Fragments on John 55–76

When the woman said that she wished to receive water from Jesus so as to stop her thirst, (not knowing that one who drinks has) it as a spring in herself, she showed that she wished it. For by this phrase she confessed that the drawing of the former water is great toil, [speaking truly about it;] for the keeping of the law according to the letter has great toil. And the Savior rightly (says) to her: Since you still … dedicated yourself to the law, living with it as with a husband, go and call it, so as to compare what is written in it with what is said and done by me. For so you will be able to find that one who drinks of the former water will look for another, because he will thirst again. And when she denied having a husband, the Savior, gently convicting her Samaritan opinion, says: “You say well that you have no husband.” For you have not assented wholly to the whole Old Testament, which is the law, of which it is written: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.” Not having this husband, you have had five, having assented only to sensible things … the God Word expected after the law and the prophets. For the “five” … five husbands, having assented only to the sensible things of Scripture; nor is the one you have the sixth your husband. These (five books) the Samaritans accept. And who is the sixth, whom she has besides the five husbands, who is not even her husband? It must be said: the word about his being a prophet. For she had already assented to this, compelled by what was said, but not by true assent. Therefore fittingly … you have come to him. And since the five husbands were said to be sensible things, after which she assented, not exactly, to some intellectual word from the teaching of Jesus, it is said most aptly …

[When you hear that salvation is from the Jews, understand what is said of the one who says these things. For he himself was the (salvation) of the nations …]

… he accepted from those who offered it, although he was able to nourish and not be nourished. And it is (a work) of the greatest activity to nourish Christ, which he did not grudge to those who wished; therefore he also appointed the like to his disciples. And they, being learned in the law and lovers of the word, considering that it was then time for food, conjectured whether, as food was given to Daniel in Babylon at God's command by an angel, and (to Elijah) by ravens, so food had been brought to Jesus. Nevertheless, even if the disciples supposed it to be about sensible food, he himself makes plain about what kind of food he had spoken to them. And they said it was his time for food from this: it being the sixth hour of the day, Jesus, sitting at the spring, conversed with the Samaritan woman while the disciples had gone off to buy food, so that one might conjecture that it was then evening of the day. And this is the time of food for those who pursue, as their chief aim, not food, but the benefit of those who come to them.

He calls Judea his homeland, which for this reason he also left. For the evangelist, giving the reason for his coming to Galilee, writes that “a prophet has no honor in his own homeland.” [This testimony is found also in the other gospels. For the Savior says: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own homeland and among his kinsmen and in his house.” Indeed all those before his coming were dishonored in Jerusalem and Judea. For this was their land and homeland; as the Savior says generally:] “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her!”

“Now there is,” it says, “in Jerusalem,” and so on. He did not judge it necessary to go about and heal the sick of whatever kind, so as not to incur a reputation for self-love; but having healed one, he made himself manifest to all through him. For this reason he goes to the sheep pool, which had five porticoes; for besides the four around it, it had another in the middle. And it was called the sheep pool because the sheep brought for the feasts were gathered there, and because, when the sheep were sacrificed, their entrails were washed in that water. Hence, at any rate, a great multitude of those held by various illnesses had gathered at the place in hope of healing, as though the water itself could surely do something, in which the entrails of those brought and sacrificed to God were thrown. And God, cooperating with this opinion of theirs, at certain unknown times caused a movement of the water to occur, which they, believing it to be accomplished by some divine working, received healing by going down, many not being healed at the same time, but the first to go down enjoying the grace, so that the readiness of the healing should not lessen the wonder. And being more watchful and waiting with great disposition for the movement of the water, they were taught by this to keep the fitting reasoning even after the healing. There being, then, many sick, he did not heal them all, but showing his own power he chose one who was held by the heaviest suffering and by the length of time had no hope of recovery. For there was among them a paralytic held by the suffering for thirty-eight years. Going to him, he did not at once say, “Take up your bed and walk,” but he begins his words to him from a certain sequence; which he did in the case of the Samaritan woman too.

