But in His adolescence He did not perform any miracles, except, as Luke relates, how He, when He was twelve years old, sat among the teachers, listened to them, and amazed them with His questions. However, not without reason, but intentionally, He did not begin to work miracles from the very first age: otherwise His miracles might have been considered phantoms. If even at the age of maturity many suspected Him of this, how much more so when He began to work miracles in His youth. Moreover, the Jews, consumed with envy, would have lifted Him up to the cross even sooner and before the proper time, and thus the whole work of our salvation would not have been accepted by faith. Where, you will say, did His Mother come up with the idea of assuming something great in Him? He had already begun to reveal Himself for what He was, both through the testimony of John and through what He Himself had said to the disciples. And above all, His very conception and all the events that followed His birth inspired His Mother with a lofty concept of Him. "And His mother kept all these words in Her heart" (Luke 2:52). Why, you say, did she not express this before? Because, as I said, He Himself only then began to reveal Himself. Until then, He had lived like an ordinary man. That is why she did not tell Him this before. As soon as she heard that for His sake John had come and given such a testimony about Him, and that He already had disciples, she asked Him boldly, and when there was a lack of wine, she said: "They have no wine." She wanted to please the guests and glorify herself through her Son. Perhaps she had something human in mind, like His brothers, who said: "Manifest Thyself to the world" (John 7:4), desiring to gain glory for themselves by His miracles. That is why Christ answered her so strongly: "What have I to do with Thee, O Woman? my hour has not yet come" (v. 4). But that He greatly revered His parent, listen to Luke's account of how Christ was obedient to His parents; and this same Evangelist (John) shows how He cared for His Mother at the very time of His sufferings on the Cross. When parents do not in the least forbid God-pleasing deeds and do not hinder them, then parents must and must be obeyed; Disobedience in this case is very dangerous. But when they demand something untimely and forbid some spiritual work, it is not safe to obey them. That is why in the present case Christ answered in this way, and in the other case also: "Who are my mother and my brethren" (Mark 3:33)? At that time they did not yet have a proper understanding of Him; and His Mother, because she gave birth to Him, wanted to command Him in all things, according to the custom of all mothers, whereas she should have honored Him as the Lord, and worshipped Him. That is why He answered her in this way then. In fact, think what it was like when, in front of all the people surrounding Him, in front of a large gathering of attentive listeners, while teaching the teaching, His Mother entered the assembly, began to distract Him from preaching, in order to talk to Him alone, and moreover, did not remain with Him in the house, but dragged Him alone from there to herself. That is why He said, "Who are My mother and My brethren"? And He did not offend His Mother by this; no, but brought her the greatest, not allowing her to think of herself in a humiliated way. If He had care for others and everything was directed towards instilling in them a proper understanding of Himself, how much more did He care about His Mother in this respect. But as she, probably, even after hearing this from her Son, did not want to obey Him afterwards, but wanted, like a mother, in any case to be the first, He answered so. Otherwise, He could not have raised her from such a derogatory concept of Him to a more exalted one, if, i.e., she had always expected Him to be revered as a son, but did not recognize Him as Lord. It is for this reason that He said here, "What have I to do with Thee, O Woman"? However, there was another reason, no less important. What is it? He wanted people not to suspect the miracles He performed. It was to be asked by those who were in need, not by the Mother. Why? What is done at the request of relatives, although it would be important, often seems unseemly to outsiders. When the needy themselves ask, then the miracle becomes above all suspicion, then the praise is impartial and the benefit is great.

