Theodore of Mopsuestia

In his own words on John

• John 1:1

  In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call "beginning" that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name "beginning" is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He did not say "they were in the beginning," because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say "in the beginning." Rather, he said, "In the beginning God created," thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

• John 1:1

  Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, "In the beginning was the Word." You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as "the beginning." This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was. Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase "he was in the beginning" to be taken in the same sense as the phrase "in the beginning God created." Indeed, there the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, "He was in the beginning." And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase "in the beginning" to show that he was indicating without any qualification the "beginning" of the things that exist, which indeed is the "first being" and the "ever-being" and the "never not being."

  COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, FRAGMENT 2.1, 1-2

• John 1:2

  John wanted to persuade by using the name "Word," as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said "he was in the beginning," he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

• John 1:3

  Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, "[The Word] was with God in the beginning," and "All things were made through him." By saying this, he has opposed himself to "all things made." He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with "in the beginning was," and its opposite, "all things were made through him." Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words "In the beginning was," clearly asserting his eternity.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.2-3

• John 1:12

  For those, he says, who received him, their reception was not useless. He gave them something great and excellent; certainly, insofar as it is possible, he made them equal in honor by giving them the gift of sonship. They take advantage of that grace not by being reborn in the body according to the natural order of generation. Rather, they are given birth by divine power through a certain similarity and relationship with him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.12

• John 1:14

  In order to explain the word was, the Evangelist added kai eskēnōsen en hēmin, and "tabernacled in us," that is, in this sense he became flesh: he lived in our nature. Evidently the words stand for "lived among us," as also the apostle said about us human beings, "We who are still in this tabernacle groan," where he called our body a tabernacle. He also writes elsewhere, "We know that if the earthly tabernacle we live in is destroyed." It is well known that in Scripture usually the whole person is indicated by "flesh," as in, "To you all flesh shall come."

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

• John 1:14

  We did not agree to believe in him lightheartedly, [John says,] but accepted him as a true, only begotten Son because of those things that we saw. And the things we saw demonstrated the greatness of the one who appeared—they could belong to no one else except the Only Begotten who possesses perfect identity with the Father. And it is also true that the works that were made through him were full of true grace. He called grace truth in comparison with that of the Jews, in order to accuse the unbelievers, and he reveals his intention with the words that follow.He indicates grace with the name of truth, that is, the true grace, because Christ took on the ancient transgressions and gave salvation through the remission of sins. In addition he destroyed death, which reigned because of sin, and gave us a sound hope in the resurrection through our adoption as sons. He gave us hope not only in the word, like the Jews, but also regenerated in us the hope of resurrection by the works [of Christ] through the power of the Spirit. The symbol of resurrection is baptism, which confirms that death itself will never destroy us. For this reason he prepared for us the delights of the heavenly kingdom if we preserve pure in our actions the honor of the adoptive relationship given to us through baptism.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.14

• John 1:16

  "From his fullness," he says, "we have all received," that is, the grace of the Spirit, which is given to us as a gift, we received from his abundance. About his human nature he says that every grace is in it; but at the same time this shows the dignity of the nature that is in him. Through the union with the divine Word, by means of the Spirit, he was made participant in the true relationship. We have taken a part from his spiritual grace, and through it we are made participant together with him in this adoptive affiliation, even though we are very far away from that dignity. And he fortunately added, "grace for grace," indicating with the name of grace the law as well. He says, instead of that grace [of the law] this grace is given.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.16

• John 1:29

  As appears from the narrative of the Evangelist, John the Baptist said his previous words as if the Lord had come already and walked among crowds who still ignored him. Now, since he is coming to be baptized, he is described with the words "this is the Lamb of God." Let us consider how Scripture likes to place words in the appropriate context of facts. By saying in this passage, "This is the one who takes away the sin of the world," he did not say "the only begotten Son," or the "Son of God" or "the one who is close to the father's bosom," which appear in what he said above. Although now it would have seemed right to express the greatness of his nature, in order to confirm the promise of the things he was going to give. But this is not what he said. Instead, he called him "lamb," and with this name he signifies his passion. In fact, he was called lamb and sheep to signify his death when he washed away sin. Since the sin reigned in our mortality, and death was gaining strength in us because of sin, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior came and remitted all these things to us. And after destroying death through his death, he also destroyed the sin rooted in our nature because of mortality. Through his promise he made us immortal, and he will render us so in reality when he defeats sin with the gift of immortality.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.29

