John 20

John 20:1

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Con. Evang. iii. 24) Mary Magdalene, undoubtedly the most fervent in love, of all the women that ministered to our Lord; so that John deservedly mentions her only, and says nothing of the others who were with her, as we know from the other Evangelists.

(Tr. cxx) Una sabbati is the day which Christians call the Lord’s day, after our Lord’s resurrection. Matthew calls it prima sabbati.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 24.) What Mark says, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun (Mark 16:1), does not contradict John’s words, when it was yet dark. At the dawn of day, there are yet remains of darkness, which disappear as the light breaks in. We must not understand Mark’s words, Very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun, ἡλίου ἀνατεέλαντος to mean that the sun was above the horizon, but rather what we ourselves ordinarily mean by the phrase, when we want any thing to be done very early, we say at the rising of the sun, i. e. some time before the sun is risen.

(Con. Evang. iii. 24) Now took place what Matthew only relates, the earthquake, and rolling away of the stone, and fright of the guards. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “And on the first of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre.” The first of the week is what Christian practice now calls the Lord’s day, because of the resurrection of the Lord. — Tractates on John 120

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Una sabbati, i. e. one day after the sabbath. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: No one, I suppose, will imagine that the inspired writers disagree or that they fix the time of the resurrection differently. But anyone who chooses to investigate the meaning of the indications they give of the time will find that their accounts add up. For early dawn and late night fix the same point of time, that is, the very dead of night, so to say. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between them. For the one, taking as his starting point the end of night, and the other the beginning, both reach the middle watch and meet at the same point, that is, as I just now said, the dead of night. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Dionysius of Alexandria: No very exact account seems to be offered in the Scriptures of the hour at which Jesus rose. For the Evangelists have given different descriptions of the parties who came to the sepulcher one after another, and all have declared that they found the Lord risen already. It was “in the end of the sabbath,” as Matthew has said. It was “early, when it was yet dark,” as John writes. It was “very early in the morning,” as Luke puts it. And it was “very early in the morning, at the rising of the sun,” as Mark tells us. And so, no one has shown us clearly the exact time when he rose. It is admitted, however, that those who came to the sepulcher in the end of the sabbath found him no longer lying in it, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week. And let us not suppose that the Evangelists disagree or contradict each other. But even though there may seem to be some small difficulty as to the subject of our inquiry, if they all agree that the light of the world, our Lord, rose on that one night, while they differ with respect to the hour, we may well seek with wise and faithful mind to harmonize their statements. — The Epistle to Bishop Basilides, Canon I

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. in Ev. xxii.) It is well said, When it was yet dark: Mary was seeking the Creator of all things in the tomb, and because, she found Him not, thought He was stolen. Truly it was yet dark when she came to the sepulchre. And seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: The reading of the holy Gospel which you have just heard, brothers, is very clear on the surface of its historical meaning, but we must seek out its mysteries in brief. Mary Magdalene came to the tomb while it was still dark. According to the historical account, the hour is noted; but according to the mystical understanding, the intelligence of the one seeking is signified. For Mary was seeking at the tomb the author of all things, whom she had seen dead in the flesh; and because she did not find him, she believed he had been stolen. Therefore it was still dark when she came to the tomb. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

Hesychius of Jerusalem: Hidden first in a womb of flesh, he sanctified human birth by his own birth. Hidden afterward in the womb of the earth, he gave life to the dead by his resurrection. Suffering, pain and sighs have now fled away. For who has known the mind of God, or who has been his counselor if not the Word made flesh who was nailed to the cross, who rose from the dead and who was taken up into heaven? This day brings a message of joy: it is the day of the Lord’s resurrection when, with himself, he raised up the race of Adam. Born for the sake of human beings, he rose from the dead with them. On this day paradise is opened by the risen one, Adam is restored to life and Eve is consoled. On this day the divine call is heard, the kingdom is prepared, we are saved and Christ is adored. On this day, when he had trampled death under foot, made the tyrant a prisoner and despoiled the underworld, Christ ascended into heaven as a king in victory, as a ruler in glory, as an invincible charioteer. He said to the Father, “Here am I, O God, with the children you have given me.” And he heard the Father’s reply, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” To him be glory, now and for ever, through endless ages. Amen. — EASTER HOMILY 5-6

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxv) The Sabbath being now over, during which it was unlawful to be there, Mary Magdalene could rest no longer, but came very early in the morning, to seek consolation at the grave: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre.

(Hom. lxxxv. 4) Our Lord rose while the stone and seal were still on the sepulchre. But as it was necessary that others should be certified of this, the sepulchre is opened after the resurrection, and so the fact confirmed. This it was which roused Mary. For when she saw the stone taken away, she entered not nor looked in, but ran to the disciples with all the speed of love. But as yet she knew nothing for certain about the resurrection, but thought that His body had been carried off.

(Hom. lxxxv) The Evangelist does not deprive the woman of this praise, nor leaves out from shame, that they had the news first from her. As soon as they hear it, they hasten to the sepulchre.

(Hom. lxxxv) On coming he sees the linen clothes set aside: And he slooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying. But he makes no further search: yet went he not in. Peter on the other hand, being of a more fervid temper, pursued the search, and examined every thing: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Which circumstances were proof of His resurrection. For had they carried Him away, they would not have stripped Him; nor, if any had stolen Him, would they have taken the trouble to wrap up the napkin, and put it in a place by itself, apart from the linen clothes; but would have taken away the body as it was. John mentioned the myrrh first of all, for this reason, i. e. to show you that He could not have been stolen away. For myrrh would make the linen adhere to the body, and so caused trouble to the thieves, and they would never have been so senseless as to have taken this unnecessary pains about the matter. After Peter however, John entered: Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “The first day of the week” (that is, the Lord’s day) “cometh Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.” For He arose while both stone and seals lay over Him; but because it was necessary that others should be fully satisfied, the tomb was opened after the Resurrection, and thus what had come to pass was confirmed. This then was what moved Mary. For being entirely full of loving affection towards her Master, when the Sabbath was past, she could not bear to rest, but came very early in the morning, desiring to find some consolation from the place. But when she saw the place, and the stone taken away, she neither entered in nor stooped down, but ran to the disciples, in the greatness of her longing; for this was what she earnestly desired, she wished very speedily to learn what had become of the body. This was the meaning of her running, and her words declare it. “They have taken away,” she saith, “my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.” Seest thou how she knew not as yet anything clearly concerning the Resurrection, but thought there had been a removal of the body, and tells all simply to the disciples? And the Evangelist hath not deprived the woman of such a praise, nor thought it shame that they should have learnt these things first from her who had passed the night in watching. Thus everywhere doth the truth-loving nature of his disposition shine forth. When then she came and said these things, they hearing them, draw near with great eagerness to the sepulcher, and see the linen clothes lying, which was a sign of the Resurrection. For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead; in order that when thou hearest that the napkins lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the clothes? and how could he have escaped detection if he had done so? since he would probably have spent much time in so doing, and be found out by delaying and loitering. But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. From this they believed in the Resurrection. On this account Christ afterwards appeared to them, when they were convinced by what they had seen. Observe too here again the absence of boastfulness in the Evangelist, how he witnesses to the exactness of Peter’s search. For he himself having gotten before Peter, and having seen the linen clothes, enquired not farther, but withdrew; but that fervent one passing farther in, looked at everything carefully, and saw somewhat more, and then the other too was summoned to the sight. For he entering after Peter, saw the grave-clothes lying, and separate. Now to separate, and to place one thing by itself, and another, after rolling it up, by itself, was the act of some one doing things carefully, and not in a chance way, as if disturbed. — Homily on the Gospel of John 85

John Chrysostom: How can I recount for you these hidden realities or proclaim what goes beyond any word or concept? How can I lay open before you the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection, the saving sign of his cross and of his three days’ death? For each and every event that happened to our Savior is an outward sign of the mystery of our redemption. Just as Christ was born from his mother’s inviolate virginal womb, so too he rose again from the closed tomb. As he, the only-begotten Son of God was made the firstborn of his mother, so, by his resurrection, he became the firstborn from the dead. His birth did not break the seal of his mother’s virginal integrity. Nor did his rising from the dead break the seals on the sepulcher. And so, just as I cannot fully express his birth in words, neither can I wholly encompass his going forth from the tomb. — HOMILY ON HOLY SATURDAY 10

Romanos the Melodist: To the Sun, before sun, once he had set in the tomb The young women bearing incense hastened at dawn, As though seeking the day and saying to one another, “O friends, come Let us anoint with spices The body, life-bearing and buried, The flesh which resurrects the fallen Adam That lies here in this tomb. Let us go, let us hurry like the magi, And let us kneel down and bring with us The myrrh as gifts— Not to him in swaddling clothes But to him wrapped in burial cloths. And let us weep and cry out: ‘O Master! Arise! You who offer resurrection to the fallen.’ ” While these godly women were discussing These things among themselves, They considered another idea, which is full of wisdom, And they said to one another: “Women, why are we fooling ourselves? For surely the Lord is not in the tomb! Could it have held in subjection this long One who controls the breath of living beings? Would he still be lying there as a putrid corpse?… Let Mary go and see the tomb, And let us follow whatever she tells us, For most certainly, as he foretold, The immortal one has arisen, He who offers resurrection to the fallen.” The wise women, giving due consideration to this idea, As planned, sent forward Mary Magdalene To the tomb, as the Theologian says. It was dark, but love lighted the way for her; And so she saw the great stone rolled away From the entrance to the tomb. — KONTAKION ON THE RESURRECTION 40.1-3

Theodore of Mopsuestia: It seems to those who dissent that here also the words of the Evangelists do not agree with one another. On the contrary, it seems to me that on the basis of their accounts their words are perfectly consistent.… Indeed, John says, “Early … while it was dark.” The word early is not referred here to the morning. In fact, he does not say while it was “still” dark, which should have been said with regard to morning. But he wrote, “while it was dark,” that is, on the next day when the night began, by designating with the term early the entire day so that he might say the day after the sabbath. The holy Scripture usually defines both day and night with the word day, because the sun, after its course throughout the night and the day, makes the beginning of the next day by returning to its place in the west. And this is confirmed by Moses, who says, “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day,” which he also says about the second and third days, and all the rest.… John says, “Early on the first day of the week,” indicating the next day, that is, “on the first day of the week, when it was dark,” in order to signify that when the night began, the women came, in order to perform the proper honor according to customs. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.1

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or thus: The Jews called the days of the week sabbath, and the first day, one of the sabbaths, which day is a type of the life to come; for that life will be one day not cut short by any night, since God is the sun there, a sun which never sets. On this day then our Lord rose again, with an incorruptible body, even as we in the life to come shall put on incorruption.

But how came they to the sepulchre, while the soldiers were guarding it? an easy question to answer. After our Lord’s resurrection and the earthquake, and the appearance of the angel at the sepulchre, the guards withdrew, and told the Pharisees what had happened. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 20:2

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxx) This is the way in which he usually mentions himself. Jesus loved all, but him in an especial and familiar way. And saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.

(Tr. cxx) Some of the Greek copies have, taken away my Lord, which is more expressive of love, and of the feeling of an handmaiden. But only a few have this reading. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “She ran, therefore, and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.” Some of the Greek codices have, “They have taken my Lord,” which may likely enough have been said by the stronger than ordinary affection of love and handmaid relationship; but we have not found it in the several codices to which we have had access. — Tractates on John 120

Cyril of Alexandria: This excellent and pious woman would never have endured remaining at home and leaving the sepulcher [after the burial] if she had not had respect for sabbath law and the penalty that was incurred by those who transgressed it. This fear curbed her excessive zeal, allowing ancient custom to prevail, and to withdraw her thoughts from the object of her most earnest longings for awhile. But when the sabbath was already past and the dawn of the next day was appearing, she hurried back to the spot. And then, when she saw the stone rolled away from the mouth of the tomb, well-grounded suspicions seized her mind and, calling to mind the ceaseless hatred of the Jews, she thought that Jesus had been carried away. And so she accuses them of this crime in addition to their other misdeeds. While she was thus engaged and mulling over the possibilities in her mind, the woman returned to the men who loved the Lord, anxious to obtain the cooperation of the most intimate of his disciples in her quest. And so deep-rooted and impregnable was her faith that she thought no less of Christ because of his death on the cross but even when he was dead called him Lord, as she had always done, thereby showing a truly God-loving spirit. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Eusebius of Caesarea: Question: How is it that in John the disciples hearing Mary, and then coming to the sepulcher, believed. But in Luke it is said that “their words appeared in their sight as an idle tale and they did not believe?Answer: Mary, in John, told what she had seen to the chief apostles Peter and John alone, as declaring some secret. And they again, unknown to the other disciples, ran to the sepulcher, saw and believed. And there was nothing strange in the chief apostles having seen and believed while the rest to whom the women reported, not having received with their own eyes, did not believe them. Indeed, when the Savior appeared to the assembled disciples themselves, according to John, those who saw him rejoiced. But Thomas, since he was not with them and did not see, was not persuaded. But if he disbelieved the apostles, one would scarcely blame the rest because, not having as yet beheld him, they disbelieved the women. The Scripture shows much examination and carefulness on the part of the disciples, not readily assenting to their words but at first suspending judgment until they recognized the truth fully and clearly. — TO MARINUS, SUPPLEMENT 3

Glossa Ordinaria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): And therefore she ran to tell the disciples, that they might seek Him with her, or grieve with her: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (iii. Mor. ix.) She puts the part for the whole; she had come only to seek for the body of our Lord, and now she laments that our Lord, the whole of Him, is taken away. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: She ran quickly and announced it to the disciples. But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:3

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxx) After saying, came to the sepulchre, he goes back and tells us how they came: So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre; meaning himself, but he always speaks of himself, as if he were speaking of another person. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.” The repetition here is worthy of notice and of commendation for the way in which a return is made to what had previously been omitted, and yet is added just as if it followed in due order. For after having already said, “they came to the sepulchre,” he goes back to tell us how they came, and says, “so they ran both together,” etc. Where he shows that, by outrunning his companion, there came first to the sepulchre that other disciple, by whom he means himself, while he relates all as if speaking of another. — Tractates on John 120

Eusebius of Caesarea: Peter and John seem to come to the sepulcher in broad daylight (an opportune time). By not coming during the night and in darkness, no one can suspect them of what the chief priests falsely accused them, that is, that they came by night and stole him. Therefore the men did not come by night or while it was still dark but while it was broad daylight. But if the Gospel says that the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, someone may object, “How then did those who were shut up visit the sepulcher in broad daylight?” We respond that it was natural that those who were living in the city in the midst of the Jews would be closed in, gathered together in one house. But those who came to the tomb, since they were outside the city, were far from fear of the Jews since they were going to a place deserted and empty of people. But perhaps it may also be the case that Peter and John, being above the fear of the other disciples, ventured more boldly to go out from the house while the others were too scared. In other matters it was recorded that they were considered worthy of more honor than the other apostles. — TO MARINUS, SUPPLEMENT 2

Gregory of Nazianzus: Be a Peter or a John; Hasten to the sepulcher, Running together, Running against one another, Vying in the noble race. And even if you are beaten in speed, Win the victory of showing who wants it more— Not just looking into the tomb, but going in. — ON HOLY EASTER, ORATION 45.24

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (xxii. in Evang.) But Peter and John before the others, for they loved most; Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

(Hom. xxii. in Evang.) But this account of the Evangelist must not be thought to be without some mystical meaning. By John, the younger of the two, the synagogue; by Peter, the elder, the Gentile Church is represented: for though the synagogue was before the Gentile Church as regards the worship of God, as regards time the Gentile world was before the synagogue. They ran together, because the Gentile world ran side by side with the synagogue from first to last, in respect of purity and community of life, though a purity and community of understanding they had not. The synagogue came first to the sepulchre, but entered not: it knew the commandments of the law, and had heard the prophecies of our Lord’s incarnation and death, but would not believe in Him who died. Then cometh Simon Peter, and enteredinto the sepulchre: the Gentile Church both knew Jesus Christ as dead man, and believed in Him as living God. The napkin about our Lord’s head is not found with the linen clothes, i. e. God, the Head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of the Godhead are removed from our poor knowledge; His power transcends the nature of the creature. And it is found not only apart, but also wrapped together; because of the linen wrapped together, neither beginning nor end is seen; and the height of the Divine nature had neither beginning nor end. And it is into one place: for where there is division, God is not; and they merit His grace, who do not occasion scandal by dividing themselves into sects. But as a napkin is what is used in labouring to wipe the sweat of the brow, by the napkin here we may understand the labour of God: which napkin is found apart, because the suffering of our Redeemer is far removed from ours; inasmuch as He suffered innocently, that which we suffer justly; He submitted Himself to death voluntarily, we by necessity. But after Peter entered, John entered too; for at the end of the world even Judaea shall be gathered in to the true faith. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: But those ran before the others who loved more than the others, namely Peter and John. Now the two were running together, but John ran ahead more quickly than Peter and arrived first at the tomb, but did not presume to enter. Peter came later, and entered. What, brothers, what does this running signify? Surely this very subtle description by the evangelist is not to be thought devoid of mysteries? Not at all. For John would not have said that he both arrived first and did not enter, if he had believed that mystery was absent from his very hesitation. What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church? — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or thus: Peter is practical and prompt, John contemplative and intelligent, and learned in divine things. Now the contemplative man is generally beforehand in knowledge and intelligence, but the practical by his fervour and activity gets the advance of the other’s perception, and sees first into the divine mystery. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 20:4

Gregory the Dialogist: What then is designated by John except the Synagogue, what by Peter except the Church? Nor should it seem strange that the Synagogue is said to be signified by the younger and the Church by the elder, because even if the Synagogue is prior to the Church of the Gentiles in the worship of God, nevertheless the multitude of the Gentiles is prior to the Synagogue in the practice of the world, as Paul attests when he says: “Because what is spiritual is not first, but what is natural.” Therefore by the elder Peter is signified the Church of the Gentiles, but by the younger John the Synagogue of the Jews. Both ran together, because from the time of its origin until its setting, the Gentile world ran with the Synagogue by a common and equal path, even if not with a common and equal understanding. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:5

Augustine of Hippo: “And he stooping down,” he says, “saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lying, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in one place by itself.” Do we suppose these things have no meaning? I can suppose no such thing. But we hasten on to other points, on which we are compelled to linger by the need there is for investigation, or some other kind of obscurity. For in such things as are self-manifest, the inquiry into the meaning even of individual details is, indeed, a subject of holy delight, but only for those who have leisure, which is not the case with us. — Tractates on John 120

Eusebius of Caesarea: The cloths lying within seem to me at once to furnish also a proof that the body had not been taken away by people, as Mary supposed. For no one taking away the body would leave the linens, nor would the thief ever have stayed until he had undone the linens and so be caught. And at the same time they establish the resurrection of the body from the dead. For God, who transforms the bodies of our humiliation so as to be conformed to the body of Christ’s glory, changed the body as an organ of the power that dwelt in it, changing it into something more divine. But he left the linen cloths as superfluous and foreign to the nature of the body. — TO MARINUS, SUPPLEMENT 2

Gregory the Dialogist: The Synagogue came first to the tomb, but did not enter, because although it received the commandments of the law and heard the prophecies concerning the incarnation and passion of the Lord, it refused to believe in the one who died. For John saw the linen cloths lying there, yet did not enter, because the Synagogue both recognized the mysteries of sacred Scripture and yet delayed entering through faith by believing in the Lord’s passion. The one whom it had long prophesied from afar, it saw present and rejected; it despised him as a man and refused to believe that God had been made mortal in flesh. What does this mean, except that it both ran more quickly and yet stood empty before the tomb? — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:6

Gregory the Dialogist: But Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb, because the Church of the Gentiles, coming after, both recognized the mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, dead in the flesh, and believed him to be the living God. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:7

Gregory the Dialogist: He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up separately in one place. What do we believe it means, brothers, that the cloth from the Lord’s head is not found with the linen cloths in the tomb, except that, as Paul attests, God is the head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of his divinity are separated from the knowledge of our weakness, and his power transcends the nature of creation? And it should be noted that it is said to be found not only separately but also rolled up in one place. For when a cloth is rolled up, neither its beginning nor its end can be seen. Rightly therefore was the cloth from his head found rolled up, because the majesty of divinity neither began to exist nor ceases; it is neither born through a beginning nor confined by an end.

And rightly is it added: “In one place,” because God is not in the division of minds. For God is in unity, and those merit to have His grace who do not divide themselves from one another through the scandals of sects. But because sweat is usually wiped away from workers by a cloth, the labor of God can also be expressed by the name of cloth—He who indeed always remains quiet and unchangeable in Himself, yet nevertheless declares that He labors when He bears the harsh depravities of men. Whence He also says through the prophet: “I have labored in enduring.” Now God appeared in the flesh, He labored from our infirmity. When unbelievers saw this labor of His passion, they refused to venerate Him. For they disdained to believe that He whom they saw mortal in the flesh was immortal in His divinity. Whence Jeremiah also says: “You will render to them their recompense, O Lord, according to the works of their hands; You will give them as a shield for the heart Your labor.” For lest the darts of preaching should penetrate their hearts, since they disdained the labor of His passion, they held that same labor of His as if it were a shield, so that by the very fact that they saw Him labor even unto death, they would not permit His words to pass through to them.

But what are we except members of our Head, that is, of God? Therefore by the linens of the body are signified the bonds of labors which now bind all the elect, that is, His members. The cloth, therefore, which had been upon His head is found separately, because the passion itself of our Redeemer is far removed from our passion, since He without guilt bore what we endure with guilt. He willingly chose to succumb to death, to which we come unwilling. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:8

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tract. cxxii) i. e. That Jesus had risen again, some think: but what follows contradicts this notion. He saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said: For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. If he did not yet know that He must rise again from the dead, he could not believe that He had risen. They had heard as much indeed from our Lord, and very openly, but they were so accustomed to hear parables from Him, that they took this for a parable, and thought He meant something else. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then went in also that other disciple who had come first to the sepulchre.” He came first, and entered last. This also of a certainty is not without a meaning, but I am without the leisure needful for its explanation. “And he saw, and believed.” Here some, by not giving due attention, suppose that John believed that Jesus had risen again; but there is no indication of this from the words that follow. For what does he mean by immediately adding, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead”? He could not then have believed that He had risen again, when he did not know that it behoved Him to rise again. What then did he see? what was it that he believed? What but this, that he saw the sepulchre empty, and believed what the woman had said, that He had been taken away from the tomb? “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.” Thus also when they heard of it from the Lord Himself, although it was uttered in the plainest terms, yet from their custom of hearing Him speaking by parables, they did not understand, and believed that something else was His meaning. — Tractates on John 120

Cyril of Alexandria: When these men (I mean Peter and John, the writer of this book, for he gives himself the name of the other disciple) heard this news from the woman’s mouth, they ran with all the speed they could and hurried to the sepulcher. They saw the marvel with their own eyes, being in themselves competent to testify to the event, for they were two in number as the Law enjoined. As yet they did not meet Christ risen from the dead, but they infer his resurrection from the bundle of linen clothes, and from that time on they believed that he had burst the bonds of death, as holy Scripture had long ago proclaimed that he would do. When, therefore, they looked at the issues of events in the light of the prophecies that turned out true, their faith was from that time forward rooted on a firm foundation. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Gregory the Dialogist: Then therefore that disciple who had come first to the tomb also entered. After Peter entered, John also went in. He who had come first entered later. It should be noted, brothers, that at the end of the world Judea too will be gathered to faith in the Redeemer, as Paul testifies when he says: “Until the fullness of the Gentiles should enter, and so all Israel should be saved.” And he saw and believed. What, brothers, what are we to think he believed? Was it that the Lord whom he was seeking had risen? Certainly not, because there was still darkness at the tomb, and the words that follow also contradict this when it says: “For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead.” What then did he see, and what did he believe? He saw the linen cloths lying there, and he believed what the woman had said, that the Lord had been taken from the tomb. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:9

Gregory the Dialogist: “For they did not yet know the Scriptures, that he must rise from the dead.” In this matter the greatness of divine providence must be considered, that the hearts of the disciples are both kindled to seek and yet delayed from finding, so that the weakness of the soul, tormented by its own sorrow, might become purer for finding, and might hold on more firmly when it found, the later it found what it was seeking. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 22

John 20:10

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi. 1) i. e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulchre. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.

(de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) i. e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulchre was, but yet within the garden.

(Tr. cxxi. 1) The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: Mary Magdalene had brought the news to His disciples, Peter and John, that the Lord was taken away from the sepulchre; and they, when they came thither, found only the linen clothes wherewith the body had been shrouded; and what else could they believe but what she had told them, and what she had herself also believed? “Then the disciples went away again unto their own” (home); that is to say, where they were dwelling, and from which they had run to the sepulchre. “But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping.” For while the men returned, the weaker sex was fastened to the place by a stronger affection. And the eyes, which had sought the Lord and had not found Him, had now nothing else to do but weep, deeper in their sorrow that He had been taken away from the sepulchre than that He had been slain on the tree; seeing that in the case even of such a Master, when His living presence was withdrawn from their eyes, His remembrance also had ceased to remain. Such grief, therefore, now kept the woman at the sepulchre. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: The wise disciples, after having gathered sufficiently satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of our Savior, were unsure, as it were, what to do with their confirmed and unshaken faith. Comparing the events as they had actually occurred with the prophecies of holy Scripture, they went back home and most likely hurried to see their fellow workers to recount the miracle and afterward consider what course should be pursued. They may have also had another motive in doing what they did. For the passion of the Jews was at its height, and the rulers were thirsting eagerly for the blood of every person who marveled at the teaching of the Savior and confessed his divine and ineffable power and glory. But most of all they thirsted for the blood of the holy disciples themselves, who then had good reason for shrinking from an encounter with them. This is why they left the sepulcher before it was quite light, since they could not have done so without risk if they were seen leaving in the daytime—the sun’s rays revealing them to everyone. We are far from saying that they were cowards as a reason for their cautious flight. Rather, it is more likely that the knowledge of what was expedient for them was instilled in the minds of the saints by Christ who did not permit these who were destined to be lights and teachers of the world to run unnecessary risks. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv. in Evang.) Mary Magdalene, who had been the sinner in the city, and who had washed out the spots of her sins by her tears, whose soul burned with love, did not retire from the sepulchre when the others did: Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvi) Be not astonished that Mary wept for love at the sepulchre, and Peter did not; for the female sex is naturally tender, and inclined to weep.

