scil. in eo eventu manifestatio gloriae.Iesu: et'ex ea fides discipulorum i. e. incrementum eius fidei quam iam conceperant; valide.confirmantur in cognitione quam Nathanael; Philippus, Andreas jam enuntiarant;
2:2
v. 2 vocatus est étiam Iesus : quemadmodum illam, ita et Iesum vocaverant (CAr.); idque áugendi particula etiam. insinuatur. Mirum est quaeri ab aliquibus, quis fuerit sponsus, quae sponsa ; fuisse illum vel illam cognatione vel propinquitate cum beata Virgine coniunctum, potest fortasse ex invitatione coniici. Cum in v. 12 etiam mentio fiat fratrum Iesu ; eos quoque nup tiis interfüisse merito dixeris. Patrem Iesu nutritium , quia nullibi eius fiat mentio, iam obiisse colligunt (ita EpipA. haer. 78,10; M. 52,713; Tol. Maid. Bar. Ians. Calm. Corl. Schz.). Id de matre praemitti etiam ideo censet Thom. « ut ostendatur quod Iesus adhuc ignotus eratet non vocatus ad nuptiassicut insignis persona, sed ex quadam familiaritate tamquam notus et unus aliorum; sicut enim vocaverunt matrem , ita et filium » v. 9 vocatus est autem et Iesus et discipuli eius ad nuptias , scil. qui eo tempore in Cana advenit; cum materfesto interesset, sane omnino conveniens videbatur sponso filium quoque invitare et cum Iesu comites eius non poterant negligi. Iesum propter matrem iam invitalam fuisse vocatum monent Bon. Cai. Maid. Ians. Calm. idque haud immerito ex modo narrationis colligunt. Videntur igitur haec fieri fortuito; at cuncta suavi providentia et modo simplicissimo ad sublimissimum diriguntur consilium. Eo quod Iesus accipit invitationem , commendant veteres eius humilitatem , benignitatem ; efferunt honorari ac sanctificari nuptias; « conveniebat enim ut qui naturam ipsam hominis renovaturus ac totam in meliorem sta- tum revocaturus venerat, non solum iis qui iam in ortum vocati erant benedictionem impertiret, sed et iis quoque qui postea nascituri essent gratiam praestrueret et eorum ortum sanctum efficeret » (Cyr.); voluit confirmare, honorare, sanctificare nuptias; futuri quippe erant qui prohiberent nubere (1 Tim. &,3; Aug. sim. Euth. Thom. Tol. Ians.). Et hac ipsa acceptione etiam ostendit se non sequi austeram illam vivendi rationem baptistae nec ad eam adigere discipulos (cf. Matth. 9,15; 11,19 venit Filius hominis manducans et bibens). Etiam hic ingenia quorundam mirari licet qui affirmant Iesum profectum a Iudaea in Nazareth ibi invenisse invitationem sibi factam; vel eum audisse antea a Nathanael, matrem esse in Cana ideoque se sine invitatione eodem contulisse, vel cur in Cana tetenderit, solum explicari, quia cognati eius ibi habitarent. Verum nisi quis Iesum pessima opinione putarit tantummodo hominem esse, fatebitur eum tali rerum futurarum scientia esse praeditum qualem evangelista ei adscribit (1,&7-50; 2,25; 13,1). Quare sciens quid futurum sit se confert in Cana et quod in v. 11 dicitur, id revera effici voluit. Probabile est quod et veteres (v. g. Rup. Mald. Calm.) et recentiores quandoque advertunt novosillos convivas minime exspectatos qui cum Iesu advenerant vini defectum attulisse. Adde paupertatem invitantium (Tol.). Quare a matre misericordiae fit interpellatio ad filium (A/0.)
2:3
v. 3 et deficiente vino dicit mater Iesu ad eum: vinum non habent; cernitur matris misericordia, eo quoque modo perfecta , quia a nullo rogata sponte ad succurrendum se exhibet efficacem, petitiones praeveniens; misericordia enim tanto est liberalior quanto minus rogari exspectat (Tol.). Porro ostenditur ipsius eximia de Iesu opinio et fides. Iesus nondum operatus est miraculum ; scit eum posse et exspectat eum miraculo opem laturum. Cur merito hoc nunc exspectare potuerit, ratio est, quia Iesus « nunc coepit in publicum prodire; antea tamquam unus e vulgo vitam agebat; quapropter non audebat tale quidpiam ipsi dicere. Ubi autem audivit Ioannem propter ipsum venisse ac de illo tale testimonium perhibuisse, ipsum habere discipulos, tunc demum cum fiducia rogat » (CÀr.). Ex eo quod Iesus discipulos sibi coniungebat, merito conclusit advenisse tempus, quo sese manifestaret. Quare audet tanta modestia et reverentia Iesu defectum vini insinuare, ut eum ad sublevandam inopiam amicorum provocaret (cf. Theoph. Euth. Theod. M. lans. Calm. Schz.); neque dubitat quin pro sua bonitate et potentia possit ac velit succurrere, sed tempus et modum in illius voluntate et providentia relinquit (lans.). Ut quae sequuntur, suam habeant explicationem toti eventui et praescientiae Christi consonam, notari oportet Christum revera in nuptiis istis gloriam suam manifestasse; ergo antea scivil se hoc facturum; ergo non fortuito, sed hoc ipso consilio concepto adiit nuptias; vel ideo abiit in Cana, ut invitaretur et invitatus manifestatione sua fidem discipulorum augeret et confirmaret. Haec certa sunt neque ab ullo negari poterunt, qui de Christo Deo et homine recte sentit; vide.ea quae ἃ theologis communi sententia de scientia .animae Christi: docentur. Sufficit quoque, ut antea iam adverli, ea considerare quae in hoc ipso evangelio de Christi scientia proponuntur. 1,47 seq..2,95;:4,16 seq. 6,71; 11,5 etc.; nam ex iis iam debet colligi Christum .scivisse quid futurum esset in nuptiis et ideo venisse ut:faceret:quod revera fecit. Porro oportet considerare b. Virginem.statim intellexisse- Christum defectui vini prospecturum esse modo ad. admirationem. facto. Id elucet ex v. 5. Haec igitur ob oculos habenda sunt, ut responsio Christi rite concipiatur
2:4
v. & et dicit ei Iesus : quid mihi et tibi est mulier? nondum venit hora mea? i. e. quid est mihi tecum, scil. ut àagendorum mne commoneas? non est opus; nam : nondumne venit hora mea? hoc membrum legendum est per interrogationem, quare aequivalet sententiae : hora mea, qua me manifestare mihi in animo est, iam advenit. Ita per interrogationem verba accipiuntur apud Tatianum, uti patet ex texto arabico quem -edidit.Ciasca (Romae 1888, quamvis in versione latina interrogationis signum arabicum i. e. «X non expressit quod habetur ante nondum); per interrogationem legit quoque. Gregorius nyssenus (M. 44,1308) et verba graeca, uti iacent, posse ita legi manifestum est. | Nam valde frequenter interrogatio in libris novi test. nulla designatur particula; quae est indoles colloquii familiaris, ubi interrogatio ipsa vocis inflexione declaratur; exempla habes ex textu graeco v. g. Matth. 6,95; 8,99; 471,24; 24,2. Marc. 7,18; 13, 2. Luc. 13, 2. Ioan. 6,14; 7,93; 13,6; 16,31; 19,10. Act. 19,37. Rom. 2,94. 4 Cor. 5,2 etc. etc. Et esse illam omissionem revera frequentissimam vide Viteau, Étude sur le Grec du N. T. p. 23, qui p. 26 de nostro loco quoque asserit : on peut mettre le signe de l'interrogation aprés οὕπω ἥκει f$ ὥρα μου (pour ce passage, voy. Berger de Xivrey, Étude sur le texte et le style du N. T. Paris. 1856); vide quoque de omissione adeo : frequenti Winer 851; Blass, Gram. des neutest. Griechisch ἃ 77,2. Wes οὐ 120 a ..— 10AN. 2,4. | v dixit : in eo negotio tua intercessione non indigeo; mea res agitur; laissez- Quia non satis consideratum est, Christum praescientem et volentem miracula facere nuptias adiisse, sententia : nondum venit hora mea, lecta est cum affirmatione. Unde necessario orta est opinio : Christum voluisse dicere : nondum esse tempus illud a Patre sibi praefixum, quo . se Messiam palam ostendere possit ac debeat; nondum esse tempus mi- . .— raculorum; tempus manifestationis messianae esse statutum pro templo in lerusalem (uti Bar. et J. Grimm praecipue exponunt) ; Christum itaque citius incepisse patrare miracula inductum petitione matris et. ita matri honorem et reverentiam exhibuisse (cf. Chr. Euth. Cyr. Tol.), vel matrem eo quod repulsam illam humiliter suscepisset et sacrificium a se postulatum animo maxime generoso obtulisset, exauditione esse donatam et horam manifestationis messianae accelerasse (J. Grimm, Al. Schaefer). In qua opinione tamen varia affirmantur, quae consistere nequeunt. Nam tempus manifestationis messianae iam certissime habetur in baptismo Christi; tempus illud iam advenisse testimonio baptistae 1,15. 26. 29. 36 claredemonstratur; Christus illud inauguravit discipulos sibi aggregando, efficiendo, ut Messias praedicaretur (1,51. &5. &9) et se nominando filium hominis et promittendo : videbitis coelum aper-' tum etc. et tali promissione facta et rebus ita transactis cum discipulis se confert in Galilaeam, quomodo fieri posset ut tempus manifestationis messianae nondum advenisset? Nescio an satis recte statui possit a Patre aliam horam esse constitutam, idque a Christo adeo firmiter cum aliqua matris repulsa (uti generatim dicunt) asseri et asseri nulla conditione adiecta et tamen mox Christum re gesta contrarium profiteri. Utique dicunt, fidei et subiectioni matris hoc praemium esse collatum, ut quamvis nondum advenisset hora miraculum fieret vel ut propter eius virtutem ipsa hora acceleraretur. Et potest addi cum CAr. Iesum uon fuisse subditum horae, idque explicari cum eo exemplo mulieris Chananaeae; nam postquam dixit : non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierant domus Israel et : non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et dare canibus (Matth. 15,24-28), tamen filiam eius liberavit. Atque ita rem esse explicandam concedo, nisi ex toto narrationis contextu facillima haberetur explicatio legendo sententiam illam cum interrogatione, quam nobis interrogationem transmiserunt. Tatianus, Gregorius Nyssenus et quam recentiores etiam proponunt (cf. Études ecclésiastiques, 1896 p. 7). Si Christus ab initio noluit patrare miraculum, quare tandem venit ad nuplias? De precibus illis continuatis et de expugnatione voluntatis filii post longiorem oppugnationem narratio plane silet. Si tandem quaeritur : quomodo Christus potuerit cedere precibus matris, | IOAN. 9,5-1. 122 — E Si igitur sententiam illam cum interrogatione legimus, difficultates ^" '
2:8
v. 8 et. dicit eis Iesus : haurite nunc et ferte architriclino; nunc scil. cum aqua iam est in vinum transmutata; architriclinus, cuius erat convivii curam gerere, triclinium mensis et lectulis collocatis parare, fercula disponere, cibos, vinum praegustare, ministros reliquos dirigere etc.; vocatur quoque triclinarches ; e£ tulerunt, ei itaque in vasis minoribus, cyathis, haustum ex hydriis vinum attulerunt, ut convivis apponeretur, cum prius vinum iam defecisset. Ei fertur, quia eius erat cibos, vinum praegustare, ne quid insipidum in convivio apponeretur;
quod utique fieri non potuit plenis usque ad summum hydriis (Mald.);
2:9
v. 9 ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factam el non sctebat, unde esset, ministri autem-sctebant qui hauserant aquam; primus itaque testis post ministros est architriclinus; « non convivas ait de illa re sententiam tulisse, sed architriclinus qui sobrius adhuc nihil gustaverat; scitis quippe omnes, quibus conviviorum cura committitur esse omnium maxime sobrios, unam. hanc curam habentes, ut cum recto ordine omnia disponantur; ideoque sensum illum vigilem et sobrium (τὴν νήφουσαν αἴσθησιν ταύτην) ad rei gestae testimonium evocavit » (CÀr. Mald. Sehz.); dicitur gustavit aquam,... quia paullo ante aqua erat et ut indicetur, unde vinum factum sit. Monet Maid. simili modo eucharistiam consecratam a S. Paulo dici panem (1 Cor. 11,26. 27). De novi vini bonitate miratus vocat sponsum architriclinus
2:10
v. 10 et dicit ei : omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit. et. cum inebriati fuerint tunc id quod deterius est; tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc, sponsum increpat, non illepide, οὐχ ἀχόμψως, ut mihi videtur, si rei gestae ratio spectetur, quod sub finem coenae melius vinum profunderet (Cyr.). Miratur itaque optimum vinum sibi non ab initio esse traditum ; unde quae sit norma generalis ab omnibus observata sponso ioculariter declarat. Quia sententiam enuntiat generalem , qua lepide dicit quando vinum bonum poni debuerit,, falso aliquis inferret convivas iam fuisse inebriatos. Ab omni levitate Christi praesentia coercebantur. Atque hanc gloriae manifestationem minime evenisse quasi ex improviso, sed eam occasionem ab eo esse electam, satis indicatur
2:11
v. 11 hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae ; excluduntur itaque illa mira quae in apocryphis narrantur; sensus enim est Christum hac demum occasione initium fecisse i. e. primum patrasse miraculum (Chr. Euth.) non autem , quasi hoc esset solum primum quod in Cana fecisset, e! manifestavit gloriam suam, iam implens quod promiserat : maius his videbis; ostendit se solo nutu voluntatis sine ullo signo externo dominum naturae rerum; gloriam suam manifestavit, quia ipse primus auctor ac solus miraculi fuit; multi prophetae miracula ediderunt; de nullo tamen dictum est gloriam suam manifestasse, quia non tamquam domini creaturarum, sed ut ministri creatoris in rebus miracula faciebant; itaque non suam illi, sed Dei gloriam manifestabant (Mald.). Eam itaque ostendit potentiam, maiestatem , dominationem in res qualem habere decet Unigenitum a Patre (1,15) et quo consilio et in quem finem hanc sibi elegerit occasionem additur et crediderunt in eum discipuli etus ; 1. e. προσθήχην (Ammonius in cat. Cr.) augmentum fidei et confirmationem acceperunt; fidem ampliorem ac firmiorem acceperunt; crediderunt antea, sed non tam firmiter. (Ians.). Curam itaque discipulorum habet, eos docere, ut firmiter sibi adhaereant et in fide Messiae magis confirmentur, sedulo vult et studet. Quam necessarium hoc fuerit, inde concipitur, quia in dies magis experturi erant Messiam hunc longe aliter agere atque ipsi exspectabant. Magna igitur persuasione opuserat, ut contra spem in spem messianam crederent neque plane animis caderent, cum contraria plane illis acciderent quae ab omnibus exspectabantur. Quae enim spes et exspectatio messiana ab omnibus foveatur, vide in Comment. Matth. I p. 10 seq. . Neteres multi sunt in allegorica et symbolica huius eventus explicatione; ita Cyr. Aug. Beda, Theoph. Gaudentius (serm. 8, de Evangelii lectione 4. M. 20,886 seq.) etc. Utique non caret mysterio Messiam sponsum venisse ad nuptias ibique convivis laetis optimum subministrasse vinum. Moyses iubente Deo aquam in deserto populo sitienti e rupe dedit, « hoc miraculo Christus veluti typo quodam nobis adumbravit id quod aggrediebatur. Iam enim tempus erat ut pro insipida ac diluta legis mosaicae littera biberemus generosum illud vinum evangelicae doctrinae, Christo videlicet id quod erat inutile nobis et inefficax vertente in melius. Secundum cuius mysterii hic significati exigentiam licebit et totam hanc historiam mystice interpretari. Spirituales itaque quaedam sunt nuptiae, quibus scil. humana natura divinae reconciliata est et coniuncta » etc. (/ans.). Neque omittunt monere, eum qui aquam mutavit in vinum quasi praeludere alteri mutationi, qua vinum in sanguinem suum convertit. Hoc loco iam se demonstrat eum qui transit benefaciendo, qui insigni misericordia abundantissime bona sua hominibus largiatur. Rationalistae priores aliquid rei gestae retinere volentes quod postmodum exornatum sit et ad rationem miraculi evectum, statuerunt defectui vini occursum esse dono quodam inopinato, quod sponso missum sit et opportune advenerit; vel, ut aliis placuit, Iesum ita mentes animosque convivantium sermonibus suis oblectasse, ut vini defectum non sentirent. Postea ad mythum confugiebatur, qui scil. efformatus sit in oppositione ad largitionem aquae in deserto ; vel evangelistam aliquam parabolam Iesuquam male intellexerat tamquam rem gestam proposuisse. Recentiori tempore 22,17; ita Christum vocari sponsum Ioan. 3,29; baptistam nymphagogum, et quamdiu sponsus apud eos sit, eos non. posse ieiunare i. e. aquam bibere; quare Iesum in nuptiis mutare aquam in vinum, ut gaudium evangelii manifestet. Hisce iam intelligi allegoriam : vetus testamentum esse inops; unde « vinum non habent »; matrem Messiae esse mulierem in initio vitae publicae nondum dare possit veram vitam — 7,39 spiritus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum. erat glorificatus — dici ambiguum illud : nondum venit hora mea, quo verbo horam mortis designari, uti 42,93; 13,1; 171,4 et designari dies illos Marc. 2,20; Matth. 9,15; Luc. 5,35. Unde : mulier quid mihi et tibi i. e. ita loqui Logon ad veterem synagogam. Quae dicat architrjclinus 2,10, poni pro alio verbo apud Luc. 5,39 : novum vinum veteri generationi non placere. Unde in hac allegoria exprimi quomodo Iesus pro vetere conditione novam introducat (Handcom. p. 56-57). ᾿ Ex locis allegatis id volunt ostendere, quomodo evangelista usus sit rebus a synopticis praebitis ad suam allegoriam efformandam, quam libere singula coniunxerit, mutarit, expresserit. Demum secundum historiae fidem nihil aliud remanere, nisi laetam indolem et salutiferam qua Christus praedicare et beneficia praestare inceperit. Quam longe talis explicatio recedat a mente evangelistae, tum ex ipsa narratione apparet ; tum ex 4,46 : venit Iesus iterum in Cana Galilaeae, ubi fecit aquam vinum; tum ex 4,54 hoc iterum secundum signum fecit Iesus, cum venisset a Iudaea in Galilaeam. Neque in allegoria explicatur, cur miraculum fiat in Cana Galilaeae etc.
