The third and fourth chapters of the Gospel of St. John illustrate how the Word of God manifested His divine power by bringing about the spiritual regeneration of men through His grace. The story of Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21) demonstrated how some Jews would come to accept the faith. The story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42) illustrated how Gentiles would be converted by Christ’s teaching. Now, in the story of the healing of the Roman official’s son (Jn 4:43-54), he explains how Gentiles are to be converted by signs. These three stories–the discourse with Nicodemus, the conversion of the Samaritan woman at the well, and the healing of the Roman official’s son–represent the various ways people were brought to the faith and offered the grace of salvation. The Jews were evangelized in one way, and the Gentiles were evangelized in two ways: by the teaching and by signs which confirmed the teaching.

“After the two days he departed to Galilee.” That is, after Jesus spent two days teaching the Samaritans in or near Shechem, He resumed His journey from Judea to Galilee. In a mystical sense, He left the Gentiles before the third day, that is, before the day of glory at the end of time, in order to return to His home, that is, to the Jewish people. This signifies that, after the nations have been converted, but before God brings the world to an end, one final attempt shall be made to convert the last remaining Jews who tenaciously resisted conversion to the Christian faith. St. Paul foretold these events: “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25-26).

The Evangelist then gave a reason for Jesus’ departure from Samaria: “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.” This presents two problems: one concerning the literal meaning, the other concerning the continuity of this verse with the one preceding it.

1. The problem concerning the literal meaning of Jn 4:44. The problem is that this statement does not seem to be true in a literal sense, for it appears that some prophets were honored in their homeland and among their own people. We can resolve this problematic statement in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, Christ’s statement is literally correct for the majority of cases. Because, in matters of faith and morals, the occasional exception to a rule does not negate the truth of the rule, he asserted that we should admit that Christ’s statement is true. Second, the truth of Christ’s assertion is proven true by Sacred Scripture, for an examination of the lives of the Old Testament prophets reveals that hardly any of them escaped some manner of persecution, whether it be a lack of respect, derision, or physical harm. The persecution of the prophets was addressed by Christ when He lamented for Jerusalem with the words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!” (Mt 23:37) Likewise, St. Stephen, at his trial before the Sanhedrin, raised this accusatory rhetorical question: “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?” (Acts 7:52) Origen noted that even the Gentiles persecuted their own seers and sometimes put them to death. Therefore, Christ’s statement, “a prophet has no honor in his own country,” holds true as a rule, both for Jews, as can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture, and for Gentiles, as we read in secular historical accounts.

How did it happen that prophets came to be dishonored by their countrymen and kin? We observe that, in human social intercourse, familiarity inevitably lessens the respect one man has for another, and too much familiarity often breeds contempt. The reason this happens is because, the longer a person lives with another person, and the more intimately one gets to know the other person, the more he become aware of his companion’s human weaknesses and character flaws. This can cause him to lose respect for his friend. But while this is the situation between men, who abound with imperfection, it is not the case between God and men, for their relationship is not one of peer to peer, but of superior to inferior. The more we love God and contemplate His greatness, the more we realize how superior He is to us; and, the more we acknowledge His superiority, the more we respect and honor Him. Thus, while familiarity among men often leads to their contempt for one another, familiarity between man and God leads to man’s greater love for His Creator and Redeemer.

Was Christ a prophet? A prophet obtains prophetic knowledge obscurely, in visions and in dreams, as the Lord said, “If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream” (Nm 12:6). But, Christ’s knowledge is not obscure, and never was anything but clear and perfect. For His divine intellect knows all there is to know (STh III, 9 1), and at the moment of His conception, the Word of God infused into His human intellect the intelligible species of all the things which it can possibly know (STh, III, 9, 3) and all the things that God has ever revealed, or will reveal, to mankind (STh III, 11, 1). Thus, when He foretold His own resurrection, saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19), He spoke with absolute certainty. The accuracy of His prophecy was attested to by His disciples, for “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn 2:22). Likewise, when he disclosed to the Samaritan woman her past and present sins (Jn 4:17-18), He knew those things for certain. She responded by saying, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet” (Jn 4:19), because a prophet reveals hidden things. Yet, she had no idea how He obtained that secret knowledge. She only knew that what He said was correct. Despite her spontaneous declaration, it nonetheless seems that Christ was not a prophet, for while prophetic knowledge is obtained obscurely, Christ obtained His knowledge clearly.

But on the contrary, when Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you” (Dt 18:15), he foretold that the Messiah would indeed be a prophet. Further, after Christ was rejected at Nazareth, He said, referring to Himself, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house” (Mt 13:57). Christ truly was a prophet. Consider that a prophet has two functions: he sees and he makes known what he sees. Christ was a prophet in both ways. First, He was a seer of hidden things, both as a wayfarer and as a comprehensor. He was a wayfarer like all men in this life, inasmuch as He suffered in His human nature and experienced what men experience in this life. Inasmuch as He knew and announced things that were beyond the knowledge of other wayfarers, He was rightly called a prophet (STh III, 7, 8). He was also a comprehensor from the moment of His conception, when His human soul was united to the divine essence in the hypostatic union, which is the greatest of all possible union (STh III, 2, 9, ad 3). Since His human intellect was united to the divine intellect by this union, He had knowledge of hidden things, as do other prophets, but His knowledge far exceeded any prophetic knowledge that God had ever given to any other prophet. Second, Christ, Who is the Incarnate Word of God, was a prophet in the second sense as well. That is, He revealed the truth about God, as He admitted to Pilate, “For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37). Thus, Christ knew hidden things and revealed them to others. He was, therefore, a prophet.

Was Christ a prophet in the same way that other men and women were prophets? When a prophet “sees” in the prophetic sense, two human faculties are involved: the intellect and the imagination. With the intellect he receives divine knowledge of hidden things, and with the imagination he forms various images. The intellect is one of two rational faculties that man possesses; (the other is the will) (STh I, 78, 1). The imagination is one of four interior sensitive faculties that he possesses; (the others are the consciousness or common sense, the instinct or estimative sense, and the memory) (STh I, 78, 4). Because both the human intellect and the human imagination are created things, they are imperfect and naturally prone to error. But Christ’s intellectual knowledge was perfect and without error, due to the grace of the hypostatic union. Thus, it follows that Christ was not a prophet as regards His human intellectual faculty, because the light of His knowledge was perfect, without any deficiency, whereas the intellectual faculties of the other prophets were naturally subject to error. However, as regards His human imagination, Christ was indeed a prophet, for He was able to form various images with His imagination, even as the other prophets had done.

2. The problem concerning the continuity between verses 43 and 44. In verse 43 we read: “After the two days he departed to Galilee.” But then it follows with: “For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.” There appears to be a discontinuity between these two verses in two ways. First, it seems odd that Christ would return to His home territory of Galilee, even though “a prophet has no honor in his own country.” Second, the Evangelist’s use of the conjunction “for” (enim, for, because, indeed, in fact) seems out of place, for it implies that Jesus returned to Galilee precisely because a prophet has no honor in his own country. The use of “for” seems to be a non sequitur.

But, there is really no discontinuity, for the juxtaposition of these two verses can be explained in two ways. First, according to St. Augustine, the Evangelist said these things to explain why the Galileans had still not been converted, even though Christ had lived there His entire life, whereas the Samaritans had been converted in just two days. The reason “he departed to Galilee” was precisely because (enim) “a prophet has no honor in his own country.” That is, He returned to Galilee in order to convert Galilean Jews to the faith. Second, according to St. John Chrysostom, it is true that Christ departed the region of Samaria for the region of Galilee, but He did not go to Nazareth of Galilee, where He grew up, nor to Capernaum of Galilee, where He lived, but to the town of Cana in Galilee, where He had changed water into wine. The people of Nazareth rejected Christ when He taught in the synagogue (Mt 13:53-58), and the people of Capernaum refused to believe in Him, despite the many miracles He performed for them. And so, He castigated them, saying, “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” (Mt 11:23) But those who witnessed His sign at Cana, the miraculous transformation of water into wine, believed: “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (Jn 2:11). Thus, when Christ returned to Galilee from Judea, by way of Samaria, He headed for Cana, where the people had been well-disposed to believe in Him.

Chrysostom’s interpretation raises the question: Did Christ seek His own glory? It seems that He did not, for He stated, “I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge” (Jn 8:50). While it is most proper for a man to give glory to God, it is sinful for him to seek his own glory from other men, for only God may rightly seek His own glory. Christ as God fittingly sought His own glory, for the Son of God is truly God, and God fittingly seeks His own glory. Christ as man rightly sought the glory of God, inasmuch as His human soul was united to the Word of God in the hypostatic union.

“So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast.” We can make two points here. First, the reason why the Galileans received Christ respectfully this time, unlike other times, was because of something He had done in Jerusalem only days before, when He was there to celebrate the Passover, according to religious law. Concerning this, St. John attested that “when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did” (Jn 2:23). What was it that He did to earn the respect of His countrymen? There are two possibilities. First, according to Origen, the event that impressed the Galileans was His expulsion of the merchants and money-changers from the temple courtyard (Jn 2:12-17). Many Jews regarded this bold action as a miracle, for the manner in which Christ drove them out of the temple precincts manifested great authority and fervor. Second, it is also possible that Christ performed other miracles in Jerusalem that we do not know about because they were not written down, for St. John said, “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book” (Jn 20:30). Second, notice that the less dignity a man has, the more he respects God. The Judeans were superior in dignity to the Galileans, for God chose Mount Zion in Judah to be His dwelling place, as we read, “His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion” (Ps 76:2). Thus, according to the scriptures, “no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (Jn 7:52). The Galileans, who were Jews, were superior to the Samaritans, who were Gentiles. Thus, “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (Jn 4:9). But, ironically, though the Jews had more dignity than the Samaritans, the Samaritans were better than the Jews, for they believed in Christ after only two days, and without having witnessed any great miracle, whereas the Jews of Galilee came to believe in Christ only after many days, and only after He had changed water into wine at Cana and had done notable things in Jerusalem in their sight. A greater irony still is the fact that, even though the Jews of Judea had more dignity than the Jews of Galilee, no Judean Jew, except perhaps Nicodemus, believed in Christ at that point in time. Therefore, of the three groups–Judean Jews, Galilean Jews, and Samaritans–the Samaritans had the least dignity, but the greatest respect for God, for they were the most willing to believe in the Son of God, Whom the Father had sent.

Then, St. John explained how the Galilean Jews knew what had happened in Jerusalem during the Passover: “for they too had gone to the feast.” Christ, along with many other Galilean Jews, had gone up to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover in accord with Jewish religious law. It seems plausible that the reason why the others arrived back in Galilee before Christ did was because Christ sojourned for two days at Shechem to preach and convert the Samaritans.

“So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine.” Christ made two trips to the Galilean village of Cana: the first, when He changed water into wine at a wedding feast (Jn 2:1-11), and the second, when He returned to Galilee from the Passover in Jerusalem and healed the Roman official’s son, who lay dying in Capernaum (Jn 4:43-54). When Christ returned to Galilee from the Passover, He chose to go to Cana, rather than to His home in Capernaum, because He was no longer respected in Capernaum.

The Evangelist mentioned both trips to Cana for three reasons. First, in order to illustrate the Jews’ hardness of heart. For after the first miracle at Cana, in which Christ changed water into wine, only Christ’s disciples believed in Him, and after the second miracle in Cana, in which He healed the Roman’s son, only the Roman and his immediate household believed in Him, whereas the Samaritans believed without seeing any miracles. The Samaritans believed on account of the words of Christ, and some even believed on the strength of the woman’s testimony alone. Second, in a mystical sense, the two trips signify the two effects that God’s words have upon us. First, they cause delight in us, as in the man “who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy” (Mt 13:20). This delight is signified by the wine which Christ confected. Second, God’s words heal us, as we read, “neither herb nor poultice cured them, but it was thy word, O Lord, which heals all men” (Wis 16:12). This healing is signified by the cure of the Roman’s son. Third, again in a mystical sense, Christ’s two trips to Cana signify the two comings of the Son of God. Christ’s first coming was characterized by gentleness and joy, for He came as a gentle child, and His birth was an occasion of great joy, as Isaiah indicated when he said, “Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel” (Is 12:6), or as the angel said to the shepherds, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11). Christ’s first coming is signified by the first miracle at Cana, for wine gives joy and gladdens the hearts of men (Ps 104:15). But Christ’s second coming will be in majesty, when He will raise our human bodies in glory to be like His (Phil 3:21), removing all our bodily weaknesses. This is signified by the cure of the Roman official’s son.

Previously, the Evangelist had shown how Christ’s teaching (vs. 7-26) had born fruit in the Samaritan woman, for she gave witness to Christ by proclaiming His greatness to the people of her city (vs. 28-29).

Next, he offered three proofs that demonstrated how her testimony bore fruit in the Samaritans (vs. 39-42). First, her testimony bore fruit because the Samaritans came to believe in Christ on account of her testimony. “Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did.’” Her testimony must have been charismatic, sincere, and most persuasive, for many believed in Christ on the strength of her testimony alone, before they had ever seen Him in person. Faith is something that is passed along from one person to another, for faith comes by hearing the spoken word, as St. Paul said, “faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom 10:17). The people apparently regarded her as a highly credible witness. Perhaps this was because she so freely admitted her darkest secrets when she acknowledged that Christ knew all about her past and present sins. Surely, she would not have been inclined to mention such shameful secrets in public unless she had done so to demonstrate the power of Christ. And she would not have been inclined to demonstrate His powers unless she had been brought to believe in Him. She no longer protected her reputation with a lie, but henceforth began to spread the truth about the Messiah. Second, her testimony bore fruit because many Samaritans subsequently came to Christ because of her. Thus, St. John wrote, “So when the Samaritans came to him.” One who has faith desires the thing he believes in. The Lord enlightens those who approach Him, as the Psalmist said, “Look to him, and be radiant” (Ps 34:6). He refreshes the souls of those who sit at the Master’s feet, waiting for instruction, as Christ said, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Mt 11:28-29) Third, her testimony bore fruit because the people desired that Christ remain with them. Thus, St. John added, “they asked him to stay with them.” It is not good enough for a penitent to simply come to Christ; he must also desire to remain with Him for eternity, else he will soon regress into the comfort of his familiar sinful habits. He remains with God by doing His will and by not falling back into sin. To remain with God in this way is a sign of faithful love. Christ said, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (Jn 14:23), that is, God will dwell within the believer who remains with Him.

St. John added, “and he stayed there two days.” In a mystical sense, Christ stayed there for two days because there are two precepts of charity. The first is, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Dt 6:5); and the second is, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Christ said, “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Mt 22:40). The third day is the day of man’s glory, which has yet to come. It is of this day that Hosea spoke, when he prophesied in the years leading up to the fall of the Kingdom of Israel: “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” (Hos 6:3). Christ remained with the Samaritans for only two days, and not for the third day, for they were not yet capable of glory.

The fruit of the woman’s testimony was increased in three ways on account of the presence of Christ among those people during the two days He stayed with them. This increase is seen in the number of those who came to believe, in the manner in which they believed, and in the sort of truth they believed.

1. The number of those who came to believe. The increase in the fruit of the woman’s testimony is evident in the fact that a greater number of Samaritans came to believe after hearing Christ. “And many more believed because of his word.” While many believed in Christ on the strength of the woman’s testimony alone, many more believed after they had heard Him speak. Just as many had faith on account of the words spoken by the prophets, many more came to believe on account of the words spoken by Christ, the Word of God.

A person is led to believe in God in one or more of the following ways. First, a person may be led to believe by human reason, as the Apostle explained to the Romans, “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20). Second, a person may be led to believe by the testimony of the law and the prophets: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:21-22). Third, a person may be led to believe by the preaching of the apostles and their successors. For this reason, St. Paul argued that preachers of the Word of God were necessary: “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14) Fourth, a person may be led to believe by the truth itself, which God infuses directly into the intellect of the person He has chosen to enlighten in a special way. Abraham, our father in faith, believed for this reason. He had not been instructed according to human wisdom, nor did he have the law or the prophets or the apostles. Rather, he believed solely on account of the truth itself, which God had personally revealed to him. His subsequent faith was a faith with such great conviction that his faith made him righteous: “he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6).