(Hom. lxxxvi) The sight of the sepulchre itself was some consolation. Nay, behold her, to console herself still more, stooping down, to see the very place where the body lay: And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre.

(Hom. lxxxvi. 1) As her understanding was not so raised as to be able to gather from the napkins the fact of the resurrection, she is given the sight of Angels in bright apparel, who sooth her sorrow.

(Hom. lxxxvi) The Angels who appear say nothing about the resurrection; but by degrees the subject is entered on. First of all they address her compassionately, to prevent her from being overpowered by a spectacle of such extraordinary brightness: And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? The Angels forbad tears, and announced, as it were, the joy that was at hand: Why weepest thou? As if to say, Weep not.

(Hom. lxxxvi) As yet she knew nothing of the resurrection, but thought the body had been taken away. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Full of feeling somehow is the female sex, and more inclined to pity. I say this, lest thou shouldest wonder how it could be that Mary wept bitterly at the tomb, while Peter was in no way so affected. For, “The disciples,” it saith, “went away unto their own home”; but she stood shedding tears. Because hers was a feeble nature, and she as yet knew not accurately the account of the Resurrection; whereas they having seen the linen clothes and believed, departed to their own homes in astonishment. And wherefore went they not straightway to Galilee, as had been commanded them before the Passion? They waited for the others, perhaps, and besides they were yet at the height of their amazement. These then went their way: but she stood at the place, for, as I have said, even the sight of the tomb tended greatly to comfort her. At any rate, thou seest her, the more to ease her grief, stooping down, and desiring to behold the place where the body lay. And therefore she received no small reward for this her great zeal. For what the disciples saw not, this saw the woman first, Angels sitting, the one at the feet, the other at the head, in white; even the dress was full of much radiance and joy. Since the mind of the woman was not sufficiently elevated to accept the Resurrection from the proof of the napkins, something more takes place, she beholdeth something more; Angels sitting in shining garments, so as to raise her thus awhile from her passionate sorrow, and to comfort her. But they said nothing to her concerning the Resurrection, yet is she gently led forward in this doctrine. She saw countenances bright and unusual; she saw shining garments, she heard a sympathizing voice. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: By all these circumstances, as though a door was being opened for her, she was led by little and little to the knowledge of the Resurrection. And the manner of their sitting invited her to question them, for they showed that they knew what had taken place; on which account they did not sit together either, but apart from one another. For because it was not likely that she would dare at once to question them, both by questioning her, and by the manner of their sitting, they bring her to converse. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.” She speaks very warmly and affectionately. “What sayest thou? Knowest thou not yet anything concerning the Resurrection, but dost thou still form fancies about His being laid?” Seest thou how she had not yet received the sublime doctrine? — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John 20:11

Apostolic Constitutions: And when He was risen from the dead, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, then to Cleopas in the way, and after that to us His disciples, who had fled away for fear of the Jews, but privately were very inquisitive about Him. — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Con. Ev. iii. xxiv. 69) She then saw, with the other women, the Angel sitting on the right, on the stone which had been rolled away from the sepulchre, at whose words it was that she looked into the sepulchre. (Mat. 28:5.)

(Tr. cxxi) In her too great grief she could believe neither her own eyes, nor the disciples’. Or was it a divine impulse which caused her to look in? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre.” Why she did so I know not. For she was not ignorant that He whom she sought was no longer there, since she had herself also carried word to the disciples that He had been taken from thence; while they, too, had come to the sepulchre, and had sought the Lord’s body, not merely by looking, but also by entering, and had not found it. What then does it mean, that, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked again into the sepulchre? Was it that her grief was so excessive that she hardly thought she could believe either their eyes or her own? Or was it rather by some divine impulse that her mind led her to look within? — Tractates on John 121

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv. ut supr.) For to have looked once is not enough for love. Love makes one desire to look over and over again.

(Hom. xxv.) She sought the body, and found it not; she persevered in seeking; and so it came to pass that she found. Her longings, growing the stronger, the more they were disappointed, at last found and laid hold on their object. For holy longings ever gain strength by delay; did they not, they would not be longings. Mary so loved, that not content with seeing the sepulchre, she stooped down and looked in: let us see the fruit which came of this persevering love: And seeth two Angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: Mary Magdalene, who had been a sinner in the city, by loving the truth, washed away the stains of her sin with tears: and the voice of Truth is fulfilled, by which it is said: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much.” For she who had previously remained cold through sinning, afterward burned ardently through loving. For after she came to the tomb, and did not find the Lord’s body there, she believed it had been taken away, and announced this to the disciples. They came and saw, and believed that it was as the woman had said. And of them it is immediately written: “The disciples therefore went away to their own homes.” And then it is added: “But Mary stood at the tomb outside, weeping.”

In this matter it should be considered how great a force of love had kindled this woman’s mind, who did not depart from the Lord’s tomb even when the disciples departed. She was seeking the one she had not found, she wept while seeking, and inflamed by the fire of her love, she burned with desire for him whom she believed had been taken away. Hence it happened that she alone then saw him, she who remained to seek, because indeed the virtue of a good work is perseverance, and by the voice of Truth it is said: “He who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved.” And by the precept of the law, the tail of the victim is commanded to be offered in sacrifice. In the tail, of course, is the end of the body; and he sacrifices well who brings the sacrifice of a good work to the end of the required action. Hence Joseph is described as having had a full-length tunic among the rest of his brothers. A tunic reaching to the heel is a good work carried through to completion.

But Mary, as she wept, stooped down and looked into the tomb. Certainly she had already seen the tomb empty, had already announced that the Lord had been taken away; why is it that she stoops down again, desires to see again? But for one who loves, to have looked once is not enough, because the force of love multiplies the intensity of searching. Therefore she sought first, and did not find; she persevered in seeking, whence it happened that she found, and it came about that desires delayed grew, and growing, grasped what they had found. Hence it is that the Church says of the same bridegroom in the Song of Songs: “In my bed through the nights I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, and did not find him. I will arise and go about the city; through the streets and squares I will seek him whom my soul loves.” She also repeats the failure of finding, saying: “I sought him, and did not find him.” But because discovery does not delay itself long if the search does not cease, she adds: “The watchmen who guard the city found me. Have you seen him whom my soul loves? When I had passed a little beyond them, I found him whom my soul loves.”

For we seek the beloved in bed when in some little rest of the present life we sigh with longing for our Redeemer. We seek by night, because even if the mind is now awake in him, nevertheless the eye still grows dim. But whoever does not find his beloved, it remains that he arise and go about the city, that is, traverse the holy Church of the elect with mind and inquiry; let him seek him through streets and squares, that is, let him observe those walking through narrow and broad ways, so that if he can find any traces of him in them, he may search them out, because there are some, even of secular life, who have something to imitate in the practice of virtue. But as we seek, the watchmen who guard the city find us, because the holy fathers who guard the state of the Church meet our good endeavors, that they may teach us by their word or their writing. When we pass a little beyond them, we find him whom we love, because our Redeemer, though by humility a man among men, was nevertheless by divinity above men. Therefore when the watchmen are passed by, the beloved is found, because when we perceive that the prophets and apostles are beneath him, we consider that he who is God by nature is above men.

First, therefore, he is sought without being found, so that afterward, when found, he may be held more tightly. For holy desires, as we have said, grow by delay. But if they fail by delay, they were not desires. With this love burned whoever was able to reach the truth. Hence David says: “My soul has thirsted for the living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?” Hence he admonishes us, saying: “Seek his face always.” Hence the prophet says: “My soul has desired you in the night, but also with my spirit in my inmost heart I will watch for you from early morning.” Hence again the Church says in the Song of Songs: “I am wounded with love.” For it is just that she should reach health from the sight of the physician, who bears the wound of love in her breast through the heat of her desire for him. Hence again she says: “My soul melted when the beloved spoke.” For the mind of a person not seeking the form of its Creator is badly hardened, because it remains cold in itself. But if it has now begun to burn with desire to follow him whom it loves, melted by the fire of love it runs. It becomes anxious with desire, all things in the world that pleased grow worthless, there is nothing that delights outside the Creator, and things that formerly delighted the soul afterward become grievously burdensome. Nothing consoles its sadness, as long as he who is desired is not yet seen. The mind grieves, the very light is wearisome; and by such fire the rust of guilt is refined in the mind, and the kindled soul, as if in the manner of gold, because through use it lost its appearance, becomes bright through burning. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

John 20:12

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) But why did one sit at the head, the other at the feet? To signify that the glad tidings of Christ’s Gospel was to be delivered from the head to the feet, from the beginning to the end. The Greek word Angel means one who delivers news.

(de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv) Here the Angels must be understood to rise up, for Luke describes them as seen standing. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: For look she did, “and saw two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” Why is it that one was sitting at the head, and the other at the feet? Was it, since those who in Greek are called angels are in Latin nuntii [in English, news-bearers], that in this way they signified that the gospel of Christ was to be preached from head to foot, from the beginning even to the end? — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: The angels appeared sitting at the head and at the feet where the Body of Jesus had lain; thereby, as it were, signifying to the woman, who thought that the Lord had been taken away, that no one could have done despite unto the holy Body while angels kept watch and holy powers encompassed the Temple of God, for they knew their Lord. One may raise the question, not unreasonably, how it was that the blessed angels said nothing to the holy disciples, and did not even appear unto them, but were both seen by the woman and also spake unto her. We reply, then, that it was the object of the Saviour Christ to instil into the minds of those who loved Him the perfect knowledge of the mystery concerning Him; but that this perfect knowledge was in different ways given unto them, and adapted to the requirements of those who stood in need of it. The course of events itself, as compared with the expectations raised in Holy Writ, sufficed to give the holy disciples adequate knowledge, and begat in them a confidence that did not admit of doubt. For they went home trusting in the Holy Scriptures, and it would have been superfluous for those, whose faith was thus firmly grounded, to be taught by the mouth of the holy angels; but it was very necessary to the woman, who knew not the Holy and Divine Scripture, and by no other means could apprehend the deep mystery of the Resurrection. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv. in Evang. c. 1, 14) The Angel sits at the head when the Apostles preach that in the beginning was the Word: he sits, as it were, at the feet, when it is said, The Word was made flesh. By the two Angels too we may understand the two testaments; both of which proclaim alike the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The Old seems to sit at the head, the New at the feet. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: And so she who loves thus, who bends down again to the tomb she had looked at, let us see by what fruit the force of love redoubles in her the work of seeking. It follows: “She saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid.”

What does it mean that two angels are seen in the place of the Lord’s body, one sitting at the head, and the other at the feet, except that in the Latin language an angel is called a messenger, and he was to be announced through his passion, who is both God before all ages, and man at the end of the ages? It is as if the angel sits at the head, when through the apostle John it is proclaimed that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And it is as if the angel sits at the feet, when he says: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”

We can also understand the two Testaments by the two angels, one earlier and the other following. These angels are joined to one another through the place of the Lord’s body, because indeed both Testaments, while they announce with equal meaning that the Lord became incarnate and died and rose again, sit as it were the earlier Testament at the head, and the later Testament at the feet. Hence also the two cherubim that cover the mercy seat look upon one another with their faces turned toward the mercy seat. For cherubim means “fullness of knowledge.” And what is signified by the two cherubim except both Testaments? And what is figured by the mercy seat except the incarnate Lord? Of whom John says: “For he is the propitiation for our sins.” And while the Old Testament proclaims that this was to be done which the New Testament declares was done concerning the Lord, it is as if both cherubim look upon one another, while they turn their faces toward the mercy seat, because while they see the incarnate Lord placed between them, they do not disagree in their view, for they narrate the mystery of his dispensation in harmony. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

John 20:13

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) But she, thinking that they wanted to know why she wept, tells them the reason: She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord. The lifeless body of her Lord, she calls her Lord, putting the part for the whole; just as we confess that Jesus Christ the Son of God was buried, when only His flesh was buried. And I know not where they have placed Him: it was a still greater grief, that she did not know where to go to console her grief. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “They say to her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.” The angels forbade her tears: for by such a position what else did they announce, but that which in some way or other was a future joy? For they put the question, “Why weepest thou?” as if they had said, Weep not. But she, supposing they had put the question from ignorance, unfolded the cause of her tears. “Because,” she said, “they have taken away my Lord:” calling her Lord’s inanimate body her Lord, meaning a part for the whole; just as all of us acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord, who of course is at once both the Word and soul and flesh, was nevertheless crucified and buried, while it was only His flesh that was laid in the sepulchre. “And I know not,” she added, “where they have laid Him.” This was the greater cause of sorrow, because she knew not where to go to mitigate her grief. But the hour had now come when the joy, in some measure announced by the angels, who forbade her tears, was to succeed the weeping. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: Observe that the tears shed for Christ do not lose their reward, nor is it long before love for him bears fruit. Rather, his grace and rich restitution will follow closely in the wake of pain. Notice how—as Mary was sitting there, her cheeks bedewed with mourning for her beloved Lord whom she had lost—notice how the Savior granted to her the knowledge of the mystery about him through the mouth of holy angels. They tell her to stop crying because this was no occasion for tears. She was making a subject for rejoicing a cause of grief. Why, indeed, they say, when death has been subdued, and corruption has lost its power and our Savior Christ has risen again and made a new pathway for the dead back to incorruption and to life—why would you misunderstand what is going on now? Why are you so distraught with pain when what is actually going on calls for rejoicing? You should be glad, even ecstatic! And so, why then are you crying and, in effect detracting from the honor due to what amounts to a celebration? — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Gregory of Nyssa: His body too is called “the Lord” on account of the inherent Godhead. — LETTER 17

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. fin.) The very declarations of Scripture which excite our tears of love, wipe away those very tears, by promising us the sight of our Redeemer again. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: The angels seek Mary, saying: “Woman, why do you weep?” And she says to them: “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” For indeed the sacred words which stir up tears of love in us also console those same tears, since they promise us the sight of our Redeemer.

But it should be noted according to the historical sense that the woman did not say: “They have taken away the body of my Lord,” but “They have taken away my Lord.” For it is the usage of sacred Scripture sometimes to signify the whole from a part, and sometimes a part from the whole. For it signifies the whole from a part, as it is written concerning the sons of Jacob: “That Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls.” For souls did not descend into Egypt without bodies; but through the soul alone the whole person is signified, because the whole is expressed from a part. And only the Lord’s body had lain in the tomb, and Mary was not seeking the body of the Lord, but the Lord who had been taken away, evidently designating a part from the whole. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

Tyrannius Rufinus: This was foretold in the Song of Songs: “On my bed I sought the one my soul loves. I sought him in the night and did not find him.” Of those also who found him and held him by the feet, it is foretold, in the same book, “I will hold the one my soul loves and will not let him go.” — COMMENTARY ON THE APOSTLES’ CREED 30

John 20:14

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) The hour was now come, which the Angels announced, when sorrow should be succeeded by joy: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back.

(Tr. cxxi) Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favour; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if Thou have borne Him away. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: Lastly, “when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, If thou hast borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master.” Let no one speak ill of the woman because she called the gardener, Sir (domine), and Jesus, Master. For there she was asking, here she was recognizing; there she was showing respect to a person of whom she was asking a favor, here she was recalling the Teacher of whom she was learning to discern things human and divine. She called one lord (sir), whose handmaid she was not, in order by him to get at the Lord to whom she belonged. In one sense, therefore, she used the word Lord when she said, “They have taken away my Lord; and in another, when she said, Sir (lord), if thou hast borne Him hence.” For the prophet also called those lords who were mere men, but in a different sense from Him of whom it is written, “The Lord is His name.” But how was it that this woman, who had already turned herself back to see Jesus, when she supposed Him to be the gardener, and was actually talking with Him, is said to have again turned herself, in order to say unto Him “Rabboni,” but just because, when she then turned herself in body, she supposed Him to be what He was not, while now, when turned in heart, she recognized Him to be what He was. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: The woman, or rather all womankind, is slow of understanding. For she does not understand the hidden meaning of what met her gaze, but rather announces it as the cause of her grief. But as she ceased not to call Christ Lord, and thereby signified her love towards Him, she is justly permitted to enjoy the sight of the object of her desire. For she beholds |655 Jesus, though she did not think Him to be at her side; and why? Either her ignorance was caused by our Saviour Christ still concealing Himself by His Divine power, and not allowing Himself very easily to be recognised by the eye of the beholder; or, as it was still early in the morning, she could not readily distinguish what was before her eyes, as night somehow prevented her from so doing, and scarcely revealed the Figure of Him Who was drawing nigh. Therefore, also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in the Song of Songs, makes mention of His walk on this night, and the moisture of the morning dew, in the words: For My Head is filled with dew, and My Locks with the drops of the night. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv.) We must observe that Mary, who as yet doubted our Lord’s resurrection, turned back to see Jesus. By her doubting she turned her back, as it were, upon our Lord. Yet inasmuch as she loved, she saw Him. She loved and doubted: she saw, and did not recognise Him: And saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: When she had said these things, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and she did not know that it was Jesus. It should be noted that Mary, who still doubted about the Lord’s resurrection, turned around to see Jesus, because evidently through that very doubt of hers she had, as it were, turned her back to the Lord’s face, since she did not at all believe that he had risen. But because she both loved and doubted, she saw and did not recognize him, and love both showed him to her and doubt hid him. Her continued ignorance is expressed when it is added: “And she did not know that it was Jesus.” — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

Jerome: Was he one person when he was not known and another when he was known? He was surely one and the same. Whether, therefore, they knew him or not depended on their sight. It did not depend on him who was seen. And yet, it did depend on him in this sense, that he held their eyes so that they might not know him. And finally, in order that you may see that the mistake that held them was not to be attributed to the Lord’s body but to the fact that their eyes were closed, we are told, “Their eyes were opened, and they knew him.” This is why, as long as Mary Magdalene did not recognize Jesus and sought the living among the dead, she thought he was the gardener. Afterward she recognized him, and then she called him Lord. — AGAINST JOHN OF JERUSALEMS 35

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. l) But why, when she is talking to the Angels, and before she has heard any thing from them, does she turn back? It seems to me that while she was speaking, Christ appeared behind her, and that the Angels by their posture, look, and motion, showed that they saw our Lord, and that thus it was that she turned back.

(Hom. lxxxvi) To the Angels He appeared as their Lord, but not so to the woman, for the sight coming upon her all at once, would have stupified her. She was not to be lifted suddenly, but gradually to high things.

(Hom. lxxxvi 1) Because He appeared as a common person, she thought Him the gardener: She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if Thou have borne Him hence, tell me where Thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. i. e. If thou hast taken Him away from fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take Him again. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And by what kind of consequence is it, that she having spoken to them, and not having yet heard anything from them, turned back? Methinks that while she was speaking, Christ suddenly appearing behind her, struck the Angels with awe; and that they having beheld their Ruler, showed immediately by their bearing, their look, their movements, that they saw the Lord; and this drew the woman’s attention, and caused her to turn herself backwards. To them then He appeared on this wise, but not so to the woman, in order not at the first sight to terrify her, but in a meaner and ordinary form, as is clear from her supposing that He was the gardener. It was meet to lead one of so lowly a mind to high matters, not all at once, but gently. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: “Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” Again she speaks of laying down, and taking away, and carrying, as though speaking of a corpse. But her meaning is this; “If ye have borne him hence for fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take him.” Great is the kindness and loving affection of the woman, but as yet there is nothing lofty with her. Wherefore He now setteth the matter before her, not by appearance, but by Voice. For as He was at one time known to the Jews, and at another time unperceived though present; so too in speaking, He, when He chose, then made Himself known; as also when He said to the Jews, “Whom seek ye?” they knew neither the Countenance nor the Voice until He chose. And this was the case here. And He named her name only, reproaching and blaming her that she entertained such fancies concerning One who lived. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John 20:15

Cyril of Alexandria: As it was still dark, and the night had not yet wholly passed away, she sees Jesus, Who stood near her, but dimly, and knows not Who He is, being unable to distinguish the Form of His Body or His Features, but hears Him say, Woman, why weepest thou? The Saviour’s words are indeed words of courtesy, still such as to arouse in her the suspicion that they were most like the words of one of the gardeners. It follows, too, that the Lord, when He thus spake, was not in point of fact asking her the reason for her weeping, nor desirous to learn of whom she was in search; but was rather anxious to stop her lamentations, just as, indeed, were the two blessed angels, for it was in their company that He spake. Why, then, weepest thou, O woman? He says; Whom seekest thou? That is to say, wipe away thy tears, as thou hast the object of thy search. I, He says, am He Who is the occasion of thy mourning, as having been dead, and as having suffered a dreadful fate, and as having also been taken away out of the tomb. But, as I am alive and am here, give up thy lamentations, and contrariwise be of good cheer. He asked the question, then, wishing to end her sorrow. For it was meet that the Lord should be our restorer in this way also. For by Adam’s transgression, as in the firstfruits of the race, the sentence went forth to the whole world: Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return; and to the woman in special: In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. To be rich in sorrow, then, as by way of a penalty, was the fate of woman. It was, therefore, necessary that by the mouth of Him That had passed sentence of condemnation, the burden of that ancient curse should be removed, our Saviour Christ now wiping away the tears from the eyes of the woman, or rather of all womankind, as in Mary the firstfruits. For she, first of women, being offended at the death of the Saviour, and grieving thereat, was thought worthy to hear the voice that cut short her weeping; the power of the word, in fact, extending also to the whole race of women, if indeed they be pained by the outrages against Christ, and honour faith in Him, and almost fall to quoting that saying in the Psalms: Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against Thee? I hate therm with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

While, however, our Lord Jesus Christ says this to put a stop to her weeping, she, supposing the speaker to be one of the gardeners, undertook very readily to transfer the remains to another place, if only it were shown her where he had laid Him. For, not yet apprehending the great mystery of the Resurrection, she was disturbed by suspicions of this kind. For the feminine mind is slow-witted and ill-prepared to readily comprehend even what is not very difficult, far less miracles which baffle description. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory of Nazianzus: Be the first to see the stone taken away, and perhaps you will see the angels and Jesus himself. Say something. Hear his voice. If he says to you, “Do not touch me,” stand far away. Reverence the Word, but do not grieve because he knows those to whom he appears first. — ON HOLY EASTER, ORATION 45.24

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv.) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? He asks the cause of her grief, to set her longing still more. For the mere mentioning His name whom she sought would inflame her love for Him.

(Hom. xxv.) Perhaps, however, the woman was right in believing Jesus to be the gardener. Was not He the spiritual Gardener, who by the power of His love had sown strong seeds of virtue in her breast? But how is it that, as soon as she sees the gardener, as she supposes Him to be, she says, without having told Him who it was she was seeking, Sir, if Thou hast borne Him hence? It arises from her love; when one loves a person, one never thinks that any one else can be ignorant of him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: He said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” The cause of her grief is asked so that her desire might be increased, so that when she named the one she sought, she might burn more ardently in love for him.

She, supposing that he was the gardener, said to him: “Lord, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Perhaps this woman did not err even in erring, who believed Jesus to be the gardener. For was he not spiritually a gardener to her, who was planting the flourishing seeds of virtues in her heart through his love?

But what is it that, seeing him whom she believed to be the gardener, to whom she had not yet said whom she was seeking, she says: “Lord, if you have taken him away”? For as if she had already said from whose desire she was weeping, she speaks of him whom she had not mentioned. But the force of love is accustomed to do this in the soul: that it believes no one else is ignorant of him whom it always thinks about. Rightly this woman does not say whom she seeks, and yet says: “If you have taken him away,” because she does not think him unknown to another, whom she thus continuously mourns with desire. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

Jerome: When Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord and thought that he was the gardener … she was mistaken, indeed, in her vision, but the very error had its prototype. Truly, indeed, Jesus was the gardener of his paradise, of his trees of paradise. “She thought that he was the gardener” and wanted to fall at his feet. What does the Lord say to her? “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” Do not touch me. You do not deserve to touch the one you looked for in a grave. Do not touch me whom you only suppose, but do not believe, has arisen. Do not touch me, for to you I have not yet ascended to my Father. When you believe that I have ascended to my Father, then, it will be your privilege to touch me. — HOMILY 87, ON John 1.1-14

Theodore of Mopsuestia: And our Lord acted this way so that when she suddenly sees the one who she thought was beyond hope of ever seeing again because she still thought he was dead, she might not be overcome with emotion and think that he was some demonic apparition. He also wanted her first to speak to him gradually, as to a man, and after she had realized that she was speaking to a real man, she might finally understand who he was and at the same time might believe and admire the greatness of the event. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.11-14

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): She was afraid that the Jews might vent their rage even on the lifeless body, and therefore wished to remove it to some secret place. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 20:16

Cyril of Alexandria: He invites the recognition of the woman, whose mind had already been enlightened, and, allowing her to gaze upon Him without let or hindrance (for indeed she loved Him ardently), He almost rebukes her for having been so slow to perceive that He was Christ, for there is some such implied meaning in His calling her by name. She understood at once, and at the sight of Him casts aside the suspicions she felt at first, and offers Him the usual tribute of respect, calling Him Rabboni, that is to say, Master; and, with her mind full of a heavenly joy, ran eagerly to touch the holy Body, and to gain blessing therefrom. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv.) Our Lord, after calling her by the common name of her sex, and not being recognised, calls her by her own name: Jesus saith unto her, Mary; as if to say, Recognise Him, who recognises thee. Mary, being called by name, recognises Him; that it was He whom she sought externally, and He who taught her internally to seek: She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: Jesus says to her: “Mary.” After he called her by the common word for her sex, and was not recognized, he calls her by name. As if he openly said to her: Recognize him by whom you are recognized. To the perfect man also it is said: “I know you by name,” because “man” is the common word for all of us, but “Moses” is proper, to whom it is rightly said that he is known by name, as if the Lord openly said to him: I do not know you generally as the rest, but specially.

