[John 4:23] For the Father seeks such as these to worship Him.
If the Father seeks, He seeks through the Son who has come to seek and save the lost, whom He equips as true worshippers by cleansing and instructing them with the word and sound doctrines. Heracleon says that what belongs to the Father is lost in the deep forest of error, which is sought so that the Father may be worshipped by His own. Therefore, if he had seen the parable about the lost sheep and the son who fell away from the Father's sons, we might have accepted his narration. But since those of his belief create myths and do not clearly demonstrate to us anything definite about the loss of the spiritual nature, nor do they teach us anything clear about the times or ages before its loss—for they are unable to make their argument clear—therefore we willingly dismiss them, questioning them at this point.
[John 4:24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth
Many have spoken many things about God and His essence, so that some have said that He is of a physical, subtle, and ethereal nature, while others have said He is bodiless, and others beyond essence in dignity and power. It is worthy for us to see if we have grounds from the divine scriptures to say something about the essence of God. Here indeed, it is said that His essence is spirit; "For God is spirit," it says; and in the law, "fire"; for it is written, "Our God is a consuming fire"; and by John, "light"; "For God," it says, "is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." If then we hear these more simply, without involving ourselves beyond the term, it is time for us to say that God is a body; but which incongruities this statement entails is not for the many to know; for few have grasped the nature of bodies, and especially those ordered by reason and providence; yet those who say that what foresees is of the same essence with the things foreseen generally, assert it to be perfect but like the foreseen. Those who wish God to be a body accepted all these things in their argument absurdly, as they cannot withstand those who clearly demonstrate by reason. With the exception of those who declare a fifth nature of bodies apart from the elements, I say these things. But if every body has a material nature, by its own account, it happens to be devoid of qualities, changeable, and alterable, and wholly variable, and bearing qualities which the creator may wish to impart upon it, then it is necessary that God, being material, would also be changeable, alterable, and variable. And those, indeed, are not ashamed to say that He is mortal, being a body, a spiritual and ethereal body, especially in His ruling aspect; they say that, though being mortal, He does not die because there is not a destroyer of Him. But we, because we do not see the consequences, if we say that this is a body and because of the scripture such a body, consuming spirit and fire and light, rejecting what necessarily follows from these, we will behave disgracefully like fools and speak against the clear facts. For every fire that needs nourishment is perishable, and every spirit, if we take spirit in the simplest sense as a body, is subject to transformation to a denser state according to its own nature. Therefore, it is time either to accept these many absurdities and blasphemies concerning God by adhering to the words, or to examine, as we also do with many other matters, what can be meant by saying that God is spirit or fire or light. And first it must be said that, just as we find eyes and eyelids and ears, hands and arms and feet written concerning God, and even wings, we take the written things allegorically, ignoring those who attribute a human-like form to God and rightly doing so. Similarly, with regard to the mentioned names, we must do the following as it is clear from the more practical aspect: "For God is light," according to John, "and in him there is no darkness at all."
Let us then examine how it is possible to understand him as light more intelligibly as far as we can. For the term "light" is used in two ways, both physical and spiritual, which is intellectually perceived and, as the scriptures might say, invisible, as the Greeks might call it incorporeal. And as for the physical example acknowledged by those who accept the history, "And for all the children of Israel, there was light in all their dwellings;" and the intellectual and spiritual example is in one of the twelve, "Sow for yourselves in righteousness, reap in the fruit of life, enlighten for yourselves with the light of knowledge." Similarly, "darkness" will also be spoken of in an analogous manner. And the more commonly spoken example, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night;" and the intellectual, "The people sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, light has risen upon them." With these things being thus, it is worth considering what is fitting for us to think about God being called light, in whom there is no darkness. For does God enlighten the physical eyes or the intellectual ones, about which the prophet also says, "Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep unto death"? I think it is evident to everyone that we would not say that God is doing the work of the sun, assigning to another to enlighten the eyes of those not sleeping unto death. Therefore, God enlightens the mind of those He deems worthy of His enlightenment. And if He is enlightening the mind according to what is said, "The Lord is my light," it is necessary for us to consider Him being intellectual, invisible, and immaterial as light. Perhaps also as a consuming fire, it seems that He is immaterial, consuming things like wood, grass, and straw.
