Catholic Philosophy In Use is a new feature. Our intention is to highlight public application of Catholic philosophy.  Our first article is a commencement address given by His Excellency Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Archbishop Burke was the Thomas Aquinas College 2010 Commencement Speaker.  This address is reprinted with the kind permission of Thomas Aquinas College and His Excellency Archbishop Burke

“Humility, Trust, and Abandonment to Divine Providence”

The Commencement Address of His Excellency Archbishop Raymond L. Burke

President McLean, Dr. Kelly, and members of the faculty; Mr. Wensley and members of the Board of Governors; Fr. Buckley and Frs. Raftery and Willingham; honored graduates and your families and friends; and benefactors and friends of Thomas Aquinas College:

In addressing you on the joyous occasion of Commencement, I, first of all, express the deepest affection and esteem for the late Dr. Thomas Dillon, the third president of Thomas Aquinas College. Over the many years of my happy association with the College, I was blessed to know Dr. Dillon and to become his friend. It pleases me very much to return to the College once again, after my last visit in 2001, in order to express to all of you my heartfelt sympathy at his death and the assurance of my prayers for his eternal rest.

When I first visited Thomas Aquinas College in September, 2001, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the foundation of the College, Dr. Dillon, like a proud father, gave me a thorough visit to the campus. He spoke, at length, of his hopes for the Chapel, which rightly he understood to be the heart of the College. In my last visit with him, in September, 2008, in Rome, when he came to have the cornerstone of the Chapel blessed by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, he was so pleased to describe for me in detail the beauty of the design and construction of the Chapel, which, at that point, was nearly complete. I thank God that he was able to be present for the solemn dedication of the Chapel of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity before Our Lord called him to his final and lasting home.

In September of 2008, on the occasion of the blessing of the cornerstone of the Chapel by His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, Dr. Dillon invited me to be present for the Solemn Dedication of the Chapel and for today’s Commencement. While, with great regret, I could not accept the first invitation, I was pleased to accept the second. I was, in fact, awaiting a visit from Dr. Dillon in April of last year, when, with great sadness, I learned of his death in Ireland.

All of us have so much for which to be grateful to Dr. Dillon, but, most of all, we must be grateful for the faith, hope and charity with which he dedicated himself to providing for Thomas Aquinas College a chapel which points, in such a faithful and powerful way, to the immeasurable beauty of God and of His dwelling with us in the Church. May Dr. Thomas Dillon rest in peace in the new and heavenly Jerusalem to which the Chapel of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity unfailingly draws our minds and hearts.

Friendship with St. Thomas Aquinas

With a deep sense of unworthiness and, at the same time, with sincerest gratitude, I accept the St. Thomas Aquinas Medallion. Because of the profound esteem which I have for the mission of Thomas Aquinas College, carried out in complete fidelity to the teaching and discipline of the Church in what pertains to Catholic higher education, I am especially honored.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, has been for me, from my childhood, a most treasured spiritual friend and model. Now, so many years since I first came to know St. Thomas Aquinas, I recognize how poorly I have honored our friendship and how much more I need to imitate his example. Receiving the College’s medallion which bears his name, I thank God for giving me St. Thomas Aquinas as a spiritual companion, and I rededicate myself to imitate his virtues, most especially his humble and tireless pursuit of the truth revealed to us by God, the truth of His own being and of His plan for our world and, in particular, for man whom He has created in His own image and likeness, that is, for communion with Him, both in this life and, fully and perfectly, in the life which is to come. To the Board of Governors of Thomas Aquinas College, I express my heartfelt gratitude for the great honor which you have bestowed upon me.

Aristotle and St. Thomas More

My beloved graduates of Thomas Aquinas College, you have chosen for your emblem and inspiration a text from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which refers to “the best things in us,” the element which has to do with our immortality, the element which reason taught to Aristotle and teaches to us, and which we also know, from Divine Revelation, as the immortal soul through which the Holy Spirit dwells within us. The wisdom of the Philosopher counsels us not to listen to voices which speak only of “human things,” but to listen to the voice whose power and worth “surpass everything,” the voice of God who draws us to the goodness of His immeasurable and unceasing love, by which we were created and by which we have been redeemed for eternal life. St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on the same text of Aristotle, reminds us that the perfection of truth and goodness, which is in God, is really in man “but imperfectly and by participation, as it were.”

It is the conscience, the voice of God, speaking to our souls, which is, in the words of the Venerable John Henry Newman, “the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.” As such, the conscience is ever attuned to Christ Himself who instructs and forms it through His Vicar, the Roman Pontiff, and the bishops in communion with him. The Venerable Cardinal Newman observed that conscience “is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives.” In accord with the wisdom of Aristotle, our thoughts and actions should not be conformed to the voices of men who speak about human and passing things, no matter how persuasive or powerful they may be, but to the voice of God speaking to us, through our conscience, about the realities which pertain to our relationship with Him and are enduring.

You have chosen as the patron saint of your class St. Thomas More, who steadfastly, in the face of imprisonment and execution, listened to the voice of God, rather than the voices of men who would have had him act according to a human way of thinking, alienated from the wisdom of God. At his trial on July 1, 1535, St. Thomas More held firmly to the living Tradition of the Church, which forbade him, in conscience, to acknowledge King Henry VIII with the title of Supreme Head of the Church. When, during his trial, the chancellor rebuked him, citing the acceptance of the title by so many bishops and nobles of the land, Thomas More replied: “My lord, for one bishop of your opinion I have a hundred saints of mine; and for one parliament of yours, and God knows of what kind, I have all the General Councils for 1,000 years ….” When the Duke of Norfolk accused him of malice in his response, Thomas More responded: “What I say is necessary for discharge of my conscience and satisfaction of my soul, and to this I call God to witness, the sole Searcher of human hearts.” Rightly, Thomas More declared on the scaffold before his execution: “I die the king’s good servant, and God’s first.” The saint served his king well by obeying God Who revealed His truth to him through Thomas More’s conscience, instructed and formed by the example of the saints of the Church and by her Magisterium.

To honor you, beloved graduates, I offer a reflection which comes from the heart of one called to be a pastor of souls. Out of love for your immortal souls, I offer a reflection which, I trust, will help you to continue to cultivate, throughout your lifetime, the divine wisdom and truth which you have been pursuing through your studies over the past years, for the steadfast cultivation of divine wisdom and truth is the way of happiness during the pilgrimage of our life on earth and prepares us for the final destiny of our life pilgrimage, the fullness of happiness, in the passage from this life to the life which is to come. Your emblem and your patron indicate that you place first in your lives the truth and love into which God leads you through your conscience. My reflection is offered to assist you in seeking always first the truth and love by which you will serve others and our world well by serving God first.

Humility as the Foundational Virtue

In considering the state of contemporary culture, especially in our nation, which we are called to transform into a culture after the mind and heart of Christ, I have asked myself as a pastor of souls what counsel could I best give to you, in accord with the wisdom of the Philosopher and the example of St. Thomas More. The counsel which I offer is the practice of humility, the cultivation of that disposition of mind and heart by which we acknowledge God as the source of all that we are and have, and turn to Him, in order that we may be and act in obedience to His law written on our hearts, in obedience to His voice, our conscience instructed and formed in us by Him in the Church.

Referring to St. Augustine’s description of humility as the foundational virtue of a truly spiritual life, St. Thomas Aquinas commented:

And thus humility has the first place: inasmuch, that is, as it expels pride which God resists and shows man subject and always open to receive the outpouring of divine grace, to the degree that it eliminates the swelling of pride, as it is said in the Letter to James, that God resists the proud, he however gives grace to the humble.

St. Thomas concludes: “And according to this, humility is said to be the foundation of the spiritual building.”

Humility is the foundational virtue which Our Lord Himself proposed to us in teaching us the way to happiness in this life and to perfect happiness in the life to come. In the Sermon on the Mount, the first way to happiness, which Our Lord proposes to us, is “poverty of spirit.” He who is poor in spirit, whether he be materially poor or rich, acknowledges, in the depth of his being that he is poor in himself, that is, that he depends completely upon God and, therefore, turns to God in prayer, in order to know what is right and good, and to have the courage to do it. The “greatest in the kingdom of heaven” is, in the words of Our Lord Himself, the person who “humbles himself” like a “child,” in the sense of not thinking that who he is and what he does is of his own making but, rather, that it is a gift from God to be treasured in its integrity. Humility and prayer are inseparably related.

Here it is instructive to recall the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, through which Our Lord teaches us the true nature of prayer. The Pharisee, while he thought to pray, was, in fact, talking to himself, full of pride in the good works which he was doing. The Publican, on the other hand, recognizing himself to be a sinner before God, truly prayed: “God, be merciful to me a sinner.” Our Lord concludes the parable by teaching us that our justice comes not from ourselves but from God Who produces in us every good deed: “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Fr. Servais Pinckaers describes the poverty of spirit, to which Our Lord refers in the Sermon on the Mount, in these words:

However varying the forms poverty may take, they all interconnect and lead us into that fundamental emptiness which lies at the depth of our being: the consciousness of our condition as creatures. We did not make ourselves. All that we have and are comes from another, and will be taken from us some day, whether we wish it or not. We cannot stop the flow of time even for one instant; we can hold on to nothing as our own. This is the primordial poverty, the central void. All other forms of poverty are but its extensions.

In the face of the reality of our poverty before God, we either accept our poverty and turn to God as the only source of our richness, as did the Publican, or we create an illusory world in which we pretend that we are capable of all and, in fact, do not need God, as did the Pharisee.

Before the situation of our culture, in which man lives, in the words of the Venerable Pope John Paul II, “as if God did not exist,” there is a great temptation to think that we, with the knowledge which we have acquired, can transform it. If we give way to the temptation, then we, rather than Christ, become the protagonist in the battle over sin and its most deadly fruit, eternal death. Christ, by His Holy Cross, is alone our salvation. We will not save the world; Christ alone saves our world. We share in His saving work to the extent that we are subject to Him, taking up with Him the Cross. Regarding poverty of spirit, Fr. Pinckaers concludes:

It is in the deepest part of our being that the first beatitude touches us and challenges us with a wholly personal question. Can we truly accept to be poor, to acknowledge our basic poverty in all honesty? Do we dare to believe that this very poverty can open up to us, contrary to all our expectations, a road to happiness and the Kingdom of heaven.

Has not humility been the primary virtue in which you have been schooled through a Catholic university education? Have you not been schooled at Thomas Aquinas College, in accord with its distinctive character as a Catholic institution, to engage in the “free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God”? Have you not been disciplined here to carry out the noble mission of higher studies by following Christ, the fullness of the Revelation of God, Who, through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, guides us “into all the truth”? Have you not learned here, first and foremost, that Christ alone has won for us the freedom to conduct study and research which are “impartial,” that is, “neither subordinated to nor conditioned by particular interests of any kind”?

Have you not discovered through your studies that Christ alone purifies our minds and hearts of the sin which blinds us to the truth about God, ourselves and the world? Have you not found that it is Christ alone who gives us the strength and the courage to seek, with an undivided mind and heart, “all the truth”?

If the wisdom which you have acquired through your studies at Thomas Aquinas College is to remain untainted by the sin of pride and to develop to meet the most formidable challenges which surely lie before you, beloved graduates, as they lie before us all, then you must continue to practice the virtue of humility by which you have attained any measure of wisdom. Christ is alive in His Church for the salvation of the world, for the transformation of our culture, and it is our vocation to let Christ alone act through us, by mortifying our self-importance and self-interest. We, who are called to be the “ambassadors of Christ” to the world, to bring Christ into every aspect of human thought and activity, must follow the example of St. John the Baptist who, when he could easily have been taken by the moral authority which was his, declared of himself in relationship to Christ: “He must increase, but I must decrease.”

If we are to continue to grow in the science of divine love, then we must follow the Little Way of the Gospel, taught to us by St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Doctor of the Church, Doctor of the Science of Divine Love. Her Little Way begins with humility, with a childlike recognition of our complete dependence upon God for every breath we draw and for every good we desire to achieve. Humility inspires in us true confidence, confidence which rests not upon ourselves but upon God and the action of His grace within us. Humility before God and confidence in His never failing love lead then to the abandonment of ourselves to Divine Providence. When we practice humility, we turn to Christ daily anew, seeking to follow Him, and trusting that He will bring to fruition our feeble efforts to be His co-workers in the world.

In her “Act of Oblation to Merciful Love,” St. Thérèse expressed, in a striking way, the humility, the confidence and the abandonment to Divine Providence, which animated her life and manifested in her life the true science of divine love. She wrote:

I thank You, O God! For all the graces You have granted me, especially the grace of making me pass through the crucible of suffering. It is with joy I shall contemplate You on the Last Day carrying the scepter of Your Cross. Since You deigned to give me a share in this very precious Cross, I hope in heaven to resemble You and to see shining in my glorified body the sacred stigmata of Your Passion.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux teaches us the Gospel way of the communion of our heart with the glorious pierced Heart of Jesus. True humility disposes us to give our hearts totally to Christ, to place our hearts completely into His Sacred Heart, in which they are purified of sin and inflamed with His pure and selfless love. St. Thérèse concluded her “Act of Oblation to Merciful Love” with this aspiration:

I want, O my Beloved, at each beat of my heart to renew this offering to You an infinite number of times, until the shadows having disappeared I may be able to tell You of my Love in an Eternal Face to Face!

The years of study which you, beloved graduates, celebrate today could produce no finer fruit than the humble and total daily offering of your heart to the Heart of Jesus, gloriously seated at the right hand of the Father and alive for us in the Church, until you are able finally to offer Him your heart in the “Eternal Face to Face,” to which we are all called.

The Need for Daily Prayer

It is through prayer that we first and best practice humility, confidence, and abandonment to Divine Providence. It is through prayer that we turn over our lives completely to Our Lord upon Whom we are totally dependent, as a small children before a parent. In a particular way, the Examination of Conscience and the Act of Contrition, offered each night before we retire, express the humility which reflects the truth of our being before God and in His creation.

St. Thomas often declared “that he learnt more at the foot of the crucifix than from books.” Regarding the knowledge and love of Christ, which inspired and sustained St. Thomas, his faithful secretary, Fr. Reginald of Priverno, declared:

His marvellous science was far less due to his genius than to the efficacy of his prayers. He prayed with tears to obtain from God the understanding of His mysteries, and abundant enlightenment was vouchsafed to his mind.

As he was dying, after he had received Viaticum, St. Thomas Aquinas offered this prayer in the presence of the assembled monks of the monastery at Fossanova:

I receive you, price of my soul’s redemption, I receive you, viaticum of my pilgrimage, for love of whom I have studied, watched, labored; I have preached you, I have taught you; never have I said anything against you, and if I have done so it is through ignorance and I do not grow stubborn in my error; if I have taught ill on this sacrament or the others, I submit it to the judgment of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience to which I leave now this life.

The most important lesson which your education at Thomas Aquinas College has taught you is to begin and to conclude all of your studies and activities with Christ, that is, with prayer, humbly submitting the judgment of your thoughts and actions to His church, and obediently accepting the teaching and discipline of the Church.

Before the challenge of living in Christ in our totally secularized culture, there is a great temptation to give way to doubt and fear regarding the Little Way of Christ, and to think that we must devise some program, “some magic formula,” to transform the world. But Christ alone, seated at the right hand of the Father and alive for us in the Church, can transform us and the world. Pope John Paul II reminded us that our humble and confident following of Christ alone brings about the conversion of our lives and the transformation of our culture. In his Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, he wrote:

It is not therefore a matter of inventing a “new program.” The program already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its center in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfillment in the heavenly Jerusalem.

Dear graduates, with humility, trust, and abandonment to Divine Providence, center your life on Christ by daily prayer and Sunday Mass. When possible, make daily Mass the pattern of your life. Begin each day with prayer. By your prayer and devotion, let Christ accompany you throughout every day. Conclude each day with the examination of conscience and the act of contrition. Regularly confess your sins and receive God’s forgiveness in the Sacrament of Penance.

Keeping Company with the Mother of God

In a particular way, call upon the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as you face the great challenge of living in Christ, with humility and trust. Make her words in response to the Archangel Gabriel at the Annunciation your own: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” It is the Blessed Virgin Mary who teaches us to imitate her in humility and trust. As Mary did for the wine stewards at the Wedding Feast of Cana, so she now directs us to her Divine Son and gives us the maternal counsel: “Do whatever He tells you.” Mary is the model in following her own counsel, from the moment of the Incarnation to the moment of Christ’s cruel death, as she stood at the foot of the Cross.

Keep company with the Mother of God, especially under her title so dear to our continent, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America and Star of the New Evangelization, and she will unfailingly draw you to her Divine Son Who alone is our salvation. She will lead you in the way of poverty of spirit, of humble trust and of abandonment to Divine Providence. Praying the Rosary, meditating upon the mysteries of the vocation and mission of Christ, while praying the Hail Mary, unite your hearts to her Immaculate Heart and, with her, place your hearts ever more completely into the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in which are found all of the treasures of God’s immeasurable mercy and love.

The chapel of Thomas Aquinas College has been most fittingly dedicated to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Mother, under her title Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity. The Virgin Mary who, by a special favor from God, from the moment of her conception, shared, in anticipation, in the life of Divine Grace won for us by Christ, her Son, draws us to live in Christ, to live in the Most Holy Trinity, through our life in the Church. Mary teaches us the love of God the Father, made flesh through the Incarnation of God the Son, so that God the Father and God the Son might pour forth into our souls, as they did for Mary, the sevenfold gift of God the Holy Spirit.

Embracing One’s Vocation

In conclusion, I place my reflection upon humility within the context of the call which God gives to each of us to pour out his life, with Christ, in selfless love of God and neighbor. The response to God’s call, our divine vocation, is, at its foundation, an act of humble trust, of abandonment to Divine Providence. As we are privileged to take part in today’s commencement, we are deeply conscious that all Catholic education is ultimately at the service of our knowledge of God’s plan for each of us and our following of God’s call with an undivided heart; all Catholic education should lead us in the way of poverty of spirit by which we know God’s call in our lives and respond with an undivided heart.

From the moment of our baptism, God desires that we give our lives completely, with Christ, in love of Him, either in the married life, the dedicated single life, the consecrated life or the priesthood. It is only when we know our vocation in life and embrace it humbly and trust that we find joy and peace, and are able to place the good gifts which God has given to us at the service of others.

In our culture which is indifferent to religious faith and totally secularized, it is difficult to hear the voice of God Who calls us. It is especially difficult to hear God’s call to serve Him and His holy people in the consecrated life and the priesthood. The abit of daily prayer, learned at the School of Mary, will dispose you, dear graduates, to spend time each day in silence before God, asking Him how He would have you serve Him and His holy people. In prayer, especially at the Holy Mass and before the Blessed Sacrament, you will know your vocation in life and receive the grace to embrace it with an undivided heart.