2. The manner in which they believed. The fruit of the woman’s testimony was increased because of the reason they believed, after they had seen and heard Christ preach. “They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves.’” Three things are characteristic of a perfect faith: it is right, prompt, and certain. First, faith is right when it obeys the truth on account of the truth itself, not pursuant to some ulterior motive. Abraham believed on account of the truth itself. Those who came to believe after having heard Christ Himself, Who is the Truth, believed for a better reason than those who believed simply on account of the woman’s testimony. Second, faith is prompt when one believes without hesitation. This was true of the Samaritans, who professed without aforethought, “and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” They came to believe quickly and without the benefit of the many signs and miracles that were shown to the Jews. One might argue that the Samaritans were gullible, for to believe in something too hastily is a sign of foolish thoughtlessness, for “One who trusts others too quickly is lightminded” (Sir 19:4). But, while this is true of one who is quick to believe in men, it is not true of one who readily believes God. On the contrary, such as man is praiseworthy, for the Psalmist commends people who readily obey God: “As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me” (Ps 18:44). Third, faith is certain when the believer casts his doubts to the wind, as St. James counseled: “let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind” (Jas 1:6). The Samaritans had a faith that was certain, for they did not say, “we think” this man is the Messiah, but rather, they confidently confessed, “we know” that He is the Messiah. One who believes is said to know (scire), for science (scientia) is to know in a more perfect way, to know with certainty. Science and perfect faith are alike, insofar as each is certain, but they are dissimilar in that the certainty of science derives from human reason, which is prone to error, whereas the certainty of faith derives from divine reason, which is incapable of error and cannot be contradicted or successfully refuted. The certitude of science rests upon first principles, which are known by the light of human reason, whereas the principles of faith are infused by God into the human intellect. St. Paul affirmed the certainty of faith when he wrote, “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).

3. The sort of truth in which they believed. The increase in the fruit of the woman’s testimony is proven by the sort of truth the Samaritans came to believe in after they had heard Christ in person. They came to believe that He was in fact the Messiah: “this is indeed the Savior of the world.” They affirmed three truths about Christ: that He is the unique Savior, the true Savior, and the universal Savior. First, they affirmed that Christ is the unique Savior, for they confessed that He is “the Savior of the world,” not merely “a savior of the world.” He is the Messiah, not one savior among others of similar stature and authority. He alone came down from heaven to save mankind. He alone descended that He might raise us up. No other savior had done that. No one else had such authority and power. Hence, St. Peter professed, “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The Lord said that the nations would bow down before the chosen people, humbly admitting, “God is with you only, and there is no other, no god besides him” (Is 45:15). Second, the Samaritans affirmed that Christ is the true Savior when they said, “this is indeed” the Savior. They did not say that He “might be” a savior, but that He truly is the Savior. There are two kinds of saviors, for there are two kinds of salvation. One salvation is true, the other is not. A salvation that is not true frees people from temporal evils and preserves certain temporal goods, whereas true salvation frees us from true evils and preserves true goods in us. Now, temporal evils, like temporal goods, are not lasting, for we leave them behind when we die. By contrast, true goods last for eternity. The prudent man is willing to forgo temporal goods and to suffer temporal evils in order to attain true salvation and to obtain his greatest true good, namely, union with God. In the Old Testament, we read that a number of great historical figures had been sent by God to relieve the chosen people of certain temporal evils and to obtain for them certain temporal goods. The people regarded them as their saviors. But none of them were able to secure true salvation for the people, because none of them was the true Savior, the true Messiah. Christ is the only true Savior, for only He possesses the power, in His divine nature, to procure for man his true goods, which are spiritual goods, and to free man from true evils, which are his sins. Thus, the angel commanded Joseph of Nazareth in a dream, “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). Third, the Samaritans affirmed that Christ is the universal Savior when that confessed that He is the Savior “of the world.” He was a Jew, but He was not like the Jewish saviors before Him, for the others came only to help the Jews. Christ is not only for the Jews, nor is He only for the Samaritans, but He is for all mankind. His offer of salvation extends to people in every age and place, “that the world might be saved through him” (Jn 3:17).

Christ’s disciples were slow to understand what He meant by “food,” just as the woman at the well had been slow to understand what He meant by “water.” To lead the woman and the disciples to the truth, it was necessary that He clearly identify to them the realities represented by the figures of water and food. Accordingly, He explained to her the meaning of living water, and to His disciples the meaning of spiritual food. Because the woman had greater difficulty understanding than did the disciples, Christ led her to the truth by means of a longer and more detailed step-by-step explanation. In the section that follows, Christ instructs His disciples on the true meaning of spiritual food.

As bodily food sustains the human body and perfects a man’s physical condition, spiritual food nourishes and perfects his soul. A soul is perfected when it is united with its end and when it follows the will of God. As to the first, the Psalmist said, “for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge” (Ps 73:28). As to the second, “Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.’” Here, Christ as man is saying that the food which nourished His human soul was the act of conforming His human will to the will of the Father and the act of accomplishing the Father’s work. We can understand these two expressions, “to do the will of him who sent me” and “to accomplish his work,” in three ways. First, we can take them to mean the same thing, so that the second explains the first. In other words, the Son of God acted in accord with His Father’s will precisely by accomplishing and completing the Father’s work. Christ’s spiritual food, that which nourished His human soul, was to do the Father’s will, to realize the Father’s wishes, to put into practice what the Father desired to be accomplished, as Christ said, “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (Jn 6:38). This, too, was the Psalmist’s food, for he said, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart” (Ps 40:9). Second, these two expressions may refer to two different things which the Incarnate Son of God accomplished in the world. First, He taught the truth, calling us to the faith, calling us to believe in Him and in the Father Who sent Him. And He accomplished this task, as He said, “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:40). Second, He gave us the power to arrive at the truth: “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). This task, too, He accomplished, as He said, “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do” (Jn 17:4). Christ’s food, therefore, was to do the will of the Father Who sent Him by calling us to the faith; and He accomplished the Father’s work by leading us to our perfection in eternal glory. Third, according to Origen, every good work a person does should be directed to two things: to the honor of God and to the good of his neighbor, for “the aim of our charge is love” (1 Tm 1:5), and the law is summed up in this: love God with your whole heart, and love your neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:36-40). The same loves embraces both God and neighbor. By bringing truth and grace to men, Christ perfected them, and in doing this, He did the will of the Father, and He accomplished the Father’s work. Thus, by the same acts, Christ both loved the Father and loved us, He both honored the Father and did good to us. One might object to Origen by arguing that, because God’s works are perfect, they did not need to be completed or perfected. It would then follow that Christ had nothing of importance to accomplish. This would seem to be especially true of man, since man is the pinnacle of God’s creation, for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gn 1:26). In reply to this objection, one should point out that, although “God made man upright” in the beginning, man later “sought out many devices” (Eccl 7:30) and freely chose to abandon what was right and good for him. He turned away from his highest good, and instead sought inferior temporal goods. It was because of his sin that he lost his initial perfection; and it was his own fault that he now suffered such a deficiency. His tarnished soul beckoned to be restored to its original beauty and perfection. In this sense, the work of the Lord, that is, His work of creating man, needed to be “accomplished,” that is, perfected and restored. It was Christ Who accomplished this by restoring man to life and by wiping away the sin which had cause him to fall from his initial pristine state, as St. Paul explained, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).

We offer spiritual food to God each time we ask Him to bring us to salvation, for it is His will that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tm 2:4). If it is His will that we be saved, then each time we pray the Our Father, saying, “Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10), then we are praying for our salvation. We pray that His will be done, for we cannot obtain salvation without His grace. In fact, before we receive the grace of salvation, we are first moved by prevenient grace, so that we might know what to ask for: “the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words” (Rom 8:26). As the prophet Jeremiah prayed that man might be restored, saying, “Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored!” (Lam 5:21), so now do we pray that God’s will be done, so that we might be saved.

Next, Christ employed a simile: “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.” When Christ asked the woman for a drink of water, he made use of a simile concerning living water, for she came to the well to obtain natural water. Now that the disciples had come back from town with food, Christ made use of a simile concerning spiritual food.

The harvest is the time when the fruits of the earth are gathered in. He referred a natural harvest when He said, “There are yet four months, then comes the harvest.” Then He compared a natural harvest to the spiritual harvest, saying, “lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.”

Note that the fruits of one harvest can become the seeds of the next, for example, when a portion of grain is set aside to be planted next season, or as Sirach observed, “my blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit” (Sir 24:17). Faith and good works are the fruits of spiritual teaching, but they are also the seeds which merit a person eternal life.

The spiritual harvest of which Christ spoke concerns an eternal fruit, namely, the gathering in of the faithful to eternal life. This takes place in two ways: in the present life and at the end of time. When Christ said, “the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels” (Mt 13:39), He was referring to the harvest at the end of time, the final harvest. When He said, “lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest” (Jn 4:35), He was speaking of the spiritual harvest that takes place in the present life. We may understand the present spiritual harvest in two ways. First, according to St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, the gathering of fruit is the assembly of the faithful in the Church. They are the many converts gathered in from various places around the globe. The fields were “white,” ready for the harvest, for the fields of the countryside were full of Samaritans coming out to Jacob’s well to see Christ for themselves. The Samaritan woman, through her charismatic preaching, made them receptive to hear the Word of God, and ultimately to be saved through spiritual regeneration. Christ alerted His small band of disciples to the onslaught of crowds rushing in upon them, saying, “lift up your eyes, and see,” they are even now approaching to receive living water. On a similar occasion, He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few” (Mt 9:37). The grain fields were made “white” by the heat of the summer sun, even as the Sun of Justice shone brightly in their midst and a desire to learn His truth burned deeply within their hearts. The Lord foretold, through the prophet Malachi: “for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. You shall go forth leaping like calves from the stall.” (Mal 4:2) And so, Samaritans bolted out of their town, hurrying to the well to meet their Messiah. The day of salvation, which the prophets had foretold, had finally arrived, as 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). Second, according to Origen, the harvest is knowledge of the truth, whereby a person gathers the truth into his soul. According to this interpretation, Christ cited a false doctrine and then rejected it. The false doctrine belonged to the Academicians, who asserted that nothing can be known with certainty in this life. This seems to bear a measure of truth, for even Qoheleth admitted, “All this I have tested by wisdom; I said, ‘I will be wise’; but it was far from me. That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?” (Eccl 7:24) Christ referred to the philosophers’ skeptical opinion when He said, “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’?” When He said, “four months,” he alluded to their theory that the universe consists of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Thus, “four months” represents the entirety of the present life. Man must labor under these four elements until the time of the harvest, which signals the beginning of the next life, when he will attain a true knowledge of things. But, Christ rejected this opinion, saying, “lift up your eyes, and see.” Note that, in Sacred Scripture, the prefatorial remark, “lift us your eyes,” is used to alert the reader that an especially profound, yet subtle, teaching is about to be given, as when the prophet said, “Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?” (Is 40:26) When Christ said, “lift up your eyes, and see,” He was implying that one can see spiritual things even in this life, as long as one turns away from a concern for earthly things and the desires of the flesh. The reason why these philosophers could not see the truth was not because the truth was unknowable in this life, but rather, because they had fixed their gaze upon earthly things, thereby limiting the scope of their knowledge. Theirs was a self-imposed ignorance. St. Paul taught that God’s “invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20). Yet, these philosophers failed to perceive God as He truly is, because “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25). The fruits of their harvest were errors, not truths. Christ then added, “see how the fields are already white for harvest.” The “fields” are the means by which we acquire the truth; and chief among them is Sacred Scripture, for Christ said, the scriptures “bear witness to me” (Jn 5:39), and Christ is the Truth. There were fields in the Old Testament, but they were not “white,” that is, they were not ready for the harvest, because men of that era could not truly understand the scriptures until Christ came, for “he opened their minds to understand the scriptures” (Lk 24:45). Christ made the fields “white”; the Sun of Justice ripened the fruit and made it suitable for harvesting.

Next, Christ discussed reapers and their rewards, saying, “He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together.” There are two kinds of reapers: those who harvest natural fruits and those who harvest spiritual fruits. By “natural fruit” we mean any fruit or grain that can be used to nourish the human body and perfect its physical health. By “spiritual fruit” we mean any spiritual good which nourishes the soul of man. The reaper of natural fruits gathers the fruits of the earth, whereas the reaper of spiritual fruits either gathers the faithful into the Church or gathers the truth into his own soul. These two reapers are similar in one respect and dissimilar in two respects. Christ addressed each of these three aspects in turn in the three clauses of His statement. First, the two reapers are similar, inasmuch as each receives his proper reward. Thus, Christ said, “He who reaps receives wages.” Each receives a reward according to his labors, even as the sower and the waterer receive their respective rewards, for “each shall receive his wages according to his labor” (1 Cor 3:8). Second, the two reapers are dissimilar in that natural fruit nourishes the body and perfects its health, whereas spiritual fruit nourishes the soul and perfects it by uniting it with its end, which is God. The natural harvest is for the good of the body in the present life, whereas the spiritual harvest is concerned with eternal life. Thus, Christ said that the reaper of the spiritual harvest, “gathers fruit for eternal life.” There are two fruits taken in by this harvest. One is the faithful themselves, who obtain eternal life, as St. Paul explained to the Romans: “now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life” (Rom 6:22). The other fruit is knowledge of the truth, which leads to eternal life, as the Lord said, “I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar” (Sir 24:32), “afar,” that is, unto eternal life. Third, the two reapers are dissimilar in that the sower of natural fruit becomes saddened when another man reaps the harvest, whereas there is no cause for sadness among the sowers and reapers of spiritual fruit, for Christ said that the “sower and reaper may rejoice together.” The fact that one man sows and another man reaps is considered a misfortune in the natural harvest, but it is an occasion for rejoicing in the spiritual harvest.

Concerning the identity of the sowers and the reapers of the spiritual harvest, there are two opinions. First, according to St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, the sowers of the spiritual seeds were the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, and the reapers were the apostles of Christ. “The seed is the word of God” (Lk 8:11), and the patriarchs and prophets, to whom the Word of God revealed certain divine truths, sowed these seeds of truth among the Jews. But, though the patriarchs and prophets sowed, the harvest was left for the apostles to reap, for the former were not able to accomplish God’s work; they were not able to lead men to Christ and to their eternal salvation. This work was given to the apostles to accomplish. They completed what the patriarchs and the prophets began. Today, both prophets and apostles, sowers and reapers of the spiritual harvest, rejoice together in the kingdom of God. This day was foretold by a prophet of the exile: “joy and gladness will be found in [Zion], thanksgiving and the voice of song” (Is 51:3). The fact that patriarchs and apostles now rejoice together, refutes Manichaeans, Marcionites, and others who condemned the patriarchs and disparaged the Old Testament. Second, according to Origen, the sowers of the spiritual harvest are those who confer first principles upon a faculty of the soul, whereas the reapers are those who proceed from the first principles. The prophets revealed certain divine things, but the apostles revealed much more, especially concerning the mystery of Christ, for the Holy Spirit revealed these things to the apostles (Eph 3:5).

Christ said of the spiritual harvest, “For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’” In the spiritual harvest, both the sower and the reaper rejoice. The Jewish proverb, “one sows and another reaps,” which must have been popular in Christ’s day, was probably derived from Lv 26:16: “you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.” This proverb implies that when one man sows and another reaps, it is a sad occasion for the sower, for he does not benefit from his labor. Christ affirmed that this proverb, which referred to the natural harvest, also holds true for the spiritual harvest, and this for two reasons. First, the prophets had cause for sadness because they died before having seen the fruits of their labor, even as Moses, after he had successfully led God’s chosen people through the desert, died without setting foot upon the promised land. He who opened a way through the sea for the people to cross into freedom, did not himself ford the Jordan River to partake of the promises God made to his forefathers. The water that stood as a barrier between him and the promised land, was the same flowing water that Christ used to spiritually regenerate the penitent, that they might cross over from sin and death to eternal life in the promised land of heaven. Second, the proverb is true of the spiritual harvest, inasmuch as the prophets sowed, while the apostles reaped. But, unlike the natural harvest, where the sower weeps, the sower of the spiritual harvest rejoices along with the reaper, when all is said and done. The prophets and the apostles did not differ in their faith, for they believed in the same God, as St. Paul explained, “now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it” (Rom 3:21). The prophets and the apostle did differ, however, in their manner of living the faith, for the prophets observed various bodily rituals under the law, whereas the apostles were freed from the burden of the law, as St. Paul explained: “when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. But 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 4:3-5) Though the prophets labored in one era and in one way, the apostles labored in another era and in another way, yet both rejoice equally, for both have received the same wage, namely, eternal life. Their happy and blessed outcome was prefigured in the transfiguration of Christ, for while He was on the mountain with three of His apostles, He was seen conversing with Moses, who represents the patriarchs, and with Elijah, who represents the prophets. Thus, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles rejoiced together on that mountain and in heaven today. It follows from this that those who were just under the Old Law will rejoice with those who are just under the New Law.