2:12
v. 19 post hoc descendit Capharnaum ipse et mater eius et discipuli eius ; urbs erat satis celebris et commercio frequentata ad lacum Tiberiadis; plerique eo loco sitam censent, ubi hodie Tell Hum , dum alii pugnant (acerrime v. g. Sepp) pro Chan Minieh (Kefr, Choerbet Minieh); vide ad Matth. 4,13. In eam urbem se contulit, quia erat frequentissima et quia ibi se volebat ostendere ubi maior erat frequentia; et evangelista id commemorat, ut doceat Iesum iam non voluisse latere, sed frequentissima petiisse loca (Maid.). Optime dicitur descendit, cum urbs et lacus loco magis de-: presso sint et totum iter a Cana eousque descendat. Coniectant aliqui (Lap. Corl.) Iesum prius se contulisse Nazareth ; sed inanis coniectura tacente evangelista; alii eum urbem adiisse volunt quia ibi mater et fratres i. e. cognati suum transtulerint domicilium (TAeopA. Schegg, Weiss), id quod pariter incertum est. Hac autem commoratione bene praeluditur illi longiori , quam synoptici nobis referunt et qua factum est, ut Capharnaum diceretur civitas sua (Matth. 9,1). Etiam maiori frequentiae et manifestationi sollemniori obviam it
Postquam se suis manifestavit, iam ipsis ducibus et principibus populi se manifestat. Erant hi praeparati testimonio Ioannis ad adventum eius. Venit qualis a Malachia praedictus erat, venit purgans aream suam. Verum primores iam animos ostendunt contumaces, neque apud alios sinceram Christus invenit fidem, quamvis signis multis ostendat se esse'eum quem baptista annuntiaverat venturum. Quantopere duces populi in eum sint infensi, ipse palam facit Nicodemus qui solum noctu Iesum adire audet; eum edocet Iesus de se et de opere salutis; at simul apparet quam parum magister in Israel veram indolem operis messiani intelligat. Dum Iesus postea in regione Iudaeae commoratur, multi ad eum et discipulos veniebant; aemulatione inter discipulos baptistae orta utitur Ioannes ad repetitum testimonium praeclarum de Iesu tradendum. Iesus autem consultum ducit cedere invidiae pharisaeorum qui aegre ferebant quod multi ad eum audiendum et ad baptismum a discipulis datum accedebant. Dum in Galilaeam revertitur, venit in civitatem Samariae. Fidem quam principes negarant, invenit Iesus 21. Ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. longe pler χαταφάγεται. ἴῃ v. 18 sin dixerunt ei Iudaei; saepius pro Iesu sin habet Dominus noster (v. 19.24; 3,2.5.10 etc.). In v. 19 sin solvite templum (om hoc). In v. 20 sin om Iudaei. In v. ?? sin scripturis; v. 23 in die festo azymorum, et crediderunt domino nostro multi... quae faciebat eis; in v. 24 sin om eo quod ipse nosset omnes; in v. 25 sin de opere hominis; ipse enim novit cor in homine quid esset. Iesus discipulis se manifestavit et illis quoque qui nuptiis intererant, quibus saltem occasio praebebatur, ut in eo altiorem quandam auctoritatem et potestatem, proinde missionem et legationem divinitus ei commissam agnoscerent. In quantum illi bac opportunitate usi sint, non constat, quia evangelista de solis loquitur discipulis, quorum scil. institutionem ac confirmationem Iesus praeprimis ifitenderat. Alios nihil utilitatis ex signo illo cepisse, colligi certe nequit ex silentio evangelistae. Notandum quoque est quomodo Iesus paulatim magis in publicum se proferat. Reversus ex deserto sese baptistae ostendit ut ab eo aliis demonstretur, aliquos sibi adsciscit discipulos, cum iis ex Iudaea proficiscitur in Galilaeam , in Cana coram pluribus se maiorem baptista palam opere miraculoso facit et
2:13
v. 13 et prope erat pascha ludaeorum et ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam; inde aliquid colligere licet pro tempore baptismatis Christi; nam 1,99 probabilissime evenit non ita diu post reditum Christi ex deserto, ubi post baptismum per 10 dies commoratus est. Cerlissime quoque ex hoc loco constat nuptias in Cana non celebratas esse die 6 mensis ianuarii, uti quandoque aliqui ex liturgia concludunt (vide quae dixi in Comment. Matth. I p. 73). Ascendit autem e regione depressiore in urbem et sese statim confert in templum, quod incepta tandem vita publica concordat cum prophetia : et statim veniet ad templum suum domi- "nator (Mal. 3,1) atque etiam incipit implere quae propheta de hoc Messiae, angeli seu nuntii testamenti, adventu subiungit : ipse quasi ignis conflans et quasi herba fullonum et sedebit conflans etemundans argentum et purgabit filios Levi (cf. Comment. Proph. min. Il p. 468 seq.). Nam quae nunc agit gravissimam continent contra sacerdotes accusationem ;
2:14
v. 1& et invenit in templo, nomen templi totum dicit aedificium , sanctuarium , atria, porticus etc. ; hic intellige atrium gentium; templum ab Herodeinstauratum tria habebat atria, quorum alterum altero altius situm erat : atrium gentium, mulierum , Israelitarum; cum tempore festivo multa sacrificia a privatis offerrentur, animalia ad sacrificia apta in atrio vendebantur, in loco quem unice adire licuit gentilibus piis ad Deum adorandum. Strepitu eo et tumultu iniuria inferebatur loco sacro et offensio et impedimentum piis Dei cultoribus. Sacerdotes locum sacrum contaminari et pietatem ac religionem flocci haberi permittebant; immo ex illo commercio lucrum percepisse non est improbabile. Christum bis eiusmodi templi iniuriam vindicasse, hic in initio vitae publicae et in hebdomada passionis, vide ad Matth. 21,12 (Comment. II p. 210 seq.). Invenit itaque in atrio templi vendentes boves et oves et columbas; ct. Lev. 1,9; 3,1; oblatio pauperum, puerperarum egenarum et profluvio laborantium erant columbae Lev. 5,7 ; 19,8; 15,15 οἱ numulartos sedentes ad mensas, in quibus pecuniam sacram , siclum sanctuarii , habebant aliosque numos; nam Israelitae ad tributum templi solvendum indigebant siclo sanctuarii, quare numi extranei erant commutandi, quippe qui propter imagines deorum, imperatorum , animalium in thesauro templi non poterant reponi (ceterum vide ad Matth. 1. c.). Ipse quasi ignis conflans, sacra indignatione et maiestate , hanc templi iniuriam vindicat
2:15
v. 15 et cum fecisset (quasi) flagellum de funiculis omnes eiecit de templo, oves quoque et boves πάντας... τά τε πρόδατα xai τοὺς βόας, omnes, ovesque et boves; verba graeca, uti iam Cai. lans. adnotant et recentiores monent (Schz. Fl. Weiss, Keil), accurate ita explicanda sunt, ut τε... xa: intelligatur explicative ad omnes; proin non ipsos vendentes flagello eiecit, sed solum animalia (cf. Kíotz, Devar. ll p. 739; Winer ὃ 53,&; Kühner, Gram. II ὃ 592,9; 590,1; 519,3); at interpretes graeci CAr. Cyr. Theoph. Euth. ita loquuntur, ut ipsos quoque vendentes flagello eiectos significent (ita quoque Corl. ScAg.) et numulariorum effudit aes τὰ χέρματα numulos et mensas subvertit
2:16
v. 16 et his qui columbas vendebant dixit : auferte ista hinc; flagello usus est ad oves et boves eiicienda; columbae erant inclusae caveis ligneis; quare venditores iubet eas auferre; et cum venditores ibi consisterent, vides homines non esse flagello eiectos; alias iam aufugissent columbis . in caveis relictis. Putant aliqui.istos qui columbas vendebant, utpote pauperes, mitius reliquis a Domino esse adhibitos; ad columbas eiiciendas non poterat uti flagello, uti evidens est; erant itaque asportandae Dein cur ita agat affert rationem : et nolite facere domum Patris mei domum negotiationis! etiam acrius eos reprehendit in altera eiectione hebdomada passionis. Quia autem Deum vocat patrem suum cum emphasi, clare manifestat se singulari prorsus modo habere Deum patrem ; - iure id se facere indicat, quie sit domus Patris sui; filius enim honorem patris tueri ac vindicare debet (Τοί.). Tali appellatione ad Deum facta nemo unquam in s. litteris usus est, neque nos quid simile solemus; quis enim, .non cum ipso Deo agens, sed de Deo obiter loquens eum patrem suum absolute ac simpliciter diceret (Patr.)? Unde ea appellatione se clare designat Messiam , quem scil. Iudaei eximio quodam modo filium Dei esse putabant, etsi eum esse naturalem Dei filium non statim intelligebant. Iesus itaque tiiplici ratione se manifestat in templo. Primo haoc ipsa ultione impietatis ac profanationis se exhibet talem, qualem praedixit et propheta (Mal.3,1) et praecursor : cuius ventilabrum in manu sua et permundabit aream suam (Matth. 3,12); secundo ipsum hoc quod effieit testimonium est maiestatis eius et potentiae longe humanam superantis; « neque enim leve illud erat, sed audax facinus, sese forensium furori obiieere, οἱ brutorum hominum, mercatorum scil., turbam contumeliis onerare et adversum se exasperare » (Chr.) et certe in ea re « mirabilis eius auctoritas et potestas est declarata, cum inter omnes vendentes nemo uni homini adhuc ignoto auderet resistere, nemo qui non mox imperant obediret, divinitate nimirum ipsius mentes eorum perterrefaciente et ad obediendum cogente » (lans.); immo S. Hieronymus (ad Matth.) hoc censet omnium miraculorum maxime mirabile, « igneum quiddam etsidereum radiabat ex oculis eius et divi. nitatis maiestas lucebat in facie, immutans eorum animum, ut non auderent immittere in eum manum » quod Hieronymi verbum retinendum esse A/b. ait. Tertio demum ipsis verbis se manifestat templum Dei vocans domum Patris mei. Et eam manifestationem in discipulis non caruisse fructu adnotatur
2:17
v. 11 recordati sunt vero discipuli eus , quia scriptum est : zelus domus tuae comedit me χαταφάγεται me devorabit, consumet, quasi ignis urens et consumens, quo studium vehementissimum pro honore Dei et sanctitate templi describitur. Cum discipuli iam crederent Iesum esse Messiam in lege promissum (1,51.45.549), recordati sunt eius sententiae veluti de Messia praedictae (Tol.) ; nam si sensus solum esset discipulos animadvertisse zelum a Christo tunc exhibitum similem fuisse zelo psaltae, haec animadversio sane frigeret (Patr. Corl.). Verba sunt ex Ps. 68,10, quem ad Messiam referri constat praeterea ex 19,28-30, Act. 1,20, Rom. 15,3. Sciebant itaque de Messia praedici ardentissimum studium ac reverentiam templi et eius oraculi venit ipsis in mentem, dum cernerent zelum Christi; ex qua recordatione fides eorum confirmabatur. Illis tum in memoriam venisse, narratione indicatur ipsa; alias additum esset, uti in v. 22, post resurrectionem. Notant Aug. Bed. Bon. : sitalia prohibet in loco orationis, quae tamen ad sacrificia necessaria erant, quid faceret, si ebriosos, si rixis dissidentes, si fabulis vacantes, si alio quolibet scelere reperiret irretitos? Quid vero haec tam magnifica manifestatio effecerit in Iudaeis i. e. in primoribus sacerdotum quibus templi cura incumbebat, declaratur
2:18
v. 18 responderunt ergo (i. e. ex re gesta ansam ceperunt loquendi, interrogandi; ita saepe respondere dicitur; cf. 37) Judaei i. e. primores, magistratus; cf. 1,19; et dizerunt ei : quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis? factum non audent reprehendere, quamvis non possent non sentire se quam maxime incusari templi turpiter contaminati. Quaerunt itaque indignati, ut miraculo probet se habere revera auctoritatem et ius talia peragendi; quod si non praestaret, se habituros esse sperabant, cur eum tamquam rebellem traducerent qui falso sibi auctoritatem arrogasset. lta se posse simul evitare condemnationem populi optabant, cum profecto pii Dei cultores non possent non approbare purgationem templi et condemnare conniventiam magistratus templi. Rectene hanc ponunt quaestionem? affirmant aliqui ; ita TAom. « de auctoritate eius qua eos de templo expulit signum ab eo quaeri poterat, cum hoc non cuilibet liceret facere, sed auctoritatem habenti » (sim. Sch. ScAz.). Sed annon ipsa eiectio, ipse ille terror, quo tot viri lucro et pecuniis inhiantes uni viro cedebant signum erat? Notat Chr. : « o summam amentiam, quo signo opus erat, ut domum a tanta turpitudine liberarent; ille tantus pro domo Dei zelus, nonne maximum virtutis signum erat »? similiter signum prorsus convincens in ipsa expulsione tantae multitudinis consistere merito arbitrantur Alb. Bon. Tol. Ians. Corl. et stulte ab illis aliud postulari signum Bon. ait. Porro ex ipsa Iesu responsione aenigmatica quoque concludi oportet eos mala fide interrogare; insuper eo ipso quod non amplius insistunt neque quidquam contra Iesum agere audent, satis produnt se quamvis invitos sentire eius auctoritatem et male sibi esse conscios propter abusum illum et contaminationem templi. Responsione Iesu statim panditur, ad quid tandem eorum contumacia sit perventura, quam ipsa quaestione manifestant. Postquam enim testimonio baptistae cognoverunt quis venturus esset et testes. fuerunt mirae eius potentiae, iam magnae obsltinationis et incredulitatis erat non solum Iesum non venerari, sed etiam impudenter ab eo quaerere, ut signo probaret auctoritatem. Quare merito respondet Iesus iis modo obscuro ob eorum malitiam (Chr. Thom.)