Speaking of the finality of Catholic education in the knowledge and embrace of our vocation in life, I acknowledge, in a particular way, the excellence of Thomas Aquinas College. A remarkable number of graduates of the College have responded to vocations to the priesthood and to the consecrated life in all of its richness of forms. Likewise, I have known and have worked closely with a number of graduates who have responded to the call to the married life, acknowledging the important contribution of the College to the living of their vocation. The remarkable culture of vocational discernment fostered at Thomas Aquinas College is a most wonderful gift to the individual students and to the whole Church. May God bless the College with an abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that her students may always embrace God’s will for them.

Beloved graduates of Thomas Aquinas College, my heartfelt congratulations! May Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity teach you humility and lead you to total trust in her Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you may abandon yourselves to Divine Providence, loving God and your neighbor with all your heart, with all your being. So may you follow the counsel of Aristotle to attend to “the best things in us” and to listen to the voice whose power and worth “surpass everything.” So may you imitate St. Thomas More, serving your neighbor and our world well by serving God first.

]]> http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/09/04/catholic-philosophy-in-use-humility-trust-and-abandonment-to-divine-providence/feed/ 0 http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/08/28/a-summary-of-st-thomas-aquinas-commentary-on-the-gospel-of-st-john-chapter-7-lecture-5-jn-737-53/ http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2010/08/28/a-summary-of-st-thomas-aquinas-commentary-on-the-gospel-of-st-john-chapter-7-lecture-5-jn-737-53/#comments Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:14:01 +0000 David Kustra http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/?p=1245

So far, we have summarized 52 of St. Thomas’ 145 lectures on the Gospel of St. John. That covers the first seven chapters: roughly one-third of the gospel. If you would like to continue studying these lectures by reading my summaries, please drop me a line at dkustra@holyapostles.edu and I will be happy to post more of the same.  God bless!  Dave

+     +     +

Previously, we have observed the Lord teaching in the temple, midway through the week-long Sukkoth festival, sixth months before He died. During this festival, He had confronted His persecutors and had defended Himself against their accusations: that He had broken the Sabbath, and that He had blasphemed. Next, the Evangelist recounts how Christ had invited the people to accept His spiritual teaching. First, he gives Christ’s invitation (vv. 37-38) and explains what the invitation means (v. 39). Then He shows how they were divided over Christ’s teaching: first, the disagreement among the people (vv. 40-44), and then the disagreement among their leaders (vv. 45-53).

1. Christ’s invitation. Concerning the occasion, St. John wrote, “On the last day of the feast, the great day” (Jn 7:37a). The first and last days of a religious festival were the most solemn. Christ had not been in Jerusalem for the opening of Sukkoth, for He declined to travel with the “brothers” who had conspired to have Him arrested (Jn 7:8). Rather, He arrived during the middle of the week-long festival and preached in the temple precincts at that time. Now, on the last day of Sukkoth, He spoke in public again, this time, extending to all an invitation to accept His spiritual teaching. He waited until the last day to do this, because, on the last day, the people were the most spiritual. They would not have been as receptive at the beginning of the festival, when they had been preoccupied with temporal affairs, nor during the height of the celebration, amidst the various festival activities. During those times, their spiritual receptivity was probably like that of the seeds that fell among thorns, which were choked off by thorns, as if by temporal concerns and activities, as soon as they had begun to grow (Lk 8:7).

Then Christ expressed His invitation: “Jesus stood up and proclaimed, ‘If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink’” (Jn 7:37b). We note five things in this invitation. First, notice Jesus’ posture. Christ taught both sitting and standing. He taught His disciples while sitting, as He did during His Sermon on the Mount: “he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them.” (Mt 5:1-2). He taught the people while standing, as He had done here in the temple. Thus, the custom arose in the Church that preachers stand when addressing the laity, but sit when speaking to clerics and religious. The reason for this is that one preaches to the laity in order to convert them by exhortation, wherefore standing is more conducive to exhortation, whereas one preaches to clerics and religious in order to remind them of what they presumably already know and believe. Second, notice that Christ proclaimed His invitation; He cried out (Gk. echradzen). He did this for two reasons. First, to express His certainty concerning what He was about to say. The Lord said, “lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not” (Is 40:9), and again, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet” (Is 58:1). Second, He cried out in order to emphasize the importance of what He was about to say, as the compiler of Proverbs said, “Hear, for I will speak noble things, and from my lips will come what is right” (Prv 8:6). Third, this invitation is reminiscent of the Lord’s words to the prophet: “every one who thirsts, come to the waters” (Is 55:1). By saying “anyone,” Christ had called upon all the thirsty, not just certain ones, because God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm 2:4). Fourth, the thirsty who choose to come to Him are those who thirst for righteousness, for they, more than the others, desire to serve God. God appreciates sincerity in the believer. That is why the Apostle advised the Corinthians that “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). Christ promised to bless the righteous, as He said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Mt 5:6). Fifth, Christ invited them to drink, for drink signifies spiritual refreshment, whereby they find satisfaction in receiving knowledge of divine truths. Speaking through the prophet, the Lord said to the unfaithful ones: “Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame” (Is 65:13). It was said of Wisdom, Who is the Word of God, “[Wisdom] will feed him with the bread of understanding, and give him the water of wisdom to drink” (Sir 15:3). Wisdom said, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave simpleness, and live, and walk in the way of insight.” (Prv 9:5-6)

Then Christ mentioned the fruit of His invitation, the benefit to those who accept His spiritual teaching: “He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (Jn 7:38). This has been interpreted in several ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, the first part of this statement affirms that the scriptures bear witness to Christ, as He said, “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me” (Jn 5:39). The second part of this statement teaches that whoever believes in Christ shall be enlightened with His truth, as we are told: “Look to him, and be radiant” (Ps 34:5). Second, according to St. Jerome, this statement refers to the young man who was advised: “be attentive to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding. . . . Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well.” (Prv 5:1, 15) Third, St. Augustine offered the following interpretation. First, he said that whoever drinks from Christ’s living water, drinks from a living fountain which will never run dry, and he who partakes of this endless supply, becomes himself a fountain which will never run dry. Thus, Christ said to the Samaritan woman at the well, “whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (Jn 4:14). Second, this wellspring or fountain is the Holy Spirit, for we pray, “with thee is the fountain of life” (Ps 36:9). The Holy Spirit is given as a gift to those faithful servants who obey God’s word, according to Isaiah: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him” (Is 42:1). The grace of the Holy Spirit is signified by the water’s unending flow. This water is living, inasmuch as spiritual life comes by means of grace. Along with grace, the spiritually regenerated receive certain gifts of the Holy Spirit, who dwells within the person who is full of grace. The grace one receives wells up to eternal life when one employs these gifts for the good of others, as St. Peter counseled: “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace” (1 Pt 4:10). Third, the fact that Christ likened grace to a river indicates that these spiritual gifts are most abundant, for we read of the Lord: “Thou visitest the earth and waterest it, . . . Thou waterest its furrows abundantly.” (Ps 65:9-10) The torrents of this river do not cause fear, but give rise to joy, for this is “a river whose streams make glad the city of God” (Ps 46:4). As a river propels all that is caught up within it, grace moves those who possess it, as the Apostle said, “the love of Christ controls us” (2 Cor 5:14), and again, “all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rom 8:14).

2. The Evangelist’s explanation of Christ’s invitation. “Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive” (Jn 7:39a). The Holy Spirit is like a river, insofar as He proceeds from the Father and the Son by an eternal act of spiration, as we read in St. John’s vision: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rv 22:1). St. John then added, “for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn 7:39b). The meaning of Christ’s words was not known to the people, because they had not yet been given the Gift, the Holy Spirit. The reason that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given was because Christ had not yet been glorified. It was necessary that Christ return to the Father Who sent Him, before the Holy Spirit would be sent, as Christ explained to His disciples, “it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you” (Jn 16:7).

The phrase, “for as yet the Spirit had not been given,” has been interpreted in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, the apostles were not given the gift of prophecy, nor the power to work miracles, until after the resurrection of Christ. The grace of prophecy was given to the prophets of Judah and Israel; then next, to Christ; then after Christ had ascended and the Holy Spirit had come, it was given to the apostles. One might object to Chrysostom’s interpretation, citing the fact that Christ “gave [the twelve] authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Mt 10:1). One could respond to this objection by asserting that those unclean spirits were really cast out by the power of Christ, and not by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the apostles, for in Mt 10:1, He did not mention that they would do this by the power of the Holy Spirit. Another difficulty with Chrysostom’s interpretation arises from the fact that others had been exorcising demons before Pentecost, for Christ had asked His detractors on a certain occasion, “if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Mt 12:27) St. John does not tell us the source of their power, but we do know that Christ cast out demons by the Holy Spirit, for He clearly stated, “it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons” (Mt 12:28), and we do know that His apostles did the same after Pentecost, for on that day, they received the Holy Spirit. Second, according to St. Augustine, the Holy Spirit had been given to the apostles in a certain measure, even while Christ walked upon the earth, for the “sons” of Mt 12:27, are, in fact, the apostles. Since Christ had cast out demons by the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:28), and since Christ had commissioned the apostles to do the same (Mt 10:1), then the apostles must have had the Holy Spirit, to some extent, or in some way, before Pentecost, even vis-à-vis prophecy and the power to work miracles. Thus, when the Evangelist wrote, “for as yet the Spirit had not been given” (Jn 7:39b), he must have been referring to Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles abundantly, accompanied by the visible sign of tongues of fire.

Why does no one speak in tongues in our day, in the same way that the apostles did in their day? St. Thomas answered that this manner of proselytizing is no longer necessary, for the Church has since spread around the globe and has acquired ministers from virtually every linguistic group, each of whom is able to naturally speak in his own language to his own people, so that anyone who wishes to hear the gospel is able to receive it in his native tongue. In the first months following Pentecost, there were few preachers, but many peoples, each of whom spoke a different language. Thus, it was necessary that a few apostles do the work of many in order to establish the Church and expand its membership. In a spiritual sense, the universal language of the Church is charity, for charity is the greatest of virtues, and it must be practiced by all Christians. Charity is often expressed in deeds, which transcend words. Charity comes to us by way of the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle said, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom 5:5).

The phrase, “because Jesus was not yet glorified,” has been interpreted in two ways. First, according to St. Augustine, this refers to the glory of Christ’s resurrection. This was the glory Christ had asked for when He prayed, “[Father, glorify me]” (Jn 17:5). Christ had asked to be glorified before the Holy Spirit was sent, so that we might see in His glorified body what lies in store for the virtuous, and so that, when the Spirit comes to us, we might raise our hearts and minds in anticipation of our own spiritual resurrection, seeing how Christ, “the first-born among many brethren” (Rom 8:29), has shown us the way to life and has gone before us in death and in life. Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, this phrase refers to the glory of Christ’s passion, for after Judas had betrayed Him, Christ said, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified” (Jn 13:31). It follows, then, that the Holy Spirit was given after Christ’s passion and resurrection, when the risen Christ appeared to the apostles and breathed on them, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22). The Holy Spirit was not given before Christ’s passion, for the Holy Spirit is a Gift, and a gift is given only to a friend; but, before Christ’s sacrifice, mankind was estranged from God on account of original sin; therefore, the Holy Spirit could not be given until after the estrangement had been removed by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, which reconciled man with God and restored man’s friendship with God.

3. How the people were divided over Christ’s teaching. There was disagreement among the people (vv. 40-44) and among their leaders (vv. 45-53), concerning Christ’s teaching. Among the people, there were three differing opinions concerning Christ’s identity. Some said that He was a prophet (v. 40); others believed that He was the Messiah (v. 41a); and still others asserted that, whatever Jesus was, He was not the Messiah (vv. 41b-42).

Concerning the first opinion of the people: that Jesus is a prophet. “When they heard these words, some of the people said, ‘This is really the prophet’” (Jn 7:40). These people had already begun to drink the spiritual water. They did not regard Jesus simply as “a prophet,” but as “the prophet,” that is, the one of whom Moses spoke, when he said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren–him you shall heed” (Dt 18:15).

Concerning the second opinion of the people: that Jesus is the Messiah. “Others said, ‘This is the Christ’” (Jn 7:41a). Our English word, “Christ,” is from the Greek, Christos, meaning “anointed one,” which is from the word, chrio, meaning “to rub with oil.” Christos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew, mashiah, meaning “anointed one, consecrated one.” St. Peter professed that Jesus was the Messiah when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16).

Concerning the third opinion of the people: that Jesus was not the Messiah. “But some said, ‘Is the Christ to come from Galilee?’” (Jn 7:41b) They cited the prophets to support their argument, for they knew that Christ lived in Galilee, and hence, assumed that He had been born there as well. But no prophet had explicitly said that the Messiah would come from Galilee. On the contrary, Jeremiah, who prophesied in Judah during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587, foretold that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. Moreover, Micah, who prophesied in Judah during the last decades of the eighth century B.C., predicted that the Messiah would come from the city of Bethlehem in Judah. Micah said, “you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Mi 5:2). And, speaking through Jeremiah, the Lord said, “the days are coming when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely” (Jer 23:5). Now, the people who had doubted that Jesus was the Messiah, cited these two prophecies to support their argument, saying, “Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” (Jn 7:42) But their argument fails on three counts. First, because, unbeknownst to them, Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, in the city of David, in fulfillment of those two prophecies. Second, although the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, he was to begin his life’s work outside of Judah, as Isaiah prophesied: “The people who walked in darkness,” that is, the Gentiles, “have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined” (Is 9:2). Galilee was populated, not only by Jews, but a good number of Gentiles and Samaritans, and the Jews considered Samaritans to be Gentiles. Third, Isaiah perhaps predicted that the Messiah would have a connection with the town of Nazareth, when he prophesied, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.” (Is 11:1-2) Jesse, who was from Ephrathah, which is the region where Bethlehem is located, was the father of King David. The “branch” is a translation of the Hebrew word, nezer, which is a green shoot, a sapling, or figuratively, a descendant. The consonants of the words, nezer and Nazareth, are similar enough to suggest a possible connection between the two. If so, Isaiah prophesied that the Spirit of God rested upon a certain descendant of David, who was living in Nazareth. This describes Jesus.

Now that the Evangelist has stated the various opinions of the people, he concluded, “So there was a division among the people over him” (Jn 7:43). The revelation of a truth often leads to discord, for the truth behooves those in error to change their thinking, while at the same time, it bolsters the confidence and resolve of those who hold the true opinion. Jeremiah, who revealed the truth in his prophecies, lamented for this reason, saying, “Woe is me, my mother, that you bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land!” (Jer 15:10) Similarly, Christ admitted, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10:34).

Their discord made them so ill at ease that “Some of them,” that is, the ones who held the opinion that Jesus was not the Messiah, “wanted to arrest him” (Jn 7:44a). They were not fearful of God, for they did not believe that Jesus possessed the power of the Messiah. It seems that the words of a certain persecuted man are apropos: “my enemies speak concerning me, those who watch for my life consult together, and say, ‘God has forsaken him; pursue and seize him, for there is none to deliver him’” (Ps 71:10-11). Or, as the Egyptians pursued the Israelites into the desert, saying, “I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil, my desire shall have its fill of them. I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.” (Ex 15:9) By contrast, the believers pursue Christ, not to harm Him, but to enjoy Him, to partake of His spiritual food and drink, to learn from His teaching, as if to say, “I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches” (Cant 7:8).

“But no one laid hands on him” (Jn 7:44b), because Christ did not will to be arrested at this time, since it was not yet His time to suffer and die. Their success depended upon Christ, not upon themselves, for He said, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” (Jn 10:18) And when His time had finally arrived, during the following Passover, He did not wait for His conspirators to muster the courage to act, but rather, “Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, ‘Whom do you seek?’” (Jn 18:4)

4. How the leaders of the people were divided over Christ’s teaching. First, we hear from the officers, who reported to the chief priests and Pharisees (vv. 45-46); then, we hear the Pharisees’ response to their officers’ testimony (vv. 47-49); and finally, we hear from the Pharisee Nicodemus, who defended Christ (vv. 50-51), but who was derided by his colleagues for doing so.

Concerning the testimony of the officers. Midway through the festival, the chief priests and Pharisees sent their officers to arrest Jesus, according to their plan (v. 32). But, just as some of the people wanted to seize Jesus, yet were prevented from doing so because it was not God’s will that Christ should suffer at that time, neither could the leaders arrest Him. “The officers then went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, ‘Why did you not bring him?’” (Jn 7:45). When the officers returned empty-handed, the priests and Pharisees castigated them for failing to arrest Jesus. The leaders would have liked to dispose of Him quickly, for it is said of the wicked: “they cannot sleep unless they have done wrong” (Prv 4:16).

“The officers answered, ‘No man ever spoke like this man!’” (Jn 7:46) This testimony concerning Christ is praiseworthy for three reasons. First, because they admired Christ’s teaching, rather than His miracles. Most Jews were more impressed by signs than by teaching, as St. Paul noted: “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22). But these officers did not look so much for the signs as they did for wisdom. And they had found wisdom in Jesus. Therefore, they were closer to the truth than the priests and Pharisees who had sent them. Second, the officers are to be praised because they were won over by Christ with few words. Subsequently, they were moved by love to defend Him. Third, they should be praised for their confidence in speaking up against Christ’s formidable persecutors.

They rightly professed, “No man ever spoke like this man,” for this was no ordinary man, but the Incarnate Word of God. We notice three things about Christ’s manner of teaching. First, His words had power to affect people. His words were most compelling. This was foretold by Jeremiah, when the Lord spoke through him, saying, “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jer 23:29) Accordingly, people were impressed by the way in which Christ spoke with such self-assurance, as we read, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Mt 7:28-29). Second, Christ’s words were pleasant to contemplate, as the Psalmist confessed, “How sweet are thy words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Ps 109:103) Third, His words are most useful, for to follow His teaching leads to eternal life, as God said, “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go” (Is 48:17). Thus, St. Peter said to Christ, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68)

Concerning the response of the Pharisees to their officers’ testimony. The Pharisees argued against their officers’ testimony in three ways: first, by questioning their judgment (v. 47); then, by citing religious authorities (v. 48); and finally, by disparaging the opinion of those people who favored Christ.

The Pharisees began their response by questioning their officers’ favorable appraisal of Jesus: “The Pharisees answered them, ‘Are you led astray, you also?’” (Jn 7:47). “Led astray” translates the Greek word, peplanesthe, which can also be translated as “seduced.” A seducer is a planos. The Pharisees were correct in their assessment, for their officers had indeed been seduced by Christ and led away; but not led away from the truth, but led away from the error of unbelief toward the truth, toward a life of faith. Similarly, the Lord had seduced Jeremiah to prophesy, as he admitted, “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived ” (Jer 20:7).