• John 1:32

  Here it is evident that the Spirit descending like a dove on the baptized Lord was not seen by all those present, but by John only in a sort of spiritual vision. Similarly, the prophets amid many people were used to seeing those things that were invisible to all the others. It would have been useless to say that John testified and said, "I saw the Spirit," if all those present had been participants in that vision as well.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.32

• John 1:33

  He revealed why he lived in the wilderness. This certainly happened through a special providence of God, in order that he might not have any relationship with the Messiah. And John certainly would have had such a relationship if he had lived in town, since they were of the same age and they were related. The suspicion would have easily arisen that he had testified those words because of that previous relationship and because of their friendship and the fact that they were related. In order to remove this suspicion, John was segregated from adolescence onward and grew up in the wilderness. Therefore, with good reason he said, "I myself did not know him." I had no familiarity or friendship with him, but I was sent to baptize with water for him so that I might reveal him whom I did not know. He clearly showed that he baptized so that all the Jews who came because of the baptism might have an occasion to hear his doctrine and to see him to whom he testified.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

• John 1:33

  He who sent me so that I might reveal before everybody that he had come—and therefore he gave me the power to baptize with water—predicted to me that the Spirit would descend on him. These words were said to the Baptist while he was in the wilderness, and immediately he who indeed did [preach and baptize] came. As the Lord then came to John, he immediately received the vision so that he might recognize the Lord. This is why he preached so publicly about his greatness. When he, while administering the baptism, saw in a spiritual vision the Spirit descending, as had been predicted to him, then he was sure that he was seeing the expected result of the prophecy.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.33

• John 1:38

  At once his disciples, who were present, after hearing his words, left John and hurried to go to Jesus about whom John testified. "When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, 'What are you looking for?' " He did not say this out of ignorance but rather in order to give them an occasion to trust him. They immediately called him "Rabbi" and showed their profound intention, that is, that they had been led to Jesus for no other reason but the desire to obey him as a teacher. And at the same time they asked him where he lived, as if they wanted to come to him often. He did not point out a house but told them to come along with him and see, by giving them the space for greater familiarity and trust toward him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.38

• John 1:40

  He says that one of those who followed him was Andrew, brother of Simon, without mentioning the other. Evidently this is the blessed John himself. He always appears to pass in silence over those things that concern him. And also whenever he relates something concerning himself, he avoids subscribing his name. If those who received the gospel had not indicated the writer with the prefixed title, we would not have known about whom the text is speaking.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.39-41

• John 1:46

  This is not exactly the way this sentence appears, but rather it should be understood in a different and more doubtful sense, as in "How is it possible that anything good comes out of Nazareth?" In fact, among the Jews the name of that village was much despised, because a great number of its inhabitants were pagans, and it seemed impossible that anything good might come out from there. Therefore also the Pharisees said to Nicodemus, "Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee." And so it is only right that Philip says to Nathanael, "Come and see." Since there is now a contrast to that old opinion, [he seems to be saying], I promise to show you the real facts. This was superfluous, otherwise, for someone who had once believed in the truth.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.46

• John 1:49

  Therefore Nathanael, convinced by those deeds, said to him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the king of Israel," that is, you are the Messiah who was already announced. The Messiah was certainly expected by them as God to appear before everybody, as a king of Israel, even though they conceived him in a more obscure and material way. It was not possible then that the Jews knew how he was the Son of God or the king of Israel. Evidently also Nathanael did not say he was the Son of God by divine generation but by familiarity, as those people who came to God through his virtue were called sons of God. It was not possible that Nathanael immediately knew what we see and that the apostles themselves came to know after a long time. Those things that were said to him by the Lord could not be sufficient to demonstrate his other nature.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.49

• John 1:50-51

  The Lord shows that nothing he had said was so great or sufficient enough to demonstrate all of what he really was. So then he declares what the greater things are that Nathanael would have seen.… He spoke of angels ascending and descending on him, because they assist him in dealing with the whole of creation.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.50-51

• John 2:1

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.1

• John 2:3

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

  COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 1.2, 3

• John 2:8

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.6-7

• John 2:14-15

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.13-18, 19

• John 2:22

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.2.21

• John 2:25

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.2.24-25

• John 3:3

  [Jesus seems to be saying to him], "If you believe that I was sent as a teacher from God, and the miracles I accomplished convince you of this, as you say, our teaching then requires another way of life and expects the beginning of a new generation." So we hope indeed to see the kingdom of God, because, while we are mortal, we cannot go there if we are not raised incorruptible after our death. We believe that this happens typologically through baptism: we are born again in an image of the resurrection, that is, of a new state [of being].