Christ then applied this proverb to the present situation, saying to His apostles, “I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor.” He did not say, “I will send you,” but rather, “I sent you.” He sent them twice: first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. The first sending took place before His passion, when He sent the twelve apostles to the Jews, saying, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” (Mt 10:5-7) In this sending, they reaped where they did not sow, for the prophets sowed the seeds of faith among the Jews, and the apostles reaped the spiritual harvest. Thus, Christ said, “others have labored, and you have entered into their labor” in order to harvest the fruit of their labor. Neither the patriarchs nor the prophets saw the fruit of the labors in their own day. Understandably, the prophet lamented, saying, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity”; but he remained firm in his faith, for he added, “yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God” (Is 49:4). The prophets’ labor did indeed produce excellent fruit, for Christ said, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). Wisdom, Who is the Word of God, declared, “the fruit of good labors is renowned” (Wis 3:15). The second sending of the apostles took place after Christ’s resurrection, when He sent them, not to the Jews this time, but to the Gentiles, indeed, to the whole world, saying, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15). In this second sending, they themselves sowed the seeds of faith where no one had preached before.

After the Evangelist had given Christ’s teaching on living water, he then showed the effect of that teaching, which is most fruitful for believers. Christ’s teaching to the Samaritan woman had one effect upon the woman and another effect upon his disciples. She marveled at His words, but they were surprised that He was speaking with a Samaritan woman. As for the woman, Christ’s teaching bore fruit in her in that she told others in the town what she had seen and heard; and, as a result, many Samaritans came to believe in Him.

Concerning the effect of Christ’s teaching upon His disciples, we read: “Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but none said, ‘What do you wish?’ or, ‘Why are you talking with her?’” Here we note three things. First, St. John Chrysostom observed that the disciples had returned just as Christ had revealed His identity to the woman at the conclusion of His teaching. This demonstrates that all events are somehow regulated by divine providence, for God “made both small and great, and he takes thought for all alike” (Wis 6:7). Or, as Qoheleth noted, “every matter has its time and way” (Eccl 8:6). The disciples had returned from town just in time. If they had come earlier, they might have interfered with the teaching; if they had come later, they, and we, would never have known that Christ taught this Gentile about spiritual regeneration. Second, the disciples were surprised to find Him speaking with the Samaritan woman. They marveled at this for two reasons. First, because it manifested Christ’s gentleness and humility, inasmuch as the Lord of all creation stooped to speak with a poor and humble woman. Christ was a living example of the wisdom of Sirach, who advised, “Incline your ear to the poor, and answer him peaceably and gently” (Sir 4:8). It was fortunate that the disciples witnessed this encounter at Jacob’s well, for by it, Christ gave us a most precious gift: a lasting example of what it means to be humble. Second, the disciples were amazed because Christ was speaking with a Samaritan, whom they considered a Gentile, a foreigner. They had not yet come to know that she was a symbol of the Church of the Gentiles. Nor did they know, at that time, that Christ had come to save, not only Jews, but Gentiles as well. On a later occasion, He would make this clear, saying, “the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10); and, because Gentiles worship what they do not know (Jn 4:22), they, more so than the Jews, had lost their way. Third, the disciples’ reverence for their Teacher is proven by their silence, for none of them interrupted Him by asking, “What do you wish?” Nor did any of them question His actions by asking, “Why are you talking with her?” Instead, they followed the advice of the wise man Sirach: “Among the great do not act as their equal; and when another is speaking, do not babble” (Sir 32:9). The disciples were well disciplined, for when they did question the Master, it concerned matters pertaining to themselves; and they questioned Him in order to better understand. But in matters pertaining to others, as when Christ was teaching this Samaritan woman, they did not ask questions or otherwise interfere with His work.

Now that we have seen the effect that Christ’s teaching had upon His disciples, we see the effect it had upon the woman. His teaching on living water bore great fruit in her, for she immediately hurried to town and related to others what she had seen and heard. Her fervent testimony caused many to seek out Christ, and subsequently, to believe in Him. “So the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city.” We see in her the effect of His teaching in two ways. First, she was so affected by the importance of His revelation, and her devotion to Him suddenly became so great, that she completely forgot why she had come to the well in the first place. Instead, she ran to town empty handed, leaving her water jar standing by the side of the well. Her sudden departure is reminiscent of the apostles suddenly laying down their fishing nets to follow Christ: “And he said to them, ‘Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.’ Immediately they left their nets and followed him.” (Mt 4:20-21) At first she was thirsty and hoped that Christ would give her refreshing natural water to drink. But now she cared not for her bodily comfort, now that Christ had given her living water to refresh her arid soul. The water jar, which she left behind, is a symbol of worldly desires; the well symbolizes a worldly manner of living; and in the murky depths of the well, sensual pleasures are found. Men use their water jars to dredge up sensual pleasures from the darkness of the pit. But those who abandon their jars, abandon worldly desires for the sake of God. Such a man has a single-minded devotion to God and to the pursuit of spiritual goods. He is like a loyal soldier: “No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tm 2:4). Second, the effect of Christ’s teaching can be seen in the great fruit it bore in the woman, in that she led others in the town to Christ. She had already done what Christ would later command His disciples to do: “go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” (Jn 15:16). She did not return to town with a clay jar full of natural water, but instead, she brought back living water in her heart and in her soul. This Gentile woman carried Christ’s teaching to her fellow Gentiles, as the apostles would later do on a grand scale, according to Christ’s instruction, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Mt 28:19). One could say that she was the first missionary to the Gentiles.

Observe her manner of preaching: “and [she] said to the people, ‘Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?’” We notice three things about her testimony. First, she invited the townsfolk to come out to Jacob’s well to see Christ for themselves. She said, “Come, see a man,” for Christ was “in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7), like us in all things but sin. Although she heard Him say that He was the Messiah, and although she herself believed it, she did not reveal this to the people at first, lest they scoff at her and dismiss Jesus as a lunatic. Instead, she simply invited them to come and see for themselves, trusting that Christ would teach them, just as He taught her. She did not ask them to believe, for she was confident that, once they had seen and heard Christ, they would come to believe in Him, just as she had. She acted according to the words of the Psalmist: “Come and hear, all you who fear God, and I will tell what he has done for me” (Ps 66:16). She is a true preacher, for she sought to call people, not to herself, but to Christ, as St. Paul said, “what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor 4:5). Second, she alluded to Christ’s divinity when she said, “[He] told me all that I ever did,” for only God can read what is hidden in the depths of one’s heart and locked away in the recesses of one’s memory. Formerly she had been ashamed to reveal her many sins, but now she mentioned them freely in order to demonstrate that Christ had the divine power to know hidden things. St. John Chrysostom explained that her newfound boldness is typical of a soul aflame with God’s love. Such a soul cares neither about glory nor shame, nor does it care to hold onto earthly goods, such as prestige and a good reputation in the eyes of men, but rather, seeks only to draw nearer and nearer to God. Third, she hinted at His greatness, when she suggested, “Can this be the Christ?” The subtlety of her evangelizing is remarkable. She did not assert that He was the Messiah, lest her listeners ridicule a humble woman for arrogantly assuming the role of rabbi. She simply invited them to decide for themselves. She was sure they would see the light, just as she had. She had enormous confidence in Christ’s spiritual magnetism, His ability to draw men and women to Himself. She resembled the apostles in that they came from humble beginnings, like she. For God chose such as these to proclaim the kingdom, as St. Paul observed: “not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world” (1 Cor 1:26-28). Or, as we read in Proverbs: “She,” that is, Wisdom, “has sent out her maids,” the apostles, “to call from the highest places in the town, ‘Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!’” (Prv 9:3)

Her preaching bore fruit at once, for the people, upon hearing her testimony, immediately left the city and went out to see Christ for themselves: “They went out of the city and were coming to him.” In order to meet Christ, they had to leave behind the town, just as we have to leave behind all carnal desires and become spiritual.

Next, we read that, in the meantime, Christ’s apostles had returned from town with food, and were preparing to have a noonday meal with Christ: “Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, ‘Rabbi, eat.’” They thought it a good time to eat before the crowds had arrived from town. Christ was often so occupied with teaching and ministering to the people, that He and the apostles scarcely had the time or opportunity to eat, as we read: “many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat” (Mk 6:31). The meal that Christ and His disciples shared at Jacob’s well became an occasion for Christ to teach them about spiritual food.

As He had used the symbol of water to explain spiritual regeneration to the woman, He used the symbol of food to teach His disciples, saying to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Thus, Sirach said of Wisdom: “She will feed him with the bread of understanding, and give him the water of wisdom to drink” (Sir 15:3). Christ’s statement can be interpreted in two ways. First, it can mean that, just as a body needs both water and food, so too does a soul need living water and spiritual food. As water is a symbol for wisdom, food is a symbol for good works. The food that Christ ate was the good He had done for man by saving him from eternal death, which is a just punishment for sin. Just as we desire to eat when we are hungry, Christ desired to save us when we were spiritually empty. The food of which the disciples did not know was the future conversion of the nations. The reason why Christ became man was to save mankind. The Apostle taught that the Savior “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm 2:4). St. Peter affirmed (2 Pt 3:9) that God does not wish that anyone should perish, but that each one should repent, that they might attain God’s promise of eternal life. Second, according to Origen, spiritual food is like bodily food in that some require less, others require more; and what is good food for one may be harmful to another. St. Peter said, “Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation” (1 Pr 2:2). St. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it.” (1 Cor 3:1-2) As Paul’s spiritual children were not yet ready to understand deeper spiritual things, so too were Christ apostles not yet ready to bear the depth of His wisdom. Thus, Christ had more spiritual food for them, but He would have to feed them at a later time, when they were more spiritually mature. He said as much on another occasion: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” (Jn 16:12-13)

If one has any doubt that the disciples were slow to understand, notice what happened next: “So the disciples said to one another, ‘Has any one brought him food?’” They were still quite carnal. Christ had been talking about spiritual food, but they thought that He was talking about mere bodily food. Perhaps they thought that some benefactor gave Him food in their absence. It is no wonder that the Samaritan woman failed to understand that Christ was talking about spiritual water, for His own disciples did not realize that He was speaking about spiritual food.

Notice that Christ humbly and gratefully accepted the kindness of others; He accepted their hospitality and their food on so many occasions. He did this for two reasons. First, so that those who generously gave in order to meet His bodily needs might acquire merit. Second, He accepted their gifts to teach us that those who are occupied with spiritual matters should not be ashamed of their poverty, nor should they or others regard it a burden to provide for their support. It is fitting that teachers and preachers and the like be free from the burden of providing for their own sustenance, so that they might focus on their important spiritual duties. Their importance is suggested in 1 Tm 5:17, where we read: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”

In the first nine verses of the fourth chapter, the Evangelist had provided us with the setting: a public well at Shechem, in the region of Samaria. He mentioned the characters: Christ and a Samaritan woman who came to draw water. He gave the occasion for the encounter: Christ resting at midday during His journey from Judea to Galilee. Next, St. John recounted the teaching Christ gave to the woman (vs. 10-26).

The Samaritan woman was surprised that Christ, a Jew, would speak to her, for devout Jews avoided any social interaction with their Samaritan neighbors. So, she asked Him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jn 4:9). Christ had the appearance of a devout, conservative Jew, perhaps because of His pious demeanor and manner of dress. He probably dressed like Jew, wearing tassels on the corners of His garment. If she had understood His mission, she would not have been so amazed that He spoke to her, for the Son of God became man in order to bestow grace, not only upon Jews, but upon Gentiles as well. He asked her for a drink of water from the well, but He came to give her and all mankind an abundant supply of living water from His eternal wellspring. This living water is the grace of the Holy Spirit.

To her question, He replied, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” His teaching to her is encapsulated in this statement, and the teaching concerns three things: (1) the gift of living water, (2) our asking for the gift, and (3) the giver of the gift.

1. The gift of living water. Grace is sometimes depicted as fire, sometimes as water. It is called fire for two reasons. First, because it gives rise to fervor for God in the heart, as St. Paul counseled the Romans, “be aglow with the Spirit” (Rom 12:11). Concerning the fervor of pure love, it is written: “Its flashes are flashes of fire, a most vehement flame” (Cant 8:6). Second, grace is called fire because it burns up our sins.

Grace is called water for three reasons. First, because it cleanses the soul of the stain of sin, as the Lord said through the prophet Ezekiel; “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ez 36:25). Second, grace is called water because it quenches the heat of temptation, as “Water extinguishes a blazing fire” (Sir 3:30). Third, grace is likened to water because it satisfies our deepest desire. Earthly water slakes the thirst, and material goods satisfy earthly desires for a time, but living water completely satisfies our desire to obtain our ultimate end, which is union with God. “Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters” (Is 55:1), that is, to the living waters, to the grace-filled waters, to Christ’s baptism of water and the Holy Spirit.

There are two types of water: non-living and living. Non-living water is not united with the source from which it springs. It is either collected from rain showers or it aggregates in ponds and lakes. But it simply stands there, motionless, separated from its source. Living water, on the other hand, is connected to its source and is always in motion. A flowing river is connected to a running stream, and the stream is connected to a bubbling spring, which is the source of all the water coursing through the stream and the river. The grace of the Holy Spirit is like living water, for when grace is given to a man, the source of the grace, that is, the Holy Spirit, is given along with it. Thus, the Apostle taught that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). The Holy Spirit is the spring from Whom all blessings flow. Speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, St. Paul said, “All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11). If one truly has a gift of the Holy Spirit, then it is true to say that he has the Holy Spirit Himself. If a man of faith claims to have a gift, but lacks the Spirit, then he does not have living water, but lifeless water. Since living water is in motion, it brings about changes in the objects it touches, whereas non-living water, because it is static, produces no change. A faith without the vivifying effect of living water is unproductive, and an unproductive faith is a lifeless faith, for life begets life, or as St. James said: “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2:17). The character of a person’s deeds reveals his true condition, for “the tree is known by its fruit” (Mt 12:33).

2. Our asking for the gift of living water. Adults obtain living water, that is, grace, by asking, as the Psalmist humbly and confidently prayed, “O Lord, thou wilt hear the desire of the meek” (Ps 10:17). Christ instructs us: “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” (Mt 7:7-8) Because grace comes to a person by asking for it, Christ said to the woman, “If you knew the gift . . . you would have asked.” God does not give sanctifying grace unless one desires it and asks for it. For this reason, a sinner must have a free will and must make some act of contrition in order to be justified. If one resists grace, he will not receive it, for God will not force it upon a man against his will.

3. The giver of the gift. Two things lead a person to desire grace: knowledge of the good which is desired and knowledge of the giver. Christ offered both to the woman. First, by saying, “If you knew the gift of God,” He made her aware of the good she desired. The “gift of God” is every good which comes from the Holy Spirit. All that we have and all that we are ultimately come from God. The wise man confessed that even his very wisdom comes from God: “I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me” (Wis 8:21). Second, when Christ said, “who it is that is saying to you,” He identified Himself as the giver, the One Who was able to give her the gift of grace. This Giver promised to send the gift of the Holy Spirit to His church after He had ascended into to heaven, whence He came (Jn 15:26).

Now that Christ had given a brief overview of His teaching concerning the gift of living water, our asking for the gift, and the giver of the gift, He then proceeded to unfold His teaching step by step in greater detail (vs. 11-26).