Therefore Mary, because she is called by name, recognizes her author, and immediately calls him rabbi, that is, teacher, because he himself was the one who was being sought outwardly, and he himself was the one who was teaching her inwardly to seek. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvi. 1) Just as He was sometimes in the midst of the Jews, and they did not know Him till He pleased to make Himself known. But why does she turn herself, when she had turned herself before? It seems to me that when she said, Where thou hast laid Him, she turned to the Angels, to ask why they were astonished. Then Christ, calling her, discovered Himself by His voice, and made her turn to Him again. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: But how was it that, “She turned herself, and saith,” if so be that He was speaking to her? It seems to me, that after having said, “Where have ye laid him?” she turned to the Angels to ask why they were astonished, and that then Christ, by calling her by name, turned her to Himself from them, and revealed Himself by His Voice; for when He called her “Mary,” then she knew Him; so that the recognition was not by His appearance, but by His Voice. And if any say, “Whence is it clear that the Angels were awestruck, and that on this account the woman turned herself,” they will in this place say, “whence is it clear that she would have touched Him, and fallen at His feet?” Now as this is clear from His saying, “Touch Me not,” so is the other clear from its saying, that she turned herself. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

Romanos the Melodist: He who searches the hearts And grabs them by the reins, Knowing that Mary would recognize his voice, Like a shepherd, called his crying lamb, Saying, “Mary.” She at once recognized him and spoke: “Surely my good shepherd calls me In order that from this time forward he may number me among the ninety nine lambs; For I see behind the one who is calling me The bodies of the saints, the ranks of the just, Therefore, then, I do not say, ‘Who are you who calls me?’ For I clearly know who it is who is calling me; It is he, as he said ahead of time, My Lord, he Who offers resurrection to the fallen.” — KONTAKION ON THE RESURRECTION 40.10

Severus of Antioch: Some indeed say that because this woman approached him and touched him just as she had done before, without thinking anything of it, that she did not believe that this act of resurrection was worthy of the glorious and sublime divinity. Rather [they say] she still thought the same as she did earlier, that he would be characterized by his humility and humanity as when he was with his disciples. And so when our Savior asks why she is acting this way, as if he was still earthbound, because he had not yet ascended to his Father, it is as if he said, Do not touch me with too much curiosity.… Perhaps indeed he also knew that every fiber of her being wanted to hold on to these divine feet with joy and emotion as a friend of God because Matthew also records others, besides Mary, who seized his feet and adored him. But others say that he was raising her to a higher and more sublime way of thinking. Because [they say] when Mary approached him with more fervent desire and to ask something concerning the divine, she did so because she wanted the reason for his resurrection revealed to her and so she returned to touch him.… And so Jesus, as one who knows the hidden things of the heart, says to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to my Father.” [He says this] because he had promised to his disciples, once he had ascended into heaven, that the Holy Spirit would come who would lead them to perfection by teaching and revealing to them what was hidden.… Then [i.e., at that time] he had said, “I still have many things to teach you but you cannot bear them now, but when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth.” This is why [now] he says, “Do not touch me,” that is, do not probe, do not seek the reason for what you came to ask. Do not touch me. The time has not yet come because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But I will ascend, and when I do, the Spirit will come and teach you as he also promised to me. It is obvious that Mary, [once she recognized him], wanted to learn, because she addressed him not as “Lord” [as she had done earlier] but as “Rabboni,” that is, teacher.… She was anxious to learn. But, as one who directs his words with understanding to teach, Jesus deflects her [question] as being inappropriate.… [The Gospel] testifies to this desire of Mary, the sister of Martha, to know when, instead of listening to Martha’s instruction, she should remain close to Jesus, who said concerning her, “Mary has chosen the better share, which will not be taken away from her.” — CATHEDRAL HOMILIES 45

John 20:17

Ambrose of Milan: For Christ’s purpose in the incarnation was to pave for us the road to heaven. Mark how he says, “I go up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” — Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.7.50

Augustine of Hippo: What does this mean, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father”? If she could not touch him as he was standing on earth, would she be able to touch him seated in heaven? As though he was saying, “Do not touch me now; touch me then, when I have ascended to the Father.” Your graces will recall yesterday’s reading, when the Lord appeared to the disciples and they thought they were seeing a spirit. But wishing to relieve them of this mistaken idea, he offered himself to their touch. What did he say? It was yesterday. There was a sermon about it. “Why are you troubled, and why are thoughts coming up into your hearts? See my hands and my feet; feel and see.” He had not already ascended to the Father, had he, when he said feel and see, offering himself to his disciples to be touched, not just touched but felt, to produce faith in the real flesh of his real body, to present the solid reality of truth even to the human touch? So he offers himself to the hands of the disciples to be felt, but he says to the woman, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” What can it mean? Could men only touch him on earth, while women had to touch him in heaven, “for I have not yet ascended to my Father”? So what can touching be, but believing? We touch Christ, you see, by faith, and it is better not to touch him with the hand and to touch him with faith than to feel him with the hand and not touch him with faith. It was not a great matter to touch Christ; the Jews touched him when they seized him, they touched him when they bound him, touched him when they hung him up; they touched him, and by touching him in a bad way, they lost what they touched. Just you touch by faith, O Catholic church; see that you touch by faith. If you have thought of Christ only as a man, you have touched him on earth. If you have believed Christ is Lord, equal to the Father, then you have touched him when he has ascended to the Father. — SERMON 246.4

Augustine of Hippo: What is “Touch me as I ascended to the Father”? Touch me as equal to the Father. What is “Touch me as equal to the Father”? Touch me as God, that is believe in me as God. — SERMON 375C.4

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi. 3) But if standing upon the earth, He is not touched, how shall He be touched sitting in heaven? And did He not before His ascension offer Himself to the touch of the disciples: Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones? (Luke 24:39) Who can be so absurd as to suppose that He was willing that disciples should touch Him before He ascended to His Father, and unwilling that women should till after? Nay, we read of women after the resurrection, and before He ascended to His Father, touching Him, one of whom was Mary Magdalene herself, according to Matthew. Either then Mary here is a type of the Gentile Church, which did not believe in Christ till after His ascension: or the meaning is that Jesus is to be believed in, i. e. spiritually touched, in no other way, but as being one with the Father. He ascends to the Father mystically, as it were, in the mind of him who hath so far advanced as to acknowledge that He is equal to the Father. But how could Mary believe in Him otherwise than carnally, when she wept for Him as a man?

(i. de Trin) Touch is as it were the end of knowledge; and He was unwilling that a soul intent upon Him should have its end, in thinking Him only what He seemed to be.

(Tr. cxxi) He does not say, Our Father, but, My Father and your Father: Mine therefore and yours in a different sense; Mine by nature, yours by grace. Nor does He say, Our God, but, My God—under Him I am man—and your God; between you and Him I am Mediator. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God.” There are points in these words which we must examine with brevity indeed, but with somewhat more than ordinary attention. For Jesus was giving a lesson in faith to the woman, who had recognized Him as her Master, and called Him so in her reply; and this gardener was sowing in her heart, as in His own garden, the grain of mustard seed. What then is meant by “Touch me not”? And just as if the reason of such a prohibition would be sought, He added, “for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” What does this mean? If, while standing on earth, He is not to be touched, how could He be touched by men when sitting in heaven? For certainly, before He ascended, He presented Himself to the touch of the disciples, when He said, as testified by the evangelist Luke, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;” or when He said to Thomas the disciple, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and put forth thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” And who could be so absurd as to affirm that He was willing indeed to be touched by the disciples before He ascended to the Father, but refused it in the case of women till after His ascension? But no one, even had any the will, was to be allowed to run into such folly. For we read that women also, after His resurrection and before His ascension to the Father, touched Jesus, among whom was Mary Magdalene herself; for it is related by Matthew that Jesus met them, and said, “All hail. And they approached, and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.” It remains, therefore, that some sacred mystery must lie concealed in these words; and whether we discover it or utterly fail to do so, yet we ought to be in no doubt as to its actual existence. Accordingly, either the words, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” had this meaning, that by this woman the Church of the Gentiles was symbolized, which did not believe on Christ till He had actually ascended to the Father, or that in this way Christ wished Himself to be believed on; in other words, to be touched spiritually, that He and the Father are one. For He has in a manner ascended to the Father, to the inward perception of him who has made such progress in the knowledge of Christ that he acknowledges Him as equal with the Father: in any other way He is not rightly touched, that is to say, in any other way He is not rightly believed on. But Mary might have still so believed as to account Him unequal with the Father, and this certainly is forbidden her by the words, “Touch me not;” that is, Believe not thus on me according to thy present notions; let not your thoughts stretch outwards to what I have been made in thy behalf, without passing beyond to that whereby thou hast thyself been made. For how could it be otherwise than carnally that she still believed on Him whom she was weeping over as a man? “For I am not yet ascended,” He says, “to my Father:” there shalt thou touch me, when thou believest me to be God, in no wise unequal with the Father. “But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father.” He saith not, Our Father: in one sense, therefore, is He mine, in another sense, yours; by nature mine, by grace yours. “And my God, and your God.” Nor did He say here, Our God: here, therefore, also is He in one sense mine, in another sense yours: my God; under whom I also am as man; your God, between whom and you I am mediator. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: But go unto My brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.

CHAPTER I. That the Son is by Nature God, even though we find Him calling the Father His God.

For reasons which we have given, Christ suffers not Mary to touch Him, though, in her love of God, she greatly yearned for this boon; but still rewards her for her watchful care, and doubly requites her for her passionate faith and love for Him, showing that those who are diligent in His service meet with a recompence. And, what was even yet more glorious, she achieved the deliverance of woman from the frailties of old; for in her first—-I mean in Mary—-all womankind, so to speak, are crowned with a double honour. For though at first she thus lamented, and made Christ an occasion for weeping, she turned her mourning into joy when she was told to forbear from tears by Him, Who, by His own sentence of old, had made woman easy to be overcome by the attacks of sorrow. For God had said to the woman: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; but just as He once made her subject unto sorrow in Paradise, when she hearkened to the voice of the serpent, and ministered to the devil’s wiles, so now again in a garden He bids her refrain from weeping. Releasing her from that curse which bound her unto sorrow, He bids her be the first messenger of tidings of great joy, and proclaim |662 to the disciples His journey heavenward; that as the first woman, the mother of all mankind, was condemned for listening to the devil’s voice, and through her the whole race of women, so also this woman, in that she had hearkened to our Saviour’s words, and announced tidings fraught with life eternal, might deliver the entire race of women from the charge of old. The Lord, therefore, grants unto Mary that, besides being delivered from tears, and from a heart ever prone to sorrow, her feet also should be beautiful. For, as the Prophet exclaims: How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! while the feet of that woman of old time were not beautiful, for no good tidings did she bring when she enticed our forefather to transgress the Divine command. That Mary is worthy our admiration we may infer, from the fact that she was deemed worthy of mention in prophecy. For what said the Prophet concerning her, and the women with her, who announced unto the holy disciples the Resurrection of the Saviour? Ye women, who come from the sight, come hither; for it is a people that hath not understanding. For this Divine prophecy bids these women, true lovers of Christ, come, as it were, with quickened steps, that they may tell what they themselves have seen, and condemns the insensibility of the Jews in that they laughed to scorn the words of our Saviour Christ Himself concerning the Resurrection.

And though there were also other women there (for this the other Evangelists are pleased to record), and the wise John made mention only of Mary, we shall yet find no discrepancy in the accounts of these holy men. For it is probable that John made mention only of Mary Magdalene, because her love for Christ was more impassioned, and she outran the others, so that she first saw the tomb, and was in the garden, and visited every place that was nigh unto the sepulchre, to search for the Body; for she thought, in fact, that the Lord had been taken away. For results are always ascribed to those who take the lead in counsel and action, though there may be others who co-operate in both.

Therefore, to her honour and glory and perpetual renown, the Saviour vouchsafed unto Mary the duty of proclaiming to the brethren the tidings contained in His words: I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God; and do thou for thy part accept this great and profound mystery, not suffering thine heart to vault over the measure of the truth of the Divine doctrines. Observe how the Only-begotten Word of God came among us, that we also might be even as He is, so far as is possible for our nature to attain thereto, and so far as relates unto our new creation by grace. For He humbled Himself that He might exalt that which was by nature lowly to His own high station; and wore the form of a servant, though He was by Nature Lord and Son of God, that He might uplift that which was by nature enslaved to the dignity of Sonship, in conformity with His own Likeness, and in His Image. How, and in what sense, then, He, becoming one of us as Man, in order that we also might be like Him, that is, Gods and Sons, receives our attributes into Himself, and gives back unto us His own, you may well be anxious to inquire. I will explain, then, as far as I am able: In the first place, then, though we are servants by rank and nature (for creatures are subject to their Creator), He calls us His brethren, and designates God the common Father of Himself and us; and, making humanity His own, by taking our likeness upon Him, He calls our God His God, though He is His Son by Nature; that, as we mount up to His exceeding great dignity of station by likeness to Him (for it is not because we are by nature sons of God that we are so called, for He cries in our hearts by His own Spirit, Abba, Father), so also He, since He took our form—-for He became Man, according to the Scriptures—-might have God for His God, though He was truly God by Nature, and proceeded from Him. Be not, therefore, offended, though you hear Him calling God His God, but rather contemplate His words in a teachable spirit, and attentively consider their true meaning. For He says that God is both His Father and our God; and both sayings are true. For, in very truth, the God of the universe is Christ’s Father, but not ours by nature; but rather our God as our Creator and Sovereign Lord. But the Son, as it were, blending Himself with us, vouchsafes to our nature the dignity that is in a special and peculiar sense His own, calling Him That begat Him the common Father of us all; while, on the other hand, He receives into Himself, by taking upon Him our likeness, that which belonged to our nature. For He calls His Father His God, being unwilling, through His inherent love and mercy toward mankind, to dishonour our likeness that He had taken upon Himself. If, then, you choose in ignorance to cavil at this saying, and it seem intolerable to you that the Lord should say that God the Father was His God, you will then, in your perversity, be bringing a charge against the scheme for your own redemption; and when you ought to be offering up thanksgiving you will be dishonouring your Benefactor, and be foolishly objecting to the manner in which He manifested His love towards you. For if He humbled Himself, despising shame, and became a Man for your sake, on your head is the charge of humiliation, and to Him Who chose to undergo this for your sake, exceeding great is the honour due. And I am amazed that you have ears merely for the eclipse of glory (for He humbled Himself for our sake), and consider not its restoration, and, regarding only the degradation, reflect not upon the exaltation. For how was He humiliated, if you do not regard Him as perfect, as being God? And in what sense was He degraded, if you do not take into account the lofty attributes of His ineffable Nature? Therefore, when He was perfect and all-sufficient as God, He humbled Himself for your sake, transforming Himself to your likeness; and though He was high exalted as the Son of God, and of the very Essence of the Father, He degraded Himself, being mulcted of the attributes of Divine glory, so far as His Nature admitted. As therefore, now, He is at the same time God and Man, being high exalted because of His parentage (for He is God of God and truly Begotten of His Father), and also made lowly for our sake (for He became Man for us); be of a tranquil mind when you hear Him saying: I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. For it was very meet and right that, as being by Nature God and Son of God, He should call Him That begat Him His Father; and that, as being Man, even as we are men. He should call God His God. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus saith to her, Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended unto My Father.

The meaning of this saying is not easily understood by the vulgar, for a mystery underlies it; but we must probe it for our advantage. For the Lord will vouchsafe unto us the knowledge of His own Words. For He repulses the woman as she was running up to Him, and though she longed to embrace His Feet, He suffered her not; and, in explanation of His reason for so doing, said: For I am not yet ascended unto My Father. We must inquire into the meaning of this saying. For what if He were not yet ascended to His Father? How could this reason suffice to render it improper for those that loved Him to touch His holy Body? Would it not be blameworthy for any one to imagine that the Lord shrank from the pollution of the touch, and thus spake that He might be pure when He ascended to the Father in heaven? Would not such a man stand convicted of great folly and madness? For the Nature of God can never be polluted. For just as the light of the sun’s ray, when it strikes upon a dunghill or any other earthly impurities, suffers no stain—-for it remains as it is, that is, undefiled, and partakes in no degree of the ill odour of the objects that it encounters—-even so the all-holy Nature of God can never admit of the blemish of defilement. What, then, is the reason why Mary was prevented from touching Him, when she drew near and yearned so to do? What can the Lord mean when He says: For I am not yet ascended unto My Father? We must investigate this according to the best of our ability. We say, therefore, that the reasons for our Saviour’s sojourn amongst us were manifold and diverse, but this one the principal of all, which is indicated in His own words: For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Therefore, before the saving Cross and the Resurrection from the dead, while as yet His providential scheme had not received its appropriate fulfilment, He mingled both with the just and the unjust, and ate with publicans and sinners, and allowed any that so willed to come to Him and touch His holy Body, that He might sanctify all men and call them to a knowledge of the truth, and might bring back to health those who were diseased and enfeebled by the constant practice of sin. Therefore also, in another place, He said unto them: They that are whole have no need of a physician; but they that are sick. Therefore, before His Resurrection from the dead, He had intercourse indiscriminately with the righteous and with sinners, and never frightened away any that came unto Him. Moreover, when He was once reclining at the house of a Pharisee, a woman came in unto Him weeping, who was a sinner in the city, as is written, and let down her wanton locks, scarcely released from the service of her past sins, and wiped His Feet therewith; and we see that He did not stop her. Again, when He was on His way to bring back to life the daughter of the leader of the Synagogue, once more a woman came near unto Him, who had an issue of blood, and touched the border of His garment; and we find that He was in nowise offended, but rather vouchsafed unto her the comforting assurance: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace. But at that time, by His Providence, men who were still unclean, and who were polluted both in mind and body, were suffered without let or hindrance to touch the holy Flesh Itself of our Saviour Christ, and to gain every blessing thereby; but when, after having completed the scheme of our redemption, He had both suffered the Cross itself, and death thereon, and had risen again to life, and shown that His Nature was superior to death, henceforward, instead of granting them a ready permission, He hinders those who come to Him from touching the very Flesh of His holy Body; thereby giving us a type of the holy Churches, and the mystery concerning Himself, just as also the Law given by the all-wise Moses itself did, when it represented the slaughter of the lamb as a figure of Christ; for no uncircumcised person, said the Law, shall eat thereof, meaning by uncircumcised impure—-and humanity may justly be deemed impure in its own nature. For what is the nature of man, as compared with God’s inherent purity? We may not, therefore, while we remain uncircumcised, that is, impure, touch the holy Body, but only when we have been made pure by the true circumcision of the Spirit. For circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, as Paul saith. And we cannot be spiritually circumcised if the Holy Spirit hath not taken up His abode in us by faith and Holy Baptism. Surely, therefore, it was meet that Mary should for a while be restrained from touching His sacred Body, as she had not yet received the Spirit. For even though Christ was risen from the dead, still the Spirit had not yet been given to humanity by the Father through Him. For when He ascended to God the Father, He sent the Spirit down to us; wherefore also He said: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter cannot come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. As, therefore, the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent down unto us, for He had not yet ascended to the Father, He repulses Mary as not yet having received the Spirit, saying: Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto the Father; that is to say, I have not yet sent down unto you the Holy Spirit. Hence the type is applicable to the Churches. Therefore, also, we drive away from the Holy Table those who are indeed convinced of the Godhead of Christ, and have already made profession of faith, that is, those who are already catechumens, when they have not as yet been enriched with the Holy Spirit. For He does not dwell in those who have not received Baptism. But when they have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, then indeed there is nothing to hinder them from touching Our Saviour Christ. Therefore, also, to those who wish to partake of the blessed Eucharist, the ministers of Divine mysteries say, “Holy things to the holy,” teaching that participation in holy things is the due reward of those who are sanctified in the Spirit. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: What is the difference if he was not yet ascended to his Father? How could this reason suffice to render it improper for those that loved him to touch his holy body? Would it not be blameworthy for anyone to imagine that the Lord shrank from the pollution of the touch and said this so that he might be pure when he ascended to the Father in heaven? Would not such a person stand convicted of great foolishness and madness? For the nature of God can never be polluted. For just as the light of the sun’s ray, when it strikes on a manure pile or any other earthly impurities, suffers no stain, for it remains as it is, that is, undefiled, and it partakes in no degree of the ill odor of the objects that it encounters, even so the all-holy nature of God can never admit of the blemish of defilement. Why then was Mary prevented from touching him when she drew near and yearned to do so?…We say that the reasons for our Savior dwelling among us were many and diverse, but there is one overriding principle, indicated in his own words: “For I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Therefore, before the saving cross and the resurrection from the dead, while as yet his providential scheme had not received its appropriate fulfillment, he mingled both with the just and the unjust, and ate with publicans and sinners and allowed any that wanted to come to him and touch his holy body so that he might sanctify all who came and call them to a knowledge of the truth and might bring back to health those who were diseased and enfeebled by the constant practice of sin. … At that time, by his providence, people who were still unclean and who were polluted both in mind and body were allowed without hindrance to touch the holy flesh itself of our Savior Christ and to gain every blessing from it. But after he completed the plan of our redemption, having suffered death on the cross and rising to life again, he showed that his nature was superior to death. And so, from then on, instead of granting them access, he hinders those who come to him from touching the very flesh of his holy body. In this way he gives us a type of the holy churches and the mystery concerning himself, just as also the law given by the all-wise Moses itself did when it represented the slaughter of the lamb as a figure of Christ. For “no uncircumcised person,” said the Law, “shall eat thereof,” meaning by uncircumcised someone who is “impure.” And humanity may justly be deemed impure in its own nature. For what is the nature of a human being, as compared with God’s inherent purity? We may not, therefore, while we remain uncircumcised, that is, impure, touch the holy body, but only when we have been made pure by the true circumcision of the Spirit.… As, therefore, the Holy Spirit had not yet been sent down to us, for he had not yet ascended to the Father, he repulses Mary as not yet having received the Spirit, saying, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to the Father”; that is to say, I have not yet sent down to you the Holy Spirit. And so, the type is applicable to the churches.… Therefore, also, to those who wish to partake of the blessed Eucharist, the ministers of divine mysteries say, “Holy things to the holy,” teaching that participation in holy things is the due reward of those who are sanctified in the Spirit. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Jerusalem: But in case anyone, from simplicity or perverse ingenuity, should suppose that Christ is but equal in honor to righteous people … it is well to make this distinction beforehand, that the name of the Father is one, but the power of his operation is many. And Christ himself, knowing this, has spoken unerringly, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father.” He does not say, “to our Father,” but distinguishing and saying first what was proper to himself, “to My Father,” which was by nature. Then he adds, “and your Father,” which was by adoption. For however high the privilege we have received of saying in our prayers, “Our Father,” who art in heaven, yet this gift is one of loving-kindness. For we call him Father, not as having been by nature begotten of our Father who is in heaven but having been transferred from servitude to sonship by the grace of the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit. We are permitted to speak this way because of the ineffable loving-kindness [of our Father]. — Catechetical Lecture 7:7

Cyril of Jerusalem: The Father, having begotten the Son, remained the Father and is not changed. He begat Wisdom yet did not lose wisdom himself. He begat power yet did not become weak. He begat God but did not lose his own Godhead. Neither did he lose anything himself by diminution or change. He who was begotten does not lack anything either. Perfect is he who begat, perfect is that which was begotten: God was he who begat, God is he who was begotten; God of all himself, yet giving the Father the title as his own God. For he is not ashamed to say, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” But in case you might think that he is a Father of the Son in the same way that he is Father of creation, Christ drew a distinction in what follows. For he did not say, “I ascend to our Father,” lest the creatures should be made fellows of the Only Begotten. Instead, he said, “My Father and your Father.” He is in one way mine, by nature. He is, in another way, yours, by adoption. And again, “to my God and your God,” in one way mine, as his true and only-begotten Son, and in another way yours, as his workmanship. The Son of God then is very God, ineffably begotten before all ages. — Catechetical Lecture 11:18-19

Ephrem the Syrian: He said, “Do not touch me,” first of all, because this body was [like] a first-flowering fruit from Sheol that our Lord, as priest, was preserving carefully from contact with any [human] hand, so as to offer it to the [only] hand capable of receiving such a gift and capable of paying the price for an offering such as this. Second, [he did not want anyone to touch him] in order to show that this body was [already] glorified and magnified. Thus he showed them that, while he had been a servant, everyone had power over him, since even tax collectors and sinners used to come and touch him. But when he was made Lord, fear of him was over everyone like [the fear of] God. Even kings and nobles convince us [of this], for those who see [them] are afraid to touch them. — COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S DIATESSARON 21.26

Gregory of Nazianzus: To give you the explanation in one sentence: You are to apply the loftier expressions to the Godhead and to that nature in him that is superior to sufferings and bodily experiences. But all that is lowly should be applied to the composite condition of him who for your sakes made himself of no reputation and was incarnate. — ON THE SON, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 3(29).18

Gregory of Nyssa: Now that the words addressed to Mary are not applicable to the Godhead of the Only Begotten, one may learn from the intention with which they were uttered. For he who humbled himself to a level with human littleness is the one who spoke these words. … He from whom we were formerly alienated by our revolt has become our Father and our God. Accordingly in the passage cited above the Lord brings the good news of this benefit. And the words are not a proof of the degradation of the Son but the good news of our reconciliation to God. For that which has taken place in Christ’s humanity is a common boon bestowed on humankind generally. For as when we see in him the weight of the body that naturally gravitates to earth ascending through the air into the heavens, we believe according to the words of the apostle that we also “shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” Even so, when we hear that the true God and Father has become the God and Father of our Firstfruits, we no longer doubt that the same God has become our God and Father too, inasmuch as we have learned that we shall come to the same place where Christ has entered for us as our forerunner. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 12.1

Gregory of Nyssa: He becomes the firstborn of the new creation of men and women in Christ by the twofold regeneration, reborn by holy baptism and by that birth that is the consequence of the resurrection from the dead. In both alike he becomes for us the Prince of life, the firstfruits and the firstborn. This firstborn, then, also has brothers. This is who he is referring to when he says to Mary, “Go and tell my brothers, I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” In these words he sums up the whole aim of his dispensation as man. For humanity rebelled against God and “served those that by nature were no gods.” And even though they were the children of God, they became attached to an evil father falsely so called. Therefore, the mediator between God and man, having assumed the firstfruits of all human nature, sends to his brothers the announcement of himself not in his divine character but in that which he shares with us. He says, “I am departing in order to make that true Father, from whom you were separated, to be your Father; and to make that true God from whom you had rebelled to be your God. And I am doing this in my own person. For by those firstfruits that I have assumed, I am in myself presenting all humanity to its God and Father.”Since, then, the firstfruits made the true God to be its God and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the firstfruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men and women. Now “if the firstfruits are holy, the lump also is holy.” But where the firstfruits, Christ, is—and the firstfruits is none other than Christ—there also are those who are Christ’s, as the apostle says. — AGAINST EUNOMIUS 2.8

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv.) The Evangelist does not add what she did upon recognising Him, but we know from what our Lord said to her: Jesus saith unto her, Touch Me not. Mary then had tried to embrace His feet, but was not allowed. Why not? The reason follows: For I am not yet ascended to My Father. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: Now indeed what the woman did is not added by the evangelist, but it is indicated by what she heard. To whom it is said: “Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” For in these words it is shown that Mary wished to embrace the feet of him whom she recognized. But the teacher says to her: “Do not touch me.” Not because the Lord after the resurrection refused the touch of women, since of the two coming to his tomb it is written: “They approached, and held his feet.”

