Volume 13 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

Perhaps it might have seemed to you, most godly and devout Ambrosius, that the discourse concerning the Samaritan woman should not be interrupted, so that a part of it would be in the twelfth volume, and the rest in the thirteenth. But since I see that the twelfth volume of the exegesis has received a sufficient outline, it seemed good to us to conclude the discourse about the Samaritan woman concerning the well mentioned by her, as Jacob gave it and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock, so that we may begin the thirteenth from the response of our Lord to her.

[John 4:13-14] Jesus answered and said to her: "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

Jesus responds this second time to the Samaritan woman, previously saying: "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that says to you, 'Give me to drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," and now, as encouraging her to ask for the living water, he says the preceding words. And at the former instance, the Samaritan woman did not speak but was puzzled about the comparison of the waters; after the Lord's second response, having accepted what was said, she says: "Give me this water." It is likely a principle that no one receives the divine gift who does not ask for it. Even the Savior himself, through the Psalm, is urged by the Father to ask, so that He may bestow it upon Him, as the Son teaches us by saying: "The Lord said to me: You are my Son; ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession"; and the Savior says: "Ask, and it will be given to you"; "for everyone who asks receives." The Samaritan woman is indeed persuaded to ask Jesus for water, being, as we mentioned, a representation of the opinion of those heterodox concerning the divine Scriptures, when she hears about the comparison of both waters. And observe from the things she suffered how, although drinking from the well she considered deep, she did not find rest nor was she freed from her thirst.

Let us see, then, what is meant by "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again." For from the words "to thirst" and "to hunger" in the physical sense, two things are indicated: one, in that we need food, being emptied and desiring it, or drink when the liquid within us depletes; another, in that often the poor and those in want of necessities say they are sated with hunger or thirst. And indeed, a testimony of the former is in Exodus, when, being in want of foods, "on the nineteenth day of the second month after they had come out of the land of Egypt, the whole congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. And the sons of Israel said to them, 'If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole congregation with hunger.' And the Lord spoke to Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.'" For those who were hungry and in want of necessary food, as far as the words permit. But also when in want of water and being thirsty, they grumbled against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" when "Moses cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet." And shortly after, when they came to Rephidim, it is written that "the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled against Moses." An example of the second meaning can be found in Paul, who says, "To the present hour we hunger and thirst and we are poorly clothed." Therefore, the first, to hunger and to thirst, necessarily happens to healthy bodies; the second occurs to the indigent. One must therefore inquire from "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again" what kind of "thirst" is being mentioned; first in the physical sense, or possibly what is implied, that even if for the present one is sated, but as soon as the drink subsides, the one who drank will experience the same condition again, that is, will thirst again, being restored to the state like at the beginning. He then adds, "But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." But who, possessing a fountain within himself, will be able to thirst?

However, what is previously indicated would be such: he who partakes of what is considered the depth of words, even if he pauses for a little while, having received as the deepest concepts that seem to be stirring and discovered, yet again coming upon them a second time, will be perplexed regarding these, as many times as he paused over them, since the supposed depth cannot provide a clear and distinct comprehension of the matters sought after. Therefore, even if someone is seized and complies with the persuasiveness of the words, he will still find later that the same perplexity remains within him, which he had before learning certain things; but I have such a discourse, so that the fountain of the life-giving drink arises in the one who receives the words announced by me; and to such an extent will the one who has taken my water be benefited, that a fountain yielding all that is sought springs up in him with waters leaping upwards, with the mind springing and flying swiftly in accordance with this quick-moving water, carrying him with its leaps and bounds to the higher place, to eternal life. He says that the end of the leaping water is eternal life, just as Solomon, speaking of the bridegroom in the Song of Songs, says, "Behold, he comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills." For just as there the bridegroom leaps upon the mountains, which are called the nobler and more divine souls, and skips upon the lesser ones, called hills, so here the fountain that arises in the one who drinks of the water given by Jesus leaps up to eternal life. Perhaps it will also leap after eternal life to the Father beyond eternal life; for Christ is life; the one greater than Christ is greater than life. Then the one who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water springing up into eternal life, when the promise made to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness is fulfilled. For the Word says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." And perhaps since it is necessary to hunger and thirst for righteousness before being filled, it is required to instill the hunger and the thirst in order to say, "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God. My soul thirsts for the strong, living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?" Therefore, to thirst, it is good first to drink from the spring of Jacob, not calling it similarly to the Samaritan woman a well. For the Savior even now, addressing her word, does not say that the water is from a well, but simply says, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again." If it were not beneficial to drink from the spring, neither would Jesus have sat by the spring, nor would He have said to the Samaritan woman, "Give me a drink." It is to be observed, then, that Jesus promising to provide the water to the Samaritan woman did so not from another place but from the spring, saying to her, "Go call your husband and come here."

Furthermore, we will understand if the combination of associating and combining with the truth and the scriptures produce a different kind of benefit from what is assumed, when the one who drinks from the spring of Jacob thirsts again, but the one who drinks from the water which Jesus gives has a spring of water within himself welling up to eternal life. For indeed, some of the most principal and divine mysteries of God have not been enclosed in scripture, and some not even in human speech according to the common significations of the words or human language. "For there are also many other things which Jesus did; if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." John, intending to write what the seven thunders spoke, was prevented; but Paul says he heard inexpressible words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. These words it was lawful for angels to speak, but not for men. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient." What Paul heard were "inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak." I believe that all the scriptures are minor elements and brief introductions to the totality of knowledge, even if they are understood very precisely. Therefore, consider whether the well of Jacob, from which Jacob once drank–but no longer drinks now– and also his sons drank from it–but now they have a better drink than that–, and their livestock drank from it too, can be considered all of scripture, and the water of Jesus is "beyond what is written." Not everyone is permitted to investigate what is beyond what is written, unless they become like them, so that they may not be reproached by hearing "Do not seek what is too difficult for you, and do not investigate what is beyond your strength." If we say that what is "beyond what is written" exists, we are not saying that it could be known to the many, but to John who heard and was not permitted to write them, like the utterances of the thunders, and learned them and did not write them because he considered that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. But also what Paul learned, "unspeakable words," "beyond what is written," if indeed what is written is spoken by men; and "what no eye has seen" is beyond what is written, and "what no ear has heard" cannot be written. And the things that have not entered into the heart of man are greater than the well of Jacob, revealed from a spring of water welling up to eternal life to those who no longer have the heart of man, but can say "we have the mind of Christ," "that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God, which we also speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit." And consider whether it is possible to not call human wisdom false doctrines, but the elementary principles of truth, still coming to men; and the teachings of the Spirit perhaps are the spring of water welling up to eternal life. Therefore, the scriptures are introductions, from which, having accurately comprehended them, now named the well of Jacob, we must go up to Jesus, so that he may grant us a spring of water welling up to eternal life. Not everyone draws alike from the well of Jacob; for if Jacob drank from it, and his sons and his livestock, and the Samaritan woman, who still was thirsty, came to it and drew from it, perhaps Jacob and his sons drank otherwise, with knowledge; and his livestock drank otherwise, more simply and brutishly; and the Samaritan woman drank otherwise than Jacob and his sons and his livestock. For the wise according to the scriptures drink like Jacob and his sons; and the simpler and more innocent ones, the so-called "sheep of Christ," drink like the livestock of Jacob; and those who distort the scriptures and introduce certain slanders on the pretext of understanding them drink like the Samaritan woman did before believing in Jesus.

[John 4:15] The woman says to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw."

Already, for the second time, the Samaritan woman addresses the Savior as "Lord"; the first time when she says, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep," when she inquires where he has the living water from, and whether he is greater than her patriarch Jacob. Now, she asks specifically for the water that becomes a spring within the drinker, welling up to eternal life. And if the saying, "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," is true, it is clear that when she says, "Give me this water," she receives the living water so that she may no longer struggle with thirst and may not need to come to Jacob's well to draw water, but without Jacob's water, she may be able to behold the truth angelically and beyond human capacity. For indeed, the angels do not need Jacob's well to drink, but each has within himself a spring of water springing up to eternal life, produced and revealed by the Logos and wisdom itself. Nevertheless, it is not possible to accommodate another water apart from the water from Jacob's well without diligently attending to the act of drawing and thirsting; thereby, many lack this refined practice of drawing from Jacob's well.

[John 4:16-17] He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."

We also mentioned earlier the ruler of the soul, the law, to which each person subjects themselves, is considered the husband. Now, even from the Apostle's letter to the Romans, we will provide this testimony, saying: "Or do you not know, brothers—for I speak to those who know the law—that the law has dominion over a person as long as they live?" Who then lives? Taking the law in general, the law. Then he immediately says, "For the married woman is bound by the law to her living husband," as if he were saying, "to her living husband, who is the law." Then again, he says, "But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband," as if the woman were released upon the death of the law, and her obligations as a wife to a husband no longer apply. Then he says, "So then, if while her husband lives she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she marries another man." The law, therefore, has died according to the letter, and the soul is not an adulteress when it marries another, the law according to the spirit. But if the husband has died, the wife might somehow be said to be dead to the husband, so that we understand it this way: "So, my brothers, you also were put to death in the law through the body of Christ, that you may belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." If, then, the husband is the law, and the Samaritan woman has some husband, having subjected herself according to a certain law, according to which each of the heterodox wishes to live, the divine word intends to expose the ruler of that heterodox soul, who is her law, in order that she despise him as not being a lawful husband and seek another husband, to belong to another, to the resurrected Logos, who neither can be overturned nor will die, but remains eternal and subjugates all enemies, for "Christ, having been raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God, being at His right hand until all His enemies are made a footstool for His feet." Where, then, should the supposed husband of the Samaritan be exposed as not being her husband if not at Jacob's well by Jesus, unless the woman herself rejected the husband? Therefore, Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." As if she already had something of the water that leaps into eternal life by saying, "Give me this water," and relying on the truthful promise that "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," the woman answered, condemning herself for her association with such a husband, and said, "I have no husband."

[John 4:17-18] Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."

I think that every soul introduced into piety in Christ through the scriptures, beginning from the sensory and bodily matters mentioned, holds the five husbands as representatives of each of the senses, being a certain husband of each. But when, after associating with the sensory, someone desires and turns towards the intellectual, encountering rationality under the guise of allegory and unhealthy spiritual matters, this person, after the five husbands, comes to another, giving, so to speak, a divorce to the former five and deciding to coexist with the sixth. And as long as Jesus has not come to make us aware of such a man, we are united with that one; but when the Lord's word comes and converses with us, denying that man, we say, "I have no husband"; and the Lord praises us, saying, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband.'" The phrase "This you have said truly" is somewhat reproachful, as the former things said by her were not truly stated. And perhaps it was not true that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans." For Jesus himself, as we have said earlier, associates with Samaritans to benefit them as well. It is also not true that "You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep." Perhaps it is also not true that "Jacob drank from the well, and his sons and his livestock." For if Jacob and his sons and his livestock did not drink in the same manner as the Samaritan woman, but the Samaritan woman thinks that Jacob and his sons and his livestock drank entirely the same and identical drink, it is clear that she is lying.