2:19
v. 19 respondit Iesus et dizit eis : solvite templum hoc et in tribus diebus excitabo illud ; hoc sermone Domini relato Ioannes simul narrationem synopticam supplet et illustrat; nunc enim intelligimus falsum illud testimonium Matth. 26,61 et unde occasionem ceperint illusionis illius Matth. 27,50; quare Tol. hanc narrationem vocat necessariam ad ea quae postmodum sequuntur intelligenda. Sed simul cernitur quam alte obduratis Iudaeorum animis haeserit haec prima Christi reprehensio incredulitatis et castigatio. Dicit solvite eo modo, uti alias : . implete mensuram patrum vestrorum (Matth. 93,32); vel si malueris, explica : si solveritis etc. ; cf. Eph. 5,15. Iac. 4,7. Hocitaque loco Iesus iam illud signum ob oculos habet, quod cst auctoritatis suae ac divinitatis demonstratio firmissima et argumentum irrefragibile et quod alias quoque sollemni modo promittit (Matth. 16,4) et quod praedica- ! tionis evangelicae est fundamentum (1 Cor. 15,14). Usurpatur ἐγείρειν d et de aedificiis erigendis (Eccli. 49,45. Iosephus, Antiq. &,6. 5 etc.) ΝΞ et de mortuis in vitam revocandis (5,21, Act. 26,8 etc.). » ludaei ex testimonio Ioannis non poterant ignorare, unde sibi attribueret auctoritatem et ipsa re cernebant eum esse fortiorem illum cum ventilabro quem baptista praedixerat. Unde etiam intellexerunt, 2 quare nollet coram ipsis signo sibi fidem facere, et sermonem eius interpretati sunt ac si cum contemptu et irrisione promitteret se signum daturum, si ipsi antea fecissent quod nunquam facturi essent nec facere possent. Sed cum tamen promiserit se signum daturura, si ipsi conditionem positam impleverint, ipsa sua quaestione et postulatione insidiosa capti sunt neque habent quod sane volebant habere propter plebem, scil. ut ad tollendam Iesu auctoritatem dicere possent eum renuisse signo dato probare auctoritatem. Iesus ergo eos irretit ipsa eorum malitia eodem modo quo alias apud synopticos (cf. Matth. 21,95; 92,19). Quare nihil aliud eis relinquitur nisi ut opportuna ratione e laqueo elabautur; reponunt itaque id quod postulatione illa et conditione posita ex mente respondentium verbum est plane inane, quo tamen sperare possunt fore ut plebs ab ulteriore consideratione rei avertatur,
2:20
v. 20 direrunt ergo Iudaei : quadraginta et sez annis aedificatum est templum hoc, et tu in. tribus diebus excitabis illud? cum Baronio, Lap. Calm. haec intelligenda sunt de templi ab Herode instauratione (contra opinionem veterum plurimorum qui de tempore | futuri erant digni revelatione mysteriorum regni Dei, in tempore suo recordarentur verborum eius et ad cognoscenda vel credenda facta sequentia dictis eius praecedentibus adiuvarentur ». Perspexerunt ergo postea, quomodo Iesus iam ab initio cuncta clare sciverit quae ventura essent super ipsum (18,5) ; qua cognitione fides eorum roborata, confirmata, aucta est. Ipsa resurrectione facta etiam intellexerunt in Scriptura eam de Messia praedici (cf. Ps. 15,10. Is. 53,10-12); unde evangelista idem hoc loco asserit, quod Luc. 94,45. &6 indicatur. Prima itaque Iesu cum primoribus congressio triste praebet praesagium. Illi edocti ἃ baptista et cernentes manifestationem illius fororis quem annuntiavit adeo magnificam animos gerunt contumaces ; reprehendere non audent rem ab eo gestam, quia sane habebat populi approbationem; nihilominus indignabundi ab eo postulant, ut Signo edito sibi probet auctoritatem id peragendi quod propheta de Messia praedixit. lam igitur clare profitentur, se nolle talem agnoscere Messiam. Iesus autem statim primo quem cum illis miscet sermone enuntiat ad quod scelus tandem ex tali initio perventuri sint. lam impletur illud : positus est in signum cui contradicetur, in ruinam et resurrectionem multorum in Israel (Luc. 29,35). Dein effert evangelista quid manifestatio Iesu effecerit in populo
2:23
v. 293 cum autem esset Ierosolymis in pascha 1n die festo τὴ ἑορτῇ 1. e. in ipso sollemni die et per totam festivitatem , ita ut ἡ ἑορτή, significet hebdomadam festi, per quam panes azymi erant comedendi (cf. Ex. 12,19. Lev. 23,6. Num. 28,17), multi crediderunt in nomine eius εἰς τὸ ἔνομα αὐτοῦ 1. e. in eum , crediderunt quod nomine eius, manifestatione, signis praeferebatur, videntes signa eius quae faciebat ; ergose probat talem qualem baptista annuntiavit fortiorem baptista. Sed cum generali exspectatione Messias desideraretur qui regnum restitueret davidicum expulsis alienigenis, fides eorum non erat talis qualem Iesus postulabat; unde
2:24
v. 95 ipse autem Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis i. e. non committebat semetipsum eis, ut cum eis sicut cum discipulis versaretur (To/. Bar. Schg. Corl. Schz.) , eo quod tpse nosset omnes, sciebat eos regnum appetere carnale (Rup.) et exspectare, ut talem se praebeat Messiam qualem sibi fingunt; quodsi non fiat, sciebat quoque eos a se recessuros. Illi itaque ab eo sperabant regnum temporale potius quam redemptionem a peccatis et veram illam iustitiam et salutem et scientiam Dei ἃ prophetis annuntiatam pro tempore messiano. lntimam cognitionem animorum qua Iesus pollebat iterum affert evangelista et asserit, cur merito Iesus illos non ad familiarem sui consuetudinem potuerit admittere sciens eos esse instabiles
2:25
v. 23 e! quia opus ei non erat ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine; ipse enim sciebat quid Hac narratione palam fit quantae iam exstiterint inimicitiae primorum contra Iesum. Nicodemus enim solum noctu et clam Iesum adire audet. Praeclara autem continetur in eo colloquio manifestatio Christi. solusea quae testatur videat, cui itaque summa fides sit adhibenda, qui morte sua salutem omnibus afferat, ut omnes fide in ipsum vitam consequantur beatam ; docet unum esse huius fidei salvificae impedimentum : mala hominum opera. — Hoc colloquio evangelista nobis demonstrat, quomodo Iesus cum magistro in Israel agere solitus sit. Ita quoque eius docendi ratio ex synopticis nota nobis modo quodam sublimiore patefit;
2:1
Le plus naturel est de rattacher ce troisième jour à 1, 43, le départ pour la Galilée. Trois jours suffisaient pour se rendre, même du bas cours du Jourdain, à une ville de Galilée. Cependant il n'est pas prouvé que Jo. ait entendu fixer les dates d’une façon suivie. Elles sont peut-être marquées d'événement en événement : ici le dernier événement est la conversation avec Nathanaël. — Si l’on tient à suppléer au silence de Jo., on peut concevoir deux ilinéraires. Des environs de Jéricho, à plus forte raison d'un point plus au nord, on peut aisément gagner Beisan (alors Scythopolis)en deux jours; de là à Nazareth par la vallée qui fait suite à la plaine d'Esdrelon (ou. Djaloud), un jour. Ce sera l'itinéraire de ceux qui pensent que 165 trois jours ont leur point de départà 1, 43. D'autres supposeront que Jo. ἃ nommé Bethsaïda patrie de Philippe, de Pierre et d'André comme un point de repère. C'est près de là que Jésus aura appelé Philippe. Pendant que Jésus s’arrétait quelque peu auprès des deux frères, Philippe aura eu des raisons d'aller à Cana où il aura trouvé Nathanaël chez lui (xx1, 2) pour l’amener à Jésus. Après trois jours, tout ce monde aura pris la direction de Cana sans toucher à Nazareth, qui est au delà en venant du lac. Cela est vrai du Kh. Qana, au nord de Sephoris, aussi bien que de Kefr Kenna. Kefr Kenna représente moins bien la prononciation du K qui doit représenter un psémitique, mais entre ce village, distant de Nazareth de neuf ou dix kilomètres et cette ville, it y a une source el-Qana, qui a conservé l’ancien son. Jérôme dans la leitre à Marcelle (ep. xcvi) indique un poïnt près de Nazareth sur la route du Thabor : haud proeul inde cernetur Cana, in qua aquae in vinum versae sunt. Pergemus ad. Itabyrum. La tradition actuelle de Kefr Kenna est donc. solide, d'autant qu'on y a découvert les ruines d'une église byzantine où l’on. voit une inseription araméenne. Le Cana d’Aser (Jo. x1x, 28} est hors de la perspective; le Κα. Qana n’est désigné par aucune tradition (l'addition el-Djeltl n’est pas certaine), il n’est pas prouvé que Josèphe Fait eu en vue (Vita, 46). La mère de Jésus était Là, non pas à demeure, mais comme invitée, ainsi que le prouve le v. 2. En disant « la mère de Jésus », sans lui donner son nom de Marie, connu de tous, Jo. emploie la manière la plus honorable, aujourd'hui encore parmi les Arabes, pour nommer une femme qui a eu un fils. C'est par un dessein très réfléchi qu’il la met en scène avantle premier miracle de Jésus, comme elle sera présente au moment de sa mort (ἣ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, xix, 25).
2:2
Jésus aussi fut invité οἱ ses diseiples. Pourquoi inviter à Cana les disciples de Jésus, alors qu'on ne pouvait savoir qu'ils étaient de sa compagnie, attendu qu'ils appartenaient à une région assez éloignée? On ne le comprend bien qu'en supposant que Nathanaël, qui était de Cana, les à amenés avec lui, et les ἃ fait inviter à la noce, ce qui ne les détournait pas de Nazareth (nommée τ, 45). On comprend aussi de La sorte qu'ils ne soient pas arrivés avec Marie venue du côté opposé et qui était déjà là quand Jésus fut invité. — ἐκλήθη est en cflet un aoriste qui ne doit pas être rendu par un plus-que-parfait sans nécessité (Schanz). Peut-être la noce élait-elle déjà commencée; elle a pu durer sept jours (Jud. xiv, 47; Tob. xt, 21)!
2:3
La lecon de HSV est ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου d'après tous les témoins, sauf Νὰ b ff? r syr. de Jérusalem en marge, et e 1. Tandis que ces derniers ont /factum est per multam turbam vocitorum vinum consummari, T. lit avec les premiers : καὶ οἶνον oùx εἶχον, ὅτι συνετελέσθη ὁ οἶνος τοῦ γάμου. εἶτα, — leçon que nous avons préférée avec Loisy et Zahn. Ce style plus diffus est dans la manière de Jean, ainsi que εἶτα (xx, 27, xx, 27). La leçon reçue s'explique comme une correction élégante. Mais, dans le même δὶ, οἶνος οὐχ ἔστιν (T) nous paraît à son tour une correction pour éviter la répétition; nous préférons donc οἶνον οὐχ ἔχουσιν, appuyé celte fois par les latt. anciens. — Ce dernier point ne change rien au sens, mais le début que nous adoptons indique au moins une nuance. La noce touche à sa fin; le vin qu'on avait préparé est épuisé. De nouveaux convives arrivent. Leur présence rend la situation plus difficile : on voudrait faire honneur à ces hôtes. La bonne Mère de Jésus se dit que son fils pourrait tout arranger. Elle se contente de le meltre au courant, mais, dans l'esprit du récit, elle demande un miracle (Loisy), et si cela est conforme à la théologie de l’Incarnation, nous savons que Marie n’y était pas étrangère, non seulement par les récits de Mt. et de Le. sur la conception virginale, mais encore par Jo. puisque c’est en elle que le Verbe est devenu chair (r, 44). D'après Zahn, Marie ne pouvait se douter de rien, parce que Jésus n'avait pas encore fait de miracle ; elle lui fait seulement confidence de ses inquiétudes, selon sa coutume. Ce n'est pas ce que comprend Jésus qui, d'abord, refuse.
2:4
La réponse de Jésus comprend deux phrases, quine doivent pas être isolées, mais qu'il faut expliquer l'une après l'autre. Il est clair d'abord qu'il ne prétend pas nier qu'il soit le fils de celle que Jo. présente comme sa mère, comme ont osé l’avancer les Manichéens (Aug. ad ἢ. 1.). Ge n’est pas non plus une manière de dire : nous n'avons pas à nous en occuper : commoda quidem et pia interpretatio, si loquendi consuetudo pateretur (Mald.). À l'opposé, Irénée y ἃ vu un reproche : Dominus repellens eius intempestivam festinalionem (Haer. ur, xvi, 7); mais comment Marie aurait-elle eu l'intention de prévenir les desseins de Dieu en s’abstenant même d'une demande explicite? Chrysositome ἃ hasardé la conjecture d'un sentiment de vaine gloire; mais quel rapport y a-t-il entre cette indication modeste et compatissante d'une part, et l'exigence déplacée des frères de Jésus, véritable mise en demeure (vu, 3)? Un interprète ne doit ni dissimuler le sens naturel des mots, niles envisager seuls sans tenir compte du contexte, et il faut ajouter, de la situation. Les Arabes de Palestine emploient fréquemment encore ma-lech, quid tibi? C’est un mot dont toute la portée est dans l’accent qu'on y met. Tantôt il signifie : « occupez-vous de vos affaires et tantôt, avec un sourire : « laissez-moi faire, tout ira bien ». Or il ressort de tout le récit que cette seconde manière est bien celle de Cana, avec plus de dignité dans le ton, mais sans doute aussi plus d'affection dans l'accent. — τί ἐμοὶ καὶ aol ἃ été souvent traduit : « qu'y a-t-il de commun entre vous et moi? » — C'est un fait qu'en grec χοινόν est quelquefois ajouté à cette locution. mais on nous avertit que ce n'est pas une raison pour le sous-entendre quand ilest absent (Kühn.-Gerth, Il, 1, 417 ἢ. 20). Dans ce cas Le sens dépend du contexte. Dans Épictète, II, 19, 46 τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί se dit à quelqu'un qui pose des questions oiseuses au lieu de secourir un naufragé : ce n'est pas ce qu'exige la situation! De même la traduction de πὰ 5-7 dans la Bible (Jud. xt, 12; IT Regn. xvi, 40; xx, 22; LT Regn. xvur, 18; IV Regn. ur, 18; IT Paral. xxxv, 21 — I Esd. 1, 24) est toujours une réponse négative; le sens est laissez-moil De même dans le N. T. Mt. var, 29; Me. τ, 245 v, 7: Lc. 1v, 34: vin, 28. Naturellement les mêmes mots pouvaient être accentués beaucoup plus fortement envers un ennemi, qu'envers un ami simplement mal avisé. — γύναι n'est point du tout un manque de respect; c'est le mot de Jésus en croix (χιχ, 26) à sa mère. Il ne faut donc voir là aucune intention de lui rappeler la distance entre une femme et le Verbe incarné; cf. dos, Ant. 1, xvi, 3, avec une intention très polie. Il y ἃ ici de la solennité plutôt qu'un manque d'égards. Ce qui est clair, c'est que cette première partie de la phrase décline la proposition. Un refus peut avoir l'accent d'un reproche si l'intervention est vraiment indiscrète. Ce n’est pas le cas ici, puisque la raison du refus sera de nature à l’adoucir. — Cette raison, c'est que le moment n'est pas venu. Dans ἡ ὥρα μου on ἃ vu souvent avec Aug. une allusion à la Passion; cf. ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ vi, 30; var, 20; χπι, À, et cf. xu, 23. 27, xvur, 1, el (avec ὃ χαιρὸς ὁ ἐμός) vu, 6. 8. Cependant dans le cas présent le contexte indique bien clairement letemps de répondre au désir de sa mère, c'est-à-dire de faire un miracle. Cette heure il la connait, elle est déjà fixée d’une certaine manière, c'est le moment où il doit se manifester, en attendant la manifestation plus éclatante qui suivra sa mort. Cependant il y a trop de gravité solennelle dans ces mots pour qu’on puisse les entendre : Patience, ce n'est pas encore; ce sera dans un instant. Marie doit s’en rapporter entièrement à Jésus. Elle n'a pas eu tort de s'intéresser aux convives, de s’épancher avec son fils, de recourir à lui. Elle ne. savait pas que le temps n’était pas venu, ce qui ne peut lui être reproché. En effet on dirait bien que « mon » heure marque une attitude nouvelle. D'après. Schanz, Jésus décline toute intervention dans l'œuvre messianique, qu'il doit entreprendre d’après la volonté de son Père, indépendamment de toute infiuence humaine; — ce n’est pas exact puisque l'intervention de Marie va amener le miracle. Cependant il est bien vrai qu'il entre pour ainsi dire dans un ministère nouveau. Jusqu'à présent il était dans le cercle de la famille; désormais il commence en public son œuvre dont le programme est arrêté.
2:5
L'étonnant est que Marie semble compter sur le miracle. C'est le fait d'une mère qui connaît le cœur de son fils. Plus attentive peut-être au ton de la voix, au regard, à l'accent des paroles qu'à leur sens matériel, elle est persuadée qu’il saura concilier son devoir avec le désir de lui plaire. Qu'elle ait donné des ordres aux serviteurs, ce n'est pas selon l'étiquette d'une réception dans le monde, mais cela est parfaitement compatible avec la simplicité des Orientaux ou des personnes de la campagne en tout pays. Il allait de soi que c'était pour ménager une agréable surprise à ses hôtes. El de fait Jésus entre dans ses vues presque aussitôt. Comment ce qui n'était pas de saison est-il devenu opportun? Ni les allégoristes, ni Zahn ne réussissent à l'expliquer. La seule explication est que l'humilité de Marie et son abandon ont obtenu ce qui d’abord lui avait été refusé. Et il faut bien dire que, après un refus, la puissance de son intercession paraît davantage. En cédant tout d’abord, Jésus aurait paru accorder à 88 demande ce qu'il était tout disposé à faire. Non, l'heure: n’était pas venue, et cependant il concède le miracle. La prière de la Cananéenne avait été plus bruyante, ses instances presque fatigantes, et Jésus ἃ rendu les armes devant sa confiante obstination (Mi. xv, 21 ss.). Pourquoi n'aurait-il pas cédé à sa mère (Chrys.) et à une attitude tellement plus discrète, mais encore plus confiante? Tout se passe ici dans une atmosphère de sentiments délicats; c’est entrer dans l'esprit du texte que de le comprendre ainsi. — Dans 16 système allégorique de Loisy, la Mère de Jésus c'est Israël qui fournit au Christ ses premiers serviteurs, les ministres de l'évangile, les premiers chefs. C'est prêter beaucoup au texte, d'autant que la Synagogue ne 10. om. vote p. μεθυσθωσιν (TH) et, non add. (SV). paraît avoir mis personne au service du Christ. L'attitude si tendrement soumise de Marie pouvait-elle paraître à Jo. une figure de la nation juive telle qu'il l'a dépeinte ? — ἅ τι ἂν λέγῃ « quoi qu'il lui arrive de dire, même s’il donne plusieurs ordres Comme il s’agit d'un miracle, et non d’une façon normale de faire le nécessaire, les serviteurs ne devront s'étonner de rien. Et en effet Fordre qui leur sera donné pourra leur paraître une étrange plaisanterie. Cf. Denys d'Hal. vu, 26, ἀ ποιεῖν b τι ἂν ἐχεῖνοι χελεύσωσιν (Rauer).