But the reason why she should not touch him is also added when he continues: “For I have not yet ascended to my Father.” For in our heart Jesus ascends to the Father when he is believed to be equal to the Father. For whoever does not believe him equal to the Father, in his breast the Lord has not yet ascended to the Father. Therefore that person truly touches Jesus who believes the Son to be coeternal with the Father. For in the heart of Paul, Jesus had already ascended to the Father when the same Paul was saying: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal to God.” Hence John also touched our Redeemer with the hand of faith, who says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him.” Therefore that person touches the Lord who believes him equal to the Father in eternity of substance.

But perhaps someone is troubled by the silent question of how the Son can be equal to the Father. In this matter, what human nature cannot grasp by wondering, it remains that it should know this to be credible from another wonder. For it has something by which it may briefly answer itself on these matters. For it is established that he himself created the mother in whose virgin womb he was to be created from humanity. What wonder then if he is equal to the Father, who is prior to his mother? With Paul also attesting, we have learned that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Therefore whoever thinks the Son is lesser detracts particularly from the Father, whose wisdom he confesses to be unequal to him. For what powerful man would calmly bear it if someone said to him: “You are indeed great, but nevertheless your wisdom is less than you”? The Lord himself also says: “I and the Father are one.” And again he says: “The Father is greater than I.” Of whom it is also written that he was subject to his parents. What wonder then if from his humanity he asserts himself less than the Father in heaven, from which he was also subject to his parents on earth?

From which humanity it is now said to Mary: “Go to my brothers and tell them: I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.” Since he says “my” and “your,” why does he not say “our” in common? But speaking distinctly he indicates that he has the same Father and God differently than we do. “I ascend to my Father,” namely by nature; “and your Father,” by grace. “To my God,” because I descended; “to your God,” because you will ascend. For because I too am man, God is mine; because you are freed from error, God is yours. Therefore distinctly is he my Father and God, because he whom he begot as God before the ages, he created as man with me at the end of the ages. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

Hilary of Poitiers ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Trin.) Heretics, among their other impieties, misinterpret these words of our Lord’s, and say, that if His Father is their Father, His God their God, He cannot be God Himself. But though He remained in the form of God, He took upon Him the form of a servant; and Christ says this in the form of a servant to men. And we cannot doubt that in so far as He is man, the Father is His Father in the same sense in which He is of other men, and God His God in like manner. Indeed He begins with saying, Go to My brethren. But God can only have brethren according to the flesh; the Only-Begotten God, being Only-Begotten, is without brethren. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Ignatius of Antioch: And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He [shows when He] says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” And again, “When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former]. — Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Tarsians

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvi. 2) Mary wished to be as familiar with Christ now, as she was before His Passion; forgetting, in her joy, that His body was made much more holy by its resurrection. So, Touch Me not, He says, to remind her of this, and make her feel awe in talking with Him. For which reason too He no longer keeps company with His disciples, viz. that they might look upon Him with the greater awe. Again, by saying I have not yet ascended, He shows that He is hastening there. And He who was going to depart and live no more with men, ought not to be regarded with the same feeling that He was before: But go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Some assert, that she asked for spiritual grace, because she had heard Him when with the disciples say, “If I go to the Father, I will ask Him, and He shall give you another Comforter.” But how could she who was not present with the disciples have heard this? Besides, such an imagination is far from the meaning here. And how should she ask, when He had not yet gone to the Father? What then is the sense? Methinks that she wished still to converse with Him as before, and that in her joy she perceived nothing great in Him, although He had become far more excellent in the Flesh. To lead her therefore from this idea, and that she might speak to Him with much awe, (for neither with the disciples doth He henceforth appear so familiar as before,) He raiseth her thoughts, that she should give more reverent heed to Him. To have said, “Approach Me not as ye did before, for matters are not in the same state, nor shall I henceforth be with you in the same way,” would have been harsh and high-sounding; but the saying, “I am not yet ascended to the Father,” though not painful to hear, was the saying of One declaring the same thing. For by saying, “I am not yet ascended,” He showeth that He hasteth and presseth thither; and that it was not meet that One about to depart thither, and no longer to converse with men, should be looked on with the same feelings as before. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: “Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God.” Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then saith He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departeth into the heavens. But the, “To My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God,” belongs to the Dispensation, since the “ascending” also belongs to His Flesh. For He speaketh these words to one who had no high thoughts. “Is then the Father His in one way, and ours in another?” Assuredly then He is. For if He is God of the righteous in a manner different from that in which He is God of other men, much more in the case of the Son and us. For because He had said, “Say to the brethren,” in order that they might not imagine any equality from this, He showed the difference. He was about to sit on His Father’s throne, but they to stand by. So that albeit in His Subsistence according to the Flesh He became our Brother, yet in Honor He greatly differed from us, it cannot even be told how much. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Damascene: Of those passages which refer to the period after the resurrection, there are several which pertain to his human nature.… Other passages speak of Christ’s dual nature, such as, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” “My God and your God,” is to be understood more in an abstract way, as though he were ranking himself with us. Those passages, in general, that are sublime must be assigned to the divine nature, which is superior to passion and body. And those passages that are humble must be ascribed to the human nature. And those passages that are common must be attributed to the compound being, that is, the one Christ, who is God and man. And it should be understood that both [the human and divine] belong to one and the same Jesus Christ, our Lord. For if we know what is proper to each, and perceive that both are performed by one and the same, we shall have the true faith and shall not go astray. — ORTHODOX FAITH 4.18

Leo the Great: The Son of man and Son of God, therefore, dearly beloved, then attained a more excellent and holier fame when he returned to the glory of the Father’s majesty. In an incomprehensible way, he began to be nearer to the Father in respect of his Godhead after having become distanced in respect of his manhood. A better instructed faith then began to draw closer to a conception of the Son’s equality with the Father without the necessity of handling the corporeal substance in Christ. As a result of this [substance], he is less than the Father, since, while the nature of the glorified body still remained, the faith of believers was called on to touch not with the hand of flesh but with the spiritual understanding the Only Begotten, who was equal with the Father. And this is why the Lord said to Mary Magdalene (who represents the church), when she hurriedly approached and touched him, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father,” that is, I would not have you come to me as to a human body or recognize me by fleshly perceptions. I want you to wait for higher things. I prepare greater things for you. When I have ascended to my Father, then you shall handle me more perfectly and truly, for you shall grasp what you cannot touch and believe what you cannot see. — SERMON 74.4

Origen of Alexandria: But after he had destroyed his enemies through his passion, the Lord, who is mighty in battle and strong, required a purification that could be given to him by his Father alone. And this is why he forbids Mary to touch him. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 6.287

Origen of Alexandria: It belongs to the resurrection that one should be on the first day in the paradise of God, and it belongs to the resurrection when Jesus appears and says, “Do not touch me. For I am not yet ascended to my Father,” but the perfection of the resurrection was when he came to the Father. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 10.245

Pseudo-Clement: Also, when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was talking with the woman of Samaria by the well alone, “His disciples came” and found Him talking with her, “and wondered that Jesus was standing and talking with a woman.” [John 4:27] Is He not a rule, such as may not be set aside, an example, and a pattern to all the tribes of men? And not only so; but also, when our Lord was risen from the place of the dead, and Mary came to the place of sepulture, she ran and fell at the feet of our Lord and worshipped Him, and would have taken hold of Him. But He said to her: “Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father.” [John 20:17] Is it not, then, matter for astonishment, that, while our Lord did not allow Mary, the blessed woman, to touch His feet, yet you live with them, and are waited on by women and maidens, and sleep where they sleep, and women wash your feet for you, and anoint you! — Two Epistles on Virginity

Romanos the Melodist: Carried away by the warmth of her affection and by her fervent love, The maiden hurried, wanting to take hold of him, Who is not containable, who fills all creation. But the Creator did not fault her eagerness; Instead, he elevated her to the divine, saying, “Do not touch me; or do you consider me merely mortal? I am God, do not touch me. O holy woman, lift up your eyes and consider the heavens; Seek me there, For I am ascending to my Father, Whom I have not left. For I exist simultaneously with him And share the same throne and honor with him, I Who offer resurrection to the fallen.” — KONTAKION ON THE RESURRECTION 40.11

Tertullian: Now, does this mean I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or does it mean I ascend as the Son to the Father and as the Word to God? This is also why this Gospel, at the very end, intimates that these things were ever written … “that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Wherever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views at that point, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father but the Son. — AGAINST PRAXEAS 25

Tertullian: But not so; Jesus saith unto her, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren” (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), “and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, “that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? " Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. — Against Praxeas

Tertullian: How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive that by the name of Christ some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ is God the Father, when He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,” He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another Father and another God. — Against Praxeas

Theodore of Mopsuestia: It is the custom of our Lord that, while his providence is preparing something, he seems to do something else according to the sense of his words. For instance, this is how he acted with the woman who suffered from hemorrhages. He asked, “Who touched me?” He certainly knew the answer. However he seemed to ask as if he did not know, so that the woman who had touched him might be afraid and manifest the miracle and show her faith though which, since it was adequate, she had received her healing.… And it is the same here as well. He first showed himself to the woman after his resurrection and was about to ascend into heaven, and by now he wanted to teach the disciples that they did not only have to believe in resurrection, because their sight testified to the reality of the facts, but also so that they might know he was not going to remain on earth after his resurrection but would also ascend into heaven to receive greater glory with his Father. Since this is so, it seems he says these things to the woman and forbids her to touch him as if she was not supposed to come into contact with his body in the same way anymore, since he was now provided with a different and much more powerful body. But this is the real meaning: Through what he said he wanted both to teach his disciples about his resurrection and his ascension. And this is evident from the fact that he showed himself again to the disciples who were in doubt, and he ordered them to touch the wounds on his body in the spots of the nails. So this is not the reason he kept the woman from coming into contact with him. And we cannot say that she was prevented because she was a woman; indeed, he allowed her to touch his feet many times. If she could not touch him because she was a woman, he would have forbidden her to do so even before. If he had forbidden the woman because his body had been transformed into a better state, he would have not allowed the disciples to confirm with their touch their faith in his resurrection. And then, if she also, by any chance, had doubted, like them, wouldn’t he have allowed her to confirm her faith through the contact with him? If someone says that he did not care about the faith of this woman or her unbelief, this is quite foolish. But since he had allowed her to come to him then, is it possible that the reward that he gave her for her faith was the privation of contact with him? And does this not look hateful, especially to educated people? Therefore, with his words he revealed two things: first, that his body after the resurrection was in a stronger and more excellent condition than before and therefore was not to be exposed to any human contact; second, that he would be assumed into heaven, to be connected forever with the Father in honor. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.17

Theodoret of Cyrus: For the human being who died rises up on the third day. But when Mary strives with longing to touch his holy limbs, he objected and says to her, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.’ ” God the Word, who comes from heaven and lives in the bosom of the Father, did not utter the phrase “I have not yet ascended to my Father.” The Wisdom that embraces all things that exists did not say it either. This was spoken by the very human being who was formed out of all kinds of limbs, who had been raised from the dead and who after death had not yet ascended to his Father but reserved for himself the firstfruit of his passage. — DIALOGUE 3.12

John 20:18

Augustine of Hippo: While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, “Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him.” So we gather that there were two visions of angels. We also understand that our Lord too was seen twice: once when Mary took him for the gardener and again when he met them by the way. In this way, by repeating his presence, he strengthens their faith and calms their fears.… And so Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, not alone but with the other women whom Luke mentions. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 3.24.69

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Con. Evang. iii. xxiv. 69) She then went away from the sepulchre, i. e. from that part of the garden before the rock which had been hollowed out, and with her the other women. But these, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and amazement, and said nothing to any man: Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 25) While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. (Matthew 28:9) So we gather that there were two visions of Angels; and that our Lord too was seen twice, once when Mary took Him for the gardener, and again, when He met them by the way, and by this repeating His presence confirmed their faith. And so Mary Magdalen came and told the disciples, not alone, but with the other women whom Luke mentions. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Mystically, Mary, which name signifies, mistress, enlightened, enlightener, star of the sea, stands for the Church, which is also Magdalen, i. e. towered, (Magdalen being Greek for tower,) as we read in the Psalms, Thou hast been a strong tower for me. (Ps. 61:3) In that she announced Christ’s resurrection to the disciples, all, especially those to whom the office of preaching is committed, are admonished to be zealous in setting forth to others whatever is revealed from above. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: That race which is specially subject to weakness—-I mean the race of women—-is restored by the loving-kindness of our Saviour, Who, in a manner, rolled up in one the source and origin of our infirmities, and ameliorated them for the future. For Mary announced that she had seen the Lord, Who had escaped from the bonds of death, and had heard His Voice, and brought to the disciples the words of life, and the firstfruits of the Divine Gospel. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxv.) So the sin of mankind is buried in the very place whence it came forth. For whereas in Paradise the woman gave the man the deadly fruit, a woman from the sepulchre announced life to men; a woman delivers the message of Him who raises us from the dead, as a woman had delivered the words of the serpent who slew us. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: “Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and he said these things to me.” Behold, the guilt of the human race is cut off from where it proceeded. For because in paradise a woman served death to man, from the tomb a woman announces life to men; and she narrates the words of her life-giver who had narrated the words of the death-bearing serpent. As if the Lord says to the human race not in words but in deeds: From the same hand by which the drink of death was brought to you, receive the cup of life. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25

John Chrysostom: So great a good is perseverance and endurance. But how was it that they did not any more grieve when He was about to depart, nor speak as they had done before? At that time they were affected in such a way, as supposing that He was about to die; but now that He was risen again, what reason had they to grieve? Moreover, Mary reported His appearance and His words, which were enough to comfort them. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John 20:19

Augustine of Hippo: But since you have repeatedly asked me what I thought about the resurrection of bodies and the future functions of the members in that incorruptibility and immortality, listen briefly to what could with the Lord’s help be further discussed. We must hold most firmly that point on which the statement of the holy Scripture is truthful and clear, namely, that these visible and earthly bodies that are now called natural will be spiritual in the resurrection of the faithful and righteous. But I do not know how the character of a spiritual body, unknown as it is to us, can be either comprehended or taught. Certainly there will be no corruption in them, and for this reason they will not then need this corruptible food that they now need. They will, nonetheless, be able to take and really consume such food, not out of need. Otherwise, the Lord would not have taken food after his resurrection. And he offered us an example of bodily resurrection so that the apostle says of him, “If the dead will not rise, neither has Christ risen.” When he appeared with all the members of his body and used their functions, he also displayed the places of his wounds. I have always taken these as scars, not as actual wounds, and saw them as the result of his power, not of some necessity. He revealed the ease of this power, especially when he either showed himself in another form or appeared as his real self to the disciples gathered in the house when the doors were closed. — LETTER 95.7

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Serm. cx. et cl. Pasch. aliquid simile.) Some are strongly indisposed to believe this miracle, and argue thus: If the same body rose again, which hung upon the Cross, how could that body enter through shut doors? But if thou comprehendest the mode, it is no miracle: when reason fails, then is faith edified.

(Tr. cxx) The shut door did not hinder the body, wherein Divinity resided. He could enter without open doors, who was born without a violation of His mother’s virginity. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, I have seen the Lord, and He hath spoken these things unto me. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side.” For nails had pierced His hands, a spear had laid open His side: and there the marks of the wounds are preserved for healing the hearts of the doubting. But the shutting of doors presented no obstacle to the matter of His body, wherein Godhead resided. He indeed could enter without their being opened, by whose birth the virginity of His mother remained inviolate. — Tractates on John 121

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Wherein is shown the infirmity of the Apostles. They assembled with doors shut, through that same fear of the Jews, which had before scattered them: Came Jesus, and stood in the midst. He came in the evening, because they would be the most afraid at that time. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Caesarius of Arles: You ask me and say, If he entered through closed doors, where is the bulk of his body? And I reply, If he walked on the sea, where was the weight of his body? But he [walked on the sea] as the Lord. Did he, then, because he arose, cease to be the Lord? What about the fact that he also made Peter walk upon the sea? What divinity could do in the one, faith fulfilled in the other. Christ was able to do it, and Peter could because Christ willed it. Therefore, when you begin to examine the reasonableness of miracles by your human senses, fear that you may lose your faith. Do you not know that nothing is impossible for God? So when anyone tells you, If he entered through closed doors there was no body, answer him on the contrary, No, if he was touched there was body, and if he ate there was a body. The one thing he did by a miracle, the other by nature. — SERMON 175.2

Cyril of Alexandria: On the selfsame day on which He had appeared unto Mary, and discoursed with her, He also showed Himself to the holy disciples, who dreaded the intolerable attacks of the impious Jews, and were, on that account, collected together in a certain house. For it was not likely that they who had been so instructed, and had often been bidden to make haste to escape from the wrath of their would-be murderers, would be found lacking in proper prudence. Christ miraculously appears unto them. For while the doors were shut, as the Apostle says, Christ unexpectedly stood in the midst, by His ineffable Divine power rising superior to the chain of cause and effect, and showing Himself able to dispense with the design and method appropriate to His action. For let no man say, “How did the Lord, Whose Body was of solid Flesh, enter without let or hindrance, though the doors were shut?” but rather let him reflect that the Evangelist is not here speaking of one of ourselves, but rather of Him Who is enthroned by the side of God the Father, and Who easily doth whatsoever He will. For He that was by Nature the true God, was of necessity not subject unto the sequences of cause and effect, as are the creatures that owe their being to Him; but rather does He exercise Lordship over necessity itself, and due and appropriate methods of performance. For how did He make the sea afford a footing unto His Feet, and walk thereon as upon dry land, though we are not so framed that we can tread upon the paths of the sea? And how did He perform the rest of His marvellous works with God-like power? All these things, you will say, surpass man’s understanding. Put this miracle of Christ side by side with the rest, and do not, following the opinion of certain men, who, in the folly of their hearts, have been led astray to judge falsely, imagine on account of this very occurrence that Christ rose again without His human Body, wholly bereft thereof, and severed from the Temple that He had taken on Himself. For if thou canst not understand the working of God’s ineffable Nature, why dost thou not rather cry out against the infirmity of man’s reason —-for that would be the wiser course—-and then silently acquiesce in the limit prescribed to you by the Creator? For in rejecting the conclusion of wisdom, thou doest |667 wrong to the great mystery of the Resurrection, on which all our reliance is fixed. For remember the exclamation of Paul: If the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins. And again: Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that He raised up Christ: Whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For what can be raised up save that which is fallen? or what restored to life, save that which is bowed down in death? And how shall we expect to rise again, if so be that Christ raised not up His own Temple, making Himself, for us, the Firstfruits of them which are asleep, and the Firstborn from the dead? Or how shall this mortal put on immortality, if, as some think, it be lost in total annihilation? For how shall it escape this fate if it have no hope of a new life? Do not, then, swerve from orthodoxy in the faith, because a miracle was accomplished; but rather be wise, and add this to the other marvellous works that Christ did.

For observe how, by unexpectedly entering when the doors were shut, Christ showed, once more, that He was by Nature God, and no other than He Who had erewhile dwelt among them; and also, by laying bare the wounded Side of His Body, and by showing the print of the nails, He gave us complete satisfaction that He had raised that Temple of His Body which had hung upon the Cross, and had restored to life that Body which He had worn, thereby subduing death, which is due to all flesh, inasmuch as He was by Nature Life and God. What need, then, was there for Him to show them His Hands and Side, if, as some perversely think, He did not rise again with His Body? And, if He wished His disciples not to entertain this idea concerning Him, why did He not rather appear in another form, and, disdaining the likeness of flesh, conjure up other thoughts in their minds’? But, as it is, He thought it of so great importance that they should be convinced of the Resurrection of His Body, that, when the time even seemed to call Him to change His Body into some form of ineffable and surpassing Majesty, He resolved in His Providence to appear once more as He had been of old, that He might not be thought to be wearing any other form than that in which also He had suffered crucifixion. For that our eyes could not have endured the glory of the holy Body, if Christ had chosen to reveal it unto the disciples before He ascended to the Father, is easily to be inferred, when we reflect upon His transfiguration on the Mount before the holy disciples. For the blessed Matthew the Evangelist writes, that Jesus took Peter, and James, and John, and went up into the mountain, and was transfigured before them: and His Face did shine as lightning, and His garments became white as snow, and they could not endure the sight, but fell on their faces. Very appropriately, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, as He had not yet transformed the Temple of His Body into its due and proper majesty, still appeared in His original shape, not wishing the belief in the Resurrection to be transferred to another form or body than that which He had received from the Holy Virgin, in which also He was crucified, and died, according to the Scripture, the power of death extending only over Flesh, from which also it was driven forth. For if His Body, after death, did not rise again, what sort of death was vanquished, and in what way was the power of corruption weakened? For it could not be by the death of a single rational being, or soul, or angel, or even the very Word of God. When, then, the power of death has reference only to that which is doomed by nature to corruption, with this it is that the power of the Resurrection is concerned, and with this alone, in order that the dominion of the lord of this world might be taken away. The entry of our Lord through the closed doors must be classed, by men of wisdom, with the other miracles that He wrought. He then greeted His holy disciples. Peace be unto you, He says; meaning by peace, Himself. For while Christ is present among men it follows that the tranquillity of their minds is assured unto them. Paul also declared that this boon is granted to those who believe on Him, when he says: The peace of Christ, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts; meaning by the peace of Christ which passeth all understanding nothing else than His Spirit, of Which if any man partake he shall be filled with everything that is good. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: By his unexpected entry through closed doors Christ proved once more that by nature he was God and also that he was none other than the one who had lived among them. By showing his wounded side and the marks of the nails, he convinced us beyond a doubt that he had raised the temple of his body, the very body that had hung on the cross. He restored that body that he had worn, destroying death’s power over all flesh, for as God, he was life itself. Why would he need to show them his hands and side if, as some perversely think, he did not rise again bodily? And if the goal was not to have the disciples think about him in this way, why not appear in another form and, disdaining any likeness of the flesh, conjure up other thoughts in their minds? But he obviously thought it was that important to convince them of the resurrection of his body that, even when events would have seemed to call for him to change the mode of his body into some more ineffable and surpassing majesty, he nonetheless resolved in his providence to appear once more as he had been in the past [i.e., in the flesh] so that they might realize he was wearing no other form than the one in which he had suffered crucifixion. Our eyes could not have endured the glory of his holy body, if he had chosen to reveal it to his disciples before he ascended to the Father. Anyone who reflects on the transfiguration will easily infer this is the case.… since, it says, they could not endure the sight but fell on their faces. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: When Christ greeted his holy disciples with the words “peace be with you,” by peace he meant himself, for Christ’s presence always brings tranquility of soul. This is the grace Paul desired for believers when he wrote, “The peace of Christ which passes all understanding will guard your hearts and minds.” The peace of Christ which passes all understanding is in fact the Spirit of Christ, who fills those who share in him with every blessing. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory of Nyssa: He did not remain in death’s power. The wounds that his body had received from the iron of the nails and spear offered no impediment to his rising again. After his resurrection he showed himself whenever he wanted to his disciples. When he wished to be present with them, he was in their midst without being seen, needing no entrance through open doors.… All of these occurrences, and whatever other similar facts we know about his life, require no further argument to show that they are signs of deity and of a sublime and supreme power. — THE GREAT CATECHISM 32

Gregory the Dialogist: The first question of this Gospel reading strikes the mind: how was the Lord’s body truly real after the resurrection, if it could enter to the disciples through closed doors? But we must understand that if divine operation is comprehended by reason, it is not wondrous; nor does faith have merit when human reason provides proof. But these very works of our Redeemer, which cannot at all be understood from themselves, must be weighed by another of his operations, so that more wondrous deeds may lend credence to wondrous things. For that body of the Lord entered to the disciples through closed doors—the same body which, at his birth, came forth to human eyes from the closed womb of the Virgin. What wonder is it then if, after his resurrection, he who will now live forever entered through closed doors, when he who came to die went forth from the Virgin’s unopened womb? — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvi) The disciples, when they heard what Mary told them, were obliged either to disbelieve, or, if they believed, to grieve that He did not count them worthy to have the sight of Him. He did not let them however pass a whole day in such reflections, but in the midst of their longing trembling desires to see Him, presented Himself to them: Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews.

(Hom. lxxxvi) It is wonderful that they did not think him a phantom. But Mary had provided against this, by the faith she had wrought in them. And He Himself too showed Himself so openly, and strengthened their wavering minds by His voice: And saith unto them, Peace he unto you, i. e. Be not disturbed. Wherein too He reminds them of what He had said before His crucifixion; My peace I give to you; (c. 14:27; 16:33) and again, In Me ye shall have peace.

(Hom. lxxxvi) And what He had promised before the crucifixion, I shall see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, is now fulfilled: Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.

(Hom. lxxxvi) All these things brought them to a most confident faith. As they were in endless war with the Jews, He says again, Then said Jesus unto them again, Peace be unto you.

(Hom. lxxxvi. 3) At the same time He shows the efficacy of the cross, by which He undoes all evil things, and gives all good things; which is peace. To the women above there was announced joy; for that sex was in sorrow, and had received the curse, In sorrow shalt thou bring forth. (Gen. 3:16) All hindrances then being removed, and every thing made straight, (πατωρθωται.) he adds, As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.