I think that this was said to show that the spittle of Christ had a quality of healing power. And even if the blind man did not himself ask for recovery of sight, yet he will be found praiseworthy in offering himself to Jesus as he anointed his eyes with clay, and in doing without hesitation what was commanded, though Jesus had not even said that he would see again. Perhaps the Lord's spittle was a symbol of the word, as the last among words, greater than which human nature cannot contain. But since such a word does not come to men bare of matter and bodily examples, for this reason Jesus spits on the ground and makes clay. See, then, whether you can say, explaining the whole of Scripture and the manner of its proclamation, that it is composed, as regards the divine meanings, from the spittle of Christ, and as regards the proclamation as in histories and human affairs, from the (earth) on the ground; so that the whole letter of the law and the prophets and the other Scriptures is from such clay, with which the eyes of those who do not see must be anointed; and after this one must go to Siloam, which is “sent” by God; by which is signified the swimming, as it were, in the inquiries and perplexities about the truth … (we wash off) with the water of the pool of the Sent One the clay anointed on our eyes, so that after this we may be able to see. And you will understand the clay as the beginning of the elements of the oracles of God, according to which we are nourished like infants with milk; but when the things of the infant have been done away and we partake of solid food, we cast off the clay, so as to return to Jesus seeing. And all these things revolve around the Son of God; for according to different aspects he himself is also the Sent One. And take the human things as before Siloam, but refer the water sent and Siloam to his more divine things. And in Isaiah you will understand the divine and steadfast word to be signified by these things, and Rezin and the son of Remaliah to be the words of the nations and of the heterodox. Otherwise, how did the people want kings instead of the water of Siloam, and how is the water of the river strong and abundant the king of the Assyrians and all his power, unless he too is some opposing power, flooding by the multitude of its persuasive arguments Judea, which does not want the water of Siloam, and prevailing over it? And not healing him while present, but commanding him to go away and wash, and granting healing when he had washed, was the act of one dispensing (things) so that the miracle that took place should escape no one's notice. For as he commanded the paralytic to take up his bed on a day on which it was not lawful to do this, so that each one, accusing him of the lawlessness, might learn the greatness of the miracle that had taken place, so too he commanded this man, being far from the pool, to go away and wash.

The beggar begs because of lack of necessities and inability to procure them more decently. Such you might find those of the Greeks and barbarians who profess the truth, as it were begging for benefit, through lack of a fitting supply for the reasoning faculty of the truth's rich contemplations, free from circumstances. But forbidding such seeking, the word says somewhere: “Child, do not live a beggar's life; it is better to die than to beg.” And the steward of unrighteousness in the gospels is ashamed to beg, and therefore to the one who owed a hundred cors of wheat he said, “Take your bill and make it eighty,” preferring, rather than begging with shame, to take from the one who owed to his master; and for this he was praised. Jesus, then, freed the man blind from birth not only from his blindness but also from begging. For together with sight he granted him also a vision of how he was to procure the things necessary for the salvation of the soul. Here, then, blindness is the cause of begging, but in the Acts lameness; and the one freed from them will beg no longer.

… (Some said that one who does not keep) what they thought to be the sabbath is not from God; but the priests in the temple who profane the sabbath were from God; so it was not evident that one who does not keep their sabbath is not from God. So the word was not spoken by all the Pharisees of that time, but some of the Pharisees said this, as the evangelist says. And attend also to “such signs,” which is not set down in vain. For since there are differences of signs, so that, as the apostle says, both the one in the law and the lawless one, whom the Lord will destroy with the breath of his mouth, (does signs) “in all power and signs and lying wonders,” and God (does signs) through the prophets, “such” is said as surpassing, in that the things done through Christ were both true and great on earth. And if someone (objects) to “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” as not soundly said, … reading the deeds of Samson, will say that the things done by Samson, such as those concerning women, were not sins but signified dispensations; for “He did evil before the Lord” is not added.

The manner of speaking of the evangelist must be observed: he says both that the eyes of the blind man were opened and that he saw: opened, through “It was a sabbath on the day when he made the clay and opened his eyes”; and saw, through “And he washed and came back seeing.” We shall set out the difference between these expressions from Tobit, about whom (it is said), since his eyes had become white films, … but that he looked up. And through the whole passage about the blind man you will observe both, some saying this and others that, and a division arising. And you will observe in Isaiah too, prophesying about Christ's coming, that he comes to open the eyes of the blind. Next one can see also how the one who answered answers the first and how the second. To the first, more exactly, as to neighbors who had seen him before, that he was a beggar; but to the Pharisees he did not even (tell) the things about Siloam … And perhaps the man who was healed, seeing that the inquiry of the first was of love of learning, but that of the second of malice, answers each accordingly.

Besides having lied, they sinned in another way too, throwing their own son into evident harm. And I think this too has a reason: that Christ, opening the eyes of a blind man, opened those not of a child but of one of age, so that he might see as a man. And such were the other blind men who recovered their sight. And it is true that, being of age, he can speak for himself, and especially when Jesus makes him see. For he does not need another to plead for him.