2:6
κατὰ καθαρισμόν pourrait paraître une construction prégnante : « selon le besoin qu’en avaient les Juifs pour leurs purifications », mais xaté « en vue de » est déjà classique : « venir pour voir » χἀτὰ θέαν ἥχειν (Thuc. vi, 31). Ces grandes urnes étaient le plus souvent en argile, mais on en a irouvé plusieurs en pierre. Celle de l’atrium de la basilique d'Eudocie contient environ 180 litres. Celles de Cana n'étaient pas toutes de même grandeur, selon la facilité de trouver et de tailler les blocs. Une mesure, en hébreu un na, contenait d’après Josèphe (Ant. VIIE, 11, 9) soixante-douze setiers, soit presque quarante litres. Donc pour les six de cinq à sept hectolitres. La quantité est considérable et dépasse de beaucoup l’usage présentement en vue. Le miracle ne lésinera pas. — Quant aux purificalions, on sait qu'elles étaient fréquentes, et nécessitaient même des bains (cf. Comm. Mc. vir, 3 8s.). Probablement on ne remplissait les urnes que selon les besoins, pour éviter que l’eau ne se corrompit. De moindres récipients suffisaient pour les menues purifications.
2:7
Les anciens commentateurs se sont demandé pourquoi Jésus avait changé l'eau en vin au lieu de créer le vin dans les jarres. C’était d’abord pour que le miracle fût bien constaté (Chrys.); autrement on aurait pu croire qu'on avait mis par amusement du vin dans ces vases. Peut-être aussi était-ee pour figurer le changement de substance dans l'Eucharistie. Si les jarres doivent étre pleines d’eau jusqu’en haut, c'est pour montrer la largesse du thaumaturge, et exclure le mélange.
2:8
Au moment où Jésus donne l'ordre de puiser, le miracle est accompli ou s’accomplit. Jo. n’en dit rien; nouvel indice de ce style en clair obscur, où la darté se dégage d'elle-même malgré la réserve des mots. 1 ἀρχιτρίχλινος n'est pas le fiancé ni son père, ni tel autre qui aurait présidé le festin, mais celui que nous appelons le maître d'hôtel, chargé de veiller au service. Le mot est rare; Héliodore VIE, 27 ἀρχιτρέκλινοι καὶ οἰνοχόοι. Le τρίχλινος « table à trois lits » se disait de la salle à manger. Ea jarre représente le χρατήρ des Grecs, où Fon puisait avec des coupes. 9.5) Le maître d'hôtel, n'ignorant pas que le vin manquait, soupçonne sans doute qu'on est allé en chercher ailleurs; les serviteurs se gardent bien de Île mettre au fait, épiant l'inquiétude du dégustateur, qui n'était pas sans défiance. H est joyeusement surpris, et appelle l'époux en particulier, car ce qu'il va dire n’est pas à l'honneur de ses pratiques ordinaires au service d'amphytrions peu généreux. On ne sait rien d'un pareil usage, qui serait tout à fait contraire aux bonnes traditions d'aujourd'hui. Peut-être après tout est-ce une boutade d'un majordome mécontent de m'avoir pas été mis au courant des secrets de la cave. En tout cas son hypothèse n'est pas applicable au cas présent, où les convives n'étaient pas ivres; on ἃ dû ménager le vin avant d'être obligé de constater le déficit, et Jésus n’aurait pas fait un miracle pour favoriser un tel excès. L’ivresse n'était pas inconnue des Hébreux, ecla va de soi (Gen. xt, 34; Is. xxvix, 1, etc.) et les tessons trouvés à Samarie prouvent qu'on savait apprécier le mérite des différents crus. Sürement l'habitude de boire après le repas g'était introduite avec les mœurs grecques, et c'est bien à ce moment que les maîtres de maison ont ἀὰ être tentés d'écouler leurs vins médiocres. Mais une maison de bons Israélites, amis de la sainte Famille de Nazareth, avait sans doute des mœurs moins relächées, même dans la joie d’une noce.
2:11
ταύτην sans article devant ἀρχήν (d'après la meilleure leçon); non pas dl fit ce commencement », mais « tel fut le commencement ». Bauer compare Isocrate, Panég. X, 38 ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴν μὲν ταύτην ἐποιήσατο τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν, τροφὴν τοῖς δεομένοις εὑρεῖν. Les σημεῖα sont le mot de Jo. pour désigner les miracles de Jésus; de la part de l'écrivain π, 23; 1v, 54; VI, 2.44; χα, 97; xx, 30; de Jésus, 1v, 48, γι, 26; d’autres personnes ΠΙ, 2; vu, 81; 1χ, 16; xt, 47; ἀπ 48, Les synoptiques ne le disent pas des miracles de Jésus, sauf Le. xxur, 8, où il s'agit de l’espérance d'Hérode; mais les adversaires lui demandent des signes, Mt. xx, 88 8.; xvi, 1.4. Me. vin, 11 5.; Le. xt, 16. 29 s. Les Actes emploient ce mot sans difficulté. I1 appartenait donc à la langue chrétienne, quoique dans les synoptiques il ait été réservé pour les signes de la fin des temps (Mt. xxiv, 3.30; Le. xx, 11.25), signes extraordinaires que les Juifs prétendaient obtenir comme preuve de la mission de Jésus. Dans Jo. le σημεῖον est employé pour sa valeur propre de signe; c’est un miracle contenant une indication surnaturelle spécialement sur la personne de Jésus. Tandis qu'un miracle annoncé par Moïse manifeste la gloire du Seigneur (Ex. xvi, 7), Jésus manifeste sa gloire, cette gloire de Fils unique qui est en même temps celle du Père (τ, 44). Ses disciples avaient déjà cru qu'il était le Messie, ils croient plus fermement encore, et leur foi se dirige simplement vers lui, εἰς αὐτόν, On ἃ objecté contre la réalité de ce miracle des difficultés de détail assez futiles : Pourquoi la réponse de Jésus est-elle si dure? Comment Marie altendelle néanmoins un miracle? Avait-elle des ordres à donner? Jésus qui avait refusé cède aussitôt. Les serviteurs obéissent à un ordre bien étrange. Pourquoi tant de vin? etc. Et l'on conclut à une allégorie sans base dans les faits. Mais si Jo. avait composé librement une allégorie détaillée, elle serait sans doute plus claire, car de dire que la Mère de Jésus représente la Synagogue mise à l'écart par Jésus, n'explique ni la condescendance du Fils, ni l'abandon de la Mère. Aussi bien Jo. a conscience de raconter un très grand miracle, qui est à la base de la foi des disciples. S’il ne parle pas des autres personnes, c’est qu'elles ne sont pas son objet actuel. Mais pourquoi ce miracle, dont les synoptiques n'ont pas parlé, qu'ils n'auraient pas approuvé, puisque, d'après Mt. et Le. c'était céder à une tentation du démon que d’user d'un pouvoir surnaturel pour subvenir aux nécessités de la vie (ME. 1v, 4; Le. 1v, 4)? — On peut répondre que les synoptiques ne font commencer la vie publique de Jésus qu'après l'emprisonnement de Jean-Baptiste, et qu'eux aussi ont raconté le miracle de la multiplication des pains et des poissons. Ils ont aussi établi le pouvoir de Jésus sur les éléments par la Tempête apaisée (Mc. τν, 35-41 et par.). En se montrant le maître de la nature dans une circonstance où le miracle était sollicité par sa Mère dans un sentiment de bienveillance et de gratitude pour des hôtes, Jésus ne donnait pas une vaine satisfaction à la curiosité; 1] excitait et confirmait la foi des disciples. Ge miracle, comme la multiplication des pains, est probablement aussi un acheminement vers l'Eucharistie. Isolé et envisagé par des incrédules, il leur paraît étrange, mais ceux qui croient au changement du vin au sang du Seigneur ne sont point étonnés qu'il ait changé de l’eau en vin. C’est par ses attaches avec l’ordre surnaturel que le miracle Aussi nous ne rejetons pas un certain sens allégorique, qui n'est point nuisible à la crédibilité du fait. Ge n’est qu'une nouvelle ordination du miracle vers les choses du salut, qu'on peut estimer être dans les desseins de Dieu quand l'allégorie est claire. Je. compte sur ses lecteurs pour la comprendre, eux qui savent que le Verbe, plein de grâce et de vérité, est le don de Dieu qui vient remplacer la loi de Moïse. Les urnes pleines d'eau, en vue de ces purifications où s’absorbent les Juifs, c’est une image de l'ordre ancien; l'ordre nouveau c’est la force et la joie que l'opinion générale attribue à l’action du vin. Et il paraît très naturel que les disciples aient eu déjà une certaine intuition de cet ordre nouveau. Car la véritable difficulté du récit, c’est ue des disciples aient été éloignés de la compagnie du Baptiste, représentant de l’ancienne prophétie ascétique — Jo. n'y a pas insisté, mais le fait était notoire — pour chercher des leçons plus hautes auprès d’un Maître qui, ensuite, les conduit à une noce, où il change l’eau en vin pour donner satisfaction aux convives! Si Jésus l’a fait pour fixer sa doctrine au-dessus d'une ascèse étroite, et laisser entendre que le salut embrasserait tous les états, qu'il n’excluait ni le mariage, ni l'usage convenable des aliments et des boissons, c'était déjà une leçon utile, mais il fallait surtout qu'ils fissent un acte de foi en celui qui les avait appelés, et pour une œuvre nouvelle, laquelle serait dans l'ordre du salut ce qu'est un vin généreux qui donne la joie à l'âme (Sir. xr, 20), comparé à de l’eau qui ne lave que On trouve dans Bauer l'indication de plusieurs miracles relatifs au vin dans la légende de Bacchos-Dionysos. Ils sont à leur place dans le culte du dieu du vin. Nous ne voulons pas les dissimuler à nos lecteurs. Il y ἃ d'abord : a) le mythe, connu comme tel, des Bacchantes qui font sortir du vin de terre; Eur. Bacch. 706 s.; Horn. Od. IH, 19; Dionone de Sie, ΠΙ, 66; allusion vague dans Pæi- Losre. Vita Apoll. ΠΙ, 15; δ) la tradition du temple d'Andros, d'où le vin coulait à la fête de Bacchus; Pune, H. N. Il, 231 Andro in insula templa Liberi patris fontem nonis lanuardissemper vini saporem fundere Mucianus ter consul credit, et XXXI, 46, un peu plus fort, puisque c’est du vin qui coule durant sept jours, et qui loin du temple est changé en eau : Mucianus Andri e fonte Liberi patris statis diebus septenis eius dei vinum fluere, si auferatur e conspeclu templi, sapore in aquam transeunte; Pausanras, VI, 26,2; c) le miracle de la fête des Thyia chez les Éléens. On renferme dans une chambre trois marmites vides, on met les scellés aux portes, et le lendemain on les trouve pleines de vin cf. Pausanias (vers 173 À. D.) VI, 26, 2; Athénée (vers 230) 1, 61, p. 342; d) Paradoxographus Vaticanus 23, ed. Keller dans Rerum naturalium scripiorum graeci minores, I, p. 109, parle d'une source qui enivre ceux qui en boivent; e) dans la vie d’Apollonios par Philostrate (vers 240 ap. 3.-C.), un gymnosophiste lui dit (VI, 40) qu’Apollon ne mêle pas de miracles à ses oracles; « quoiqu'il lui eût été facile de remuer le Parnasse tout entier, et de changer la fontaine de Castalie pour lui faire couler du vin », où je n'hésite pas à voir qu'Apollon dédaigne de transporter les montagnes et de changer l'eau en vin, comme il en est question dans l’évangile. Le lecteur choisira lequel de ces modes a pu inspirer l'évangéliste! S'il en reste vaguement l'idée d’un changement d'eau en vin, on ne voit en somme nulle part une transformation d'eau en vin opérée par un thaumaturge à l'époque historique, Bauer est mieux inspiré en citant Philon (Leg. alleg. 1Π, 82; I, p. 103) où l’on voit Melchisédec, représentant le Verbe divin, offrant du vin au lieu d’eau, afin que ceux qui y goûtent soient pris d'une ivresse divine, plus sobre que la sobriété même. — En effet ce texte nous montre un symbolisme du vin propre à élever les pensers des disciples au-dessus d'un incident de noce. Dans Philon, le Logos est l'échanson de Dieu, son maître d'hôtel, συμποσίαρχος (de Somniis Il, 249; 1, p. 691); il se donne même en breuvage, mais purement spirituel. C’est à quoi les disciples ne pouvaient encore songer. Tout récemment (Biblische Zeitschrift, 1922, p. 93 ss.), M. A. Schulz a proposé une nouvelle interprétation du dialogue entre la Mère et le Fils. Marie, l’esprit rempli des promesses de l'A. T., imaginait une transformation de la nature dans laquelle le Messie ferait couler 16 vin à flots. Jésus aurait répondu que le temps de la transformation du monde n'était pas venu, et Marie aurait compris qu'il se contenterait d’un miracle particulier dans le style des prophètes. Cela est appuyé sur les récits de l'enfance (Lc. τι, #8 ss.) pour expliquer comment Marie serait tombée dans ce malentendu. — Il nous semble que Jésus luimême serait censé avoir cru au millénarisme, ce qui serait encore plus fort. Sans parler de la difficulté théologique, rien n'est plus éloigné de l'esprit du quatrième évangile, dont les termes n'offrent aucun appui à cette conjecture fantaisiste. 12. CourT SÉJOUR A CAPHARNAÜM. Nous lisons αὐτοῦ après ἀδελφοί avec T contre HSV qui suivent BLT a ὁ e Ox? Or.; l'omission est plus élégante, mais suspecte par là même de correction. 11 n'y ἃ pas à tenir compte des variantes qui suppriment les disciples ou les frères ou mettent les disciples avant les frères. Déjà au temps d'Origène on opposait à la véracité et à l'inspiration des évangélistes la divergence entre les débuts des synoptiques et ceux de Jo., spécialement sur ce point, car Mt. τν, 13 place plus tard l'installation du Sauveur quittant Nazareth pour s'installer à Capharnaüm, après l'emprisonnement de Jean. Origène conclut : « Je ne refuse pas de reconnaître qu'ils ont transposé dans l'intérêt d'un but mystique (symbolique) ce qui s'était passé autrement selon l'histoire et il ajoute plus loin : « sauvant ainsi la vérité spirituelle, par ce qu’on pourrait appeler un mensonge matériel » (Com. sur Jo, π, 12 Preuschen, p. 175). Il attribue spécialement cette intention à « celui qui a raconté d'une façon plus rationnelle ce qui regarde le Verbe fait chair, et qui n'a pas cru devoir décrire Porigine de ce Verbe qui était au commencement auprès de Dieu » (eod. loc., p. 177). Rien n'empêche de faire un usage discret des transpositions, que tout le monde admet pour Mt. et qui peuvent être justifiées aussi bien par l'intérêt de l’enseignement mystique ou symbolique, que par celui de l'enseignement didactique, tandis que la critique radicale d'aujourd'hui attribue à Jo. l'invention des récits dans l'intérêt de la théologie du Verbe incarné. Mais nous ne pouvons pas dire avec Origène que Capharnaüm vient après Cana comme la consolation après la joie. Quel est donc le sens du passage dans la pensée de Jo? Deux opinions prineipales : a) C’est une nstallation définitive à Capharnaüm (Zahn, Belser, etc.). On. sait par les synoptiques, surtout par Mt., que ceîte installation ἃ eu lieu : Mt. iv, 43; 1x, 1 (c’est la propre ville de Jésus); xr, 23; x, 46; xvir, 24-27 (c'est là que Jésus paie l'impôt); Me. π, 1; ur, 31 et même Jo. vi, 17. 24. 42. 59. Mt. ne suit pas l’ordre chronologique; Jo. ἃ voulu indiquer d'une façon plus précise quand ce déménagement ἃ eu lieu. (Au. de Consensu ev. 1, πνπ, 39 an forte Matthaeus quod praetermiserat recapituluvit). Zahn insiste sur ce que d'après Mc. vi, 3 et Mt. xur, 56 les sœurs de Jésus seules sont à Nazareth, non les frères ; c'est donc que ceux-ci sont à Capharnaüm lorsqu'ils viennent le trouver. Ce dernier point serait décisif s’il était prouvé; mais si les gens de Nazareth ne parlent pas dans les mêmes termes des frères el des sœurs, ils ne disent pas cependant que les frères, qu'ils nomment par leurs noms, ne sont pas parmi eux. De ces noms nous avons conclu (Comm. Me. p. 72 ss.) que ces frères ne sont que des cousins. On ne comprend pas pourquoi des cousins, établis à Nazareth, et peu dociles à l’enseignement de Jésus, seraient venus s'installer en même Lemps que lui à Capharnaüm. C'est de loin, et une fois par hasard qu'ils se sont dérangés de Nazareth (Mc. τπ| 84). δ) Al faut done dire (Schanz, Lotsy, elc.) que Jésus, à cette date, n'est venu à Capharnaüm qu’en passant, pour quelques jours, comme le texte le dit expressément. De Nazareth pour aller à Jérusalem, c'était un très sensible détour, mais on s'y résignait sans doute pour éviter la Samarie, et la caravane n'était pas pressée. Capharnaüm fut peut-être choisie comme une ville où l'on s'arrêtait volontiers, à proximité de Bethsaïda, patrie d'André, de Pierre et de Philippe. C'était comme un rendez-vous, d'autant que Pierre avait sa belle-mère à Capharnaüm (Me. 1, 29 55. et par.). Rien n'indique que Jésus ait commencé à s'y manifester. ἢ devait inaugurer son ministère à Jérusalem. Le miracle de Cana avait été accordé avant l'heure à l'intercession de Marie. — μετὰ τοῦτο indique un délai assez court; cf. x1, 7. 44; ΣΠῚ, 7; xx, 28. Rien ne prouve la présence des frères à Cana; ils n'y étaient sûrement pas, n'étant nommés que maintenant. On admettrait plutôt un retour de Jésus et de sa Mère à Nazareth; mais peut-être chacun est-il venu de son côté à Capharnaüm, d'où la caravane est partie pour Jérusalem. C’est Jésus qui est en tête de la phrase, comme il convenait; aucun lien spécial n'est indiqué entre sa mère et ses frères, pas plus qu'avec ses disciples. Gette association de parents εἰ de disciples se comprend mieux pour une caravane que pour une installation définitive. On descend beaucoup de Nazareth ou de Cana vers le lac de Tibériade, qui est à deux cents mètres au-dessous du niveau de la mer. Héracléon y voyait exprimée la descente du Verbe dans la matière. M. Loisy nous dit que « le Christ johanniqueest toujours en mouvement, ressemblant en cela à tels « fils de Dieu
2:12
αὐτου p. ἀδελφοι (T) plutôt que om. (HSV).