(Hom. lxxxvi. 2) Having then given them confidence by His own miracles, and appealing to Him who sent Him, He uses a prayer to the Father, but of His own authority gives them power: And when He had said thus, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

(Hom. lxxxvi) Some say that by breathing He did not give them the Spirit, but made them meet to receive the Spirit. For if Daniel’s senses were so overpowered by the sight of the Angel, how would they have been overwhelmed in receiving that unutterable gift, if He had not first prepared them for it! It would not be wrong however to say that they received then the gift of a certain spiritual power, not to raise the dead and do miracles, but to remit sins: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

(Hom. lxxxvi. 4) A priest though he may have ordered well his own life, yet, if he have not exercised proper vigilance over others, is sent to hell with the evil doers. Wherefore, knowing the greatness of their danger, pay them all respect, even though they be not men of notable goodness. For they who are in rule, should not be judged by those who are under them. And their incorrectness of life will not at all invalidate what they do by commission from God. For not only cannot a priest, but not even angel or archangel, do any thing of themselves; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost do all. The priest only furnishes the tongue, and the hand. For it were not just that the salvation of those who come to the Sacraments in faith, should be endangered by another’s wickedness. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Since then it was likely that the disciples on hearing these things would either not believe the woman, or, believing, would grieve that He had not deemed them worthy of the vision, though He promised to meet them in Galilee; in order that they might not by dwelling on this be unsettled, He let not a single day pass, but having brought them to a state of longing, by their knowledge that He was risen, and by what they heard from the woman, when they were thirsting to see Him, and were greatly afraid, (which thing itself especially made their yearning greater,) He then, when it was evening, presented Himself before them, and that very marvelously. And why did He appear in the “evening”? Because it was probable that they would then especially be very fearful. But the marvel was, why they did not suppose Him to be an apparition; for He entered, “when the doors were shut,” and suddenly. The chief cause was, that the woman beforehand had wrought great faith in them; besides, He showed His countenance to them dear and mild. He came not by day, in order that all might be collected together. For great was the amazement; for neither did He knock at the door but all at once stood in the midst, and showed His side and His hands. At the same time also by His Voice He smoothed their tossing thought, by saying, “Peace be unto you.” That is, “Be not troubled”; at the same time reminding them of the word which He spake to them before the Crucifixion, “My peace I leave unto you”; and again, “In me ye have peace, but in the world ye shall have tribulation.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: Seest thou the words issuing in deeds? For what He said before the Crucifixion, that “I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you,” this He now accomplished in deed; but all these things led them to a most exact faith. For since they had a truceless war with the Jews, He continually repeated the, “Peace be unto you,” giving them, to counterbalance the war, the consolation. And so this was the first word that He spake to them after the Resurrection, (wherefore also Paul continually saith, “Grace be unto you and peace,”) and to women He giveth good tidings of joy, because that sex was in sorrow, and had received this as the first curse. Therefore He giveth good tidings suitable respectively, to men, peace, because of their war; joy to women, because of their sorrow. Then having put away all painful things, He telleth of the successes of the Cross, and these were the “peace.” “Since then all hindrances have been removed,” He saith, “and I have made My victory glorious, and all hath been achieved,” (then He saith afterwards,) “As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you.” “Ye have no difficulty, owing to what hath already come to pass, and to the dignity of Me who send you.” Here He lifteth up their souls, and showeth them their great cause of confidence, if so be that they were about to undertake His work. And no longer is an appeal made to the Father, but with authority He giveth to them the power. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: “He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power. But how saith He, “If I go not away, He will not come,” and yet giveth them the Spirit? Some say that He gave not the Spirit, but rendered them fit to receive It, by breathing on them. For if Daniel when he saw an Angel was afraid, what would not they have suffered when they received that unspeakable Gift, unless He had first made them learners? Wherefore He said not, “Ye have received the Holy Ghost,” but, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Yet one will not be wrong in asserting that they then also received some spiritual power and grace; not so as to raise the dead, or to work miracles, but so as to remit sins. For the gifts of the Spirit are of different kinds; wherefore He added, “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” showing what kind of power He was giving. But in the other case, after forty days, they received the power of working miracles. Wherefore He saith, “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea.” And witnesses they became by means of miracles, for unspeakable is the grace of the Spirit and multiform the gift. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: But this comes to pass, that thou mayest learn that the gift and the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is One. For things which appear to be peculiar to the Father, these are seen also to belong to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. “How then,” saith some one, “doth none come to the Son, except the Father draw him?” Why, this very thing is shown to belong to the Son also. “I,” He saith, “am the Way: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” And observe that it belongeth to the Spirit also; for “No man can call Jesus Christ Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Again, we see that the Apostles were given to the Church at one time by the Father, at another by the Son, at another by the Holy Ghost, and that the “diversities of gifts” belong to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

John Chrysostom: Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation hath been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. “Whosesoever sins,” it saith, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them”; wherefore also Paul saith, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about thine own affairs, and if thou orderest them well, thou givest no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for thine, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by yours, if he have not rightly performed all his part. Knowing therefore the greatness of the danger, give them a large share of your goodwill; which Paul also implied when he said, “For they watch for your souls,” and not simply so, but, “as they that shall give account.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 86

Maximus the Confessor: Through his greeting of peace he breathes on them and bestows tranquility as well as a sharing in the Holy Spirit. — CHAPTERS ON KNOWLEDGE 2.46

Peter Chrysologus: It was evening more by grief than by time. It was evening for minds darkened by the somber cloud of grief and sadness because although the report of the resurrection had given the slight glimmer of twilight, nevertheless the Lord had not yet shone through with his light in all its brilliance. — SERMON 84.2

Peter Chrysologus: The extent of their terror and the disquiet caused by such an atrocity had simultaneously locked the house and the hearts of the disciples and had so completely prevented light from having any access that for their senses, overwhelmed more and more by grief, the murkiness of night increased and became more pervasive. No darkness of night can be compared with the gloom of grief and fear because they are incapable of being tempered by any light of either consolation or counsel. — SERMON 84.2

Theophylact of Ohrid: When Mary Magdalene brought her news to the disciples, it is likely that they reacted in one of two ways: either they did not believe her, or, if they did, they were crestfallen because they were not deemed worthy to see Christ. Meanwhile, fear of the Jews was increasing the disciples’ longing to see the only One Who could relieve their anxiety. And so the Lord appeared to them that very evening, when all of them were gathered together. It is written that He appeared when the doors were shut, meaning, He entered through locked doors. This was to show that He had risen in the very same manner, while the entrance to the tomb was shut with a stone. One would think they might have taken Him for a ghost, but Mary Magdalene’s testimony had greatly strengthened their faith. Also, He manifested Himself in such a way as to calm their tumultuous thoughts: Peace be unto you, He said gently, meaning, “Be not afraid.” This was to remind them of what He had told them before the crucifixion: My peace I give unto you (Jn. 14:27). Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. This, too, He had foretold before His death: I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice (Jn. 16:22). It was well that He should say to them again, Peace, for the disciples were now engaged in desperate struggle with the Jews. As He had said, Rejoice! to the women (Mt. 28:9), because sorrows were their lot, so He grants peace to the disciples, who were now, and would always be, at war with the Jews.

It is fitting that He grants joy to the women, condemned to bear children in pain and suffering; and peace to the men, on account of the warfare that would engulf them for preaching the Gospel. At the same time He reveals that the cross has ushered in peace: “The cross has brought peace: now I send you forth to proclaim it.” To strengthen and embolden the disciples, He declares, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. It is My work you have undertaken, so do it boldly: I will be with you.” Behold the authority of his command: “It is I Who sends you  (̓Εγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς).” No longer does He condescend to the limitations of their understanding, saying as He often did before the resurrection, “I will ask My Father and He will send you.” Now He breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit—but not the entirety of the gift He would bestow at Pentecost. Receive ye the Holy Spirit, means, “Let this partial bestowal of grace make you ready to receive later the fullness of the Holy Spirit.” The words, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, indicate the particular gift He gives the disciples now: power to forgive sins. Later, on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit Himself would descend in all His might, lavishing upon the apostles every spiritual gift and power to work wondrous deeds, such as raising the dead.

It is worth considering why John records only that Christ appeared to His disciples in Jerusalem, while Matthew and Mark say that He promised to appear to them in Galilee (see Mt. 26:32; Mk. 14:28). Some have explained it this way: “Christ never said He would appear to the disciples only in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, He appeared to the twelve, whereas in Galilee, He appeared to all His disciples, in accordance with His promise. The fact that He showed Himself many times to the twelve indicates that He honored them more highly than the others.” From this we again see that there are no irreconcilable disagreements between the accounts of the Evangelists. There were many appearances of the Lord after His resurrection, and each Evangelist selected certain ones to record. When two Evangelists describe the same event, the second usually tells what the first has omitted. And now, O reader, reflect upon the divine rank of the priesthood. The power to forgive sins is a divine power; hence, we must show honor to the priests as to God. Even if they are unworthy, they are still ministers of divine gifts, and grace empowers them (ἐνεργεῖ διʹαὐτῶν) just as it empowered Balaam’s ass, enabling it to speak (see Num. 22:28-30). Human frailty does not hinder the working of grace. Therefore, since grace is bestowed through the priests, let us honor them.

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or because He waited till all were assembled: and with shut doors, that he might show how that in the very same way he had risen again, i. e. with the stone lying on the scpulchre. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 20:20

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) The nails had pierced His hands, the lance had pierced His side. For the healing of doubting hearts, the marks of the wounds were still preserved.

(de Civ. Dei.) The glory, wherewith the righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father, i. e. in Christ’s body, we must believe to have been rather veiled than not to have been there at all. He accommodated His presence to man’s weak sight, and presented Himself in such form, as that His disciple could look at and recognise Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said He unto them again, Peace be unto you.” Reiteration is confirmation; for He Himself gives by the prophet a promised peace upon peace. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: Hereby, also, the blessed Evangelist testifies to the truth of our Saviour’s Words, when he says that the disciples were full of peace and joy of heart when they saw Jesus. For we remember the mysterious utterance that He spake unto them concerning His precious Cross and Resurrection from the dead, saying: A little while, and ye behold Me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me; and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one talceth away from you. The Jews, indeed, whose minds were transported by a frenzy of fury, rejoiced when they saw Jesus nailed to the Cross, while the heart of the holy disciples was heavy laden with an intolerable burthen of sorrow. But as He is by Nature Life, He overcame the power of death, and rose again, and the joy of the Jews was extinguished, while the heaviness of the holy disciples was turned into joy, and nothing could rob or deprive them of their soul’s delight. Christ, having died once for all to put away sin, dieth no more, as is written. For He is alive for evermore, and of a surety He will preserve those whose hope is in Him, in joy without ceasing. He once more greets them with the oft-repeated assurance: Peace be unto you; laying down, as it were, this law for the children of the Church. Therefore, also, more especially in the assembling and gathering of ourselves together in holy places, at the very commencement of the blessed mystery of the Eucharist, we repeat this saying to one another. For our being at peace with each other and with God must be accounted a fountain and source of all good. Therefore, also, Paul, when he prays that those who are called may enjoy the highest of all blessings, says: Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; and also, when he invites those who have not yet believed to make their peace with God, he says: We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. None the less, also, the Prophet Isaiah exhorts us, crying out: Let us make peace with Him, let us make peace who come. The meaning of the saying well befits the Dispenser of Peace, or rather the Peace of all men; that is, Christ, for He is our peace, according to the Scripture. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi. in Evang.) And because their faith wavered even with the material body before them, He showed them His hands and side: And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: But because the faith of those looking on doubted that body which could be seen, he immediately showed them his hands and side; he offered his flesh to be touched, the same flesh he had brought in through closed doors. In this matter he showed two wondrous things, quite contrary to one another according to human reason: after his resurrection he demonstrated his body to be both incorruptible and yet tangible. For what is touched must necessarily be subject to corruption, and what is not subject to corruption cannot be touched. But in a wondrous and inestimable way our Redeemer presented his body after the resurrection as both incorruptible and tangible, so that by showing it incorruptible he might invite us to the reward, and by offering it as tangible he might strengthen us in faith. He demonstrated himself therefore both incorruptible and tangible, so that he might clearly show that his body after the resurrection was of the same nature and yet of a different glory. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Irenaeus: In the same manner, therefore, as Christ did rise in the substance of flesh, and pointed out to His disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in His side. then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, — Against Heresies Book V

Irenaeus: As Christ rose in the substance of flesh and pointed out to his disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in his side (now these are the tokens of that flesh that rose from the dead), so “shall he also,” it is said, “raise us up by his own power.” What, then, are mortal bodies? Can they be souls? Not at all, for souls are incorporeal when compared with mortal bodies.… We must therefore conclude that it is in reference to the flesh that death is mentioned. This [flesh], after the soul’s departure, becomes breathless and inanimate and is decomposed gradually into the earth from which it was taken. This, then, is what is mortal. And it is concerning this that [Paul] says, “He shall also enliven your mortal bodies.” — AGAINST HERESIES 5.7.1

Jerome: The substance of our resurrection bodies will certainly be the same as now, though of higher glory. For the Savior after his descent into hell had the same body in which he was crucified. He showed the disciples the marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side. — Against Jovinianus 1.36

Leo the Great: He offers to the doubters’ eyes the marks of the cross that remained in his hands and feet and invites them to handle him with careful scrutiny. He does this because the traces of the nails and spear had been retained to heal the wounds of unbelieving hearts, so that not with wavering faith but with the most certain conviction they might comprehend that the nature that had been lain in the sepulcher was to sit on God the Father’s throne. — SERMON 73.3

Leo the Great: He showed the wound in his side, the marks of the nails and all the signs of his quite recent suffering, saying, “See my hands and feet, that it is I. Handle me and see that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me have,” in order that the properties of his divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable. He also did this so that we might know the Word was not different from the flesh so that we can also confess that the one Son of God is both the Word and flesh. — LETTER 28.5

Theodoret of Cyrus: And so the reason why the Lord stood in the midst of the disciples, even though the doors were closed, after the passion but not before it, was that you might know that your body was sown as a physical body but raised as a spiritual body. But in order that you might not think that what rises is something different, when Thomas did not believe in the resurrection, he shows him the marks of the nails. He shows him the scars of the wounds. He who healed everybody even before the resurrection could have healed himself—especially after the resurrection, could he not? Yes, but through the marks of the nails that he shows he teaches that it is this [body], while through the closed doors by which he enters, he reveals that it is not such a [body as it was]. It was this [body], in order that he might fulfill the goal of the divine plan by raising that which had died, but it was such a body [as it was], in order that it might not lapse into corruption again and not be subject to death again. — DIALOGUE 2.56

John 20:21

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) We have learnt that the Son is equal to the Father: here He shows Himself Mediator; He Me, and I you. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “As the Father hath sent me,” He adds, “even so send I you.” We know the Son to be equal to the Father; but here we recognize the words of the Mediator. For He exhibits Himself as occupying a middle position when He says, He me, and I you. — Tractates on John 121

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): A repetition is a confirmation: whether He repeats it because the grace of love is twofold, or because He it is who made of twain one. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyprian: If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed nay sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?” — Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church 4

Cyprian: But it is manifest where and by whom remission of sins can be given; to wit, that which is given in baptism. For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity-the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven. And after the resurrection, also, He speaks to the apostles, saying, “As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith, unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Whence we perceive that only they who are set over the Church and established in the Gospel law, and in the ordinance of the Lord, are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins; but that without, nothing can either be bound or loosed, where there is none who can either bind or loose anything. — Epistle LXXII

Cyprian: For since in baptism every one has his own sins remitted, the Lord proves and declares in His Gospel that sins can only be put away by those who have the Holy Spirit. For after His resurrection, sending forth His disciples, He speaks to them, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained.” In which place He shows, that he alone can baptize and give remission of sins who has the Holy Spirit. Moreover, John, who was to baptize Christ our Lord Himself, previously received the Holy Ghost while he was yet in his mother’s womb, that it might be certain and manifest that none can baptize save those who have the Holy Spirit. Therefore those who patronize heretics or schismatics must answer us whether they have or have not the Holy Ghost. If they have, why are hands imposed on those who are baptized among them when they come to us, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, since He must surely have been received there, where if He was He could be given? But if heretics and schismatics baptized without have not the Holy Spirit, and therefore hands are imposed on them among us, that here may be received what there neither is nor can be given; it is plain, also, that remission of sins cannot be given by those who, it is certain, have not the Holy Spirit. And therefore, in order that, according to the divine arrangement and the evangelical truth, they may be able to obtain remission of sins, and to be sanctified, and to become temples of God, they must all absolutely be baptized with the baptism of the Church who come from adversaries and antichrists to the Church of Christ. — Epistle LXXV

Cyril of Alexandria: Hereby our Lord Jesus Christ ordained the disciples to be guides and teachers of the world, and to be ministers of His Divine mysteries, and also bade them, for the time was now come, like lights to illuminate and enlighten, not merely the country of Judaea, according to the limit of the commandment of the Law, which extended from Dan even unto Beersheba, according to the Scripture, but rather also all under the sun, and men scattered throughout all lands, wheresoever they dwelt. The saying of Paul, therefore, is true: No man taketh the honour unto himself, but he that is called of God. For our Lord Jesus Christ called into His most glorious apostleship, before all others, His own disciples, and firmly fixed the whole earth, which was well-nigh tottering and in the act of falling, pointing out, as God, men to be props thereof who were well able to support it. Therefore, also, He thus spake by the mouth of the Psalmist, concerning the earth and the Apostles: I have fixed the pillars of it; for the blessed disciples were as the pillars and ground of the truth, whom also He says that He sent forth, even as the Father had sent Him; showing at the same time the dignity of their apostle-ship, and the incomparable honour of the power vouchsafed unto them, and also in all likelihood suggesting the method of life the Apostles were to follow. For if He thought it meet that He should send forth His own disciples, even as the Father had sent Him, was it not necessary for those who were destined to imitate His mission to ascertain what the Father sent forth the Son for to do? In divers ways, then, expounding unto us the character of His own mission, He said in one place: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; and again: They that are whole have no need of a physician; but they that are sick: and again, in another place: For I am come down from heaven, not to do Mine own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Me; and yet once more: For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. Summing up, therefore, in a few words the character of their mission, He says that He sent them even as the Father had sent Him, that they might know thereby that they were bound to call sinners to repentance, and to minister to those who were in evil plight, whether of body or soul, and in all their dealings upon earth, not in any wise to follow their own will, but the Will of Him That sent them, and to save the world by their teaching, so far as was possible. And in truth we shall find the holy disciples eager to show the utmost zeal in performing all these things; and it is not difficult for any one to satisfy himself of this, who has once turned his attention to the Acts of the Apostles, and the words of the holy Paul. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: Christ says that he sent the apostles even as the Father had sent him, that they might fully comprehend their mission: to call sinners to repentance and to minister to those who were caught up in evil, whether of body or soul. In all their dealings on this earth, they were not in any way to follow their own will but the will of him who sent them. They were also called to save the world by their teaching, so far as was possible. And in truth we shall find that holy disciples were eager to show the utmost enthusiasm in performing all these things. It is not difficult for people to see this, if they give their attention to the Acts of the Apostles and the words of the holy Paul. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxii. in Evang.) The Father sent the Son, appointed Him to the work of redemption. He says therefore, As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you; i. e. I love you, now that I send you to persecution, with the same love wherewith My Father loved Me, when He sent Me to My sufferings. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: He said to them: Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I also send you. That is, as God the Father sent me who am God, so I who am man send you who are men. The Father sent the Son, whom he appointed to become incarnate for the redemption of the human race. He willed him to come into the world unto suffering, yet nevertheless he loved the Son whom he sent unto suffering. The Lord sends his chosen apostles into the world not to worldly joys, but, just as he himself was sent, unto sufferings. Since therefore the Son is loved by the Father and yet is sent unto suffering, so also the disciples are loved by the Lord, who nevertheless are sent into the world unto suffering. And so it is said: As the Father has sent me, so I also send you, that is, I love you with that same love when I send you among the offenses of persecutors, with which love the Father loves me, whom he caused to come to endure sufferings. Although “sent” can also be understood according to his divine nature. For the Son is said to be sent by the Father by the very fact that he is begotten by the Father. For the Son declares that he himself sends the Holy Spirit also, who, though coequal with the Father and the Son, nevertheless was not incarnate, saying: When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father. For if “to be sent” ought to be understood only as “to become incarnate,” the Holy Spirit would without doubt in no way be said to be sent, since he was in no way incarnate. But his being sent is that very procession by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Just as therefore the Spirit is said to be sent because he proceeds, so also the Son is not unfittingly said to be sent because he is begotten. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Peter Chrysologus: What does this repetition in bestowing peace mean, except that he wants the tranquility that he had announced to their minds individually also to be kept collectively among them by granting peace repeatedly? He knew, at any rate, that they were going to have far from insignificant struggles in the future stemming from his delay, with one boasting that he had persevered in faith and another in grief because he had doubted. … Peter denies, John flees, Thomas doubts, all forsake him: unless Christ had granted forgiveness for these transgressions by his peace, even Peter, who was the first in rank of all of them, would have been considered inferior and undeserving of his subsequent elevation to the primacy. — SERMON 84.5

Peter Chrysologus: The mention of his having been sent does not diminish him as Son but declares that what he wants to be understood here is not the power of the one who sends but the charity of the one who has been sent. This is why he says, “Just as the Father,” not the Lord, “has sent me, so I send you.” In other words, I send you no longer with the authority of a Master but with all the affection of someone who loves you. I send you to endure hunger, to suffer the burden of chains, to the squalor of prison, to bear all kinds of punishments and to undergo bitter death for all: all of which charity, and not power, enjoins on human minds. — SERMON 84.6

John 20:22

Athanasius of Alexandria: Christ is the true Son, and so when we receive the Spirit, we are made sons. For it says; ‘you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading you back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adopted sonship’ [Romans 8:15]. But when we are made sons in the Spirit, it is clear that we are called children of God in Christ… And when the Spirit is given to us-the Saviour said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22)- God [The Father] is in us… But when God is in us, the Son is also in us. For the Lord Himself said: ‘I and the Father will come and make our home with him’ [John 14:23]. Next, the Son is life-for He said: ‘I am the life’ [John 14:6]- and so we are said to be given life in the Spirit… But when we are given life in the Spirit, Christ Himself is said to live in us. For it says: ‘I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.’ [Galatians 2:19-20]. - “Letters to Separion On the Spirit, Letter 1, Chapter 19”

Athanasius of Alexandria: [He gave the Spirit] to the disciples, demonstrating his Godhead and his majesty and intimating that he was not inferior but equal to the Spirit. And so, he gave the Spirit, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” and “I send him,” and “he shall glorify me,” and “Whatever he hears is what he shall speak.” … Through whom then and from whom is it that the Spirit should be given but through the Son, to whom also the Spirit belongs? And when were we enabled to receive it, except when the Word became man? — Discourses Against the Arians 1.12.50

Augustine of Hippo: But the reason why, after his resurrection, he both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth, and afterward sent him from heaven, is in my judgment this: that “love is shed abroad in our hearts,” by that gift itself, whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those two commandments, “on which hang all the law and the prophets.” And Jesus Christ signified this by giving them the Holy Spirit once on earth because of the love of our neighbor and a second time from heaven because of the love of God. And if some other reason may perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit, at any rate we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit was given when Jesus breathed on them, of whom he says, “Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” where this Trinity is especially commended to us. It is therefore he who was also given from heaven on the day of Pentecost, that is, ten days after the Lord ascended into heaven. — ON THE TRINITY 15.26.46

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (iv. de Trin. c. xx) That corporeal breath was not the substance of the Holy Ghost, but to show, by meet symbol, that the Holy Ghost proceeded not only from the Father, but the Son. For who would be so mad as to say, that it was one Spirit which He gave by breathing, and another which He sent after His ascension? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” By breathing on them He signified that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit, not of the Father alone, but likewise His own. — Tractates on John 121

Cyprian: But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained.” Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishments which they did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like death to theirs? — Epistle LXXIV

Cyril of Alexandria: After dignifying the holy Apostles with the glorious distinction of the apostleship, and appointing them ministers and priests of the Divine Altar, as I have just said, He at once sanctifies them by vouchsafing His Spirit unto them, through the outward sign of His Breath, that we might be firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son, but Consubstantial with Him, and through Him proceeding from the Father; He shows that the gift of the Spirit necessarily attends those who are ordained by Him to be Apostles of God. And why? Because they could have done nothing pleasing unto God, and could not have triumphed over the snares of sin, if they had not been clothed with power from on high, and been transformed into something other than they were before. Therefore, also, it was said to one of old time: The Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into another man; and the Prophet Isaiah also declared that those who waited upon the Lord should renew their strength. The wise Paul, too, when he says that he surpassed some in his labours, that is, in the deeds of an Apostle, adds at once: Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Besides, we say this, that the disciples would never at all have understood the mystery that is in Christ, nor have been true guides in this knowledge, if they had not advanced in the light of the Spirit to a revelation of things which surpass man’s reason and understanding, a revelation which is able to point out to them the heights to which they were bound to ascend; for no man can say Jesus is Lord, as Paul says, but in the Holy Spirit. As, then, they were destined to proclaim that Jesus was the Lord, that is, to preach that He was God and Lord of necessity, therefore they received the grace of the Holy Spirit in immediate connection with the office of apostleship, Christ granting Him unto them, not ministering to the desires of another, but rather vouchsafing Him of Himself; for the Spirit could only come down unto us from the Father through the Son. The old and written Law, however, which contained shadows and types of the reality, ordained that the appointment of priests should be performed in a more physical way, so to say, and that their appointment should be attended with more outward display. For the blessed Moses, by God’s command, bade Aaron and the Levites wash themselves with water: then he slew the ram of consecration and anointed with the blood the tip of Aaron’s right ear, as is written, and also put of the blood upon the thumb of the right hand, and upon the big toe of the right foot, giving an outline and type, as in a picture, of the mystery concerning Christ. For in the presence here of water and blood, the instruments of sanctification, how can there be any question that in an obscure type an outline was given of the fair beauty of the reality? Our Lord Jesus Christ, transforming into the power of truth the figure of the Law, consecrates through Himself the ministers of the Divine Altar. For He is the Lamb of consecration, and He consecrates by actual sanctification, making men partakers in His Nature, through participation in the Spirit, and in some sort strengthening the nature of man into a power and glory that is superhuman.

