Augustine of Hippo

(Tr. viii. c. 5) Some who derogate from the Gospel, and say that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, try to draw an argument for their error from this place; for, how, say they, could she be His mother to whom He said, What have I to do with thee? Now who is it who gives this account, and on whose authority do we believe it? The Evangelist John. But he himself says, The mother of Jesus was there. Why should He say it, unless both were true. But did He therefore come to the marriage to teach men to despise their mother?

(de Symbolo Serm. ii. c. 14. [5]) To mark a distinction between His Godhead and manhood, that according to His manhood He was inferior and subject, but according to His Godhead supreme, He saith, Woman, what have I to do with thee?

(Tr. viii. c. 9. et seq. sparsim) Or it was because our Lord as God had not a mother, though as man He had, and the miracle He was about to work was the act of His Divinity, not of human infirmity. When therefore His mother demanded a miracle, He, as though not acknowledging a human birth, when about to perform a divine work, said, Woman, what have I to do with thee? As if He said, Thou didst not beget that in Me, which works the miracle, My Divinity. (She is called woman, with reference to the female sex, not to any injury of her virginity.) But because thou broughtest forth My infirmity, I will acknowledge thee then, when that very infirmity shall hang on the cross. And therefore He adds, Mine hour is not yet come: as if to say, I will acknowledge thee when the infirmity, of which thou art the mother, shall hang from the cross. He commended His mother to the disciple, when about to die, and to rise again, before her death. But note; just as the Manicheans have found an occasion of error and pretext for their faithlessness in our Lord's word, What have I to do with thee? in the same way the astrologers support theirs from the words, Mine hour is not yet come. For, say they, if Christ had not been under the power of fate, He would never have said this. But let them believe what God says below, I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again: (John 10:18) and then let them ask, why He says, Mine hour is not yet come: nor let them on such a ground subject the Creator of heaven to fate; seeing that, even were there a fatality in the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be under the dominion of the stars. And not only had Christ nothing to do with fate, as ye call it; but neither hast thou, or any other man. Wherefore said He then, Mine hour is not yet come? Because He had the power to die when He pleased, but did not think it expedient yet to exert the power. He was to call the disciples, to proclaim the Kingdom of heaven, to do marvellous works, to approve His divinity by miracles, His humility by partaking of the sufferings of our mortal state. And when He had done all, then the hour was come, not of destiny, but of will, not of obligation, but of power.

I ask you, O faithful Christians, Was the mother of Jesus there? Answer ye, She was. Whence know you? Answer, The Gospel says it. What answer made Jesus to His mother? Answer ye, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." And whence know you this? Answer, The Gospel says it. Let no man corrupt this your faith, if you desire to preserve a chaste virginity for the Bridegroom. But if it be asked of you, why He made this answer to His mother, let him declare who understands; but he who does not as yet understand, let him most firmly believe that Jesus made this answer, and made it moreover to His mother. By this piety he will learn to understand also why Jesus answered thus, if by praying he knock at the door of truth, and do not approach it with wrangling. Only this much, while he fancies himself to know, or is ashamed because he does not know, why Jesus answered thus, let him beware lest he be constrained to believe either that the evangelist lied when he said, "The mother of Jesus was there," or that Jesus Himself suffered for our sins by a counterfeit death and for our justification showed counterfeit scars; and that He spoke falsely in saying, "If ye continue in my word, ye are my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." For if He had a false mother, false flesh, false death, false wounds in His death, false scars in His resurrection, then it will not be the truth, but rather falsehood, that shall make free those that believe on Him.

It is really a matter of such importance that some,-of whom the apostle, as we have mentioned before, has forewarned us to be on our guard, saying, "I fear, lest, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so also your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and chastity which is in Christ,"-taking away from the credibility of the gospel, and asserting that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, used to endeavor to draw from this place an argument in support of their error, so far as to say, How could she be His mother, to whom He said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Wherefore we must answer them, and show them why the Lord said this, lest in their insanity they appear to themselves to have discovered something contrary to wholesome belief, whereby the chastity of the virgin bride may be corrupted, that is, whereby the faith of the Church may be injured. For in very deed, brethren, their faith is corrupted who prefer a lie to the truth. For these men, who appear to honor Christ in such wise as to deny that He had flesh, do nothing short of proclaiming Him a liar. Now they who build up a lie in men, what do they but drive the truth out of them? They let in the devil, they drive Christ out; they let in an adulterer, shut out the bridegroom, being evidently paranymphs, or rather, the panderers of the serpent. For it is for this object they speak, that the serpent may possess, and Christ be shut out.