3. If a physician, even an excellent one, entering a house where there are many sick people, did not hear anything either from the sick themselves or from those around them, but only his mother begged him, then he would become suspicious and unpleasant to the sick, and neither those who were sick nor those who were with them would expect anything important and good from him. That is why Christ then rebuked His Mother, saying: "What shall I and Thee, Woman?" inspiring her not to do anything of the kind in the future. He also cared for the honor of His Mother, but much more for her spiritual salvation and for the good of people, for which He clothed Himself with flesh. Thus, these words were spoken by Christ to His Mother, not out of any arrogance, but with a special purpose – in order to place her herself in a proper relationship with Him, so that miracles would be performed with due dignity. And that Christ greatly revered His Mother, this, apart from other cases, is sufficiently evident from the very thing that is apparently said in rebuke of her. In His very displeasure He showed that He greatly revered her. And in what way, we will talk about this in the following conversation. Thinking about this, if you hear how one woman said: "Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the breasts that nourished Thee," and He answered her: "Blessed are they that do the will of my Father" (Luke 11:28), then understand these words in this sense. The Saviour's answer to the Mother did not express a rejection of the Mother, but that His very birth would not have benefited her in the least, if she herself had not possessed great virtue and faith. If, without the virtue of the soul, there would be no benefit for Mary herself in the fact that Christ was born of her, how much more can it be of no use to us, if we have a virtuous and valiant father, brother, or son, and we ourselves are far from his virtues. "A man," says David, "will not redeem his brother in any way, nor give God a ransom for him" (Psalm 48:8)? The hope of salvation, after the grace of God, should be placed in nothing else, but only in one's own perfections. If the birth of Christ in itself could benefit the Virgin, then it would also have benefited the Jews (since Christ was their kinsman in the flesh), it would have benefited the city in which He was born, and it would have benefited the brethren as well. But His brethren, as long as they did not take care of themselves, did not receive any benefit from high affinity, and were condemned along with other men; but when they shone forth with their own virtues, then they are glorified. And the city was destroyed and burned, not benefiting from being the place of His birth. His kinsmen in the flesh were destroyed and perished in the most miserable way, having gained nothing from their kinship with Him for their salvation, precisely because they had no protection in their own virtue. But the apostles were most glorified, because they truly and in a way worthy of our emulation attained kinship with Christ, through obedience to Him. From this we also learn that in any case we need faith and a pure and bright life. Only this can save us. For a long time, Christ's kinsmen were respected everywhere, so much so that they were called "sovereign," but now we do not even know their names. And the lives and names of the apostles are glorified everywhere. Let us not puff ourselves up with nobility according to the flesh, but, even though we have thousands of illustrious ancestors, let us ourselves try to surpass them in virtue, knowing that the merits of others will not bring us any benefit in the future judgment, and will even increase the severity of our condemnation, precisely because, descended from virtuous fathers and having such close examples, we nevertheless did not follow such teachers. This I say now, having in mind many pagans, who, when we convert them to faith in Christ and exhort them to be Christians, point to their relatives, ancestors and households, and say: all my relatives, friends and household have already become faithful Christians. But what do you have to do with it, wretched one? It is you who will be ruined because you, not respecting so many people close to you, did not hasten to turn to the truth. Others, being already believers, but having led a careless life, when you exhort them to virtue, imagine the same thing and say: my father, grandfather and great-grandfather were very pious and virtuous people. But it is especially to your condemnation that you, being descended from such people, do deeds unworthy of your kind. Listen to what the prophet says to the Jews: "And Israel served for the woman, and for the woman he kept [the sheep]" (Israel's work on the woman, and on the woman you will be saved) (Hosea 12:12); and Christ: "Abraham your father was glad to see my day; and he saw and rejoiced" (John 8:56). And always the virtues of the ancestors turn not only into praise of the Jews, but also into a greater accusation. Knowing this, let us do everything in such a way as to save ourselves by our own deeds, so that otherwise we will not deceive ourselves with hopes in others and will not learn about our deception when this knowledge will not benefit us in any way. "In the tomb," it is said, "who shall praise Thee" (Psalm 6:6)? Therefore, let us reform ourselves here, so that there we may attain eternal blessings, which may we all be vouchsafed by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory and dominion to the Father and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

[1] That is, that Christ saw him under the fig tree before Philip came to him.

DISCOURSE 22

"What have I to do with Thee, Woman? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4).