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.3.3

• John 3:4

  Since Nicodemus had asked, "Can one enter again into the mother's womb and be born?" our Lord explained that this occurs through both water and Spirit. He said water because the action takes place in water, Spirit because the Spirit exercises his power through the water. This is called the Spirit of adoption, not water, because we receive new birth through his power. For this reason in baptism we name the Spirit together with the Father and the Son, but we do not mention the water, so that it may be clear that water is employed as a symbol and for a [visible] use. But we invoke the Spirit as the effective agent together with the Father and the Son. That is why, in reply to Nicodemus's question, "Can one enter again into the mother's womb and be born?" our Lord answers, "Through both water and Spirit." Just as in the instance of natural birth, where the womb is the place in which the child is formed and then perfected by the divine virtue that forms it from the beginning, so also in this place, the water is referred to in place of the womb and the Spirit in place of the Lord as the effective agent. Baptism is said to be a symbol of death and resurrection, and so it is called a new birth. Just as one who is resurrected is considered to be created again after death, so also one who is begotten in baptism is said to be born again, because first he dies in water and in a similar way is resurrected by the power of the Spirit. The immersion represents the burial while the raising of the head out of the water at every invocation of the name represents the resurrection that takes place through the Spirit.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.3.4-5

• John 3:6

  He means that the work of generating is necessarily similar to the nature of the generator: when flesh generates flesh, necessarily the generation is bodily. When the spirit is the generator, it is necessary that we understand the generation as incorporeal and spiritual. Through this he also demonstrates that the water, which he united to the Spirit, does not operate with him but is mentioned as a symbol and for a [visible] use. Therefore he did not add "what is born of water" but only says "what is born of the Spirit" by clearly attributing the work of generating to the Spirit.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.3.6

• John 3:8

  He said rightly "you hear the sound of it," because by descending first on the apostles it came with a noise. They heard the sound of a strong wind and spoke different languages through the power of the Spirit that was over them. Thus, after speaking in such lofty language of the generation of the Spirit, he concluded perfectly: "So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit," that is, such is the generation of the Spirit. It cannot be comprehended by the thoughts of humankind. Since it is beyond their grasp, it can only be perceived through its sound for their apprehension.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.3.7-8

• John 3:8

  The Holy Spirit, because it is omnipotent, performs everything as it wants, and nothing can resist its operations. You hear its voice, that is, perceive the sound of its coming. You cannot ascertain in which place its person is contained so that you might otherwise understand its way of operating. Its nature is immense, and therefore it is everywhere it chooses to be. In the same way, its action is beyond comprehension because it does everything according to its own will.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.3.7-8

• John 4:4

  This necessity to go [through Samaria] gave the opportunity and the beginning to his narrative. John did not report this fact in vain. He does not say "as he went to Judea" or "as he returned to Galilee from Judea," so he also came to the Samaritans. Because of the Samaritans' separation from the Jews he certainly avoided giving an occasion for the Jews' just complaint. And so, he did all this as though he were passing through, so that those who were worthy among the Jews might not be deprived of his benefit. He acted for their benefit so that it might be thought that he did what he did there by happenstance. In this way also he appeared to extend good will to the Samaritans, for whom a mere passing through [of the Lord] was sufficient to recognize the truth, while for the Jews not even his long stay among them brought about any results.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.4

• John 4:9

  It is evident that the blessed John wanted to reveal the virtue of the woman through this story. This request for water was not to be taken lightly. She instead first brings up the rules of the law. With great honesty she did not tolerate this infringement of the law even with strangers, even though it could have happened easily and almost necessarily [because of the thirst needing to be quenched]. Therefore, in order that it might not appear that the woman did not want to give water to the foreigner out of meanness or hostility, the Evangelist added these words: "Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans," so that we might know that she refused to give him water not as to someone who was a stranger to her religion but because she wanted to warn him not to transgress the rules of the law by being led by his thirst. At this stage our Lord took this answer of the woman as the right opportunity for his teaching.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.9

• John 4:11

  However, since the woman did not yet understand these words and did not know what "living water" was, she said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?" The tone of her conversation changed. Above she had said daringly, "How is it that you, a Jew"; now she conveniently set the appellation "sir" before her words. Before she talked to him, suspecting that he would have transgressed the law because of his strong thirst. Then, when she understood from his answer and his peaceful words that he had not asked for water because he was oppressed by thirst, she attributed the right honor to his words. "From where do you give me, [she says], that living water? You have no bucket, and the well is deep."