And if the wood, grass, and straw are intellectual, perhaps the consuming fire of such material is God, said to be a consuming fire. And it is fitting for the Lord to consume and destroy such things, from which pains and sufferings arise, not from physical contact, but in the ruling parts, where the structure worthy of being consumed is established. Therefore, God is called light, having been transferred from bodily light to invisible and incorporeal light, and is thus called because of the power to enlighten intellectual eyes. He is also called fire, consuming, understood from bodily fire and that which consumes such matter.
Similarly, it seems to me regarding "God is spirit"; for since in the ordinary and generally called life, by the blowing of the air around us, the so-called more bodily breath of life, we are quickened by the spirit, I suppose that from that the spirit is called God, leading us to true life. For the spirit, according to scripture, is said to quicken, obviously not the ordinary but the more divine quickening. For the letter kills and brings death, not the separation of the soul from the body, but the separation of the soul from God and from its Lord, and from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we should also understand "You will receive their spirit, and they will pass away" and "You will send forth your spirit and they will be created, and you will renew the face of the earth" better regarding this spirit if we assumed that he who is deprived of the divine spirit becomes earthly, and having made himself fit to receive it and having received it, he will be recreated and, being recreated, saved. Such would it be if he "breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul," so that we may understand both the inspiration and the breath of life and the life of the soul spiritually. Since the aforementioned power, as it were, having found the soul of the holy one to be a suitable dwelling place, imparts itself to it alone, so to speak, it must be considered written "I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Yet we need more exercise in order to become perfect and to have our senses trained to discern both good and evil, truth and falsehood, and to contemplate intelligible things, so that we may be able to understand more carefully and fittingly, according to what is possible for human nature, how God is light and fire and spirit. Even in the third book of Kings, the spirit of the Lord coming to Elijah suggests something like this about God: "For he said: Go forth tomorrow and stand before the Lord on the mountain; behold, the Lord will pass by. And a great strong wind rent the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind" – in other places we find: "in the wind of the Lord"; – "after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice"; and perhaps in those things that are necessary to be explained about the apprehension of the Lord, they are indicated through these things, which it is not the time to narrate now. But whom should we have expected to speak to us about what God is, other than the Son? "For no one knows the Father except the Son," so that we too, as the Son reveals, may know how God is spirit, and strive to worship God in the spirit that gives life and not in the letter that kills, and to revere him in truth, no longer with types nor shadows nor examples, just as neither do the angels serve God with examples and shadows as humans do, but with intelligible and heavenly things, having as their guide the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek for the service that is for the salvation of those who need it, and for the mystical and secret contemplation. However, as for the saying "God is Spirit," Heracleon says, for the divine nature is undefiled and pure and invisible. But I do not know if he has taught us these things on saying how God is Spirit; but thinking to clarify the phrase "those who worship must worship in spirit and truth," he says: suitably to the one who is worshipped spiritually, not carnally; for they too, being of the same nature as the Father, are spirit, who worship in truth and not in error, as also the apostle teaches, calling such godliness reasonable service. But we must consider whether it is not exceedingly impious to say that those who worship God in spirit are of the same substance with the unbegotten and entirely blessed nature, whom Heracleon himself recently said had fallen, saying that the Samaritan woman, being of a spiritual nature, committed fornication. But those who say such things do not see that everything of the same substance is also receptive to the same things; but if the spiritual nature received fornication, being of the same substance * * * unholy and impious and godless consequences follow from their statement about God, and it is not safe even to imagine.
But we, obeying the Savior who says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I," and for this reason not accepting the title "Good," which is proper and true and perfect, attributed to him, but referring it gratefully to the Father with reproof to the one who wants to overly glorify the Son, say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures, not by comparison but by surpassing excellence, and so much or even more does he exceed the Father as he himself and the Holy Spirit exceed the rest, not of any kind of beings. For such glorification of the one who surpasses thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the age to come, and also of holy angels and spirits and righteous souls, what need is there to say? Yet, exceeding these so great and so many in substance and preeminence and power and divinity – for he is a living Word – and in wisdom, he is in no way comparable to the Father. For he is an image of His goodness and a radiance not of God but of His glory and of His eternal light, and a vapor not of the Father but of His power, and a pure emanation of His almighty glory, and an unblemished mirror of His activity, through which mirror Paul and Peter and those like them see God, saying, "He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me."