Why then did He say, "Mine hour is not yet come?" Rather because, having it in His power when to die, He did not yet see it fit to use that power. Just as we, brethren, say, for example, "Now is the appointed hour for us to go out to celebrate the sacraments." If we go out before it is necessary, do we not act perversely and absurdly? And because we act only at the proper time, do we therefore in this action regard fate when we so express ourselves? What means then, "Mine hour is not yet come?" When I know that it is the fitting time for me to suffer, when my suffering will be profitable, then I will willingly suffer. That hour is not yet: that thou mayest preserve both, this, "Mine hour is not yet come;" and that, "I have power to lay down my life, and power to take it again." He had come, then, having it in His power when to die. And surely it would not have been right were He to die before He had chosen disciples. Had he been a man who had not his hour in his own power, he might have died before he had chosen disciples; and if haply he had died when his disciples were now chosen and instructed, it would be something conferred on him, not his own doing. But, on the contrary, He who had come having in His power when to go, when to return, how far to advance, and for whom the regions of the grave were open, not only when dying but when rising again; He, I say, in order to show us His Church's hope of immortality, showed in the head what it behoved the members to expect.

Now then, brethren, we have answered the heretics. Let us now answer the astrologers. And how do they attempt to prove that Jesus was under fate? Because, say they, Himself said, "Mine hour is not yet come." Therefore we believe Him; and if He had said, "I have no hour," He would have excluded the astrologers: but behold, say they, He said, "Mine hour is not yet come." If then He had said, "I have no hour," the astrologers would have been shut out, and would have no ground for their slander; but now that He said, "Mine hour is not yet come," how can we contradict His own words? 'Tis wonderful that the astrologers, by believing Christ's words, endeavor to convince Christians that Christ lived under an hour of fate. Well, let them believe Christ when He saith, "I have power to lay down my life and to take it up again: no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, and I take it again." Is this power then under fate? Let them show us a man who has it in his power when to die, how long to live: this they can never do. Let them, therefore, believe God when He says, "I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again;" and let them inquire why it was said, "Mine hour is not yet come;" and let them not because of these words, be imposing fate on the Maker of heaven, the Creator and Ruler of the stars. For even if fate were from the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be subject to their destiny. Moreover, not only Christ had not what thou callest fate, but not even hast thou, or I, or he there, or any human being whatsoever.

But there is also another meaning that must not be passed over, and which I will declare: let every man choose which he likes best. We keep not back what is suggested to us. For it is the Lord's table, and the minister ought not to defraud the guests, especially when they hunger as you now do, so that your longing is manifest. Prophecy, which is dispensed from the ancient times, has for its object the salvation of all nations. True, Moses was sent to the people of Israel alone, and to that people alone was the law given by him; and the prophets, too, were of that people, and the very distribution of times was marked out according to the same people; whence also the water-pots are said to be "according to the purification of the Jews:" nevertheless, that the prophecy was proclaimed to all other nations also is manifest, forasmuch as Christ was concealed in him in whom all nations are blessed, as it was promised to Abraham by the Lord, saying, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed." But this was not as yet understood, for as yet the water was not turned into wine. The prophecy therefore was dispensed to all nations.

But how do we show that all nations belong to the "two or three metretae apiece"? It was a matter of reckoning, in some measure, that he should say the same water-pots contained "two apiece," which he had said contained "three apiece;" evidently in order to intimate to us a mystery therein. How are there "two metretae apiece"? Circumcision and uncircumcision. Scripture mentions these two classes of people, and leaves out no kind of men, when it says, "Circumcision and uncircumcision;" in these two appellations thou hast all nations: they are the two metretae apiece. In these two walls, meeting from different quarters, "Christ became the corner-stone, in order to make peace in Himself." Let us show also the "three metretae apiece" in the case of these same all nations. Noah had three sons, through whom the human race was restored. Hence the Lord says, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." What is this woman, but the flesh of the Lord? What is the leaven, but the gospel? What the three measures, but all nations, on account of the three sons of Noah? Therefore the "six water-pots containing two or three metretae apiece" are six periods of time, containing the prophecy relating to all nations, whether as represented in two sorts of men, namely, Jews and Greeks, as the apostle often mentions them; or in three sorts, on account of the three sons of Noah. For the prophecy was represented as reaching unto all nations. And because of that reaching it is called a measure, even as the apostle says, "We have received a measure for reaching unto you." For in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, he says, "A measure for reaching unto you."