Next, the Pharisees cited religious authorities to discount the officers’ favorable assessment of Jesus: “Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him?” (Jn 7:48) One believes in a person for either of two reasons: because some authority commands or counsels him to believe in that person, or because the believer possesses a religious disposition to believe in that person. Here, the Pharisees contended that their officers had neither of these reasons for supporting Jesus. First, regarding religious authorities, they argued that, if Jesus had been worthy of belief, then surely the religious leaders would have recognized this. Second, regarding religious disposition, the Pharisees argued that, if Jesus had been worthy of belief, then the Pharisees themselves would have believed in Him, because, so they implied, that the Pharisees possessed a proper religious disposition, that they were disposed to believing in the truth, and that they could recognize the truth when they see it. Their rejection of Christ fulfilled the prophecy: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the [cornerstone]” (Ps 118:22). These “builders” are the leaders of the people, and the “cornerstone” signifies the heart of the people, for a cornerstone is foundational to a structure and necessary for its sturdiness, as a heart is foundational to a living organism and necessary for its health. “This is the Lord’s doing” (Ps 118:23), because God’s goodness vastly exceeds the evil of some men.

Then, the Pharisees rejected the opinion of those people who professed belief in Christ. Furthermore, they unkindly belittled the believers, saying, “But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed” (Jn 7:49). The Pharisees’ reasoning was perhaps based upon their misunderstanding of the condemnation we read about in Deuteronomy: “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them” (Dt 27:26). Those who are not experts in the law, but who nonetheless follow the law, are morally superior to those who are well-versed in the law, but who disregard it. The Lord said of the latter, “this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me” (Is 29:13). Christ quoted this passage when He chastised the Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Mt 15:8). Along these lines, St. James counseled Jews of the Diaspora: “be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (Jas 1:22).

Concerning the Pharisee Nicodemus. First, he stood up for Christ against the malice of the other Pharisees (v. 50-51); and then, they rebuked him (v. 52). “Nicodemus, who had [come to him at night], and who was one of them, said to them” (Jn 7:50). This tells us three things. First, that Nicodemus had faith in Christ, for to “come to him” is the same as believing in Him. Second, his faith was imperfect, for he came to Christ at night. No doubt, he feared excommunication, should he be recognized as a follower of Christ, for “many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue” (Jn 12:42). Third, the fact that Nicodemus, a Pharisee, believed in Christ, disproved the other Pharisees’ claim (v. 48) that no other Pharisee had believed in Christ. The people would one day recognize the errors of their leaders, as the prophet Jeremiah foretold that the people would one day lament, “Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit” (Jer 16:19).

Nicodemus pointed out to his colleagues their rashness, saying, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (Jn 7:51). Perhaps he was referring to Ex 23:7, which reads, “Keep far from a false charge, and do not slay the innocent and righteous.” Job was a just man, for he confessed, “I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Jb 29:16). In civil law, a judgment requires evidence, which is obtained by thorough investigation, and presented by competent, credible witnesses. Moreover, the accused is entitled to face his accusers, in order to cross-examine them. During St. Paul’s first imprisonment in Caesarea under the Romans, the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus reported, “when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews gave information about [Paul], asking for sentence against him. I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any one before the accused met the accusers face to face, and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.” (Acts 25:15-16). Subsequently, Festus heard Paul’s case, according to the rules of Roman court procedure. In this, it appears that the Romans had a greater sense of justice than the chief priests and leaders of the Jews.

Nicodemus spoke up to his peers because he wanted to convert them to Christ; yet, he did not ask them outright to follow the Lord. Rather, he believed that, if they would only listen to Christ with an open mind, then they would be won over to Him, as was Nicodemus and the officers who returned to them converted.

But, the other Pharisees were not moved by Nicodemus’ appeal. “They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee too?’” (Jn 7:52a) Here they used the word, “Galilee,” which simply denoted a certain political district, as a deprecatory term. From that time onward, it appears that the followers of Christ were derisively called “Galileans” by their detractors, as when the maid accused St. Peter, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean” (Mt 26:69).

Since Nicodemus had appealed to his fellows to follow proper legal procedure, they, in turn, used a court procedure against him: namely, they attempted to discredit Nicodemus’ testimony on the grounds that he, like the commoners, was ignorant of the law. Thus, the Pharisees said, “Search,” that is, search the scriptures, “and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (Jn 7:52b). We may make two remarks concerning this. First, their rebuke implies that Nicodemus, being a teacher of the law, should have known that the Messiah was not to come from Galilee. Thus, Nicodemus’ colleagues chastened him, even as Christ had chastened him previously, when He said, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (Jn 3:10) At that point, Nicodemus must have felt like a man without a country, or perhaps like one who had suddenly found himself facing a bifurcation along his spiritual road. Second, although they accused the rabbi Nicodemus of ignorance, their own ignorance was even greater, for they failed to see a connection between the town of Nazareth in Galilee and the word nezer (branch), which we encounter in Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the messiah: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots” (Is 11:1-2).

St. John mentioned Nicodemus three times. The first time that Nicodemus came to Christ, it was at night (Jn 3:2), by Nicodemus’ choosing, so that his confreres could not see that he had left the Pharisees’ spiritual road and had gone over to Christ’s way, for he had become a secret disciple of our Lord. The second time he came to Christ was when he defended our Lord before the Pharisees (Jn 7:50-51). It was daylight then, and his peeved colleagues could plainly see that he had gone over to Christ’s way and had veered away from the Pharisees’ spiritual path. The third time Nicodemus came to Christ was toward evening, to anoint the body of our crucified Lord and to place Him in a tomb (Jn 19:39-42). By this time, almost all of Christ’s disciples had fled His road and gone into hiding in the desert, fearing for their earthly lives.

Finally, the Evangelist reported the outcome of the elders’ disagreement: “They went each to his own house” (Jn 7:53). We can make two points here. First, the outcome of the leaders’ disagreement was the same as that of the peoples’ disagreement (v. 44): while some wished to arrest Christ, none were able to do so, for God “frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success” (Jb 5:12), and again, He “brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples” (Ps 33:10). Second, each returned “to his own house,” that is, to his own unbelief and irreverence, but not in such a way that their evil intentions were ever hidden from God, for it was revealed to St. John in a vision, “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is” (Rv 2:13).

In the course of Christ’s discussion of His end, our Lord made three predictions: when His end would occur (v. 33a), how it would take place (v. 33b), and how the people would react to it (v. 34a).

1. The time when His end would occur. “Jesus then said, ‘I shall be with you a little longer’” (Jn 7:33a). We notice two things in this statement. First, the fact that Christ could delay His capture, even though certain powerful religious and political leaders wanted to arrest Him, demonstrates the extent of His divine power. Christ said, “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” (Jn 10:18) Second, in saying, “I shall be with you a little longer,” Christ satisfied both His faithful disciples and His persecutors. First, this statement satisfied His disciples, inasmuch as it inspired them listen to their Teacher more intently and to hang onto His every word, since He would not be with them much longer. Christ said, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; . . . While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” (Jn 12:35-36) Second, Christ’s statement satisfied His persecutors, inasmuch as it gave them hope that the consummation of their plot would not be delayed much longer.

Why did Christ desire to teach for only a short time? First, to manifest His divine power, for with a few words and deeds, He was able to change the whole world and affect the way people would live and worship God for centuries to come. The Psalmist distinguished between the temporal and the eternal, as it relates to the magnitude of God’s greatness: “a day in thy courts is better than a thousand elsewhere” (Ps 84:10). Second, Christ taught for a short time in order to cause His disciples to desire God and His Word’s teaching all the more. Thus, He predicted, “The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man” (Lk 17:22). Third, He taught His disciples for only a short time, so that their spiritual progress might be hastened. The spiritual life is not an end in itself, but a means to attain union with God. Since the spiritual life is a journey, it requires motion. That is why Christ said, “I am the way” (Jn 14:6), for a way is a road along which one travels to a certain destination. Christ’s disciples were moved by His physical presence in that they had heard with their own ears what He taught and had seen with their own eyes the great things He had done. Lest they rest in Christ as man, He withdrew His physical presence, as He said, “it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you” (Jn 16:7). Thus, St. Paul said, “though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor :16).

2. The way in which His end would take place. Christ continued, “and then I go to him who sent me” (Jn 7:33b). He stated this truth now in public, and later to His disciples in private, when He said, “I am going to him who sent me” (Jn 16:5). We may note two things about this statement. First, it is fitting that Christ returned to His source, to the Father, from Whom He proceeds by generation, for it is natural that a term return to its principle, as Qoheleth said, “All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again” (Eccl 1:7). Christ knew well “that he had come from God and was going to God” (Jn 13:3). Second, the way Christ reached His end was by means of His bodily death and His subsequent resurrection and ascension into heaven. The ease with which He mentioned His painful death demonstrates His firmness of purpose and His willingness to suffer tremendous physical pain and humiliation, in order to save fallen mankind, in accord with His Father’s will. This manifests His perfect obedience to the Father’s will and His immense love for us. His obedience was foretold by the prophet: “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” (Is 53:7). As for His love, the Apostle urged the Ephesians to love as Christ has loved us: “walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph 5:2).

3. The way in which the people would react to His going away. Christ predicted that the people would look for Him after He goes away: “you will seek me and you will not find me” (Jn 7:34a). This can be understood as either a physical search or a spiritual search. First, as a physical search. According to St. John Chrysostom, this was how the people of Jerusalem followed Him on His way to the cross: “there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him” (Lk 23:27). When the Roman general Titus was about to sack Jerusalem in 70, those who had thought that Jesus was the sort of messiah who would overthrow their Roman overlords, perhaps wished He had been there to rescue them. They sought Him in their hopes, but could not find Him in the reality of the moment. Second, as a spiritual search. According to St. Augustine, many who refused to believe in Christ while He was with us on earth, later came to the faith. We may also apply this to the apostles after Pentecost. The fact that Christ had physically left them and ascended into heaven prompted them to say to each other, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) They were searching for Christ, not physically, but spiritually. As a result of their searching, St. Peter charted out a spiritual path for them to follow, saying, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

Now that Christ had made three predictions–one concerning the time of His end, another concerning the manner in which His end would take place, and the third concerning how the people would react to His departure–he then pointed out the spiritual deficiency of the people whom He addressed in the temple, saying, “where I am you cannot come” (Jn 7:34b). We should take note of two important things in this statement. First, He did not say, “where I am going,” but, “where I am.” He said this to show that He is both God and man. As man, He is going to heaven, as He said, “now I am going to him who sent me” (Jn 16:5); but as God, He is already in heaven. When the Son of God became man, He came to a place where He had always been invisibly present as the Word of God, but that now He began to exist in a new way, a visible way, as a man. St. Augustine taught that, just as the Son of God came down to us in such a way that He had never left the Father, He returned in such a way that He will never leave us orphaned. Second, Christ did not say, “you will not come,” but, “you cannot come” to where I am. The road upon which they were traveling did not lead to Christ, for they did not believe in Christ. The Evangelist has written, “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). But, these people, whom Christ addressed, did not believe in Him. The Psalmist wrote, “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.” (Ps 24:3-4) Christ’s persecutors did not have a pure heart, for they hated Christ. Nor did they have clean hands, for they plotted to kill Christ. This is why, although their feet stood upon Mount Zion within the holy temple, they could not truly ascend God’s holy mountain.

Because these people had difficulty understanding Christ’s words in a truly spiritual way, they were quite puzzled by what He had just said of His end. “The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find him?’” (Jn 7:35a) Because carnal people do not have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, they cannot properly understand spiritual matters (1 Cor 2:14). Though Christ was referring to His spiritual presence, they thought that He had been speaking of His physical presence. Thus, they asked, “Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?” (Jn 7:35b).

In a literal sense, the “Dispersion,” or diaspora (Gk. scattered), refers to the Jews living outside of Palestine since the time of their exile to Babylon in 587 B.C. In a spiritual sense, they identified themselves with the descendants of Noah, according to the passage: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood” (Gn 10:32). Jews are united in three ways: in their worship, in their observance of the law of Moses, and according to their place of residence. All Jews are united in their worship and in their observance of the law, regardless of where they happen to live. Because the Jews of the Diaspora were scattered among the Gentiles and physically cut off from the promised land, they did not have the fullness of unity with their kin living in Israel. Perhaps Psalm 147 foretells their future: “The Lord builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the outcasts of Israel” (Ps 147:2).

When the people asked whether Christ had intended to leave Judea and go to the Diaspora, they were not suggesting that He had intended to become a Gentile Himself. Rather, they assumed, at least initially, that He wanted to teach the Gentiles in order to convert them to Judaism. Perhaps they were thinking of the Lord’s promise: “I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Is 49:6). If so, they thought correctly, for this prophecy accurately predicts the eventual conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity; yet Christ’s interlocutors had no idea that this prophecy would be fulfilled in that way, that is, by the conversion of Gentiles to Christianity. Similarly, Caiaphas spoke the truth when he said, “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people” (Jn 11:50); yet he did not understand that this was true because, by dying on the cross, Christ would merit the grace of salvation for all people.

At first, the people had thought that Christ was speaking about going into the Diaspora to preach to the Gentiles. But as they pondered His words, they realized that they had misunderstood Him, for He had said, “where I am you cannot come” (v. 34b). For surely, if He had intended to preach in Gentile lands, they would have been able to find Him there, living among the Jews of the Diaspora. The more they thought about what Jesus had said, the more perplexed they became. One can sense their exasperation in their words: “What does he mean by saying, ‘You will seek me and you will not find me,’ and, ‘Where I am you cannot come’?” (Jn 7:36).

St. Augustine said that Christ did indeed go to the Gentiles, not with His physical body, but through His Mystical Body, through the apostles, who baptized and preached in His name. Christ said of the Gentiles, “I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10:16). Isaiah spoke for these Gentiles when he said that the Lord would, “teach us his ways . . . that we may walk in his paths” (Is 2:3).

As we have seen (v. 14), Christ went up to Jerusalem for the feast of Sukkoth, but had arrived midway through the week-long celebration. He confronted His detractors in Jerusalem and began to teach publicly in the temple precincts (vv. 28-38). That His enemies were unable to restrain Him, or worse, to arrest Him, demonstrates the power of His divinity.

Some of the citizens of Jerusalem expressed their dismay at the way Christ’s detractors had treated Him: “Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, ‘Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?’” (Jn 7:25) We may note two things. First, some of the citizens of Jerusalem were appalled that their chief priests and leaders persecuted Christ, yet none of them dared to intervene on Christ’s behalf against the civil and religious authorities. Thus, Sirach’s words rang true: “like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants” (Sir 10:2). Second, these citizens inadvertently demonstrated the persecutors’ dishonesty and skullduggery, when they asked, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill?” Christ’s persecutors had just denied trying to kill Him, when they asked, feigning innocence, “Who is seeking to kill you?” (v. 20) But it was already common knowledge in the city that the chief priests and leaders were behind the plot. This shows how Christ had spoken the truth, while the conspirators had lied.

The people of Jerusalem were amazed on two counts: first, because of the unjust statements some had made against Christ, and secondly, because our Lord spoke publicly in the temple, even though threats had been made against His life. “And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him!” (Jn 7:26a) The boldness that Christ exhibited indicates that He was sure that He possessed the truth. The fact that the authorities said nothing to him indicates the magnitude of His divine power, for God can prevent men from carrying out their wicked plans by changing their hearts, as was written: “Thou didst make my enemies turn their backs to me” (Ps 18:40), and again, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Prv 21:1).

Plans had been made to arrest Christ during the festival. But now, though He had apparently wandered into their trap, the conspirators could not harm Him. The people of Jerusalem who had heard of the plot to arrest Christ stood in disbelief when they observed Him speaking openly in the courtyard of the temple, and even debating with the same ones who sought to arrest Him on capital charges. In their attempt to explain this odd turn of events, they conjectured: “Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?” (Jn 7:26b). We know that the leaders did not have a change of heart, else “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8) six months later during Passover. Their plans failed this time because they were thwarted by God Himself, for it was not yet Christ’s time to suffer and die. But at the next hagim, which was Passover, the following spring, they would execute their plot successfully, but only because it was then the will of God that they should do so.

The citizens doubted Christ’s divine origin, saying, “Yet we know where this man comes from” (Jn 7:27a). They reasoned that if Jesus were really from God, His origin would have been kept hidden from them. Using the same reasoning, the people of Nazareth rejected Jesus after He had preached in the synagogue; they murmured, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?” (Mt 13:55)

The citizens added, “and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from” (Jn 7:27b). They perhaps based this upon Deutero-Isaiah’s description of the Suffering Servant: “to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Is 53:1) However, according to the prophecy of Micah, it was commonly believed that the messiah would come from Bethlehem of Judah. Micah said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Mi 5:2). So, while the people knew of the messiah’s human origin, from reading the prophecy of Micah, the people did not know of the messiah’s divine origin, as Deutero-Isaiah admitted.

Next, the Evangelist takes us to the temple precincts and recounts how Christ preached openly in that sacred place, revealing His origin to the pilgrims who came up to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkoth. “So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple” (Jn 7:28a). The Greek word which is translated as “proclaimed” is echradzen, which is sometimes translated as “cried out.” One cries out for one of three reasons: either because he has great emotional distress, or great devotion, or because he has something of great importance to say. First, sometimes a person cries out because of great emotional distress. But Christ did not cry out for that reason while He was giving this teaching, for we read of the Lord’s Suffering Servant: “He will not cry or lift up his voice” (Is 42:2). Moreover, the wise man speaks softly and calmly, as we read: “The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools” (Eccl 9:17). Second, sometimes people cry out because of their great devotion, as the pilgrims pray in a Song of Ascents, as they make their way to the temple: “In my distress I cry to the Lord, that he may answer me” (Ps 120:1). But, Christ was already in the temple preaching, not on the road to Jerusalem. Third, sometimes a person cries out to reveal something important, so that his hearers might clearly understand, as we read, “Does not wisdom call, does not understanding raise her voice?” (Prv 8:1) Preachers are encouraged to cry out in this way: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression” (Is 58:1). This is why Christ cried out in the temple: to proclaim an important teaching, to make a revelation.

In revealing His origin, Christ distinguished between what the people knew about it and what they did not know about it. First, concerning what they knew, He said, “You know me,” that is, by physical appearance, “and you know where I come from” (Jn 7:28a), that is, my human origin, for they knew that He was born to Mary in Bethlehem of Judea, and raised in Nazareth of Galilee, but they did not know that He had been conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, nor did they know that His mother remained a virgin during and after His birth. Second, concerning what they did not know of His origin, He said, “But I have not come of my own accord” (Jn 7:28b), because the Son has His eternal origin in the Father, as He said, “I came from the Father and have come into the world” (Jn 16:28). Now, if He came into the world, then He must have existed prior to His coming into the world as man, for He said, “before Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8:58). A person cannot come or go unless He already exists. When we humans are conceived, we do not come into the world from some other place, but rather, we begin our existence in the womb. But with Christ, although He began His existence as man in the womb, He had already existed as God from all eternity.