2:13
Sur la Pâque, cf. Comm. Mc., p. 341. — Jo. ajoute « des Juifs », parce qu'il écrit pour les gentils, mais aussi parce qu'il à conscience d'appartenir à τὰ groupe religieux qui n'est pas celui des Juifs (Or.). — Jésus est monté, ce qui est évident pour tous, 51} venait de Capharnaüm, d'ailleurs l'expression était consacrée : on montait à Jérusalem d’un peu partout. Jo. ne dit jamais Ἔερουσαλήυ,, que Le. emploie si souvent.
2:14
Pour la situation, cf. Comm. Me.; Jo. ajoute les bœufs et les brebis, ce qui est très naturel. Il emploie χερικατιστής, inconnu ailleurs, mais issu de χερματίζω et de κέρμα petite monnaie; donc les changeurs.
2:15
τὸ χερμα (TSV) plutôt que ra χερματὰ (H). — ἀνετρεψεν (H) plutôt que ἀνέστρεψεν Apollonius, Simon le magicien, etc. » (p. 147). Ces mouvements cependant se répartissent sur plusieurs années dans un petit pays et sont précisément motivés dans Jo. par les fêtes. Qu'on n'oublie pas non plus que nous ne sommes informés sur Simon et sur Apollonius que par des documents bien postérieurs et tout à fait légendaires.
Plus de détails que dans Me. D'abord le φραγέλλιον, transcription du latin flagellum, fouet improvisé avec des cordes groupées dans la main, à la façon des étrivières, mais celles-ci, plus dures, étaient des courroies. Cela n'a rien du redoutable instrument de supplice employé pour Jésus (Mc. xv, 45); l'emploi du fouet n'était même pas regardé comme infamant. Les Perses faisaient marcher leurs soldats à la cravache au grand scandale des Grecs (Hér. VIT, 56, etc.); naguère encore, pour dissiper un rassemblement, les cavaliers turcs distribuaient des coups de cravache, en l'air, mais aussi sur le dos des récalcitrants. Les hommes comprennent et s’enfuient les premiers, mais Jésus expulse aussi (en plus des synoptiques) les brebis et les bœufs plus lents à s’ébranler, ce que Loisy, attentif à un certain idéal de style et indiftérent à la réalité, regarde ÉVANCILE SELON SAINT JEAN. 5 comme surajouté. — Les χολλυδιστοί qui remplacent ensuite les χερματιστάς peuvent bien être une réminiscence des synoptiques, mais ce mot variait agréablement avant χέρμα. L'usage fréquent de χέρμα au singulier (MM) appuie la leçon commune contre le pluriel (H d’après BLX Ox? 33 ὁ φὴ qui aura paru plus naturel de pièces répandues. — Il est difficile de choisir entre ἀνατρέπω (H avec B cette fois beaucoup plus soutenu, entre autres par Ox? W) et ἀναστρέφω. Nous préférons — légèrement — le premier comme ol précis, pour culbuter, renverser du pied.
2:16
Tandis que dans Mc. et dans Mi. Jésus renverse aussi les sièges des vendeurs de colombes, ce qui suppose que ceux-ci s'étaient enfuis, dans Jo. ils ont comme un traitement de faveur; leur commerce était moins sale que celui des troupeaux, sans parler des beuglements des bœufs. Le prix des colombes devait être à peu près fixé, et ne comportait pas de marchandage. Jésus leur enjoint seulement de partir de là, c’est-à-dire de l'enceinte du hiéron, et il leur en donne la raison. Elle n'est pas, comme dans les synoptiques, tire littéralement de deux textes (Is. vi, 7; Jér. vu, 41), mais c’est bien le sens, en des termes appropriés; ne citant pas l'Écriture, Jésus dit : la maison de mon Père, dans le même sens qu'il avait fait à douze ans (Lc. τι, 49). On ne trouve pas dans Jo. (non plus que dans Mt. ni dans Lc.) le trait de Me. xt, 16: «il ne permettait pas qu'on portât des charges à travers le hiéron car si vraisemblable qu'il soit, il n'appartient pas directement au thème du trafic.
2:17
Nous nous apercevons ici de la présence des disciples. Le v. 142 n'étant qu'une introduction au voyage à Jérusalem, Jo. nous ἃ suffisamment avertis qu'ils étaient venus. Get acte de zèle leur rappelle le passage d’un psaume (rx, 10), citation assez difficile à interpréter. De toule façon le ps. faisait allusion à un zèle ardent, tel que celui de Jérémie (xx, 9; xx, 9) ou du psalmiste (exix, 139). EL ainsi l'application à Jésus était excellente, car ce qu'il venait de faire était un acte de zèle. C'était Le temps où beaucoup de Juifs avaient montré un tel zèle, qu'on avait créé pour eux le surnom de Zélotes (ζηλωτής), désignant parfois des groupes, mais toujours une tendance à faire respecter les droits de Dieu quoi qu'il en coûte, et sans s'arrêter à aucune considération humaine, parfois avec tant d'indifférence sur le choix des moyens qu'on les nomma sicaires (cf. Le Messianisme... p. 18 ss.). Mais les disciples ne songeaient pas à comparer Jésus à l'un de ces hardis partisans; le psaume qui leur fournissait un meilleur exemple de zèle, et pour la maison de Dieu, développait longuement tout ce qu'il en avait coûté au psalmiste de montrer tant d’ardeur. D'où la question de savoir ce que signiñe, même pour le psalmiste : « le zèle de la maison m'a dévoré. » Isolés les mots suggèrent que le zèle l’a consumé à l’intérieur comme un feu brûlant, mais comment trouver ensuite le parallélisme avec ce qui suit « et les outrages de ceux qui t’insultent sont retombés sur moi »? Ce second hémistiche a précisément été cité par Paul (Rom. xv, 3) à propos du Christ. On peut donc croire que dans le ps. « le zèle m'a dévoré » doit s'entendre : « m'a valu d’être consumé de douleurs. » Le parfait étant dans le contexte, il est très probable que les Septante ont écrit κατέφαγέν ue, changé en καταφάγεται dans les meïlleurs ms., d'après Jo. Car il n’est pas douteux que le texte de Jo. soit χαταφάγεται, un futur hellénistique de χατεσθίω, formation hybride (Phrynichus 327 φάγομαι βάρδαρον) de l'aor. sec. ἔφαγον, conservant la forme moyenne de ἔδομαι. Les latins (latt. et vg.) ainsi que les Syriens ont mis le parfait, ce qui a orienté l’exégèse vers le sens d’une consomption intérieure, maïs les coptes ont bien le futur. Si donc Jo. a accepté des LXX ou plus probablement choisi le futur, c'était dans l'intention d'insinuer ce que ce zèle devait coûter à Jésus (Zahn, Belser nettement et même Schanz quelque peu), car son zèle était actuellement assez ardent pour quil n'ait pas eu à le consumer plus tard. — Autres allusions au sens messianique du Ps. uxix, dans Jo. xv, 25; x1x, 28; Act. 1, 20; Rom. x1, 9.
2:18
οὖν se rapporte à l'acte de Jésus (16). La conséquence est très bien tirée. Les chefs du Temple, que Jo., selon son habitude, nomme les Juifs, se devaient d'intervenir. L'acte n'avait rien qui fùt spécifiquement messianique, aussi ne lui demande-t-on pas s'il se pose en Messie. ἃ cette époque où les esprits étaient surexcités, on vit sans doute plus d’un acte de zèle, comme celui qui coûta la vie à plusieurs Pharisiens (Jos. Ant. XVII, vi, 2 ss.) qui n'avaient aucune prétention messianique. Le peuple voyait celte ardeur d'un très bon œil comme en général toute action vigoureuse et hardie; on comprend très bien, même sans un miracle, sans un éclat terrifiant dans le regard de Jésus, que les marchands se soient enfuis sous les huées de la foule qu'ils avaient souvent exploitée. Mais quand on empiétait si manifestement sur les droits des autorités établies et sur les coutumes recues, il fallait donner des preuves d'une mission divine. C'est ce que promettaient les agitateurs : « Car des hâbleurs et des charlatans, sous prétexte d'inspiration divine, profitant des révolutions et des changements, persuadaient à la foule de s’abandonner à un transport sacré, et les conduisaient dans le désert, comme si Dieu devait leur y donner des signes de liberté » (Jos. Bell. ΤΠ, xur, 4; cf. Ant. XX, vus, 6). Très judicieusement, les chefs demandent que le signe soit donné à eux (fut), qui sont responsables du bon ordre, et non à une foule qui se laisserait égarer et conduire à sa perte dans quelque échautfourée. — La question des Juifs équivaut à celle que posent les Sanhédrites dans les synoptiques (Mc. xr, 27-33; ML. χχι, 23-27, Le. xx, 1-8) mais sans alléguer un acte particulier de Jésus. Les Sanhédrites ont pu en effet dissimuler leur dépit, puis revenir à la charge en affectant de ne point viser un incident qui n'était pas en leur honneur. Et cela se comprend mieux si déjà leur décision est prise à la sourdine (Mc. xt, 18 par.) Mais qu'ils se soient redressés sur le coup, cela est non moins vraisemblable, et même plus naturel si l'auteur de l'acte de zèle ne leur était pas encore connu. Les deux interventions sont done bien placées chacune selon les vraisemblances de leur temps. — ὅτι, souvent ainsi dans Jo. vn, 35; vu, 22; 1x, 47; x, 47; χιν, 223 xvr, 9, « étant donné que » ἃ une saveur sémitique, mais n'est pas un indice de traduction araméenne, d'autant qu'il se trouve dans le. 1v, 41; Το. χα, 17; xv1, 3.
2:19
Jésus ne refuse pas de donner un signe, mais celui qu’il choisira el à son heure, laquelle cependant dépend en quelque façon des Juifs. L'impéralif λύσατε ne saurait être un ordre; après avoir montré tant de zèle pour la maison de Dieu, Jésus ne peut commander aux Juifs de la détruire. Blass-Deb. l'entend comme une concession ($ 387) — ἐὰν καὶ λύσητε. « (Quand bien même vous auriez détruit »; mais les Juifs n'y songeaient pas. fl faut plutôt (Bauer) l'entendre comme un futur; il est employé de cette facon à propos d’un signe dans Is. xxxvir, 30 : τοῦτο δέ σοι τὸ σημεῖον φάγε τοῦτον τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἃ ἔσπαρχας. C’est d’ailleurs une tournure connue en hébreu (Kautzsch, $ 110), ef. Ps. crx (οχ héb.}, 2, οἵ, Mt, xx, 32; Jo. χιπ, 27. — λύειν οὗ ἐγείρειν s'emploient pour des constructions : on devait assez naturellement penser que Jésus parlait du sanctuaire (ναός), quoique, à propos d'un édifice détruit, on dise plus volontiers qu’on en bâtira un autre. Quelques-uns ont pensé qu'en parlant Jésus avait montré son corps pour leur indiquer le mot de l'énigme. Mais pourquoi ne pas noter ce geste? Jo. ἃ très bien conscience que la parole, telle qu'elle est, ne pouvait pas encore être comprise. Zahn essaie de lui donner un sens : [65 Juifs, par leur haine envers lui, seront cause de la ruine du Temple, et lui en rebâtira un nouveau; c'est-à-dire son église. Mais ce n'est pas là ce que Jo. a entendu. Il faut donc simplement reconnaître que les Juifs ne sont pas en faute pour n'avoir pas pénétré ce mystère, pas plus d’ailleurs que les disciples (22). C'est précisément cette parole, mal comprise et transformée en une pensée hostile, qui fut alléquée dans l'interrogatoire de Jésus (Me. σιν, 58; ΜΈ, xxvi, 61; xxvir, 40). Le siÿne n'est pas nécessairement clair quand on le donne; il le devient quand il est accompli; cf. M. χα, 38 5. ; xvi, 4. ἐν ταῖς τρισὶν ἡμέραις (aussi ME. xxvir, 40) ne signifie pas « le troisième jour ce qui serait absurde à propos d'une construction dont le propre est d’être continue ; cependant on à pu commencer tard le premier jour et finir tôt 16 troisième; tandis que les faux témoins en disant διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν (Me. χιν, 88 ; Mt. sxvt, 61) suggèrent qu'il y faudrait intégralement trois jours. — ἐγείρω, dans les synoptiques est employé au passif pour le Christ (ct. M. xvi, 21); il ne semble pas que Jo. ait voulu ici mettre en relief l’action propre de Jésus, car le mot énigmatique ne comporlait pas une autre tournure, si bien qu'au v. 22 on voit paraitre le passif tel qu'il figure chez les synoptiques (Mt.