The Samaritan woman then challenged Christ’s request to give Him a drink of water: “The woman said to him, ‘Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?’” We can interpret this statement both in a literal sense and in a mystical sense. As to the literal sense, we note two things. First, the woman was carnal, not spiritual. She thought that Christ’s living water could be captured in a bucket. Because she was sensual, she understood in a worldly sense the spiritual goods about which Christ was speaking. St. Paul taught that one must become spiritual in order to receive spiritual gifts: “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” (1 Cor 2:14). Second, the woman pointed out the obvious: “the well is deep,” so deep, in fact, that one could not reach down with one’s hand and scoop out some water. The water of this well, like so many others in that arid region, could not be reached, except by lowering a bucket. But Christ did not have a bucket. Surely she had a bucket, for she came there to draw water for herself (vs. 7). She must have assumed that a good Jew would not have wanted to drink from her bucket, lest he be made ritually unclean by using a Gentile’s utensil.

As to the mystical sense, we can make two additional points. First, the depth of the well signifies the profound depth of Sacred Scripture and of divine wisdom. Qoheleth said of divine wisdom, it is “far from me. That which is, is far off, and deep, very deep; who can find it out?” (Eccl 7:23-24) Second, the bucket represents prayer, for the water of wisdom is reached through prayer, as St. James taught, “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all men generously and without reproaching, and it will be given him” (Jas 1:5).

“Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?” It was believed that Jacob dug the well where Christ met the Samaritan woman. Since He mentioned “living water,” she wanted to know if His living water was better than the water found in the well which was dug by their forefather Jacob centuries ago. She called Jacob “our father,” because Jews and Samaritans had a common heritage traced back to him. The Samaritans were not blood descendants of Jacob, but rather, they were foreigners whom the king of Assyria compelled to settle in the region after 722 B.C., in order to displace the Jews. However, Samaritans did observe parts of the law of Moses and they lived on the land which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. For these two reasons, they considered Jacob to be their forefather.

Jacob’s well signifies Sacred Scripture in three ways. Consider how the woman praised the well on three counts. First, according to the authority of the one who dug the well: their patriarch Jacob. Hence, she asked Jesus, “Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well?” Second, she attested to the freshness of its water, for Jacob and his sons drank from it. Third, she suggested its abundance when she added that Jacob’s cattle drank from it, too, for only a most abundant supply of water could sate, not only the people, but their thirsty flocks as well. Jacob’s well fittingly signifies Sacred Scripture on all three counts. First, Sacred Scripture has the highest authority, because it was given by the Holy Spirit. Second, Sacred Scripture is delightfully refreshing and satisfying, as the Psalmist proclaimed, “How sweet are thy words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Ps 119:103). Third, Sacred Scripture is exceedingly abundant, for it is given not only to the wise, but to the unlearned as well. Everyone, in fact, can partake of some measure of its wisdom.

Then Jesus explained the difference between earthly water and living water, when He said, “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.” Living water is like Jacob’s water in that each water quenches. But Christ’s water is greater, because one who partakes of it will never thirst again. Earthly water satisfies physical thirst, but only for a time. Likewise, the man who indulges his sensual appetite and gratifies his concupiscence will soon thirst again, for the desire for pleasure is insatiable: “When shall I awake? I will seek another drink” (Prv 23:35). By contrast, the living water, which is spiritual water, completely satisfies, as the Lord said, “behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty” (Is 65:13). There are two reasons why natural water does not satisfy for long, but living water satisfies fully. First, natural water has a temporal cause, such as a wellspring or a rain shower. Since a temporal cause is impermanent, its effects must be impermanent as well. Thus, when the wellspring dries up, so does the flow of water emanating from it. So it is with all ephemeral things: “All those things have vanished like a shadow, and like a rumor that passes by; like a ship that sails through the billowy water, and when it has passed no trace can be found, nor track of its keel in the waves; or as, when a bird flies through the air, no evidence of its passage is found” (Wis 5:10-11). But, since spiritual water has an eternal and infinite cause, which is the Holy Spirit, it can never be depleted. The Holy Spirit is an ever-flowing fountain of grace, so that all who come to this fountain are assured that they will always have plenty of water, that is to say, an abundance of sufficient grace. Second, natural water and living water satisfy differently because there is a difference between a spiritual thing and a temporal thing in that each produces a thirst in a different way. Possession of a temporal thing satisfies the thirst for that thing, but causes one to thirst for something else, whereas possession of a spiritual good removes the thirst for other things, but causes one to thirst even more for the spiritual good that is possessed. The reason for this is that temporal things are more highly regarded before they are possessed than after they are possessed, for they tend to disappoint, whereas spiritual goods, because they are truly unknown until they are actually possessed, are not objects of desire for a person who does not possess them. Ironically, it is the thing which satisfies the least, namely, a temporal thing, that we desire the most, whereas the thing which gives the greatest pleasure, namely, a spiritual good, is not at all desirable to a man who does not already possess it. It is as we read in the Apocalypse: “I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it” (Rv 2:17). Those who possess a spiritual thing, albeit imperfectly, ardently desire to possess it perfectly, as the Psalmist cried out, “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God” (Ps 42:2). The thirst for spiritual goods, however, will never be completely satiated in this life, for we cannot fully understand spiritual things in this life. Thus, it is said of Wisdom, Who is the Word of God, “those who drink me will thirst for more” (Sir 24:21). But in the life to come, when “They feast on the abundance of thy house, and thou givest them drink from the river of thy delights” (Ps 36:8), our spiritual thirst will be completely satisfied. This is as Christ promised, when He said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Mt 5:6), that is, fully satisfied in the life of glory, where they shall partake of grace freely and most abundantly.

“The water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” This is the spring of which it has been written: “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High” (Ps 46:4). Natural water moves away from its source, but living water flows back to its source, for it seeks to be united with its source. Natural water flows downstream, but living water flows upward and carries its partakers aloft. The living water becomes a fountain within its partaker, “welling up,” through good works, to eternal life, where he shall thirst no more. Living water produces good works in those it refreshes, and by these good works he merits for himself eternal life in God, for the living water of grace naturally seeks to return to God, its source. Living water flows upward and carries aloft those who partake of it and do good works in the state of grace. Christ said of the man who believes in Him: “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” (Jn 7:38).

These wonderful words of Christ fascinated the woman and enkindled her desire to possess this most excellent gift. “The woman said to him, ‘Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.’” We can make three observations here. First, upon hearing Jesus’ description of the living water, the Samaritan woman began to desire it. This indicates the perfection of the gift, for a person only desires that which she perceives to be a good. The strength of her desire tells us that she considered this living water to be a great good. Second, being carnal, she did not yet understand that this living water was a spiritual drink. And so, she asked for the water for two temporal reasons: so that she would no longer thirst and so that she would no longer need to carry water from the well to her home, for it is natural for man to thirst and to shrink from labor. Third, note the manner in which she addressed Christ. At the beginning of their conversation, she had simply called Christ “a Jew”: “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jn 4:9). But as soon as she realized that He could be of some use to her, that he possessed something she desired, namely, this mysterious, but useful, living water, she addressed Him respectfully as “Sir” or “Lord” (Domine). Later, when the Roman official pleaded with Christ to cure his son, he used the same ingratiating form of address, saying, “Sir, come down before my child dies” (Jn 4:49).

“Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” Here the Lord answered her in a spiritual way, though she understood it in a sensual way. Accordingly, this verse can be interpreted in two ways: literally and mystically. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, who interpreted it in a literal sense, Christ told her to summon her husband because He intended to give the instruction both to her and to her husband, for “the head of a woman is her husband” (1 Cor 11:3). Second, according to St. Augustine, who interpreted this statement in a mystical sense, Christ was speaking symbolically of her husband, just as He had spoken symbolically of living water. The husband is the human intellect and the wife is the human will. The will brings forth an action because the intellect moves it, just as a wife conceives because her husband initiates conjugal intercourse with her. The woman at the well was ready to receive the water; and so, she asked for it. But, she did not properly understand what she was asking for. She thought she was asking for one thing, while Christ was offering another. She wanted natural water to refresh her thirsty body, but Christ was offering supernatural water to refresh her parched soul. Her will was ready to act, but it was not moved by the intellect to a proper understanding. She was willing, but misinformed. Her intellect was stuck on the sensual level. Christ told her to call her husband, that is, to call upon the rational power of her intellect, so that she might understand in a spiritual way what she had previously understood in a sensual way.

Next, she was found guilty. “The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’” We can interpret this in three ways. First, in a literal sense, what she said was true. But she answered carefully, even cleverly, so as to conceal her hidden sin of habitual fornication. Although she previously had five husbands, the man with whom she had been living at the time was not her lawful husband. For this sin, Christ judged her, saying, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.” The Lord mentioned all these hidden things about her past and present situation in order to prove His omniscience, that she might know that He is God. By leading her to believe in His divinity, Christ placed her on the road to spiritual regeneration. Second, in a mystical sense, the five husbands stand for the five books of the law of Moses, the Pentateuch. Since Samaritans accepted these books, Christ said “you have had five husbands.” Her current husband, that is, the One to whom she was then listening, was Christ. But, Christ was not truly her husband, because she had not yet accepted Him as the Son of God. Third, the opinion of St. Augustine is that this mystical interpretation is faulty, for the woman came to her present husband only after leaving the five others, whereas those who follow Christ do not set aside the Pentateuch. Augustine interpreted this verse differently, asserting that the five husbands signify the five bodily senses, which she had used up until the time she met Christ. The man that she was then living with was her own errant intellect, her faulty reasoning, for she did not understand Christ’s words in a spiritual sense, as He had intended, but rather, she took them in a carnal way. Her faulty intellect was not assisting her, as husband and wife assist each other, but rather, it was corrupting her, like an adulterer corrupts his accomplice. Christ said, “Go, call your husband,” that is, summon your rational intellect, that she might understand the true meaning of His teaching, the spiritual meaning of His words.

“The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.’” Here she confessed that Jesus was qualified to teach her, for He seemed to be a prophet in that He knew many secret things about her past and present. According to St. Augustine, at that very moment, her true husband, that is, right reason, began to return to her. This was the turning point in her conversion and the beginning of her spiritual regeneration. It is true that Christ was a prophet, for He said of Himself, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house” (Mt 13:57). But, He was more than a prophet, for He Himself makes prophets, as is said of Wisdom, who is the Word of God: “she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets” (Wis 7:27).

Next, the Evangelist discussed prayer, for it is through prayer that one obtains the gift of grace. Accordingly, she invited Christ to teach her, saying, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Believing that Jesus was a prophet who knew many secret things, she might have asked Him to foretell the future for her temporal benefit or to discuss worldly affairs that might concern her. Instead, she asked this Prophet to reveal divine things to her. We read in Mt 6:25-32 that Gentiles are inclined to be overly concerned with the necessities of life: food, drink, clothing, and the like. “Gentiles seek all these things” (Mt 6:32). But this Gentile, this Samaritan, was different. She did at that time what Christ would later command: “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well” (Mt 6:33).

This spiritual question that she asked concerned a matter often discussed in Samaria, namely, the proper place to pray, for this was a point of sharp disagreement between Samaritans and Jews. Samaritans worshipped the God of Israel according to the law of Moses, but did so in their own temple, which they built in the fourth century B.C. upon Mount Gerizim. Samaritans argued that Gerizim was a more fitting place because Jacob and his sons worshipped there. Thus, she said, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain,” that is, on Mount Gerizim, the site of the Samaritan temple.

How could she say, “Our fathers”? Samaritans were not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but rather, they were Gentiles who were forced to colonize the area in 722 B.C., following the fall of the Kingdom of Israel. We may understand “Our fathers” in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, some claim that it was on Mount Gerizim that Abraham was tested and found to be faithful when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gn 22:1-19). Others say that this took place on Mount Zion. The actual site of this epochal event is significant, for it would seem to create an historical precedent for worship at that location. Wherever this took place, it was there that Abraham’s faith was proven, and it was there that the Lord promised to bless him and his posterity: “I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore” (Gn 22:17). Thus, when the woman at the well said “Our fathers,” she may have been thinking of Abraham and Isaac. Second, by “Our fathers,” she may have meant Jacob and his sons, who lived in Shechem, which is located in the pass between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. They probably worshipped God on Mount Gerizim. “And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddan-aram; and he camped before the city. And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent. There he erected an altar.” (Gn 33:18-20)

Though Samaritans were not physical descendants of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (renamed Israel in Gn 32:28), they nonetheless considered these men their ancestors for two reasons: first, because Samaritans observed the law of Moses, which was given to the people by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and second, because the Samaritans lived in the land of Israel.

A key disagreement between Jews and Samaritans concerned the legitimacy of their respective places of worship. Both cited Sacred Scripture to justify the establishment of their temples: the Jews’ temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem and the Samaritans’ temple on Mount Gerizim near Shechem. First, as to the Jews’ claim. They believed that Mount Zion was the proper place to worship the Lord, for in the law it is written: “Take heed that you do not offer your burnt offerings at every place that you see; but at the place which the Lord will choose” (Dt 12:13-14). At first, the Jews prayed in Shiloh, which was located about two-thirds of the way from Jerusalem to Shechem. Shiloh was an ancient shrine which served as a religious and administrative center during the twelfth century B.C., during the time when the tribes of Israel began to put down roots in Canaan and the surrounding territories. At Shiloh, they set up the tent of meeting, with the Ark of the Covenant (Jos 18:1). Two centuries later, the Ark was moved to Jerusalem by Solomon and placed in the temple, which David had commenced to build with the blessing of the prophet Nathan, and which Solomon had completed. The reason for this transfer was explained in Psalm 78, where we read that, because certain northern tribes “rebelled against the Most High God, and did not observe his testimonies, . . . He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among men” (Ps 78:56, 60). He punished their rebellion, and gave to his faithful servants in Jerusalem authority to rule over his chosen people: “He rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves. He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded for ever. He chose David his servant.” (Ps 78:67-70) Thus, Jews believed that the proper place to worship God was on Mount Zion, for that is where God Himself chose to dwell. Moreover, the Lord removed Himself from the shrine at Shiloh when the northern tribes rebelled. If God withdrew His seat from His own chosen people on account of their unfaithfulness, it stands to reason that He would be even less inclined to dwell among Gentiles, who though Him to be just another deity in their pantheon. Thus, in the eyes of the Jews, the Samaritans built their temple on Mount Gerizim without God’s approval. Second, as to the Samaritans’ claim. They appealed to the authority of the patriarchs, as the Jews had appealed to the authority of prophets like Nathan. The Samaritans did not accept the authority of Nathan. This is the issue that the woman at the well had raised with Jesus. She wanted to hear Jesus’ explanation of how David and Solomon, on the authority of Nathan, justified moving the ancient cultic center from Mount Gerizim, where the patriarchs had worshipped, to Jerusalem, where David and Solomon ruled. The Samaritans may have argued that the Ark was transferred, not by divine mandate, but for political reasons, for David and Solomon had greater control over the southern tribes. Samaritan scholars, no doubt, cited the patriarchal history, which had been carefully preserved in Sacred Scripture, to support their claim that Mount Gerizim was the more suitable sanctuary on account of its antiquity and its primitive historical connection with the forefathers.

Christ then responded to the woman’s question concerning this centuries-old theological dispute, which was largely responsible for the smoldering enmity of the Jews for their Samaritan neighbors, and which frequently erupted into heated debates among the elders on each side. He prefaced His response by saying, “Woman, believe me.” We can make two observations. First, He said this to alert her that He was about to say something especially important, even crucial, for a proper understanding of His teaching. This figure of speech is like the prefatorial remark, “Amen, I say to you,” which He used at times to emphasize the truth of His teaching. Second, she must believe, not only what He said, but she must believe in Him, for “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6), that is, to please God. The Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah to King Ahaz of Judah: “If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established” (Is 7:9).

Then Christ gave His response, saying, “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” Here, Christ alluded to three types of worship. First, there is the type of worship already being practiced by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim; and this He referred to when He said that the hour was coming when the Samaritans would no longer worship the Father “on this mountain.” Second, there is another type of worship being practiced by the Jews on Mount Zion; and He referred to this worship when He said, “nor in Jerusalem.” Third, there is a new type of worship for the future, and this was the worship that Christ Himself would establish. It differed from the other two. It replaced the other two, for since Christ desired to unite Jews and Gentiles, it was first necessary to eliminate that which separated them. Only then could He successfully establish a true and lasting form of worship. To unite Jews and Gentiles under one faith in one God, the ritual observances of the Jews must be eliminated, and the idolatry of the Gentiles must be eliminated, for these things had become a wall that separated the two peoples. Christ desired to break down that wall, as St. Paul explained, “he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14).