And there can be no doubt that the explanation I have here given can be proved not to err from the truth. But, perhaps, someone will come and say as follows, with a praiseworthy desire for knowledge, it may be, putting to us the question, “Where then, and when, did the Saviour’s disciples receive the grace of the Spirit? When the Saviour appeared unto them in the house, immediately after the Resurrection, and breathed upon them, saying: Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or in the days of the holy Pentecost, when, as they were again assembled together in one place, suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind. And there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them. And they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance?” For either, such an one will say, we must suppose that a double grace was given unto them, or we must remain in ignorance of the occasion on which they, in fact, became partakers in the Holy Spirit; if indeed our Saviour’s saying, and that which is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, is found to be true. And, indeed, the question may well excite our perplexity, especially as Christ Himself said: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter cannot come unto you; but when I depart, I will send Him unto you; for the inquirer will perhaps go on to say, “The Truth, that is, Christ, cannot lie. When, then, He said in plain words that the Comforter would not come unto the disciples unless He were taken up unto the Father, but of a surety He would send Him then, when He was in heaven at His side; how, then, can He be supposed to grant the gift of the Spirit, though His journey from hence was not yet accomplished?” Still, though the inquiry is very obscure, and very likely to cause perplexity, it yet allows of an appropriate solution, when we remember our faith that Christ is not as one of ourselves, but rather is God, and of God, and so exercises dominion over His own Words, and moulds them to suit His purposes.

For He proclaimed that He would send down to us from heaven the Comforter, when He was ascended to God the Father; and this, indeed, He did, when He had gone away to the Father, and vouchsafed to shed forth the Spirit abundantly upon all who were willing to receive it. For any man could receive it, through faith, that is, and Holy Baptism; and then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the voice of the Prophet: I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh. But it was necessary that the Son should appear as co-operating with the Father in granting the Spirit; it was necessary that those who believed on Him should understand that He is the Power of the Father, That has created this whole world, and called man out of nothing into being. For God the Father, at the beginning, by His own Word, took of the dust of the ground, as is written, and fashioned the animal, that is man, and endowed him with a soul, according to His Will, and illuminated him with a share of His own Spirit; for He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, as is written. And when it came to pass that through disobedience man fell under the power of death, and lost his ancient honour, God the Father built him up and restored him to newness of life, through the Son, as at the beginning. And how did the Son restore him? By the death of His own Flesh He slew death, and brought the race of man back again into incorruption; for Christ rose again for us. In order, then, that we might learn that He it was Who at the beginning created our nature, and sealed us with the Holy Spirit, our Saviour again grants the Spirit, through the outward sign of His Breath, to the holy disciples, as being the firstfruits of renewed nature. For Moses writes concerning our creation of old, that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life. As, then, at the beginning, man was formed and came into being, so likewise is he renewed; and as he was then formed in the Image of his Creator, so likewise now, by participation in the Spirit, is he transformed into the Likeness of his Maker. For that the Spirit impresses the Saviour’s Image on the hearts of those who receive Him surely does not admit of question; for Paul plainly exhorteth those who had fallen through weakness into observance of the Law, in the words: My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. For he says that Christ will not be formed in them save by partaking of the Holy Spirit, and living according to the law of the Gospel. Therefore, as in the firstfruits of creation, which is made regenerate into incorruption and glory and into the Image of God, Christ establishes anew His own Spirit in His disciples. For it was necessary that we should also perceive this truth, namely, that He brings down and grants the Spirit unto us. Therefore, also, He said: All things, whatsoever the Father hath, are Mine. And as the Father hath, of Himself and in Himself, His own Spirit, so also the Son hath the Spirit in Himself, because He is Consubstantial with Him, and essentially proceeded from Him, having by Nature in Himself all the attributes of His Father.

From the following fact we can prove that, many as were the actions that He repeatedly promised us that He would perform in due season, He even in part anticipated the appointed time in the performance of them, for our edification, that we might be fully convinced that whatsoever He has spoken will assuredly come to pass. He declared that He would raise up the dead, and bring back again to life those who are lying in the earth and in tombs. The hour cometh, He says, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto the resurrection of judgment. And, desiring to satisfy us that He could readily accomplish this, He taught, saying: I am the Resurrection and the Life. But, inasmuch as the vastness of the miracle made it difficult of belief that the dead could ever be restored to life, He anticipated to our profit the time of the Resurrection, and gave us a sign by raising Lazarus and the widow’s son and the daughter of Jairus. And what else besides? As He said that full of glory would be the resurrection of the Saints, for then, He says, shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father, in order that here again He might be believed to speak truth, He granted the sight thereof before the time to the disciples. For He took Peter and James and John, and went up into the mountain, and was transfigured before them: and His Face did shine as lightning, and His garments became white as snow. Just as, then, although He promised to accomplish these things in their season, yet He performed the works in part and with a limited scope even out of due time, as an earnest and foretaste of that which was expected to come to pass and to affect the whole world, so doing in order that faith in Him might not be shaken; even so, likewise, after having said that He would send the Comforter to us when He went away to the Father, and having fixed this occasion for granting this grace universally, He performed in the persons of His disciples the first instalment, as it were, of the promise, for the many just and sufficient reasons we have previously given.

They, therefore, partook of the Holy Spirit when He breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; for it were impossible for Christ to lie, and He would never have said “Receive” without giving; but in the days of Holy Pentecost, when God more openly proclaimed His grace, and manifested the stablishment of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, there appeared unto them tongues through flame, not signifying the beginning of the gift of the Spirit in their hearts, but rather having reference to the time when they were first endowed with the gift of languages. It is written, indeed, that they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Note, that they began to speak, not to receive sanctification, and that the gift of divers tongues came down upon them; and this was the working of the Spirit that was in them. For just as the Father spake from heaven, and bare witness to His Son, saying, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; and did this to satisfy the minds of those who heard, uttering, or causing to be uttered, a sound as of some instrument which fell upon the ear; even so, also, in the case of the holy disciples He made the manifestation of the grace given them more public, sending down upon them tongues as of fire, and causing the descent of the Holy Spirit to resemble the sound of the rushing of a mighty wind. And that this very portent was given unto the Jews by way of a sign, you will readily see, if you listen to God, the Lord of all, saying by the mouth of the |678 Prophet: By men of strange tongues, and by the lips of strangers, will I speak unto this people, and yet will they not believe. And to the intent that we might believe that the blessed disciples did, in fact, partake of the Holy Spirit, and were from henceforth honoured with the grace of Christ from above, and that they were able to expound the truth, and that the glory of their apostleship was worthy all admiration, witness being borne thereto by the gift from on high, therefore it was that fire came down in the form of tongues.

I think, indeed, that I have here said enough to accurately explain the meaning of the passage; but, inasmuch as we are bound to take every precaution in our treatise, that no stumblingblock spring up to offend the brethren through the carping spirit of any amongst us, let us make this addition to what we have said, and refute the vain talk that we may expect will be started. We shall find, then, in the passage that follows, the words: Thomas, called Didymus, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. How, then, someone may not unreasonably inquire, if he were away, was he in fact made partaker in the Holy Spirit when the Saviour appeared unto the disciples and breathed on them, saying: Receive ye the Holy Ghost? We reply that the power of the Spirit pervaded every man who received grace, and fulfilled the aim of the Lord Who gave Him unto them; and Christ gave the Spirit not to some only but to all the disciples. Therefore, if any were absent, they also received Him, the munificence of the Giver not being confined to those only who were present, but extending to the entire company of the holy Apostles. And that this interpretation is not strained, or our idea extravagant, we may convince you from Holy Writ itself, bringing forward as a proof a passage in the Books of Moses. The Lord God commanded the all-wise Moses to select elders, to the number of seventy, from the assembly of the Jews, and plainly declared: I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee and will put it upon them. Moses, as he was bidden, brought them together, and fulfilled the Divine decree. Two only of the men who were included in the number of the seventy elders were left behind, and remained in the assembly, to wit, Eldad and Medad. Then when God put upon them all the Divine Spirit, as He had promised, those whom Moses had collected together immediately received grace, and prophesied; but none the less also the two who were in the assembly prophesied, and, in fact, the grace from above came upon them first. Nay, further, Joshua, that was called the son of Nun, who was the constant attendant of Moses, not understanding at once the meaning of the mystery, but thinking that after the manner of Dathan and Abiram they were rivals in the art of prophecy to those whom Moses had brought together, said unto him: Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp; my lord Moses, forbid them. And what answered that truly wise and great man, seeing in his wisdom the working of the grace given unto them, and the power of the Spirit? Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them! Observe how he rebukes the saying of Joshua, who knew not what had been done. Would that, he says, the Spirit were given to all the people! Nay, this will indeed come to pass in due season, when the Lord, that is, Christ, will grant unto them His Spirit; breathing upon His holy Apostles as upon the firstfruits of those whose due it is to receive Him, and saying: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Then, if Thomas were absent, he was not cut off from receiving the Spirit, for the Spirit pervaded all whose due it was to receive Him, and who were included among the number of His honoured disciples. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: The Son, sharing the same nature as God the Father, has the Spirit in the same manner that the Father would be understood to have the Spirit. In other words, the Spirit is not something added or which comes from without, for it would be naïve—even insane—to hold such an opinion. But God the Father has the Spirit, just as each one of us has our own breath within us that pours forth from the innermost parts of the body. This is why Christ physically breathed on his disciples, showing that as the breath proceeds physically from the human mouth, so too does Christ, in a manner befitting God, pour forth the [Spirit] from the divine essence. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Jerusalem: This was the second time he breathed on human beings—his first breath having been stifled through willful sins. … But though he bestowed his grace then, he was to lavish it yet more bountifully. And he says to them, I am ready to give it even now, but the vessel cannot yet hold it. For awhile therefore receive as much grace as you can bear. And look forward for yet more. “But stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” Receive it in part now. Then, you shall wear it in its fullness. For the one who receives often possesses only a part of the gift. But the one who is clothed is completely enfolded by his robe. — Catechetical Lecture 17:12

Gregory of Nazianzus: [Christ’s disciples] were able to receive [the Spirit] on three occasions: before he was glorified by the passion, after he was glorified by the resurrection and after his ascension.… Now the first of these manifests him—the healing of the sick and casting out of evil spirits and so does that breathing on them after the resurrection, which was clearly a divine inspiration. And so too the present distribution of the fiery tongues. But the first manifested him indistinctly, the second more expressly, this present one more perfectly, since he is no longer present only in energy but … substantially, associating with us and dwelling in us. — ON PENTECOST, ORATION 41.11

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi.) But why is He first given to the disciples on earth, and afterwards sent from heaven? Because there are two commandments of love, to love God, and to love our neighbour. The spirit to love our neighbour is given on earth, the spirit to love God is given from heaven. As then love is one, and there are two commandments; so the Spirit is one, and there are two gifts of the Spirit. And the first is given by our Lord while yet upon earth, the second from heaven, because by the love of our neighbour we learn how to arrive at the love of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. We must ask why it is that our Lord gave the Holy Spirit once while standing on earth, and once while presiding from heaven? For in no other place is the giving of the Holy Spirit openly shown, except now when it is received through breathing, and afterward when, coming from heaven, it is demonstrated in various tongues. Why then is it first given to the disciples on earth, and afterward sent from heaven, unless because there are two precepts of charity, namely the love of God and the love of neighbor? The Spirit is given on earth so that the neighbor may be loved; the Spirit is given from heaven so that God may be loved. Therefore, just as there is one charity and two precepts, so there is one Spirit and two givings. First from the Lord standing on earth, afterward from heaven, because in the love of neighbor one learns how to arrive at the love of God. Hence the same John says: He who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see? And indeed the same Holy Spirit was previously in the minds of the disciples for faith, but nevertheless he was not given by manifest giving except after the resurrection. Hence it is also written: The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. Hence also it is said through Moses: They sucked honey from the rock, and oil from the solid rock. For nothing of this kind is read according to history, if the whole sequence of the Old Testament is reviewed. Nowhere did that people suck honey from the rock, nowhere oil. But because according to Paul’s words: The rock was Christ, they sucked honey from the rock who saw the deeds and miracles of our same Redeemer. But they sucked oil from the solid rock, because by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit after his resurrection they deserved to be anointed. Therefore, as it were, the weak rock gave honey, when the Lord, still mortal, showed to his disciples the sweetness of his miracles. But the solid rock poured forth oil, because, after his resurrection now made impassible, through the breathing of the Spirit he sent forth the gift of holy anointing. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Irenaeus: And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe. And as He was spit upon ignominiously, so also did He breathe the Holy Spirit into His disciples. — Tertullian On Baptism

Pope Urban I: Whose soever sins ye remit, are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia: With these words he teaches them the identity of the giver and the distributor of all these goods. His “breathing” convinces them to have no doubt about this because the body was created in the beginning as immobile and inanimate but then received life, which it did not have in itself when the soul entered into it through “breathing,” as the blessed Moses said. After Jesus breathed for the first time, he mentioned the Spirit in order to show that, as then nothing prevented the body from living even though it did not by nature possess [life], which the soul by entering gave it, so now they had to believe that the body of human beings was made imperishable through resurrection, because the Spirit who gives it this strength is powerful. Therefore he said to them, You must truly believe in what has been said to you and must have no doubts about the resurrection. You must not reject the honor of the apostolate because you are scared of being sent as messengers of a new doctrine into the world. You will indeed receive the effect of the Spirit, which, at the right time, will confer on you resurrection and immortality.Through the Spirit, you will receive in this life an amazing, supernatural strength to perform unheard-of miracles by a mere word. You will be able to face easily any afflictions that may befall you because of those who oppose your preaching. And even though there were many other things to be accomplished in them through the Spirit, without mentioning them, he mentioned the most important argument of all. Here, he says, is what will clearly demonstrate to you the strength of the Spirit. Indeed, as soon as you receive it, you will be able to absolve the sins of whomever you want, as well as to pronounce a sentence of condemnation against anyone. If you, who are human, after receiving the gift of the Spirit, will be able to do all those things that are of God—indeed, only he has the power to judge—I leave to you to consider what the effectiveness of the Spirit is. Once you have received it, you must no longer doubt. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.22

John 20:23

Ambrose of Milan: They affirm that they are showing great reverence for God, to whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving sins. But in truth no one does him greater injury than those who choose to prune his commandments and reject the office entrusted to them. For the Lord Jesus himself said in the Gospel, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whoever’s sins you forgive they are forgiven to them, and whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” Who is it that honors him most, the one who obeys his bidding or the one who rejects it?The church holds fast its obedience on either side by both retaining and remitting sin. Heresy is on the one side cruel and on the other disobedient. It wishes to bind what it will not loosen and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be the same, and he sanctioned each by a similar condition. So whoever does not have the power to loose does not have the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord’s word, the one who has the power to bind also has the power to loose, their teaching destroys itself, inasmuch as those who deny that they have the power of loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the church; neither is allowed to heresy. For this power has been entrusted to priests alone. It is only right, therefore, that the church, which has true priests, claims it. Heresy, which does not have the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. — Concerning Repentance 1.2.6-7

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi. 3) The love of the Church, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, remits the sins of those who partake of it; but retains the sins of those who do not. Where then He has said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, He instantly makes mention of the remission and retaining of sins. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Whose soever sins,” He continues, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain, they are retained.” The Church’s love, which is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, discharges the sins of all who are partakers with itself, but retains the sins of those who have no participation therein. Therefore it is, that after saying “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” He straightway added this regarding the remission and retention of sins. — Tractates on John 121

Cyril of Alexandria: Christ, when He gave the Spirit unto them, said: Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained; though only the living God is able and powerful to grant unto sinners remission of sins; for whom could it befit to pardon the transgressions that sinners have committed against the Divine Law, save the Lawgiver Himself? You may, if you choose, see the meaning of the saying from the analogy of human affairs. Who has authority to meddle with the decrees of earthly monarchs, and who tries to undo that which has been ordained by the will and judgment of rulers, save only someone who is invested with regal honour and dignity? Therefore, wise was the saying, Insolent is he who saith unto the king, Thou breakest the law. In what way, then, and in what sense did the Saviour invest His disciples with the dignity which befits the Nature of God alone? The Word that is in the Father cannot err; and this He did, and whatsoever He doeth, He doeth well. For He thought it meet that they who have once been endued with the Spirit of Him Who is God and Lord, should have power also to remit or retain the sins of whomsoever they would, the Holy Spirit That dwelt in them remitting or retaining them according to His Will, though the deed were done through human instrumentality.

They who have the Spirit of God remit or retain sins in two ways, as I think. For they invite to Baptism those to whom this sacrament is already due from the purity of their lives, and their tried adherence to the faith; and they hinder and exclude others who are not as yet worthy of the Divine grace. And in another sense, also, they remit and retain sins, by. rebuking erring children of the Church, and granting pardon to those who repent; just as, also, Paul gave up him that had committed fornication at Corinth, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved, and admitted him again into fellowship, that he might not be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow, as he says in his letter. When, then, the Spirit of Christ dwelling in our hearts doeth things which befit God alone, surely He is the living God, invested with the glorious dignity of the Divine Nature, and having power over sacred laws — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: After dignifying the holy apostles with the glorious distinction of the apostleship and appointing them ministers and priests of the divine altar, as I have just said, he at once sanctifies them by promising his Spirit to them through the outward sign of his breath, that we might be firmly convinced that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the Son but consubstantial with him and through him proceeding from the Father. He shows that the gift of the Spirit necessarily attends those who are ordained by him to be apostles of God. And why? Because they could have done nothing pleasing to God and could not have triumphed over the snares of sin if they had not been “clothed with power from on high” and been transformed into something other than they were before.… [Jesus] consecrates by actual sanctification, making people partakers in his nature, through participation in the Spirit and in some sort strengthening the nature of humanity into a power and glory that is superhuman. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi.) We must understand that those who first received the Holy Ghost, for innocence of life in themselves, and preaching to a few others, received it openly after the resurrection, that they might profit not a few only, but many. The disciples who were called to such works of humility, to what a height of glory are they led! Lo, not only have they salvation for themselves, but are admitted to the powers of the supreme Judgment-seat; so that, in the place of God, they retain some men’s sins, and remit others. Their place in the Church, the Bishops now hold; who receive the authority to bind, when they are admitted to the rank of government. Great the honour, but heavy the burden of the place. It is ill if one who knows not how to govern his own life, shall be judge of another’s. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: Of this oil it is said through the prophet: “The yoke shall decay because of the oil.” For we were held under the yoke of demonic dominion, but we have been anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit. And because the grace of liberty has anointed us, the yoke of demonic dominion has rotted away, as Paul attests when he says: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” But it should be known that those who first received the Holy Spirit, so that they themselves might live innocently and benefit some through preaching, received Him openly after the Lord’s resurrection so that they might benefit not a few but many. Hence in this very giving of the Spirit it is said: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” It is pleasing to observe to what height of glory those disciples were led, who were called to such great burdens of humility. Behold, not only do they become secure concerning themselves, but they also receive the power of releasing another’s bond; and they obtain the principality of the heavenly judgment, so that in place of God they retain sins for some and release them for others. Thus, thus it was fitting that they be raised up by God, who had consented to be humbled so greatly for God’s sake. Behold, those who fear the strict judgment of God become judges of souls; and they condemn or free others, who feared that they themselves would be condemned.

Of these, certainly, the bishops now hold the place in the Church. Those who obtain the rank of governance receive the authority of binding and loosing. Great is the honor, but heavy is the burden of this honor. For it is hard that one who does not know how to maintain the governance of his own life should become a judge of another’s life. And it very often happens that one holds the place of judgment whose life does not at all accord with the place. And it often occurs that he either condemns the innocent, or, being himself bound, looses others. Often in loosing and binding his subjects he follows the impulse of his own will rather than the merits of the cases. Whence it happens that he deprives himself of this very power of binding and loosing who exercises it according to his own wishes rather than according to the conduct of his subjects. It often happens that a Pastor is moved by hatred or favor toward any neighbor; but those who follow their own hatreds or favor in the cases of their subjects cannot judge worthily concerning their subjects. Whence it is rightly said through the prophet: They were putting to death souls that do not die, and giving life to souls that do not live. For he puts to death one who is not dying who condemns the just. And he strives to give life to one who will not live who attempts to absolve the guilty from punishment.

Therefore the causes must be weighed, and then the power of binding and loosing must be exercised. It must be seen what fault preceded, or what repentance followed after the fault, so that those whom almighty God visits through the grace of compunction, the sentence of the pastor may absolve. For then the absolution of the one presiding is true, when it follows the judgment of the internal Judge. This is well signified by that resurrection of the man dead four days, which demonstrates that the Lord first called and gave life to the dead man, saying: “Lazarus, come forth”; and afterward he who had come forth alive was loosed by the disciples, as it is written: “And when he who had been bound with wrappings had come forth, then he said to the disciples: Loose him, and let him go.” Behold, the disciples loose him now living, whom the Master had raised from the dead. For if the disciples had loosed Lazarus while dead, they would have shown forth a stench rather than power. From this consideration it must be observed that we ought to loose through pastoral authority those whom we recognize our Author vivifies through resurrecting grace. This vivification, indeed, before the work of righteousness is already recognized in the very confession of sin. Hence to this same dead Lazarus it is by no means said “Come back to life,” but “Come forth.” For every sinner, while he hides his fault within his conscience, lies hidden within, is concealed in his own inner chambers. But the dead man comes forth when the sinner voluntarily confesses his iniquities. Therefore it is said to Lazarus, “Come forth.” As if it were openly said to anyone dead in fault: Why do you hide your guilt within your conscience? Come forth now through confession, you who lie hidden within yourself through denial. Let the dead man therefore come forth, that is, let the sinner confess his fault. And let the disciples loose him as he comes forth, so that the pastors of the Church may remove the punishment from him who deserved it, since he was not ashamed to confess what he did. These things I have said briefly concerning the order of loosing, so that the pastors of the Church may strive to loose or bind with great moderation. But whether the pastor binds justly or unjustly, nevertheless the sentence of the pastor is to be feared by the flock, lest he who is subject, even when he is perhaps bound unjustly, may deserve the very sentence of his binding from another fault. Therefore let the pastor fear to absolve or to bind indiscreetly. But let him who is under the hand of the pastor fear to be bound even unjustly; nor let him rashly criticize the judgment of his pastor, lest even if he was bound unjustly, through the very pride of arrogant criticism a fault that did not exist may come to be. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Jerome: But you say the church was founded on Peter, although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. — Against Jovinianus 1.26

John Chrysostom: Anyone who considers how much it means to be able, in his humanity still entangled in flesh and blood, to approach that blessed and immaculate Being will see clearly how great the honor is that the grace of the Spirit has bestowed on priests. It is through them that this work is performed, and other work no less than this in its bearing on our dignity and our salvation.For earth’s inhabitants, having their life in this world, have been entrusted with the stewardship of heavenly things, and they have received an authority that God has not given to angels or archangels. Not to them was it said, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose, shall be loosed.” Those who are lords on earth have indeed the power to bind, but only people’s bodies. But this binding touches the very soul and reaches through heaven. What priests do on earth, God ratifies above. The Master confirms the decisions of his servants. Indeed, he has given them nothing less than the whole authority of heaven. For he says, “Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven, and whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” What authority could be greater than that? “The Father has given all judgment to the Son.” But I see that the Son has placed it all in their hands. For they have been raised to this prerogative, as though they were already translated to heaven and had transcended human nature and were freed from our passions. Again, if a king confers on one of his subjects the right to imprison and release again at will, that person is the envy and admiration of all. But although the priest has received from God an authority as much greater than that, as heaven is more precious than earth and souls than bodies, some people think he has received so slight an honor that they can imagine someone entrusted with it actually despising the gift. God save us from such madness! For it is patently mad to despise this great office without which we cannot attain to salvation or God’s good promises. For if one “cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again of water and the Spirit,” and anyone who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and all these things can happen through no other agency except their sacred hands (the priests’, I mean), how can anyone, without their help, escape the fire of Gehenna or win his appointed crown? — ON THE PRIESTHOOD 3.5

Origen of Alexandria: Consider the person inspired by Jesus as the apostles were and who can be known by his fruits as someone who has received the Holy Spirit and become spiritual by being led by the Spirit as a son of God to do everything by reason. This person forgives whatever God forgives and retains sins that cannot be healed, serving God like the prophets by speaking not his own words but those of the divine will. So he, too, serves God, who alone has authority to forgive. — ON PRAYER 28.8

Tertullian: Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even “seventy times sevenfold,” of course He would have commanded him to “bind”-that is, to “retain” -nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. — On Modesty

Theodore of Mopsuestia: What truly wonderful gifts! Indeed, it does not only give the power over the elements and the faculty to make signs and wonders but also concedes that God may name them [judges], and therefore the servants receive from him the authority that is proper to him. The prerogative to absolve and retain sins only belongs to God, and the Jews sometimes raised this objection with the Savior, saying, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” The Lord generously gave this authority to those who honored him. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.22-25

John 20:24

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Didymus, double or doubtful, because he doubted in believing: Thomas, depth, because with most sure faith he penetrated into the depth of our Lord’s divinity. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But why does this Evangelist say that Thomas was absent, when Luke writes that two disciples on their return from Emmaus found the eleven assembled? We must understand that Thomas had gone out, and that in the interval of his absence, Jesus came and stood in the midst. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: How, then, someone may not unreasonably inquire, if Thomas was absent, was he in fact made partaker in the Holy Spirit when the Savior appeared to the disciples and breathed on them, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit”? We reply that the power of the Spirit pervaded every person who received grace and fulfilled the aim of the Lord who gave him to them. And Christ gave the Spirit not to some only but to all the disciples. Therefore, if any were absent, they also received him, the munificence of the giver not being confined to those only who were present but extending to the entire company of the holy apostles. And that this interpretation is not strained, or our idea extravagant, we may convince you from holy Scripture itself, bringing forward as a proof a passage in the books of Moses. The Lord God commanded the all-wise Moses to select seventy elders from the assembly of the Jews and plainly declared, “I will take of the Spirit that is on you and will put it on them.” Moses, as he was asked, brought them together and fulfilled the divine decree. Only it happened that two of the men who were included in the number of the seventy elders were left behind and remained in the assembly, that is, Eldad and Medad. Then when God put on them all the divine Spirit, as he had promised, those whom Moses had collected together immediately received grace and prophesied. But none the less also the two who were in the assembly prophesied, and, in fact, the grace from above came on them first. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12:1