… is equivalent to: “Why, you people, do you then wish to hear now?” For you wish in vain to hear, if you do not believe me when I speak the truth, I who invite all who learn what happened to me to become his disciples, as he taught more divinely than all human teaching.

“In this is a marvel” carries a noteworthy suggestion. For it is a marvel if where Jesus is from is known by ordinary people; for they do not see his root and source, the Father.

So great a doctrine, if it were true, that the sinner is not heard by God, would not have been passed over in silence, but would have been spoken by someone worthy of belief, for example by the servant (Moses) or by one of the prophets. And how, if God did not hear a sinner, were sinners taught to say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive our debtors”? Whom, then, does God hear? Those who incline to repentance, even if they have not yet ceased to be sinners. If God did not hear sinners, our Savior would not have eaten and drunk with tax collectors and sinners. But if those who because of being ill needed physicians were not heard, [he would not have healed them.] Therefore, as the prayer of those who have sinned, but do not still altogether disbelieve, is effective, it is said: “If you mark iniquities, Lord, Lord, who shall stand?” But perhaps he speaks not about anything at all in the sinner's prayer, but about such great works as yours were. For when sinners ask God for such works, he does not hear.

“Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and finding him he said to him: Do you believe in the Son of Man?” … (since he had shown) boldness for the Savior, for this reason Jesus found him. If the finding of what is sought belongs to the one who seeks, clearly “finding him” is not to be heard simply. For he ought to be found especially then, when he was cast out by those who did not accept the testimony about Jesus. For having come outside of them he was fitted for … Jesus (heard) that they had cast him out, since, having heard such a thing, he finds, worthy of his hearing, the one he had heard about. And having found him, he asked the one who was found: Do you believe in the Son of Man who found you? And perhaps the beginner believes in the Son of Man, but the other, so as to say of him: “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him” no longer according to the flesh only, but also as Son of God. But how does he ask, who knows all things? And see whether you will say to this, adducing “The Lord knew those who are his,” and being known according to “But now, having known God, or rather having been known by him …” But after the introduction there must be progress, so that one may be seen and known by God. For this reason the Savior, asking him, says: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” And since he could not yet (believe, he says): “Lord, (who is he,) that I may believe in him?” He was, then, on the border, so to speak, of unbelief and faith. For this reason the Savior says to him: “You have both seen him, and he who speaks with you is he.”

For such a tradition and opinion prevailed among the Jews; hence the disciples too asked Jesus: “Did this man sin, or his parents?” But the Lord declared, saying: “Neither this man nor his parents,” about which it has been spoken earlier.

It must be heard not casually that “you have seen” refers to past time, and “he who speaks with you” to the present: that the one who was seen is the same as the one now speaking with him; adducing: “Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father.” For many who saw him did not know him. He, then, has properly seen him who is enlightened in the eyes of the soul by God himself. Benefited, then, by both, by seeing and by the word, the once blind man not only said, “I believe, Lord,” but also worshiped him. [b] And no less, observing the drama of the stoning, since he (that is, Origen) tries to interpret this too tropologically, he falsifies the gospel text, saying: “We did not at all find, when we searched, in what goes before, that the Jews took up stones to stone him.” Then after a little he says: “For if they took up again, they took up before.”

“If they took up again, they took up before.” If, then, it does not escape us that this is written, it is necessary to seek the cause of the addition of “again.” And I think that he who speaks ill of someone throws a stone at the one who is spoken ill of. And they had spoken ill of him above, when “a division arose among the Jews because of his words.” Again, then, taking up the weight of slanderous words, like stones thrown at him, they rushed to stone him with abuse. For this reason Wisdom says: “He who throws a stone on high throws it on his own head.” For he is said to throw a stone on high who speaks injustice on high. And you will find in the divine Scripture a mixture of the seemingly historical with the exercising (sense), and especially in John. For observe in the conversation with the Samaritan woman how “Jesus sat at the spring” is a report as about a bodily spring and a sensible body; but it is no longer possible to hear (what follows) of bodily drink, when “Jesus answered and said to her: If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked …” … “(Many good) works I have shown you (from the Father); for which of them do you stone me?” If someone, going back, should gather from the beginning of the gospel the works of Jesus, referring them to spiritual workings, he above all will see Jesus: for example, one of the good works was the sign at Cana, when the former wine ran short, because “the law and the prophets (were) until John,” (and) we (have come to) abound in good wine, we with whom Jesus reclines. And this is the beginning of his signs, in the calling of … “(This beginning of) signs Jesus did.” And next to this, his restoring the house of his Father, which had become a house of trade, so that it became again the house of his Father. And why must I tell all the good works that he has done from his Father?