In a mystical sense, according to Origen, the three types of worship are the three ways in which one can participate in divine wisdom. First, there are those who participate under a dark cloud of error. They are represented by the Samaritans, who worship on Mount Gerizim. It is of those in error that the Lord said, “Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain, says the Lord” (Jer 51:25). Second, there are those who participate in true divine wisdom, albeit imperfectly. They see obscurely, as through a cloudy mirror. These are represented by the Jews, who worship on Mount Zion. Of them it was said, “The Lord builds up Jerusalem” (Ps 147:2). Third, there are the saints who participate in divine wisdom perfectly, without error, for in heaven they see God, not dimly as in a mirror, but as He is, face to face. St. John wrote of that blessed state: “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). This perfect participation is not something found in this life, but in the life to come. Thus, Christ said, “the hour is coming.”

Now that Christ had described the three types of worship, He then proceeded to compare them to each other.

1. Concerning the worship of the Samaritans. Christ said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know.” Here He pointed out the shortcoming of the Samaritans’ type of worship. To understand Christ’s meaning, we should explain the difference between knowledge of a complex thing and knowledge of a simple thing. It is possible to know something about a complex thing, but not to know everything about it. One can have both true knowledge and false knowledge of a complex thing. For example, one can have a true knowledge of a certain animal as to its substance, but be mistaken about an accident it happens to possess, such as its color. By contrast, one cannot have false knowledge of a simple thing, for since it possesses no accidents, either its substance is known or it is not known. Since God is absolutely simple, there can be no false knowledge of Him, for He possesses no accidents that a believer could be mistaken about. Either His substance is known or unknown. If He truly is known, then He is known as He truly is in His substance. But if one believes that God is something that He really is not, for example, if one believes that “God” is merely a demiurge or that He is a corporeal body, then that person does not really believe in God, but in something else which he invented in his mind.

Now, the Samaritans had a false concept of God in two respects. First, they thought God was corporeal. That is why they thought He could be worshipped only in one place, on Mount Gerizim. Second, they worshipped Him alongside their idols, as if these created idols were His peers. Christ said, “You worship what you do not know,” for they did not understand the incorporeal and simple nature of God. They did not worship God, but some imaginary creature invented in their intellects. The Samaritans believed that the God of Abraham was just another deity in their pantheon. Since they did not understand His true substance, they did not really believe in the God of Jews and Christians. St. Paul cautioned the Ephesians: “you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds” (Eph 4:17).

2. Concerning the worship of the Jews. Christ stated that the Jews had the true worship, when He said, “We worship what we know.” First, note that Christ affirmed that He Himself was a Jew, for He truly took flesh from the Virgin Mary, who was a Jew. Second, the Jews had a true opinion of God inasmuch as they believed that He was incorporeal and that His greatness could not restricted by place, for “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!” (1 Kgs 8:27) Third, they did not worship idols; they were pure monotheists. This set them apart from all other religions. Within the Jewish nation, it appears that the southern tribes were the most faithful, for while the Lord was hailed as “great” among the northern tribes, it was only in Judah that He was truly “known”: “In Judah God is known, his name is great in Israel” (Ps 76:1). Understandably, God chose to live in Jerusalem with His most faithful sons and daughters: “His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion” (Ps 76:2)

Christ then gave the reason why the Jews possessed true knowledge of God: “for salvation is from the Jews.” First, the Jews, and they alone, possessed true knowledge of God, because God had intended, from the beginning of time, that the salvation of mankind should come from them. And indeed it did, for salvation came though Christ, and Christ was a Jew through Mary. Second, since the source of health should itself be healthy, it was fitting that the source of our salvation should possess true knowledge of God, for we acquire salvation by obtaining a true knowledge of God and by worshipping God properly. Our Savior is the Word of God, Who knows all that is in mind of the Father. Through Him we acquire the truth and the grace necessary for salvation. Third, God promised Abraham, our father in faith: “by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gn 22:18). Thus, not only Jews would be blessed, but on account of them, all peoples everywhere would receive the same blessings. Salvation comes “from the Jews” in three ways: through their teaching, through their spiritual gifts, and through Christ. First, it comes through their teaching, for they held fast to a true knowledge of God. St. Paul argued that, even though some Jews became unfaithful, and some committed idolatry, most kept the faith. Because of the faithful among them, “the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). Second, salvation comes through their spiritual signs, for the prophets arose among them, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit were given to them, before they were given to any other people. The Jews enjoy a certain priority, for their prophets and patriarchs were entrusted with the task of revealing God to the world. The Apostle compared Jews to a sturdy and venerable olive tree, and the Gentiles to a grafted branch. Gentiles, he said, are like “a wild olive shoot, grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree” (Rom 11:17). He added that, because the Gentiles owe the Jews a debt of gratitude, they should give to the Jews a portion of the fruit of the blessings they have received through them: “if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings” (Rom 15:27). Third, the Author of salvation came from the Jews, and was a Jew Himself. St. Paul listed (Rom 9:4-5) the spiritual goods which Jews were privileged to possess: the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and best of all, the Christ.

3. Concerning the future worship. “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” Note that in verse 21 Jesus said, “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.” But here in verse 23 He said, “the hour is coming, and now is.” Origen suggested that the addition of the phrase, “and now is,” distinguished two types of worship. The worship Christ referred to in verse 21 is the perfect worship that is possible only in heaven, where we will have perfect knowledge of God and see Him face to face. The worship of verse 23 is the worship that has come through Christ. It is a true worship, replacing the idolatry of the Gentiles and surpassing the true worship of the Jews, but it is still an imperfect worship, for it is practiced only in this life, where we do not yet have perfect knowledge of God in the beatific vision.

Christ did not say that true worshippers will worship “God,” but that they will worship “the Father.” Under the Old Law, Jews worshipped God, but not as a loving father. They worshipped out of fear. Christians, however, worship out of love, as sons and daughters love their father.

True worship is “in spirit and truth.” We can understand how this is so in three ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, this demonstrates that the Christian’s manner of worship is superior to that of the Jews, just as the Jew’s worship is superior to that of the Samaritan. Christian worship is superior for two reasons. First, because Christian worship is in spirit, whereas the Jews worshipped through bodily rituals. The shortfall of Jewish ritual is explained in the Letter to the Hebrews: “gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body” (Heb 9:10). Second, Christian worship is superior to Jewish worship because Christians worship in truth, whereas Jews worship in symbols of the truth. Temple sacrifices could not perfect those who offered them, for the sacrificial animal lacked the power to cleanse the offeror. It merely served as a symbol of the true victim, Who is Christ, and its immolation served as a symbol of the true sacrifice, which was Christ’s crucifixion and death. The Lord was not entirely pleased with their burnt offerings; and so, He asked, “Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” (Ps 50:13) No, He does not, for God is a pure spirit. The type of sacrifice that He wanted was different: “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit” (Ps 51:17). God is pleased with Christian worship, for it is a worship in truth, not in symbols, for “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17). “The law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb 10:1). Thus, Chrysostom said that true worshippers worship in spirit, not by bodily rites, and they worship in truth, not through symbols. Second, according to another interpretation of this verse, by saying “in spirit and truth,” Christ distinguished true worship from both the Jewish worship and the Samaritan worship. “Truth,” therefore, refers to the Jews, and not to the Samaritans, for the latter did not have a true knowledge of God. Third, according to a third interpretation, “in spirit and truth” indicates the characteristics of true worship: fervor of spirit and a faith that is true. First, one must have fervor of spirit, as St. Paul said, “I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also” (1 Cor 14:15). The Apostle advised the Ephesians to “[make] melody to the Lord with all your heart” (Eph 5:19). Second, one must worship in the truth of faith. When a person fervently believes in something that turns out to be false, he does not possess the light of truth, but sits in the darkness of error, for no amount of fervor or right intention can be meritorious, unless it is united with the truth. Third, to worship in truth, one must worship with a proper intention. Hypocrites put on a magnificent show of piety and fervor, yet their actions are without merit, because they are done to please men, but not to please God. Christ instructed His disciples: “when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for 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. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Mt 6:5-6) Thus, true worship requires that one have fervor of spirit, the truth of faith, and a proper intention.

True worship is opposed to three things. First, it is opposed to the false worship of the Samaritans. A true believer worships a God who is a pure spirit; idolaters pay homage to corporeal objects, either to natural phenomena or to insignificant baubles which he has crafted from earthly elements. A true believer worships the One God; the pagan gives honor to many imaginary things which he, in his arrogance and foolishness, has arbitrarily raised to the level of divinity. St. Paul exhorted the Ephesians (Eph 4:25) to set aside falsehood and to speak the truth. Second, true worship is opposed to the fruitlessness of bodily rites, like those practiced in the temple on Mount Zion. The Lord asked them, “How long will you love vain words?” (Ps 4:3). Third, true worship is opposed to what is exclusively symbolic. The Old Law contained many symbols; it was a “shadow of the good things to come” (Heb 10:1). But, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:17); that is, grace itself and truth itself, not the mere symbols of those things.

Then Christ explained why the third form of worship is superior to the former two, when He added, “for such the Father seeks to worship him.” To worship in spirit and in truth is appropriate for two reasons: because God accepts it and because of the nature of the One Who is worshipped. First, it is acceptable to God because the worshipper asks for things that are not in opposition to God’s will, and he asks in a way acceptable to God. God seeks those who worship Him with a fervent love and in the truth of faith: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I command you this day for your good?” (Dt 10:12-13) Or, in the words of Micah the prophet: “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) Second, worship in spirit and in truth is superior because of the nature of God. Sirach observed that “Every creature loves its like” (Sir 13:15). If this is true, then God loves us insofar as we are like Him. And we are like Him in spirit, not in body, for He is incorporeal, a pure spirit. God loves especially what is spiritual in us. Thus, the Apostle exhorted the Ephesians, saying, “be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:23-24).

We worship God in spirit and in truth, because this form of worship, not that of the Samaritans and not that of the Jews, is most suitable to God’s divine nature. Thus, Christ taught: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” We worship God in spirit because He is incorporeal. Since “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39), it is appropriate to worship a pure spirit in a spiritual way, not in a bodily way. Thus, the animal sacrifices of the temple were insufficient. We worship God in spirit for another reason: because He is our Creator. He gives each human person life and breath by animating and informing each human body with an individual and unique living human soul, which He directly creates. We worship God in truth because God is Truth, as Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6).

“The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ).’” Jews and Samaritans alike hoped for, waited for, the coming of the messiah, to reestablish God’s power in a land occupied by soldiers and officials of the Roman Empire. She believed that a messiah was coming, for Jacob, at whose well they conversed, declared, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs” (Gn 49:10). The one to whom the scepter belongs is the messiah. St. Augustine observed that this was the first time in their conversation that she mentioned the messiah. It seems that she began to perceive Christ’s identity and mission at that point. Yet, she was still greatly confused, for she was unaccustomed to the spiritual profundity of His words.

She said of the messiah, “when he comes, he will show us all things.” Her statement can be interpreted both literally and mystically. First, in the literal sense, she professed her faith in the messiah and in the fullness of his teaching. She knew already that the messiah would be the giver of some great gift and that he would teach them many things, for God had promised to Moses: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Dt 18:18). Though Christ had been instructing her all along, it did not yet occur to her that He could be the Messiah. Nor did she realize that the living water which He offered her was a gift that could bring her to eternal life, for when Jesus and she began their conversation, He said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10). Second, according to the mystical sense, she said, “when he comes,” because she was at the time waiting for her “husband,” that is to say, her rational intellect. For she had summoned her intellect and reason to the task of understanding Christ’s words, as He had instructed her to do, when He said, “Go, call your husband, and come here” (Jn 4:10). During most of their conversation, her “husband” was absent, for she took Christ’s spiritual words in a carnal sense. But when at last her “husband” arrived, and she began to properly employ her rational intellect, then she, with her “husband” at her side, stood face to face with Christ the Truth. It was only then that Christ offered her the life-giving water of His spiritual teaching and revealed Himself to her in a most intimate and excellent manner, saying, “I who speak to you am he,” that is, I am the Messiah, “the anointed one.” Because of her persistence and burning desire to know the truth, Christ, Who is the Wisdom of God, went out of His way to teach her and to reveal himself to her, for it is said of Wisdom: “She hastens to make herself known to those who desire her” (Wis 6:14).

Note that Christ did not fully reveal Himself at the beginning of their conversation, but at the end, for if He had claimed to be the Messiah at the outset, when she was still entirely carnal and without a “husband,” then she might have though He was either mad, or a liar, or was speaking out of vainglory. He brought her to a deeper understanding gradually and systematically, and then, at the appropriate time, revealed His identity to her. “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver” (Prv 25:11), that is, a greater teaching is best prefaced by less profound teachings. In order to enjoy refreshing and life-giving water, notice how Jacob dug his well at Shechem: first he scratched the hard surface, and then he pierced deeper and deeper into the arid soil, day after day, until he finally unearthed the water.

St. Thomas had previously pointed out (Chapter 3, Lecture 2, on Jn 3:9) that people ask questions either out of disbelief or in order to learn. The Pharisees often asked questions because of their disbelief, as when they goaded Christ by saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (Jn 10:24) Others ask questions because of a desire to learn, as was the case with the Samaritan woman at the well. Because the Pharisees asked questions, not to learn, but to test Christ, He did not fully reveal Himself to them. As a result, they learned nothing, and their test revealed nothing. But it was different with the Samaritan woman. She spoke with simplicity and honesty. So, in the end, she learned the plain truth about the Messiah and about His gift of grace in the living water of baptism.

In the first chapter, the Evangelist explained the nature and power of the Word of God. In the second chapter, he pointed out two ways in which the Word manifested His power over nature: in the miracle at Cana and in His own bodily resurrection. In the third and fourth chapters, he showed how the Word demonstrated His power by bringing about the spiritual regeneration of fallen man through His gift of grace. In chapter three, he explained how this grace was offered to the Jews, and in chapter four, he shows how this grace was offered to the Gentiles. The Jews are represented by Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21), a Jew through and through, a learned man, a leader of the chosen people. The Gentiles are represented by two people: a Samaritan woman and a Roman official. The woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42) was a Samaritan, whom Jews considered to be Gentiles, even though Jews and Samaritans shared a common heritage, for Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel for the greater part of its history, from 879 to 722 B.C. The Roman official (Jn 4:43-54) was a total outsider, a Gentile, a citizen of the Roman Empire, which had oppressed the Jews since Pompey took Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Christ, Who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 6:14), guided all three onto the road to spiritual regeneration, even as He offers His saving grace to all of us, for God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tm 2:4). These three people, taken together in their diversity, represent the whole human race. As Christ revealed His power and divine authority to each of them, He offers the grace of salvation to all people.

The grace of Christ was dispensed to the Gentiles in two ways: through the teaching of the apostles and through the miracles (signs) which confirmed the authenticity of their teaching: “And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it” (Mk 16:20). Through the story of the woman at the well (Jn 4:1-42), the Evangelist demonstrated how the Gentiles would be converted in the future by the teaching. Through the story of the Roman official (Jn 4:43-54), he showed how the Gentiles would be converted by signs.

St. John the Evangelist implied that Jesus went out of His way to avoid a confrontation with the Pharisees, when he wrote, “Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.” Just as the Baptist had calmed the resentment of his envious disciples, Christ took steps to calm the rancor of the Pharisees. Our Lord knew what lay hidden in their hearts, for “before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him” (Heb 4:13). In His divine nature, Christ knew from eternity all things past, present, and future. In His human nature, He acquired knowledge through sense experience, just as any man would. It is this human acquisition of knowledge that St. John meant by the words, “the Lord knew.” It is not that Christ learned anything new through sense experience and discursive reasoning, but rather, He learned in a new way what He had already known by virtue of His divinity. Christ willed to acquire knowledge in a human way in order to affirm the reality of His human nature. He was like us in all things but sin.