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi.) It was not an accident that that particular disciple was not present. The Divine mercy ordained that a doubting disciple should, by feeling in his Master the wounds of the flesh, heal in us the wounds of unbelief. The unbelief of Thomas is more profitable to our faith, than the belief of the other disciples; for, the touch by which he is brought to believe, confirming our minds in belief, beyond all question. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. This one disciple was absent; when he returned he heard what had happened; having heard, he refused to believe. The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man’s unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith. For thus the Lord permitted his disciple to doubt after his resurrection, yet did not abandon him in his doubt, just as before his birth he willed Mary to have a spouse, who nevertheless did not attain to marriage with her. For thus the doubting and touching disciple became a witness of the true resurrection, just as the spouse had been the guardian of the mother’s perfect virginity. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Irenaeus ((Reporting Valentinian Views)): The ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection, Thomas being absent, represented, according to them, the invisible Decad. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1

John Chrysostom: As to believe carelessly and in a random way, comes of an over-easy temper; so to be beyond measure curious and meddlesome, marks a most gross understanding. On this account Thomas is held to blame. For he believed not the Apostles when they said, “We have seen the Lord”; not so much mistrusting them, as deeming the thing to be impossible, that is to say, the resurrection from the dead. Since he saith not, “I do not believe you,” but, “Except I put my hand-I do not believe.” But how was it, that when all were collected together, he alone was absent? Probably after the dispersion which had lately taken place, he had not returned even then. But do thou, when thou seest the unbelief of the disciple, consider the lovingkindness of the Lord, how for the sake of a single soul He showed Himself with His wounds, and cometh in order to save even the one, though he was grosser than the rest; on which account indeed he sought proof from the grossest of the senses, and would not even trust his eyes. For he said not, “Except I see,” but, “Except I handle,” he saith, lest what he saw might somehow be an apparition. Yet the disciples who told him these things, were at the time worthy of credit, and so was He that promised; yet, since he desired more, Christ did not deprive him even of this. — Homily on the Gospel of John 87

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvii. 1). At the assembly of the disciples all were present but Thomas, who probably had not returned from the dispersion: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

(Hom. lxxxvii. 1) As to believe directly, (ἁπλῶς) and any how, is the mark of too easy a mind, so is too much enquiring of a gross one: and this is Thomas’s fault. For when the Apostle said, We have seen the Lord, he did not believe, not because he discredited them, but from an idea of the impossibility of the thing itself: The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe. Being the grossest of all, he required the evidence of the grossest sense, viz. the touch, and would not even believe his eyes: for he does not say only, Except I shall see, but adds, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: “Thomas” is called Didymus, which means “Twin,” because he was a kind of twin in word, writing the divine things in two ways and copying Christ, who spoke to those outside of his circle in parables, but to his own disciples he spoke privately about everything. And it is not improper to say that Christ’s genuine disciples achieve this double equipment in word that Thomas perhaps had already but even more so afterward. But it may be said that the interpretation of this alone has been recorded because the Evangelist was concerned that Greeks coming into contact with the gospel should notice the peculiarity of the interpretation of the only name specially interpreted, so as to find the cause of his name being set forth also in Greek. — FRAGMENT 106 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Theophylact of Ohrid: Thomas … was not with the disciples, perhaps because he had not yet returned from where he was hiding after the disciples had scattered. Elsewhere, we learned that the Hebrew name “Cephas” means “Rock” (Πέτρος, see Jn. 1:42); here we are told that “Thomas” means “Twin” (Δίδυμος). The Evangelist provides the meaning of the name here to indicate that Thomas was prone to be of two minds—a doubter by nature. He doubted the news brought to him by the others, not because he thought they were liars, but because he considered it impossible for a man to rise from the dead. And his doubt made him excessively inquisitive. Gullibility is a sign of light-mindedness; but stubborn resistance to truth is a sure indication of thick-headedness. Thomas would not even trust his eyes, but demanded proof by touch, the least discriminating of the senses: except I shall … thrust my hand into His side. How did Thomas know there were wounds in Christ’s hands and side? Because the other disciples had told him. And why does the Lord wait eight days before appearing to him? To allow time for each of Thomas’ fellow disciples to tell him what they had witnessed. Hearing the same story from each one individually made him more willing to believe, and increased his desire to see the Lord. In order to show that He was invisibly present eight days earlier, when Thomas had expressed disbelief, the Lord does not wait for Thomas to speak. Instead, He straightway proposes exactly what Thomas desired, quoting his very words.

First He rebukes Thomas, saying, Reach hither thy hand; then He admonishes him: and be not faithless, but believing. From this it is clear that Thomas’ doubt was caused by lack of faith, and not because he was careful to verify the facts (as some say, wishing to put him in better light). But as soon as Thomas touched the Lord’s side, he was revealed as a superb theologian, proclaiming the two natures and single hypostasis of the one Christ. Thomas refers to the human nature of Christ, calling Him Lord; for the term “Lord” (Κύριος) is applied not just to God, but to men as well. (Thinking that Jesus was the gardener, Mary Magdalene had said to Him, Sir (Κύριε), if thou have borne Him hence… (v. 15). But when Thomas cries out,  …and My God, he confesses Christ’s divine essence, and affirms that the names Lord and God refer to one and the same Person. By declaring blessed those who have not seen, and yet have believed, the Lord teaches us that faith means the acceptance of things not seen. He is referring, first to the disciples who believed without touching His side or the print of the nails, and second to those who would later believe (without any physical confirmation). He is not depriving Thomas of his share of blessedness, but encouraging all who have not seen. There was a common saying, “Blessed are the eyes that have seen the Lord.” Christ, however, praises those who will believe without seeing, declaring them to be truly blessed.

A question arises: how can an incorruptible body display the mark of nails and be touched by human hands? The answer is that such things are possible as part of the divine economia: they are manifestations of God’s condescension and love for man. By entering the room when the doors were shut, Christ makes it absolutely clear that after the resurrection His body is altered: it is now light and subtle, free of all material coarseness. But to confirm that it is indeed their Lord and Master Who has appeared to them, He permits His resurrected body, bearing the wounds of the crucifixion, to be touched. For the same reason, when He walked on the water before the Passion (see Mk. 6:48]), His body was unchanged from when He was walking about on land, and this reassured the disciples. But though He allows His resurrected body to be touched, it is now impassible and incorruptible. When Christ eats now with the disciples, it is no longer to satisfy any physical demands of His body (for there were none). Food once eaten is altered in the stomach and passes out into the drain (see Mt. 15:17). But it was not so with Christ after the resurrection. The food He ate during that time was consumed by an invisible, divine power. His only purpose in eating was to confirm the reality of His resurrection, and He permitted His incorruptible body to bear the mark of nails, and to be handled, for the same reason. Do you see, O reader, how, in order to save one doubting soul, the Lord did not spare His own dignity, but condescended to bare His side? Neither should we despise even the least of our brethren.

John 20:25

Ammonius of Alexandria: Thomas was charged with being a real curiosity seeker because he thought the resurrection was impossible. Thus, he not only said “unless I see” but also “unless I touch,” lest somehow what he saw turned out to be an illusion. Therefore, when Thomas had heard from the disciples that Christ had been injured by a spear, Thomas believed them, even though he had not seen it. However, he did not believe their report of the resurrection, as if it were beyond reason. He did not say this so much out of unbelief but out of grief, because he himself had not been deemed worthy of seeing the risen Christ. It fit God’s purpose that Thomas did not believe, so that we all might know through him that the body that had been crucified had been raised. Since Thomas wanted to see the wounds all around Christ’s flesh, as well as his flesh itself, to see if he had risen, Thomas was searching for him. — FRAGMENTS ON John 633

Apostolic Constitutions: After eight days let there be another feast observed with honour, the eighth day itself, on which He gave me Thomas, who was hard of belief, full assurance, by showing me the print of the nails, and the wound made in His side by the spear. — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

Gregory the Dialogist: This one disciple was absent; when he returned he heard what had happened; having heard, he refused to believe. The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man’s unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Justin Martyr: And again, in other words, David in the twenty-first Psalm thus refers to the suffering and to the cross in a parable of mystery: ‘They pierced my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones. They considered and gazed on me; they parted my garments among themselves, and cast lots upon my vesture.’ For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. And this very Psalm you maintain does not refer to Christ; for you are in all respects blind, and do not understand that no one in your nation who has been called King or Christ has ever had his hands or feet pierced while alive, or has died in this mysterious fashion-to wit, by the cross-save this Jesus alone. — Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XCVII

Origen of Alexandria: Thomas seems to have had some precision and carefulness about him, which is shown also by what he said. He most likely did not believe those who said they had seen the Lord. It could have been an apparition, like what had happened in Matthew. I think this was the feeling of the other apostles too, but especially of Thomas. That the other apostles had some such thought on seeing Jesus is clear from there being written, “They supposed it was an apparition, and he answered and said to them, “Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have bones and flesh as you see me having.” — FRAGMENT 106 ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Peter Chrysologus: Why does the hand of a faithful disciple in this fashion retrace those wounds that an unholy hand inflicted? Why does the hand of a dutiful follower strive to reopen the side that the lance of an unholy soldier pierced? Why does the harsh curiosity of a servant repeat the tortures imposed by the rage of persecutors? Why is a disciple so inquisitive about proving from his torments that he is the Lord, for his pains that he is God, and from his wounds that he is the heavenly Physician?…Why Thomas, do you alone, a little too clever a sleuth for your own good, insist that only the wounds be brought forward in testimony to faith? What if these wounds had been made to disappear with the other things? What a peril to your faith would that curiosity have produced? Do you think that no signs of his devotion and no evidence of the Lord’s resurrection could be found unless you probed with your hands his inner organs that had been laid bare with such cruelty? Brothers, his devotion sought these things, his dedication demanded them so that in the future not even godlessness itself would doubt that the Lord had risen. But Thomas was curing not only the uncertainty of his own heart but also that of all human beings. And since he was going to preach this message to the Gentiles, this conscientious investigator was examining carefully how he might provide a foundation for the faith needed for such a mystery. … For the only reason the Lord had kept his wounds was to provide evidence of his resurrection. — SERMON 84.8

John 20:26

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (in Serm. Tap. ad Cat. ii. 8.) You ask; If He entered by the shut door, where is the nature of His body? (ubi est modus corporis.) And I reply; If He walked on the sea, where is the weight of His body? The Lord did that as the Lord; and did He, after His resurrection, cease to be the Lord? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: With good reason, then, are we accustomed to have sacred meetings in churches on the eighth day. And, to adopt the language of allegory, as the idea necessarily demands, we indeed close the doors, but Christ still visits us and appears to us all, both invisibly as God and visibly in the body. He allows us to touch his holy flesh and gives it to us. For through the grace of God we are admitted to partake of the blessed Eucharist, receiving Christ into our hands, to the intent that we may firmly believe that he did in truth raise up the temple of his body.… Participation in the divine mysteries, in addition to filling us with divine blessedness, is a true confession and memorial of Christ’s dying and rising again for us and for our sake. Let us, therefore, after touching Christ’s body, avoid all unbelief in him as utter ruin and rather be found well grounded in the full assurance of faith. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12:1

Gregory the Dialogist: The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man’s unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith. For thus the Lord permitted his disciple to doubt after his resurrection, yet did not abandon him in his doubt, just as before his birth he willed Mary to have a spouse, who nevertheless did not attain to marriage with her. For thus the doubting and touching disciple became a witness of the true resurrection, just as the spouse had been the guardian of the mother’s perfect virginity. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Hilary of Poitiers: The Lord stoops to the level even of our feeble understanding. He works a miracle of his invisible power in order to satisfy the doubts of unbelieving minds. Explain, my critic, the ways of heaven—explain his action if you can. The disciples were in a closed room. They had met and held their assembly in secret since the passion of the Lord. The Lord presents himself to strengthen the faith of Thomas by meeting his challenge. He gives him his body to feel, his wounds to handle. He, indeed, who would be recognized as having suffered wounds must necessarily produce the body in which those wounds were received. I ask at what point in the walls of that closed house the Lord bodily entered. The apostle has recorded the circumstances with careful precision: “Jesus came when the doors were shut and stood in the midst.” Did he penetrate through bricks and mortar or through stout woodwork—substances whose very nature it is to bar progress? For there he stood in bodily presence; there was no suspicion of deceit. Let the eye of your mind follow his path as he enters. Let your intellectual vision accompany him as he passes into that closed dwelling. There is no breach in the walls; no door has been unbarred. Yet, see how he stands in the midst whose might no barrier can resist. You are a critic of things invisible; I ask you to explain a visible event. Everything remains firm as it was. No body is capable of insinuating itself through the interstices of wood and stone. The body of the Lord does not disperse itself, to come together again after a disappearance. Yet where does the one who is standing in their midst come from? Your senses and your words are powerless to account for it. The fact is certain, but it lies beyond the region of human explanation. If, as you say, our account of the divine birth is a lie, then prove that this account of the Lord’s entrance is a fiction. If we assume that an event did not happen, because we cannot discover how it was done, we make the limits of our understanding into the limits of reality. But the certainty of the evidence proves the falsehood of our contradiction. The Lord did stand in a closed house in the midst of the disciples; the Son was born of the Father. Deny not that he stood, because your puny wits cannot ascertain how he came there; renounce instead a disbelief in God the only-begotten and perfect Son of God the unbegotten and perfect Father that is based only on the incapacity of sense and speech to comprehend. — ON THE TRINITY 3.20

Irenaeus: And as He was capable of being handled and touched, so again did He, in a non-apprehensible form, pass through the midst of those who sought to injure Him, and entered without impediment through closed doors. And as He slept, so did He also rule the sea, the winds, and the storms. And as He suffered, so also is He alive, and life-giving, and healing all our infirmity. And as He died, so is He also the Resurrection of the dead. — Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus

John Chrysostom: And why doth He not appear to him straightway, instead of “after eight days”? In order that being in the mean time continually instructed by the disciples, and hearing the same thing, he might be inflamed to more eager desire, and be more ready to believe for the future. But whence knew he that His side had been opened? From having heard it from the disciples. How then did he believe partly, and partly not believe? Because this thing was very strange and wonderful. But observe, I pray you, the truthfulness of the disciples, how they hide no faults, either their own or others’, but record them with great veracity.

Jesus again presenteth himself to them, and waiteth not to be requested by Thomas, nor to hear any such thing, but before he had spoken, Himself prevented him, and fulfilled his desire; showing that even when he spake those words to the disciples, He was present. For He used the same words, and in a manner conveying a sharp rebuke, and instruction for the future. For having said, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side”; He added, “And be not faithless, but believing.”

Seest thou that his doubt proceeded from unbelief? But it was before he had received the Spirit; after that, it was no longer so, but, for the future, they were perfected. — Homily on the Gospel of John 87

John Chrysostom: And not in this way only did Jesus rebuke him, but also by what follows; for when he, being fully satisfied, breathed again, and cried aloud, “My Lord, and my God,” He saith, “Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”

For this is of faith, to receive things not seen; since, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And here He pronounceth blessed not the disciples only, but those also who after them should believe. “Yet,” saith some one, “the disciples saw and believed.” Yes, but they sought nothing of the kind, but from the proof of the napkins, they straightway received the word concerning the Resurrection, and before they saw the body, exhibited all faith. When therefore any one in the present day say, “I would that I had lived in those times, and had seen Christ working miracles,” let them reflect, that, “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 87

John Chrysostom: It is worth enquiring, how an incorruptible body showed the prints of the nails, and was tangible by a mortal hand. But be not thou disturbed; what took place was a matter of condescension. For that which was so subtle and light as to enter in when the doors were shut, was free from all density; but this marvel was shown, that the Resurrection might be believed, and that men might know that it was the Crucified One Himself, and that another rose not in His stead. On this account He arose bearing the signs of the Cross, and on this account He eateth. At least the Apostles everywhere made this a sign of the Resurrection, saying, “We, who did eat and drink with Him.” As therefore when we see Him walking on the waves before the Crucifixion, we do not say, that that body is of a different nature, but of our own; so after the Resurrection, when we see Him with the prints of the nails, we will no more say, that he is therefore corruptible. For He exhibited these appearances on account of the disciple. — Homily on the Gospel of John 87

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvii) Consider the mercy of the Lord, how for the sake of one soul, He exhibits His wounds. And yet the disciples deserved credit, and He had Himself foretold the event. Notwithstanding, because one person, Thomas, would examine Him, Christ allowed him. But He did not appear to him immediately, but waited till the eighth day, in order that the admonition being given in the presence of the disciples, might kindle in him greater desire, and strengthen his faith for the future. And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

(Hom. lxxxvii. 1) Jesus then comes Himself, and does not wait till Thomas interrogates Him. But to show that He heard what Thomas said to the disciples, He uses the same words. And first He rebukes him; Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side: secondly, He admonishes him; And be not faithless, but believing. Note how that before they receive the Holy Ghost faith wavers, but afterward is firm. We may wonder how an incorruptible body could retain the marks of the nails. But it was done in condescension; in order that they might be sure that it was the very person Who was crucified.

(Hom. lxxxvii) If any one then says, Would that I had lived in those times, and seen Christ doing miracles! let him reflect, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria: After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that “if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally.” For it appears to us also to be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show Himself — publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that “being seen during forty days,” He expounded to His disciples “the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” [Acts 1:3] And in the Gospels it is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion He appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut [John 20:26], and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” [1 Corinthians 15:3-8] I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event. — Contra Celsum, Book II, Chapter 63

John 20:27

Augustine of Hippo: “But Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God.” He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other. “Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed.” He saith not, Thou hast touched me, but, “Thou hast seen me,” because sight is a kind of general sense. For sight is also habitually named in connection with the other four senses: as when we say, Listen, and see how well it sounds; smell it, and see how well it smells; taste it, and see how well it savors; touch it, and see how hot it is. Everywhere has the word, See, made itself heard, although sight, properly speaking, is allowed to belong only to the eyes. Hence here also the Lord Himself says, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands:” and what else does He mean but, Touch and see? And yet he had no eyes in his finger. Whether therefore it was by looking, or also by touching, “Because thou hast seen me,” He says, “thou hast believed.” Although it may be affirmed that the disciple dared not so to touch, when He offered Himself for the purpose; for it is not written, And Thomas touched Him. But whether it was by gazing only, or also by touching that he saw and believed, what follows rather proclaims and commends the faith of the Gentiles: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” He made use of words in the past tense, as One who, in His predestinating purpose, knew what was future, as if it had already taken place. — Tractates on John 121

Augustine of Hippo: The love we bear for the blessed martyrs causes us—how, I do not know—to desire to see in the heavenly kingdom the marks that they received for the name of Christ. And possibly we shall see them. For this will not be a deformity but a mark of honor and will add luster to their appearance as well as a spiritual (if not a bodily) beauty.… For even though the blemishes of the body will not be found in any resurrected body, the evidences of virtue can hardly be called blemishes. — City of God 22.19

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Symb. ad Cat. ii. 8) He might, had He pleased, have wiped all spot and trace of wound from His glorified body; but He had reasons for retaining them. He showed them to Thomas, who would not believe except he saw and touched; and He will show them to His enemies, not to say, as He did to Thomas, Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed, but to convict them: Behold the Man whom ye crucified, see the wounds which ye inflicted, recognise the side which ye pierced, that it was by you, and for you, that it was opened, and yet ye cannot enter there.

(xxii. Civ. Dei, xix) We are, as I know not how, afflicted with such love for the blessed martyrs, that we would wish in that kingdom to see on their bodies the marks of those wounds which they have borne for Christ’s sake. And perhaps we shall see them; for they will not have deformity, but dignity, and, though on the body, shine forth not with bodily, but with spiritual beauty (virtutis). Nor yet, if any of the limbs of martyrs have been cut off, shall they therefore appear without them in the resurrection of the dead; for it is said, There shall not an hair of your head perish. But if it be fit that in that new world, the traces of glorious wounds should still be preserved on the immortal flesh, in the places where the limbs were cut off there, though those same limbs withal be not lost but restored, shall the wounds appear. For though all the blemishes of the body shall then be no more, yet the evidences of virtue are not to be called blemishes. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyprian: That Christ is God. In Genesis: “And God said unto Jacob, Arise, and go up to the place of Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to that God who appeared unto thee when thou reddest from the face of thy brother Esau.” Also in Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Sabaoth, Egypt is wearied; and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the tall men of the Sabeans, shall pass over unto Thee, and shall be Thy servants; and shall walk after Thee bound with chains; and shall worship Thee, and shall pray to Thee, because God is in Thee, and there is no other God beside Thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel, our Saviour. They shall all be confounded and fear who oppose Thee, and shall fall into confusion.” Likewise in the same: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God. Every channel shall be filled up, and every mountain and bill shall be made low, and all crooked places shall be made straight, and rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be seen, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God, because the Lord hath spoken it.” Moreover, in Jeremiah: This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed beside Him, who hath found all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob His son, and to Israel His beloved. After this He was seen upon earth, and He conversed with men.” Also in Zechariah God says: “And they shall cross over through the narrow sea, and they shall smite the waves in the sea, and they shall dry up all the depths of the rivers; and all the haughtiness of the Assyrians shall be confounded, and the sceptre of Egypt shall be taken away. And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name shall they glory, saith the Lord.” Moreover, in Hosea the Lord saith: “I will not do according to the anger of mine indignation, I will not allow Ephraim to be destroyed: for I am God, and there is not a holy man in thee: and I will not enter into the city; I will go after God.” Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: wherefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” So, too, in the forty-fifth Psalm: “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “They have not known, neither have they understood: they will walk on in darkness.” Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israel-ires: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God! Thus He Himself says in the Gospel according to John: “Is it not written in the law, that I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the word of God was given, and the Scripture cannot be relaxed, do ye say to Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? But if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, and ye will not believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him.” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “And ye shall call His name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Cyril of Alexandria: Let the attentive reader call to mind that our Lord repulsed Mary Magdalene from touching Him, saying plainly: Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended unto the Father. Yet He allows Thomas to touch His Side, and to feel with his fingers the print of the nails. We have already explained why our Lord did this, but none the less will we call back to mind the reason, briefly recapitulating what we said. For not yet had the time arrived for Mary to touch Him, because she had not yet been sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit; for while Christ was yet in our midst, and had not yet ascended to the Father in heaven, it was impossible to see the descent of the Comforter fully accomplished among men. It was meet, however, for Thomas to touch Him, as he, as well as the rest, had been enriched with the Spirit. For, as we said before, he was not on account of his absence without his share in the Spirit. For the munificence of the Giver reached unto him also, when the boon was granted to the entire company of the holy disciples.

I think we ought also to investigate the following question. Thomas felt our Saviour’s Side, and found the wounds made by the soldier’s spear, and saw the print of the nails. Then how was it, someone may inquire, that the marks of corruption were apparent in an incorruptible Body? For the abiding trace of the holes bored through the Hands and Side, and the marks of wounds and punctures made by steel, affords proof of physical corruption, though the true and incontrovertible fact that Christ’s Body was transformed into incorrup-tion points to a necessary discarding of all the results of corruption, together with corruption itself. For will any man who is lame, at the Resurrection have a maimed foot or limb? And if any man have lost the sight of his eyes in this life, will he be raised again blind? How then, someone may say, can we have shaken off the yoke of corruption, if its results still remain and rule over our members? It is essential, I think, to inquire into this question; and this we say, with reference to the difficulties raised by the passage. We are as far as possible anxious to assent to the contention that at the time of the resurrection there will be no remnant of adventitious corruption left in us, but, as the wise Paul said concerning this body of ours, that which is sown in weakness is raised in power, and that which is sown in dishonour is raised in glory. And what can we expect the resurrection of this body in power and glory to be, if it does not imply that it will cast off all the weakness and dishonour of corruption and disease, and return to its original purity? For the human body was not made for death and corruption. But, inasmuch as Thomas required this proof for his perfect satisfaction, our Lord Jesus Christ, of necessity, therefore, in order to leave no excuse for our want of faith, appears even as he sought to see Him; for even when He ascended into heaven itself, and made known the meaning of the mystery concerning Himself to the rulers, principalities, and powers above, and to those who commanded the legions of angels, He appeared also unto them in this same guise that they might believe that in very truth the Word That was of the Father, and in the Father, became Man for our sake, and that they might know that such was His care for His creatures that He died for our salvation. And, in order to make the meaning of my explanation clearer to my hearers, I will add the very words spoken by the mouth of Isaiah on this subject. He saith: Who is This That cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bosra? They who raise this shout, I mean the cry: Who is This That cometh from Edom? that is, from the earth, are angels and rational powers, for they are marvelling at the Lord ascending into heaven. And, seeing Him almost, as it were, dyed in His own Blood, they say unto Him, not yet apprehending the mystery: Why is Thy apparel red, and why are Thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vats? For they compare the colour of the blood to new wine, lately trodden in the press. And what saith Christ unto them? First, in order that He may be known to be the living God, He saith: I speak righteousness; using the word speak, instead of “teach.” And most assuredly. He that teacheth righteousness must be a Lawgiver, and if a Lawgiver, surely also God. Then say the angels unto Him, as Christ showeth them the marks of the nails: What are these wounds in Thy Hands? and the Lord answereth: Those with which I was wounded in the house of My beloved. For Israel was the house that the Lord loved, and Israel smote Him with nails and spear. For the outrages of the soldiers may justly be ascribed unto the Jews, for they brought the Lord to His death. Therefore, when He wished to satisfy the holy angels that He was, in fact, a Man, and that He had undergone the Cross for us, and that He was risen again to life from the dead, Christ was not content with mere words, but showed unto them the marks of His suffering. What is there to astonish us in the fact, that when He desired to rid the blessed Thomas of his unbelief He showed the print of the nails, appearing unto him, contrary to expectation, for the advantage of all men, and to the intent that we might believe without question that the mystery of the Resurrection was actually accomplished, no other body being raised but that which suffered death? — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory of Nazianzus: If, like a Thomas, you were left out when the disciples were assembled to whom Christ shows himself, when you do see him do not be faithless. And if you do not believe, then believe those who tell you. And if you cannot believe them either, then have confidence in the print of the nails. — ON HOLY EASTER, ORATION 45.24

Gregory of Nyssa: Once he had accustomed people to seeing the miracle of resurrection in other bodies, he confirmed his word in his own humanity. You already received a glimpse of that word working in others—those who were about to die, the child who had just ceased to live, the young man at the edge of the grave, the putrefying corpse, all alike restored by one command to life.… Now look at him whose hands were pierced with nails, look at him whose side was transfixed with a spear. Pass your fingers through the print of the nails, thrust your hand into the spear wound. You could surely guess how far within your hand would reach by the breadth of the external scar since the wound that gives admission to the hand shows to what depth the iron entered. If he then has been raised, well may we utter the apostle’s exclamation, “How do some say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Since, then, every prediction of the Lord is shown to be true by the testimony of events—in fact, we not only learned this from his words but also received the proof in his deeds from the very same people who returned to life by resurrection—what other occasion is left for those who do not believe? Let us rather bid farewell to those who pervert our simple faith by “philosophy and vain deceit.” Let us instead hold on to our confession [of the resurrection] in its purity, a confession that we have learned through the gracious words of the prophet, “You shall take away their breath, and they shall fail and turn to dust. You shall then send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth.” — ON THE MAKING OF MAN 25.12-13

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi.) Our Lord gave that flesh to be touched which He had introduced through shut doors: wherein two wonderful, and, according to human reason, contradictory things appear, viz. that after the resurrection He had a body incorruptible, and yet palpable. For that which is palpable must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible must be impalpable. But He showed Himself incorruptible and yet palpable, to prove that His body after His resurrection was the same in nature as before, but different in glory.