[John 4:25] The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When he comes, he will tell us all things."
It is worthy to see how the Samaritan woman, accepting nothing beyond the Pentateuch of Moses, expects the coming of Christ as being proclaimed from the law only. And it is reasonable for them to hope from the blessing of Jacob to Judah, saying, “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down to you.” And shortly after, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” It is also likely that from the prophecies of Balaam they themselves hope the same, saying, “A man shall come forth from his seed and he shall rule over many nations, and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall increase. God led him out of Egypt; he has the glory of a wild ox; he shall consume the nations of his enemies and break their bones in pieces, and pierce them with his arrows. He lay down, he rested like a lion, and like a lioness; who will rouse him? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.” And following this, Balaam himself says, “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a man shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the chiefs of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be a possession, and Esau a possession, his enemies. Israel will act valiantly. And one from Jacob shall have dominion and destroy the survivors of the city.” You may also consider whether Moses’ blessing to Judah is referred to Christ and might thus seem acceptable to the Samaritans, “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him to his people; let his hands contend for him, and be a help against his adversaries.” Since the Samaritans boast Joseph as their patriarch, I suggest that perhaps both the blessing of Jacob to Joseph and that of Moses may be considered as referring to the presence of Christ; and whoever wishes may take the sayings directly from the text itself. And the Savior himself, knowing that Moses had written many prophecies about Christ, says to the Jews, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.” Indeed, one can find many things written in the law that typologically and enigmatically refer to Christ; but at present, I see no others clearer and unambiguous than these. Messiah is called in Hebrew, which the seventy translated as “Christ”; but Aquila translated it as “Anointed.” Consider also the phrase, “When he comes, he will tell us everything”; whether this was said to the Samaritan woman from tradition or from the law. It should not be ignored that just as Jesus arose from the Jews, declaring and proving that he is Christ, so some Dositheus, arising from the Samaritans, claimed himself to be the prophesied Christ, from whom the Dositheans derive, carrying books attributed to Dositheus and narrating certain myths about him, such as that he has not tasted death but is somewhere alive. And these things pertain to the word. But the heterodox opinion at Jacob’s well, considered to be its well, regards this saying as a fuller understanding of Christ, “When he comes, he will tell us everything.” And the awaited and hoped-for one present with her says, “I, who speak to you, am he.” Consider also what Heracleon says; for he states that the church welcomed Christ and was convinced about him, that he alone knows everything.
[John 4:26-27] Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one speaking to you.” At that moment his disciples arrived. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman. Nevertheless, none of them said, “What are you seeking?” or “Why are you speaking with her?”
It should be considered whether Christ revealed himself and compared these things to one another like, “I am the one who testifies about myself, and the Father who sent me also testifies about me,” and further “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me,” and any other similar statements in the Gospels. But let us learn from this saying that he is meek and humble in heart, not exalting himself in talking about such significant matters with a woman drawing water because of great poverty and fatigue coming to the city to draw water. The disciples were amazed when they arrived, having previously perceived the greatness of his divinity, and they marveled at how such a great one spoke with a woman. But we, driven by arrogance and pride, overlook the simpler people and forget that each person is made in the image and likeness of God, and forget the one who has formed the hearts of all humans individually and who understands all their works. We do not recognize that God is the one who humbles himself and is a helper of the needy, a supporter of the weak, a protector of the hopeless, and a savior of the desperate. It’s as if he even used this woman as an apostle to those in the city, having so much influenced her through his words that she left her water jar and went to the city to tell the people, “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” When they came out of the city and made their way to him, it is clear then and not later that the Word made himself known so clearly, causing the disciples to marvel if even this woman, being of lesser intellect and easily deceived, was deemed worthy to have a conversation with the Word. However, the disciples, convinced by the Word that all things are done well, did not criticize or discuss the inquiry towards the Samaritan woman and the conversation with her. Perhaps they were also astounded by the great kindness of the Word who condescended to a despised soul, Zion, trusting in the Mount of Samaria; therefore, it is written, “They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman.” And Heracleon also says about “I am he, the one speaking to you,” that when the Samaritan woman was persuaded about Christ that he would declare everything to her, he said, "Know that the one you are expecting, I am he, the one speaking to you." And when he acknowledged himself as the awaited one who had come, “The disciples came to him,” it says, indicating that he had come to Samaria for their sake. How had he come to Samaria for the sake of the disciples, who had already been with him before?