Let us also consider the words of Heracleon regarding these matters, who says that that life and the glory associated with it were weak, temporary, and ceasing; for he says it was worldly; and he thinks he provides proof of it being worldly from the fact that the livestock of Jacob drank from it. And if indeed he took partial knowledge as weak, temporary, and deficient, namely the knowledge obtained from the Scriptures by comparison of ineffable sayings, "which it is not lawful for a man to speak," or all the knowledge that now comes "through a mirror dimly," being abolished when the perfect comes, we would not have blamed it. But if he does this to slander the old, he should be reproached. The water that the Savior gives, he says, is from his Spirit and his power, not lying. And to "he shall never thirst" he renders thus in these words: "For his life is eternal and never-perishing, unlike the first which is from the well, but remaining; for the grace and the gift of our Savior is irrevocable and not consumed nor corrupted in the one who partakes of it." But calling the first life perishable, if he meant according to the letter, seeking the removal of the veil done according to the spirit, and finding, he would speak correctly; but if he categorically accuses the old of corruption, it is clear he does this as one not seeing the good things of the future have their shadow there. Not improbably did he narrate the "leaping" and those partaking of what is abundantly supplied from above and also themselves gushing forth into others' eternal life what was provided to them. But he also praises the Samaritan woman as having revealed her indiscriminate and by nature suitable faith, not doubting what was said to her. Therefore, if he accepted the intention, not hinting anything about a differing nature, we would also agree; but if he attributes the cause of the agreement to the natural construction as if it is not present in all, his statement must be overturned. I do not know how Heracleon, taking the unrecorded, says that in regards to "Give me this water," having been briefly instructed by the Word, she henceforth hated both the place and the so-called living water. Furthermore, concerning "Give me this water, so that I may not thirst nor come here to draw," he says that the woman says these things showing the toilsome, difficult, and inadequate nature of that water. For where does he have the evidence to show that the water of Jacob is without stain? Moreover, Heracleon says concerning the phrase "He said to her," it is clear that saying something like this, "If you want to receive this water, go call your husband," he supposes that the man mentioned by the Savior is her fullness, so that being with him, she might be able to obtain from the Savior the power, the union, and the mingling towards her fullness. For, he says, He did not tell her to call a man of the world, since He was not unaware that she did not have a lawful husband. Obviously, he is overreaching here, saying that the Savior told her, "Call your husband and come here," meaning the spouse from the fullness. For if this were so, he ought to have said who the man was and in what manner he should be called, so that she might be with him before the Savior. But since, as Heracleon says, she did not recognize her own man in the intelligible sense, and in the simplistic sense was ashamed to say that she had a lover and not a husband, how is not his command, "Go, call your husband and come here," void? Then he says further to this, "You have rightly said that you have no husband," since the Samaritan woman did not have a husband in the world, for her husband was in the aeon. We, however, have read, "You have had five husbands," but in Heracleon's text, we found, "You have had six husbands." And he interprets that all material evil is indicated by the six husbands, with whom she had been entangled and associated unlawfully, fornicating and being violated and rejected by them. One must say to him that if the spiritual was fornicating, the spiritual was sinning; if the spiritual was sinning, the spiritual was not a good tree; for according to the gospel, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit." And it is clear that their myth-making falls apart. If it is impossible for the good tree to bear bad fruit, and the Samaritan woman, as a spiritual being, was a good tree, it follows to say that either her fornication was not a sin, or she did not fornicate.

[John 4:19-20] The woman said to Him, "Lord, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship."

For the third time the Samaritan woman calls our Savior "Lord" when it is lastly written that she spoke this to Him; but she does not yet consider Him greater than the prophets, nor the prophesied one, but some prophet. And even the heterodox opinion of those muddling with the scriptures, refuted by her by the earlier five husbands and the one left afterward by her believed to be a man, could not initially recognize what He is, says He is a prophet, as if something divine and having something superior to human, yet not as great as He was. Hence, she says, as if she somehow saw with new vision and assumed in contemplation, "I perceive that you are a prophet."

To this, "Our fathers" and what follows must be understood as the Samaritan's difference with the Jews concerning their considered holy place; for the Samaritans, believing the called Mount Gerizim to be holy, worship God there, as Moses remembers in Deuteronomy thus saying, "And Moses commanded the people on that day, saying: ‘These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when you have crossed over the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; and these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.’" But the Jews, believing Zion to be a divine and proper place of God, think that it is the chosen place by the Father of all, and for this reason, they say the temple was built there by Solomon and all the Levitical and priestly services are performed there. Consequently, each nation has taken it upon themselves, according to their beliefs, that the fathers worshiped God on this or that mountain. And if ever the Samaritans and the Jews condescended to debate with each other, each would interrogate the other, and the Samaritan would say to the Jew the recorded words of the woman: "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," pointing to Mount Gerizim, "but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." But since the Jews, from whom salvation comes, are pictures of those who possess sound reasoning, and the Samaritans of the heterodox, the Samaritans therefore venerate Mount Gerizim, which is interpreted as "cutting or division"—and from the historical cutting and division of the ten tribes separated from the remaining two that occurred during the times of Jeroboam, whose name means "judgment of the people." The Jews, however, venerate Zion, which means "watchtower." It is reasonable to question why the blessings of Moses happened on Mount Gerizim. It must be said in this respect that since the name Gerizim signifies cutting and division, the aspect of cutting is taken to mean when the people were divided by Jeroboam and the king dwelt in Samaria; the aspect of division applies to the blessing of the wise who divide matters precisely for understanding each issue, which is necessary for the understanding of truth. Therefore, as long as the hour spoken of by the Lord has not yet come, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will they worship the Father, one must avoid the mountain of the Samaritans and worship God in Zion, where Jerusalem is, which is said to be the city of the great king, Christ. What is the city of the great king, the true Jerusalem, but the church built of living stones, where the sanctuary is holy, spiritual sacrifices are offered to God by those who are spiritual and understand the spiritual law? But when the fullness of time comes, then it must not be supposed that true worship and perfect piety will be performed in Jerusalem any longer, when someone is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit and no longer in type but wholly in truth, being made in such a way as to resemble those worshippers whom God seeks.

Twice it is written "The hour is coming," and in the first instance it is not added "And now is," but in the second instance, the evangelist says, "But the hour is coming and now is." And I think the former signifies the worship outside bodies to be consummated in perfection, and the latter the progress towards perfection as far as human nature allows in this life. Therefore, it is possible to worship the Father in spirit and truth when not only "the hour is coming" but "it now is," even if we think it happens in Jerusalem for those who have reached only so far. Hence, when it is written, "The hour is coming and now is," it is no longer said, "Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father," as it was said where "The hour is coming" is written without "And now is." Yet still, the Samaritan woman has a similar mistaken belief as the one about the supposed well when she says these things. "Is it that you are greater," she says, "than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" And here, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain."

Heracleon says that in these very words the Samaritan woman has properly acknowledged the things spoken to her by him: for he says it belongs to a prophet alone to know everything; but he is doubly false: for angels are also capable of knowing such things, and a prophet does not know everything; "For we know in part and we prophesy in part," even if we prophesy or know. After this, he praises the Samaritan woman for acting according to her nature, neither lying nor openly confessing her own disgrace; he says she is convinced that he is a prophet, asking him at the same time to reveal the cause for which she committed adultery, due to her ignorance of God and neglect of the worship according to God and all the necessities of life for her, and otherwise always being involved in worldly things; for he says she would not have come to the well outside the city otherwise. I do not know how he thought to indicate the cause of her having committed adultery, or that ignorance became the cause of her transgressions and the worship according to God; but it seems he has made these statements without any probability. He adds to these things: that seeking to learn how and by whom she might please and worship God, and be freed from adulterous behavior, she says, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," and the following. But what has been said is very easily refutable; for whence is it that she wants to learn by whom she might please and be freed from adulterous behavior?

[John 4:21] Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, that the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."

When it seemed most likely that Heracleon had observed in these words that it was not said to her previously, "Believe me, woman," but now this was commanded to her, then he obscured the plausible observation, saying that the mountain refers to the devil or to his world, since the devil, he said, was a part of the whole matter, while the world is the entirety of wickedness, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who were before the law and the Gentiles worshipped. But Jerusalem represents creation or the Creator, whom the Jews worshipped. But also secondly, he thought that the mountain referred to creation which the Gentiles worshipped, whereas Jerusalem referred to the Creator whom the Jews served. Therefore, he said, you, as if the spiritual ones, will worship neither creation nor the creator but rather the Father of truth; and indeed, he includes her, he said, as already faithful and included among those who truly worship. But we understand the pseudo-religion of the Gnostics and those called by seemingly high-sounding names among the heterodox to be clearly shown by the "Neither on this mountain," while the canon according to the majority of the church, which the perfect and holy one will surpass, worshipping the Father more theoretically, clearly, and divinely, is shown by the "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship the Father." For as even the Jews would confess, the angels do not worship the Father in Jerusalem, the place superior to worshipping the Father in Jerusalem, thus those who have already attained the angelic disposition will not worship the Father in Jerusalem, but rather better than those in Jerusalem, even if they accompany those in Jerusalem out of consideration for them, becoming Jews to the Jews so that they might win over the Jews. Let Jerusalem be understood by me as we have previously stated, and likewise the Jews. However, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem anyone will worship, the hour having come, a son born with boldness will worship the Father. Therefore, it was not said, "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship God," but rather, "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."

[John 4:22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The "you," in terms of the literal word, refers to the Samaritans; in terms of higher interpretation, it refers to the heterodox in relation to the scriptures. But the "we," in the literal sense, is the Jews; in the allegorical sense, it is I, the Word, and those formed according to me, holding salvation from the Jewish words; for the revealed mystery has now been manifested through the prophetic scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But see whether Heracleon did not, on his own, and beyond the sequence of the words, interpret the "you" in place of "the Jews and the Gentiles." For how can it be said to a Samaritan, "You Jews," or to a Samaritan, "You Gentiles?" Yet the heterodox do not know what they worship, for it is a fabrication and not truth, both myth and not mysteries; but one who worships the Creator, especially according to the inner Jew and the spiritual words of the Jews, worships what he knows. It would be too lengthy now to present Heracleon's words, taken from the so-called "Preaching of Peter," and to stand examining them and whether the book is genuine, spurious, or mixed; thus, willingly passing over them, marking only that he attributes to Peter the teaching that one ought not worship according to the Greeks, accepting and serving material things and worshipping wood and stones, nor according to the Jews, as even they, thinking they alone know God, are ignorant of Him, worshipping angels and the moon and the sun. Yet it needs to be inquired, in regard to truth, to whom the bodily worship was conducted by the Jews; for it is evident that it was set before them to offer sacrifices to the Creator of all. It is also worth seeing what is written in the Acts of the Apostles: "But God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven." I do not understand how, with the Savior declaring openly that "salvation is from the Jews," the heterodox deny the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the fathers of the Jews. Moreover, if the Savior fulfills the law and in order to fulfill the things written in the prophets such and such happen according to the coming of the Lord, how is it not clear in what way "salvation is from the Jews?" For the same God is of Jews and Gentiles, "if indeed God is one, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." For we do not nullify the law through faith, but rather we uphold the law through it.

[John 4:23] But the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.

Those who do not at all profess to worship the Father should not even be called worshipers of God; but among all those who profess to worship the Creator, if they no longer walk in the flesh but in the spirit, and walk by the spirit and do not fulfill the desires of the flesh, these should be called true worshipers, those who worship the Father in spirit and not in flesh, and in truth and not in pretense. And one who is enslaved by the letter that kills, and has not partaken of the spirit that gives life, nor follows the spiritual aspects of the law, this one would be the untrue worshiper who does not worship the Father in spirit; and this very one, being wholly of the form and the bodily, when he seems to be succeeding most fully, then worships God in form and not in truth, thus being unable to be called a true worshiper. Perhaps it has ever been reasonably granted for the true worshiper, worshiping in spirit and truth, to also perform some formal acts, in order that by liberating those enslaved to the form in the most prudent manner from the forms, he may bring them to truth, as Paul seems to have done with Timothy, and perhaps also in Cenchreae and Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It must be observed that the true worshipers worship the Father in spirit and in truth not only at the future hour but also at the present hour. But those who worship in spirit, as they have received the spirit’s earnest, worship presently, but in the fullness of the spirit, when they will possess all the spirit, they will worship the Father. If the one who sees through a mirror does not see the truth, as this is shown to those skilled in mirrors, Paul and those like him now see through a mirror, it is evident that as they see, so they worship God, and through a mirror, they worship God; but when the time comes which follows the present time, then worship will be in the truth "face to face" and no longer seen through a mirror. However, Heracleon thinks that "We worship" refers to the one in the age and those who came with him; for these, he says, knew whom they worshiped, worshiping in truth. But also the statement "For salvation is from the Jews" is said because it happened in Judea, but not through themselves—for not all of them were in favor—and because from that nation salvation and the word went out to the world. According to the understanding, salvation being from the Jews was told since they are considered images of those in His fullness. It was necessary for him and those from him to show how each of those in worship is an image of those in the fullness if indeed they say this not only by voice but also genuinely believe this. Additionally, he says, explaining "Worshiping God in spirit and in truth," that the former worshipers worshiped in flesh and in error to the not-Father, so, according to him, all those who worshiped the Creator were mistaken. And Heracleon adds that they served the creation, and not the true Creator, who is Christ if indeed "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made."

[John 4:23] For the Father seeks such as these to worship Him.

If the Father seeks, He seeks through the Son who has come to seek and save the lost, whom He equips as true worshippers by cleansing and instructing them with the word and sound doctrines. Heracleon says that what belongs to the Father is lost in the deep forest of error, which is sought so that the Father may be worshipped by His own. Therefore, if he had seen the parable about the lost sheep and the son who fell away from the Father's sons, we might have accepted his narration. But since those of his belief create myths and do not clearly demonstrate to us anything definite about the loss of the spiritual nature, nor do they teach us anything clear about the times or ages before its loss—for they are unable to make their argument clear—therefore we willingly dismiss them, questioning them at this point.