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.11

• John 4:13

  There is a great difference, he says, between that water [in the well] and the water I promise to give. That [water], after they have drunk it, extinguishes their thirst for a short time. But then, when it has been consumed according to its nature, it leaves the one who shortly before had drunk it thirsty again. The water that I give is such in its nature that not only is it not consumed and does not leave the one who drinks it oppressed by thirst, but on the contrary, it becomes in him like a spring gushing up forever. The water from a spring does not run out, nor does it need to be brought from another place or to be introduced, but it constantly offers perpetual nourishment to those who want it. In a similar way also the virtue of this water provides the one who receives it with perpetual help and will always preserve him and not allow him to perish. Therefore the one who receives this grace will never reach death. He said what he did for good reason, because this is what the virtue of the Spirit is. And so we also receive from him the firstfruits of the Spirit with the hope of the future resurrection. Since now this operation is performed symbolically, we hope then to receive the perfect grace when, through his participation, we will remain imperishable.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 24

• John 4:22

  It is proper for Jesus to say now, "Believe me," after he had clearly demonstrated the truth of the words that he had spoken to her before. "The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem." This, he says, is what you want to be instructed about. Know then that there will be a time when both places will end. However in order that it might not appear that Jews and Samaritans had to be considered equal (because he predicted the end of both their sanctuaries) he says, "You worship what you do not know," that is, you Samaritans; "We worship what we know," that is, we Jews. Then he adds, "For salvation is from the Jews." He did not say "in the Jews" but "from the Jews." In fact, salvation was not in them but from them because Christ in flesh came from them. Therefore, he says, the truth is by the Jews, but both sanctuaries will be emptied out.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.21-22

• John 4:24

  God is of an incorporeal nature and cannot be circumscribed into any one place. Rather, he is everywhere, and it is necessary that he be worshiped according to this understanding. The true worshiper is the one who honors him with the right intention and believes with a pure conscience that everywhere he can speak with the one who is incomprehensible.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 24.23-24

• John 4:34

  What is this work? It is the conversion of the human race. And quite appropriately, by speaking like a human being, he said that that work was more important than any corporeal food. He also said that he did the will of him who sent him because he had been entrusted with that work.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.34

• John 4:36-37

  Jesus calls himself a sower because he has begun to teach and preach. He calls the apostles reapers because they have taken their start from him and have thus been able to offer men and women as fruits to God. Therefore he adds … "and the reaper is already receiving wages," that is, not because the impetus and start of the work comes from me or because your labor will be without reward—which is not the case—but because you will also receive your wages according to your labor. So the benefit is held in common: it is mine because I sowed, but it is also yours because you reap. You rejoice in gathering the fruits, and I rejoice in seeing the seed grow. The truth of grace is revealed more clearly in this as well because, through the seeds sown by me, such a great power has been given to you that you will be enabled to lead many to faith because of the help you derive from me. And the fact that, empowered by me, you are able to do these things again confirms the excellence of my virtue.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.36-37

• John 4:38

  Even though he called himself the sower of the faith, the teaching of the faith nonetheless had its beginning before his coming in the flesh. It is obvious that it had already had a beginning through the prophets and the righteous ones who followed them. He also clearly shows that this beginning had been given by him as well. "I sent you, he says, to reap and enjoy the labor of others." After they worked hard to enable the seed of faith to remain among men and women, you came, and from this crop you gather them and lead them to faith. I would have not invited you to reap and enjoy the work of others if that cultivation was not mine from the beginning. Some I entrusted with sowing, others with reaping. I did so according to time and the different phases of cultivation.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.38