[John 4:28-29] The woman then left her water jar and went into the city and said to the people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I have done; could this be the Christ?"
It is not for nothing, I think, that the evangelist recorded both the details about the water jar being left, which the woman left behind when she went into the city, and the greater zeal indicated by the Samaritan woman leaving the jar, showing no longer so much concern for the physical and meaner duty as for the benefit of many people. For she was very kindly moved, wishing to preach Christ to the citizens, witnessing to Him who told her "all that she had done." She calls them to see a man who has a word greater than human; for the visible to her eyes was a man. Therefore, we also, forgetting the more physical things and leaving them, must hasten to impart the benefit we have received to others. For this the evangelist encourages through his praise of the woman written to be read by those who know. Moreover, we must look into the symbolism of the water jar which the Samaritan woman left behind, having received some sort of message from Jesus; perhaps it represents the vessel of her teaching, which she put aside, deeming it base, having taken in the superior teaching, now that in her was established a source of "water springing up to eternal life." For how else would she have preached Christ so generously to the citizens, marveling at Him who proclaimed to her "all that she did," unless through the saving water she had received and taken in? Rebekah, too, had a water jar on her shoulders, before the servant of Abraham finished speaking in his mind, and she was going out, a beautiful virgin by appearance. Since she did not draw the same way as the Samaritan woman, she goes down to the well and fills the jar, and as she ascended with it, Abraham's servant ran to meet her and said, "Let me drink a little water from your jar." For because he was Abraham's servant, he loved to receive even a little water from Rebekah's jar. "And Rebekah hurried, and lowered the jar to her arm and gave him a drink until he finished drinking." Therefore, because Rebekah's jar was commendable, it was not left behind by her, but the Samaritan woman’s, in the sixth hour, was left. Here the Samaritan woman evangelizes Christ to the Samaritans, and at the end of the Gospels, the woman who first saw the Savior after His resurrection tells the apostles. But this woman, though heralding the perfect faith, was not commended by the Samaritans who said: "We no longer believe because of your words; for we have heard ourselves and we know that this is truly the savior of the world." And she who touched Christ was not believed when he said to her: "Do not cling to me." For Thomas was about to hear: "Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side." All that the woman did, her association with the five husbands and after them her conciliation with the sixth, who was not her genuine husband, for which she abandoned the water jar and decently rests on the seventh day, bringing benefit to those living in the city with their previous doctrines, constructing with unsound words, the same as the woman; they are also the reason to leave the city and come to Jesus.
The Samaritans very carefully request Jesus next, not to stay in the city but "with them," meaning in their leading position; for perhaps it was impossible for him to stay in their city since they themselves left the city and came to him greatly doing well. As these things are very distinctly shown, with the evangelist giving us grounds for deeper insights, from this we must judge; previously it was written: "They went out of the city and were coming to him," and after a little while: "Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, 'He told me everything I ever did.'" When the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them. And indeed, before that, they came out of the city to him, and secondly, the Samaritans came to him while he was still beside Jacob’s well—for he seemed not to have moved from there—and "they urged him to stay with them"; it is not written after this that he entered the city, but "He stayed there two days." But even subsequently it is not said, "After the two days he went out of the city," but "He departed from there"; for as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned, all the economy of benefit for the Samaritans happened beside Jacob's well.
Heracleon believes the jug receiving life to be a disposition and thought of the power from the savior, which she left, he says, with him, that is, having with the savior such a vessel, in which she came to receive living water, she returned to the world announcing Christ's presence; for through the spirit and by the spirit the soul is brought to the savior. But consider whether this jug can be commendable at all left behind; "The woman left her water jar," she said. It does not imply that she left it with the savior. And how is it not implausible that having left an accepting disposition of life and power's thought from the savior and the vessel in which she came to receive living water, she went away into the world without these, evangelizing Christ's presence? And how can the spiritual one, after all these words, not be clearly convinced about Christ, but says: "Could this be the Christ?" And the narrative "They went out of the city" signifies rather their previous worldly conduct; and they came through faith, he says, to the savior. But one must tell him how he stays with them for the two days; for he did not adhere to what we previously stated about not being recorded as having remained in the city for two days.