[John 4:24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth

Many have spoken many things about God and His essence, so that some have said that He is of a physical, subtle, and ethereal nature, while others have said He is bodiless, and others beyond essence in dignity and power. It is worthy for us to see if we have grounds from the divine scriptures to say something about the essence of God. Here indeed, it is said that His essence is spirit; "For God is spirit," it says; and in the law, "fire"; for it is written, "Our God is a consuming fire"; and by John, "light"; "For God," it says, "is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." If then we hear these more simply, without involving ourselves beyond the term, it is time for us to say that God is a body; but which incongruities this statement entails is not for the many to know; for few have grasped the nature of bodies, and especially those ordered by reason and providence; yet those who say that what foresees is of the same essence with the things foreseen generally, assert it to be perfect but like the foreseen. Those who wish God to be a body accepted all these things in their argument absurdly, as they cannot withstand those who clearly demonstrate by reason. With the exception of those who declare a fifth nature of bodies apart from the elements, I say these things. But if every body has a material nature, by its own account, it happens to be devoid of qualities, changeable, and alterable, and wholly variable, and bearing qualities which the creator may wish to impart upon it, then it is necessary that God, being material, would also be changeable, alterable, and variable. And those, indeed, are not ashamed to say that He is mortal, being a body, a spiritual and ethereal body, especially in His ruling aspect; they say that, though being mortal, He does not die because there is not a destroyer of Him. But we, because we do not see the consequences, if we say that this is a body and because of the scripture such a body, consuming spirit and fire and light, rejecting what necessarily follows from these, we will behave disgracefully like fools and speak against the clear facts. For every fire that needs nourishment is perishable, and every spirit, if we take spirit in the simplest sense as a body, is subject to transformation to a denser state according to its own nature. Therefore, it is time either to accept these many absurdities and blasphemies concerning God by adhering to the words, or to examine, as we also do with many other matters, what can be meant by saying that God is spirit or fire or light. And first it must be said that, just as we find eyes and eyelids and ears, hands and arms and feet written concerning God, and even wings, we take the written things allegorically, ignoring those who attribute a human-like form to God and rightly doing so. Similarly, with regard to the mentioned names, we must do the following as it is clear from the more practical aspect: "For God is light," according to John, "and in him there is no darkness at all."

Let us then examine how it is possible to understand him as light more intelligibly as far as we can. For the term "light" is used in two ways, both physical and spiritual, which is intellectually perceived and, as the scriptures might say, invisible, as the Greeks might call it incorporeal. And as for the physical example acknowledged by those who accept the history, "And for all the children of Israel, there was light in all their dwellings;" and the intellectual and spiritual example is in one of the twelve, "Sow for yourselves in righteousness, reap in the fruit of life, enlighten for yourselves with the light of knowledge." Similarly, "darkness" will also be spoken of in an analogous manner. And the more commonly spoken example, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night;" and the intellectual, "The people sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." With these things being thus, it is worth considering what is fitting for us to think about God being called light, in whom there is no darkness. For does God enlighten the physical eyes or the intellectual ones, about which the prophet also says, "Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep unto death"? I think it is evident to everyone that we would not say that God is doing the work of the sun, assigning to another to enlighten the eyes of those not sleeping unto death. Therefore, God enlightens the mind of those He deems worthy of His enlightenment. And if He is enlightening the mind according to what is said, "The Lord is my light," it is necessary for us to consider Him being intellectual, invisible, and immaterial as light. Perhaps also as a consuming fire, it seems that He is immaterial, consuming things like wood, grass, and straw.

And if the wood, grass, and straw are intellectual, perhaps the consuming fire of such material is God, said to be a consuming fire. And it is fitting for the Lord to consume and destroy such things, from which pains and sufferings arise, not from physical contact, but in the ruling parts, where the structure worthy of being consumed is established. Therefore, God is called light, having been transferred from bodily light to invisible and incorporeal light, and is thus called because of the power to enlighten intellectual eyes. He is also called fire, consuming, understood from bodily fire and that which consumes such matter.

Similarly, it seems to me regarding "God is spirit"; for since in the ordinary and generally called life, by the blowing of the air around us, the so-called more bodily breath of life, we are quickened by the spirit, I suppose that from that the spirit is called God, leading us to true life. For the spirit, according to scripture, is said to quicken, obviously not the ordinary but the more divine quickening. For the letter kills and brings death, not the separation of the soul from the body, but the separation of the soul from God and from its Lord, and from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we should also understand "You will receive their spirit, and they will pass away" and "You will send forth your spirit and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth" better regarding this spirit if we assumed that he who is deprived of the divine spirit becomes earthly, and having made himself fit to receive it and having received it, he will be recreated and, being recreated, saved. Such would it be if he "breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul," so that we may understand both the inspiration and the breath of life and the life of the soul spiritually. Since the aforementioned power, as it were, having found the soul of the holy one to be a suitable dwelling place, imparts itself to it alone, so to speak, it must be considered written "I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Yet we need more exercise in order to become perfect and to have our senses trained to discern both good and evil, truth and falsehood, and to contemplate intelligible things, so that we may be able to understand more carefully and fittingly, according to what is possible for human nature, how God is light and fire and spirit. Even in the third book of Kings, the spirit of the Lord coming to Elijah suggests something like this about God: "For he said: Go forth tomorrow and stand before the Lord on the mountain; behold, the Lord will pass by. And a great strong wind rent the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind" – in other places we find: "in the wind of the Lord"; – "after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice"; and perhaps in those things that are necessary to be explained about the apprehension of the Lord, they are indicated through these things, which it is not the time to narrate now. But whom should we have expected to speak to us about what God is, other than the Son? "For no one knows the Father except the Son," so that we too, as the Son reveals, may know how God is spirit, and strive to worship God in the spirit that gives life and not in the letter that kills, and to revere him in truth, no longer with types nor shadows nor examples, just as neither do the angels serve God with examples and shadows as humans do, but with intelligible and heavenly things, having as their guide the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek for the service that is for the salvation of those who need it, and for the mystical and secret contemplation. However, as for the saying "God is Spirit," Heracleon says, for the divine nature is undefiled and pure and invisible. But I do not know if he has taught us these things on saying how God is Spirit; but thinking to clarify the phrase "those who worship must worship in spirit and truth," he says: suitably to the one who is worshipped spiritually, not carnally; for they too, being of the same nature as the Father, are spirit, who worship in truth and not in error, as also the apostle teaches, calling such godliness reasonable service. But we must consider whether it is not exceedingly impious to say that those who worship God in spirit are of the same substance with the unbegotten and entirely blessed nature, whom Heracleon himself recently said had fallen, saying that the Samaritan woman, being of a spiritual nature, committed fornication. But those who say such things do not see that everything of the same substance is also receptive to the same things; but if the spiritual nature received fornication, being of the same substance * * * unholy and impious and godless consequences follow from their statement about God, and it is not safe even to imagine.

But we, obeying the Savior who says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I," and for this reason not accepting the title "Good," which is proper and true and perfect, attributed to him, but referring it gratefully to the Father with reproof to the one who wants to overly glorify the Son, say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures, not by comparison but by surpassing excellence, and so much or even more does he exceed the Father as he himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest, not of any kind of beings. For such glorification of the one who surpasses thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come, and also of holy angels and spirits and righteous souls, what need is there to say? Yet, exceeding these so great and so many in substance and preeminence and power and divinity – for he is a living Word – and in wisdom, he is in no way comparable to the Father. For he is an image of His goodness and a radiance not of God but of His glory and of His eternal light, and a vapor not of the Father but of His power, and a pure emanation of His almighty glory, and an unblemished mirror of His activity, through which mirror Paul and Peter and those like them see God, saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me."

[John 4:25] The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When he comes, he will tell us all things."

It is worthy to see how the Samaritan woman, accepting nothing beyond the Pentateuch of Moses, expects the coming of Christ as being proclaimed from the law only. And it is reasonable for them to hope from the blessing of Jacob to Judah, saying, “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down to you.” And shortly after, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” It is also likely that from the prophecies of Balaam they themselves hope the same, saying, “A man shall come forth from his seed and he shall rule over many nations, and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall increase. God led him out of Egypt; he has the glory of a wild ox; he shall consume the nations of his enemies and break their bones in pieces, and pierce them with his arrows. He lay down, he rested like a lion, and like a lioness; who will rouse him? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.” And following this, Balaam himself says, “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a man shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the chiefs of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be a possession, and Esau a possession, his enemies. Israel will act valiantly. And one from Jacob shall have dominion and destroy the survivors of the city.” You may also consider whether Moses’ blessing to Judah is referred to Christ and might thus seem acceptable to the Samaritans, “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him to his people; let his hands contend for him, and be a help against his adversaries.” Since the Samaritans boast Joseph as their patriarch, I suggest that perhaps both the blessing of Jacob to Joseph and that of Moses may be considered as referring to the presence of Christ; and whoever wishes may take the sayings directly from the text itself. And the Savior himself, knowing that Moses had written many prophecies about Christ, says to the Jews, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.” Indeed, one can find many things written in the law that typologically and enigmatically refer to Christ; but at present, I see no others clearer and unambiguous than these. Messiah is called in Hebrew, which the seventy translated as “Christ”; but Aquila translated it as “Anointed.” Consider also the phrase, “When he comes, he will tell us everything”; whether this was said to the Samaritan woman from tradition or from the law. It should not be ignored that just as Jesus arose from the Jews, declaring and proving that he is Christ, so some Dositheus, arising from the Samaritans, claimed himself to be the prophesied Christ, from whom the Dositheans derive, carrying books attributed to Dositheus and narrating certain myths about him, such as that he has not tasted death but is somewhere alive. And these things pertain to the word. But the heterodox opinion at Jacob’s well, considered to be its well, regards this saying as a fuller understanding of Christ, “When he comes, he will tell us everything.” And the awaited and hoped-for one present with her says, “I, who speak to you, am he.” Consider also what Heracleon says; for he states that the church welcomed Christ and was convinced about him, that he alone knows everything.

[John 4:26-27] Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one speaking to you.” At that moment his disciples arrived. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman. Nevertheless, none of them said, “What are you seeking?” or “Why are you speaking with her?”

It should be considered whether Christ revealed himself and compared these things to one another like, “I am the one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me also testifies about me,” and further “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me,” and any other similar statements in the Gospels. But let us learn from this saying that he is meek and humble in heart, not exalting himself in talking about such significant matters with a woman drawing water because of great poverty and fatigue coming to the city to draw water. The disciples were amazed when they arrived, having previously perceived the greatness of his divinity, and they marveled at how such a great one spoke with a woman. But we, driven by arrogance and pride, overlook the simpler people and forget that each person is made in the image and likeness of God, and forget the one who has formed the hearts of all humans individually and who understands all their works. We do not recognize that God is the one who humbles himself and is a helper of the needy, a supporter of the weak, a protector of the hopeless, and a savior of the desperate. It’s as if he even used this woman as an apostle to those in the city, having so much influenced her through his words that she left her water jar and went to the city to tell the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” When they came out of the city and made their way to him, it is clear then and not later that the Word made himself known so clearly, causing the disciples to marvel if even this woman, being of lesser intellect and easily deceived, was deemed worthy to have a conversation with the Word. However, the disciples, convinced by the Word that all things are done well, did not criticize or discuss the inquiry towards the Samaritan woman and the conversation with her. Perhaps they were also astounded by the great kindness of the Word who condescended to a despised soul, Zion, trusting in the Mount of Samaria; therefore, it is written, “They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman.” And Heracleon also says about “I am he, the one speaking to you,” that when the Samaritan woman was persuaded about Christ that he would declare everything to her, he said, "Know that the one you are expecting, I am he, the one speaking to you." And when he acknowledged himself as the awaited one who had come, “The disciples came to him,” it says, indicating that he had come to Samaria for their sake. How had he come to Samaria for the sake of the disciples, who had already been with him before?

[John 4:28-29] The woman then left her water jar and went into the city and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I have done; could this be the Christ?"