When the Lord chose Moses to lead His people, Moses expressed reluctance because he felt that he lacked the necessary eloquence to be a proper leader (Ex 4:10). He entreated the Lord, “Oh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person” (Ex 4:13). Isaiah said that, when God’s people cry out, “he will send them a savior, and will defend and deliver them” (Is 19:20). And so, the Lord sent His Only Begotten Son, for His word is true (Rom 3:4). Thus, Christ said, “he who sent me is true, and him you do not know” (Jn 7:28c).

Christ could have said that the people knew of His divine origin, inasmuch as every human person is from God, in the sense that He is our Creator. Moreover, God immediately creates each human soul to inform a specific human body conceived in the womb. St. Hilary taught that the Son of God is from the Father in a different way than the rest of us are from the Father, for the Son is from the Father in such a way that the Son is also God, whereas we are from the Father in such a way that we are not divine by nature. Christ is the only natural Son of God, whereas we are adopted sons and daughters of God. The people of Jerusalem knew the nature from which Christ received His humanity, but not the nature from which He received His divinity.

Then Christ showed them how they might acquire knowledge of His origin. He began by affirming His origin in the Father, saying, “I know him, for I come from him” (Jn 7:29a). This statement demonstrates Christ’s competency to teach, for if one wishes to learn something, he must learn it from one who knows it. Since the Son knows the Father, if we want to know Whom the Father had sent, we should ask the Son.

When we speak of knowledge in Christ, we must distinguish between Christ as God and Christ as man. For Christ has knowledge in one way as God, and in another way as man.

1. Concerning divine knowledge in Christ. All knowledge is acquired through a likeness of the thing known in the one who knows it. Whatever proceeds (a term) from something (a principle) has a certain likeness to that from which it proceeds. In this way, every creature knows the Creator to some degree, inasmuch as it proceeds from the Creator by an act of creation, which is an act of external procession. The more a creature resembles its Creator, the greater knowledge it has of its Creator. Rational creatures have a greater likeness to God than non-rational creatures, for men have rational souls, whereas non-rational creatures do not. Angels have a greater likeness to God than men, for they are purely spiritual like God, whereas men are composite and hylomorphic, consisting of body and soul. Of all things, living and non-living, the Son has the greatest likeness to the Father because He has the same divine nature and power as the Father. Hence, it follows that He has the most complete knowledge of the Father. The Son knows the Father’s nature as He knows His own nature, for they have the same nature. Thus, the Son knows the Father perfectly, with the most excellent comprehensive knowledge, for “No one has ever seen God” (Jn 1:18) in such a comprehensive way, and “no one knows the Father except the Son” (Mt 11:27) in such a comprehensive way.

2. Concerning human knowledge in Christ. Man can acquire a certain knowledge of God simply by observing His creation, for the Creator is seen in His creatures, as a craftsman’s hand is seen in his handiwork. But this knowledge is secondhand and imperfect, as Elihu noted, “All men have looked on it,” that is, looked upon God’s works, but “man beholds it from afar” (Jb 36:25). In this earthly life, we see God through creatures, as through intermediaries, but in heaven, “we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). St. Paul explained: “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). The saints and the angels see the “face” of God, that is, they see God in His essence, as Christ said that the “angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 18:10). When a human person’s knowledge of God comes through grace, it can be lost when grace is lost on account of sin, as when “They forgot God, their Savior” (Ps 106:21). Since Christ as man cannot sin, He cannot lose His knowledge. Since His human soul is united to the Word of God in hypostatic union, Christ as man has a greater and more excellent knowledge of God than any other man has. However, as vast as that knowledge may be, His human soul cannot attain a fully comprehensive knowledge of God, since His human soul is created, and hence, finite, and a finite thing cannot fully comprehend the infinite.

When Christ said, “I know him,” He was referring to His eternal generation from the Father; and when He added, “and he sent me” (Jn 7:29b), He was referring to His incarnation, which was the visible manifestation of His divine mission, whereby He was sent by the Father to merit for us the grace of salvation (STh III, 48, 1). Christ is generated eternally from the Father and temporally from Mary; Christ has an eternal origin in the Father and a temporal origin in the Virgin Mary (STh I, 43, 2, ad 1). St. Paul explained: “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4-5).

Next, we see the effect of His public teaching: first, the effect it had upon his conspirators (v. 30); then the effect it had upon those who believed in Him (v. 31); and finally, the effect it had upon the Pharisees (v. 32).

1. The effect of Christ’s teaching upon the conspirators. “So they,” that is, the conspirators, “sought to arrest him” (Jn 7:30a). When Christ had said, “he who sent me is true, and him you do not know” (Jn 7:28c), He surely must have angered them, for they immediately “sought to arrest him.” Yet they were restrained by the divine power from doing so: “but no one laid hands on him “ (Jn 7:30b). A person may have the will to commit an act, but the power to do it comes ultimately from God. Satan was able to torment Job only because God allowed it. The reason God would not allow the conspirators to advance their plot on this occasion was this: “because his hour had not yet come” (Jn 7:20b). Qoheleth said, “Every matter has its time and way” (Eccl 8:6). A suitable time for a thing is determined by its cause. For example, the celestial bodies cause certain physical effects: the changing of day to night, the ocean tides, and the changing of the seasons. But the times in which we observe seasonal religious feasts are determined by the free will of the human soul, which is not effected by the motions of the stars and planets. We choose to observe feast days according to God’s command, not by the command of the stars. Sirach explained: “Why is any day better than another, when all the daylight in the year is from the sun? By the Lord’s decision they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and feasts.” (Sir 33:7-8) If the movement of the celestial bodies cannot determine human actions, much less can they determine the will of God. Thus, Christ’s hour to suffer and die was not determined by fate, nor by necessity, but by the will of the God.

2. The effect of Christ’s teaching upon the believers. “Yet many of the people believed in him” (Jn 7:31a). The Evangelist did not mention the leaders of the people, for the higher their social rank, the less willing they were to believe in Christ. As the officials lacked humility, they lacked wisdom, for “with the humble is wisdom” (Prv 11:2). And again, as Christ prayed to His Father, “thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” (Mt 11:25). The rich and the powerful trust in themselves, whereas the lowly, because their troubles are always on their mind, are quick to seek Christ’s medicine. This is why the lowly were the first ones converted to the faith, as St. Paul observed: “God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Cor 1:28-29).

“They said, ‘When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?’” (Jn 7:31b). This can be interpreted in two ways. First, if we take this to mean that they were not sure that He was the Messiah, then it seems that their faith in Christ was not yet perfected. If they were doubtful of His messiahship, then they certainly did not think that He might be God. Second, according to St. Augustine, they did indeed believe that Jesus was the Messiah, for it seemed to them that no one could work greater miracles than Jesus had worked. But if someone were to come along in the future and do such marvelous things, then surely he would be a second messiah.

3. The effect of Christ’s teaching upon the Pharisees. “The Pharisees heard the crowd thus muttering about him” (Jn 7:32a). Christ had chastised the Pharisees on many occasions, yet they had never retaliated by threatening Him with physical harm. But now that some of the people had accepted Christ’s teaching and had begun to follow Him, the Pharisees rose up quickly against Christ and set out to arrest Him: “and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him” (Jn 7:32b). This reveals the real reason why they wanted to put Jesus to death: not because He allegedly broke the Sabbath, and not because He claimed to be God’s Son, but because the people were beginning to follow him, and at the same time, they were paying less attention and respect to the Pharisees. Later the Pharisees lamented, saying, “look, the world has gone after him” (Jn 12:19). They did not seize Christ themselves on that day, undoubtedly because they were afraid of the people, many of whom had gone over to Christ. So, they sent their officers instead to try to arrest Him.

“So saying,” that is, saying that He would not be accompanying the “brothers” to Jerusalem, “he remained in Galilee” (Jn 7:9). This was in keeping with His word: “I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come” (Jn 7:8). They could not force Christ to change His mind, for “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent” (Nm 23:19).

Next, the Evangelist explained how Christ eventually ended up in Jerusalem. “But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up” (Jn 7:10). This seems to conflict with what Christ said in verse 8: “I am not going up to this feast.” But Christ was not fickle, for the Apostle said that He “was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes” (2 Cor 1:19). What appears to be a turnabout between verses eight and ten is really no turnabout at all, as we can explain in three ways. First, Sukkoth was a week-long religious festival. When Christ stated, “I am not going up to this feast” (v. 8), He was referring to the beginning of the festival. When the Evangelist reported that “he also went up” (v. 10), he was referring to the middle of the festival, for we read later on: “About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught” (v. 14). Second, St. Augustine suggested that the “brothers” wanted Christ to go up to Jerusalem so that He might accept temporal glory from the people waiting there for Him. When Christ said, “I am not going up to this feast” (v. 8), He did not mean that He did not care to go altogether, but rather, that He was unwilling to go for their purpose, namely to receive worldly glory. When He later went to the festival (v. 10), it was not for His own temporal glory, but to reveal to the people the truth about eternal glory. Third, according to St. John Chrysostom, the reason Christ did not travel with the “brothers” was because they had laid a trap for Him, and they intended to hand Him over to the authorities in Jerusalem. It was not yet His time to suffer and die, as He said, “my time has not yet fully come” (v. 8); but rather, it was His time to teach. Therefore, He went to Jerusalem later, traveling without the conniving disciples.

The manner in which Christ later traveled to Jerusalem was “not publicly but in private” (Jn 7:10). There are four reasons why He traveled in this way. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, Christ did this so as not to call too much attention to His divinity, thereby making His incarnation less certain, and requiring a greater act of faith on the part of His followers. Second, again according to Chrysostom, by traveling in secret, so that He might avoid the trap which had been laid for Him, Christ showed Christians, by His example, that it is no shame to flee from persecution when one’s persecutor cannot be restrained openly. Third, St. Augustine suggested that Christ traveled in secret in order to signify that this feast was a figure, for as He was hidden during this festival, He is hidden within other Old Testament figures. Because of this, Isaiah said, “I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob” (Is 8:17). Concerning the Old Law, we read, “the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb 10:1). Thus, St. Paul said of the Jews, “to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds” (2 Cor 3:15). During the Sukkoth festival, people took up temporary residence in tents or huts, much as they lived during their sojourn in the desert under the leadership of Moses. This festival signified that they were a pilgrim people. Similarly, we are pilgrims in this world, for we look ahead to eternal life in the heavenly kingdom. Fourth, another reason why Christ had gone up to Jerusalem in secret was to teach us that we should conceal the good works we do when their publicity would cause us to receive worldly glory and human accolades, as Christ cautioned, “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 6:1).

Next, the Evangelist gave the occasion for Christ’s revelation of the origin of His spiritual teaching. There are two reasons why Christ had an opportunity to reveal this: first, because the people had debated among themselves as to His character and the purpose of His teaching (vv. 11-13), and secondly, because they had marveled at His teaching (vv. 14-15).

1. How the people debated among themselves. First, we hear what the people had in common (v. 11); then, how they had differing opinions (v. 12); and finally, which opinion prevailed (v. 13).

First, concerning what the people had in common, we are told that they were all searching for Christ: “The Jews were looking for him at the feast” (Jn 7:11a). They took it for granted that He would be coming up to Jerusalem with the others, and were unaware that Christ had refused their coconspirators’ request. Hence, they were looking for Christ “and saying, ‘Where is he?’” (Jn 7:11b). Note that they had such animosity for Jesus that they did not even care to utter His name. We read of a similar situation with Jacob’s most beloved son, Joseph: “when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Gn 37:4).

Second, concerning how the people had differing opinions about Christ. “And there was much muttering about him among the people” (Jn 7:12a), because they disagreed among themselves about Christ’s origin and the truth of His teaching. Some searched for Christ in order to learn from Him, as the Psalmist advised: “[seek God and your soul shall live]” (Ps 69:32). Others looked for Christ in order to do Him harm, as we read: “[Let them be confounded and stand in awe, those who seek to snatch away my soul]” (Ps 40:14). “While some said, ‘He is a good man,’ others said, ‘No, he is leading the people astray’” (Jn 7:12b). The former are those with a pure heart, of whom it had been written, “Truly God is good to the upright, to those who are pure in heart” (Ps 73:1), and again, “The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him” (Lam 3:25). The others, who claimed, “he is leading the people astray,” must have had the chief priests among their number, for St. Luke tells us that the chief priests accused Christ of the same thing before Pilate, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation” (Lk 23:2). Moreover, the chief priests and Pharisees asked Pilate to place a guard at Christ’s tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again’” (Mt 27:63). The Greek word for “imposter” is planos, which also means “seducer” or “deceiver.” Thus, it appears that the chief priests and Pharisees considered Jesus, not to be a good rabbi, but a deceiver Who had led the people astray. One can be led away either from the truth or from falsity. In either case, the one who leads the others away can be called a “seducer.” Christ was not a seducer in the sense that He led people away from the truth, for He is “The true light that enlightens every man” (Jn 1:9) with the truth, and He said of Himself, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). Rather, Christ may be called a seducer in the sense that He leads us to the truth and away from error, as He said, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (Jn 8:12). This was also the sense in which the Lord had seduced Jeremiah: “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and thou hast prevailed” (Jer 20:7).

Third, concerning the opinion that prevailed. It is clear that the opinion of the chief priests prevailed, for after the people had debated these things among themselves, the ones who had been amenable to Christ and to His teaching, were now afraid to stand up for Him. “Yet for fear of the Jews,” that is, for fear of the chief priests and Pharisees and other leaders of the people who persecuted Christ, “no one spoke openly of him” (Jn 7:13), that is, the rest of the people no longer felt free to speak favorably of Him. This demonstrates the wickedness of Christ’s persecutors, for they prevented the people from exercising their free wills to speak or to question Christ so as to learn. Moreover, they coerced the people by threatening them with excommunication, for we read that “the Jews,” that is, the religious authorities, “had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (Jn 9:22).

2. How the people marveled at His teaching. The Evangelist mentioned the time and the place where Christ gave His teaching: “About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught” (Jn 7:14). First, concerning the time. This can be interpreted in a literal sense and in a spiritual sense. First, according to a literal interpretation, Christ avoided the first three days of the feast because, during that time, although the good pilgrims worshipped God devoutly, the worldly pilgrims busied themselves with trivial worldly affairs and financial profit. But, by the time the festival was half over, these temporal matters had been settled, and the people were better disposed to receive His spiritual teaching. Second, in a spiritual sense, Christ’s mid-festival arrival signifies the manner in which the Word of God revealed spiritual truths over the course of human history, for the Word of God appeared in person to teach about the kingdom of God, not at the beginning of time, nor at the end, but in the middle, at a time when His teaching would do us the most good.

The Incarnation took place at the most fitting time: not too early, and not too late. There are two reasons why the Incarnation did not take place earlier than it did (STh III, 1, 5). It did not take place before Adam had sinned, because medicine is given only to the sick, as Jesus said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician” (Mt 9:12). It did not take place immediately after Adam had sinned, for God desired to give us ample time to realize how much we needed a Redeemer. When God created man, He instilled in his heart the natural law and a free will to follow it. When man had failed to follow the natural law, God gave the law to Moses, so that they might understand the eternal law of God more clearly. But when they had failed to observe the Law properly, and God voiced His displeasure through the prophets, they cried out for a physician to heal them from their unfaithfulness. Finally, the Father acceded to their request and sent His Son to bestow grace upon us. This explains why our Redeemer did not come in the beginning. As to why He did not wait until the end of time, St. Thomas suggested (STh III, 1, 6) that, if the Father had waited until the end of the world to send the Redeemer, then knowledge of God and reverence for Him would have been so delayed that many souls would have been lost to vice. Since Christ is the efficient cause of the perfection of human nature, it was fitting that He accomplish His mission in the fullness of time. The Incarnation came just at the right time in salvation history: not before we were ready to receive Him, and not so late that many would have lost hope.

Second, concerning the place. Christ taught in the temple for two reasons. First, to signify that He was speaking the truth. Second, since the temple is a sacred place set apart from the profane world, it was appropriate that Christ should teach divine truths there. In doing this, He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “many peoples shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Is 2:3)

Then the Evangelist described the marvel of the people: “The Jews marveled at it, saying, ‘How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?’” (Jn 7:15). St. John did not mention specifically what it was that Christ had been teaching that so amazed them, only that they had marveled because of it. Their amazement was all the more pronounced because they had heard that His father was a carpenter and that His mother was a poor woman from Nazareth. They would have expected Him to spend His life, not devoted to the study of Sacred Scripture, but to manual labor, as was said of the poor man, “[I am poor and have labored since my youth]” (Ps 88:15).

Now that the Evangelist has given us the setting (vv. 1-10), and has told us of the occasion that prompted the revelation (vv. 11-15), he now recounts how Christ revealed to the people the origin of His spiritual teaching. This came in response to their question, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?”

Christ then revealed the origin of His teaching: “So Jesus answered them, ‘My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me’” (Jn 7:16). It should surprise no one that a carpenter’s son could speak such sublime spiritual truths, for these truths come not from a human person, but from God. Christ’s statement presents a problem, however, in that He said, “My teaching is not mine.” This seems to contradict the fact that He is the Word of God; and because the Word of God is united to the human soul of Christ in hypostatic union, the Word infused into Christ’s human intellect the knowledge of all things which the human intellect can possibly know (STh, III, 9, 3) and the knowledge of all that God has revealed to mankind throughout history (STh III, 11, 1). So, it seems that Christ should be able to say that His teaching is His own, either from the fact that He is the Word of God, or from the fact that the Word has infused the teaching into His human soul most perfectly. But there is really no contradiction here, for in one sense this doctrine is Christ’s own, and in another sense it is not His own. We can explain this in two ways.

First, a person’s teaching is his word, and the Father’s word is the Word of God. Since the Word of God is also the Son of God, it follows that the Father’s teaching is the Son Himself. The Word of God belongs to Himself according to substance, for we say that a thing belongs to itself. However, the Word of God does not belong to himself according to origin, for He takes His origin from another person, namely, the Father. In the first sense, the Father’s doctrine is also the Son’s doctrine, for everything that the Son has, He has from the Father through an eternal act of generation, as Christ said, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). But in the second sense, owing to the distinction of divine persons, the Father’s doctrine cannot be absolutely identified with the Son’s doctrine, for Father and Son are two distinct persons, even though they are of the same substance, and the substance of their teachings is the same. Inasmuch as they are two persons, they have two teachings, for the Father expresses His teaching through the Word of God, whereas the Incarnate Word expresses the same teaching through created words.

