…the numbers recorded in it were deemed worthy of being written down according to a certain proportion befitting each matter. It must be examined whether one of the books of Moses, entitled 'Numbers,' especially teaches the doctrine concerning numbers to those able to trace out such things.
These things I say to you at the beginning of the tenth volume, since I see that, in many places of Scripture, a certain number [Gk. σέκα, text uncertain] has obtained a distinguished privilege, as you too are able to observe carefully; and I hope also to receive from God something more even for this volume — which, in order that it may come to be, let us try, as far as is in our power, to offer ourselves to God, who wishes to bestow the most excellent gifts.
We must begin the book from this point: "After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples," and there † he remained not many days — while the other three, who wrote the Gospels, say that after the contest with the devil the Lord withdrew into Galilee.
Matthew and Luke say that he, having earlier been in Nazareth, afterward left that place and came and dwelt in Capernaum. But Matthew and Mark also state a certain cause for his withdrawing from there, namely that he had heard that John had been handed over.
Now the words of Matthew run thus: "Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him. And when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving † Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: 'Land of Zebulun...'" And after the words in Isaiah he says: "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.'"
But Mark says: "And he was, it says, in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him. Now after John was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near;'
repent, and believe in the gospel." Then, after also relating the matter concerning Andrew and Peter, and James and John, he records these things: "And entering into Capernaum, immediately on the sabbath he was teaching in the synagogue."
But Luke says: "And when the devil had finished, it says, every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report went out throughout the whole surrounding region concerning him. And he was teaching in their synagogues, being glorified by all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he went in, as was his custom, on the
day of the sabbaths, into the synagogue." And after setting forth the things spoken to him in Nazareth, and the wrath against him of those in the synagogue, who cast him out of the city and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, so as to throw him down headlong, and how, passing through the midst of them, the Lord went his way — he attaches these words: "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbaths."
III. …… <It must be maintained> that the truth concerning these matters is deposited in the intelligible realm, <on account of> many, when the discrepancy is not resolved, abandoning their faith concerning the Gospels, as though they were not true, nor written by a more divine Spirit, nor competently recorded from memory; for the writing of these is said to have been composed in either way. For let those who accept the four Gospels, and who suppose that the apparent discrepancy is not resolved by the method of anagogy, tell us — in addition to the difficulties we have already raised concerning the forty days of the temptation, which by no means find room in John — when it was that the Lord came to be in Capernaum. For if it was after the six days from when he was baptized, since on the sixth day occurred the dispensation concerning the marriage in Cana of Galilee, it is clear that he had neither yet been tempted, nor been in Nazareth, nor had John yet been handed over.
After Capernaum, then, where he remained not many days, since the Passover of the Jews was near, he went up to Jerusalem, where he casts out of the temple both the sheep and the oxen, and pours out the coins of the money-changers.
And it appears that in Jerusalem the ruler of the Pharisees, Nicodemus, came to him by night, and heard the things which it is possible to gather from the Gospel. After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he stayed with them and was baptizing; at which time John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there, and people came and were baptized; for John had not yet been cast into prison. At that time there also arose a dispute from the disciples of John with the Jews concerning purification, and they came to John, saying concerning the Savior, "Behold, this man is baptizing, and all are coming to him" — words which they had heard from the Baptist, which it is possible to take more accurately from the scripture itself.
But if, when we inquire about when the Christ first came to be in Capernaum, following the wording of Matthew and the other two, they shall say it was after the temptation, when, leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea — how will they say that both what is stated in Matthew and Mark is true at once, namely that he withdrew into Galilee because he had heard concerning John having been handed over, and also what is set down in John, together with certain other dispensations besides the stay in Capernaum — namely the going up to Jerusalem, and the coming down from there into Judea, at which time John had not yet been cast into prison, but was baptizing in Aenon near Salim?
And also in many other instances, if anyone should carefully examine the Gospels concerning their disagreement as to the historical narrative — which in each case we shall attempt, so far as possible, to set forth — he will grow dizzy and either fall away from confirming the Gospels as true, and by mere chance attach himself to one of them, not daring altogether to reject the faith concerning our Lord; or, accepting that there are four, he will say that their truth lies not in their bodily characteristics.
But concerning the extent of the conception we ought to have of the intention of the Gospels regarding such matters, this too must be said by us. Suppose that certain persons are set before us who behold, in the Spirit, God and his words to the saints, and also the presence with which he is present to them, appearing to them at select times of their advancement — being many in number and in different places, and not all benefited by the same kindnesses — and that each is to report privately what he sees in the Spirit concerning God and his words, and concerning the manifestations to the saints, so that this one reports what was said and done by God to this righteous man at this place, and that one reports concerning what was oracularly declared and accomplished for another, and yet another wishes to teach us concerning some third person besides the two already mentioned; and suppose there is also a fourth, doing the analogous thing concerning someone as the three did. Let these four agree with one another concerning some things suggested to them by the Spirit, and let them vary slightly concerning others, so that their accounts are of this sort: "God appeared to so-and-so at such a time in such a place, and did such and such things for him thus, appearing to him in such a form, and led him by the hand to such a place, where he did such and such."
Let the one who happened to be, at the same time as the aforesaid, in a certain city, report that God appeared, as he himself understands it, to a certain second person who was in a place far removed from the place of the first, and let him record other words as having been spoken at the same time to him whom we have supposed, for the sake of argument, to be the second. And let the like be understood concerning the third and the fourth.