It is not for nothing, I think, that the evangelist recorded both the details about the water jar being left, which the woman left behind when she went into the city, and the greater zeal indicated by the Samaritan woman leaving the jar, showing no longer so much concern for the physical and meaner duty as for the benefit of many people. For she was very kindly moved, wishing to preach Christ to the citizens, witnessing to Him who told her "all that she had done." She calls them to see a man who has a word greater than human; for the visible to her eyes was a man. Therefore, we also, forgetting the more physical things and leaving them, must hasten to impart the benefit we have received to others. For this the evangelist encourages through his praise of the woman written to be read by those who know. Moreover, we must look into the symbolism of the water jar which the Samaritan woman left behind, having received some sort of message from Jesus; perhaps it represents the vessel of her teaching, which she put aside, deeming it base, having taken in the superior teaching, now that in her was established a source of "water springing up to eternal life." For how else would she have preached Christ so generously to the citizens, marveling at Him who proclaimed to her "all that she did," unless through the saving water she had received and taken in? Rebekah, too, had a water jar on her shoulders, before the servant of Abraham finished speaking in his mind, and she was going out, a beautiful virgin by appearance. Since she did not draw the same way as the Samaritan woman, she goes down to the well and fills the jar, and as she ascended with it, Abraham's servant ran to meet her and said, "Let me drink a little water from your jar." For because he was Abraham's servant, he loved to receive even a little water from Rebekah's jar. "And Rebekah hurried, and lowered the jar to her arm and gave him a drink until he finished drinking." Therefore, because Rebekah's jar was commendable, it was not left behind by her, but the Samaritan woman’s, in the sixth hour, was left. Here the Samaritan woman evangelizes Christ to the Samaritans, and at the end of the Gospels, the woman who first saw the Savior after His resurrection tells the apostles. But this woman, though heralding the perfect faith, was not commended by the Samaritans who said: "We no longer believe because of your words; for we have heard ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior of the world." And she who touched Christ was not believed when he said to her: "Do not cling to me." For Thomas was about to hear: "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." All that the woman did, her association with the five husbands and after them her conciliation with the sixth, who was not her genuine husband, for which she abandoned the water jar and decently rests on the seventh day, bringing benefit to those living in the city with their previous doctrines, constructing with unsound words, the same as the woman; they are also the reason to leave the city and come to Jesus.

The Samaritans very carefully request Jesus next, not to stay in the city but "with them," meaning in their leading position; for perhaps it was impossible for him to stay in their city since they themselves left the city and came to him greatly doing well. As these things are very distinctly shown, with the evangelist giving us grounds for deeper insights, from this we must judge; previously it was written: "They went out of the city and were coming to him," and after a little while: "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, 'He told me everything I ever did.'" When the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them. And indeed, before that, they came out of the city to him, and secondly, the Samaritans came to him while he was still beside Jacob’s well—for he seemed not to have moved from there—and "they urged him to stay with them"; it is not written after this that he entered the city, but "He stayed there two days." But even subsequently it is not said, "After the two days he went out of the city," but "He departed from there"; for as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned, all the economy of benefit for the Samaritans happened beside Jacob's well.

Heracleon believes the jug receiving life to be a disposition and thought of the power from the savior, which she left, he says, with him, that is, having with the savior such a vessel, in which she came to receive living water, she returned to the world announcing Christ's presence; for through the spirit and by the spirit the soul is brought to the savior. But consider whether this jug can be commendable at all left behind; "The woman left her water jar," she said. It does not imply that she left it with the savior. And how is it not implausible that having left an accepting disposition of life and power's thought from the savior and the vessel in which she came to receive living water, she went away into the world without these, evangelizing Christ's presence? And how can the spiritual one, after all these words, not be clearly convinced about Christ, but says: "Could this be the Christ?" And the narrative "They went out of the city" signifies rather their previous worldly conduct; and they came through faith, he says, to the savior. But one must tell him how he stays with them for the two days; for he did not adhere to what we previously stated about not being recorded as having remained in the city for two days.

[John 4:31] Meanwhile, his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."

After the dispensation concerning the drink and the teaching on the distinction of the waters, it was appropriate also to record matters concerning food. Therefore, the Samaritan woman asked to drink, though she was in a state of questioning, as it were, * * but because of the one who asked; for she had no worthy drink to give to Jesus, if he willed to do her a favor by means of what she gave to drink. It was fitting now * * * * from the Samaritan woman. But the disciples * * * having gone to the city to buy food, either finding suitable food from the heterodox, or some fitting words, * * * * * * to him, they said, "Eat," thinking it a suitable time for him to take food between the departure of the woman to the city and the arrival of the Samaritans to him; for they did not set the food before him at any other time, perhaps because it would be vexing to the Samaritan woman, if she saw the disciples intending to set food from her city, whether it existed or was considered so, before the teacher. Nor would those disciples fittingly say "Rabbi, eat," in the presence of the Samaritans, as those wishing to abandon their city. Therefore, the phrase "Meanwhile, his disciples were asking him, saying, Rabbi, eat" is well placed. Why "they were asking him" and not is worth seeing; for it could have been written more simply, "Meanwhile, his disciples said to him, Rabbi, eat." But to ask him to eat, to beg and to plead with him, indicates something before the inquiry, or sometimes even after the inquiry. And observe whether perhaps, fearing that * * the discourse * * with suitable * * or with strengthening foods, they ask him to consume what is found; for the disciples always wish to nourish the word with what they find, so that by strengthening, invigorating, and empowering it, it may remain more with those who nourish it, reciprocally nourishing those who present it with food. For this reason, he says he stands at the door and knocks so that if anyone opens the door, he will come in to him and dine with him, so that later the one who has dined might be able to reciprocate the diner with the word given by the man. However, Heracleon says that they wished to share with him what they had bought and brought back from Samaria. He says these things so that some * * * the five foolish virgins * * * from the bridegroom. How then do I think * * to have the same * * are said * * * * to the foolish virgins who were shut out, conveying a charge against the disciples, belonging with those same foolish virgins. Furthermore, there is the dissimilarity of light to food, and of oil to provisions * * * to bring an accusation against the interpretation; or if there was anything that could make the word clear, he had to comfort it through more preparation, constructing his own interpretation.

[John 4:32] He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about."

The needless does not require food, but that which requires food is not needless. And it is clear that the one who eats does not eat out of not needing food, but out of needing and wanting it. Bodies, being fluid by nature, are nourished by food that replenishes the places of what has flowed out. But those things better than the body are nourished by incorporeal thoughts and words and healthy actions, not dissolving into non-existence if they are not nourished; for even bodies do not dissolve into non-existence if they are not nourished. It loses its being in such a way when it is not nourished by things suited to its differing nature from bodies. Just as bodies that need food are not nourished by qualities, nor is the same quantity of food sufficient for all. Similarly, one must understand with matters better than bodies. For these too need more or less nourishment, not being equally receptive. Nor does the quality of nourishing words and thoughts, and fitting actions in contemplation, suit all souls the same. Furthermore, both vegetable and solid food do not nourish those needing improvement from these at the same time. For newborn infants, as Peter says, should long for pure spiritual milk. And if anyone is in the infant state like the Corinthians, to whom Paul says, "I fed you with milk, not solid food." And the weak, due to a lack of faith, should eat vegetables; and Paul too says this, teaching "The one who believes may eat all things, but the weak eats vegetables." And there is sometimes a "better dinner of vegetables with friendship and grace, as opposed to fatted calves with enmity." "Solid food is for the mature, who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil." Yet, there is also poisonous food, which we learn from the Fourth Book of Kings, where some said to Elisha, "Death in the pot, man of God." And there is also spiritual yet rudimentary food for the less rational souls, which another herb or grass or straw symbolizes, as indicated in "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters." And Isaiah also says, "The lion shall eat straw like the ox." But grass is also placed before the cattle in Rebecca's household for the child of Abram. If there is a more rational and therefore also intellectual person, he eats the intellectual bread, as it is written in the Psalms: "Bread strengthens the heart of man," and he rejoices in the intellectual wine, none other than a man: "For wine gladdens the heart of man." But the word must ascend from the irrational and men to the angels, who also are nourished; for they are not completely without need. "Man ate the bread of angels," and blessed Abraham was able to present to the three appearing to him unleavened cakes. But now it is necessary to proceed to the discourse concerning the eating of Christ, which the disciples did not then know; for Jesus speaks truly, saying: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." For what Jesus did, accomplishing the will of the one who sent him and completing his work, this the disciples did not know. To understand more clearly the saying, "I have food to eat that you do not know about," let Paul speak to those who need milk, and not solid food, to the Corinthians, who are fed with milk and not food, who are not yet able to partake of food: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." And always the one who excels and sees what the inferior cannot will say: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." It is not unreasonable to say that not only humans and angels are in need of intellectual nourishment, but also Christ of God; for even he, so to speak, is ever being sustained by the Father, the only one who is without need and self-sufficient. The general populace of the disciples receives food from the disciples of Jesus, being commanded to give to the crowds; the disciples of Jesus receive from Jesus himself, though sometimes also from holy angels; but the Son of God receives food from the Father alone, not through someone. It is not unreasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is also nourished; but we must seek a scriptural phrase that suggests this. The parables about the feasts should be gathered from the Gospels. The entire mystery of the calling and election is present in the foods of the great feast: "For a man," it says, "made a great feast, and at the hour of the feast sent to call the invited." Also, through Isaiah, the promises of eating and drinking are given: "Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty." Yet, in Genesis, God places man in the paradise of delight, giving laws about eating this and not eating that. And man would have remained immortal, had he eaten from every tree in the paradise, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See also what is said in the twenty-first Psalm about those who worship because they have eaten: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and worshipped," for this reason: "The Lord will not let the soul of the righteous go hungry," but when we become unjust, He will send "a famine upon the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." Therefore, as we progress, we shall eat greater and better food, until perhaps we reach the point of eating the same food as the Son of God, which the disciples at present do not know. Heracleon did not speak anything significant to this word.

[John 4:33] The disciples therefore said to one another, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?"

Even if Heracleon understands these things carnally as having been said by the disciples, who still think more humbly and imitate the Samaritan woman saying, "You have no bucket and the well is deep," it is fitting for us to consider whether the disciples, seeing something more divine, said to one another, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?" For perhaps they suspected that some angelic power had brought him food; and it is reasonable that they were taught because of this that the food he had to eat was greater, which was to do "the will of the one who sent him and to finish his work."

[John 4:34] Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work."

The appropriate food for the Son of God when He becomes the doer of the Father's will is to will in Himself what was also in the Father, so that the will of God may be in the will of the Son, and the will of the Son may become identical with the will of the Father, so that there may no longer be two wills but one will; this one will is the reason for the Son saying, "I and the Father are one," and through this will whoever has seen the Son has seen the One who sent Him. And it is more appropriate for us to consider doing the Father's will by the Son as this: from which will even the things outside of the will occur rightly, rather than us to think that the doing of the will of the One who sent us is to do something external. For that which occurs outside of the will without the previously mentioned will, is not the entire will of the Father; but the whole will of the Father is done by the Son whenever the will of God is done in the Son, doing these things which the will of God wishes. Only the Son does the entire will of the Father, and thus He is also His image. We must also consider concerning the Holy Spirit. But the other holy things will do nothing contrary to the will of God, and indeed whatever they do, they do according to the will of God, yet they do not suffice to perfectly represent the whole will. And this holy one compared to that holy one is greater or more complete or more perfect as it departs from the paternal will, and again different from it something else will depart respectively; but the whole and entire will of God is done by Him who said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me." After this, indeed, He says thankfully concerning God, "The Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He does." Perhaps for these reasons He is the image of the invisible God; for His will is the image of the primary will, and His divinity is the image of the true divinity; and being the image of the Father's goodness, He says, "Why do you call Me good?" And this will is the Son’s peculiar food, through which the food is what it is. That the will concerns the disposition is shown by the succeeding word, which says after the doing of the will to complete the work of God. Additionally, we must consider this to understand what "I will complete His work" means. Someone might simply say that the commanded work, which is from Him who commanded, * * as we say of examples, indicating those building or cultivating to complete the work of the one who took them to the work, in the doing for which they were received; someone else might say that if the work of God is completed by Christ, it is clear that this, before being completed, was incomplete. How then was it imperfect, the work of God? And how is the work of God perfected by the one who said: "The Father who sent me is greater than I"? But the perfection of the work was the perfection of the rational being; for this came, being imperfect, to render perfect the Word who became flesh. Was then the work created imperfect, and the Savior sent to perfect the imperfect? And how is it not absurd for the Father to be the maker of the imperfect, and the Savior to perfect the imperfect, having been created imperfect? I suppose a deeper mystery lies hidden in these passages; for perhaps the rational being was not entirely imperfect at the same time it was placed in paradise. For how would God have placed the entirely imperfect in paradise to work and guard it? For the one able to work "the tree of life" and everything planted by God and subsequently sprouted, could not reasonably be called imperfect. Perhaps, being somehow perfect, it became imperfect through disobedience and needed the one who would perfect it from imperfection, and thus the Savior was sent, first to do the will of the one who sent him, becoming his servant even here, and second to perfect the work of God and each one perfected may be suitable for solid food and exercise wisdom. "Solid food is for the perfect, those who through practice have their senses trained to distinguish good from evil." And the one speaking wisdom says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect." And when each of us, the work of God, is perfected by Jesus, he will say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." Not only man, but also the "sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they are fair, took for themselves wives of all whom they chose," and consistently all those who left "their own dwelling" and did not preserve their own principality - and by "principality" I mean not in reference to power but to the beginning and foundation; just as for man, the beginning was to be in paradise, but the end perhaps due to transgression in Hades below or some such place, so also for each of the fallen ones a particular beginning is given. However, Jesus perfecting the work of God, I say every rational being, not man alone, perfects it in the same way; indeed the more blessed ones persuade reason without toil alone are perfected by the word; others, having disobeyed the word, require sufferings, so that after sufferings they may later be brought to reason and then perfected by it. Nevertheless, both are one food own to Jesus, to do the will of the one who sent him and to perfect his work. But Heracleon interprets "My food is to do the will of him who sent me" to mean the Savior dismissed his disciples that this was what he was discussing with the woman, calling the will of the Father his proper food; for this was his nourishment and rest and power. And he said that the will of the Father is to know men the Father and be saved, which was the work of the Savior who for this was sent into Samaria, that is, into the world. He thus understood Jesus' food and discourse with the Samaritan woman, which I think is clearly evident to all, understood plainly and forced. But how the will of the Father is the food of the Savior he did not clearly show, nor how the will of the Father is rest; for the Lord says in another place, as if not all of the Father's will is his rest: "Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what you [will]." And how also is the will of God the strength of the Savior?

Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. To those who think it is said more simply and physically, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest"?' it must be pointed out that one must be persuaded that the Savior often spoke of the spiritual and the unseen. For if the time when Jesus said this was four months before the actual harvest, it is clear that it was winter. In Judea, the harvest begins in the month calls Nisan by the Hebrews, when the Passover is celebrated, and often they make unleavened bread from new wheat. But let us grant that the harvest is not in that month, but in the following month called Iyar by them. Thus, the time four months prior would be considered winter. Therefore, if we show that when Jesus said these things it was near the time of harvest, either approaching or already at hand, we will have demonstrated the context. It should be noted that after the incident in Cana of Galilee concerning the turning of water into wine, the Lord is said to have gone down to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples, where they stayed a few days; and it was near the Passover of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. There he found those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves in the temple, and made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple. After talking with Nicodemus, he came himself and his disciples into the land of Judea, where he stayed with them and baptized. How much time should we assume he spent baptizing in Judea after the Passover? For it is not written explicitly. And it seems, as the Pharisees had learned that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, he left Judea and went into Galilee, passing through Samaria. He said what no one expected, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest?"'. If someone supposes that Jesus stayed many months in Judea baptizing with his disciples after the Passover, so that it was already at the time four months before the harvest, it should be noted that he stayed two days with the Samaritans and then went into Galilee, and it is written, as the Passover had recently occurred and the events with him in Jerusalem, 'When he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all that he did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also went to the feast'. But it is plausible that someone might say these things do not contradict him staying in Judea for a longer period before coming to Jacob's well, and departing for Galilee, at which point 'There are yet four months,' he said, 'to the harvest'; and there is nothing strange in the Galileans receiving him because of what happened eight months prior in Jerusalem. It should be read to them that upon coming into Galilee, "He went to Cana of Galilee, where" He had previously made "the water wine", where also He healed the son of the royal official who was sick at Capernaum, saying to his father: "Your son lives", and "After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem", when He healed the paralytic who had been sick for thirty-eight years. If this feast is the Passover—for the name of it is not given—the sequence of the story is troubled, especially since shortly after it is said, "The feast of the Jews, the Feast of Tabernacles, was near." Examining these things further, it is fitting for the one who observes the deeper meaning of the scriptures to inquire into what Jesus, meaning, said to His disciples, "Do you not say, 'There are four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are already white for harvest." Just as we said considering the Samaritans about the issues concerning the waters, so let us do here also. For who would not agree that "Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are white for harvest already" is spiritual, and entirely spiritual, being bare of the physical? It would follow that the disciples' saying that after four months the harvest would come refers, as far as their understanding, to the harvest shown by Jesus. We think, therefore, that there is something similar in the disciples saying, "There are four months, and then comes the harvest"; most of the disciples of the Word, understanding that the truth is difficult to attain to human nature, when they have received the concept of another life beyond the present one, having despaired in the present they suppose they will grasp the truth after transcending the four elements. Accordingly, the disciples say concerning the harvest, which is the completion of the works of those who gather the truth, that it occurs after the present tetrad. But the name of the months has been taken appropriately to the bodily discourse concerning the harvest. For it would not have been fitting to say, "Do not you say: There are yet four days, and harvest comes" or "There are yet four years, and harvest comes?" Especially since the word desires to conceal the mystical from the many and the more bodily-minded, revealing what is simpler to make the words spoken by the Savior appear clear. Or perhaps the intention of the disciples saying: "There are yet four months, and harvest comes" is such: there are four spheres of the four elements underlying the etheric nature, in the middle and lowest place, of earth, around it that of water, and thirdly that of air, and fourthly that of fire, after which is that of the moon, and so on. And we should consider whether the disciples understand that those who have become nearer to the purer essence will grasp the truth when one can also surpass the sphere of fire, not being corrupted by sin, which is the matter of everything in the regions before the * * * etheric places * *. Refuting this notion as unhealthy, the Word made flesh says to those who think so, "Do not you say: There are yet four months, and harvest comes? Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and see the fields that they are white for harvest already." For it indeed seems inconceivable to us that he would be talking about a single harvest in all these things when he reproaches the disciples who think, as they suppose, that the harvest comes after four months, which we have shown previously does not seem capable of occurring after four months; and correcting, as it were, the notion of the disciples, he says, "Do not you say this? But I say this;" besides, how is it not absurd to allegorically interpret the "Lift up your eyes" clearly, and the "See the fields that they are white for harvest already," but not take allegorically the preceding "Do not you say: There are yet four months, and harvest comes?" And Heracleon, likewise, remained with the common interpretation of the phrase, not thinking it could be elevated. He says, indeed, that he speaks of the harvest of crops, which still has a period of four months, but that the harvest he spoke of was already present. And also, I do not know how he understood the harvest in relation to the soul of believers, saying that they are already ripe and ready for harvest and suitable for being gathered into the barn, that is, through faith into rest, as many indeed are ready; for not all are; for, he says, some were already ready, others were about to be, others are already being sown. Thus he said. But how can the disciples, lifting up their eyes, see the souls already suitable for being, as he thinks, gathered into the barn, I do not know how he can show. And indeed, how is the saying "One sows, and another reaps" and "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored" true concerning the souls? How can we accept the statement "Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor" concerning the soul? Therefore, we understand the harvest of the gathered fruit into eternal life as the completion of the word sown in ideas for us, perfected from greater cultivation. How one sows and another reaps we will discuss further on.

[John 4:35] Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are white already to harvest.

In many places in scripture is the phrase "Lift up your eyes" set forth by the divine word, urging us to elevate and raise our thoughts and our vision, which is cast down and stooped, unable to fully look up and to rise on high; just as in Isaiah: "Lift up your eyes on high and see: who has created these things?" And the Savior, when about to proclaim the Beatitudes to those gathered on the plain, lifted up his eyes to his disciples and said, "Blessed are they" and so forth; for no true disciple of Jesus is below, just as neither is the one resting in Abraham's bosom. Thus the rich man, being in torments, lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom. Moreover, the woman "bowed together and could in no wise lift up herself" was straightened by Jesus so that she might lift up her eyes. And no one involuntarily afflicted or attached to the flesh or immersed in material things has kept the commandment that says, "Lift up your eyes," whence such a one shall not see the fields even if they are "already white to harvest." Yet again, no one working the deeds of the flesh has lifted up their eyes. The fields are "already white for harvest" when the word of God is present, making all the fields of scripture fully illumined by His presence. Perhaps even all perceptible things, up to the very heavens and those within them, are fields white and ready for harvest to those who lift up their eyes, clearly shown to those receiving the word concerning each thing, transformed from glory to glory, an image of the eyes seeing how each created thing was good; for the "God saw" concerning each creature, "that it was good" is such because God inserted into each the word concerning it and saw how each created thing is good according to the words concerning them. But if someone does not thus accept "God saw that it was good," let them tell how in "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heaven" is preserved the "God saw that it was good," especially since "God created the great sea creatures." Rather, the word concerning each of these things, seen by God, is what is "good." The same must be said concerning "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind," to which also is appended "God saw that it was good." For how are the beasts and creeping things good unless the word concerning them is what is good? These things are said to us because of "Lift up your eyes and look at the fields for they are white already to harvest," exhorting the hearers of the present word to lift up their eyes both to the fields of scripture and to the fields of the word within each being, that someone might see the whiteness and brightness of the light of truth everywhere. "For all things are straight before those who understand," according to Solomon, "and right to those who wish to find knowledge."

[John 4:36] The one who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that the one who sows and the one who reaps may rejoice together.