Second, according to St. Augustine, inasmuch as Christ is in “the form of God” (Phil 2:6), His teaching was His own, but inasmuch as Christ is in “the form of a servant” (Phil 2:7), His teaching is not His own, but rather, His created human soul received its knowledge from the Word of God, to Whom it is united in hypostatic union. Considering how Christ as man received His knowledge from God, we should thank God for all the knowledge we possess, for any truth that we have is a participation in the one Truth, Who is the Word of God. The Apostle reasoned: “What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?” (1 Cor 4:7)

Christ then demonstrated that all spiritual teaching comes from God. He proved this in two ways: first, from the wise man’s judgment (v. 17), and secondly, from His own intention (v. 18).

1. The wise man’s judgment: proof that spiritual teaching comes from God. Christ said, “if any man’s will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (Jn 7:17). This can be interpreted in three ways. First, just as any question is best decided by one who has experience in that particular matter, the question of whether Christ’s doctrine comes from God should be decided upon by an expert in divine matters. The sensual person lacks the necessary competence to decide upon divine matters, as St. Paul explained: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned,” whereas, “The spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor 2:14-15). The people who accused Christ of blasphemy were not competent to judge these matters, because they themselves were carnal and were alienated from God.

Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, God wills that His adopted sons and daughters have charity, and that they humbly abide with one another in peace, as Christ taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Mt 5:9). That is, to be called a son of God, one must live peaceably in the community of mankind. Love of controversy often distorts the human mind, so that a person mistakes what is false for what is true. For this reason, when a person resolves to live peaceably, he acquires a greater insight into the truth. Christ is saying that, if one wishes to judge His teaching correctly, he should abandon his anger, envy, and hatred of Christ. If he does so, he will remove the stumbling block which has prevented him from realizing that Christ spoke only the divine truth.

Third, according to St. Augustine, it is God’s will that we know His works, just as it is a master’s will that his servants do their master’s work. God’s will is that we should believe in His Son, Whom He had sent to us, as Christ said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (Jn 6:29). If one does the will of God, that is, if one believes in His Son, then he shall know that the Son’s teaching is from God, Who sent Him. As Isaiah said to King Ahaz, “[if you will not believe, you shall not endure]” (Is 7:9), Christ said to his persecutors, If you will believe, you will understand that I speak God’s truth.

2. Christ’s intention: proof that spiritual teaching comes from God. Christ indicated that one can recognize the source of a teaching by the intention of the one purporting the teaching. To illustrate His point, Christ presented two teachers, each with a different intention: one seeking his own glory, and the other seeking the glory of the one by whose authority he teaches. Concerning the first teacher, He said, “He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory” (Jn 7:18a), and concerning the second, He said, “but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no [injustice]“ (Jn 7:18b). All true knowledge comes from another in one of three ways: (1) by revelation from God; (2) by instruction, as from a teacher; or (3) by discovery, from the observation of things. The person who speaks on his own authority, teaches what is in his own heart, but what is in his heart may not be the truth. That is why we hear the Lord caution the people, saying, “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord” (Jer 23:16), and again, “Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing” (Ez 13:3). A person who teaches his own doctrine should always be suspect, for St. John Chrysostom noted that such a person does so because he seeks human glory for himself. For this reason, and because of human pride, heresies have arisen. Moreover, self-proclaimed doctrine is a characteristic of the antichrist, who will “take his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2 Thes 2:4). By contrast, Christ said plainly, “I do not seek my own glory” (Jn 8:50). In verse 18b, we see that the good teacher is both true and just. Christ proved His truthfulness by the fact that He sought to glorify the Father, for whoever looks for God’s glory demonstrates that he has true knowledge, as even some Pharisees admitted, saying to Jesus, “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men” (Mt 22:16). Christ proved His justice by giving the Father glory. An unjust person takes what is not his, but Christ did not appropriate to Himself the glory that belongs to the Father. Thus, Christ’s intention to seek the Father’s glory, not His own, proves that His spiritual teaching comes from God.

Now that Christ had demonstrated, in two arguments, that spiritual teaching comes from God, He then set about to answer the two accusations which His detractors had leveled against Him: namely, that He broke the Sabbath by healing (vv. 19-24), and that He committed blasphemy by claimed to be God’s Son (vv. 25-36).

Addressing their first accusation, Christ said, “Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” (Jn 7:19). We can make three observations concerning their disrespect for the law of Moses. First, they were not persecuting Christ because of their zealous devotion to the law, for if they had truly loved the law, they would have observed it better than they had done. St. Stephen, at his trial before the Sanhedrin in 36, accused his accusers, saying, “you received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it” (Acts 7:53). At the Council of Jerusalem in 49, St. Peter spoke up against certain Jewish Christians, members of the Pharisee party, who wanted to circumcise Gentile Christians. Peter said that such action would place “a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). In other words, if zealous Jews did not observe the law perfectly, it seems unreasonable that they should expect others to do what they could not. Christ’s detractors used His alleged infractions of the law as an excuse to persecuted Him. In fact, it was not because of the law that they persecuted Him, but because they hated Him. The fact that they hated a just man demonstrated their wickedness, for wicked men conspire against the just, saying, “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. . . . Let us condemn him to a shameful death.” (Wis 2:12-13, 20). What could be a more shameful death than a crucifixion? For “a hanged man is accursed by God” (Dt 21:23). Second, they demonstrated their inability to observe the law of Moses by the fact that they conspired to put Jesus to death, for such action is against the commandment, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). Third, St. Augustine noted that they manifested their disrespect for the law of Moses by expressing disrespect for Christ, for Christ is prefigured in the law to Moses. That is why Christ said, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46).

They responded to Christ’s accusation with a scathing outburst: “The people answered, ‘You have a demon!” (Jn 7:20a). This statement is illogical, for it asserts that the One Who cast out demons has a demon Himself. The same illogicality was proffered by the Pharisees, upon hearing that Christ had exorcised a blind mute man; on that occasion, they claimed, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Mt 12:24). Then the outraged detractors asked Christ, “Who is seeking to kill you?’” (Jn 7:20b), as if to conceal the fact that they were the very ones who were seeking to have Jesus put to death.

Christ did not trade insult for insult, for “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly” (1 Pt 2:23). Rather, Christ calmly answered their objection and vindicated Himself with a reasonable explanation (vv. 21-24). First, He recalled the incident that provoked them to judge Him most harshly, the fact that He healed the lame man on the Sabbath (v. 21); then He presented an argument to show why such healings should not bother their consciences (vv. 22-23); finally, He instructed them on how to make a judgment that is just (v. 24).

Christ recalled the incident that both amazed and troubled them: the healing of the lame man in Jerusalem (Jn 5:1-9). “Jesus answered them, ‘I did one deed, and you all marvel at it’” (Jn 7:21). We may make two points here. First, sometimes amazement leads to devotion, as the prophet said, “Then you shall see and be radiant, your heart shall thrill and rejoice” (Is 60:5), and sometimes amazement gives rise to agitation and discontent, as we read, “Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors. When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation.” (Wis 5:2) The amazement that Christ’s detractors experienced was of this second kind. Second, by saying “I did one deed,” Christ was implying that it was knowledge of this one miracle that had caused them to be troubled. If they had seen more signs, then perhaps they would not have been disturbed, but would have been more certain of His divine power. For they knew that the Lord has done great things for His people: “they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; he sent forth his word, and healed them” (Ps 107:19-20), and again, “neither herb nor poultice cured them, but it was thy word, O Lord, which heals all men” (Wis 16:12). They wanted to see more signs from Christ.

Next, Christ presented an argument to show why His healings should not trouble them. “Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers)” (Jn 7:22a). Circumcision is “a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gn 17:11), that is, between God and Abraham, who represented God’s chosen people. Moses enforced God’s command by requiring all males, slave or free, to receive this sign in their flesh (Ex 12:44). In a spiritual sense, this sign signified Christ, inasmuch as He descended, in His human nature, from Abraham through Mary. Circumcision is a sign in opposition to sin, and Christ spiritually circumcises both body and soul, leaving an indelible mark upon the person who has been spiritually regenerated. Now, in Christ’s day, they circumcised on any day of the week, including the Sabbath, as He noted, “and you circumcise a man upon the sabbath” (Jn 7:22b), for it was the custom to circumcise a boy when he was eight days old, as God had commanded: “Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him” (Gn 21:4). It was not regarded as a violation of the law of Moses to circumcise on the Sabbath, for circumcision on the eighth day was commanded by the Lord. From these facts, Christ concluded: “If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?” (Jn 7:23)

Christ’s argument is most effective for three reasons. First, in the case of human law, the later laws are greater than the earlier ones, for a subsequent human law annuls a previous human law. But in the case of divine law, the earlier laws have greater authority than subsequent laws. Thus, the command given to Abraham to circumcise was not abrogated by the command given to Moses to rest on the Sabbath. St. Paul explained: “the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward,” that is, after the covenant with Abraham, “does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void” (Gal 3:17). Christ was saying this: if the law of Moses cannot abrogate the divine command given to Abraham, much less can the law of Moses forbid what I do, for what I do for the salvation of mankind was ordained by God before Moses was given the law, and before Abraham was commanded, and even before the world was created.

Second, although the law forbade work on the Sabbath in general, the people did work on the Sabbath when such work promoted the salvation of a person. Thus, they circumcised on the eighth day, even when that happened to fall on the Sabbath. If one may work on the Sabbath for the salvation of one person, it follows a fortiori that one may work on the Sabbath for the salvation of all persons. Since Christ became man in order to bring mankind to salvation, it should not disturb anyone to see Him work toward that end on the Sabbath.

Third, every command of God to the Jews was a figure, as St. Paul said, “[all these things happened to them in figures]” (1 Cor 10:11). The Greek word for “figure” is typos, which is a symbol, analogy, or model. A figure is not the reality itself, but merely represents the reality, and as such, is less than the reality in some way. If one figure, namely, the law to rest on the Sabbath, did not abrogate a previous figure, namely, the command to circumcise, much less does any figure abrogate the truth which it symbolizes, for the truth is greater than the figure which it represents. Since circumcision symbolizes Christ, Christ is greater than the sign of circumcision; and since the Sabbath rest did not abrogate circumcision, neither did it forbid Christ to perform His work on the Sabbath. The proof that Christ is greater than the sign is this: circumcision on the Sabbath affected only the body of the boy circumcised, whereas when Christ healed the lame man on the Sabbath, He cured both body and soul, for after Christ had healed the man’s body, the man began to believe, and hence, was healed in his soul. Thus, Christ said to them, “I made a man’s whole body well,” that is, body and soul.

Now that Christ had successfully defended Himself against their first accusation, that He broke the Sabbath, He then instructed them on how to make a judgment that is just. “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment” (Jn 7:24). There are two ways in which one judges by appearances. First, when one draws a conclusion based solely upon allegations. Relying solely upon the word of men often leads to a hasty and incorrect conclusion. God does not judge like that; rather, “He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor” (Is 11:3-4). Nor did the just man Job judge hastily, as he confessed, “I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Jb 29:16). Second, one judges by appearances when he shows favoritism to a person, based on love, or fear, or deference because of rank or status. When we love all people equally, we do not discriminate according to appearance. Just because the Jews honored Moses more than Jesus, they should not have based their judgment upon reputation, but upon the facts. For if they had done so, they would have concluded that Christ was doing far greater things than Moses had ever done.

The Evangelist begins this discussion by giving the setting in which Christ would reveal the origin of His spiritual teaching. There were three things that motivated the disciples to urge Christ to go up to Jerusalem, where He would reveal the origin of His spiritual teaching: (1) His lingering in Galilee, (2) His stated intention not to travel into Judea, and (3) the appropriateness of the time.

Concerning Christ’s lingering in Galilee. “After this,” that is, after He had given a discourse on spiritual food in the synagogue at Capernaum, “Jesus went about in Galilee” (Jn 7:1a). He remained in Galilee to show that we should be persistent in the spiritual life, so that we might pass from vice to virtue, and one day, to attain eternal life. While we are in this world, surrounded by temptations, we live as exiles, as the Lord said to the prophet Ezekiel: “son of man, prepare for yourself an exile’s baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight” (Ez 12:3). While we are living in exile in this world, we prepare for our journey to heaven, even as Christ eventually went up to Jerusalem for the feast of Sukkoth (v. 10). Thus, the disciples encouraged Christ to leave Galilee for Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkoth, which the Greek-speaking Jews call Pentecost, which takes place fifty days after Passover.

Concerning Christ’s intention not to go to Judea. “He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him” (Jn 7:1b). Zealous Jews sought to kill Him “because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God” (Jn 5:18). The penalty for working on the Sabbath (Nm 15:25) and the penalty for blasphemy (Lv 24:14) were the same: stoning. They believed that Jesus had shown Himself to be guilty on both counts.

One might ask why Christ could not have safely gone into Judea at this time, whereas in chapter eight and beyond we read that He went there. Three answers may be given to this question. First, according to St. Augustine, Christ did this as an example to future Christians who would flee from persecution, rather than face the sword. Such Christians were often criticized for being fainthearted. Here Christ indicated, by His example, that it is sometimes prudent to avoid a confrontation that would lead to one’s persecution. On another occasion, Christ advised His disciples, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next” (Mt 10:23). Second, by the power of His divinity, Christ could have easily prevented His persecutors from achieving their aim. Yet, He did not wish to manifest His divinity so often as to overshadow His humanity, lest anyone doubt the reality of His human nature. Therefore, sometimes He stood firm for a confrontation, and at other times, He prudently slipped away. He manifest His divinity by walking through a hostile crowd unharmed, and He manifest His humanity by quietly walking away from them. Third, it was not yet Christ’s time to suffer and die. This was the feast of Sukkoth, the agricultural feast which commemorated the completion of the fall harvest. But it was more fitting that Christ should die during the Passover, when the spotless lamb was slain. Thus, shortly before Passover, “Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father” (Jn 13:1).

Concerning the appropriateness of the time. “Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand” (Jn 7:2). We read in Ex 23:14-17 that the Lord commanded every Jewish male to go up to the temple in Jerusalem three times a year in order to celebrate the three great pilgrimage feasts (hagim): (1) the feast of Unleavened Bread (Massoth), which was later combined with the celebration of Passover (Pesah), which took place on the fourteenth of Abib (March or April according to our calendar); (2) the feast of Weeks (Shavuot), which was celebrated fifty days after Passover; and (3) the feast of Tents or Tabernacles (Sukkoth), which was celebrated on the fifteenth of Tishri (September or October according to our calendar).

We should note, regarding the timeframe, that we are now in the second year of Christ’s public ministry. St. John mentioned three Passovers: the first one took place immediately following the miracle at Cana (Jn 2:12), the second one followed the feeding of the five thousand (Jn 6:4), and the third one was His last supper (Jn 13:1). The Sukkoth referred to in Jn 7:2 is the one which took place six months after the second Passover mentioned by St. John. The Evangelist is silent about any events that took place during the six months between Christ’s discourse on spiritual food, which He gave in the synagogue at Capernaum before the Passover, and the discourse He was soon to give in Jerusalem during Sukkoth. Since St. John seems to have been mainly concerned with discussing matters over which Christ and other Jewish teachers disagreed, it seems likely that no significant theological dispute occurred during the six months between Passover and Sukkoth in the second year of Christ’s public ministry.

Now that we have discussed three reasons why the disciples were motivated to ask Christ to go up to Jerusalem for Sukkoth, we see how they asked Christ to make the pilgrimage. First, they made the request (v. 3a); then, they gave Him a reason why He should go (vv. 3b-4b); then the Evangelist mentioned the reason why the disciples had made the request (v. 5).

Here we read how the disciples made the request of Christ: “So his brothers said to him” (Jn 7:3a). Note that the Greek word adelphos (brother) can be understood either literally or figuratively. Here it is used figuratively. These “brothers” (adelphoi) were not our Lord’s blood brothers, for we believe that the Virgin Mary did not have any natural children except Jesus, nor was anything written in the scriptures to suggest otherwise. The Roman layman, Helvidius (fl. 383), denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and asserted that the mention of Christ’s “brothers” proves his case. However, this proves nothing, for, as noted in Chapter 2, Lecture 1, on Jn 2:4, the word “brother,” in Sacred Scripture, refers not only to sibling relationships, but to non-blood relationships as well. St. Augustine said that just as our Lord’s tomb contained no body before or after His body, so too did the womb of the Virgin Mary contain no body before or after His body.

These disciples made their request by saying to Jesus, “Leave here and go to Judea” (Jn 7:3a), that is, to Jerusalem for the Sukkoth festival, for Jerusalem is a place well-suited to religious teaching. Thus, Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, said to the prophet Amos, “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there, and prophesy there” (Am 7:12). It seems that the “brothers” who urged Christ to leave Galilee for Judea did not really love Him, for such a journey would have involved a certain amount of danger for Jesus because of the group of zealous Jews in Judea who sought to kill him (v. 1b). It seems that these “brothers” were not James the son of Alphaeus, nor James and John the sons of Zebedee, for these three apostles were relatives of Jesus, “brothers” in the extended sense of the word; and they presumably loved Him.

Next, these “brothers” gave Christ a reason why He should go, and in doing so, they revealed three things about themselves: their vainglory, their suspiciousness, and their unbelief. First, they demonstrated that they were hungry for glory when they said, “that your disciples may see the works you are doing” (Jn 7:3b). They thought that Christ performed signs for His own personal glory. And they hoped that, by being associated with Christ, they too might receive the praise of the people. It is characteristic of a person infected by vainglory to desire that his works be seen in public. Hence, they urged Christ to display His works in public. Christ said of such vainglorious people, “they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (Jn 12:43), and again, “they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” (Mt 6:5) Second, they demonstrated that they were suspicious, when they said, “For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly” (Jn 7:4a). Here we note two things about them. First, they seem to complain that Christ had been performing miracles in secret. Perhaps it seemed so to them, because the Evangelist mentioned no notable events in the previous six months. But their implication that Christ had been deliberately secretive is unfounded, for Christ clearly said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly” (Jn 18:20). Second, when these disciples said, “if he seeks to be known openly,” they seem to have unfairly implied that Christ sought human glory. Since a man who seeks glory refrains from seeking glory only when he is afraid to do so, they seem to have implied that Christ refrained from going to Jerusalem only because He feared the wrath of the authorities or of the zealous Jews who sought to kill Him. It is characteristic of evil people to project their own moral deficiencies upon others. It appears that these disciples were projecting their own vices upon Christ. Third, they demonstrated their unbelief when they said, “If you do these things, show yourself to the world” (Jn 7:4b). Had they not doubted Christ’s power, they would have said, “When you do these things,” not “If you do these things.”

The Evangelist confirmed their unbelief when he offered a reason why these disciples had asked Christ to go up to Jerusalem: “For even his brothers did not believe in him” (Jn 7:5). Sometimes “brothers,” even blood brothers, are jealous of one another’s spiritual goods. The prophet Micah observed, “a man’s enemies are the men of his own house” (Mi 7:6); and Job lamented, “My kinsfolk and my close friends have failed me” (Jb 19:14).