Why should the Pharisees care that Christ was making more disciples than John? The Pharisees were leery of the Baptist, ever since his tense confrontation with the priests and scribes which the Pharisees had sent down from Jerusalem (Jn 1:19-34). Surely the Pharisees were not interesting in promoting John’s ministry. There are two ways to account for the interest they took in Christ. First, it is possible that the disciples of John who had complained about Christ (Jn 3:25-26) were either Pharisees themselves or allies of the Pharisees. On a later occasion, John’s disciples confessed that they strictly observed the fasting laws like the Pharisees: “Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’” (Mt 9:14). If the Pharisees mentioned in Jn 4:1 were also disciples of John, this would explain why they were concerned that Jesus was making more disciples than John. In this way, Jn 4:1 can be understood as a reiteration of the complaint they raised earlier: “here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him” (Jn 3:26). Second, it is possible that the Pharisees were envious of Christ’s success, just as they were of John’s success. Christ was speaking of the Baptist when He said, “Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of man will suffer at their hands.” (Mt 17:12) If the Pharisees disliked John’s baptizing, then they would have disliked Christ’s all the more, for “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”

How did the Pharisees hear that Jesus was making disciples and baptizing? The good man hears in order to obey, as the pilgrims prayed on the way to the temple: “Lo, we heard of it in Ephrathah, we found it in the fields of Jaar. ‘Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool!’” (Ps 132:6-7) But the wicked hear in order to promote their evil purpose, as Job said, “Abaddon and Death say, ‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears’” (Jb 28:22). The Pharisees heard what they wanted to hear in order to fan the flames of their own resentment of Christ. They heard two things. First, they heard that Christ was making more disciples than John. But we know that this was fitting, for John himself admitted, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30), for Christ’s teaching was more magnificent and more certain that John’s. Second, they heard that Christ was baptizing. This, too, was fitting, for by baptizing, He was cleansing the penitents from their sin, in accord with the Psalm, “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!” (Ps 51:4) In Ps 7:6-7 we read: “Arise, O Lord, in thy anger,” for anger is the pain of punishment for sin (Ch. 3, Lect. 6, on Jn 3:36); “lift thyself up against the fury of my enemies,” by baptizing for the remission of sin; “Let the assembly of the peoples be gathered about thee,” that is, gathered about Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church.

“Although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples.” This presents an apparent inconsistency, for in the previous verse we read that Christ was baptizing. It appears that the Evangelist had corrected himself in the present verse. But, there is really no inconsistency in what he wrote, for we can explain the juxtaposition of these two verses in three ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, in the first verse, the Evangelist did not himself say that Jesus was baptizing, but rather that the Pharisees had heard that He was baptizing. In order to correct this false rumor, he explained, in the second verse, that it was Christ’s disciples who did the baptizing, presumably under Christ’s supervision. The reason why Christ Himself did not baptize was because the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ’s passion and death, for it is written, “as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn 7:39). It would seem, then, that the baptisms performed by Christ’s disciples before His glorification did not confer grace, but like John’s baptism, their baptisms prepared men to someday receive baptism with water and the Spirit. Second, according to St. Augustine, the disciples did indeed baptize with the baptism of Christ, that is, with a baptism of water and the Holy Spirit. While the disciples performed the external ritual, the washing with water, Christ alone effected the interior cleansing and spiritual regeneration of the recipient. The office of the disciples was to wash the body, whereas the office of Christ was to bestow the Holy Spirit, which cleansed the soul. So, it is true to say that Christ did not baptize, inasmuch as He did not pour the water, but it is equally true to say that He did baptize, inasmuch as He gave the Holy Spirit to each one who received the water. Third, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine offered the better explanation. However, Chrysostom was correct in a qualified sense, if we say that the Holy Spirit was not given in visible signs until after the Resurrection, but that He was given to believers by an interior sanctification when Christ’s disciples were baptizing with water and the Spirit before the Resurrection.

Did Christ baptize His disciples? It is possible that they were baptized by John, for many of them had been disciples of John. But it is more likely that they were baptized with the baptism of Christ, that is, a baptism of water and the Spirit, for it seems fitting that Christ would have baptized servants with the same baptism with which He would later commission them to baptize others. Thus, He said to Peter, “He who has bathed does not need to wash” (Jn 13:10), that is, since Peter had already been baptized with the baptism of Christ, he did not need to be baptized again.

The fact that disciples were allowed to baptize implies that it is proper for prelates to designate lesser clerics to perform baptisms, as St. Paul said of himself, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17).

“He left Judea” for four reasons. First, to avoid a confrontation with the argumentative Pharisees, who were disturbed by the news that Jesus had been gathering disciples and baptizing. Here Christ taught us, by His example, that it is sometimes wise to yield to our persecutors for a time. Sirach advised the same, when he said, “Do not argue with a chatterer, nor heap wood on his fire” (Sir 8:3). Second, He quietly left that place to teach us that it is not sinful to flee from persecution. He instructed His disciples, “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next” (Mt 10:23). Third, He left Judea, for it was not yet time for Him to die upon the cross, as He had said to His mother at Cana, “My hour has not yet come” (Jn 2:4). Fourth, in a mystical sense, He left Judea to signify that His disciples, on account of the persecution they would face, would abandon the Jews and take the gospel to the Gentiles.

The Evangelist gave Christ’s intended destination when he added, “and departed again to Galilee.” He reported that Christ went again to Galilee, for He had gone there before, to Capernaum, after the miracle at Cana. Galilee has been understood by various authors to signify various things. Some say Galilee signifies the Gentile world. The fact that Christ traveled from Judea to Galilee signifies that He first offered salvation to the Jews, who are God’s chosen people and heirs to the promises God made to their forefathers; and then salvation was offered to the Gentiles by the apostles. Others say that Galilee signifies the glory of heaven or the revelation of the Word.

St. John then gave the reason why Christ was in Samaria: “He had to pass through Samaria,” on the way from Judea in the south to Galilee in the north, for the region of Samaria lies between Judea and Galilee. The fact that He entered the region of Samaria seems to run counter to the instruction He later gave to the apostles: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt 10:5-6). But, here it seems that Christ passed through Samaria, not by choice, but out of necessity, on account of its central geographical location.

The capital of the region of Samaria was the city of Samaria, which had been built by the sixth king of Israel, Omri, about the year 879 B.C. The region’s historical foundation is recorded in 1 Kgs 16:24, where we read that Omri “bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver; and he fortified the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, Samaria, after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill.” This city remained the capital of the northern kingdom until its fall to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.

The Evangelist then further specified the location: “So he came to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.” Sychar is the city of Shechem, which is where Jacob camped during a journey through the region: “Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan” (Gn 33:18). There he bought land and erected an altar. It was also the place where Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, raped Jacob’s daughter, Dinah (Gn 34:2). In retaliation, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slew all the males of the city (Gn 34:25). Jacob took up residence there and dug wells for his household. Hence we read, “Jacob’s well was there.” The patriarch passed along to his son Joseph a parcel of land, with the words, “I have given to you rather than to your brothers one mountain slope which I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow” (Gn 48:22). This parcel is the “field” mentioned in Jn 4:5. These references to Shechem, Jacob’s well, and Joseph’s field were carefully recounted in order to demonstrate how the historical events of the patriarchs’ lives have culminated in Christ, Who descended from them, according to the flesh, through His mother Mary. Mention of the well is particularly apropos to the subsequent discussion of the spiritual font of grace, which is Christ. Speaking of Christ, the Psalmist said, “with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light do we see light” (Ps 36:9). The Old Testament prophet Zechariah prophesied of the day of salvation: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness” (Zec 13:1).

“And so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the well.” Here Christ revealed His human weakness, even though His divine power was unlimited. He did this to affirm the reality of His human nature. According to St. Augustine, He was both strong and weak: strong, for “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1), but weak, for “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14). To demonstrate the reality of His divine nature, He performed great signs; to affirm the reality of His human nature, he frequently checked His divine power so that He might hunger and tire like other men. He called upon His divine power when necessary, in order to strengthen His human body, that He might not tire in His labors. Jesus allowed Himself to tire from this journey through Samaria in order to teach us not to shrink from striving to bring salvation to others. He laid to rest on the bare earth to give us an example of humility, and to affirm the value of the evangelical counsel of poverty.

In a mystical sense, to sit down signifies two things. First, it signifies the humiliation to which the passions frequently lead. “Thou knowest when I sit down and when I rise up” (Ps 139:2), that is, God knows both the good and the evil deeds we do, even when they are hidden from plain sight. Second, to sit down also suggests the authority of Christ, for a teacher of great authority sits when he teaches, and his students gather at his feet, as when Christ gave us Beatitudes while sitting before a crowd (Mt 5).

The Evangelist indicated the time when he wrote, “It was about the sixth hour,” that is, about noon. The literal reason for giving the time was to suggest a physical cause for Christ’s tiredness, for men grow weary in the heat of the day, especially when the sun is directly overhead at noon. As men are accustomed to take refreshment at noon, Christ stopped to rest near a well. In a mystical sense, the sixth hour denotes temporal prosperity, as Job lamented, “if I have looked at the sun when it shone” (Jb 31:26). At noon the sun is at its zenith, marking the end of its rising and the beginning of its decline. Noon signifies the peak of temporal prosperity. The Word of God came in the flesh at noon, as it were, when natural love flourished in the world and reigned supreme. But, from that time on, natural love waned as supernatural love became more apparent.

“There came a woman of Samaria to draw water.” This woman signifies the Church of the Gentiles, who had not yet been justified. They practiced idolatry, as this woman perhaps practiced adultery. They courted false gods, as she slept with a man who was not her true husband. But they were destined to be justified by Christ, as Christ led the woman to repentance. The Jews considered any Gentile a foreigner, as they did any Samaritan. As the woman came to draw water at the well, the Gentiles would one day come seeking Christ, as He foretold, “many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11-12).

Christ prepared the woman to receive His teaching when He said to her, “Give me a drink.” He asked for a drink for two reasons. First, in a literal sense, because He was thirsty. He wished to slake His thirst, having traveled up a long dusty road from Judea. Second, in a mystical sense, He thirsted for our salvation because of His great love for us. And so, He cried out from the cross, “I thirst” (Jn 19:28).

One would expect His disciples to fetch the Master a drink of water. We are told the reason why Christ had occasion to ask this favor of the woman instead: “For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.” We can make two observations. First, notice Christ’s humility, for all His disciples had abandoned Him, as they did when He was hung upon the cross. A prophet foretold this: “I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples no one was with me” (Is 63:3). Christ’s patient humility, both at the well of Shechem and on the cross at Jerusalem, served as examples to His disciples, that they might suppress their pride and imitate their Master, for Christ said, “the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28). One might think that lowly fishermen and tent makers would need no lesson in humility, for they were born into that condition and surely must come by it quite naturally. However, it often happens that, when a lowly man is raised to an important position, he responds to his elevation by exhibiting a haughty and arrogant attitude. This happens sometimes when simple men are raised to become prelates. Second, notice Christ’s temperance, for He cared so little for food, that He did not bring a sufficient quantity for the journey. By contrast, His disciples were so hungry that they left their Master to find a meal.

Although Christ asked the woman for a drink of water, He wanted to give her a taste of spiritual water. The reason He asked her to draw water for Him was to provide her with an occasion to question Him. And so, “The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’” We can make three points here. First, Christ chose to be born a Jew, for the Lord promised, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” (Gn 49:10). He to whom the scepter belongs is Christ. Second, the woman could tell He was a Jew by the way He dressed, for Jewish men wore, on the corners of their garments, small tassels with blue cords. This was in accord with the regulation set down in Nm 15:38-39, so that they might frequently recall the Commandments whenever they catch a glimpse of these tassels during the day. Third, the fact that she asked the question indicates her surprise that a Jew would address a Samaritan, “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.” Many Jews avoided Samaritans, but Samaritans did not go out of their way to avoid Jews. The animosity the Jews felt for the Samaritans stemmed from the era of the divided monarchy. The northern Kingdom of Israel was comprised of ten tribes; the southern Kingdom of Judah consisted of the remaining two. Many Jews living in the north failed to keep the faith, and some even practiced idolatry. As a result, the Lord punished them, using the Assyrians as His mighty instrument. In 731, the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser occupied Israel, and when Israel withheld tribute in 722, the Assyrian Sargon II deported Israelites from the capital city of Samaria and its environs, and resettled the area with a hodgepodge of pagan colonists. These colonists, who came to be called Samaritans, worshipped the God of the Jews alongside with their individual pagan deities. Their religious syncretism never sat well with the staunchly monotheistic Jews, especially with the conservative Jews living in Judah. After the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile in 538, the Samaritans interfered with Ezra’s effort to rebuild the temple and restore Jerusalem to its former glory. These unfortunate historical events were never forgotten in Judah. Even in Christ’s day, the age-old animosity that Jews felt toward their Samaritan neighbors smoldered. Despite the fact that Jews and Samaritans had a common heritage, Jews viewed Samaritans as Gentiles, outsiders, to whom the law of Dt 7 seemed to apply: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, . . . you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. . . . You shall not make marriages with them, . . . you shall break down their altars.” (Dt 7:1-5)

Why did Christ ask the Samaritan woman for water if it was unlawful for a Jew to associate with Samaritans? Christ said, “the Son of man is lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8). In fact, He has authority over all law, for all human and divine law is derived from the eternal law of God. Since He has authority over law, He can suspend the observance of a law for a suitable reason. He suspended the law of Dt 7 because the time had come to call all the nations to the faith. To call the nations, one must associate with them. Hence, He spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well.

Books by Conrad W. Baars, M.D.

Psychic Wholeness and Healing: Using All the Powers of the Human Psyche $11.00
The Unquiet Heart: Reflections on Love and Sexuality $59.61
Feeling & Healing Your Emotions $54.99
Healing the Unaffirmed: Recognizing Emotional Deprivation Disorder (Revised and
Updated Edition) $11.16
Doctor of the Heart $12.50
I Will Give Them a New Heart $18.48
Born Only Once: The Miracle of Affirmation $5.00

peace always,

jeff

(jquimb@cox.net)

In the previous section, St. John the Baptist had urged his disciples to follow Christ, because Christ’s doctrine is more splendid and more certain than the Baptist’s. In this section, the Evangelist demonstrates how Christ’s teaching makes a difference in the disciples who choose to receive it. First, he notes the relative scarcity of believers; then he discusses their obligation to believe; and finally, he reveals the reward for believers and the punishment for unbelievers.

1. The relative scarcity of believers. When the Evangelist wrote, “yet no one receives his testimony,” he alluded to the scarcity of believers in those early days of Christ’s public life. It was not the fault of the Teacher that, at first, so few accepted His teaching, nor was it any reflection upon the substance of what He taught, for the Word of God spoke the truth, for He is Truth. If there were few believers, it was the fault of those who refused to listen to the Word. The Pharisees heard His words, but slandered his teaching. Even some of John’s disciples refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The ones who should have recognized the truth, either because they were learned in the scriptures or because were well instructed by Christ’s precursor, were the very ones who were blind to the truth and failed to recognize the Truth when at last He came.

Why did he say, “no one,” when it is clear from the foregoing that some people did indeed accept Christ’s teaching early on? We can explain this in three ways. First, we may understand “no one” as an hyperbole, a figure of speech, the precise meaning of which in the present context is “very few.” It seems that the Evangelist used it in this way, because he immediately added, “he who receives his testimony” (vs. 33), to show that some did indeed accept Christ’s teaching. St. John used the same rhetorical device earlier, when he wrote, “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” (Jn 1:11-12) Second, to receive the testimony of the Word of God is tantamount to believing in God. While human wisdom alone can lead us to accept certain truths about God, one cannot truly believe in God without the assistance of supernatural grace, as the Apostle said to the Ephesians, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). Thus, “no one receives his testimony” unless he be given the grace to accept it. Third, in Sacred Scripture, “people” sometimes refers to the wicked, and sometimes to the just. For example, we encounter both wicked and just people in the twenty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah. First, the wicked: “When Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, ‘You shall die!’” (Jer 26:8) And then we read of the good people (vs. 16-17): certain princes and elders who defended Jeremiah and persuaded the wicked people that he did not deserve death, for he was speaking in the name of the Lord. When St. John mentioned those who did not receive Christ’s teaching (vs. 32a), he was referring to the wicked; and when he mentioned those who received His testimony (vs. 33), he was referring to the good people.