2:20
Les Juifs n’ont pas compris que Jésus parlait de son corps, et Jo. n'ävait aucun motif de faire allusion ἃ son âge, comme le prétend Loisy : « Jésus ἃ, figurativement, quarante-six ans accomplis quand il chasse les vendeurs du temple; le commencement de la cinquantième année, l’année jubilaire, coïncidera avec son entrée dans la gloire éternelle par la résurrection » (p. 154). Et il n’y a pas le moindre indice que Jo. ait composé cette allégorie. Aucun auteur ancien n’a eu celte idée saugrenue. Origène avoue qu'il ne sait pas comment le Temple a été bâti en quarante-six ans, mais il se moque de l’explication gnostique d'Héracléon. Le pseudo-Cyprien (de montibus Sina et Sion, 4), ayant trouvé qu'Aôau — 46, adopte ce chiffre pour la passion du Christ, d'autant que le temple a été bâti durant ce temps, et qu'il figurait son corps; mais c’est sa conjecture, il ne l’attribue pas à Jo. lequel ne pensait pas qu'on fat au moment de la Passion. D'après Loisy (cf. Calmes), Jo. « doit penser au temple de Zorobabel; il parait avoir entendu de ce temple, symboliquement de l'âge du Christ, les sept semaines que Daniel (1x, 29) distingue dans la prophétie des soixante-dix semaines d'années; dans cette prophétie, une demisemaine (Dan. 1x, 27) est mise à part, où notre auteur ἃ pensé trouver la durée du ministère du Christ; selon lui (πὶ, 87), Jésus avait, ou devait avoir, il avait symboliquement près de cinquante ans quand il mourut » (p. 151). — Absolument rien n'indique que Jo. ait fait parler 188 Juifs du Temple de Zorobabel. Pourquoi pas de celui de Salomon, comme pensait Origène? Jo. aurait-il été le seul à ignorer que le Temple avait été bâti par Hérode? Et l'idée serait plus que bizarre de composer l'âge du Christ avec sept semaines en soustrayant une demi-semaine séparée des premières par soixante-deux semaines. On a pu plus tard être frappé de cetle coïncidence d'une demi-semaine — trois ans et demi — avec le temps du ministère du Christ, évalué d’une certaine manière (cf. Introd. p. cxxix), mais sans jamais lui appliquer les sept premières semaines. Aussi bien l'histoire offre une solution très simple. Hérode avait commencé les constructions du Temple la dix-huitième année de son règne (Jos. Ané. XV, xr, 1). Si Josèphe dit la quinzième année dans Bell. 1, xxr, 1, c'est peut-être qu'il retarde le début du règne d'Hérode de trois ans, ou plutôt par erreur. Cette année du règne, d'après Schürer (Geschichle… I, p. 369), Kroll (Pauly- Wiss.), etc. correspond à l'an 20/19 av. J.-C. Si l'on part de l'an 19, on aboutit aux quarante-six ans à da Pâque de l'an 28, ce qui correspond à la date que nous avons déterminée d’après Le. 11, 4. Un pareil synchronisme est tout à fait 2%. αὐτὸν (HV) et non exvrov (8). “e bienvenu, el une preuve assurée du caractère historique de l'épisode. Mais comment les Juifs peuvent-ils dire que le naos ἃ été bâti en quarante-six aus, quand Josèphe fixe à un an et cinq mois le temps pour la construction du naos, plus huit ans pour les portiques, ete. (Ant. XV, σι, 5.6)? — Nous savons par le même Josèphe que les travaux du hiéron ne furent achevés qu'au temps du procurateur Albinus (Ant. XX, 1x, 7), vers l'an 63. On comprend que les Juifs, répondant à Jésus, aient employé le mot naos pour désigner toutes les constructions du Temple. Peut-être alors les travaux étaient-ils interrompus, ou considérés comme achevés pour l'essentiel.
2:21
Jésus l'entendait de son corps, temple du Dieu vivant, sur lequel Les Juifs devaient s'acharner jusqu'à lui enlever la vie; mais lui devait le ressusciter en trois jours, Lerme qui a plusieurs modalités dans la tradilion synoptique; ef. Mt. xu, 40.
2:22
ον (TH) plutôt que w (SV).
Les apôtres n'avaient pas compris, non plus que les Juifs, mais ils avaient gardé le silence par respect. Le mot était donc obscur pour tout le monde, comme une sorte de prophétie dont l'avenir révélerait le secret (cf. σι, 12; xvi, {7 8.), ce qui est tout à fait dans l'esprit de l'évangile; non que le Scigneur emploie ce mode comme un châtiment, mais pour affermir la foi et la confiance en lui. C'est bien le résultat qui fut atteint. Les disciples constatèrent la résurrection et crurent à la portée prophétique de l'Écriture et de la Parole de Jésus. Is croyaient déjà à l'Écriture, mais leur foi ne s'était pas appliquée à ce point parliculier qui n'était pas clair pour eux (xx, 9), non plus que la parole de Jésus ; cf. Le. xxiv, 95 s.; Act. 11, 24-32; I Cor. xv, 4.
2:23
La Päque, comme fêle, durait huit jours que les pèlerins passaient ordinairement à Jérusalem. ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ n'est pas une simple opposition à ἐν τῷ πάσχα, mais indique cette période. La foi est un des thèmes favoris de Jo., avec εἶς qu'on trouve une fois chez les synoptiques (ME. χνπι, 6), rarement ailleurs. Cette préposition ne souligne pas une imperfection, même avec τὸ ὄνομα, ef. 1, 12; πὶ, 48, comme 5115 avaient cru au nom du Messie, mais non à la réalité divine de Jésus; l’imperfection, indiquée au v. 24, n'est pas expliquée clairement : ils ne croyaient qu'à cause des signes, qui sont bien un motif pour croire, mais d'une foi qui peut demeurer théorique et ne pas dominer la pratique, ou qui n’est pas assez entière pour qu'on s’en remette à celui auquel on croit; c'est ce dernier sens que suggère le ch. ni. Il n’est pas dit qu'ils aient dès lors reconnu Jésus comme le Messie, ni qu’ils aient eu de la répugnance pour sa doctrine, car il a dû prêcher (ur, 2. 44). Ils étaient disposés à le prendre pour guide, comme les disciples de Hillel ou de Chammaï qui donnèrent leur nom à une école, mais non à s’en remettre à lui pour leur salut. On voit qu'en tout cas Jo. n’exagère pas l'importance des signes dans l’ordre du salut. Thomas commendabiliores sunt qui propter doctrinam credunt.
2:24
IL faut lire αὗτόν — ἑαυτόν (qu'écrit Soden) avec HV, plutôt que αὐτόν (T) qui revient aussitôt après. Zahn regarde cette tournure comme presque sans exemple, cependant Bauer cite Prur. Regum el imperatorum apophtegmata, p.181 d; on peut ajouter Hérodien vi, 5, 5 : πιστεῦσαι σεαυτὸν ἐλπίδι χρείττονι, ἢ πάντες πεπιστεύλαμεν, au sens de se confier, s'abandonner à l'espérance. Cf. Sap. χιν, ὕ ἐλαχίστῳ ξύλῳ πιστεύουσιν ἄνθρωποι ψυχάς, « leurs vies », el aussi leurs personnes. Donc Jésus ne voulait pas se confier à eux. Mais avait-il quelque chose à rodouter? Voulaient-ils l’entraîner dans quelque aventure? On est amené au sens de Chrysostome : confier le secret de sa personne et de sa doctrine. Si Jésus avait révélé à ces convertis de la première heure, entraînés par des miracles, le secret de sa mission par la passion, il eût compromis même cette foi naissante. Cela est tout à fait conforme à sa pédagogie avec ses disciples dans les synoptiques; s’assurer de leur fidélité avant de leur annoncer sa mort. Il fera un pas dans ce sens avec Nicodème dont l'insistance paraissait un gage de bonne volonté, mais le résultat donnera raison à sa pratique.
2:25
Jésus était éclairé par sa science propre, qui pénètre au fand des cœurs. Les hommes ont besoin des témoignages que les uns rendent aux autres parce qu’ils les connaissent depuis longtemps. Jésus sait dès le premier moment à quoi s’en tenir sur les dispositions actuelles, et sur ce qu’elles présageaient. CHAPITRE III
2:1
ỷ. 1. DIETERTIA, NUPTIEFACTE SUNT IN CANA. Trois jours après, il se fit de nôces à Cana. Trois jours après le départ de JESUS de Béthabara, il arriva à Cana de Galilée. Il y avoit de l’une à l’autre de ces deux bourgades, environ trente lieues de chemin. Nous plaçons Béthabara vers le milieu de la distance de la mer morte, à la mer de Tibériade; & Cana entre le Thabor, & Diocésarée, à peu près à distance égale. Cana étoit dans la tribu de Zabulon, au nord, & environ à trois lieues du Thabor.
ERAT MATER JESU IBI. Marie Mere de JESUS y étoit. Elle étoit de ces nôces. C’étoit apparemment quelqu’un de sa parenté qui se marioit. On présume qu’elle étoit alors veuve, puisque dans tout le reste de l’Histoire de JESUS-CHRIST; il n’est pas dit un mot de saint Joseph. Quelques-uns ont crû que ces nôces se faisoient dans la maison d’Alphée, ou de Cléophas, qui marioit son fils Simon le Cananéen, ou le Zélé, Simon Zélotes. Le nom de Cananéen, peut dériver de la ville de Cana. D’autres ont prétendu que c’étoit saint Barthélemy, nommé autrement Nathanaël. Mais la plûpart croyent que c’étoit saint Jean l’Evangéliste. L’Auteur incertain, qui a fait la Préface qui se lit à la tête des Commentaires de saint Augustin sur saint Jean, dit que le Sauveur appella ce saint Evangéliste de l’état du mariage, à l’Apostolat : Iste est Joannes, quem Dominus de flutivaga nuptiarum tempestate vocavit. Mais il ajoute que ce saint Apôtre demeura vierge, & que JESUS CHRIST lui recommanda à la mort d’avoir soin de la Vierge sa Mere, Cui Matrem virginem virgini commendavit. De tout cela on pourroit conclure que saint Jean abandonna son épouse avant la conformation de son mariage. Il est certain que toute l’Antiquité a réconnu la virginité de saint Jean; & quoique saint Augustin n’ose l’affûrer, parce qu’elle n’est pas marquée dans l’Ecriture, toutefois il la croit fort probable.
2:2
ỷ. 2. VOCATUS EST ET JESUS, ET DISCIPULI EJUS. JESUS fut aussi convié aux noces avec ses Disciples. La Mere de JESUS-CHRIST y étant, ce fut un motif de l’y inviter aussi, avec les quatre, ou cinq Disciples qu’il avoit fait à Béthabara, auprès de Jean-Baptiste. Ce nombre de personnes, qu’on n’attendoit pas, fut apparentement cause que le vin manqua. Et c’est aussi ce qui donna lieu à la sainte Vierge de rémontrer à JESUS-CHRIST qu’il n’avoit point de vin, & elle ne douta pas qu’il ne fit quelque chose en faveur des mariez, pour leur épargner la confusion de cette disette. On demande pourquoi JESUS-CHRIST s’est trouvé avec sa Mere, & ses Apôtres à ces noces? Il semble que la vie austère, & sérieuse dont il ne s’est jamais départi, ne convenoit guéres avec la joye, & le divertissement qui accompagnent ordinairement ces fortes de cérémonies. La plûpart des Peres disent que ce fut afin d’approuver le mariage par sa présence: D’autres, que ce fut dans un esprit d’humilité, qu’il se trouva avec des personnes pauvres, & qui n’avoient rien de relevé; comme ailleurs il se trouve dans la compagnie des pécheurs, & des Publicains, pour les gagner à Dieu. Il est assez croyable que comme il y avoit là une grande assemblée de ses parens, & tout ce qu’il avoit alors de Disciples, il voulut faire en leur présence son premier miracle; afin d’affermir la créance de ceux qui le reconnoissoient déjà pour le Messie, & de se faire connoître à ceux qui ne croyoient pas encore en lui.
2:3
ỷ. 3. DEFICIENTE VINO. Le vin venant à manquer, sa Mere lui dit: Ils n’ont point de vin. La sainte Vierge n’attendit pas que le vin leur manquât absolument: mais s’étant apperçû qu’il alloit manquer, elle en donna avis à son Fils, afin qu’il y pourvût. Elle n’ignoroit pas le pouvoir du Sauveur; elle savoit de quoi il étoit capable. Peut-être même qu’il avoit autrefois dans le secret de sa famille, suppléé par sa parole à de semblables disettes, & multiplié le pain, ou le vin dans le besoin. De plus la sainte Vierge put présumer que l’heure de la manifestation de son Fils étoit venue; puisqu’il avoit déjà assemblé quelques Disciples. Enfin comme c’étoit sa présence, & l’arrivée de ces nouveaux hôtes qu’on n’attendoit point, qui avoient causé ce manquement, elle se crut autorisée à lui rémontrer que l’on manquoit de vin. Ceci montre assez que ce mariage étoit entre des gens peu accommodés. Quelques Anciens ont parlé en cet endroit avec peu de précaution de la vertu de la sainte Vierge, en disant qu’elle le se porta par quelque mouvement de vanité, & d’amour propre, à demander un miracle à son Fils, afin qu’il en revint à elle même quelque gloire; & que c’est pour réprimer ce mouvement, que le Sauveur lui répond avec un peu de dureté: Femme, qu’y a-t’il de commun entre vous, & moi? Ce sont là des traits qu’on ne doit remarquer dans les anciens, que pour les excuser, & pour les rappeller à la règle des autres Peres, qui attribuënt cette action de Marie à la charité, & à la compassion envers ces nouveaux mariez.
2:4
ỷ. 4. QUID MIHI, ET TIBI EST, MULIER? Femme, qu’y a-t’il de commun entre vous, & moi? Quelque tournure que l’on donne à ces paroles, on ne peut qu’on n’y reconnoisse quelque dureté. On ne les employe d’ordinaire que pour marquer qu’on ne trouve pas bon qu’un autre se mêle de nos affaires. Et puis ce terme, Femme, au lieu de ma Mere, témoigne encore quelque sévérité. Plusieurs Hérétiques ont abusé de ces paroles: Les uns, pour soutenir que la sainte Vierge n’étoit pas la Mere de JESUS-CHRIST, & qu’il ne s’étoit pas veritablement incarné; D’autres pour dire qu’elle n’étoit pas vierge. Mais les Peres les ont expliquées bénignement, en disant que le Sauveur n’a voulu dire autre chose, sinon: Ma Mere: Sont-ce nos affaires, s’ils manquent de vin? Dois-je m’en mettre en peine? D’autres Anciens croyent que le Sauveur a voulu par ces paroles faire sentir à la sainte Vierge, qu’elle ne devoit pas prévenir les momens marquez par le Pere Céleste. Ils ont reconnu dans sa demande une espèce de contre-tems. Enfin la plûpart veulent que le Sauveur ait parlé ici non comme homme, & Fils de Marie; mais comme Dieu. En cette qualité, il dit à la sainte Vierge : Je n’ai rien de commun avec vous ; ce n’est point à vous à me précrire le tems de faire des miracles ; je fai le moment auquel je dois faire éclatter ma puissance. C’est ainsi que les meilleurs Commentateurs l’entendent. Quelques-uns veulent que la sainte Vierge ayt interrompu JESUS-CHRIST, qui parloit aux conviez, & qui leur enseignoit les paroles de vie, elle en ait été reprise, comme empêchant une bonne œuvre, plus importante que celle qu’elle lui demandoit en faveur des mariéz.
NONDUM VENIT HORA MEA. Mon heure n’est pas encore venue. Plusieurs Anciens l’expliquent du tems de la Passion. Le tems de ma Passion n’est pas encore venu. Alors je vous regarderai comme ma Mere, & je prendrai soin de vous. Mais aujourd’hui, où il s’agit de donner par un miracle des preuves de ma Divinité, je ne vous regarde pas comme ma Mere. Ce n’est point à vous à me précrire ce que je dois faire comme Dieu. Ces termes : Mon heure est venue, mon heure s’approche, mon heure n’est pas venue &c. se prennent souvent dans l’Evangile pour le tems de la Passion. Mais ici ils désignent autre chose. Il s’agissoit de faire un miracle, & de manifester sa gloire, & sa puissance; il dit que le tems de cela n’est point encore venu ; qu’il saura le faire quand il fera tems. Il attendoit, disent les Peres, que le vin manquât absolument, afin qu’on ne crût pas qu’il eût simplement augmenté cette liqueur, ou qu’il eût fait un simple mélange de l’eau au vin. Il vouloit que son premier miracle fût incontestable, & que toute la noce en fût témoin.
2:5
ỷ. 5. QUODCUMQUE DIXERIT VOBIS FACITE. Faires tout ce qu’il vous dira. La sainte Vierge comprit par quelque signe, par le ton de voix, ou par les yeux du Sauveur, qu’il étoit résolu de faire ce qu’elle désiroit, & qu’il n’attendoit que le moment propre pour cela. Elle dit donc à ceux qui servoient à table, de faire ce qu’il leur diroit. Elle ne songea plus à le presser sur cela, assurée qu’il ne laisseroit point ces pauvres gens dans l’embarras. Saint Grégoire de Nysse lit ainsi le ỷ. 4. Femme, qu’y a-t-il entre vous & moi ? Suis-je encore sous vôtre dépendance ? Mon heure n’est-elle pas encore venue ? Ne suis-je pas en âge de me conduire, & de prendre le parti que je crois le meilleur ? Marie comprit à ces paroles qu’il étoit déterminé à faire le miracle ; mais qu’il ne vouloit pas que l’on crût qu’il le fit par aucune considération humaine.