(Tr. ix. 5. et sq.) Now if He ordered the water to be poured out, and then introduced the wine from the hidden recesses of creation, He would seem to have rejected the Old Testament. But converting, as He did, the water into wine, He showed us that the Old Testament was from Himself, for it was by His order that the waterpots were filled. But those Scriptures have no meaning, if Christ be not understood there. Now we know from what time the law dates, viz. from the foundation of the world. From that time to this are six ages; the first, reekoning from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from that time to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. The six waterpots then denote these six ages of prophecy. The prophecies are fulfilled; the waterpots are full. But what is the meaning of their holding two or three firkins apiece? Had He said three only, our minds would have run immediately to the mystery of the Trinity. Nor perhaps can we reject it, even though it is said, two or three: for the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Ghost may be understood by consequence; inasmuch as it is the love between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Ghost. (c. 17.). Nor should we pass over another interpretation, which makes the two firkins alluded to the two races of men, the Jews and the Greeks; and the three to the three sons of Noah.

But observe what Himself saith, "The things which were written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." And we know that the law extends from the time of which we have record, that is, from the beginning of the world: "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." Thence down to the time in which we are now living are six ages, this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; and the water is turned into wine, that we may taste of Christ, now manifested in the law and the prophets. Hence "there were there six water-pots," which He bade be filled with water. Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy.

But what means this: "They contained two or three metretae apiece"? This phrase certainly conveys to us a mysterious meaning. For by "metretae" he means certain measures, as if he should say jars, flasks, or something of that sort. Metreta is the name of a measure, and takes its name from the word "measure." For metron is the Greek word for measure, whence the word "metretae" is derived. "They contained," then, "two or three metretae apiece." What are we to say, brethren? If He had simply said "three apiece," our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity. And, perhaps, we ought not at once to reject this application of the meaning, because He said, "two or three apiece;" for when the Father and Son are named, the Holy Spirit must necessarily be understood. For the Holy Spirit is not that of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written, "If any man love the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him." And again, "Whoso hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of His." The same, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Spirit also is understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And when there is mention of the Father and Son, "two metretae," as it were, are mentioned; but since the Holy Spirit is understood in them, "three metretae." That is the reason why it is not said, "Some containing two metretae apiece, others three apiece;" but the same six water-pots contained "two or three metretae apiece." It is as if he had said, When I say two apiece, I would have the Spirit of the Father and of the Son to be understood together with them; and when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly.

Wherefore, whoso names the Father and the Son ought thereby to understand the mutual love of the Father and Son, which is the Holy Spirit. And perhaps the Scriptures on being examined (I do not say that I am able to show you this to-day, or as if another proof cannot be found),-nevertheless, the Scriptures, perhaps, on being searched, do show us that the Holy Spirit is charity. And do not count charity a thing cheap. How, indeed, can it be cheap, when all things that are said to be not cheap are called dear (chara)? Therefore, if what is not cheap is dear, what is dearer than dearness itself (charitas)? The apostle so commends charity to us that he says, "I show unto you a more excellent way. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have prophecy and all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I distribute all my goods to the poor, and give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." How great, then, is charity, which, if wanting, in vain have we all things else; if present, rightly have we all things! Yet the Apostle Paul, setting forth the praise of charity with copiousness and fullness, has said less of it than did the Apostle John in brief, whose Gospel this is. For he has not hesitated to say, "God is love." It is also written, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given us." Who, then, can name the Father and the Son without thereby understanding the love of the Father and Son? Which when one begins to have, he will have the Holy Spirit; which if one has not, he will not have the Holy Spirit. And just as thy body, if it be without spirit, namely thy soul, is dead so likewise thy soul, if it be without the Holy Spirit, that is, without charity, will be reckoned dead. Therefore "The water-pots contained two Metretae apiece," because the Father and the Son are proclaimed in the prophecy of all the periods; but the Holy Spirit is there also, and therefore it is added, "or three apiece." "I and the Father," saith He, "are one." But far be it from us to suppose that where we are told, "I and the Father are one," the Holy Spirit is not there. Yet since he named the Father and the Son, let the water-pots contain "two metretae apiece;" but attend to this, "or three apiece." "Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So, therefore, when it says "two apiece," the Trinity is not expressed but understood; but when it says, "or three," the Trinity is expressed also.

(Tr. x. in Joan. 1, 2) The Lord our God is He, high, that He might create us; low, that He might create us anew; walking among men, suffering what was human, hiding what was divine. So He hath a mother, hath brethren, hath disciples: whence He hath a mother, thence hath He brethren. Scripture frequently gives the name of brethren, not to those only who are born of the same womb, or the same father, but to those of the same generation, cousins by the father's or mother's side. Those who are unacquainted with this way of speaking, ask, Whence hath our Lord brothers? did Mary bring forth again? That could not be: with her commenced the dignity of the virgin state. Abraham was uncle of Lot, and Jacob was nephew to Laban the Syrian. Yet Abraham and Lot are called brethren; and likewise Jacob and Laban.