2. The disciple’s obligation to believe. The Evangelist then made four points concerning the disciple’s obligation to accept the divine truth: first, he presented the divine truth (vs. 33); then, he mentioned how this truth was proclaimed (vs. 34a); then, he affirmed Christ’s ability to proclaim the truth (vs. 34b); and finally, he gave the reason for His ability (vs. 35).

2.1. Concerning the divine truth. “He who receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.” That is, whoever receives the truth, ought to display the fact that he has received the truth from the One Who is true. Christ is true because He is Truth, He is God. Men may fall into error, but God cannot err, as St. Paul confessed, “Let God be true though every man be false” (Rom 3:4). The wise man said, “Set me as a seal upon your heart,” for I truly believe this, and “as a seal upon your arm,” for I am not ashamed to proclaim it (Cant 8:6). The Apostle wrote to Timothy, “God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his’” (2 Tm 2: 19). According to St. John Chrysostom, the “seal” may also be understood as a sign that the Father is true, because He sent His Son as He promised through the prophets. It follows, then, that those who do not believe in Christ, deny the truthfulness of God the Father.

2.2. Concerning how the divine truth is proclaimed. “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God.” Christ, Who is the Word of God, expressed in words what was in the Father’s intellect. Father and Son are true God from true God, distinct in person, but of the same divine nature. The one sends, the other is sent. Both possess the same truth. One is the origin of the truth; the other expresses it, reveals it. He who listens to the Son, hears the Father, as Christ said, “he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him” (Jn 8:26).

2.3. Christ’s ability to proclaim the truth. The Evangelist affirmed Christ’s ability to proclaim the truth when he wrote, “for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is said to be given “by measure,” that is, in fractions, not with respect to His essence or power, which are infinite and undivided, but with respect to the gifts He bestows upon each person. St. Paul taught that “grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph 4:7). Moreover, the Holy Spirit does not give all His gifts to everyone, but certain gifts to some, and certain gifts to others, and in different measure to each. The Apostle explained: “there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (1 Cor 12:4-7) But Christ possesses the greatest ability to teach the truth, because He did not receive the Holy Spirit in a partial way as we do. Rather, when He became man, He received the fullness of the Holy Spirit and all the Spirit’s gifts.

Notice that the prophets sometimes spoke from the Spirit of God, and sometimes from their own spirit. For example, when King David considered the possibility of building a temple, he asked the prophet Nathan’s advice. Nathan said to him, “Go, do all that is in your heart; for the Lord is with you” (2 Sm 7:3). Here Nathan was speaking from his own spirit, that is, giving his own opinion to King David. But “that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan” (2 Sm 7:4) and instructed him to inform the king that it was the Lord’s desire that he build a temple. This time it was the Spirit of God speaking through Nathan. Though prophets sometimes spoke for God and sometimes spoke for themselves, the Word of God always spoke for God, for the Holy Spirit is fully with Him and always with Him.

Christ possesses the Holy Spirit in two different ways: in one way according to His human nature, and in another way according to His divine nature. Christ as man has the Holy Spirit as Sanctifier: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted” (Is 61:1). Christ as God has the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the Spirit proceeds from Him. Thus, Christ promised His disciples that when the Spirit of truth comes “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (Jn 16:14). That is, the Spirit will make known to the Church the truth He has received from the Word of God. In both ways, as man and as God, Christ possesses the fullness of the Holy Spirit. As man, He received the Holy Spirit without measure, for since Christ is the perfect man, it was fitting that He should receive the fullness of the Spirit’s gifts. As God, He received from the Father the power to breathe forth (spirandi) the Spirit, since whatever the Son has, He received from the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by an eternal act of spiration (spirare), and the Son proceeds from the Father by an eternal act of generation (generare).

There are in Christ three types of grace: (1) the grace of union (of the hypostatic union), (2) sanctifying grace, which is habitual grace, and (3) capital grace which animates the members of His Body, the Church, inasmuch as He is head of the Church. First, concerning the grace of union. This is not an habitual grace, but an actual grace, a particular gift by which Christ, in His human nature, is made to be the true Son of God, not by participation as an adopted son, but according to His human nature, for in the hypostatic union, the human nature of Christ was united to the Divine Person of the Son of God. This is not a union of natures, for that would be to confuse His two distinct natures. The hypostatic union did not take place in his natures, but in His divine person. This union is a grace, that is, it was freely given, because nothing was done to merit it. Since the divine nature is infinite, the union is an infinite gift. And if it is an infinite gift, it was fitting that, when Christ received the Holy Spirit by the grace of union, He received the Spirit in fullness, and not by degree or measure. Second, concerning sanctifying grace. This grace is habitual, for it abides in the soul unless it is lost through sin. Christ’s soul will never lose its sanctifying grace, for Christ is impeccable, incapable of sin. Since grace is a created thing, it has a finite essence. Even though grace is finite in itself, Christ possesses the fullness of sanctifying grace: His human soul is “full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). He possesses it in fullness for three reasons. First, because of the one receiving the grace. Each creature, according to its nature, has a certain finite capacity. Grace is finite according to its essence, but not according to the manner in which it was given to Christ, for as much of it was given to Christ as His created human soul was able to contain. It is like the woman who approached a river to draw water. She perceived water without measure and drew all that her pail could hold. The immensity of flowing water is like grace, and the pail is like Christ’s finite human soul. Second, Christ possesses the fullness of sanctifying grace on account of the gift received. A spiritual form is not infinite in its essence, for God alone is infinite. The form of whiteness is not infinitely white, yet a subject can possess whiteness in its fullness, even though the whiteness he possesses is not infinitely white. He possesses all the white there is to possess. We say that this subject is as white as any corporeal thing could possibly be. Likewise, Christ’s human soul possesses the fullness of sanctifying grace, because He received everything that could possibly pertain to the nature of grace. Third, Christ possesses the fullness of sanctifying grace on account of the cause of grace, which is God. An effect is somehow present in its cause, and a cause can be seen in its effect. If a cause has infinite power to produce an effect, he is said to have that effect without measure. For example, if a man owns a fountain capable of producing an unending flow of water, one could say that he possesses an infinite measure of water. The human soul of Christ is said to have grace without measure because it has been united to the Word of God, Who is the source of all created things, for “all things were made through him” (Jn 1:3). Third, concerning capital grace. This is the grace of Christ, insofar as He is the head (caput, the head, leader, or source) of the Church. Since Christ received gifts from the Holy Spirit that can flow without measure, Christ is able to pour out these gifts without measure. His grace, therefore, is sufficient for the salvation of the entire world: “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).

2.4. The reason why Christ has the ability to proclaim the truth. Christ has this ability because “the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.” This statement can refer to Christ as God and to Christ as man. First, as it pertains to Christ’s divine nature, “loves” does not indicate a principle, but a merely a sign, for the Father gave all things to the Son, not because He loves His Son, but because He is the principle (origin) of the Son, so that whatever the Son has, He has it from the Father. Love is not the reason why the Father gave all things to the Son; and this is demonstrated in two ways. First, to love is an act of the will. If the Father generated the Son by an act of His will, then He did not generate the Son by nature. But, this is the heresy of Arius, who denied the consubstantiality of Father and Son, and asserted instead that they are united only according to their wills, that is, by a moral union, a union of purpose. Second, we profess that the love of the Father for the Son is, in fact, the Holy Spirit. If the Father’s love for His Son was the reason why He gave all things to His Son, that is to say that the Holy Spirit is the reason He gave all things to Him. Then it would follow that the Holy Spirit is the principle of the Son. But, this is clearly false, for the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; the Son does not proceed from the Spirit. Second, if the statement pertains to Christ’s human nature, then it is true to say that the Father gave all things to His Son because He loved His Son, both in a general sense and in a particular sense. In a general way, the Father loves Christ’s created human nature, for He loves all things that He has made: “thou lovest all things that exist, and hast loathing for none of the things which thou hast made, for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it” (Wis 11:24). In a particular way, the Father had a special love for Christ, as we had seen at Christ’s baptism, when the skies opened up and the Father said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 3:17). With confidence, the Son of Man could say, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Mt 28:18). The Letter to the Hebrews begins by confessing that “in these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb 1:2).

3. The reward for believers and the punishment for unbelievers. Concerning the reward, he said, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life.” If the Father is eternal, and the Father has given everything He has to His natural Son, then the Son is eternal as well: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (Jn 5:26). Furthermore, the Son gives eternal life to His followers, as He said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life” (Jn 10:27-28). Concerning the punishment, he said, “he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” This is a double punishment. There is the punishment of loss, inasmuch as the unbeliever will be deprived of eternal life. By “eternal life” we mean knowledge of God in the beatific vision. Christ Himself explained what eternal life consists in: “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (Jn 17:3). Zophar said of the unbeliever, who will never have this vision: “He will not look upon the rivers, the streams flowing with honey and curds” (Jb 20:17). To have this glorious vision for eternity is the proper reward for a faith that is united with love. Then there is the punishment of sense, inasmuch as the unbeliever will suffer some kind of pain for eternity. When God’s wrath rests upon a person, he feels pain, for in the scriptures, God’s wrath signifies the pain with which He punishes evildoers.

Christ said, “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” (Jn 5:22-23). But, in Jn 3:36 we read that the “wrath of God,” not the wrath of Christ, rests upon the unbeliever. This is no contradiction, for the judgment in Jn 3:26 is attributed, not to the Father in particular, but to God in general, whereas in Jn 5:22-23 it is attributed to God the Son in particular. Whatever one divine person does, it is really three acting as one. The reason it was attributed in Jn 3:26 to God in general was so that the Jews, who feared God, but not His Son, might have a greater motivation to freely accept the faith. The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews warned them: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31). St. Paul reminds us that we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), that is, destined for eternal punishment on account of our sins. But, the good news is that we are freed from that heavy, but just, sentence by faith in Christ.

In verse 26, we read that some disgruntled disciples of the Baptist complained to him that Christ was baptizing. They expressed their dissatisfaction in two respects. First, they were indignant because Christ took upon Himself the office of baptist. They therefore reported to John, “here he is, baptizing.” Second, they expressed concern that Jesus’ fame was spreading. And so, they said, “and all are going to him.” Accordingly, St. John the Baptist responded to each of their complaints. In verse 27 he addressed the first, revealing the source of his office. In verse 28, he addressed their second complaint, explaining how he and Christ have different, but related, ministries.

Note that the Baptist did not censure his carnal disciples, even though they deserved rebuke. We can detect three reasons for his self-restraint. First, he was patient with their imperfection, and his patience enabled him to react calmly to their allegations. Second, he feared that, if severely reprimanded, they might have left him to join the Pharisees, thereby creating more enemies for Christ. Third, by acting with moderation, so as not to discourage his disciples, he was acting like Christ, of whom it was said, “a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench” (Is 42:3).

“John answered, ‘No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven.’” Here St. John the Baptist addressed his disciples’ first concern, namely, that Jesus was baptizing. Note that John was prudent in that he did not begin his response by praising Christ, for he discerned, by the tone of their report, that they were envious of Jesus and did not have a high regard for Him. If John had praised Christ, it would have only fanned the flames of their rancor. Rather, St. John responded to their murmuring by pointing out the obvious and the unpretentious. His answer can be interpreted in two ways: either as referring to Christ or to himself. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, when he said, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven,” he was speaking of Christ. His argument is as follows. No one can lay hold of a thing unless it be given to him from above, for God gives us every good thing. But if people were being converted by Jesus, it must be God’s doing. Therefore, the Baptist told his disciples that if they oppose what Jesus is doing, then they oppose God. It was a similar argument that the Pharisee Gamaliel used to urge his zealous confreres not to persecute Christians. He reasoned as follows: “if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:38-39) Second, according to St. Augustine, when the Baptist said, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven,” he was referring to himself, as if to say to his disciples: You are so zealous for me that you want me to be greater than Jesus. You would have the herald be greater than the Christ.

After the Baptist had responded to his disciples’ first complaint, thereby revealing the divine source of his office, he addressed their second concern, namely, that Jesus was growing in popularity. To demonstrate that Jesus’ popularity was no threat to John’s mission, he explained how the office of baptist and the office of messiah are different, though related. “You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.” The Baptist did not aspire to be the messiah. “One does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.’” (Heb 5:4-5) God gave John the office of baptist, not the office of messiah. He was content with his assignment, and his disciples should have been content with him. We may note three things here. First, the fact that the disciples of John were able to bear witness to him indicates that he testified openly, as was said above: “He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, ‘I am not the Christ’” (Jn 1:20). Second, John regarded himself as a precursor, like a herald who is sent before a judge arrives. John was sent by God Himself: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (Jn 1:6). Third, John used his disciples’ own testimony to demonstrate the unreasonableness of their complaint. They had testified that the Baptist never claimed to be the messiah. But, if he did not claim to be the messiah, then they should have had no cause to complain that Jesus had become more popular than John.

Next, the Baptist offered two similes, one applied to Christ, the other applied to his own office. Concerning the simile applied to Christ, he said, “He who has the bride is the bridegroom.” The groom is in charge of his bride. Christ is the groom; the Church is His bride. When the Word became incarnate, He came to her “like a bridegroom leaving his chamber” (Ps 19:5). The Church is joined to Christ by having faith in Him, as the Lord foretold: “I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord” (Hos 2:20). The writer of the Apocalypse enjoined us: “Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready” (Rv 19:7).

Concerning the simile applied to himself, St. John the Baptist said, “The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.” John knew well that he was not the groom and that his office was not that of the Christ. His office was that of precursor, like a groomsman that protects the bride and keeps watch for the groom to arrive. His joy consisted in the fact that he had dutifully watched over the bride, that is, the Church, and had waited patiently to turn her over to the Groom when He had finally arrived in the flesh. St. Paul also saw himself as Christ’s groomsman when he wrote, “I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor 11:2).

Here John designated himself as the “friend of the bridegroom.” This seems to contradict what he said in the first chapter: “he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (Jn 1:27). The apparent discrepancy is readily explained if one considers the context in which these two statements were made. On the earlier occasion, the Pharisees had sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to question the Baptist. It was John’s intention to distinguish himself from Christ, Who was infinitely greater than he. And so, he emphasized his subordinate position. But here in chapter three, he called himself a friend of Christ in order to emphasize the faithfulness of his love for Christ. A faithful servant is like a friend; he desires to obtain goods for his master, but does not think of enriching himself. Similarly, John did not keep the bride for himself, though she was entrusted to his care. Rather, he watched over her until the groom came calling for her. It is the same for those who are friends of the truth: they should safeguard the truth for the glory of the Groom, not use their knowledge for their own glory.

In explaining what it meant to be a “friend of the bridegroom,” St. John the Baptist revealed four notable things about himself: his faithfulness, his constancy, his attentiveness, and his spiritual joy. First, by calling himself the “friend of the bridegroom,” the Baptist expressed his faithfulness to Christ. He was the sort of friend that Sirach spoke of: “A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter: he that has found one has found a treasure” (Sir 6:14). Second, by saying that he “stands,” that is, waits for, the bridegroom, he demonstrated his constancy. St. Paul urged the Corinthians to be steadfast in the faith: “my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58). Third, by saying, “and hears him,” that is, he listens to the Lord, the Baptist demonstrated his attentiveness in two ways. First, he paid attention to the manner in which the Groom is united to His bride. The Apostle taught that “faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom 10:17). Second, he paid attention to the commands of the Groom. He obeyed the Groom, as did the prophet who said, “The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I turned not backward” (Is 50:4). Fourth, by saying, “rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice,” the Baptist espressed the spiritual joy he felt when he heard the Bridegroom speak to His bride. Christ spoke to His bride when He taught the faithful the way of truth that leads to life eternal. When John said, “therefore this joy of mine is now full,” he was looking forward to the day when the bride will be united to her Groom. On that day, John’s joy would be complete, brought to its perfection and full measure.