1. There is some work in teaching, as Paul shows when he says: "It is fitting that the chief elders should be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17). But it depends on you to make this work both easy and hard. If you reject our words, or if you do not reject them and do not do them in your deeds, then this work will be burdensome for us, as vain and vain labor. But if you pay attention to our words and show it in your very deeds, then we will not feel any difficulty in teaching; the fruit that comes from these labors will not allow you to notice their severity. Therefore, if you want to arouse jealousy in us, not to quench or weaken it, I beg you, show us the fruit, seeing the blossoming fields, feeding on the hope of abundance and hoping for your future wealth, do not faint in these good pursuits. And today we see an important subject. When the Mother of Jesus said, "They have no wine," Christ answered, "What have I to do with you, Woman? My hour has not yet come." Meanwhile, after these words, He did what the Mother said. This subject requires research no less than the former. So, having called on the One Who created this miracle, let us proceed to solve the problem. Not only is it said, "The hour has not come"; the Evangelist further notes: "But no man laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come" (John 7:30); and in another place: "And no man took him, for his hour had not yet come" (John 8:20). Also: "The hour has come, glorify Thy Son" (John 17:1). I have collected here all these sayings from the entire Gospel in order to give one solution to everything. What is it? Christ said: "The hour has not come" not because He was subject to the law of time, and not because He actually observed certain hours. Was it necessary for the Creator of times and the Creator of ages? But by these words He wants to show that He does everything in its own time, and not suddenly, since confusion and disorder could arise from this, if, i.e. He did each of His works at the wrong time and mixed everything together, such as birth, resurrection, and judgment. Thus observe: the creature had to come into being, but not all together; a man and a wife, but not both together; the human race was to be condemned to death and to be resurrected, but there is a great distance of time between the two; it was necessary to give the law, but not together with grace, but to arrange both in their own time. Thus, Christ Himself was not subject to the conditions of time, because He established the very order of times, He is their Creator. But John, quoting here the words of Christ: "My hour has not come," shows that at that time He was not yet known to everyone and did not have a full assembly of disciples; Only Andrew followed him, and Philip with him, and no one else besides them. And they did not know Him as they ought, not even His mother or brothers. Already after performing many miracles, the Evangelist remarked about His brethren: "For even His brethren believed not in Him" (John 7:5). Nor did those present at the marriage know Him. Otherwise, in need, they themselves would turn to Him with a request. That is why he says: "My hour has not come." Those present do not yet know me; nor do they know that there is no wine. Let them feel it first. And it is not from you that I ought to hear. You are My Mother, and therefore you make the miracle itself suspicious. And it would be proper for those who are in need to turn to Me with a request; not because I needed it, but because they would accept the occasion with greater confidence. He who sees himself in need, when he receives what he needs, remains much grateful; and whoever does not yet feel the need will not fully and vividly feel the good deed itself. Why, then, having said, "My hour has not come," and thus refusing, did He nevertheless do what the Mother had told Him? Especially in order for people who contradict and consider Him to be subject to the conditions of time, it is enough to show that He is not subject to time. If He had been subject, how would He have done what He did, when the right time had not yet come? He did this also out of reverence for the Mother, so as not to appear in all things contrary to her or unable to do so, and so as not to shame his Mother in the presence of so many people, and she also brought servants to Him. In a similar way He said to the Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take bread from the children and throw it to the dogs" (Matt. 15:26); however, after these words, he granted her what he asked, bowed down by her perseverance. He also said: "I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), but even after these words He healed the daughter of this woman.