I think it is necessary to present in how many ways the harvest is mentioned in scripture and on what grounds it is arranged, so that we may be able to see here to which of the many meanings the word is applied. We see in Matthew, when the disciples came to the Lord saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field," the Lord's teaching about this says among other things, "The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels." But indeed also in another place, concerning the multitude of believers seeking a clear teaching to them about the things they believe in, our Savior says, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest." Besides this, the apostle names the seed as the good deeds or sins of people in this life, and the harvest as the retribution for these, each according to its merit, saying thus; "For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." I believe that the prophet expressed something similar in Psalms, "Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. He who continually goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." The term is also used in customary matters, for instance in Ruth through this: "They arrived at Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest." Having presented five significances at this time, it is evident that neither the customary meaning is implied here, nor that assigned to the end of the age; for neither the customary “the one who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life” nor the encouraging thought about the angel reapers can be sensibly understood in this context. Nor can the phrase “the one who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life” be taken here according to “the one who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, and the one who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” For according to the apostolic sayings, the same one is both sowing and reaping, whether to the flesh or to the Spirit, and hence gathering either corruption or eternal life; but according to the current passage, “one is the sower and another the reaper.” Similarly, the same one both sows and reaps according to what we have stated in the Psalms, distinctly differing from the apostolic in its more mystical and inscrutable nature. For the apostolic is expressed more simply, not teaching about the differing nature of the seeds from where they are taken. However, the Psalms seem to me to indicate about the descent of the nobler souls arriving in this life with the salvific seeds, and arriving indeed almost unwillingly with a sigh, but returning with rejoicing because the seeds have been well cultivated and have grown and multiplied, along with those who have gathered them. "One sows and another reaps" in the proposed phrase. And Heracleon will say, perhaps along with someone ecclesiastical in agreement with this view, that these things are similarly stated to the one indicated by "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few," that they are ready for harvest and suitable to already be gathered into the storehouse through faith for rest, and suitable for salvation and reception of the word. According to Heracleon, through their preparation and nature, and according to the ecclesiastical, through some preparation of the leading part, ready for completion so that it may also be harvested. Therefore, it must be spoken to those who received it in this manner, if they wish to accept, that there has perhaps not been a harvest similar to the one hoped for from the times of the gospel preaching before the advent of our Savior. For if many have believed because the harvest is plentiful, though there were few workers beyond the apostles as many as received the word, either through "Look at the fields, that they are white for harvest already," no one before the physical advent of our Savior believed, nor was there any worker among the believers—which is the most absurd to claim—Abraham and Moses and the prophets did not occupy the position of workers or the reaped. Or if indeed there were workers and harvest even before, it will not seem paradoxical for the Savior to promise to those who lift up their eyes to see the fields "that they are white for harvest already." From these things, indeed, it may be somehow clear that none of the aforementioned is understood here according to the harvest. Nor will the thing said by the apostle elsewhere be applied here, saying "The one who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the one who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully." Therefore, we seek a seventh meaning suitable to the previously given ones concerning "Do you not say, 'There are still four months, and then comes the harvest?' Behold, I say to you, lift your eyes, and look at the fields, that they are white for harvest already." So, the clear discourse about the clarity of the scriptures or how "all that God has made is very good" in connection with the harvest, which the reaper has two fruits of reaping: one that he receives a reward, and another that he gathers fruit for eternal life. And I think that due to the promises to come after these things according to what is written: "Behold, the Lord and His reward is with Him, to give to each one according to his work," it was said "Receives a reward"; and due to the benefit from the very contemplation itself, naturally inherent in the intellect, and inherently superior to reason and apart from other promises beside this, it is written: "Gathers fruit unto eternal life," which indicates some well-being of the ruling part, as we have demonstrated in the third book of the Stromata explaining "Your Father who sees in secret will reward you." But Heracleon thinks that "Reaps a reward" was said because the Savior says that he is a reaper. And he considers the reward of our Lord to be the salvation and restoration of those being reaped, in that he is pleased with them. And he says that "Gathers fruit unto eternal life" was spoken either because what is gathered is the fruit of eternal life, or because it itself is eternal life. But I think his interpretation is forced, claiming the Savior receives a reward and confusing the reward and the gathering of the fruit into one, while the scripture presents two distinct things, as we have previously explained. Therefore, if we have attained the exaltation of the apostles' eyes and the vision of the fields already white unto harvest, we must next examine what "That both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together" means. I think that in every art and science derived from many theories, he who finds the principles sows, and others taking them and working on them, passing on what was found to others, become the cause of what they found for the later ones who were unable to find the principles and link the subsequent parts and complete the end of arts and sciences, to receive the full fruit of such arts and sciences as in the harvest. If this is true for arts and certain sciences, how much more can it be perceived in the highest art and science of sciences. For those coming after have elaborated on what was found by the predecessors and handed it down to those who approach the findings inquisitively, providing sources so that the one body of truth can be gathered together with wisdom. Therefore, with the whole work of the highest art completed, "both he who sows and he who reaps rejoice together," with God rewarding and bringing to a unified end all. Consider if "those who sow" are Moses and the prophets, who wrote for our admonition, reaching the ends of the ages, and proclaimed the advent of Christ; and "those who reap" are the apostles who received Christ and witnessed His glory, in agreement with the prophetic rational seeds harvested through their elaboration and understanding of the mystery hidden from the ages, now revealed at the end of times, which "in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets." The whole word was a seed "according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now revealed through the prophetic scriptures" and the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the true light made the regions, illuminating them, already white unto harvest. According to this argument, the regions in which the seeds were sown are the legal and prophetic scriptures, which were not white to those who had not advanced to the presence of the Word. But they become such to the disciples of the Son of God and to those who obey Him who says, "Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are white for harvest already." Therefore, as genuine disciples of Jesus, let us lift up our eyes and behold the fields sown by Moses and the prophets, so that we may see their whiteness and in what way it is already possible to harvest them and gather fruit unto eternal life, while also hoping for wages from the Lord of the fields and the giver of the seeds. For the sower and the reaper to rejoice together when "pain and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" in the age to come, everyone who agrees with the readers will confess: "That many shall come from the east and the west and will sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." If anyone hesitates to accept that every sower already rejoices together with every reaper, let him understand that the transformation of Jesus in glory was seen not only by the reapers Peter, James, and John, who went up with Him, but also by the sowers Moses and Elijah; they too rejoiced seeing the glory of the Son of God, which neither Moses nor Elijah had seen before, though enlightened by the Father, now illuminated and illuminating those seeing it, as they now behold it along with the holy apostles. Thus, we understand universally the statement "He who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit unto eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together," since more reapers and more laborers are addressed following it, as it clearly pertains to sowing. It is said to many reapers, "I sent you to reap what you did not labor for," and to many who toiled in the sowing, "Others have toiled and you have entered into their labors." This equally can be understood universally in "He who reaps receives wages" and the following phrase, "Everyone who reaps receives wages and gathers fruit unto eternal life," so that everyone who sows and everyone who reaps may rejoice together. Some will readily accept these words, not doubting that what was hidden in past generations and to Moses and the prophets has been revealed to the holy apostles through Christ's presence, illuminating them with the knowledge of all scripture's light; others will hesitate to accept it, not daring to say that such great Moses and the prophets had not yet reached what was understood by the apostles while they lived in human life and because this is sown in the divine scriptures ministered by them. The former will use the saying "Many prophets and righteous men longed to see the things you see but did not see them, and to hear the things you hear but did not hear them", and "Behold, something greater than Solomon is here", and "In other generations, it was not known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ", and that which is written in Daniel after a certain vision, "I arose, and there was none who understood", and that in Isaiah, "The words of this book are like the words of a sealed book, which if they give it to a man learned in letters, saying, Read this, he will say, I cannot, for it is sealed. And if they give it to a man not learned, saying, Read this, he will say, I am not learned."

But the latter will resolve all these with the saying, "A wise man will understand from his own mouth, and on his lips, he wears discernment," saying Moses and each of the prophets comprehended what was ministered by them, not so that they might hand it down to others and unfold the mysteries; but the apostles, as having become in the time of revelation, will say, "Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught" and "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also", and that although many prophets and righteous men longed to see what the apostles saw and heard from the Savior, they did not long for the legal and prophetic writings, but for greater things being declared in addition to the spiritual matters of the law and the secrets of the prophets by the Savior to the apostles, such as "I heard ineffable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" and things similar to what the Comforter says.

Yet another will argue that if the evangelist is narrating about the one reaping receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, saying "that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together," then, if it is so that both the sower and the reaper may rejoice together, receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, perhaps the sower, participating in the reaper's reward and gathering the fruit gathered for eternal life, will rejoice at the same time as the reaper. Another will say that all the legal and prophetic words were precisely understood spiritually by Moses and the prophets and were written as they should be covered and concealed; and since " When a wise man hears a word of wisdom, he will praise it and add to it," it is clear that the apostles, using the seeds of more mysterious and deeper things understood by Moses and the prophets, have advanced to reach the many-fold sights of truth, as Jesus was lifting their eyes and enlightening their minds, and the many-fold were the harvests of the many fields; not because the prophets and Moses from the beginning could not see as much as the apostles during Jesus' presence, but as those waiting for the fullness of time, in which after the exceptional presence of Jesus Christ, exceptional things beyond what had been spoken in the world or written were to be revealed by Him who did not regard "being equal with God a thing to be grasped," but emptied Himself and took "the form of a servant."

[John 4:37] For in this the saying is true: that one sows and another reaps.

Whether we take the example from the arts and sciences in place, it is clear how this saying is true: that one is the sower and another the reaper; whether in that Moses and the prophets sow, but those who lift their eyes according to the exhortations of our Savior Jesus see that the fields were white already for harvest, it is thus clear that one sows and another reaps. Consider if it is possible to understand the "one" and "another" in that those are justified in such a manner of life, and these in another way, so that we may say that one is the legalist and another the evangelical. However, they both rejoice in one end from one God through one Christ in one Holy Spirit. And Heracleon explained "that the sower may rejoice together with the reaper" thus: for he says that the sower rejoices because he sows, and because some of his seeds are already gathered, having the same hope for the rest; and the reaper likewise because he also reaps; but the first began by sowing, and the second by reaping. For they could not both begin at the same time; for it was necessary for it first to be sown, and then later to be reaped. Moreover, while the sower has ceased to sow, the reaper still reaps; yet at present, each performing their own work, both rejoice together considering the completion of the seeds to be a common joy. And again, in "In this the saying is true: that one sows and another reaps," he says: the son of man sows above the place; but the savior, being himself also the son of man, reaps and sends reapers who are understood as angels through the disciples, each over his own soul. But he did not very clearly set forth who the two sons of man are, one of whom sows and the other reaps.

[John 4:38] I sent you to reap what you have not labored for; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.

It is not difficult from the foregoing to see how Jesus sent the disciples to reap this, for which they did not labor, but others before them did; for Moses and the prophets labored, that they might be able to comprehend the mysteries, the traces of which they left us in their writings. The apostles have entered into the labor of Moses and the prophets, with Jesus their mystagogue reaping and gathering into the storehouses of their souls the understanding from those [writings]. Moreover, the word always makes the labor of the predecessors clearer to those being taught genuinely, without the similar toil of the sowers. In all things concerning those sowing by others and reaping by others, it is to be considered whether the apostles, helpers in the completion of what has been sown, enter into the labor of others, reaping and finding fruits in those benefited, which the coming of Jesus has made ready for harvest even before the hopeful four-month period. If these things are so, it is worth pondering whether the ministry of angels to sow souls into bodies is laborious, bringing together in unison two contradicting natures, beginning to administer each individual case in due time, and advancing to completion what has been preformed. But someone might say that it is contradictory to assert that God himself is the one who forms, both in "Your hands have made and fashioned me" and in "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you." To this, it should be said that just as the law was ordained through angels, and the word spoken by angels was confirmed, it is clear that it was spoken by God. Thus, it is also conceivable that God, through the angels appointed over creation, is said to fashion in the womb. I do not know if it accounts for what is uncertain and something like this could be said: that those who said "Your hands have made and fashioned me"—Job and David—being part of God's portion, were fashioned by Him, and Jeremiah hearing, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you"—as being to be part of God’s portion—was fashioned by Him; while those of other portions are fashioned by those who received them by lot. And even more curiously, this argument avoids the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," as said by God about all men and initiating the work which was later performed also by the rest unto whom the word was addressed, according to their own portion, God saying to them, "Let us make man," and who again says at the confusion of the languages, "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language." But we say these things without making any determinations, for such deep matters require much examination, to determine whether it is indeed so or otherwise. Yet we must not disdain such an interpretation; each person is a portion of someone according to the "When the Most High divided the nations, as He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the borders of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and God's portion became His people, Jacob, the lot of His inheritance Israel." If each person is thus certainly a portion of someone, with God dispersing the sons of Adam, each of the angels works with his own portion, managing what pertains to it. But during the Savior's coming, they are taken captive into the obedience of Christ from every portion by the apostles and evangelists and teachers serving the gospel, under Christ, and are brought to become the inheritance of Christ among the nations. Could it therefore perhaps be said, to those apostles who would soon after hear, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," "Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor"? If holy angels are those who have received the other portions separate from the chosen one and are appointed over the dispersion of souls, it is not unreasonable for the sower and the reaper to rejoice together after the harvest. But Heracleon says that these seeds were not sown by or from the apostles, but those who have toiled are the angels of the economy, through whom, as intermediaries, the seed was sown and nurtured. And in "You have entered into their labor," he interpreted this: for the labor of those who sow and those who reap is not the same; for those who sow, digging the earth in cold and water and toil, and throughout the winter care, cleaning and selecting the woods, while those who enter the ready fruit during summer rejoice harvesting. It will be permissible for the one comparing, encountering what we have said and what has been found by Heracleon, to see which of the narratives could be achieved.

[John 4:39] And from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me everything I ever did."

When the Samaritan woman left her water jar and went into the city to evangelize about the Savior, and those who believed in the word of the woman came to the Lord, in the meantime, the Savior being with the disciples has spoken the previously mentioned words, while the disciples were asking him to eat. After speaking to the disciples as much as possible, the scripture returns to those who came from the city to him and believed because of the testimony of the woman saying, "He told me everything I ever did." If we hold to what was previously said about Samaria and the Samaritan woman and Jacob's well, it is not difficult to see how those initially constrained by other teachings, upon encountering sound doctrine, leave the city of dogmas, and going out, come to healthy belief by means of one who had first progressed at Jacob's well in saving teaching, and leaving the aforementioned water jar to invite others to similarly benefit. Heracleon understood "from the city" as "from the world"; "because of the word of the woman" as by means of the spiritual church; he also marks "many" as referring to many of a psychic nature, and he speaks of the one as the incorruptible nature of the chosen, singular and unique. We have stood by what was previously said, as far as it was possible, to address these matters.

[John 4:40-41] So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them. And he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word.