[John 4:31] Meanwhile, his disciples asked him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."
After the dispensation concerning the drink and the teaching on the distinction of the waters, it was appropriate also to record matters concerning food. Therefore, the Samaritan woman asked to drink, though she was in a state of questioning, as it were, * * but because of the one who asked; for she had no worthy drink to give to Jesus, if he willed to do her a favor by means of what she gave to drink. It was fitting now * * * * from the Samaritan woman. But the disciples * * * having gone to the city to buy food, either finding suitable food from the heterodox, or some fitting words, * * * * * * to him, they said, "Eat," thinking it a suitable time for him to take food between the departure of the woman to the city and the arrival of the Samaritans to him; for they did not set the food before him at any other time, perhaps because it would be vexing to the Samaritan woman, if she saw the disciples intending to set food from her city, whether it existed or was considered so, before the teacher. Nor would those disciples fittingly say "Rabbi, eat," in the presence of the Samaritans, as those wishing to abandon their city. Therefore, the phrase "Meanwhile, his disciples were asking him, saying, Rabbi, eat" is well placed. Why "they were asking him" and not is worth seeing; for it could have been written more simply, "Meanwhile, his disciples said to him, Rabbi, eat." But to ask him to eat, to beg and to plead with him, indicates something before the inquiry, or sometimes even after the inquiry. And observe whether perhaps, fearing that * * the discourse * * with suitable * * or with strengthening foods, they ask him to consume what is found; for the disciples always wish to nourish the word with what they find, so that by strengthening, invigorating, and empowering it, it may remain more with those who nourish it, reciprocally nourishing those who present it with food. For this reason, he says he stands at the door and knocks so that if anyone opens the door, he will come in to him and dine with him, so that later the one who has dined might be able to reciprocate the diner with the word given by the man. However, Heracleon says that they wished to share with him what they had bought and brought back from Samaria. He says these things so that some * * * the five foolish virgins * * * from the bridegroom. How then do I think * * to have the same * * are said * * * * to the foolish virgins who were shut out, conveying a charge against the disciples, belonging with those same foolish virgins. Furthermore, there is the dissimilarity of light to food, and of oil to provisions * * * to bring an accusation against the interpretation; or if there was anything that could make the word clear, he had to comfort it through more preparation, constructing his own interpretation.
[John 4:32] He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about."
The needless does not require food, but that which requires food is not needless. And it is clear that the one who eats does not eat out of not needing food, but out of needing and wanting it. Bodies, being fluid by nature, are nourished by food that replenishes the places of what has flowed out. But those things better than the body are nourished by incorporeal thoughts and words and healthy actions, not dissolving into non-existence if they are not nourished; for even bodies do not dissolve into non-existence if they are not nourished. It loses its being in such a way when it is not nourished by things suited to its differing nature from bodies. Just as bodies that need food are not nourished by qualities, nor is the same quantity of food sufficient for all. Similarly, one must understand with matters better than bodies. For these too need more or less nourishment, not being equally receptive. Nor does the quality of nourishing words and thoughts, and fitting actions in contemplation, suit all souls the same. Furthermore, both vegetable and solid food do not nourish those needing improvement from these at the same time. For newborn infants, as Peter says, should long for pure spiritual milk. And if anyone is in the infant state like the Corinthians, to whom Paul says, "I fed you with milk, not solid food." And the weak, due to a lack of faith, should eat vegetables; and Paul too says this, teaching "The one who believes may eat all things, but the weak eats vegetables." And there is sometimes a "better dinner of vegetables with friendship and grace, as opposed to fatted calves with enmity." "Solid food is for the mature, who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil." Yet, there is also poisonous food, which we learn from the Fourth Book of Kings, where some said to Elisha, "Death in the pot, man of God." And there is also spiritual yet rudimentary food for the less rational souls, which another herb or grass or straw symbolizes, as indicated in "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters." And Isaiah also says, "The lion shall eat straw like the ox." But grass is also placed before the cattle in Rebecca's household for the child of Abram. If there is a more rational and therefore also intellectual person, he eats the intellectual bread, as it is written in the Psalms: "Bread strengthens the heart of man," and he rejoices in the intellectual wine, none other than a man: "For wine gladdens the heart of man." But the word must ascend from the irrational and men to the angels, who also are nourished; for they are not completely without need. "Man ate the bread of angels," and blessed Abraham was able to present to the three appearing to him unleavened cakes. But now it is necessary to proceed to the discourse concerning the eating of Christ, which the disciples did not then know; for Jesus speaks