Next, St. John the Baptist responded more directly to his disciples’ complaint that Christ’s popularity was increasing. Accordingly, he stated bluntly, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” We make make three points here, concerning the literal sense of this statement. First, note that Christ does not increase in Himself, but rather, in relation to others, inasmuch as His power is made known to more people and understood by them in greater depth. Second, the Baptist seems to be telling his disciples that it is not unbecoming that Christ’s honor and esteem among the people had been steadily growing in the previous weeks and months. In fact, it is John’s desire that this be so. John must decrease in the esteem of the people, for esteem was not due to him as if he were a principal. Rather, all the esteem and reverence showed to the Baptist was due in fact to Christ, since the purpose of John’s ministry, both his preaching and his baptizing, was to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. Third, we observe that the morning star appears shortly before the dawn, and when the sun finally rises, the star slowly fades away in the brilliance of the sun’s light. So it was with the Sun of Justice and His herald. At a most fitting moment in time, when Christ came to preach and to heal, to suffer and to die, His forerunner faded away, just as the Lord’s glory began to shine brightly. St. Paul observed, “when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). In death, John was cut short, decapitated, whereas Christ was lifted up high upon the cross.

In the moral sense, we can make three points concerning this statement. First, as Christ increases in each of us, we must decrease, for the more we contemplate the divine greatness, the less we think of ourselves. Second, As Christ increases in a person, that person grows in the knowledge and love of Christ, just as the longer one stares at a light, the brighter it seems to become. Third, it is one thing to know truths about God, as does the philosopher, but it is another thing to believe in God, as does the man of faith. The believer sees man as he really is. As he contemplates his own smallness and sinfulness, compared to God’s greatness and goodness, he begins to realize that he needs Christ’s saving grace. This need leads him to repenatance, as Job observed: “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Jb 42:5-6).

There are two reasons why Christ must increase and John must decrease. The first is on account of His divine origin, and the second is because of the excellence of His teaching.

1. Christ must increase on account of His divine origin. St. John the Baptist confessed: “He who comes from above is above all.” The one “who comes from above” is Christ, Who is eternally begotten of God the Father, yet “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7). He “comes from above” in two ways: according to His divine divine nature and according to His human nature. First, according to His divine nature. In order for a thing to attain its perfection, it must attain the end specified by its origin. For example, a prince reaches perfection when he becomes a king, and man reaches perfection when he attains union with God in the beatific vision. Because Christ’s origin in the Father is eternal and most excellent, it was fitting that the manifestation of His power on earth be increased until He is clearly recognized to be above all others, as the Christological hymn proclaims: “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10-11). Second, Christ “comes from above” according to His human nature, inasmuch as He assumed the highest condition of human nature in each of its three states. The first state of human nature is the era before original sin. In reference to this first state, the Word of God assumed human flesh unstained by original sin. Because of this, He was a most suitable choice to suffer and die on the cross for our salvation, like the unblemished lamb offered in temple sacrifices under the Old Law (Ex 12:5). The second state of human nature is the time after the sin of Adam. It is the era in which we now find oursleves. In reference to this second state, Christ assumed a human body capable of suffering and death. The Father sent Him “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3) so that He might accept a just punishment for sin. Yet the sins for which He freely chose to suffer were ours, not His, for Christ had neither original sin, nor personal sin. The third state of human nature is the day of resurrection and glory, when “death shall be no more” (Rv 21:4). From this state Christ took His impeccability, for those who attain heavenly glory shall sin no more.

Some have falsely asserted that some material part of Adam was unstained by original sin, and that this pure part was passed on to the Virgin Mary and to her Son, both of whom were born without original sin. Rather, we believe that Christ’s human soul was purified by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Whom He was conceived, and that Mary, by the power of God, was conceived immaculate, that is, without original sin.

Christ is above all things according to both His divinity and His humanity, and He is above them in two ways: first, by the eminence of His status as the Son of God, for “The Lord is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens” (Ps 113:4), and second, by His authority and power, for the Father “has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body” (Eph 1:22-23).

2. Christ must increase because of the excellence of His teaching. A person is known chiefly by what he says, as some bystanders remarked to St. Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you” (Mt 26:73). The quality of a person’s teaching is related to his origin, for “he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks.” When St. John the Baptist said, “he who is of the earth,” he was referring to himself and to his preaching. He is “of the earth” in three respects. First, according to the composition of his human body, which was formed out of corporeal matter and conceived by human parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, who were the efficient cause of his body. Job observed that we “dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust” (Jb 4:19). A house of clay can mean either a dwelling place where a family resides, or a human body, wherein a soul dwells. Second, John is “of the earth,” inasmuch as he is earthly in quality, unlike God and the angels, who are pure spirits. Third, John is “of the earth” with respect to his teaching, as Isaiah said of Ariel (Jerusalem): “deep from the earth you shall speak, from low in the dust your words shall come; your voice shall come from the ground” (Is 29:4).

The angel Gabriel announced to Zechariah that the Holy Spirit would be with his son John; the angel said, “he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15). But if John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit, how could he say that he spoke of earthly things? This can be answered in two ways. First, according to St. John Chrysostom, when John claimed to speak of earthly things, he was comparing himself to Christ, as if to say that his teaching was inferior to the teaching of Christ, “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). Deutero-Isaiah said of divine wisdom: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:9). Second, according to St. Augustine, John possessed human wisdom according to his human nature, but whenever he spoke of divine things, it was due to a divine enlightenment. John did not claim to be the source of such knowledge, but rather, the recipient. The human mind is naturally disposed to understand earthly things, whereas the divine mind is naturally disposed to know heavenly things. When God enlightens a man, the truth that He reveals to him is certain. But one must be careful to discern whether the enlightenment is from God or from another source, as Sirach advised concerning visions: “Unless they are sent from the Most High as a visitation, do not give your mind to them” (Sir 34:6). To cast aside any doubt, Christ assured the apostles, “it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Mt 10:20). Thus, St. Paul could say with assurance, “by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10).

After St. John the Baptist had described the nature of the doctrine which he taught, he then described the nature of the doctrine which Christ taught. We can observe three things regarding his testimony. First, the Baptist revealed the origin of Christ’s teaching when he professed, “He who comes from heaven is above all.” Christ is a divine person with two natures, not a human person with two natures. Although the human body of Christ came from the earth as regards its matter, the Divine Person of Christ came from heaven in two respects. First, the efficient cause of His conception was the Holy Spirit, as St. Luke recounts: “And the angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Lk 1:35). Second, the Only Begotten Son of God came down from heaven and took flesh in order to lead God’s adopted sons and daughters to glory, for He is “the first-born of all creation” (Col 1:15). Christ explained that “No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man” (Jn 3:13). Second, the Baptist professed the dignity of Christ when he said that He “is above all.” Third, when he said, “He bears witness to what he has seen and heard,” the Baptist inferred the dignity of Christ’s teaching from the dignity of His divine person. Christ as God is truth itself, and Christ as man is the witness to the truth, as He said to Pilate, “For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37). Christ’s testimony is certain, as He said, “he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him” (Jn 8:26).

We can make three observations as to the manner in which knowledge is acquired. First, knowledge is acquired through sight differently than it is acquired through hearing. By sight, the object itself is seen, whereas by hearing, knowledge is obtained when one understands what the speaker is saying. When the Baptist said, “what he has seen,” he was referring to knowledge that the Son of God received directly from the Father, inasmuch as He proceeds from the essence of the Father. When the Baptist referred to what Christ has heard, he was referring to what He, the Word of God, received from the Father’s intellect. His seeing refers to the act of being, whereas His hearing refers to the act of knowing. Second, because in created intellectual beings the act of being is different from the act of knowing, knowledge that comes through sight differs from knowledge that comes through hearing. But, since in God the act of being (esse) is the same as the act of understanding (intelligere), it is the same for the Son to see or to hear. Third, when one sees a thing, one does not see its essence, but a similitude thereof. And when one hears a speaker, one does not hear his actual thought, but a verbal expression of his mental thought. But, since Christ is the Word of God, one in essence with the Father, there is nothing standing between Him and the truth, which the Father knows in Himself. Since the Son of God received His essence from the Father by eternal generation, and since the Son is the Word of God, for Him it is the same to see or to hear.

St. John the Baptist concluded that because the doctrine of Christ is far greater in grandeur than his own doctrine, one should listen to Christ, rather than to the Baptist. Thus, it was fitting that Christ should increase, and John should decrease.

In the first part of chapter three, Christ taught us about spiritual regeneration through baptism with water and the Spirit. In the remainder of this chapter, we learn how John’s baptism with water differs from Christ’s baptism with water and the Spirit.

“After this,” that is, after Christ spoke to Nicodemus about spiritual regeneration, “Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea.” This presents a problem in the literal sense, for the Lord had taught Nicodemus in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. How then can He go “into the land of Judea” if He is already there? Two answers have been given. First, according to Bede the Venerable, Jesus returned to Galilee after his discussion with Nicodemus and stayed there briefly before returning to Judea. Second, St. John Chrysostom suggested that there were two places in Judea where people frequently gathered in those days: (1) Jerusalem, where they assembled for the cultic feasts, and (2) the Jordan River, where they came to hear John preach and to be baptized by him. Christ frequented both locations. He was in Jerusalem for a feast when He spoke with Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21). At the conclusion of the feast, He went down to the Jordan to hear John the Baptist. Thus, when the Evangelist wrote that He went “into the land of Judea,” He was indicating that Christ traveled from one part of Judea to another, from Jerusalem to the Jordan River.

“There he remained with them and baptized.” There are two things to note here. First, though Christ made frequent trips to Judea, which was in the ancient kingdom of Judah, His home was in Nazareth of Galilee, which was in the ancient kingdom of Israel. Thus, it was said of Christ, “Judah became his sanctuary, Israel his dominion” (Ps 114:2). In the moral sense, Judea was not merely a place to visit, but a place where Christ “remained. That is to say, He remains with those who are faithful to His teaching, as He said, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him ” (Jn 14:23). Second, Christ baptized; but it was a baptism unlike John’s. When Christ baptized a man, He cleansed him of sin. Now, unless a person confesses his sins, he cannot obtain forgiveness, for the proverb reads, “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Prv 28:13). When a person came to Christ and asked to be baptized, he confessed his sins, and Christ forgave them.

“John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.” John baptized with water, but Christ baptized with water and the Holy Spirit, thereby effecting a spiritual regeneration in the people He baptized. The baptismal rite performed by John prefigured the efficacious baptism that Christ would administer. Since John’s baptism was ordained to Christ’s baptism, it seems that he should have stopped baptizing as soon as Christ began to baptize, for the symbol ceases when the truth that the symbol represents arrives. But, John continued to baptize for awhile for three reasons. First, if John had ceased baptizing as soon as Christ began baptizing, some might have said that John’s baptism had been repudiated. John continued to baptize, lest his office be seen as worthless. Similarly, the first generation of Jewish Christians observed Jewish practices and customs, as did Christ Himself, so as not to denigrate the cultic life of God’s chosen people. God ordained, in His divine providence, that the temple should stand for several years after the faith had begun to be proclaimed by Christ and the apostles. Then, after many Jews had been converted to Christianity, the temple fell in 70 at the hands of the Roman general Titus. With the temple in ruins, and its sacrifices discontinued, the devotion and hope of Jewish Christians was turned entirely to Christ. Second, if John had ceased baptizing as soon as Christ began to baptize, some might have thought that he had given up his ministry out of bitterness or envy. Rather, John was magnanimous, as St. Paul urged his Romans to be, saying, “Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty” (Rom 12:16). Third, we shall see below (vs. 26) that some of John’s more zealous disciples were quick to complain about the growing popularity of Christ. If John had ceased baptizing all at once, they would have been provoked to oppose Christ and the apostles to an even greater degree. This would have caused disunity among the early believers. But the Baptist was wise, as was the Apostle, who advised his fellow missionaries to “take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor 8:9).

The geographical location of Aenon is not known today, but St. Thomas identified Salim with Salem, for the two words use the same consonants. Salem, which means “peace” in Hebrew, was the region over which Melchizedek was king: “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High” (Gn 14:18). Salem is usually identified with Jerusalem, as we read, “His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion” (Ps 76:2), for the temple in Jerusalem was located atop Mount Zion.

“For John had not yet been put in prison.” The synoptists began their narratives of Christ’s public life with mention of St. John the Baptist’s preaching and imprisonment, whereas St. John the Evangelist began his narrative with events that occurred before the Baptist’s imprisonment. St. John wrote his gospel after the synoptists wrote theirs and included certain historical events that they had omitted, such as the miracle at Cana, Christ’s first cleansing of the temple, and His discussion with the Pharisee Nicodemus. St. John added the line, “For John had not yet been put in prison,” to alert his readers that his narrative began before that of the other three evangelists. This line implies that his readers were familiar with one or more of the other canonical gospels, since it presumes that they knew that their narration of Christ’s ministry began with the death of the Baptist.

“Now a discussion arose between John’s disciples and a Jew over purifying.” This begins an explanation of the distinction between the John’s baptism with water and Christ’s baptism with water and the Spirit. The issue in question involved ritual purification. A certain unnamed Jew, who was baptized by Christ, viewed his baptism as a purification in some sense. The disciples of John quarreled with that convert over the meaning of baptism. This issue was raised by John’s disciples, not by Christ’s disciples. In one respect, this seems natural, for John’s disciples were the senior of the two, since John was baptizing before Christ had begun to baptize. In another respect, one can detect that some of John’s disciples had become envious of Christ, because John sent the people he baptized to Christ, whereas Christ did not send anyone to John. This made Christ seem greater than John, even though John was His senior with respect to the administration of the baptismal rite. John’s disciples were still carnal, even as St. Paul’s Corinthians were carnal: “while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?” (1 Cor 3:3)

“And they came to John,” that is, they referred the issue to the Baptist, “and said to him, ‘Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.’” These disciples of John were trying to incite John to speak out against Christ. But Sirach the wise man said, “Curse the whisperer and deceiver, for he has destroyed many who were at peace” (Sir 28:13). John’s disciples brought up four points aimed at causing a rift between John and Christ. First, they asserted Christ’s unimportance when they said, “he who was with you beyond the Jordan.” That is, Jesus was with John, not vice versa. They implied that Jesus was with John, not as John’s teacher, but as his disciple. John’s grumbling disciples were envious. Envy is aroused when honor is paid to an inferior, for there is no cause for envy when honor is paid to a superior. Hence, they must have regarded Christ as inferior to John. Even apart from their envy, one can understand their concern, for according to Qoheleth, it is evil and folly for the status of a superior to be confused with that of an inferior: “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as it were an error proceeding from the ruler: folly is set in many high places, and the rich sit in a low place. I have seen slaves on horses, and princes walking on foot like slaves.” (Eccl 10:5-7) Job is an example of a man who lost his superior standing; he complained, “I call to my servant, but he gives me no answer; I must beseech him with my mouth” (Jb 19:16). The reason why John’s disciples portrayed Jesus as a disciple of John was to incite that latter, for a master is more roused by the rebellion of his subject than by the ascendancy of someone outside the reach of his authority. Second, they asserted that Christ was ungrateful to the Baptist, reminding John of the good he had done for Christ, for Jesus was the one “to whom you bore witness.” Here they depict Jesus as one who repaid evil for good, an insult for a kindness. It is typical of those who seek their own glory and profit to feel hurt when their office is taken over by someone else. Yet, their complaint is not entirely without precedent, for the Psalmist lamented, “Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me” (Ps 41:9). Third, they accused Christ of taking over John’s office when they said, “here he is, baptizing.” An envious man envies a man of his own profession, not a man of another profession. Thus, one teacher envies another teacher who teaches the truth, and one pastor envies another pastor who brings people to the faith. A good pastor, however, should rejoice when other pastors lead people to the faith, for he realizes that he cannot teach everyone himself. When Joshua advised Moses to silence Eldad and Medad, who were prophesying in the encampment, Moses instead welcomed their efforts, saying, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Nm 11:29) Fourth, they attempted to alarm John by suggesting that he had lost his office to Christ, saying, “all are going to him.” It is clear that many of John’s followers turned to Christ, for Christ addressed them as such on at least one occasion: “Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? Why then did you go out? What did you go out into the wilderness to behold?’” (Mt 11:7-8) As John’s disciples were envious of Christ on account of His popularity, so too were the chief priests of Jerusalem envious of Christ, saying, “look, the world has gone after him” (Jn 12:19). They even planned to kill Lazarus, whom Christ had raised from the dead, “because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus” (Jn 12:10-11). Despite the murmuring of the Baptist’s disgruntled disciples, John remained steadfast in honoring Jesus Christ. He was a reed unshaken by the winds of discontent.