It is not improbable that someone might correlate the statement, "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans," with this passage. Because when the Savior was asked to stay with the Samaritans, "he stayed there two days," though he had said, "Do not enter a city of the Samaritans." Clearly, then, his disciples also had entered with him. It should be said here that to go into the way of the Gentiles is to adopt some doctrine foreign to the "Israel of God," and to follow it; to enter a city of the Samaritans is to engage in spurious knowledge, concerning those who profess to focus on the words of the law, or the prophets, or the gospel, or the apostles. However, when the Samaritans left their own city and came to Jesus by Jacob's well, recognizing the good intention of those who believed, Jesus stayed with those who asked him. I think that John precisely recorded that the Samaritans did not ask him to enter Samaria, or to enter their city, but simply to stay with them; for it is not the same thing to stay with a believer and to enter his city. Furthermore, the passage also does not say, "And he stayed in that city two days," or "he stayed in Samaria," but, "He stayed there," that is, with those who asked him. For Jesus stays with those who ask him, especially when those asking him leave their own city and come to Jesus, in imitation of Abraham, who was persuaded by God saying, "Get out of your country and from your kindred and from your father's house." Jesus stays with those who ask him for two days because they could not yet accommodate his third day, since they were not capable of receiving a great miracle, like those in Cana of Galilee who dined with Jesus on the third day at the wedding. The beginning of the belief by many from Samaria was due to the word of the woman testifying, "He told me all that I ever did"; but the growth and increase in the many more who believed were not any longer because of the woman's word but because of his own word. For the word itself, shining light on the receiver, is not perceived the same when it testifies through another. Heracleon interprets that he stayed "with them" and not "in them" for two days, suggesting this means the present age and the future age represented in marriage, or the time before his passion and the time after, during which he brought many to faith by his own word and then separated from them. This interpretation implies that "with them" and not "in them" is written, comparing it to "Behold, I am with you always," for he did not say, "I am in you." Mentioning the two days also signifies this age and the next, or the time before and after the passion. However, it overlooks the future ages following the coming age, as stated by the apostle, "that in the ages to come he might show," nor does it recognize that Jesus remains with those who come to him not just before and after his passion but always, never leaving his disciples, so much so that they could say, "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me."

[John 4:42] They said to the woman: "No longer do we believe because of your words, for we have heard for ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior of the world."

They renounce the faith because of the woman's words, having found a better one than that, in having heard the savior himself, to know also that "this is truly the savior of the world." And it is indeed better to become an eyewitness of the word and to hear directly from him teaching without instruments and to perceive through the teaching the clearest forms of truth, than not seeing him and also not being enlightened by his power through ministers who have seen him, to hear the word about him. For it is impossible for the one learning from the seer and recounting to affect the rational soul in the same way as to the one who has seen, and indeed it is better to walk by sight than by faith. Therefore, those who walk as if by sight are said to be in the earlier gifts in "the word of wisdom" through the Spirit of God and "the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit"; and those who walk by faith, even if faith is a gift according to "to another faith by the same Spirit," are in the later order than the previous ones. But we must examine when and how Paul says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." For how, as many suppose, does the one who says most profoundly walk by faith and not by sight: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?" Let us then see how we should understand the statement "For we walk by faith, not by sight," considering it from what has been stated above: "Now the one who has formed us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore we are always courageous and we know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord—for we walk by faith, not by sight." It is clear, then, that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord—being courageous, "we would rather be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord." When these things are spoken in this way to understand what it means to be at home in the body and away from the Lord, and what it means to be away from the body and at home with the Lord, let us learn what we shall say about the apostle. Whether being at home in the body, he was away from the Lord, or being away from the body, he was at home with the Lord. Clearly, since "those who are in the flesh cannot please God," the saints are not in the flesh "but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them." Paul was not in the flesh nor in the body; for he says truly, "I think that I also have the Spirit of God," not being at home in the flesh and body, but walking by faith, not by sight. And see if it can belong to apostolic precision to distinguish between "being in the flesh" and "being at home in the body"; "for those who are in the flesh cannot please God"; but those who are at home in the body are "away from the Lord"; nevertheless, they walk by faith, even if not yet proceeding by sight. And I think that those who are in the flesh are those who wage war according to the flesh, and those who are at home in the body and away from the Lord are those who do not understand the spiritual things of scripture, but wholly adhere to it and the body; for how is he not away from the Lord if "the Lord is the Spirit," who has not yet grasped the life-giving Spirit and the spiritual meaning of scripture? However, such a one walks by faith, and is away from the body and at home with the Lord, who compares spiritual things with spiritual and becomes spiritual, who judges all things but is judged by no one. Although these things may seem to have been said with a digression into apostolic words, they are nevertheless most necessary for distinguishing the reason of the Samaritans, who no longer believe because of the woman's speech but having heard for themselves and knowing that "this is the Savior of the world." It is not at all surprising that it is said concerning some that they walk by faith and not by sight, and concerning others, by sight greater than walking by faith. Heracleon, however, more simply took the words "we no longer believe because of your speech" saying that "only" is missing. For still towards the words "for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is the Savior of the world," he says: people at first believe in the Savior being led by humans, but when they encounter His words, they no longer believe through mere human testimony, but through the truth itself.

[John 4:43-44] After the two days He departed from there to Galilee, for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

The phrase appears very inconsistent. What connection is there between His leaving after two days from the Samaritans, with whom He stayed, and going to Galilee, “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country”? For if Samaria were His country and He was dishonored there, then it would have consistently followed that “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country” applies here. But even if it were written, “After the two days He departed into Galilee, but it did not happen in His own country,” “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country,” the statement would still make sense. And perhaps the intent of the speaker is this, though John expressed it awkwardly, as he was unpolished in his use of language.

For it is not mentioned where in Galilee they accepted Him, “having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast.” Nonetheless, it is recorded that He came “to Cana of Galilee” afterward. The evangelist listens to himself and is not puzzled about the narrative. After mentioning in what manner the Lord left Judea and went to Galilee – and describing how He necessarily had to pass through Samaria, narrating the incidents near the plot of ground Jacob gave to Joseph by Jacob's well, and how He stayed two days with the Samaritans – he resumes the account of His arrival in Galilee, despite many intervening matters being narrated. Since we have previously noted that Judea symbolizes something superior as it is positioned above, and Galilee something inferior, the compassionate God does not overlook the inspection of the lesser, and hence leaves the Samaritans promptly to attend to those Galileans who would willingly receive Him and to heal a nobleman’s son. Having done these things in Galilee, with the feast of the Jews at hand, He goes up to Jerusalem, making the feast more joyful and significant by His presence.

Let us see also what this means, “for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country,” and let us seek the sense of the phrase deserving of Jesus’ testimony. The homeland of the prophets was indeed in Judea, and it is evident that they did not receive honor among the Jews, having been stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, slain with the sword, wandering in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented. And the Jews are reproached by the one who says to them: "Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they have killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One?" Furthermore, they dishonored even the ultimate prophet, through whom the prophets became prophets: "Away with him, away with him, crucify him," they said. In my homeland, however, all the prophets and the one raised up by God according to what was said about him by Moses— "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren like unto me; him shall you hear"—are honored; for was not his homeland among the nations that had accepted salvation through Israel's transgression? And it is also written elsewhere: "No prophet is accepted in his homeland and in his own house," and it is useful to gather from the Gospels when and to whom this was said regarding the Savior. It is remarkable to observe the truth of the Savior’s statement, which is seen not only in regard to the holy prophets who were dishonored by their own people and to our Lord himself but also to those who excelled in some wisdom and were despised by their fellow citizens, so that some of them were even led to death. This can be gathered from Greek history concerning those who philosophized and practiced astronomy or excelled in any other study. And there are such voices of dishonor: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers are with us? From whence then does this man have all these things?" And it is most paradoxical of the prophets that, while alive, their fellow citizens did not honor them, but upon their death, they attend to them by building and adorning their tombs. To build and adorn the monuments of the prophets is when someone, leaving aside the life-giving spirit that resides in the intentions of their writings, attends to and decorates the letter that kills, thinking the beauty of the prophecy lies in the mere letter. This is the work of those who are tormented by the Lord—the scribes and Pharisees, the scribes named after the mere letter, and the Pharisees, who are divided and have lost the divine unity; for Pharisee means "the separated ones."

[John 4:45] When therefore he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.

It is worth seeing the reason for the acceptance of the Galileans, who received the Savior coming into Galilee, if it was such as to instill amazement and wonder about the Savior, so as to receive him; and what is referred to by the many things he did in Jerusalem, the "having seen all the things he did in Jerusalem at the feast.” We find nothing mentioned before, except that "he found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting; and having made a scourge of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables, and to those who sold doves he said, 'Take these things hence, make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.'” What therefore is so great in these things, that the Galileans, moved by them, received the Lord, testified because of this to have received him, since having come to the feast in Jerusalem they saw all the things Jesus did there? If we remember the things said in the place indicating no less power to be manifested by the Savior in those things than that which worked to make the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk, it must be said that what the Galileans, realizing what they never thought, and being astonished at the divinity of Jesus, received him coming into Galilee "having seen all the things he did in Jerusalem.” And the "all these things” were, with the scourge of cords, driving out of the temple both the sheep and the oxen and pouring out the changers' money and overturning the tables, and with authority telling those who sold doves, "Take these things hence, make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.” Yet I think he did not only these things then, but also other signs; for it is added to those, "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast, many believed in his name, observing his signs which he did"; upon which also Nicodemus says, “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” But it is permitted for a Galilean to be celebrating in Jerusalem, where the temple of God is, and to see all the things Jesus did there, especially how he drove out with the scourge of cords those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, the sheep and the oxen and the rest. For the feast in Jerusalem is the beginning for the Galileans to also receive the Son of God coming to them; for if they had not seen the things at the feast, they would not have received him; nor would he have so eagerly come to them if they had not been prepared to receive him, having left those who asked him to "stay with them." But those who received Jesus also received the one who sent him; for he says, "He who receives me receives the one who sent me." First, then, one must see, that is, understand, all the works of Jesus in Jerusalem, how he cleanses the temple, restoring it to be "the house of my Father" and no longer “a house of merchandise,” so that after seeing these things, we may receive the word who worked these things. I think that the one who has not seen all the works of Jesus in Jerusalem will not receive Jesus, nor will he come to this visit, which is a symbol of the visit to those who have not previously gone up to the feast and have not seen all the things he did in Jerusalem.

[John 4:46] Then he came again to Cana of Galilee, where he had made the water wine.

Whatever we have discussed concerning Cana, we have said above. And not without reason are there two visits of Jesus in Cana; for perhaps they signify the two comings of the Savior into the world: the first, to bring joy to those feasting, and the second, to raise the son of a certain royal one, now near death, but not a king's son. Perhaps the royal one was Abraham or Jacob, whose people—the son—, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, he will save in the end. And there can also be two presences of the Word in the soul: the former offering wine made from water for the joy of those at the feast, and the latter removing every remaining weakness and the threat of death. It is not surprising if most of the works of God are hidden, with Jesus doing many things for the salvation of those in various places, of which types are the remaining recorded passages. By visiting twice in this Cana, he confirms the possession of those who believe in the Father through him from this land.

[John 4:46-53] And there was a certain royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. And he believed, and his whole house as well.