So that he might not make his divinity too manifest, staying longer with those eager to seize him and not being seized, and so falsify the pattern of the human order. And consider whether there can be some reason why it is written not simply “He went away to the Jordan,” but beyond it and on the other side of it. Just as those who received the land as inheritance through Moses, being inferior to those who received it through Jesus (Joshua), received their lot on the other side of the Jordan; where they built an altar, a symbol of the altar of sacrifice in the holy land, but did not offer sacrifice or burnt offerings on it. But now we hear more figuratively “He went away beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptizing at first.” And indeed Jesus son of Nun brings the people across from beyond the Jordan with miraculous powers. And Elijah too, about to be taken up as into heaven by a chariot of fire and horses of fire, crosses from beyond the Jordan, dividing the stream of the river with his mantle.

“They sought again to seize him, and he went out from their hand.” According to the anagogical sense, there are some who wish to hunt down the word of Christianity so as to overturn and destroy it … (for) wisdom will not enter a soul that devises evil; and the power in the word, when tested, convicts the foolish; for this reason it goes out, when the word of truth seems to those who hold it to be in their hand, and it comes to be outside their hand, since they cannot hold it fast. Therefore, even when they seem to overturn it, they do not overturn the truth; for they themselves do not understand. And having gone out from their hand, he comes to the river Jordan, which is interpreted “descent,” where the heavens, being opened, bear witness to the Word that “This is the Son of God, in whom the Father is well pleased.” And even if someone happens to be beyond the river, yet, having drawn near to it, he will find Jesus baptizing with the better baptism than John's. For John baptized first with the sensible baptism, but Jesus with the intelligible, since he baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire, rather the fire seen in the bush that does not burn up. And attend to what is said, and having seen both meanings of the expression, judge which of them must be accepted: first, John was baptizing beyond the Jordan; and second, in Aenon near Salim. Jesus, then, went away beyond the Jordan where first … John baptized the first baptism beyond the Jordan, and Jesus the Christ baptized the second where John, giving the first baptism, baptized. And the second seems to me to have more reason than the first. And someone might say about the first as follows: (Jordan) is interpreted “descent,” and the second (took place) in Aenon near Salim … Those, then, who receive the second washing are already more clear-sighted, and having acquired … from much testing and toil … (the first is given) to one descending, and the second to one ascending.

We find the name of Lazarus twice in the gospels: first, of the one called Lazarus, when he died and went away into the bosom of Abraham; and second, according to the present passage. Is it, then, a sameness of names, there being two Lazaruses, or is that one this one? For one who wishes to say that both evangelists speak of one man will say that in the three days between (for Lazarus rose on the fourth), having been carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham, he rested there; and because of what the rich man said, “I beg you, then, father, to send him to my father's house, so that they too may not come into this place of torment,” … under the prophets; and our Savior and Lord raised him, perhaps, according to what is kept silent, to report what he had seen and the things dispensed concerning souls. But these things are nonsense. For the one with the rich man was destitute and cast out at the gate, but this one had Mary and Martha as sisters, well-to-do and renowned among the Jews, so that they even received Jesus. And hear what the evangelist John himself says: “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment.” She who had ointment and was loved by Jesus would not have failed to pity her brother, longing to be fed with the crumbs from (the rich man's table). And he was from Bethany, which is interpreted “House of obedience.” Perhaps everyone from Bethany, made familiar with obedience, is a friend of Jesus. But since human nature is changeable, even a friend of Jesus might sometimes fall sick; and he might fall sick when Jesus is not present with him, and not …

That Mary is the same as the woman in Luke who anointed the Lord with ointment is clear. But he kept silent about her name … so that (no one) might be turned aside from such a testimony of Jesus about Mary, (and) so as not to despair of himself because of former (sins), but to come and sit at the feet of Jesus and be his disciple. For this woman too, he says, “was a sinner in the city, who, learning that he was reclining in the house of the Pharisee, brought an alabaster jar of ointment, and standing behind at his feet, weeping, began to wet his feet with her tears.” And someone might say that Mary is a symbol (of the contemplative life, and Martha of the active), and their brother rising from the dead (a symbol) of those who for some sins have gone down to Hades, according to “Let the sinners be turned back …”; … he will say was said to Martha: “Martha, Martha, you are troubled and distracted about many things, but few things are needed.” For for salvation there is need not of the many commandments according to the letter of the law, but of few, on which hang the whole law and the prophets, those legislated concerning love.