2. From this we learn that, even though we are unworthy, yet by persistent prayers we can make ourselves worthy to receive (what we ask for). Therefore the Mother hoped and brought her servants with the aim that the request would be from a large number of people. Wherefore she added, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it, v. 5. She knew that He refused not out of infirmity, but out of humility and in order not to give the idea that He Himself was in too much of a hurry to perform a miracle; That is why she brought her servants. "And there were six stone waterpots, standing [according to] the custom of the purification of the Jews, containing two or three measures. Jesus said to them, "Fill the vessels with water." And they filled them to the top" (v. 6, 7). The Evangelist remarked, not without purpose: "[according to] the custom of cleansing the Jews," but so that any of the unbelievers would not suspect that there were remnants of wine in the vessels, and therefore, when water was poured in and mixed with them, a certain weakest wine was composed. For this reason the Evangelist says: "[according to] the custom of the cleansing of the Jews," showing that no wine was ever stored in those vessels. Palestine is a land without water, and there are not springs and wells to be found in every place; Therefore, the Jews always filled vessels with water, so that they would not run to the rivers when they became unclean, but have at hand a means of purification. But why did He not perform a miracle before the vessels were filled with water – what would have been much more amazing? After all, it is another thing to change the finished substance only in quality, and another thing to produce the substance itself from nothing. Of course, this is more surprising; But for many, it would not seem so likely. For this reason Christ often voluntarily diminishes the greatness of miracles, so that they may be more conveniently acceptable. And why, you will say, did He not produce water Himself and then turned it into wine, but ordered the servants to pour it in? Again, for the same reason, so that those who drew water themselves would be witnesses to the miracle and so that it would not seem in the least a phantom. If anyone were to shamelessly deny this, the servants might say, "We drew water ourselves." In addition, by this miracle He overthrows the revived teaching, which is contrary to the Church. There are those who say that there is some other creator of the world, and that what is seen is not created by Him, but by some other god hostile to Him. Curbing such madness, Christ performed most of His miracles from ready-made substances. If the Creator of the world had been hostile to Him, He would not have used other people's deeds to prove His own power. So now, to show that He Himself is the One who changes water into grapes and turns rain into wine, through the root of the vine - which is accomplished in a plant after a long time - in an instant He does it at marriage. Then, as soon as the servants had filled the vessels with water, He said to them: "Now draw and bring to the master of the feast. And they carried it. And when the steward had tasted the water that had become wine, and he did not know whence it came, only the servants who drew the water knew, then the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man gives the good wine first, and when they are drunk, then the worst; but thou hast kept the good wine hitherto" (vv. 8-10). Here again some laugh, saying: there was a meeting of drunken people, the taste of the connoisseurs was already spoiled, and they were unable either to understand or judge what was going on there, so that they could not distinguish whether it was wine or water, and that they were drunk was expressed by the architricline himself. True, this is very funny. But the Evangelist destroys this suspicion as well. He says that it was not the guests who expressed their opinion about what had happened, but the architricline, who was sober and had not yet drunk anything. For you know that those who are entrusted with the order of such banquets are the most sober, because they have only one thing to do, and that is to arrange everything in order and order. Therefore, in order to witness the miracle, Christ used the sober feeling of the architricline. He did not say, "Pour wine to those who are at table," but said, "Bring it to the architricline." "When the steward has tasted the water that has become wine, and he did not know where [this wine] came from, only the servants who drew the water knew, then the steward calls the bridegroom." Why didn't he invite servants? In this way, a miracle would be revealed. The reason is that Jesus Himself did not reveal the miracle that had taken place, but wanted the power of His signs to be known not suddenly, but little by little. And if it had been discovered at the same time, they would not have believed the story of the servants about Him, but perhaps they would have thought that they were out of their minds, since they ascribe the matter to one who was then considered by many to be an ordinary man. The servants themselves, of course, knew this matter well from their own experience, and could not help believing their own hands; but they had no way of assuring others of this. That is why Christ Himself did not reveal what had happened to everyone, but only to those who could understand it better than others, presenting the most accurate knowledge of the miracle of the future time. After the performance of other miracles, this also had to be made reliable. Thus, later, when He healed the son of a courtier, the Evangelist in the narration of this also makes it clear that this miracle had already become more public. The courtier especially called upon Jesus, because he learned, as I say, about this miracle. This is what John explains when he says: "Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee, where he changed water into wine" (John 4:46), and not just into wine, but the best wine.

3. Such are the miracles of Christ, that their works are much better and more excellent than those performed by nature. So in other cases, when Christ repaired any injured member of the body, He made it better than the members of the healthy. And that what was produced from the water was really wine, and the best at that, could be testified not only by the servants, but also by the architricline and the bridegroom; and that it was produced by Christ, this could be confirmed by the servants who drew water. Thus, even if the miracle had not been revealed at that time, they could not have kept silent about it after the time. Thus, Christ left many necessary testimonies for the future. That He changed water into wine, He had servants as witnesses; And that it was a good wine, the witnesses are Architricline and the bridegroom. Probably, the bridegroom answered something to the words of the architricline; but the Evangelist, hastening to the most important matters, touched only on the miracle itself, and passed over the rest. It was necessary, of course, to know that Christ changed water into wine; But what the bridegroom said to Architriclin, the Evangelist did not consider it necessary to add. Meanwhile, many miracles, being at first little known in detail, in the course of time became more famous, because they were told in all their details by people who were at first eyewitnesses to them. But just as at that time Jesus changed water into wine, so then and now he does not cease to change the morals of weak and scattered people. There are, there are, I say, people who are no different from water - they are so cold, liquid, not solid in any way. It is our duty to bring people in such a state to the Lord, so that He may favor their morals, to impart the quality of wine, so that they do not disperse, but acquire constancy, for the joy of themselves and others.