(de Cons. Ev. c. ii. c. xvii. [39.]) And His disciples; it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, were of their number or not at this time. For Matthew first relates that our Lord came and dwelt at Capernaum, and afterwards that He called those disciples from their boats, as they were fishing. Is Matthew perhaps supplying what he had omitted? For without any mention that it was at a subsequent time, he says, Jesus walking by the sea of Galilee saw two brethren. (Matt. 4:18) Or is it better to suppose that these were other disciples? For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, call not the twelve only, but all who believing in God were prepared for the kingdom of heaven by our Lord's teaching, disciplesa. (id. cap. 18). How is it too that our Lord's journey to Galilee is placed here before John the Baptist's imprisonmentb, when Matthew says, Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and Mark the same? Luke too, though he says nothing of John's imprisonment, yet places Christ's visit to Galilee after His temptation and baptismc, as the two former do. We should understand then that the three Evangelists are not opposed to John, but pass over our Lord's first coming into Galilee after his baptism; at which time it was that He converted the water into wine.

But rather were those disciples brethren; for even those kinsmen would not be brethren were they not disciples: and to no advantage brethren, if they did not recognize their brother as their master. For in a certain place, when He was informed that His mother and His brethren were standing without, at the time He was speaking to His disciples, He said: "Who is my mother? or who are my brethren? And stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, These are my brethren;" and, "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, the same is my mother, and brother, and sister." Therefore also Mary, because she did the will of the Father. What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. Give good heed, beloved. Moreover, when the Lord was regarded with admiration by the multitude, while doing signs and wonders, and showing forth what lay concealed under the flesh, certain admiring souls said: "Happy is the womb that bare Thee: and He said, Yea, rather, happy are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." That is to say, even my mother, whom ye have called happy, is happy in that she keeps the word of God: not because in her the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us; but because she keeps that same word of God by which she was made, and which in her was made flesh. Let not men rejoice in temporal offspring, but let them exult if in spirit they are joined to God.

"He went down," as the evangelist says, "to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples; and they continued there not many days." Behold He has a mother, and brethren, and disciples: whence He has a mother, thence brethren. For our Scripture is wont to call them brethren, not only that are sprung from the same man and woman, or from the same mother, or from the same father, though by different mothers; or, in truth, that are of the same degree as cousins by the father's or mother's side: not these alone is our Scripture wont to call brethren. The Scripture must be understood as it speaks. It has its own language; one who does not know this language is perplexed and says, Whence had the Lord brethren? For surely Mary did not give birth a second time? Far from it! With her begins the dignity of virgins. She could be a mother, but a woman known of man she could not be. She is spoken of as mulier [which usually signifies a wife], but only in reference to her sex, not as implying loss of virgin purity: and this follows from the language of Scripture itself. For Eve, too, immediately she was formed from the side of her husband, and as yet not known of her husband, is, as you know, called mulier: "And he made her a woman [mulier]." Then, whence the brethren? The kinsmen of Mary, of whatever degree, are the brethren of the Lord. How do we prove this? From Scripture itself. Lot is called "Abraham's brother;" he was his brother's son. Read, and thou wilt find that Abraham was Lot's uncle on the father's side, and yet they are called brethren. Why, but because they were kinsmen? Laban the Syrian was Jacob's uncle by the mother's side, for he was the brother of Rebecca, Isaac's wife and Jacob's mother. Read the Scripture, and thou wilt find that uncle and sister's son are called brothers. When thou hast known this rule, thou wilt find that all the blood relations of Mary are the brethren of Christ.

What follows upon this? "And the Jews' passover was at hand; and He went up to Jerusalem." The narrator relates another matter, as it came to his recollection. "And He found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when He had made, as it were, a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple; the oxen likewise, and the sheep; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; and make not my Father's house a house of merchandise." What have we heard, brethren? See, that temple was still a figure, and yet the Lord cast out of it all that sought their own, all who had come to market. And what did they sell there? Things which people needed in the sacrifices of that time. For you know, beloved, that sacrifices were given to that people, in consideration of the carnal mind and stony heart yet in them, to keep them from falling away to idols: and they offered there for sacrifices oxen, sheep, and doves: you know this, for you have read it. It was not a great sin, then, if they sold in the temple that which was bought for the purpose of offering in the temple: and yet He cast them out thence. If, while they were selling what was lawful and not against justice (for it is not unlawful to sell what it is honorable to buy), He nevertheless drove those men out, and suffered not the house of prayer to be made a house of merchandise; how, if He found drunkards there, what would the Lord do? If the house of God ought not to be made a house of trading, ought it to be made a house of drinking?