2:6
ỷ. 6. ERANT IBI HYDRIÆ SEX POSITÆ. Il y avoit là six grandes urnes de pierre, pour servir aux purifications des Juifs, dont chacune tenoit deux, ou trois mesures. Toutes ces circonstances marquées si exactement par l’Évangéliste, révèlent beaucoup la grandeur du miracle. JESUS-CHRIST ne le fit point sur une petite quantité de vin ; il y auroit pû avoir de la collusion entre les serviteurs, pour en faire paroître quelques bouteilles, qu’ils auroient cachées auparavant : Il ne veut pas même produire ce vin dans des vases destinés naturellement à contenir cette liqueur ; on auroit dit que la lie, l’odeur, & l’esprit du vin qui y étoit auparavant, auroit pû donner quelque teinture, & quelque odeur à l’eau qui y fut mise par après : Il fit ce miracle sur six grandes urnes, contenant chacune deux ou trois mesures. La mesure, ou la metrète, étoit une mesure usitée chez les Athéniens, qui contenoit quatre-vingt-dix livres de vin. COMMENTAIRE LITTERAL: Mais comme la livre Attique est moindre que la nôtre, les quatre-vingt-dix livres font environ soixante de nos livres François. Ainsi les trois mesures font cent quatre-vingt livres pesant, & les deux mesures en font six-vingt. Si l’on supposse que de ces six urnes trois tenoient trois metrées & les trois autres feulement deux, cela fera en tout neuf cens livres de vin pesant. Agricola fait la metrée de cent livres; d’autres la font feulement de vingt-cinq livres. Mr. le Pelletier de Roüen dit que la metrée est la même mesure que le bath, ou l’épha des Hebreux, lequel contient environ trente pintes de liqueur. Plaute marque trois cens metrées pour la charge d’un vaisseau. Ainsi le Sauveur donna abondamment aux conviez pour tout le tems de la nôce, qui duroit sept jours. Ces urnes étoient de pierre, c’est-à-dire, d’une espèce d’albâtre, ou de pierre Orphite, ou serpentine, qui se creusoit, & se tournoit même fort aisément; en forte que l’on en faisoit des vases pour mettre des liqueurs. Pline a parlé de ces pierres, & de ces vases. Homère beaucoup plus ancien, en fait aussi mention. On en montre encore dans les Trésors de quelques Eglises, que l’on tient être de celles mêmes qui ont servi à Cana. Celle qui se voit dans l’abbaye de Port-Royal de Paris, est des plus remarquables. Le P. Lancelot, qui a fait une espèce de Dissertation sur cette urne, qui est imprimée dans sa Chronologie sur la grandeur de Bible de Vitré, remarque qu’elle contient près de cinquante-deux pintes, c’est-à-dire, près de deux metrées, dont il fixe la capacité à un peu moins de cinquante-six pintes. Ce vase est d’une pierre, ou marbre blanc, poli, & si solide, qu’à peine deux hommes pourroient-ils le remuer, lors même qu’il est vuide. Son ouverture est assez large pour qu’on y puisse puiser. J’ai remarqué sur son côté la lettre Hebraïque Capb, qui est la premiere du mot cad, qui signifieune cruche, ou urne; ou beth, qui est la première de bath, ou bathus, qui est la même mesure que l’épha. Ces urnes étoient là pour servir aux purifications des Juifs foit pour fournir de l’eau à tous ceux qui vouloient se purifier, en lavant leurs pieds, & leurs mains; foit pour laver leurs vases à boire, leurs couteaux, & autres choses, dont on se servoit à table. Saint Marc nous apprend que les Juifs ne mangent point lorsqu’ils viennent de dehors, qu’ils ne se soient lavez les mains depuis le coude jusqu’au bout des doigts; & qu’ils ont plusieurs sortes de purifications, des coupes, des vases à mettre le vin, des lits de table, de la vaisselle, & autres choses. Voilà à quoi servoient ces urnes, ou ces cruches. Il y en avoit six, & elles étoient fort capables, à cause du grand nombre des conviez.
2:7
ỷ. 7. IMPLETE HYDRIAS AQUA. Emplisez les urnes d’eau. Il autoit pû créer du vin dans les vases vuides: mais il aima mieux qu’on les emplit d’eau, & que tout le monde fut témoin qu’il n’y avoit point de vin de peur qu’on ne soupçonnât quelque supercherie, & qu’on n’accusât les serviteurs d’avoir secrètement, & de concert avec JESUS CHRIST, rempli ces cruches de vin. C’est par la même raison qu’il ne vouloit pas toucher lui-même à ces urnes. Il les fit emplir par d’autres. C’étoit des témoins irreprochables du miracle.
2:8
ỷ. 8. HAURITE NUNC. Puisez maintenant, & portez-en au Maître d’hôtel. Ce changement se fit sur l’heure, & dans le même moment que ces urnes furent emplies. JESUS-CHRIST, ordonna qu’on en puisât aussi-tôt pour plus grande certitude. L’Architriclinus, que l’on a traduit par Maître d’hôtel, signifie plutôt le Maître, ou l’Intendant du festin. C’étoit un des amis de l’époux qui étoit chargé de toute l’économie du festin. Il veilloit à tout, avoit soin de tout, donnoit ses ordres aux domestiques, faisoit servir, & défervir comme il jugeoit à propos. Voici comme Jésus fils de Sirach, décrit l’office de ce Maître du festin : Vous a-t-on établi Maître du festin ? Ne vous en élevez pas. Soyez au milieu d’eux comme un d’entre eux ; prenez soin d’eux tous, & ayez l’œil à tout. Après quoi vous pourrez vous asseoir à table, & recevoir la couronne, comme la récompense de vôtre service. C’étoit ce Maître du festin qui goûtoit, & distribuoit le vin, & préscrivoit le nombre de coups que chaque convié devoit boire. C’est à lui que le Sauveur envoie le vin, pour le goûter ; il étoit plus en état d’en juger qu’un autre ; il étoit sobre, & bon gourmet. D’ailleurs c’étoit son office. Saint Chrysostome, Sévère d’Antioche, & Théophylacte croyent que c’étoit le meilleur vin qu’on eût jamais bu. Les Peres se fervent assez souvent de l’exemple de ce changement, pour confirmer celui qui se fait dans l’Eucharistie, du vin au sang de JESUS-CHRIST.
2:9
ỷ. 9. NON SCIEBAT UNDE ESSET. Le Maître d’hôtel ne savoit d’où venoit ce vin ; parce que, comme on l’a dit, son office étoit d’aller, & de venir, pour donner ordre à tout. Il ne savoit ni ce qui avoit été ordonné par JESUS-CHRIST, ni ce qui avoit été fait par les serviteurs. Son absence, & son ignorance relèvent encore, & assurent la vérité du miracle.
VOCAT SPONSUM ARCHITRICLINUS. Il appelle l’époux. Il le tire à l’écart, pour lui demander comment il a différé jusqu’à cette heure à faire servir de si bon vin; ou simplement, il s’approche de lui, & lui dit, que dans les festins ordinaires on donne d’abord le meilleur vin; mais qu’ensuite on donne le moindre, lorsque les conviez ne sont plus si bien en état d’en juger, lorsqu’ils ont le palais échauffé, Et cùm inebriati fuerint, tunc id quod deterius est. Lorsque comme dit Horace: Fervida subtile exsurdant vina palatum. Dans cet endroit, comme dans plusieurs autres, inebriari ne signifie pas proprement s’enivrer d’une manière basse, honteuse, & criminelle; il marque simplement bien boire, boire abondamment. De même que saturari se prend pour manger autant qu’on a besoin; ainsi inebriari, pour boire autant qu’on veut. Par exemple, il est dit que les freres de Joseph s’enivrèrent en sa présence; c’est-à-dire, qu’ils bûrent autant que leur soif le put désirer. Et Aggée parlant aux Juifs: Vous avez mangé, & vous ne vous êtes point rafrassiéz; vous avez bu, & vous ne vous êtes point enyvrez. Est-ce un grand malheur de ne se pas enyvrer? Toutefois Dieu dit aux Juifs qu’il les a punis par-là. Dans l’endroit que nous expliquons, il y a encore une raison morale qui nous empêche de le prendre dans la rigueur. La sainte Vierge se seroit-elle interessée à faire donner du vin à des gens déjà pris de vin? Et JESUS-CHRIST auroit-il voulu leur en fournir par un miracle, pour les faire tomber de plus en plus dans l’yvreté? C’auroit été leur tendre des pièges, & leur donner du poison pour se perdre. ỷ. II. HOC FECIT INITIUM SIGNORUM JESUS. Ce fut là le premier des miracles de JESUS, qui fut fait à Cana de Galilée. Quelques Anciens soutiennent qu’avant ce miracle, JESUS n’en avoit fait aucun autre, & que l’Evangéliste veut marquer ici que c’est le premier de ceux que JESUS-CHRIST fit à Cana en Galilée, & le premier qu’il eût jamais fait. Maldonat croit au contraire que le Sauveur en avoit fait d’autres, qui n’étoient connus que de la sainte Mere, & de saint Joseph, pendant qu’il vivoit ; & que c’est ce qui donna à la Vierge la confiance de lui en demander un dans cette occasion. Ce sentiment n’est nullement contraire à l’Evangéliste, qui ne rapporte ici que le premier miracle que JESUS-CHRIST fit pour manifester sa gloire, & pour le faire connoître à ses Disciples. Les Anciens lioient un Livre de l’enfance de JESUS CHRIST, qui étoit tout rempli de miracles : mais cet ouvrage est mis depuis long-tems au rang des apocryphes.
2:11
CREDIDERUNT IN EUM DISCIPULI EJUS. Ses Disciples crurent en lui. Les Disciples de JESUS-CHRIST avoient crû en lui dès qu’ils avoient eu le bonheur de le voir, & de l’entendre ; une preuve de leur créance, c’est qu’ils l’avoient suivi. Le miracle dont on vient de parler, & dont ils furent témoins, les affermit dans leur créance.
2:12
ỷ. 12. POST HOC DESCENDIT CAPHARNAUM. Après cela il alla à Capbarn.üm. Cette ville est sur le bord occidental de la mer de Tibériade ; JESUS y fit un grand nombre de miracles, & quelque tems après ayant quitté Nazareth, il vint y fixer sa demeure. De Cana à Capharnaüm il n’y avoit pas plus de cinq ou six lieues. Origénes croit avec beaucoup de probabilité, que JESUS ne vint à Capharnaüm, que six jours après le miracle dont on a parlé; c’est-à-dire, après toute la solemnité de la nôce, qui duroit sept jours.
2:13
ỷ. 13. PROPE ERAT PASCHA JUDEORUM. La Paque des Juifs étant proche, JESUS alla à Jérusalem; il ne demeura que peu de jours à Capharnaüm. Il partit pour Jérusalem trois, ou quatre jours après son arrivée. C’est ici la première Paque que JESUS-CHRIST fit depuis son Baptême. Il étoit dans la trente-troisième année de son âge, 30. de l’Ere Vulgaire.
2:14
ỷ. 14. INVENIT IN TEMPLO VENDENTES, &c. Ayant trouvé dans le Temple des gens qui vendoient des bœufs. Ceci arriva le matin de la veille de Paque. Ces marchands vendoient ces animaux pour les sacrifices. Ils étoient dans les parvis extérieurs. Les Prêtres tiroient du profit de ces trafics, & par un vil intérêt, ils le toleroient dans un lieu saint. Voici la première fois que JESUS CHRIST usa de cette sévérité envers les marchands qui profanoient le Temple. Il en usa encore quelques jours avant sa passion, comme on l’a vû dans les autres Evangélistes. Zacharie avoit prédit long-tems auparavant qu’aux jours du Messie, il n’y auroit plus de marchands dans la Maison de Dieu. Non erit mercator ultra in domo Domini exercitum in die illa.
NUMULARIOS. Des changeurs, qui étoient assis à leurs bureaux. Ces gens faifoiënt trafic par le change des monnoyes, pour la facilité de ceux qui venoient au Temple des provinces éloignées, & qui changeoient leur or, ou leur argent contre de la monnoye, pour avoir de quoi faire leurs offrandes.
2:15
ỷ. 15. CUM FECISSET QUASI FLAGELLUM DE FUNICULIS. Il prit les premières cordes qu’il trouva, & commença à s’en servir comme de fouët, pour chasser les bœufs, & les moutons que l’on vendoit dans le Temple. Il n’usa point de bâton, ni de verges; parce qu’on n’en portoit point dans le Temple, disent les Rabbins.
NUMULARIORUM ES. L’argent des changeurs. Le Grec : Leur monnoye. La monnoye des changeurs.
2:18
ỷ. 18. QUOD SIGNUM OSTENDIS? Par quel miracle nous montrez-vous que vous avez droit de faire de telles choses? Le Senat, & les Prêtres toleroient ce trafic; il n’appartenoit qu’à Dieu, ou à son Prophéte de l’empêcher, & de le défendre. Or personne n’est reconnu Prophéte que par des miracles, ou par des prédictions indubitables. JESUS-CHRIST jusques-là n’avoit encore fait aucun prodige aux yeux de ceux qui lui parloient. Ils paroiffoient donc avoir quelque droit de lui demander pourquoi il faisoit cela.
2:19
ỷ. 19. SOLVITE TEMPLUM HOC. Détruisez ce Temple & je le rétablirai en trois jours. Voici tout à la fois un miracle, & une prédition. JESUS-CHRIST prédit la résurrection, qui est le plus grand de tous ses miracles : mais il la prédit d’une manière si obscure, que ceux qui l’écoutoient n’y comprirent rien. Il entendoit son Corps sous le nom de Temple, & il leur disoit de faire, ce qu’ils devoient faire en effet : Détruisez ce Temple ; faites mourir mon Corps. Je fai que vous me donnerez la mort : mais je saurai me rendre la vie, & rebâtir ce Temple que vous aurez démoli. Il fit apparemment un geste sur soi-même, en disant cela, pour montrer qu’il parlait de son Corps. Les Juifs ne méritoient pas qu’il leur parlât d’une manière plus claire. S’ils eussent eu le cœur droit, ils auroient aisément compris la justice de sa conduite. Ce qu’il avoit dit à ces marchands : Ne faites pas de la maison de mon Pere une maison de trafic, la prouvoit assez. C’étoit déja un miracle, qu’un homme seul, sans armes, sans autorité, sans nom, ait pû si aisément chasser ces marchands, malgré les Prêtres, & malgré le peuple. Et saint Jérôme ne feint pas de dire que cette action lui paroît la plus miraculeuse qu’ait jamais fait le Sauveur. Il dit que son Corps est un Temple : Et en effet la Divinité y demeuroit réellement, véritablement, d’une manière intime, & hypostatique : In quo habitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter, comme dit saint Paul; au lieu que dans les Saints elle n’y habite que spirituellement, & par la grace. Et toutefois l’Apôtre dit que leurs corps font le Temple de Dieu : Le Temple de Dieu est saint ; & c’est vous qui êtes ce Temple. Et ailleurs : Vos membres font le Temple du Saint Esprit. JESUS-CHRIST dit aux Juifs : Détruisez ce Temple, au lieu de : Vous le détruirez ; par une manière de parler commune dans l’Ecriture, où l’impératif est mis pour le futur. Enfin il leur donne le signe de la résurrection future, ici, comme en quelques autres endroits ; parce qu’il voyoit leur incrédulité, & la mauvaise disposition de leur cœur. Ils n’étoient pas dignes qu’il leur en donnât d’autres. Toutefois il en fit tant dans la fuite, qu’il les rendit absolument inexcusables: Si je n’avois pas fait parmi eux des miracles que nul autre n’a fait, ils ne seroient point coupables de péché. C’est de cet endroit de saint Jean mal entendu, que les Juifs prirent occasion de faire un crime à JESUS-CHRIST, au tems de sa passion, d’avoir dit qu’il détruiroit le Temple de Dieu, & qu’il le rétabliroit en trois jours.
2:20
ỷ. 20. QUADRAGINTA ET SEX ANNIS ÆDIFICATUM EST. Ce Temple a été quarante-six ans à bâtir; & vous le rétablirez en trois jours? Ces quarante-six ans embarrassent les Interprètes; car le Temple dont parlent les Juifs, ne peut être celui de Salomon. Il avoit été détruit long-tems auparavant par Nabuchodonosor; & on fait que Salomon n’avoit été que sept ans à le bâtir. Ce n’est pas non plus celui de Zorobabel, bâti depuis le retour de la captivité; ce Temple avoit été renouvelé par Hérode, & rebâti, pour ainsi dire, tout à neuf. D’ailleurs on n’avoit été que dix-neuf ou vingt ans au plus à le bâtir; et y comprenant même le tems qui s’écoula depuis la défense d’en continuer le bâtiment sous Cyrus, jusqu’au regne de Darius fils d’Hyftafpe, qui en permit la continuation. Ce ne peut donc être que le nouveau Temple rebâti par Hérode; Ce Prince l’entreprit quarante-six ans avant la première Pâque de notre Sauveur. Il ne mit que neufans & demi à le bâtir. Mais|on continua à y faire de nouveaux ouvrages, & plusieurs embellissemens, jusqu’au tems auquel les Juifs disoient au Sauveur: On a bâti jusqu’à présent ce Temple pendant l’espace de quarante-six ans; & vous le rebâtirez en trois jours? Joseph dit qu’après que le bâtiment du Temple fut achevé, le peuple voyant dix-huit mille ouvriers, qui jusqu’à alors avoient été occupée à cet ouvrage, demeurer sans occupation, engagea le jeune Agrippa à entreprendre la construction du parvis oriental; ce qui coûta encore de très-grandes sommes, & dura assez long-tems.