Who are these cold people if not those who are much occupied with the affairs of this life, who do not despise the pleasures of this world, lovers of fame and power? All these are streams that never stop, but constantly rush into the abyss with great impetuosity. Today he is rich, tomorrow he is poor; today he appears with a herald, in a chariot, accompanied by a multitude of rod-bearers, and the next day he often settles in prison, yielding, and against his will, to another this self-deception. In the same way, he who is given over to luxury and satiety, no matter how he fills his belly, cannot keep this supply even for one day, but, with its excrement, is forced to gather new reserves, thus not differing in any way from the stream. As in a stream, as soon as one stream passes, another protrudes behind it, so here, one food decays – and we need another. Such is the property of everyday things: they never stop, but always flow and are carried away one after another. As for the pleasures of voluptuousness, they not only flow and pass, but also bring us much anxiety. When they are given over with enthusiasm, they weaken the strength of the body and deprive the soul of courage. And it is not so strong a current of rivers that erodes the banks and collapses them, as voluptuousness and satiety undermine all the pillars of our health. Go to the hospital and ask about it, and there you will find out that almost all diseases come from here. A moderate and simple meal is the mother of health. This is how doctors call it, recognizing it as healthy - not to eat enough. Moderation in food, they say, is health; and scanty food is the mother of health. If moderation in food is a source of health, then it is obvious that satiety is the source of diseases and infirmities, and gives rise to such sufferings that exceed the very art of physicians. And indeed, pains in the legs, pains in the head, in the eyes, in the hands, trembling of the whole body, strokes, jaundice, prolonged acute fevers, and many other diseases (now is not the time to enumerate them all) are usually born not from abstinence and a prudent way of life, but from gluttony and satiety. But if you want to know the illnesses of the soul, which are born from this, you will see that covetousness, debauchery, despondency, sloth, lust, and all lewdness have their origin from here. The souls of people who eat such meals are no better than donkeys: so these beasts torment them. Needless to say, how many sorrows and troubles are received by those who are given over to gluttony? It is impossible to count all of them. I will show everything in one and the most important thing. They never enjoy enjoying their table, even the most luxurious one. Temperance is the mother of both health and pleasure; and satiety is the source and root of both disease and displeasure. Where there is satiety, there can no longer be hunting (for food); and where there is no hunting, can there be pleasure? Therefore, among poor people, we find those who are not only more prudent and healthier than the rich, but also have more joy than they do. Reflecting on all this, let us flee from satiety and drunkenness, not only at meals, but also in all the circumstances of life. Instead, let us rather seek spiritual delights and, in the words of the prophet, "delight in the Lord" ("be comforted," he says, "in the Lord, and He will fulfill the desires of your heart" – Psalm 36:4), so that we may taste both this and hereafter blessings, through the grace and love of mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom and with Whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

[1] This is the false teaching of the Manichaeans.

CONVERSATION 23

"Thus began the miracles in Cana of Galilee" (John 2:11)