(Mor. xii. 31) Our body also in that resurrection to glory will be subtle by means of the action of the Spirit, but palpable by its true nature, not, as Eutychius says, impalpable, and subtler than the winds and the air. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: The Lord came again, and offered his side to the unbelieving disciple to touch, showed his hands, and by displaying the scar of his wounds, healed the wound of that man’s unbelief. What, dearest brothers, what do you observe in these things? Do you think it happened by chance that this chosen disciple was absent then, but coming later heard, hearing doubted, doubting touched, touching believed? This did not happen by chance, but by divine dispensation. For heavenly mercy acted in a wondrous way so that the doubting disciple, while he touched the wounds of flesh in his master, might heal in us the wounds of unbelief. For the unbelief of Thomas profited us more for faith than the faith of the believing disciples, because while he is brought back to faith by touching, our mind, all doubt set aside, is strengthened in faith. For thus the Lord permitted his disciple to doubt after his resurrection, yet did not abandon him in his doubt, just as before his birth he willed Mary to have a spouse, who nevertheless did not attain to marriage with her. For thus the doubting and touching disciple became a witness of the true resurrection, just as the spouse had been the guardian of the mother’s perfect virginity. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Hippolytus of Rome: He calls Him, then, “the first-fruits of them that sleep,” as the “first-begotten of the dead.” For He, having risen, and being desirous to show that that same (body) had been raised which had also died, when His disciples were in doubt, called Thomas to Him, and said, “Reach hither; handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not bone and flesh, as ye see me have.”

In calling Him the first-fruits, he testified to that which we have said, viz., that the Saviour, taking to Himself the flesh out of the same lump, raised this same flesh, and made it the first-fruits of the flesh of the righteous, in order that all we who have believed in the hope of the Risen One may have the resurrection in expectation. — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

Ignatius of Antioch: And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” “For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” And He says to Thomas, “Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side; " and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, “My Lord, and my God.” And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes. Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. For, say the [holy] oracles, “This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen Him go unto heaven.” But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those “see Him that pierced Him,” and when they recognise Him, “mourn for themselves? " For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect of an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Jerome: After the resurrection we shall have the same members that we now use, the same flesh and blood and bones, for it is not the nature of these that is condemned in Holy Scripture but their works.… The true confession of the resurrection declares that the flesh will be glorious, but without destroying its reality. And so, when the apostle says, “This [flesh] is corruptible and mortal,” his words denote this very body, in other words, the flesh that was then seen. But when he further adds that it “puts on incorruption and immortality,” he is not saying that what was put on [i.e., the clothing] does away with the body that it adorns in glory. Rather, it makes that body glorious that previously lacked glory. When the more worthless robe of mortality and weakness is laid aside, then we can be clothed with the gold of immortality and the blessedness of strength as well as virtue. — AGAINST JOHN OF JERUSALEM 28-29

Romanos the Melodist: Who protected the hand of the disciple, then, That was not melted when he approached The fiery side of the Lord? Who gave it daring and strength to probe The flaming bone? Certainly the side was examined. For unless the side had supplied abundant power, How could a right hand of clay have touched The sufferings which had shaken What is above and what is below? It was grace itself that was given to Thomas By Christ to touch his side and to cry out, “You are our Lord and God.”

Truly the bramble bush which endured fire Was burned but not consumed. Because of the hand of Thomas I believe the story of Moses. For, though his hand was perishable and thorny, It was not burned When it touched the side that was like burning flame. Then fire came upon the bramble bush, But now, the thorny one raced to the fire; And God himself looked on, Guarding both. And so I believe. And so I will praise the one who is both God and man, as I cry, “You are our Lord and God.”

For truly the boundary line of faith Was circumscribed for me By the hand of Thomas. For when he touched Christ He became like the pen Of a rapid-writing scribe That writes for the faithful. Faith gushes forth from it. The robber drank and became sober again from it. The disciples watered their hearts from it. Thomas drained the knowledge that he sought from it, For he drank first and then offered a draught To many who have a little doubt. He persuades them to say, “You are our Lord and God.” — KONTAKION ON DOUBTING THOMAS 46.1-3

Tertullian: Marcion chose to believe that Jesus was a phantom, denying to him the reality of a perfect body. Now, not even to his apostles was his nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard on the mount. True and real was the draught of wine at the marriage of [Cana in] Galilee. True and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas. Read the testimony of John: “That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked on with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” False, of course, and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes and ears and hands by nature is a lie. — ON THE SOUL 17

Tertullian: He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas. Read the testimony of John: “That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. — A Treatise on the Soul

Theodoret of Cyrus: Before the passion he predicted his bodily death each time, saying that he would be handed over to the high priest’s followers and proclaiming the trophy of the cross. But after the passion, when he rose from the dead on the third day and, since the disciples doubted that he had been raised, he appeared to them in his actual body. [He] declares that he has real flesh with bones, presents his wounded side to their eyes and shows them the marks of the nails. — DIALOGUE 2.18

John 20:28

Ambrose of Milan: You have read that the Father is both Lord and God: “O Lord my God, I will call on you, hear me.” You find the Son to be both Lord and God, as you have read in the Gospel, that, when Thomas had touched the side of Christ, he said, “My Lord and my God.” So just as the Father is God and the Son Lord, so too the Son is God and the Father Lord. The holy designation changes from one to the other. The divine nature does not change, but the dignity remains unchangeable. For they are not [as it were] contributions gathered from bounty but free-will gifts of natural love. For unity has its special property, and the special properties are bound together in unity. — On the Holy Spirit 3.15.108

Athanasius of Alexandria: Let them therefore confess, even they who previously denied that the crucified was God, that they have erred. For the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing upon him the print of the nails, cried out, “My Lord and my God.” — LETTER 59.10, TO EPICTETUS

Augustine of Hippo: But when Jesus showed Thomas the very places where he had his doubts, Thomas exclaimed, “My Lord and my God.” He touched his flesh, he proclaimed his divinity. What did he touch? The body of Christ. Was the body of Christ the divinity of Christ? The divinity of Christ was the Word; the humanity of Christ was soul and flesh. Thomas could not touch the soul, but he could perceive it, because the body that had been dead was moving about alive. But that Word is subject neither to change nor to contact, it neither regresses nor progresses, neither fails nor flourishes, because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That is what Thomas proclaimed. He touched the flesh, he invoked the Word, because “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” — SERMON 145A

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) Thomas saw and touched the man, and confessed the God whom he neither saw nor touched. By means of the one he believed the other undoubtingly: Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: But he touched, and exclaimed: My Lord, and my God. Jesus says to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed. Since the apostle Paul says: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not appearing, it is certainly clear that faith is the evidence of those things which cannot appear. For those things which appear no longer have faith, but recognition. Therefore when Thomas saw, when he touched, why is it said to him: Because you have seen me, you have believed? But he saw one thing, he believed another. For divinity could not be seen by a mortal man. Therefore he saw the man, and confessed God, saying: My Lord, and my God. Therefore by seeing he believed, who considering the true man, exclaimed that this was God, whom he could not see. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

Ignatius of Antioch: And immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, “My Lord, and my God.” These things did He do, and showed Himself risen, and they believed. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

John Cassian: Thomas, when he touched the flesh, believed that he had touched God, saying, “My Lord and my God.” For they all confessed but one Christ, so as not to make him two. Do you therefore believe him? And do you believe in such a way that Jesus Christ the Lord of all, both Only Begotten and firstborn, is both creator of all things and preserver of humanity and that the same person is first the framer of the whole world and afterward redeemer of humankind? — ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LORD AGAINST NESTORIUS 6.19

Tertullian: No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all “God and Lord.” Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate, since you see it taking place. — An Answer to the Jews

Theodore of Mopsuestia: And [Thomas] touched him carefully, and when he discovered the truth, confessed his fault by saying, “My Lord and my God!” What does this mean? While Thomas did not believe before that the Savior had resurrected from the dead, now he calls him Lord and God? This is not likely. Thomas, the doubtful disciple, does not call Lord and God the one whom he touched—in fact, the knowledge of the resurrection did not teach him that the resurrected one was God. Rather, he praised God for the accomplished miracle, being astonished for the miracles that he saw. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.27-29

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He who had been before unbelieving, after touching the body showed himself the best divine; for he asserted the twofold nature and one Person of Christ; by saying, My Lord, the human nature, by saying, My God, the divine, and by joining them both, confessed that one and the same Person was Lord and God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed.

Here He means the disciples who had believed without seeing the print of the nails, and His side. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 20:29

Ambrose of Milan: There are some … who think a blessed life is impossible in this body, weak and fragile as it is. For we have to suffer pain and grief, weeping, illness—all in this body.… It is not a blessing to be in the midst of suffering. But it is a blessing to be victorious over it and not to be bullied by the power of temporal pain. Suppose that things come that are considered terrible because of the grief they cause, such as blindness, exile, hunger, violation of a daughter, loss of children. Who will deny that Isaac was blessed, who did not see in his old age, and yet gave blessings with his benediction? Was not Jacob blessed who, leaving his father’s house, endured exile as a shepherd for pay, and mourned for the violated chastity of his daughter and suffered hunger? Were they not blessed on whose good faith God received witness, as it is written: “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”? A wretched thing is slavery, but Joseph was not wretched. In fact, clearly he was blessed when, while a slave, he checked the lusts of his mistress. What shall I say of holy David, who bewailed the death of three sons, and, what was even worse than this, his daughter’s incestuous connection? How could he be unblessed from whom the author of blessedness himself sprung who has made many blessed? For “blessed are they who have not seen yet have believed.” All these felt their own weakness, but they bravely prevailed over it. What can we think of as more wretched than holy Job, either in the burning of his house, or the instantaneous death of his ten sons or his bodily pains? Was he less blessed than if he had not endured those things whereby he really showed himself approved?It is true that in these sufferings there is something bitter and that we cannot use mind over matter to hide this pain. I should not deny that the sea is deep because in shore it is shallow, or that the sky is clear because sometimes it is covered with clouds, or that the earth is fruitful because in some places there is only barren ground or that the crops are rich and full because they sometimes have wild oats mingled with them. So, too, count it as true that the harvest of a happy conscience may be mingled with some bitter feelings of grief. In the sheaves of the whole of a blessed life, if by chance any misfortune or bitterness has crept in, is it not as though the wild oats were hidden or as though the bitterness of the tares was concealed by the sweet scent of the corn? — On the Duties of the Clergy 2.5.19-21

Augustine of Hippo: For, though one of the chosen and holy twelve, yet he was an Israelite, of the Lord’s nation, that Thomas who desired to put his fingers into the places of the wounds. The Lord censured him just as He did this ruler. To the ruler He said, “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye believe not;” and to Thomas He said, “Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed.” He had come to the Galileans after the Samaritans, who had believed His word, before whom He wrought no miracles, whom He without anxiety quickly left, strong in faith, because by the presence of His divinity He had not left them.

Now, then, when the Lord said to Thomas, “Come, reach hither thy hand, and be not faithless, but believing;” and he, having touched the places of the wounds, exclaimed, and said, “My Lord, and my God;” he is chided, and has it said to him, “Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed.” Why, but “because a prophet has no honor in his own country?” But since this Prophet has honor among strangers, what follows? “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

We are the persons here foretold; and that which the Lord by anticipation praised, He has deigned to fulfill even in us. They saw Him, who crucified Him, and touched Him with their hands, and thus a few believed; we have not seen nor handled Him, we have heard and believed. May it be our lot, that the blessedness which He has promised may be made good in us: both here, because we have been preferred to His own country; and in the world to come, because we have been grafted in instead of the branches that were broken off! — Tractates on John 16

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxxi) He saith not, Hast touched me, but, hast seen me; the sight being a kind of general sense, and put in the place often of the other four senses; as when we say, Hear, and see how well it sounds; smell, and see how sweet it smells; taste, and see how well it tastes; touch, and see how warm it is. Wherefore also our Lord says, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands. What is this but, Touch and see? And yet he had not eyes in his finger. He refers them both to seeing and to touching, when He says, Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed. Although it might be said, that the disciple did not dare to touch, what was offered to be touched.

He uses the past tense, the future to His knowledge having already taken place by His own predestination. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Clement of Alexandria: Faith, then, is not established by demonstration. “Blessed therefore those who, not having seen, yet have believed.”. Now the followers of Basil ides regard faith as natural, as they also refer it to choice, — The Stromata Book 2

Cyril of Alexandria: This saying of the Saviour is very pertinent and we may derive the greatest profit therefrom. For hereby He showed His great care for our souls; for He is good, and willeth that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, according to the Scripture. What is here said may not unlikely excite surprise. It was, indeed, necessary for Him to be long-suffering, as was His wont, with Thomas, who uttered that saying, and also with the other disciples with him, who thought that He was a spirit or apparition; and also to exhibit, as He very readily did for universal satisfaction, the print of the nails and His pierced Side; and also, contrary to use and need, to partake of food, that no plea for their unbelief might be left to those who sought to gain the benefits of His death. But it was also essential to have regard to the security of our faith. It was necessary also to have another end in view, namely, that those who should come at the last times should not easily be drawn into unbelief. For it was likely that some should err from the straight path, and from ignorance, practising a spurious kind of caution, refuse to accept the resurrection of the dead, and put themselves forward, and say unto us, like that unbelieving disciple: Except I shall see in His Hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe. What sufficient means of satisfying them would there have been, Christ being no longer on earth but having ascended into heaven? And would they not have been, at times, thought to be justified in thus speaking, when they appeared to be imitating therein the disciple of the Saviour, and, considering it a noble thing not to believe off-hand, but rather to require more for their complete assurance, claimed for themselves the sight that was shown to the holy disciples? Christ, therefore, restrains men from such an inclination, and keeps them from falling. For being truly God, He knew well the malicious designs of the devil and his practice to deceive. And, therefore, He declares that blessed are they who believe without seeing, for they are surely worthy of admiration. And why? Because unquestioning belief is due to what lies before our eyes, for there is nothing at all to raise doubt in us. But if a man accept what he has not seen, and believe that to be true which the words of his instructor in mysteries have brought to his ears, then he honours with praiseworthy faith Him that is preached. Blessed, therefore, shall be the lot of every man that believeth through the voice of the holy Apostles, which were eye-witnesses of Christ’s actions, and ministers of the Word, as Luke says. To them must we hearken if we are enamoured of life eternal, and cherish in our hearts the desire to abide in the mansions above. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” These words were wonderfully pertinent, and they can be of very great help to us. They demonstrate once again how much he cares for our souls, for he is good, and as Scripture says, “He wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Even so, this saying of his may surprise us. As always, Christ had to be patient with Thomas when he said he would not believe and with the other disciples too when they thought they were seeing a ghost. Because of his desire to convince the whole world, he most willingly showed them the marks of the nails and the wound in his side. Because he wanted those who needed such signs as a support for their faith to have no possible reason for doubt, he even took food, although he had no need for it.… But when anyone accepts what he has not seen, believing on the word of his teacher, the faith by which he honors the one his teacher proclaims to him is worthy of great praise. Blessed, therefore, is everyone who believes the message of the holy apostles who, as Luke says, were eyewitnesses of Christ’s actions and ministers of the word. If we desire eternal life and long for a dwelling place in heaven, we must listen to them. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. xxvi.) But when the Apostle says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, (Heb. 11:1) it is plain that things which are seen, are objects not of faith, but of knowledge. Why then is it said to Thomas who saw and touched, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed? Because he saw one thing, believed another; saw the man, confessed the God. But what follows is very gladdening; Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. In which sentence we are specially included, who have not seen Him with the eye, but retain Him in the mind, provided we only develope our faith in good works. For he only really believes, who practises what he believes. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Gregory the Dialogist: What greatly gladdens is what follows: “Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.” In this saying, we are indeed specially marked out, we who retain in our minds Him whom we have not seen in the flesh. We are marked out—but only if we follow our faith with works. For he truly believes who practices by his deeds what he believes. In contrast to these, concerning those who hold faith in name only, Paul says: “They profess that they know God, but in their deeds they deny Him.” Hence James says: “Faith without works is dead.” Hence the Lord says to blessed Job concerning the ancient enemy of the human race: “He will swallow up a river and not wonder, and he has confidence that the Jordan will flow into his mouth.” For who is signified by the river except the flow of the human race? For this race flows from origin to end, and, as if in the manner of water, runs its course from the flux of the flesh until its appointed end. What is signified by the Jordan except the pattern of the baptized? For since the very Author of our redemption deigned to be baptized in the river Jordan, the multitude of those who are held within the sacrament of baptism is rightly expressed by the name Jordan. Therefore the ancient enemy of the human race swallowed up the river, because from the beginning of the world until the coming of the Redeemer, with scarcely a few elect escaping, he drew the human race into the belly of his malice. Of him it is rightly said: “He will swallow up a river and not wonder,” because he does not consider it a great thing when he seizes unbelievers. But what is added is very grave: “And he has confidence that the Jordan will flow into his mouth,” because after he seized all the unbelievers from the beginning of the world, he still presumes that he can receive even the faithful. For by the mouth of pestilent persuasion he daily devours those in whose case a wicked life is at variance with the confession of faith. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 26

John of Karpathos: Blessed are those who, when grace is withdrawn, find no consolation in themselves but only continuing tribulation and thick darkness, and yet they do not despair. Rather, strengthened by faith, they endure courageously, convinced that they do indeed see him who is invisible. — TEXTS FOR THE MONKS IN INDIA 71

Leo the Great: It is the strength of great minds and the light of firmly faithful souls unhesitatingly to believe what is not seen with the bodily sight and to focus your affections where you cannot direct your gaze. And from where should this godliness spring up in our hearts or how should someone be justified by faith, if our salvation rested on those things only that lie beneath our eyes? And so, our Lord said to Thomas, who seemed to doubt Christ’s resurrection until he had tested by sight and touched the traces of his passion in his very flesh, “because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” — SERMON 74.1

Tertullian: Well, be it so; only let the same hope flow on from them to us! For if to them who saw, and therefore believed, such fruit then accrued to the operations of the flesh and the soul, how much more to us! For more “blessed,” says Christ, “are they who have not seen, and yet have believed; " since, even if the resurrection of the flesh must be denied to them, it must at any rate be a fitting boon to us, who are the more blessed. — On the Resurrection of the Flesh

John 20:30

Augustine of Hippo: After telling us of the incident in connection with which the disciple Thomas had offered to his touch the places of the wounds in Christ’s body, and saw what he would not believe, and believed, the evangelist John interposes these words, and says: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life through His name.” This paragraph indicates, as it were, the end of the book; but there is afterwards related how the Lord manifested Himself at the sea of Tiberias, and in the draught of fishes made special reference to the mystery of the Church, as regards its future character, in the final resurrection of the dead. I think, therefore, it is fitted to give special prominence thereto, that there has been thus interposed, as it were, an end of the book, and that there should be also a kind of preface to the narrative that was to follow, in order in some measure to give it a position of greater eminence. — Tractates on John 122

Cyril of Alexandria: He sums up the book in a manner, and makes plain to His hearers the object of the preaching of the Gospel. For, he says, this book was composed that ye may believe, and believing might have eternal life. He says that the signs were many, and does not limit the actions and marvellous works of our Saviour to those which were accurately known by him personally, and recorded by him, and leaves the other disciples to publish, if they chose, whatever was vividly impressed on their memory. For all the signs, he says, are not written in this book, but those only have been inserted by me which I thought best able to convince my hearers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

This is what the inspired Evangelist says; and I think, too, that it may be of use to make the following observation: For if the whole meaning of the record is directed to producing in us this faith, and is well calculated to make us steadfast in the conviction that the Child of the Holy Virgin, Who was called Jesus by the voice of the angel, is the very Christ Whose coming was proclaimed by Holy Writ; and if He be, indeed, very Christ and none other—-not merely a son but the Son of God in a unique and special sense; what then, I ask, can they who, through ignorance, are in doubt about the faith, and who, furthermore, strive to teach others to believe that there are two Christs—-what can they do or say in their defence, and what will be the sentence passed upon them when the great day shall come? For they divide Christ into two separate Beings, Man and God the Word, even after His union with man, and His ineffable and wholly incomprehensible Incarnation. Therefore are they in error, and have wandered far astray from the truth, and denied the Master that bought them. For if we examine into the definition of the being of Christ, and form a conception of Him, we find that the flesh is different from God the Word, Which is in the Father, and proceedeth from Him; but if we consider the meaning of ’the Incarnation, and strive to fathom so far as we are able this exceeding great mystery, we conceive of the Word as One with His own Flesh, though not converted into flesh. God forbid that we should so say, for the Nature of the Word is inconvertible and unchangeable, and admits of no shadow of turning. Rather do we maintain, according to our Holy and inspired Scriptures, that the Messiah, conceived of as attaining to the perfect definition of manhood through the Temple of flesh that enshrined His Godhead, is One only—-Jesus, the Christ and the Son of God. Consider that the selfsame truth is found to have existence in the nature of ourselves who are men. For we are combined into one man composed of soul and |694 body; the body and the soul that it contains being distinct, but nevertheless coinciding to form one perfect animal, and wholly incapable of separation after combination with each other. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John Chrysostom: Since this Evangelist hath mentioned fewer than the others, he tells us that neither have all the others mentioned them all, but as many as were sufficient to draw the hearers to belief. For, “If,” it saith, “they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books.” Whence it is clear, that What they have mentioned they wrote not for display, but only for the sake of what was useful. For how could they who omitted the greater part, write these others for display? But why went they not through them all? Chiefly on account of their number; besides, they also considered, that he who believed not those they had mentioned, would not give heed to a greater number; while he who received these, would have no need of another in order to believe. And here too he seems to me to be for the time speaking of the miracles after the Resurrection. Wherefore He saith, “In the presence of His disciples.”

For as before the Resurrection it was necessary that many should be done, in order that they might believe that He was the Son of God, so was it also after the Resurrection, in order that they might admit that He had arisen. For another reason also he has added, “In the presence of His disciples,” because He conversed with them alone after the Resurrection; wherefore also He said, “The world seeth Me no more.” Then, in order that thou mayest understand that what was done was done only for the sake of the disciples, he added, “That believing ye might have life in His Name.”

Speaking generally to mankind, and showing that not on Him who is believed on, but on ourselves, he bestows a very great favor. “In His Name,” that is, “through Him”; for He is the Life. — Homily on the Gospel of John 87

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxvii) John having related less than the other Evangelists, adds, And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. Yet neither did the others relate all, but only what was sufficient for the purpose of convincing men. He probably here refers to the miracles which our Lord did after His resurrection, and therefore says, In the presence of His disciples, and they being the only persons with whom He conversed after His resurrection. Then to let you understand, that the miracles were not done for the sake of the disciples only, He adds, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; addressing Himself to mankind generally. And, this belief, he then says, profits ourselves, not Him in Whom we believe. And that believing ye might have life through His name, i. e. through Jesus, which is life. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theodore of Mopsuestia: With these words the Evangelist shows that there were countless signs that the Savior performed before the disciples. In addition, he testifies that the words of the Gospels are true, namely, those scattered accounts composed accurately by the other [Evangelists] but were omitted by him. With his words here he demonstrates that he did not report those words without any polemical intention, but he shows that the words of the other [Evangelists] are true and are sufficient for the one who comes in faith and considers, reads and understands them. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.20.30-31

Theophylact of Ohrid: To what other signs is the Evangelist referring? To those that Jesus did after the resurrection, and not those before His crucifixion, as one might suppose. The Evangelist is speaking about the signs which Jesus did in the presence of His disciples only. The miracles before the Passion were performed in the presence of the multitude and revealed Jesus to all as the Son of God. The miracles after the resurrection were performed while He was alone with the disciples during the forty days: their purpose was to convince them that He was still the Son of man, with a human body, albeit one now incorruptible, more Godlike, and no longer subject to the laws of the flesh. Of the many miracles after the resurrection, only these are written. They are not described ostentatiously, to vaunt the glory of the Only-begotten, but simply, as the Evangelist says—that ye might believe. So what is the profit here, and to whom does it accrue? Certainly not to Christ, for what does He gain by our belief? It is we who gain. The Evangelist himself tells us that he wrote so that believing ye might have life through Jesus’ name. When we believe that Jesus rose from dead and lives, we win for ourselves eternal life. He arose, and is alive, for our sake. But whoever imagines that Christ is dead and did not rise from the grave has no life in him. Indeed, by thinking this he confirms and ensures his own eternal death and corruption.

John 20:31

Irenaeus: The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name” — Against Heresies Book III

Irenaeus: The Gospel knew no other Son of man but him who was of Mary, who also suffered. There was no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion. The Gospel knew about him who was born as Jesus Christ the Son of God and that this same person suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord verifies, saying, “But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” [He foresaw] blasphemous systems that divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that he was formed of two different substances. — AGAINST HERESIES 3.16.5

Tertullian: Why does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written unless, to use its own words, it is so “that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”? Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views there, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father but the Son. — AGAINST PRAXEAS 25

Tertullian: Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not “the Messias which is called Christ? " And so lie showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called “the Christ, the Son of God,” and not the Father. — Against Praxeas

Tertullian: Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, “that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? " Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. — Against Praxeas