truly, saying: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." For what Jesus did, accomplishing the will of the one who sent him and completing his work, this the disciples did not know. To understand more clearly the saying, "I have food to eat that you do not know about," let Paul speak to those who need milk, and not solid food, to the Corinthians, who are fed with milk and not food, who are not yet able to partake of food: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." And always the one who excels and sees what the inferior cannot will say: "I have food to eat that you do not know about." It is not unreasonable to say that not only humans and angels are in need of intellectual nourishment, but also Christ of God; for even he, so to speak, is ever being sustained by the Father, the only one who is without need and self-sufficient. The general populace of the disciples receives food from the disciples of Jesus, being commanded to give to the crowds; the disciples of Jesus receive from Jesus himself, though sometimes also from holy angels; but the Son of God receives food from the Father alone, not through someone. It is not unreasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is also nourished; but we must seek a scriptural phrase that suggests this. The parables about the feasts should be gathered from the Gospels. The entire mystery of the calling and election is present in the foods of the great feast: "For a man," it says, "made a great feast, and at the hour of the feast sent to call the invited." Also, through Isaiah, the promises of eating and drinking are given: "Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty." Yet, in Genesis, God places man in the paradise of delight, giving laws about eating this and not eating that. And man would have remained immortal, had he eaten from every tree in the paradise, but not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See also what is said in the twenty-first Psalm about those who worship because they have eaten: "All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and worshipped," for this reason: "The Lord will not let the soul of the righteous go hungry," but when we become unjust, He will send "a famine upon the land, not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." Therefore, as we progress, we shall eat greater and better food, until perhaps we reach the point of eating the same food as the Son of God, which the disciples at present do not know. Heracleon did not speak anything significant to this word.
[John 4:33] The disciples therefore said to one another, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?"
Even if Heracleon understands these things carnally as having been said by the disciples, who still think more humbly and imitate the Samaritan woman saying, "You have no bucket and the well is deep," it is fitting for us to consider whether the disciples, seeing something more divine, said to one another, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?" For perhaps they suspected that some angelic power had brought him food; and it is reasonable that they were taught because of this that the food he had to eat was greater, which was to do "the will of the one who sent him and to finish his work."
[John 4:34] Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work."
The appropriate food for the Son of God when He becomes the doer of the Father's will is to will in Himself what was also in the Father, so that the will of God may be in the will of the Son, and the will of the Son may become identical with the will of the Father, so that there may no longer be two wills but one will; this one will is the reason for the Son saying, "I and the Father are one," and through this will whoever has seen the Son has seen the One who sent Him. And it is more appropriate for us to consider doing the Father's will by the Son as this: from which will even the things outside of the will occur rightly, rather than us to think that the doing of the will of the One who sent us is to do something external. For that which occurs outside of the will without the previously mentioned will, is not the entire will of the Father; but the whole will of the Father is done by the Son whenever the will of God is done in the Son, doing these things which the will of God wishes. Only the Son does the entire will of the Father, and thus He is also His image. We must also consider concerning the Holy Spirit. But the other holy things will do nothing contrary to the will of God, and indeed whatever they do, they do according to the will of God, yet they do not suffice to perfectly represent the whole will. And this holy one compared to that holy one is greater or more complete or more perfect as it departs from the paternal will, and again different from it something else will depart respectively; but the whole and entire will of God is done by Him who said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me." After this, indeed, He says thankfully concerning God, "The Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son does likewise. The Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He does." Perhaps for these reasons He is the image of the invisible God; for His will is the image of the primary will, and His divinity is the image of the true divinity; and being the image of the Father's goodness, He says, "Why do you call Me good?" And this will is the Son’s peculiar food, through which the food is what it is. That the will concerns the disposition is shown by the succeeding word, which says after the doing of the will to complete the work of God. Additionally, we must consider this to understand what "I will complete His work" means. Someone might simply say that the commanded work, which is from Him who commanded, * * as we say of examples, indicating those