1. The devil attacks often and violently, besieging our salvation on all sides. Therefore, it is necessary to be awake and sober, and from everywhere to block his attack. As soon as he encounters even a small opportunity, he prepares for himself free access, and little by little introduces all his strength. Thus, if we value our salvation in any way, then let us not allow it to attack us even in small ways, in order to prevent greater ones. And it would be extremely insane – when he shows such an effort to destroy our souls, we on our part will not even equally stand up for our own salvation. This is not in vain that I have said; And I am afraid that even now, unnoticed by us, this wolf will invade our yard, and steal some sheep, which through negligence or evil slander evades the flock and our real conversations. If the wounds were sensual and only the body received blows, then it would not be difficult to recognize its malice. But since the soul is invisible and it is it that receives wounds, so we need to be vigilant a lot, so that each one may test himself: "For who among men knoweth what is in a man, except the spirit of man which dwelleth in him" (1 Cor. 2:11)? The word is extended to all, and healing is offered generally for all those in need, but it is up to each of those who hear to accept for himself what is needed in his illness. I do not know the sick, nor do I know the healthy; Therefore I offer all kinds of teachings necessary in diseases of all kinds: I denounce covetousness, gluttony; sometimes I condemn lust; sometimes I praise mercy and persuade to it; sometimes other virtues. I am afraid lest, in reasoning in my sermon about one disease, I forget to heal others, while you suffer from them. If there were only one listener present here during my conversation, I would not consider it too necessary to diversify my teachings; but since there are certainly many diseases in such a multitude of people, it is not superfluous for us to diversify our edification: a word addressed to all will undoubtedly bring its benefit. That is why the content of the Scriptures is diverse, and tells us about an innumerable multitude of subjects, since it addresses its word to the common nature of all people. And in such a multitude of people, without a doubt, there are all kinds of mental illnesses, although not all of them. Therefore, cleansing ourselves of them, let us heed the word of God, and, concentrating our thoughts in it, let us listen to its current reading. What is it? "Thus lay," says the Scriptures, "Jesus began the miracles at Cana of Galilee." Some, as I have said before, argue that this was not the beginning at all. How could it be otherwise, they say, if it is added here: "in Cannae of Galilee"? "Thus hath laid," it is said, "the beginning in Cana." But I will not enter into further research on this; we have already proved that He began to perform signs after baptism, and did not perform any miracles before baptism. And whether this or another sign was the first of the signs performed by Him after His baptism, it seems to me that there is no need to dwell too much on this. "And He hath shewed His glory." How? After all, the event was witnessed not by many, but only by the servants, the architricline and the bridegroom? How did He manifest His glory? He showed it on His part. And if not then, then later everyone should have heard about this miracle, since it is glorified to this day and has not been forgotten. But that not everyone knew about it that day is evident from what follows. The Evangelist, having said: "He hath shewed forth His glory," adds: "And His disciples believed in Him" (v. 11), i.e. those who had already marveled at Him. Do you see that it was especially necessary to do signs at that time, when there were people who were conscientious and attentive to events? Such people were more likely to believe and pay more attention to events. And how could He be known without signs. Teaching and prophecy, combined with miracles, can dispose the souls of the listeners to listen with diligence to events, as soon as the soul is already prepared in advance for this. That is why the Evangelists often say that in other places He did not perform signs because of the wrong direction of the people living there. "After these things he came to Capernaum, himself, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and there they tarried a little days" (v. 12). Why does He come to Capernaum with His Mother? There He did not perform any miracle, and the inhabitants of that city were not well-disposed towards Him, and moreover they were also the most depraved: Christ Himself noticed this, saying: "And you, Capernaum, who were exalted to heaven, will descend to hell" (Luke 10:15). So, why does He come there? It seems to me that, intending to go to Jerusalem after a short time, He then went to Capernaum, so that He would not take His brothers and Mother with Him everywhere. Thus, having gone there and spent a little time out of respect for the Mother, He left His Mother there, and then again begins to work miracles. Therefore it is said that He "came into Jerusalem" (v. 13). Consequently, He was baptized not long before the Passover. But what does He do when He arrives in Jerusalem? A deed that expresses His great power. The money-changers, the merchants who sold pigeons, oxen, and sheep, and then stayed there, He casts out.