• John 4:45

  After he had spent two days there, he continued his journey into Galilee, as he had planned. Not only did he see this as an opportunity, but he also often said that a prophet has no honor in his homeland. He called Judea his homeland, which he had left for this very reason, that is, because obviously the Jews out of great envy wanted to persecute him in various ways. All that [the Evangelist] said about the Samaritans was clearly inserted into the plot of his narrative. Among other things, Samaria was not the homeland of the Messiah. Also, the words "has no honor" could not refer to the Samaritans because they believed in him and received him with great honor. However, the Galileans, the Evangelist says, received him with honor as well, since they knew and had seen those things done by him in Jerusalem.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.43-45

• John 4:50

  By writing here "believed," the Evangelist does not intend that he believed completely and perfectly, but means that he accepted the word without hesitation and hoped for something excellent from [Jesus].… The events that follow show clearly that the royal official had come to Christ with an imperfect faith. When he was going down, his slaves met him and reported to him his son's recovery. He did not come back to give thanks for the miracle but asked at what time the child had recovered. When he had ascertained that it was the same hour in which the Lord had promised him the healing of the child, "Then he himself believed, along with his whole household."

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.4.46-48

• John 5:1

  He chose the time when everybody gathered to offer his help to everyone. Therefore he went to Jerusalem at that time. He did not think it was necessary to travel around and go to every place where people were ill, so that it might not appear that he was looking for fame. Instead he healed one only and through him he revealed himself to many.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.1

• John 5:3

  A great crowd of ill people, struck with different infirmities, had gathered here hoping to be healed as if these waters might effect something because the entrails of sheep offered as victims to God [for the temple] were washed in them. And God also supported this belief by causing the waters to move sometimes. Since they believed that the waters were moved by divine power, they obtained the grace of healing after they had come down [into the water]. It was not that many people were healed at the same time but that the one who came down first obtained the aid afforded by grace. [This happened] in order that the facility of the healing might not diminish the effect of the miracle. And so, because they waited with great attention and anticipation for the movement of the waters, once they recovered their health, they might have a better memory of their healing. Even though many lay ill there, he did not heal all of them. But, in order to show his power, he chose one affected with a very serious infirmity and who was hopeless already about his recovery.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.2-5

• John 5:12

  The healed one did not know who it was who healed him because Jesus hid as soon as he had healed him. It would have been typical of someone looking for glory if he had stayed around with the one whom he had healed. It would have been typical of someone who desired public exposure. But we see our Lord cautiously avoiding this. In fact, it would have been easier to have himself seen as God. Since, however, he appeared as a man and many had this opinion about him, he protected himself from the opinion of those who saw him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.10-11

• John 5:14

  After the paralytic apologized, saying that another had ordered him to take up his mat on a sabbath, the Jews turned their rage against the one who had given the order.… When he pointed Jesus out to such an enraged and furious people, however, he did not act as a friend. Rather, in order to comply with the rules of the Jews, he betrayed his own benefactor. Nor can one excuse his actions as being done out of necessity because he felt pressured by the violence of the questioners. Therefore when our Lord came to him in the temple, he spoke these words to the healed man, who had [already] demonstrated his inclination to sin.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.12-15

• John 5:17

  Here he brings up his Father, who always acts according to his will and authority. He too does not abstain from those works on the sabbath that are beneficial to us. Christ, too, knew that any time is suitable for our salvation. He brings up the Father, he says, in order to show us that this same authority is also in him. As the Father always has the authority to do work without being subject to the law—even though he has decreed the law of rest on the sabbath—so the Son has the same privilege. And there is no precept or law that might prevent him from doing whatever he wants.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.17

• John 5:18

  If he had simply called God his father, they would have not grumbled. But he called him his own Father as if he proceeded directly from him and was equal to him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 25.18

• John 5:19

  Now, if he had wanted to signify a diminution of his strength and power, he should have said, "But only what the Father orders" or "what [the Father] gives him the power to do." But now he added, "but only what he sees the Father doing," which indicates similarity. Actually, if he does only what he sees the Father doing, he evidently possesses a perfect similarity with the Father in his action. And this would be impossible if he did not have the same power.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.19

• John 5:20

  He said that "greater works than these"—evidently greater than the healing of the paralyzed man—had to be shown by him so that they would be astonished. Here he alludes to the general resurrection and to those things that he will do when he appears [again] to stand in judgment of all things. When he does this, there will be no denying his dignity. At that time, they will be astonished—and for good reason—learning who he [truly] was and what role he has been given. Undoubtedly, after seeing that, they will agree concerning the nature dwelling in him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 25.20-21