We do not commonly find among the Jews the name “royal official,” hence neither do we, with respect to the story, cast our minds to who this royal official was, and whose king's name he bore. The more genuine would consider this royal official to be a man of King Herod’s. But another, similar to this one, will say that this royal official came from the household of Caesar, doing something around Judea at that time; for it is not found clearly whether he was a Jew, since it does not follow his son who was sick in Capernaum was native to that place. His rank is also evident from the fact that his servants met him as he was coming down, saying that his son lives; for the servants are mentioned in the plural. Thus, let the history stand as it does, and the son of the royal official have recovered more elegantly by the words of the Savior at the seventh hour, freed from the fever, and his whole house believed. Let us then, as much as in us lies, investigate of whose symbol he might be and his son. Indeed, there is a great king, whose city is the true Jerusalem, and the king of kings, the one who went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to return, and coming back as king, we know none other than he who says, “But I am appointed king by him over Zion, his holy mountain, declaring the command of the Lord.” All who see and rejoice in his day are the king’s people, and those who believe in the Father through him are reputed as his kingdom, of whom we seek one and the son of him who was sick, and the following associates. We said above that the whole people are sons of Abraham, as they themselves boast, “We are Abraham’s seed and have never been enslaved to anyone,” and, “Are you greater than our father Abraham who died?” For the people boasted of him beyond the rest and with him, saying, and hence even the Savior says, “Do not begin to say, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’” or “Do not think to say, ‘We have Abraham as our father;’ for God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” But Isaiah also says to the people, “Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who bore you.” And why should we extend the argument by examples, since it is clear that he primarily holds the position of the people’s father, which is why he is specially called “father”? We therefore conjecture that the royal official is Abraham, and his son who was sick in Capernaum and was about to die represents the Israelite nation, weakened in godliness and the observance of the divine laws and falling to death unto God, inflamed by the fiery darts of the enemy and thus said to be feverish. It appears that the saints who have passed from this life care about the people, as it is written in the Maccabees many years after the assumption of Jeremiah, "This is Jeremiah, the prophet of God, who prays much for the people." Therefore, see if it is possible for us to understand that Abraham, being a nobleman, when his son was sick and about to die, requests help from our Savior, going to Him and asking that He come down and heal his son, for he was about to die. The statement, “Unless you see signs and wonders,” referring to him, has relevance to his sons, and perhaps also to himself. For as John, expecting Christ’s advent, awaited the given sign to recognize the prophesied one - and the sign was, “On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the Son of God” - so the holy ones who have fallen asleep, expecting the coming of Christ in the flesh, recognized Him through signs and wonders, believing in the hoped-for Savior through these. Quickly he asks the Lord to come down to his ailing child, fearing that death would overcome the sick, and Christ drives away the fever by His word, promising the father concerning the life of the endangered child through, "Go; your son lives." This nobleman has not only a son but also servants, symbolized by Abraham’s household and bought slaves, representing a certain inferior and subordinate belief. These, being with the sick child, witness his salvation and meet the father, announcing the child's health with, "Your child lives," indicating that they did not believe previously that the master's child lived. Not in vain does the fever leave him at the seventh hour, for this number is of rest. However, the son in Capernaum, the one who was sick and being healed in the "field of consolation," represents a race labouring but not entirely devoid of fruit. The father's faith is most complete when he believes in the son's salvation and when his whole household believes in Christ. After descending from Judea to Galilee, how Jesus performed this second sign, as much as possible, we will investigate in the following passages according to the text. If the nobleman is an image of the rulers of this age, and if his son is especially the people under his authority, and, to put it in this way, a kind of chosen ones among them, and if his illness represents a condition contrary to the will of the ruler, and Capernaum symbolizes the place of residence of those under him, it is worth examining. For I think that even some of the rulers, struck by His power and divinity, have fled to Him and deemed worthy of the things governed under them; for why indeed would men accept repentance and transform from unbelief to faith, but we hesitate to say something similar about the powers? Or let someone tell us why those clothed in flesh and blood, having transformed, are able to come to God through Christ, but those using a purer nature are all insusceptible to faith in the savior and amazement at the miraculous powers brought about by Him; but I think that even among the rulers something becomes better in the presence of Christ, so that some whole cities or even nations have come to hold more closely to the things concerning Christ. And there will be nothing strange about this interpretation if it is said to the royal official, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe." The royal official being able to entreat concerning the power of God, to come down to the place of the child's illness and heal the one that is sick; but not necessarily needing to come down to the feverish son of the royal official; for "Your son lives" is sufficient when said for the salvation of the child, the word being effective and creative of what the speaker desires. Heracleon seems to call the creator the royal official because he also ruled over what was under him; but due to his short and temporary reign, he is called royal official, as if a small king appointed by a universal king over a small kingdom; and narrates that his son in Capernaum is the soul attached to the part that is lower and toward the sea, that is, the one attached to matter, and says that his own person being weak, that is, not according to nature, was in ignorance and sins. Then the phrase "from Judea into Galilee" instead of "from the higher Judea"... I do not know how, moved by "he was about to die," he thinks he overturns the doctrines of those presuming the soul to be immortal and contributing to the notion of the soul and body perishing in hell. And Heracleon does not think the soul to be immortal, but suitable for salvation, calling it itself the one wearing incorruption mortal and immortality perishable, whenever "death is swallowed up in victory." In addition, he says that "unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe" is properly said to a person of such nature, believing by works and sensory experience and not by word. He believes "come down before my child dies" was said because the end of the law is death, arising from sins; so before, he says, the child is completely put to death by sins, the father petitions the only savior to help the son, that is, such a nature. Besides, he interprets "Your son lives" to have been said by the savior without arrogance, since he did not say "let him live," nor did he declare that he himself provided life. He says that going down to the sick one and healing him of the illness, that is, the sins, and giving life through forgiveness, he said, "Your son lives." And adds to "the man believed" that even the creator is confident that the savior can heal even when not present. He redeemed the angels of the Creator out of servitude, proclaiming it in the words, "Your son lives," showing that he is now fitting and proper and no longer engaging in improper acts. Therefore, he considers that the servants report to the king concerning the salvation of the son, as he also believes that the angels are the first to observe the actions of people in the world, whether they live strictly and sincerely after the Savior's advent. Regarding the seventh hour, he says that by this hour the nature of the healed is indicated. And in all these things, "He and his whole household believed" has been narrated concerning the angelic order and people closest to him. He says it is questioned whether certain angels who descended upon the daughters of humans will be saved. And he considers that the destruction of the Creator's humans is indicated in "The sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness." And concerning these, Isaiah prophesied, "I have borne and raised sons, but they have rejected me," calling them foreign sons, an evil seed, and a lawless vineyard producing thorns. These are Heracleon's words, which, being bolder and more impious, required much preparation to refute if they were true. I do not know how he also disbelieves in the immortality of the soul, not understanding what is implied by the term "death." For he should have examined the meaning carefully and seen if it in every way signified mortality. If it means that the soul is capable of sin and the soul that sins will die, we too will say it is mortal; but if he considers its complete dissolution and disappearance as death, we will not agree, nor can we even think that a mortal substance could transform into an immortal one, or a corruptible nature into an incorruptible one. For this is like saying something changes from physical to non-physical, as if there were a common substrate underlying both physical and non-physical natures, which remains as those dealing with these matters claim the material remains despite the qualities changing into incorruptibility. But it is not the same to clothe a corruptible nature with incorruptibility as it is to change a corruptible nature into incorruptibility. The same things must be said about the mortal, which does not change into immortality but is clothed with it. Since he thought the psychic nature could be convinced by deeds and perception, not by words, we will ask him about Paul, of what nature he was. If he was of a spiritual nature, how did he believe through a miraculous appearance? If he could not believe except through a miraculous appearance, it follows that he too was psychic, according to him. How is it not impious to consider that the angels of the Creator observe the steadfast and sincere conduct of those improved by the power of the Savior, alongside the clear meaning of the word concerning the Creator, and also contrary to the scripture saying, "Can a man hide in secret places so that I do not see him?" and "The Lord searches the reins and hearts" and "The Lord knows the thoughts of men even if they are vain"? How will he save the statement, "He who knows all things before their existence"? Why is the nature of the healed indicated more by the number of the hour than the nature of the healing being accomplished in its appropriate, restful number? The idea of psychic corruptions, in the end of what we have set forth being said by him, using an ambiguity and introducing another fourth nature, which he does not intend.

[John 4:54] This again was the second sign that Jesus performed after coming from Judea to Galilee.

The saying is ambiguous; for it signifies something like this: during the period of Jesus' coming from Judea to Galilee, He performed two signs, of which the one concerning the royal official's son is the second. Another interpretation is that of the two signs which Jesus performed in Galilee, the second was performed upon His coming from Judea to Galilee. And this indeed is the accepted and true interpretation; for He did not perform the former upon coming from Judea to Galilee; the former sign was the turning of water into wine, which happened the day after Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, found out where Jesus was staying and stayed with Him about the tenth hour of the day; for it is written: "The next day He wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip." Consider the arrangement, if we can understand it, where the evangelist marks this second sign as happening upon the Lord's coming from Judea to Galilee. We had previously said that the two visits of our Savior to Cana could symbolize His two comings to earth; which, being by His authority as He possessed every power both in heaven and on earth, was named Cana. During the first visit, after baptism, He delights us who were dining with Him and gives us to drink of the wine that comes from His power, though it was water at first when it was drawn, but became wine when Jesus transformed it. Indeed, truly before Jesus the scripture was water, but from Jesus, it has become wine for us. During the second visit, He releases from fever at the time of judgment, which He was trusted to bear by God, releasing from fever and completely healing the son of the royal official, whether named Abraham or some ruler referred to as royal. And these things have been recounted as leading to the previous ones. Since we must remember ourselves, it should be noted that His dual visitation to all creation can be understood. And you will notice if you lay down the first as preceding in this and the second as following, so that in the former those accepting Him rejoice, while in the latter those who are healed from every disease and the burning darts of the enemy are those who did not previously wish to drink of His wine. The first power is indivisible; for it was He who made the water wine in Cana, and they who drank it; the second, however, involves a kind of division; for the son of the royal official who was sick was not where Jesus was; for he was not in Cana but in Capernaum. And the message of power comes forth from Cana; for "Your son lives" was spoken in Cana; but the work of the message takes place in Capernaum; for there the son of the royal official who was sick was healed by Jesus' word at the seventh hour. We find this man healed by the word of Jesus, who was not believed to be present with him, as well as the centurion’s servant; for the Lord did not come into the house of the centurion when he said, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only speak a word, and my servant shall be healed.” Therefore, He says to him, “Go, and as you have believed, let it be done for you.” And we have also noted that in Capernaum both were sick, the centurion’s servant and the nobleman’s son. Peter’s mother-in-law also, having been bedridden with a fever in Capernaum, He healed by touching her hand, causing her to arise and serve Him. And they were healed during the daytime in Capernaum: the nobleman’s son at the seventh hour, the centurion’s servant, and Peter’s mother-in-law before evening. “In the evening—according to Matthew, in Capernaum—they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed, and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.” Therefore, some are healed by Jesus later and others sooner; those at evening later, being lesser, for they were demon-possessed and in a worse condition than those healed during the day. One should attempt to gather the places where those in need of healing were found and note in which places other signs occurred, not just concerning the sick; for example, in Samaria, the sign was, “You have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband,” which caused the woman to be amazed and say, “I perceive that you are a prophet”; and to the townspeople, she says, “Come, see a man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” One must also observe His words, where and why and upon what occasions they are spoken; for only through such observations and examinations, along with the sufferings, will you find little by little the fruits of your labors, the blessing in the psalms that says, “You shall eat the fruit of your labors.” Additionally, with regard to “This again is the second sign that Jesus did,” it must also be said that nowhere are the miracles mentioned alone; if they are spoken of anywhere, they are recorded along with the signs, as in “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe”; but often the signs are mentioned without the wonders, as they are now. And we must inquire whether there is any difference between wonders and signs. I think that extraordinary and wondrous powers, due to their extraordinary nature and their surpassing of what is customary, are called "wonders"; but those that are indicative of something beyond what happens are called "signs." Therefore, we also find the name "sign" used for non-extraordinary things. For instance, circumcision is called a sign by God in these words: "Every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you." Nowhere are wonders alone named, since nothing extraordinary happens in Scripture that is not a sign and symbol of something beyond what is sensibly occurring. As if a wonder occurred that was not symbolic of something else, it would have been written that Jesus, or Moses, or some other saint, performed the wonder. Therefore, when we are taught by Scripture to seek what something signifies, it says, "This second sign Jesus performed"; but when the royal official is rebuked for not believing without seeing extraordinary things, it is no longer said, "Unless you see signs, you will not believe"—since it is not the signs happening that induce belief as signs, if coincidentally the sign is not also a wonder—but "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe," with you believing for the extraordinary, while we also act because of what is signified by it. You will seek in the seventy-seventh Psalm, "He placed his signs in Egypt and his wonders in the field of Tanis," whether signs and wonders differ in their subject, or if they are the same, insofar as they are signs that occurred in Egypt, with Egypt itself referring to some intelligible thing; but where they are wonders "in the field of Tanis," neither the wonders as wonders nor the field of Tanis as the field of Tanis are to be taken allegorically. But wonders, insofar as they are signs, need to be referred to their higher meaning, as does the field of Tanis to Egypt. Let us conclude here with the thirteenth volume, containing the account of events up to the seventh ministry of Jesus from the beginning: first, being baptized at Bethabara beyond the Jordan; secondly, making water wine at Cana of Galilee; third, descending to Capernaum where it is fitting that those who are weak are; fourth, ascending to Jerusalem; fifth, residing in Judea with his disciples; sixth, teaching in Samaria at Jacob's well, which we examined to the extent possible; and seventh, again being at Cana of Galilee. Henceforth, by God's grace, we will discuss what happened and was said during the festival of the Jews in Jerusalem.