2. Another Evangelist tells us that when He expelled them, He said: "My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves" (Matt. 21:13); and St. John expresses it thus: "Do not make My Father's house a house of commerce" (John 2:16). But the evangelists do not contradict each other; but they show that He did it twice, and that both cases were not at the same time: the first time He did it at the beginning (of His preaching), and the second time when He was already going to suffer. For this reason He used the strongest expressions for the last time, calling that place the den of thieves; but at the beginning of the signs he did not do so, but used a more gentle rebuke. So it is probable that He did it twice. Why, you will say, did Christ do this, and moreover used such severity as He never seems to have done, even in those cases when He was insulted, vilified, called a Samaritan, and even possessed by demons? And here He was not even satisfied with words alone; but he also took the whip, and thus drove them out. Meanwhile, the Jews, when He did good to others, accuse Him and become hardened; but when they should have been angered by His rebuke, they do not treat Him in this way; they do not blame or insult Him; And what do they say? "By what sign wilt thou prove unto us that thou hast [authority] to do so" (v. 18)? Do you see their extreme envy - how the benefits shown to others most of all irritated them? Thus on one occasion He said that the temple had become from them a den of thieves, showing that what was sold had been acquired by theft, robbery, and covetousness, and that they were enriched by the misfortunes of others; and at another time by a house of purchase, exposing their shamelessness in trade. But why did He do this? Since, after a time, He began to heal on the Sabbath and to do many things that seemed to them to be transgression of the law, so that they would not consider Him an opponent of God and doing this contrary to the will of the Father, He by this incident prevents such a thought from them. He who showed such great zeal for the house, of course, had no intention of opposing the Lord of the house, who is revered in it. True, even the preceding years, in which He lived according to the law, could sufficiently show His respect for the Lawgiver and that He did not come to legitimize anything contrary to Him. But since these years were probably forgotten in the course of time, and were not known to all (because He was brought up in a poor and ignoble house), He does this in the presence of all the people who are assembled on the occasion of the approaching feast, and moreover at the peril of Himself. He didn't just kick them out; but He threw down the tables and scattered the money, giving them to understand from this that he who endangered Himself for the sake of decorum in the house would not despise the Lord of the house. If He had done this feignedly, He could have used only persuasion; and to expose oneself to dangers is too bold. For it is not an unimportant thing to give oneself over to such a wrath of the merchants, to harden against oneself an ignorant crowd of writhing people, putting them to shame and leading them into losses: this is not characteristic of a hypocrite, but of a man who is ready to suffer anything for the splendor of his home. That is why He expresses His unity with the Householder not only by His deeds, but also by His very words; He does not say, 'A holy house,' but my Father's house.' Behold, he calls Him also his Father, and they are not indignant at this: they thought that He spoke thus at all. But when afterwards He began to express this more clearly, so that He suggested the idea of His equality with the Father, then they were furious. What are they now? "By what sign," they say, "wilt thou prove to us that thou hast [power] to do so"? Oh, utter madness! They need a sign to turn away from evil deeds, and to free the house of God from such humiliation! And to have such great zeal for the house of God is not the greatest sign of virtue? Well-intentioned people found themselves here as well: "At this His disciples remembered that it is written, 'Zeal for Thy house devours Me' (John 2:17; Ps. 68:10). But the Jews did not remember the prophecy, but said, "By what sign Thou shalt prove unto us," on the one hand regretting the loss of their shameful profits, and hoping to hinder Him from doing so, and on the other desiring to provoke Him to perform a miracle in order to humiliate His deed. That is why He does not give them a sign. So before, when they approached and demanded a miracle, He answered them: "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh a sign, and a sign shall not be given unto it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet" (Matt. 16:4). However, then He answered them more clearly, and now in a more mysterious way. And He does this because of their extreme insensitivity. He who warned those who did not ask and gave them signs, He would certainly not have refused those who asked, if He had not seen in them evil and evil thoughts and their deceitful intention. Notice what malice is filled with their very question. They ought to have praised His zeal and zeal; one should be amazed at His solicitude for the house of God; but they accuse Him, asserting that it is lawful to writhe here, and it is not lawful to stop writhing, unless some sign is shown. What about Christ? "Destroy this temple," he says, "and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19). He also said many things that were not clear to the listeners of that time, but could only later be clear. Why did He do this? In order to prove His foreknowledge of future events, when the foretold will be fulfilled, as indeed happened with regard to this prophecy. "And when he was raised," it is said, "he was from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had spoken these things, and believed the Scriptures, and the word that Jesus spoke" (v. 22). And while he was speaking, they were perplexed how what he had said could be fulfilled; others said, "This temple has been built for forty-six years, and in three days you will build it" (v. 20)? They say, "Forty-six years," meaning the building of the last temple, because the first was finished in twenty years.