• John 5:24

  Actually, he tells what the benefit is for those who honor or believe in him.… The one who obeys, he says, my words and believes is made a participant in eternal life. Such a person will not only avoid the judgment, that is, the tribulations of judgment, but will even be held in honor, and certainly honor will be attributed to him by the judge himself.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.24

• John 5:26

  The Father, he says, gave him his same ability to raise [from the dead] and conferred on him the same power to judge. And, as far as saying these things about the man [Jesus], he is correct because in his union with the Word he received omnipotence like the Father has.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.26-27

• John 5:28

  But when he realized that such a lofty speech was quite above his visible nature, he added, "Do not be astonished at this." … By considering this visible nature, he says, have no doubts about what I said, that is, about the hour that is coming, when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out. There will be division among them, and each will have his retribution according to his merit.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.28-29

• John 5:32

  Since they were about to object to the words pronounced by our Lord about himself: "Your words are not true, nor worthy to be accepted, because you bear testimony about yourself"—since in their argument with him they were about to put forward this objection, our Lord forestalled them by saying, "You must not accept me as true, because I bear testimony to myself: this is what you undoubtedly mean. But you would have the right to say such a thing if I were the only one to bear testimony about myself. But now someone else said other things that were similar to my words about me, and he was a very trustworthy witness."

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.31-32

• John 5:41-42

  After he had rebuked with all these words those who did not want to believe in him, and after he had confirmed with different [arguments] those words said about him, he opportunely rejected the foolish conclusion that had followed his words by saying: I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have used these words not because I want glory from you or because I expect that your faith will be an advantage for me, but so that I might reprove you since you do not have the love of God. And, with the pretext of the love for God, you even eagerly persecute me as if I were vainly or even impiously boasting equality with him. So, I reprove you in order that you might turn to virtue after being rebuked. He then said aptly: ou lambanō, that is, "I do not accept" the glory given to me. My nature does not increase in dignity through the glory of people.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.41-42

• John 5:43

  I [Jesus says] refer what I say and do to the Father, because my glory is the glory of my Father. Therefore I lead you to the Father and do not offer a pretext for your unbelief. But he [i.e., antichrist] will come and will not mention the Father. Instead he will do all his works for his own glory. He will tell everyone that he is god by showing himself to be great and admirable before all. And then you will take refuge in him, and you will stay firm in your resolve without resorting to the pretext of your love for God or the intervention of the Father. And from all that you do now and you will do then, it is evident that you act according to your inclination to evil.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.43

• John 5:44

  Since I, he says, lead you to God without promising anything magnificent in this life, you run away from me because my words are difficult. But the other one shows all his glory in this life by promising great security and dignity to those who believe in him. And so you, enticed by the greed of this life, take refuge in him.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 2.5.44

• John 6:1

  From here the evangelist passes to the account of the miracle of the bread, which all the other evangelists related as well. However John reports this episode because of the doctrine that was drawn by our Lord from it and that was omitted by the others. He believed that this (doctrine) needed especially to be related in his narrative.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3.6.1

• John 6:6

  Through his question to Philip, he intended to expose his disciples to doubt, so that they might observe more clearly the miracle he would do. Even though he appears to speak to one disciple only, his words concerned all for the common benefit. By explaining the purpose of that question the evangelist added: "He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do." "To test him," he says, but he means, rather, to provide the proof. Indeed, he first kept Philip in doubt and difficulty because of the shortage of food, but then, when Philip would see the miracle accomplished, he would learn that everything must always be committed to God and that he should never feel embarrassed because of any shortage.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3.6.5

• John 6:10

  "Now there was a great deal of grass in the place," and therefore the place where they sat down was pleasing, and the weather was good. It was Nisan (more or less April), when the earth usually becomes adorned with growing weeds, especially in those regions with hotter weather. He also had indicated this above by saying, "Now the Passover was near."

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3.6.10

• John 6:21

  In order to increase the miracle before their eyes, he walked on the water and did not get into the boat. But the Evangelist says, "Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land toward which they were going." He records this in order to demonstrate that they did not take him but that, while they tried to bring him in, both the boat and the Lord reached land at an awesome speed. They could not doubt what the Lord had done or consider him a ghost when they saw that the boat had reached the land toward which they were going at such a speed, coupled with the fact that the Lord was with them.

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3.6.21

• John 7:3

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3 (7:1-5)

• John 7:18

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

  COMMENTARY ON JOHN 3.7.18