building or cultivating to complete the work of the one who took them to the work, in the doing for which they were received; someone else might say that if the work of God is completed by Christ, it is clear that this, before being completed, was incomplete. How then was it imperfect, the work of God? And how is the work of God perfected by the one who said: "The Father who sent me is greater than I"? But the perfection of the work was the perfection of the rational being; for this came, being imperfect, to render perfect the Word who became flesh. Was then the work created imperfect, and the Savior sent to perfect the imperfect? And how is it not absurd for the Father to be the maker of the imperfect, and the Savior to perfect the imperfect, having been created imperfect? I suppose a deeper mystery lies hidden in these passages; for perhaps the rational being was not entirely imperfect at the same time it was placed in paradise. For how would God have placed the entirely imperfect in paradise to work and guard it? For the one able to work "the tree of life" and everything planted by God and subsequently sprouted, could not reasonably be called imperfect. Perhaps, being somehow perfect, it became imperfect through disobedience and needed the one who would perfect it from imperfection, and thus the Savior was sent, first to do the will of the one who sent him, becoming his servant even here, and second to perfect the work of God and each one perfected may be suitable for solid food and exercise wisdom. "Solid food is for the perfect, those who through practice have their senses trained to distinguish good from evil." And the one speaking wisdom says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect." And when each of us, the work of God, is perfected by Jesus, he will say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness." Not only man, but also the "sons of God, seeing the daughters of men that they are fair, took for themselves wives of all whom they chose," and consistently all those who left "their own dwelling" and did not preserve their own principality - and by "principality" I mean not in reference to power but to the beginning and foundation; just as for man, the beginning was to be in paradise, but the end perhaps due to transgression in Hades below or some such place, so also for each of the fallen ones a particular beginning is given. However, Jesus perfecting the work of God, I say every rational being, not man alone, perfects it in the same way; indeed the more blessed ones persuade reason without toil alone are perfected by the word; others, having disobeyed the word, require sufferings, so that after sufferings they may later be brought to reason and then perfected by it. Nevertheless, both are one food own to Jesus, to do the will of the one who sent him and to perfect his work. But Heracleon interprets "My food is to do the will of him who sent me" to mean the Savior dismissed his disciples that this was what he was discussing with the woman, calling the will of the Father his proper food; for this was his nourishment and rest and power. And he said that the will of the Father is to know men the Father and be saved, which was the work of the Savior who for this was sent into Samaria, that is, into the world. He thus understood Jesus' food and discourse with the Samaritan woman, which I think is clearly evident to all, understood plainly and forced. But how the will of the Father is the food of the Savior he did not clearly show, nor how the will of the Father is rest; for the Lord says in another place, as if not all of the Father's will is his rest: "Father, if possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what you [will]." And how also is the will of God the strength of the Savior?
Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest. To those who think it is said more simply and physically, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest"?' it must be pointed out that one must be persuaded that the Savior often spoke of the spiritual and the unseen. For if the time when Jesus said this was four months before the actual harvest, it is clear that it was winter. In Judea, the harvest begins in the month calls Nisan by the Hebrews, when the Passover is celebrated, and often they make unleavened bread from new wheat. But let us grant that the harvest is not in that month, but in the following month called Iyar by them. Thus, the time four months prior would be considered winter. Therefore, if we show that when Jesus said these things it was near the time of harvest, either approaching or already at hand, we will have demonstrated the context. It should be noted that after the incident in Cana of Galilee concerning the turning of water into wine, the Lord is said to have gone down to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples, where they stayed a few days; and it was near the Passover of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. There he found those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves in the temple, and made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple. After talking with Nicodemus, he came himself and his disciples into the land of Judea, where he stayed with them and baptized. How much time should we assume he spent baptizing in Judea after the Passover? For it is not written explicitly. And it seems, as the Pharisees had learned that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, he left Judea and went into Galilee, passing through Samaria. He said what no one expected, 'Do you not say, "There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest?"'