Christ then gave them His answer (vv. 6-8), and this is interpreted in one way by St. Augustine, and in another way by St. John Chrysostom.

First, according to St. Augustine, these brothers were urging Christ to accept human glory. There is a proper time to receive glory: and that is in the life hereafter. But the worldly seek to take their glory in this life, as they urge one another: “Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that exist, and make use of the creation to the full as in youth. Let us take our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no flower of spring pass by us. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither.” (Wis 2:6-8) Christ demonstrated that He was not seeking glory in this life, but rather, was seeking heavenly glory by humbly submitting His human will to the divine will and obediently accepting His passion and death. For this reason, it was necessary that Christ should suffer so as to enter into his glory (Lk 24:26).

“Jesus said to them, ‘My time has not yet come’” (Jn 7:6a), for “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18). Then Christ added, “but your time,” that is, the time to seek worldly glory, “is always here” (Jn 7:6b), for these disciples love what the world loves. By contrast, the saints love the things that worldly men despise, such as poverty, humility, suffering, and afflictions. Moreover, the saints despise what the world loves, as St. Paul said, “far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). Christ, therefore, concluded that “The world cannot hate you” (Jn 7:7a), because your time of glory is here and now, “but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil” (Jn 7:7b), that is, I reprimand the worldly, even though they hate Me and threaten Me with bodily death. The prophet Amos observed: “They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth” (Am 5:10). The fool does not accept the criticism of the wise man, but the wise man accepts criticism with gratitude, as the Proverb reads: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you” (Prv 9:8).

One worldly person does not hate another worldly person because he is worldly. Rather, one worldly person hates another worldly person for one of two reasons: either because the former wants what the latter possesses, or because the latter prevents the former from obtaining something pertaining to worldly glory. Worldly people hate the saints because the saints are opposed to worldly glory. If a worldly person admires a saintly person in some respect, it is not because the saintly person is part worldly, but because the worldly person perceives something spiritual in the saint.

Christ expressed His refusal to go when He said, “Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come” (Jn 7:8). Just as there are two types of glory, there are two types of feasts. Worldly people have temporal feasts for their own enjoyment and earthly pleasure, while saintly people have spiritual feasts, whereby they experience sublime joy in the Holy Spirit. Isaiah told us that when the Lord called for weeping and mourning and girding with sackcloth, certain worldly people responded with “joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine” (Is 22:13). The Lord said of their festivals: “your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them” (Is 1:14). Jerusalem is “the city of our appointed feasts” (Is 33:20), for it is there, on Mount Zion, that the great religious festivals are celebrated. But the Lord said, “your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them” (Is 1:14), for the worldly go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts for their own temporal pleasure and enjoyment. Christ said that He will not go to “this feast,” that is, to feasts for temporal pleasure. He will not go now, because His time had not yet fully come; that is to say, the time of His eternal glory is not a temporal joy, but one that lasts forever.

Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, who interpreted Christ’s answer (vv. 6-8) differently, these “brothers” are the disciples who plotted with certain zealous Jews to put Christ to death. They urged Christ to go to Jerusalem so that they might betray Him there and hand Him over to the authorities who were headquartered there. When Christ said, “My time has not yet come” (v. 6a), He meant that it was not yet time for Him to be crucified. When He said, “but your time is always here” (v. 6b), He meant that these “brothers” could always associate with the zealous Jews without danger, for the “brothers” and the zealous Jews were of the same mind. When He said that the world “hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil” (v. 7b), He indicated that they wanted to put Him death, not because He healed on the Sabbath, but because He publicly denounced the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. Christ did not go to Jerusalem with them for the beginning of the Sukkoth festival, but quietly arrived later in the week in order to thwart their plan to hand Him over, for His time had “not yet fully come” (v. 8).

1. The scandalized disciples who turned away from Christ. First we hear their objection (vv. 60), then the Christ’s response (vv. 61-66).

The disciples’ objection. “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (Jn 6:60) We note three things. First, concerning “Many of his disciples.” Christ had many disciples among the Jews; many believed in Him and followed Him, but many others fell away. But the twelve were special in that they had given up everything to follow Christ; He chose them to be His apostles, sending them into the world to baptize with water and the Holy Spirit and to teach in His name, as He said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).

Second, concerning “This is a hard saying.” Christ’s recent statements, for example, His declaration, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53), disturbed many of them. That is why they commented, “This is a hard saying.” These are the ones whom Christ spoke about in the Parable of the Sower, when He said that the seeds sown on rocky soil “are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Lk 8:13). Christ said elsewhere, “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14). These disgruntled disciples were called, but not chosen, whereas the twelve were both called and chosen.

A thing is said to be “hard” if it is difficult to divide or if it offers resistance in some way to reasonable force. A saying is said to be “hard” when the intellect offers resistance because it cannot understand it, or when the will offers resistance because the saying does not please it. The words of Christ were “hard” for their intellects because they were carnal; they understood material bread, but could not grasp the concept of spiritual bread. Therefore, eating the Bread of Life, which is Christ, seemed like cannibalism to them, and was, therefore, repugnant to them. The words of Christ were “hard” for their wills because Christ implied that He is divine, when He said that the living bread “comes down from heaven” (vs. 50, 58). Although many of them believed that He was a prophet sent by God, they did not believe that He was God’s Son; that is, they did not believe that He was divine. Some said of Christ, “His letters are weighty and strong” (2 Cor 10:10); that is, His teaching was “weighty” because it was too hard for their intellects to understand, and it was “strong” because it was too hard for their wills to accept. Sirach said of Wisdom: “She seems very harsh to the uninstructed; a weakling will not remain with her. She will weigh him down like a heavy testing stone, and he will not be slow to cast her off. (Sir 6:20-21)

Third, concerning their question, “Who can listen to it?” They spoke this, not as a question requiring an answer, but as an excuse for leaving Him. They had chosen to become Christ’s disciples, yet now, they were leaving Him because they did not like what He was teaching. They felt they had to justify their turnabout. They blamed their defection upon their Teacher, not upon their own inability to understand and to accept His teaching. They used His most recent words as an excuse to leave Him. Concerning these shallow disciples, the Proverb reads, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion” (Prv 18:2).

Christ’s response to their objection. Now that we have heard the disciples’ objection, we hear Christ’s response; and this comes in three parts. First, Christ acknowledged their scandal (v. 61); then, He removed the cause of their scandal (vv. 62-63); and finally, He gave the true cause of their leaving Him (vv. 64-65).

Christ first acknowledged their scandal: “But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, ‘Do you take offense at this?’” (Jn 6:61) Here we can make five points. First, Christ in His divinity knew everything that was in their hearts, as the Evangelist had said: “he himself knew what was in man” (Jn 2:25), for “[God searches the heart and soul]” (Ps 7:9). Second, as Isaiah had foretold, Christ’s teaching became “a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel” (Is 8:14). The Apostle noted, “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). A stumbling block (Gk. skandalon) is something which causes a person’s downfall. Christ’s hard words to the people in the synagogue at Capernaum were for them a stumbling block, they turned away from Him because of these words. Third, Christ spoke in this way because the people were under the misapprehension that His living bread was material bread. They had asked Him for an endless supply of material bread, whereas He came down from heaven to give us spiritual food, bread that gives eternal life. Fourth, their scandal was caused, not by Christ speaking the truth, but by their inability to understand the truth and their unwillingness to accept His word. If they had been of a different mindset, they might have questioned Christ in order to learn, as the apostles questioned Him on other occasions, or as the Virgin Mary questioned the angel Gabriel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Lk 1:34) Fifth, St. Augustine suggested that this incident serves as an example to teachers of the faith, to be patient when they are belittled for what they teach, and to be comforted by the fact that Christ’s disciples disparaged Him on account of what He said.

Now that Christ had acknowledged their scandal, He removed the cause of their scandal. They were scandalized, not because He had healed the lame man or had fed the five thousand, for the prophet Elisha had healed Naaman of leprosy (2 Kgs 2:1-19) and fed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves (2 Kgs 4:42-44); rather, they were scandalized because Jesus had implied that He was divine, for He had said that the living bread, which He identified with Himself, “comes down from heaven” (vv. 50, 58). These disciples believed that He was the son of Joseph, but not the Son of God.

To overcome their scandal, Christ made a hypothetical suggestion: “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (Jn 6:62). This can be interpreted in two ways. First, according to one interpretation, Christ was pointing out their lack of faith. It was as if He were saying: If only you would see me ascending back into heaven from where I came, then you would have no reason to doubt that I am God, for “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man” (Jn 3:13). Because sight is more certain than hearing, visual proof is more sought after than the spoken word. Christ proved Himself in a similar way to Nathanael, when He pointed out that the young man had come to believe in Him only because Christ had told Him something that was hidden from plain sight: namely, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” (Jn 1:50). And just as Christ promised Nathanael, saying, “You shall see greater things than these” (Jn 1:50), so too did He say that the Jews in Capernaum would “see the Son of man ascending.” Indeed, this happened forty days after His resurrection, when, in the sight of His disciples, “he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Second, according to St. Augustine, Christ said this to demonstrate that He was giving His flesh as spiritual food, not as material food, as one eats the flesh of an animal. For if His human body ascends and leaves the earth, but His food remains on earth as He had promised, then the Bread of Life cannot be material food that may be divided up, but spiritual food which is indivisible.

To ascend from earth to heaven pertains to Christ’s human nature, not to His divine nature, for in His divinity, He forever lives with the Father in heaven. It was fitting that the Divine Person of Christ should return to heaven, to where He had always been in His divinity. But when He ascended, His human body and soul went to where it had never been before. Thus, He said, “I came from the Father,” inasmuch as I am eternally begotten of Him, “and have come into the world,” by assuming human nature and taking flesh from the Virgin Mary. Then He said, “I am leaving the world and going to the Father,” that is, My human body and soul is going to a place where it had never been (Jn 16:28).

“It is the [Spirit] that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (Jn 6:63a). This was interpreted in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, a person can choose to understand Christ’s words either spiritually or materially. If a person understands Christ’s words according to their spiritual meaning, then the Holy Spirit will give him life; but if he understands them in a material way, then Christ’s teaching will do him no good, for “if you live according to the flesh you will die” (Rom 8:13). The Jews at Capernaum took Christ’s words in a material way, as pertaining to His human flesh. They thought that Christ wanted them to eat His flesh in the same way that they eat the flesh of animals. But though the true flesh of Christ is really present in the Eucharist, it is consumed spiritually and in a divine way for the benefit of both the soul and the body, whereas an animal’s flesh is consumed and digested for the benefit of the body alone. To indicate that His words concerning the living bread were intended to have a spiritual meaning, rather than a material meaning, He said, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (Jn 6:63b). The mysteries of Christ give eternal life. Second, according to St. Augustine, the phrase, “flesh is of no avail,” refers to Christ’s flesh, for Christ’s flesh of itself is of no more benefit than any other human flesh. But because Christ’s human body and soul are united with the Word of God in hypostatic union, His flesh is of great profit to those who receive the Eucharist in sincerity, for by receiving Christ in the sacrament of the altar, we abide in God through the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, as St. John said, “we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit” (1 Jn 4:13). In other words, Christ’s flesh by itself cannot account for the communicant obtaining eternal life, for “the flesh is of no avail”; but rather, His flesh offers eternal life because it has been united with the divinity and, hence, with the Holy Spirit, for “it is the [Spirit] that gives life.” Thus, St. Paul said, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit” (Gal 5:25), that is to say, let us do good works. Furthermore, as the body lives its bodily life on account of its soul, which animates and informs it, the soul lives its spiritual life on account of the Holy Spirit. All of this has been foretold: “[You shall send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth]” (Ps 104:30). Thus, “[You shall send forth your Spirit]” tells us that the Holy Spirit is sent to us in His divine mission; “[they shall be created]” tells us that the soul lives on account of Him; and “[you shall renew the face of the earth]” tells us that the soul that is alive does good works in the kingdom of God.

Next, Christ gave the true cause of their leaving Him: namely, their unbelief. “But there are some of you that do not believe” (Jn 6:64a). He did not say that they did not understand, but rather, that they did not believe in Him. For it was not their lack of understanding that caused them to disbelieve; rather, it was their lack of faith that prevented them from understanding. Their lack of faith became for them a stumbling block that prevented them from accepting the Bread of Life and eternal life through the Eucharist. The words of Isaiah were sadly fulfilled in them: “[if you will not believe, you shall not endure]” (Is 7:9). They acted just as did their ancestors, of whom it had been written: “they despised the pleasant land, having no faith in his promise. They murmured in their tents, and did not obey the voice of the Lord.” (Ps 106:24-25)

“For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him” (Jn 6:64b). The Evangelist added this line in order to dispel any suggestion that Christ learned of their defection only recently, for Christ indeed “knew from the first,” that is, from eternity, those who would believe in Him and those who would reject Him. “Before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him” (Heb 4:13).

Then Christ gave the true reason for their unbelief: “And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father’” (Jn 6:65). The reason why they had abandoned Christ was that they did not believe in Him, and the reason for their unbelief was because God had withdrawn His grace from them, for no one is drawn to God unless God first gives him the grace to believe. This is a reiteration of what Christ said above: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44). He repeated it in order to emphasize the fact that He is the natural Son of God, not the natural son of Joseph, as they had mistakenly thought when they asked, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?” (Jn 6:42)

The Evangelist mentioned the result of their unbelief: “After this many of his disciples drew back” (Jn 6:66). They “drew back” from the faith, that is, abandoned the faith which they had once possessed, for they had followed Christ on account of the miracles He had done, and they ate His bread when He fed the five thousand, and they followed Him across the sea to the synagogue at Capernaum, but now they turned away. This attests to the obstinacy of many of the Jews in Galilee at that time. For even though Christ explained the true meaning of His words and successfully answered their objections concerning the origin of spiritual food and the eating of spiritual food, many still refused to believe.

Some turn away from the faith absolutely, by purposefully following the devil, whereas others turn from the faith incompletely. St. Paul mentioned that certain young widows “have already strayed after Satan” (1 Tm 5:15), that is, they have turned away from the faith absolutely. Satan himself turned away from the faith absolutely, for he is a fallen angel. After Satan had tempted our Lord in the desert, Christ chastised him with the chilling words: “Begone, Satan!” (Mt 4:10). Simon Peter drew back from Christ, not absolutely, but incompletely, for he later returned to the Lord with zeal and spiritual vigor. Thus, when our Lord chastised a backsliding Peter, He did not say “begone,” as if Peter were hopelessly lost. But rather, He said, “Get behind me, Satan!”; that is to say, cast aside the stumbling block you have placed between yourself and Me, Simon Peter, for as you are, “You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mt 16:23).

The Evangelist added that the former disciples “no longer [walked] about with him” (Jn 6:66). Faith in Christ is not enough for salvation. The true believer must also “walk” with Christ, that is, he must live a virtuous life by performing good works. The prophet Micah said, “He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mi 6:8).

2. The disciples who remained with Christ. After the other disciples had left Him, Christ examined the remaining twelve to determine whether or not they were willing to remain with Him. “Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’” (Jn 6:67). He asked this for two reasons. First, so that they may not be proud in thinking that it was due to their goodness that they remained loyal to Christ. The fact that Christ asked them this question implied that they were not above suspicion of disloyalty. Second, Christ asked them this question so that none of them would feel like they were doing Christ a favor by remaining. It sometimes happens that people do things which they dislike, or they refrain from doing things they would like to do, in order to avoid shame and embarrassment. Christ removed any possible embarrassment by removing any necessity for remaining with Him. He left it up to each one’s judgment whether or not to stay. The fact that Christ did not beg them to stay indicates that He did not need them. Yet, by asking them if they wanted to stay, He made it clear that they were welcome to walk with Him on the path to life eternal.

“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are [Christ the Son of God]‘” (Jn 6:68-69). The fact that Peter spoke up tells us two things: first, he had a special affection for Christ, and second, he spoke for the twelve.

St. Peter did three things when he spoke up on this occasion. First, he extolled Christ’s greatness when he said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” These were like the words of the Psalmist: “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Ps 139:7) For who would be better to follow than Christ, Who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6)? It is as Moses said: “Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?” (Ex 15:11) Second, St. Peter praised Christ’s teaching when he confessed, “You have the words of eternal life.” Moses and the prophets spoke God’s words, for they were His spokesmen, but they rarely spoke words that promised eternal life. Christ said, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life” (Jn 3:36), and again, “he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life.” (Jn 6:47-48). Third, St. Peter professed faith in Christ when he said, “we have believed, and have come to know, that you are [Christ the Son of God].” He professed his faith concerning two doctrines in particular: the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. St. Peter professed belief in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity when he called Jesus the “Son of God.” For if He is a Son, then He must have a Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Love between Father and Son. St. Peter professed belief in the Incarnation when he called Jesus the “Christ,” the Messiah, the anointed one. Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit, Who is an invisible oil. He was anointed in His human nature, not in His divine nature, for one who is anointed by the Holy Spirit is made better in some way, and there is no way to make the divine nature any better than it is.

Note that St. Peter said “we have believed” before he said “have come to know,” because believing comes before knowing, as the Lord said, “[if you will not believe, you shall not endure]” (Is 7:9). Thus, St. Augustine said, credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I may understand), for understanding is a reward for having faith; by faith we arrive at knowledge, not vice versa.

Then Christ corrected St. Peter’s answer. “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’” (Jn 6:70). Peter had spoken on behalf of the twelve. When he said, “we have believed,” he thought that all of them would attain the eternal life which Christ had promised. But Peter did not know that one of them would later betray Christ and give Him up to the authorities to be crucified. Peter’s trust of his companions is commendable, but Christ’s wisdom is even more admirable, for, unlike Peter, Christ could see what was hidden in men’s hearts.

Concerning this future betrayer, it had been said, “through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it” (Wis 2:24). At His last supper, after Christ had handed the morsel of bread to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, Satan entered into Judas (Jn 13:27), and Judas became like Satan in his malicious intent.

One might suggest that Jesus made a mistake in calling Judas to be a disciple. This can be answered in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, Judas was chosen for some good he would do in the present, not for the evil Christ knew he would do in the future. This demonstrates that being chosen for a good task does not preclude the exercise of one’s free will, for though Judas was chosen for a good task, he later chose to betray Christ. Thus, St. Paul cautioned, “let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12). Second, according to St. Augustine, who disagreed with Chrysostom on this point, Christ chose Judas precisely for the evil he knew Judas would do. Christ made good use of Judas’ act of betrayal, for by allowing Himself to be handed over to be crucified, He atoned for the sins of mankind, and thereby became our Redeemer. It is a hallmark of a good person to somehow find a way to turn evil into good. This is just what Christ had done with Judas’ betrayal. Third, according to St. Ambrose, Christ chose Judas, whom He knew to be evil, so that we might be consoled when our friends betray us. Fourth, again according to St. Augustine, Judas was not chosen for his goodness, nor for his evil, but to bring the number of the apostles to twelve. It was fitting that they were twelve in number, because they would preach about the three persons of the Blessed Trinity to peoples in the four corners of the earth. Since three times four equals twelve, the twelve apostles fittingly signify their apostolate. The significance of this number is further demonstrated when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, so that the number might be brought up to twelve.