2:22
ỷ. 22. CUM ERGO RESURREXISSET, &c. Après donc qu’il fut ressuscité, ils se souvinrent qu’il leur avoit dit cela; & ils crurent à l’Ecriture. Les Disciples eux-mêmes n’avoient pas compris ce que disoit JESUS. Ils crurent comme les Juifs, qu’il parloit du Temple matériel du Seigneur. Mais après sa résurrection, ils crurent à l’Ecriture, qui parloit de sa mort, & de sa résurrection, & ils virent clairement l’exécution de la parole du Sauveur, dans la destruction, & le rétablissement de son Temple; c’est-à-dire, dans la mort, & la résurrection de son Corps.
2:23
ỷ. 23. MULTI CREDIDERUNT IN EUM. Plusieurs crurent en lui. Le Sauveur demeura à Jérusalem quelques jours, pendant l’octave de la Pâque, & y fit plusieurs miracles: Ce qui lui attira un assez grand nombre de Disciples; & entre autres, Nicodème, dont on parlera au Chapitre suivant. Nous ne savons pas quels furent les miracles qu’il fit dans cette Solemnité: mais il faut qu’ils ayent été grands, & en grand nombre, pour persuader une multitude, qui n’étoit nullement disposée à croire. Quelques Anciens ont prétendu que ces gens n’avoient pas crû sincèrement au Sauveur, à cause de ce qui est dit au verset suivant, que JESUS ne se confioit point à eux. C’est ce que nous allons examiner.
2:24
ỷ. 24. JESUS AUTEM NON CREDEBAT SEMETIPSUM EIS. Mais JESUS ne se fioit point à eux. Les Peres communément croyent que ces mots, à eux, se rapportent à ceux-là mêmes dont il a parlé au verset précédent : JESUS ne se fioit point à eux, quoiqu’ils crûssent en lui. Et d’où vient qu’il ne s’y fioit point ? C’est qu’il les connoissoit parfaitement : Eò quòd ipse nosset omnes. Il savoit leur foiblesse, leur inconstance, leur légèreté. Il savoit qu’à la première occasion, ils l’abandonneroient ; que son humilité, sa passion, sa croix, sa Doctrine seroient pour eux un sujet de scandale. Saint Augustin, & quelques autres comparent ces premiers Croyans aux Cathécumènes. Ils croyent en JESUS-CHRIST ; ils confessent son nom ; ils impriment la croix sur leur front : mais JESUS-CHRIST ne le confie pas à eux ; il ne leur confie pas la connoissance de ses mysteres ; il ne leur découvre pas les secrets de sa Religion. Quelques-uns l’expliquent des autres Juifs, différens de ceux qui crûrent en JESUS-CHRIST : Le sauveur ne se fioit point à eux ; mais seulement à ceux qui croyoient en lui. Le premier sens est beaucoup meilleur.
2:25
ỷ. 25. OPUS EINON ERAT UT QUIS TESTIMONIUM, &c. Il n’avoit pas besoin que personne lui rendit témoignage d’aucun homme. Saint Jean attentif à relever toutes les preuves de la Divinité de JESUS-CHRIST, nous fait remarquer qu’il pénétre le fond du cœur des hommes ; ce qui est une propriété de Dieu seul. CHAPITRE
2:1
BARTOLOMEO (ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΑΊΟΣ, BARTHOLOMAEUS), APOSTOLO, SANTO
… Era galileo di Cana (Io. 21, 2; cf. 2, 1), ove oggi una chiesa è dedicata a s. B. Dal racconto giovannoso della sua vocazione all'apostolato, appare d'indole riservata e pensosa. …
… Perciò un'altra località posta verso nord al margine della pianura Asochis (el-Baṭṭōf), Hirbet Qānah, ha le preferenze di molti fin dal medioevo, benché faccia difficoltà la maggiore distanza di 14 km. da Nazareth, essendo intervenuta alle nozze la Vergine Maria (Io. 2, 1).
… Alcuni riguardano la natura inanimata o irrazionale; p. es., il cambiamento dell'acqua in vino al banchetto nuziale di Cana (Io. 2, 1-11), la tempesta sedata sul lago di Tiberiade (Mt. 8, 23-27), la duplice moltiplicazione dei pani (ibid. 14, 13-21; 15, 32-38), la duplice pesca miracolosa (Lc. 5, 4-10; Io. 21, 1-11),
GIOVANNI, APOSTOLO, EVANGELISTA, SANTO
… La verginità di G. è affermata dal Prologo monarchiano (ed. H. Lietzmann, I, p. 13) «ut virgo virginem servaret» (vi si espone però la leggenda che G. fu sposo: Io. 2, 1-11), da Pistis Sophia, 41, 96 (ed. O. Schmidt, I, 42, 148); e da Acta Ioannis, 113 (ed. R. A. Lipsius, II, 1, 212). La dimora di G. a Efeso risulta da Ireneo (Adv. …
… contratto matrimoniale presso gli Ebrei, che comprendeva due distinti momenti: la promessa (fidanzamento) e l'introduzione della sposa nella casa dello sposo, che avveniva ordinariamente dopo un anno dalla promessa e si festeggiava solennemente (cf. Io. 2, 1). Al tempo dell'Annunciazione, e fino a questo momento, i due sposi non coabitavano (Mt. 1, 18 «antequam convenirent»): dunque erano solo fidanzati. …
2. M. durante il ministero pubblico di Gesù. - Per questo periodo i testi evangelici sono rari, ma la presenza e l'azione di M. alle nozze di Cana (v.), in occasione del primo miracolo operato da Gesù (Io. 2, 1-11), hanno un significato decisivo. …
MATERNITÀ DIVINA DI MARIA S.MA
… Nella S. Scrittura Maria viene presentata come madre di Gesù, da lei concepito e dato alla luce (Is. 7, 14; Mt. 2, 11; Lc. 1, 31; 2, 7; Io. 2, 1, 3, 5, 12; 19, 25-26; Gal. 4, 4). Gesù poi viene presentato come Dio. Maria quindi, essendo madre di Gesù, vero Dio, è in senso vero e proprio madre di Dio. Così del resto la salutò …
… La prima grazia spirituale (la santificazione del Battista) fu data, come attestò Elisabetta, per mezzo di Maria (Lc. 1, 41-45). La prima grazia d'ordine materiale (la conversione dell'acqua in vino alle nozze di Cana) fu concessa per l'intercessione di Maria (Io. 2, 1-11). Queste due grazie, sembrano indicare una legge generale della Provvidenza nella distribuzione di ogni grazia, quella legge enunciata così bene da s. Bernardo e ripetuta dalla Chiesa. …
… sotto il fico », per cui N. lo proclamò il Messia (« il Figlio di Dio, il Re d'Israele », professione di fede insufficiente secondo il Crisostomo: PG 59, 127-29), e il Maestro promise rivelazioni maggiori (Io. 1,45-51). N. era di Cana (Io. 21,2; 2,1 Cana è nominata subito dopo la vocazione di N.).
… Lc. 6, 15 e Act. 1, 13. Il titolo « cananeo » non significa « oriundo da Cana » come pensavano s. Girolamo ed alcuni autori greci, copti, etiopi, che, talora, l'hanno identificato con Nathanael (v.) di Cana, o con lo sposo delle nozze ivi celebrate (Io. 2, 1 sgg.), ma deriva dall'aramaico qan'ând', che significa « zelota » o « zelante ». Forse aveva fatto parte del partito degli zeloti (v.), oppure aveva avuto zelo per la legge e le tradizioni giudaiche. …
2:2
… Quando fu presentato dal fratello Andrea a Gesù con le parole: «Abbiamo trovato il Messia», ne ebbe il soprannome di Cephas (Io. 1, 42). Fu presente al miracolo di Cana (ibid. 2, 2-11), si stabilì poi con Gesù a Cafarnao (ibid. 2, 12). Fu chiamato definitivamente all'apostolato dopo la prima pesca miracolosa (Lc. 5, 11; Mc. 1, 18; Mt. 4, 22), divenendo così «pescatore di uomini».
2:3
… pertransibit gladius », intesa con vera aberrazione esegetica nel senso che la spada predetta da Simeone altro non sarebbe che un dubbio nell'anima di Maria); Lc. 2, 48 (« Fili, quid fecisti nobis sic? », in cui si vuol trovare un ingiustificato rimprovero); Io. 2, 3-4 (« quid tibi et mihi est, mulier », cf. F.-M. …
2:11
… Si mostra fin da principio padrone della natura e con ciò manifesta per la prima volta la sua gloria (Io. 2, 11); ha autorità sul tempio di Jahveh ed egli stesso è il tempio, in cui Dio risiede (ibid. 13-22); è conscio che in lui si adempiono le profezie e lo annunzia fin dal primo momento della …
2:12
CAFARNAO. - Città «di Galilea» (Lc. 4, 23; Καφαρναούμ, lat. Capharnaum) nominata sedici volte nei Vangeli (4 in Mt., 3 in Mc., 4 in Lc., 5 in Io.). È chiamata «marittima» (παραβελάσσιος) in Mt. 4, 13. Gesù la elesse come sede stabile della sua predicazione (Mt. 4, 13; Lc. 4, 31; Io. 2, 12) e vi compì molti miracoli (liberazione d'un de-
FRATELLI DI GESÙ. - Consanguinei di Gesù che nei Vangeli (Mt. 12, 46; 13, 55; Mc. 3, 31; 6, 3; Lc. 8, 19-21; Io. 2, 12; 7, 3-5) e Act. 1, 14 sono detti «f. di Lui» e nelle epistole di s. Paolo (I Cor. 9, 5; Gal. 1, 19) «f. del Signore» (οἱ ἀδελφοί τοῦ Κυρίου). …
… del Giordano (Io. 1, 20), riceve la testimonianza di Giovanni, raccoglie i primi discepoli (ibid. 1, 35-51), torna in Galilea e interviene alle nozze di Cana (ibid. 2, 11), rimane non molti giorni a Cafarnao e vicino a Pasqua si avvia a Gerusalemme (ibid. 2, 12-13).
… Giovanni nota che M., dopo l'episodio di Cana, accompagna Gesù a Cafarnao (Io. 2, 12), dove ristetterò pochi giorni.
… il più copioso contributo in proposito è dato da W. E. Crum (v. bibl.) in Coptic ostraca con Ps. 24, 50, 103, 117, con il frammento di Lc. 1, 28.42 e testi liturgici in onore della Vergine; altrove in o. editi da J. G. Tait (v. bibl., p. 145) si legge Io. 2, 12-14; inni alla Vergine in un o. di Aberdeen, forse del sec. vi (Paderb. 4), e in uno di Cambridge (J. G. Tait, pp. 117-18); ad Aberdeen è pure un testo su o., che narra il Battesimo di …
… Quando fu presentato dal fratello Andrea a Gesù con le parole: «Abbiamo trovato il Messia», ne ebbe il soprannome di Cephas (Io. 1, 42). Fu presente al miracolo di Cana (ibid. 2, 2-11), si stabilì poi con Gesù a Cafarnao (ibid. 2, 12). Fu chiamato definitivamente all'apostolato dopo la prima pesca miracolosa (Lc. 5, 11; Mc. 1, 18; Mt. 4, 22), divenendo così «pescatore di uomini».
2:13
sia. Il Battista dà valore messianico e soteriologico alla formola (cf. Io. 1, 30-34), che allude al duplice a. quotidianamente sacrificato nel Tempio, e specialmente all'a. pasquale la cui immolazione doveva avvenire di lì a poco (Io. 2, 13), e al sacrificio espiatorio del «servo di Jahweh» (Is. 53, 7; cf. Act. 8, 32). L'Evangelista dà sommo rilievo al rito pasquale di Gesù (Io. 13, 1-3, 31-33; cf. 18, 28) per poi …
1. Teoria biennale. — A metà della predicazione di Cristo, Io. 6, 4 menziona una Pasqua che certo non è né quella iniziale (Io. 2, 13) né quella della morte: ἦν δὲ ἐγγύς τὸ πάσχα ἢ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων «era vicina la Pasqua, la festa degli Ebrei»; quindi il ministero di Cristo durò almeno due anni.
a) Fino alla prima Pasqua. — Giovanni Battista inizia nell'autunno dell'a. 26 (779 di Roma) il suo ministero, che dura alcuni mesi; nell'inverno tra il 26-27, forse ai primi di genn., G. viene a farsi battezzare: tra il Battesimo di G. e la 1ª Pasqua di Io. 2, 13 passano alcuni mesi; G. trascorre quaranta giorni nel deserto dove viene tentato, ritorna sulle rive del Giordano (Io. 1, 20), riceve la testimonianza di Giovanni, raccoglie i primi …
Nella vita di Gesù si trova menzionata la festa di P.; una volta nella sua vita di Nazareth (i suoi parenti andavano a Gerusalemme ogni anno per la festa di P.: Lc. 2, 41); tre volte da s. Giovanni nella sua vita pubblica: Io. 2, 13 è la prima P.; ibid. 6, 4 è la seconda P. (rimane incerto se la «festa» di 5, 1 sia la P., anche se fosse certo criticamente l'articolo); finalmente è menzionata la terza e ultima …
2:16
… Theol. 1ᵃ-2ⁿᵈ, q. 77, a. 5), da questo amore sregolato di sé, chiamato spesso egoismo (v.), in latino cupiditas, derivano « la concupiscenza della carne, la concupiscenza degli occhi, la superbia della vita » (Io. 2, 16), poi i sette peccati capitali. …
… La concupiscenza è triplice: «concupiscentia carnis, oculorum et superbia vitae» (Io. 2, 16). La lotta dell'«uomo nuovo» contro l'attrattiva sregolata dei piaceri sensuali e dei beni terreni, e contro l'orgoglio, è resa più aspra dall'intervento, in sostegno del nemico interno, …
2:18
… Infatti si allarmano fin da principio quando G. entra nel Tempio, che è un loro deposito, da padrone (Io. 2, 18); non ammettono la nuova interpretazione della legge del sabato, perché non è la loro (Mc. 2, 24; 3, 4); andare dietro al nuovo maestro, è una seduzione (Io. 7, 47). Quando vedono …
2:19
… G. risorgendo si manifesta come Figlio di Dio e il C.: a tal miracolo si era appellato come alla prova suprema (Mt. 12, 39 segno di Giona; Io. 2, 19 il Tempio ricostruito) e ora manifesta la gloria del Padre nella sua faccia (II Cor. 4, 6). Si manifesta tale con miracoli (la pesca, Io. 21, 1-14 provoca la fede: è il Signore, …
PRIMATO DI SAN PIETRO E DEL ROMANO PONTEFICE
A ciò non si può obiettare che il Nuovo Testamento non conosce che un unico fondamento della Chiesa (Io. 2, 19; I Cor. 3, 11), poiché Gesù, che si era dichiarato luce del mondo (Io. 8, 12; 9, 5; 12, 46), designò gli Apostoli come luce del mondo (Mt. 5, 14), né si può opporre il rimprovero di …
TRIDUO, OTTAVARIO (OTTIDUO), NOVENA
… sua permanenza nel sepolcro (Iou. 2, 1; Act. 12, 38-40). Altro celebre passo del Vangelo è quello ove Gesù, parlando della distruzione del Tempio che egli ricostruirà entro tre giorni, accenna alla sua risurrezione dopo tre giorni dalla sepoltura (Io. 2, 19-20; Mt. 26, 61; 27, 40; Mc. 14, 40; Mt. 27, 63; 17, 22; Mc. 8, 31; 9, 30). Anche Saulo, il futuro Paolo, dopo la scena fulminante, restò a Damasco per tre giorni digiuno e tutto sconvolto.
2:20
In Io. 2, 20, i sinedriti dichiarano a Cristo: «ci vollero 46 anni per costruire questo tempio». …
… Al tempo di Gesù ancora vi si lavorava (cf. Io. 2, 20: da 45 anni, cioè dal 19 a. C. al 26/27 d. C.). In Io. 8, 59 e 10, 31 si parla delle pietre per lapidare Gesù.
2:29
… Solo intendendo la g. in questo senso, si comprende perché è chiamata nella S. Scrittura « rinascita » (Io. 3, 5; 3, 8, 47) dall'acqua e dallo Spirito Santo; « rinascita da Dio » (ibid., 1, 13; 2, 29); « rigenerazione e rinnovazione dello Spirito Santo » per cui diventiamo « nuova creatura » (II Cor. 5, 12; Gal. 6, 15); « un nuovo uomo rinnovato nell'intimo dello spirito in giustizia …
2:49
BARTOLOMEO (ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΑΊΟΣ, BARTHOLOMAEUS), APOSTOLO, SANTO
… Condotto da Filippo, è lodato da Gesù (2, 47 « ecco veramente un Israelita in cui non è dolo ») che gli rivela i suoi segreti; onde esce entusiasta in una professione di fede che prelude a quella di Pietro (Mt. 16, 16): « Tu sei il figlio di Dio, tu sei il re d'Israele » (Io. 2, 49). È poi presente all'apparizione del Risorto sul lago (Io. 21, 2). Con il collegio apostolico B. riceve lo Spirito alla Pentecoste (Act. 1, 13).
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · Douay-Rheims originale (Reims 1582), trascrizione EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Pubblico dominio.