. If someone supposes that Jesus stayed many months in Judea baptizing with his disciples after the Passover, so that it was already at the time four months before the harvest, it should be noted that he stayed two days with the Samaritans and then went into Galilee, and it is written, as the Passover had recently occurred and the events with him in Jerusalem, 'When he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all that he did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also went to the feast'. But it is plausible that someone might say these things do not contradict him staying in Judea for a longer period before coming to Jacob's well, and departing for Galilee, at which point 'There are yet four months,' he said, 'to the harvest'; and there is nothing strange in the Galileans receiving him because of what happened eight months prior in Jerusalem. It should be read to them that upon coming into Galilee, "He went to Cana of Galilee, where" He had previously made "the water wine", where also He healed the son of the royal official who was sick at Capernaum, saying to his father: "Your son lives", and "After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem", when He healed the paralytic who had been sick for thirty-eight years. If this feast is the Passover—for the name of it is not given—the sequence of the story is troubled, especially since shortly after it is said, "The feast of the Jews, the Feast of Tabernacles, was near." Examining these things further, it is fitting for the one who observes the deeper meaning of the scriptures to inquire into what Jesus, meaning, said to His disciples, "Do you not say, 'There are four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are already white for harvest." Just as we said considering the Samaritans about the issues concerning the waters, so let us do here also. For who would not agree that "Lift up your eyes and see the fields, for they are white for harvest already" is spiritual, and entirely spiritual, being bare of the physical? It would follow that the disciples' saying that after four months the harvest would come refers, as far as their understanding, to the harvest shown by Jesus. We think, therefore, that there is something similar in the disciples saying, "There are four months, and then comes the harvest"; most of the disciples of the Word, understanding that the truth is difficult to attain to human nature, when they have received the concept of another life beyond the present one, having despaired in the present they suppose they will grasp the truth after transcending the four elements. Accordingly, the disciples say concerning the harvest, which is the completion of the works of those who gather the truth, that it occurs after the present tetrad. But the name of the months has been taken appropriately to the bodily discourse concerning the harvest. For it would not have been fitting to say, "Do not you say: There are yet four days, and harvest comes" or "There are yet four years, and harvest comes?" Especially since the word desires to conceal the mystical from the many and the more bodily-minded, revealing what is simpler to make the words spoken by the Savior appear clear. Or perhaps the intention of the disciples saying: "There are yet four months, and harvest comes" is such: there are four spheres of the four elements underlying the etheric nature, in the middle and lowest place, of earth, around it that of water, and thirdly that of air, and fourthly that of fire, after which is that of the moon, and so on. And we should consider whether the disciples understand that those who have become nearer to the purer essence will grasp the truth when one can also surpass the sphere of fire, not being corrupted by sin, which is the matter of everything in the regions before the * * * etheric places * *. Refuting this notion as unhealthy, the Word made flesh says to those who think so, "Do not you say: There are yet four months, and harvest comes? Behold, I say to you: Lift up your eyes and see the fields that they are white for harvest already." For it indeed seems inconceivable to us that he would be talking about a single harvest in all these things when he reproaches the disciples who think, as they suppose, that the harvest comes after four months, which we have shown previously does not seem capable of occurring after four months; and correcting, as it were, the notion of the disciples, he says, "Do not you say this? But I say this;" besides, how is it not absurd to allegorically interpret the "Lift up your eyes" clearly, and the "See the fields that they are white for harvest already," but not take allegorically the preceding "Do not you say: There are yet four months, and harvest comes?" And Heracleon, likewise, remained with the common interpretation of the phrase, not thinking it could be elevated. He says, indeed, that he speaks of the harvest of crops, which still has a period of four months, but that the harvest he spoke of was already present. And also, I do not know how he understood the harvest in relation to the soul of believers, saying that they are already ripe and ready for harvest and suitable for being gathered into the barn, that is, through faith into rest, as many indeed are ready; for not all are; for, he says, some were already ready, others were about to be, others are already being sown. Thus he said. But how can the disciples, lifting up their eyes, see the souls already suitable for being, as he thinks, gathered into the barn, I do not know how he can show. And indeed, how is the saying "One sows, and another reaps" and "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored" true concerning the souls? How can we accept the statement "Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor" concerning the soul? Therefore, we understand the harvest of the gathered fruit into eternal life as the completion of the word sown in ideas for us, perfected from greater cultivation. How one sows and another reaps we will discuss further on.