One might wonder why none of the twelve questioned the Lord about His ominous and provocative statement, “one of you is a devil.” We may make two observations in this regard. First, at the Lord’s last supper, when Christ had said, “I say to you, one of you will betray me” (Jn 13:21), St. Peter immediately asked Christ’s beloved disciple, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks” (Jn 13:24), and the beloved disciple in turn asked Jesus, “Lord, who is it?” (Jn 13:25) But in Jn 6:70, when Christ had said to the twelve, “one of you is a devil,” no one pressed the matter. In both Jn 6:70 and Jn 13:21, Christ was apparently referring to the same evil man, Judas Iscariot. What distinguishes Jn 6:70 from Jn 13:21 is that, in the first pericope, Christ’s remark is of a general nature, whereas in the second, it is specific. The reason Peter pursued the matter at the Last Supper was because Christ was speaking of a specific evil action: namely, that one of the twelve was about to betray Him. However, when Christ said in Jn 6:70 that one of them was a devil, this could be taken in a general sense to mean any kind of malice. So they were not unduly alarmed that one of them was “a devil,” for each one of them confessed to being a sinner. Second, we should notice that after Christ had reprimanded Peter by saying to him, “Get behind me, Satan” (Mt 16:23), the apostles became more acutely aware of their own human weakness. That is perhaps why they were anxious to learn the identity of the betrayer that Christ mentioned in Jn 13:21, whereas Christ’s statement in Jn 6:70 took place long before He had reprimanded Peter.

Finally, the Evangelist annotated Christ’s corrective remark with this explanation: “He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him” (Jn 6:71).

“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (Jn 6:52). The fact that they disputed among themselves demonstrates their disunity. By contrast, Christ had just spoken of the Eucharist, which is the sacrament of unity, because it unifies all who partake of it. Because they refused the Bread of Life, but instead sought material bread to satiate their bodily hunger, they argued amongst themselves, as Isaiah prophesied: “you fast only to quarrel and to fight” (Is 58:4). In their arguing over material food, they showed themselves to be carnal, as were certain Corinthians whom St. Paul reprimanded: “while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?” (1 Cor 3:3) Because these Jews at Capernaum were carnal, and not spiritual, they understood Christ’s words in a carnal way, thinking that Christ was offering His human flesh as material food, not as spiritual food. But they did not want to eat His human flesh. And so, they complained, like their ancestors complained against God and Moses about the manna, saying, “we loathe this worthless food” (Nm 21:5). Christ stopped their arguing by declaring that His spiritual food is both necessary for them (v. 53) and useful to them (v. 54).

1. The necessity of receiving the Eucharist. “So Jesus said to them, ‘[Amen, amen], I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’” (Jn 6:53). Just as a person must take material food to nourish the body, else it will suffer physical death, one must take spiritual food to nourish the soul, else it will suffer spiritual death. They knew well how necessary material food is for physical survival, for Jeremiah observed, “All her people groan as they search for bread; they trade their treasures for food to revive their strength” (Lam 1:11), and we read about the “bread to strengthen man’s heart” (Ps 104:15). They should have realized that spiritual food was necessary as well, for they knew about manna from the scriptures, and in Deuteronomy they must have read, “he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, . . . that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord” (Dt 8:3).

Christ’s statement may refer either to eating in a spiritual way or to eating in a sacramental way. First, if it refers to eating in a spiritual way, then the person who partakes of the Holy Eucharist is united with others who partake of this sacrament, as St. Paul taught: “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom 12:5). This union is effected by the bond of charity which unites members of the Body of Christ. A person who receives the Eucharist without loving his brother is outside the Church, for “He who does not love abides in death” (1 Jn 3:14). Second, if Christ’s statement refers to eating in a sacramental way, then we must address two difficulties. First, concerning the grammatical construction of this statement. Christ’s declaration, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” is similar to His previous statement concerning baptism with water and the Holy Spirit: “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). If baptism is necessary for salvation, it seems that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation as well. For this reason, it has been a practice in the Eastern Church to give the Eucharist to infants along with baptism. But in the Western Church, the Eucharist is given only to those who have reached the age of reason. The reason is this: since the Eucharist is the culmination of all the sacraments, it should be received with the greatest reverence and devotion, and since it is not possible for infants to make a free and rational decision to do this, the Eucharist is not given to them. According to the Western tradition, baptism is necessary for every person, whereas the Eucharist is necessary only for those who have attained the age of reason. Second, Christ’s statement presents a difficulty in that He specified that one must partake of both His body and His blood: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood.” It was the custom in the early Church for the laity to receive Holy Communion under both species. But due to the danger of spilling the cup, the custom of partaking of the cup was reserved, in many places, for the celebrant. This later custom, which arose out of practical necessity and reverence for the Precious Blood, does not go against Christ’s command, for by receiving the Body of Christ, one concomitantly receives His Precious Blood, since the whole of Christ is present under each species. Thus, under the form of bread, Christ’s Sacred Body is really present in virtue of the conversion of transubstantiation, whereas His Precious blood is really present by natural concomitance. By the same token, under the form of wine, His Precious Blood is really present in virtue of the conversion, whereas His Sacred Body is really present by natural concomitance.

2. The usefulness of receiving the Eucharist. Christ said, “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (Jn 6:54a). Just as there can be no physical life in a person without material food, there can be no spiritual life in him without the Bread of Life. Spiritual food is far greater than material food, for the former gives eternal life to both body and soul, while the latter sustains the body for only a short time. The Eucharist is compared to the tree of life in the garden of Eden. For example, it is said of Wisdom, Who is the Word of God: “She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her” (Prv 3:18), and again, “She will feed him,” that is, the man who fears the Lord, “with the bread of understanding” (Sir 15:3). St. John wrote, “the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; . . . This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 Jn 5:20)

The reality of the sacrament of the Eucharist is twofold: one is signified and contained, and the other is signified but not contained. First, the reality that is both signified by the sacrament and contained in the sacrament is Christ Himself, Who is really present under the species of bread and wine. Second, the reality that is signified by the sacrament, but not contained in it, is the Mystical Body of Christ, which consists of those predestined, called, and justified.

Now, concerning both of these realities, we may make two points. First, just as food does not become a body, but rather, the body becomes what it eats, so too does the communicant become what he receives, the Body of Christ. Second, one who partakes of the Eucharist is united with Christ and His Mystical Body. We are united with Christ Himself, for we receive His very body and blood. We are united with His Mystical Body, for the unity of the members is brought about by the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul said, “There is one body and one Spirit” (Eph 4:4).

Christ added, “and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:54b). By partaking in the Eucharist, we are united, not only with Christ and with His Mystical Body, but with the Holy Spirit as well, for the Holy Spirit is the cause of unity among the members. Through the Holy Spirit, those who partake of the Eucharist are united to Christ in faith and love, and united to the other members of the Body of Christ. The same Holy Spirit Who raised Christ from the dead will raise from the dead the members of His Body, as the Apostle taught: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom 8:11).

Christ is present in the Eucharist, not only as God, but as man; that is, He is present not only in His divinity, but in His human flesh as well. Thus, it is fitting that this sacrament would bring about, not only the eternal life of souls, but the resurrection of bodies to eternal life as well, as St. Paul said, “by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:21). Therefore, it is clear that the Eucharist is for us a most useful sacrament.

Now that Christ had demonstrated how the sacrament of the Eucharist is both necessary and useful to us, He then affirmed the truth of what He had said: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn 6:55). This can be interpreted in three ways. First, one can argue that Christ added this sentence for clarity, lest anyone suppose that what He had just said was a parable or a riddle, or that the Eucharist was merely a symbol. Thus, when He said, “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (Mt 26:26, 28), He was not speaking metaphorically, but was speaking of the physical and spiritual reality of these things. Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, since the soul, and not the body, is what makes a man a man–that is to say, the soul is the form of man–then man’s true food is food for his soul, not food capable of nourishing only his body. Third, according to St. Augustine, a thing is said to be true if it produces its proper effect; but the effect of food is to satisfy; therefore, that which fully satisfies is true food. The food that fully satisfies is the Eucharist, for it conduces its partakers to the state of glory, where there is no hunger or thirst whatsoever. St. John said of the blessed in that state: “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more” (Rv 7:16).

Next, Christ presented a syllogism that demonstrates the efficacy of the Eucharist. His reasoning is as follows: whoever partakes of the Eucharist is united with Me (v. 56); but whoever is united with me has eternal life, for I live because the Father lives (v. 57); therefore, whoever partakes of the Eucharist has eternal life (v. 58).

The major premise: whoever partakes of the Eucharist is united with Me. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:56). One who receives the Eucharist sacramentally can receive either sincerely or insincerely. First, concerning one who receives sincerely, his interior state agrees with what is outwardly signified, namely, union with Christ and with the members of His Body in the unity of the Holy Spirit. This is the sort of reception that Christ is talking about here, and which St. John later wrote about: “he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:13). Second, concerning one who receives the Eucharist insincerely, who does not really desire union, and who does not make an effort to remove any obstacles to union, he does not abide in Christ, nor Christ in him. Such a person receives the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, but not spiritually. The Eucharistic bread does him no good.

The minor premise: whoever is united with me has eternal life. “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (Jn 6:57). This explains why Christ has eternal life and why those who partake of the Eucharist have eternal life. This statement can be understood as referring to either Christ’s divine nature or to His human nature.

Concerning the phrase, “Father sent me.” First, if this pertains to His divine nature, then it refers to His procession from the Father by an eternal act of generation. Second, if it pertains to His human nature, then it refers to the Incarnation.

Concerning the phrase, “I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” First, if it refers to His divine nature, when He said “as,” He implied some similarity between Himself and creatures, yet not a perfect similarity. Although He is like other men, He has something proper to Himself. He is from the Father in such a way that He receives all that the Father has, so that whatever is natural to the Father is also natural to the Son. Christ possesses the complete divine nature, just as the Father possesses it and just as the Holy Spirit possesses it. Because the divine nature is perfect, it is indivisible, and if it is indivisible, it must be possessed in its fullness by each divine person of the Blessed Trinity. Whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, for the Father is His principle, His source (STh I, 33, 1). Thus, the Son has eternal life because the Father has eternal life, as Christ said above: “as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (Jn 5:26). Second, if Christ’s statement refers to His human nature, then “as” implies a similarity between Christ as man and each of us. And the similarity is this: Christ as man received spiritual life through the hypostatic union, and the communicant receives spiritual life by eating the Bread of Life. Both received spiritual life, but by different means. Christ as man received spiritual life through union with the Word of God, whereas we receive spiritual life by being united with Christ in the Eucharist.

Since the people had raised two issues, one concerning the origin of spiritual power, and the other concerning the power of spiritual food, Christ preceded His conclusion on the power of spiritual food with this answer to their question concerning the origin of the spiritual power of the living bread. Therefore, in reply to the question concerning the origin of the spiritual power of living bread, Christ said, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died” (Jn 6:58a). He said this in response to their objection to Christ’s declaration, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven” (vs. 51), for this declaration implied that Christ had His origin in heaven, and this implication seemed to be incompatible with monotheism. Christ here confirmed that the living bread, namely, Himself, came down from heaven. The living bread has life from the Father, for the Son takes His life from the Father. Manna came not from heaven, but dropped down out of the sky; it was not living bread, and it did not give eternal life.

The conclusion: whoever partakes of the Eucharist has eternal life. In reply to their question concerning the power of spiritual food, Christ said, “he who eats this bread will live for ever” (Jn 6:58b). This is a reiteration of verse 57, and serves as the conclusion to the syllogism.

“This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum” (Jn 6:59). Some of the five thousand, whom Christ had fed, caught up with Him in Capernaum; and it was there in the synagogue that Christ had taught them the meaning of spiritual food. Christ made it a point to teach in the temple and in the synagogues, because the faithful would gather in those places in great numbers and with a heightened sense of spiritual awareness, to celebrate the religious feasts and to study Sacred Scripture. Christ said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together” (Jn 18:20). Concerning His teaching in the temple, we read, “About the middle of the feast” that is, Sukkoth, “Jesus went up into the temple and taught” (Jn 7:14). And concerning His preaching in the synagogues, St. Matthew wrote, “he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity among the people” (Mt 4:23). By preaching on these opportune occasions, Christ fulfilled what had been written: “I have spoken of thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness from the great congregation” (Ps 40:10).

It may be useful at this point to briefly review St. Thomas’ understanding of appetency, the cause of love, and the effects of love. We will do this under five headings. First, concerning the types of appetency. A creature’s natural appetite inclines it toward what is suitable and proper to its nature. All creatures, living and non-living, have this type of appetency. The sensitive appetite arises from the perception of an object which the creature perceives as a good, and it inclines the creature to possess that good. Only living creatures have this appetency. The rational (intellectual) appetite is the will, which freely inclines toward a good which the intellect presents to it. Only rational creatures have this type of appetency. In each of these three appetites, love is the movement, the appetency, the inclination toward the good. Natural love resides in the natural appetite, sensitive love in the sensitive appetite, and intellectual love in the will. (STh I-II, 26, 1)

Second, concerning the appetitive movement. In the process of inclination, there are three phases. First, there is love, which is complacency in the object. Next, there is desire, which is the inclination toward the object. And lastly, there is joy, which is rest in the object. Since love (amor) gives rise to desire, love is a passion, for passion is the effect of an agent upon a patient. (STh I-II, 26, 2) In the order of intention, the agent seeks and anticipates joy once he has identified an object to desire; then love and desire are aroused. But in the order of execution, love comes first, then desire for the object, then joy or sorrow when the object is either attained or lost. (STh I-II, 25, 1)

Third, concerning the cause of love. The good is the proper cause of love, for love is complacency in a good, and the lover, therefore, is inclined to possess that good. Evil cannot be loved, unless it is misperceived by a living creature as a good, for the creature can only love what it perceives as good. (STh I-II, 27, 1) Non-living creatures cannot love evil, because they cannot misperceive evil for good, for they lack a faculty for perception. Thus, a stone always falls down, and not up. The good defines the end; but all things act toward an end; therefore, all things are inclined to act toward the good. This means that the good is both the cause and the of love. (STh I-II, 27, 2) Love, therefore, is the basis of all action (STh I-II, 28, 6), and properly ordered intellectual love is the basis of all good habits (virtues) (STh I-II, 28, 5). Love seeks either to possess what is loved or to do good to the beloved (STh I-II, 28, 1). Whoever believes in God, loves Him, and whoever loves Him desires to be with Him.

Fourth, concerning the effect of love in general. All emotions, all affections, are caused by love, for every passion is either a movement toward a good, which is desire, or rest in a good, which gives rise to joy. Since every movement or inclination toward a good arises out of love for that good, then both the movement and the rest are the result of love. (STh I-II, 27, 4)

Fifth, concerning the four specific effects of love: union, mutual indwelling, ecstasy, and zeal. First, concerning union. The lover and the thing loved are united as a result of the lover’s love, which gives rise to desire and acts to satisfy that desire (STh I-II, 28, 1). Second, concerning mutual indwelling. The beloved is in the lover, inasmuch as the good which is loved abides in the lover’s apprehension, as St. Paul said to his faithful friends in Philippi, “I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace” (Phil 1:7). The lover is in the beloved, inasmuch as the lover is not satisfied with a mere superficial apprehension of the thing that he loves, but seeks instead to penetrate its very soul (STh I-II, 28, 2). Third, concerning ecstasy, which means to be placed outside oneself. This happens when the lover is raised to a higher knowledge, enabling him to perceive things beyond his natural sense and reason, or when he seeks to enjoy a good which lies outside of himself (STh I-II, 28, 3). Fourth, concerning zeal, which is steady ardor in loving. Zeal arises from the intensity of the love, and it seeks to remove obstacles to that love. The intensity of the zeal is proportionate to the intensity of the love, so that a man who has great zeal makes a great effort to ensure that he can enjoy the object of his love. (STh I-II, 28, 4)

“[Amen, amen], I say to you, he who believes has eternal life” (Jn 6:47). A believer takes Christ by accepting Christ within his heart, as St. Paul said, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17).

“I am the bread of life” (Jn 6:48). Bread gives life only if it is taken. Thus, a believer has life, and he comes to life by taking spiritual bread, which is Christ, the Bread of Life. The person who takes this bread perfects both his mind and his affections. He perfects his mind in that he believes, and he perfects his affections in that he desires and loves the object of his belief, which is God. Whoever believes in God, loves Him, for God is absolutely good, and love is an inclination toward a good (STh I-II, 26, 1). Christ is within us in two ways: in the intellect through faith, and in the affections through love. Love informs faith; love gives life to faith, as St. John wrote, “he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). He who loves Christ tends toward Christ and seeks to possess Christ in his intellect and in his affections. Because Christ is eternal life (1 Jn 5:20), whoever truly believes in Him has eternal life. He has eternal life in its cause and in hope right now, and he will have eternal life in reality in the future.

“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died” (Jn 6:49). Here Christ reproved them for imitating their ancestors’ grumbling. First they demanded from Christ a sign greater than that of the manna in the desert (v. 31); then they grumbled about the heavenly origin of Christ’s bread (v. 42). They acted somewhat like the Pharisees, whom Christ admonished, saying, “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (My 23:32).

Comparing verses 47-48 with 49, we note four points of difference. First, manna is distinguished from the Bread of Life according to their respective origins. Manna came down from the sky, which we sometimes call “the heavens,” whereas the Bread of Life comes down from the heaven that is the dwelling place of God. These are two different heavens. It should not be surprising that manna sustained bodies for a time, but did not bring about eternal life, for things that fall out of the sky, such as rain or manna, can sustain and nourish, but they lack the power to give life. By contrast, it is fitting that the Bread of Life should give eternal life, because it comes from God, Who is the Author of life, Who not only fashioned things as a craftsman fashions his works, but He created all things out of nothing (ex nihilo).

Second, manna is distinguished from the Bread of Life according to duration. Christ reminded them of the limited duration of the manna. It sustained the Israelites during their peregrination in the Sinai desert, but the manna ended as soon as they had entered into the promised land, for we read that, after crossing into the promised land at Jericho, the manna ended the day after they celebrated the Passover at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho: “the manna ceased on the morrow, when they ate of the produce of the land; and the people of Israel had manna no more, but ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year” (Jos 5:12). The Bread of Life, however, nourishes forever. Those who have the Bread of Life have an unending supply of spiritual food; they have no need to search for spiritual food elsewhere in the world.

Third, manna is distinguished from the Bread of Life according to their significations. Manna and the Bread of Life are alike in that both are visible foods and both signify the same thing: namely, Christ. Thus, St. Paul taught: “all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:3-4) But manna and the Bread of Life differ in that the former was a symbol of spiritual food, whereas the latter is not only a symbol of Christ, but actually is Christ under the form of bread. The Eucharist actually is what it signifies.

Fourth, manna is distinguished from the Bread of Life according to efficacy. Christ demonstrated the inadequacy of manna when He said, “and they died.” Manna nourished bodies, but did not have the power to give eternal life. All the people who escaped from slavery in Egypt and who wandered through the desert for forty years died before setting foot into the promised land, except for Joshua and Caleb; and this was because all of them had grumbled against God, except these two. The grumblers never entered into the promised land; it was their children who received the blessings. When Christ said, “and they died,” He was referring to physical death, not spiritual death. For even we who eat the Bread of Life suffer the death of the body, just like the Israelites who ate the manna. But some Jews and Christians do not suffer spiritual death. For example, Moses and other patriarchs and prophets who were pleasing to God, did not suffer spiritual death. Nor do Christians who remain faithful. But those who lose their faith, even though they continue to partake of the Eucharist, are spiritually dead, as St. Paul said, “any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 11:29). Those who receive the Bread of Life worthily live spiritually in this life; and they will live both spiritually and physically in eternal life. In this way, the Bread of Life brings a person to eternal life.

“This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die” (Jn 6:50). Food nourishes a person according to the properties of its nature. Material food, which is corruptible, nourishes the body, which is corruptible, whereas spiritual food, which is incorruptible, nourishes the soul, which is eternal. The tree of life (Gn 2:9) signified the Bread of Life, for it’s fruit had the power to give eternal life. Therefore, we read that after Adam had sinned, God banished him from the garden, “lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gn 3:22).

Christ said plainly, “I am the living bread” (Jn 6:51a). Since the living bread from heaven has the power to give eternal life, and since Christ is that living bread, then it clear that Christ has the power to give eternal life. He added, “which came down from heaven” (Jn 6:51a), in order to refute those who would later suggest that Christ was conceived and born like any other man, but that God raised to divinity at His baptism.

Because Christ has the power to give eternal life, He said, “if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever” (Jn 6:51b). He will live in this life in faith and in justice, that is, by having faith in God and by doing His will; and he will live forever in the life to come.

He then explained that the Bread of Life is His very flesh: “and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51c). He said this, lest anyone suggest that the power to give eternal life resides only with the Word of God, or is found only in the human soul of Christ, but not in His human body. By saying this, Christ made it clear that even His human flesh has life-giving power. Thus, Christ healed by touch, and a woman was cured of a hemorrhage simply by touching the hem of His garment (Mk 5:25-29). St. John Damascene explained that just as an instrument acts in virtue of its agent, Christ’s human body was able to give life on account of the fact that it is united to the Word of God in the hypostatic union. When Christ said, “I am the living bread,” He was referring to the power of the Word of God; but when He said, “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh,” He was referring to the sharing of His body in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

We may note four things about the sacrament of the Eucharist: its species, the authority of the One Who instituted it, its truth, and its usefulness. First, concerning the species. This is the bread which is mentioned in Proverbs: “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed” (Prv 9:5). In one sense, the Body of Christ is the living bread, the sacrament of the Eucharist; but in another sense, the Body of Christ is the Church, with all of us as its members. It is fitting that spiritual food is bread, for bread is made from many grains of wheat, just as the Body of Christ, the Church, is made up of many members. We derive our unity from membership in the Body of Christ, as the Apostles taught: “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom 12:5).

Second, concerning the authority of Christ, Who instituted the sacrament. Although the priest confers the sacrament and presides over the ritual, he consecrates in the person of Christ, for it is Christ Himself Who gives life-giving power to the sacrament. Just as Christ willingly gave over His body to be crucified, He gives over His body to the faithful in the sacrament of the Eucharist. When He said, “the bread which I shall give,” He was referring to each time He would come to us on the altar in the form of bread and wine. He said “shall give,” because He had not yet instituted the sacrament when He had said this.

Third, concerning the truth of the sacrament, we can make three points. First, the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, for He said “my flesh,” not “this signifies my flesh.” The Eucharistic bread is not only a sign of Christ’s presence, but it is truly that which the sign signifies. Second, in verse 51c, He called the bread “my flesh,” rather than, “my body,” because “flesh” signifies weakness, and He wished to remind us that His passion and death was made possible because of human weakness, for fallen man is passible and mortal. Thus, St. Paul said, “he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God” (2 Cor 13:4). Third, Christ said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt 26:26). When the bread is consecrated, the whole Christ is contained in the sacrament. By conversion (transubstantiation), the substance of His human body replaces the substance of the bread; and by natural concomitance, His human soul and divinity are present in the sacrament as well.

Fourth, concerning the usefulness of the sacrament. The Eucharist is both great and universal. First, it is great because it produces spiritual life in the recipient now, and eternal life in him later. Since the sacrament contains Christ, Who suffered and died, whatever is an effect of His passion is also an effect of the sacrament. The Eucharist is the application of Christ’s passion to the recipient. Christ destroyed death by undergoing death Himself, and He restored life by rising from dead. Therefore, the destruction of death and the restoration of life are two effects of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Second, the Eucharist is universal inasmuch as it gives life to all who accept it. Christ’s singular act, His passion and death on the cross, was sufficient to atone for all sins and to restore life to all men, as St. John wrote: “he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:2). It is also universal because the celebration of this sacrament benefits (1) the celebrant, (2) the persons receiving the sacrament, (3) those for whom the priest prays, (4) those to whom the communicant directs his intention, and (5) the entire Church, all its members, living and deceased. In every other sacrament, grace is given only to the one receiving the sacrament. The Eucharist has this universal character because Christ is physically present in this sacrament, and Christ is the universal cause of all grace.

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven’” (Jn 6:41). Christ is spiritual bread, but the Jews neither understood nor desired spiritual bread. As soon as they had realized that Christ was not going to provide them with any more material bread, as He had done the day before, they started to complain. As soon as they had lost hope for another miraculous feeding, they began to grumble, as their ancestors did in the desert: “They murmured in their tents, and did not obey the voice of the Lord” (Ps 106:25). St. Paul advised the Corinthians not to grumble, lest the devil take hold of them and lead them to perdition (1 Cor 10:10).

“They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?’” (Jn 6:42a) The Jews whom Jesus addressed were carnal; they knew only earthly things. This is why they brought up Christ’s presumed physical generation, but were ignorant of His eternal generation from God the Father. Christ said of their kind: “he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks” (Jn 3:31). Because they could not easily grasp spiritual things, they complained, “How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (Jn 6:42b).

“Jesus answered them, ‘Do not murmur among yourselves’” (Jn 6:43). It was for their own good that they should stop murmuring, for we read, “Beware then of useless murmuring, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul” (Wis 1:11). This is in line with St. Paul’s advice (1 Cor 10:10).

The reason they grumbled was because they did not believe in Christ, because they lacked faith. But faith is a gift, He told them: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up [on] the last day” (Jn 6:44). We learn three things from this verse. First, when Christ said, “No one can come to me,” we learn that it is beyond human ability to come to Christ by faith. Faith is a gift which a person receives from God, a gift which he can choose to accept or to reject. It is obvious that the people whom Christ was addressing had not yet received this gift. Therefore, one should not be surprised to hear them grumble. Second, when Christ said, “unless the Father draws him,” He affirmed the efficacy of divine help. God has the power to influence a soul from within and to lead a person to Himself. Third, when Christ said, “I will raise him up [on] the last day,” He revealed the end of faith, the sweet fruit of faith. We obtain the fruit of bodily resurrection on account of how Christ suffered and died in His flesh. St. Paul taught, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:21-22) So, it is Christ as man Who promised, “I will raise him up,” not to a natural earthly life, but to a glorious eternal life. On that day, the Lord will make a new heaven and a new earth, as St. John envisioned: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rv 21:1). There will be a new cosmological order, one in which celestial motion will cease, for we read that on that day, “there shall be continuous day . . . , not day and not night” (Zec 14:7). The reason for this new order is because, when we are raise to life on the last day, our bodies will be raised to an incorruptible state. Since motion implies corruptibility, the motion that we now observe in the heavens must cease, for since all physical things were created for man, it is fitting that they be disposed according to man’s state. In the present time, there is motion, because man is in a corruptible state. But on the last day, motion will cease, as time will cease, because man will be raised to an incorruptible state.

This verse (Jn 6:44) raises three questions. The first question concerns the phrase, “unless the Father draws him.” One cannot believe unless one wills to believe; but to be drawn implies compulsion; therefore, it seems that, in the act of believing, one is not free, but is compelled. However, when the Father draws, He does not coerce. A person may be drawn without coercion in three ways: by persuasion, by attraction, and by an interior impulse. First, one is drawn by persuasion, as when one man persuades another with a rational argument. The Father draws us to His Son by persuasion in two ways. First, by an interior revelation. For example, after Simon Peter confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:16-17). The Father persuaded St. Peter by giving him an interior revelation. Second, the Father draws us to His Son by persuasion through miracles, as Christ said, “the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me” (Jn 5:26). Second, one is drawn by attraction, as when “With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him” (Prv 7:21). The Father draws certain people to His Son by attraction, namely, those people who respect the authority of the Father and recognize that the Son is eternally generated from the Father. Arius of Alexandria did not believe that Christ was the natural Son of God, nor did he believe that the Son was of the same substance as the Father. Therefore, we may conclude that Arius was not drawn to the Son by attraction. We are well advised to “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps 37:4). Or, as Solomon prayed, “Draw me after you” (Cant 1:4). Third, one is drawn by an interior impulse which moves one to believe in Christ. St. Paul spoke of this impulse when he said, “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). The Lord said of His people Israel, “I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love” (Hos 11:4). We read of this interior impulse in Proverbs: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will” (Prv 21:1).

The second question concerns the identity of the One Who draws. Here we read that “the Father draws” us to His Son, but elsewhere, it is the Son Who draws us to His Father. For example, Christ said, “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me” (Jn 17:6), and again He said, “no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). The question is: Who draws to Whom? This problem is resolved in two ways: by considering Christ as man and by considering Christ as God. First, Christ as man is “the way” (Jn 14:6) that leads to the Father, as a road leads to its end. God is our end, for we seek eternal union with Him. God draws us to our proper end, that is, to Himself, by drawing us to Christ as man. For since a creature loves its own kind, we can relate to Christ, for He assumed a human nature when He took flesh from His mother Mary, and He is like us in all things except sin. Moreover, God gives a person the gift of faith, which is the power to believe in Him. From faith, there follows good works, which, when performed in a state of grace, merit him eternal life, where God gives him the eternal vision of His essence. Thus, St. Paul said, “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). Second, Christ as God is the Word of God. Inasmuch as He is the Word of God, He manifests the Father, so that whoever is drawn to the Word, is also drawn to the Father.

The third question concerns the phrase, “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.” This seems to imply that, if someone is not drawn to the Son, it is not because of some fault or negligence on the part of the person who was not drawn, but it is because the Father has chosen not to draw him. It follows, then, that a person who is not drawn to Christ is not culpable. St. Thomas solved this problem as follows. As a heavy object cannot rise on its own power, but must be lifted up, the human heart, which tends to base things, cannot lift itself up to sublime things, unless it is drawn by an external cause. That cause is God. If a heart does not rise, it is not the fault of the One Who is lifting it; but rather, its failure to rise is due to some obstacle in the person whose heart was not lifted up. In other words, the fault is not with God, but with the person who failed to be drawn. In man’s integral state, that is, before Adam’s sin, there was no obstacle in man that prevented him from being drawn or prevented his heart from being lifted up. But in his fallen state, sin is the obstacle which hinders him from being lifted up. Every human person who has contracted original sin needs God’s help to be drawn to Him and lifted up. God, indeed, extends His assistance to all human persons, for God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm 2:4). And not only does He assist those who readily accept His help, He also seeks to convert many of those who deliberately turn away from Him. The prophet Jeremiah prayed for those who had turned away: “Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored!” (Lam 5:21) Likewise, the Psalmist prayed for them, “Restore us again, O God of our salvation, . . . Wilt thou be angry with us for ever? Wilt thou prolong thy anger to all generations? Wilt thou not revive us again, that thy people may rejoice in thee? Show us thy steadfast love, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation.” (Ps 85:4-7) God extends His grace to each human person, but in various measures. If a person is not drawn to God, it must be because he has rejected whatever grace God had provided him.

Why does God not draw all those who turn away from Him? First, the general reason for this is so that divine justice may be manifested in those who are not drawn, and divine mercy may be manifested in those who are drawn, even though they at first turned away. Second, the particular reason why certain persons are drawn, and others are not, is due to the divine will, for it is God’s pleasure to call some back, but not to call others back, to the Good Shepherd’s fold. When a craftsman begins to build a house, he must place some stones on the front wall and some on the back wall, but the decision as to which particular stone goes where is a matter of the craftsman’s will and pleasure. So it is with the totality of the universe and its integral completion. God manifests His justice in some rational creatures, and His mercy in others, but as to which particular person receives justice, and which one receives mercy, is a matter of His will and pleasure. Thus, He is seen to draw some, and not to draw others, though both may be equally undeserving. St. Augustine said that if one has not yet been drawn, he should pray to God that He might draw him. We find in the Church some who are apostles and others who are confessors, some who engage in the active life and others who are contemplatives. This diversity rounds out the Church and gives the Body of Christ a certain fullness of spiritual beauty.

Then Christ explained how we are drawn: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God’” (Jn 6:45a). That is, men are drawn by God’s Word, through teaching and revelation. Both Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah mentioned this. The Lord promised: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15). And the prophet foretold: “All your sons shall be taught by the Lord” (Is 54:13).

The identity of “they” in the phrase, “And they shall all be taught by God,” can be understood in three ways: as all the people in the world, as the people in the Church, or as the people who will populate the kingdom of heaven. First, if “they” refers to all the people in the world, then this statement (Jn 6:45a) would seem to be false. For if everyone in the world were taught by God, then they would all be drawn to Christ. But this is not so, for not everyone has accepted the faith. Three solutions are possible. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, Christ was speaking of the majority, not of the totality. Thus, Christ said, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11). Second, Christ’s statement could mean that, although God desires to teach all people, not all are receptive to His teaching. Just as the sun always shines, but some are unable to see it because they close their eyes, so too are those who close they eyes and ears to the Word of God. Third, St. Augustine said that “they” refers, not to all people everywhere, but only to all those who are taught by God, so that anyone who is taught, is taught by God. In the same sense, the Evangelist wrote, “[He was the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world]” (Jn 1:9), meaning that any man who is enlightened, is enlightened by the Word of God. Second, if “they” refers to the people in the Church, then we see that the members of the Church are taught by God Himself, as the prophet foretold: “All your sons shall be taught by the Lord” (Is 54:13). St. Augustine said that what the clergy teach us comes from God, for God teaches from within, as Christ said of Himself, “you have one master, the Christ” (Mt 23:10). In the Old Testament, the prophets taught the Word of God and revealed the Word of God; but in the New Testament, the Word of God Himself taught and revealed divine things. Third, if “they” refers to the people in the kingdom of heaven, then they are taught by God by seeing His divine essence directly, face to face, as it were, without any intermediary, as St. John said, “we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).

The Father’s act of drawing is most efficacious, for Christ declared, “Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (Jn 6:45b). We can make three points here. First, when Christ said, “who has heard,” He was referring to a revelation as a gift which God gives. Second, when Christ said, “learned,” He was referring to the act of assent on the part of the person being taught by God. Third, one “comes to” Christ in three ways: through a knowledge of the truth, through affection, and through imitation. First, one comes to Christ through a knowledge of the truth. He must listen for God’s voice speaking to him from within, as the Psalmist prayed, “Let me hear what God the Lord will speak” (Ps 85:8). Second, one comes to Christ through affection, that is, through love and desire, as Christ proclaimed during Sukkoth (Pentecost): “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink” (Jn 7:37). One must truly grasp the word of God in order to learn and to be moved in one’s affections. Third, one comes to Christ through imitation. When one learns a principle of science perfectly, one arrives at the proper conclusion; when one learns the word of God perfectly, one performs virtuous moral acts, as the prophet declared, “The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I turned not backward” (Is 50:5).

Lest anyone think that the only way to hear and learn from the Father is through a vision, Christ added, “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn 6:46). When He said “Not that any one has seen the Father,” He meant that no human person in this life has seen the Father in His divine essence, for the Lord explained to Moses, “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live” (Ex 33:20). Direct knowledge of the divine essence is experienced by the blessed ones only in the next life in the beatific vision.

Christ said that no one has seen the divine essence in this life “except him who is from God”; and this person is the Son of God. On another occasion, He declared, “no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt 11:27). Christ is a divine person, not a human person, though He has both a divine nature and a human nature. He was a wayfarer like all other men, for He suffered in His human nature and experienced in His human body and soul what other men experience in this life. He was also a comprehensor from the moment of His conception; and this was due to the fact that, at His conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary, His human soul was united to the divine essence in hypostatic union (STh III, 2, 9).

We acquire knowledge of the Father from what the Word of God has revealed to us, but only the Word of God knows the Father in His essence. Christ’s knowledge of the Father is direct knowledge of the divine essence, as if from seeing His essence, whereas our knowledge of the Father in this life is obtained by hearing about the Father. Christ was referring to His comprehensive knowledge of the Father when He said that no one has seen the Father except Him (v. 46), whereas above, when He was speaking about the knowledge that the disciples have of the Father, He said that everyone who has heard the Father comes to Christ (Jn 6:45b). Since seeing a thing is more certain than hearing about a thing, Christ’s knowledge is superior to that of His disciples. Christ’s knowledge of the Father is firsthand, whereas the disciples’ knowledge is secondhand. But since the Word of God is the Truth, we can be assured that whatever the Word has revealed to us is true.

All knowledge comes through a likeness of the thing known. For example, we acquire knowledge of God according to the manner in which we have a likeness to Him. While every creature bears a likeness to God, inasmuch as God created it out of nothing (ex nihilo) and continually conserves it in being, the likeness between Creator and creature is infinitely distant. For this reason, no creature can know God perfectly and completely. That is to say, no creature, by its own power, can be a comprehensor of God’s essence. The Son of God, however, since He received His divine nature from the Father through an act of eternal generation, knows God the Father perfectly and completely. And since Christ’s human soul is united to the Word of God in hypostatic union, Christ as man is a comprehensor of the divine essence.