Let these, as we have said before, agree with one another in reporting the truth concerning God and his kindnesses toward certain persons, while differing among themselves at points in the narratives reported by them. Then to one who supposes that the writing of these is history — which by means of an historical image would purport to set forth the actual facts — and who supposes God to be circumscribed in place, unable to produce in himself, at the same time, more than one appearance of himself in more places at once, nor to say more than one thing at once — it will seem impossible that the four whom I have supposed are speaking truly, since it is impossible for God to be in this particular appointed time at this place — inasmuch as he is conceived of as being circumscribed in place — and to say to this one and that one such-and-such and such-and-such, and to do such-and-such and the contraries of these, and, for instance, to be seated and standing at once, if one should say that at this time he stood and said or did certain things in this place, while another says that he was seated.
As, then, in the case of these persons whom I have supposed, if the mind of the historians is taken as having wished to teach us, by means of a bodily form of expression, the things that had been contemplated by their mind, no discrepancy whatever would be found, provided the four were wise; so it must be understood also to hold in the case of the four evangelists, who made use of many things concerning the marvelous and most paradoxical of the power of Jesus, as actually done, and who, wherever it was needful, wove into the writing, along with the literal wording, as it were something perceptible to sense, that which had been made plain to them in a purely intelligible manner.
Nor, indeed, do I condemn the notion that they sometimes transposed a piece of history, which had happened in one way, in a somewhat different form for the profit of the mystical purpose — so as to say that a thing that happened in this place happened as though in another, or that which happened at this time as though at another, and that they made what was thus reported with a certain variation.
For it was set before them, wherever it was possible, to speak the truth both spiritually and bodily at the same time; but where both were not possible, to prefer the spiritual to the bodily, the true spiritual sense being often preserved, as one might say, in the bodily falsehood. As, for instance, if we should say, from the history, that Jacob, when he said to Isaac, "I am Esau your firstborn son," spoke truly according to the spiritual sense, having already received the birthright, which was already being lost by his brother, and having, through the garment and the skins of the young goats, assumed the outward character of Esau, and having become, apart from the voice that praised God, Esau — in order that Esau might afterward have room to be blessed. For perhaps, if Jacob had not been blessed as Esau, not even Esau himself would have been able to receive the blessing on his own.
And thus Jesus too is many things according to the conceptions of him, of which conceptions it is likely that the evangelists, taking different notions, at times also agreeing with one another concerning certain matters, wrote the Gospels; as, for instance, it is true to say things that are, as regards the letter, opposed concerning our Lord — that he was born of David, and that he was not born of David.
For it is true to say, "He was born of David," as the apostle also says, "who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" — if we take his bodily aspect; but this same statement is false, if we understand "born of the seed of David" with reference to his more divine power; for "he was declared Son of God with power."
And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies in one place proclaim him a servant, and in another a son: a servant on account of the form of a servant and his descent from the seed of David, but a son according to his firstborn power. Thus it is true to say of him both that he is a man and that he is not a man: a man, according to his capacity to receive death; not a man, according to that in him which is more divine than man.
And I think that Marcion also, having half-received sound teachings, in setting aside his birth from Mary according to his divine nature, declared that he was not, in fact, born of Mary, and for this reason dared to excise these passages from the Gospel. A similar thing appears to have befallen those who take away his humanity and accept only his divinity, as well as those who, in the opposite direction, have set aside his divinity and confessed the man alone as holy and the most righteous of all men.
And those who introduce Docetism, not having understood him who "humbled himself" unto death and "became obedient" unto the cross, but having imagined only the impassible and that which is superior to every such experience, wish, so far as lies in them, to deprive us of the most righteous of all men — us who are unable to be saved through that man.
For as through one man came death, so also through one man comes the justification of life; we could not, apart from the man, have received the benefit from the Word, if he had remained such as he was in the beginning with God the Father, and had not assumed a man — the first of all, the most honored of all, and the purest of all — capable of receiving him. And after him we too shall be able to receive him, each of us to such an extent and in such a manner as we make room, and however great a room we make, for him in the soul
of us. Now all these things I have said, wishing to demonstrate that the apparent discrepancies of the Gospels are <in harmony> by the way of spiritual interpretation.
And for the same point one should also make use of such an example as this: that Paul, in his carnal aspect, says he was "sold under sin," and was unable to judge anything, whereas the spiritual man "judges all things, and is himself judged by no one." And to the carnal man belong such utterances as: "For what I will, this I do not do; but what I hate, this I do"; while to the spiritual man belong: "What I will, I do; and what I hate, I do not." But moreover, he who was caught up even to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words was another than the one who says, "Of such a one I will boast, but of myself I will not boast."
And if he also "becomes as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews, and to those under the law as under the law," that he might gain them, and "to those outside the law as outside the law" — not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ — that he might gain those outside the law, and "to the weak he became weak, that he might gain the weak" — it is clear that his words must be examined severally: separately those addressed to the Jews, separately those uttered when he is as one under the law, and at other times when he is as one outside the law, and again at times when he becomes weak.
As, for example, what he says by way of concession and not by way of command, he says as one who is weak: "For who," he says, "is weak, and I am not weak?" But when he shaves his head and offers a sacrifice, or circumcises Timothy, he becomes a Jew; but when he says to the Athenians, "I found an altar on which was inscribed, 'To an unknown God.' What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you," and, "As also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring,'" he becomes as without law to those without law, bearing witness to piety among the most impious, and to the one who said, "Let us begin from Zeus... for we are also his offspring," making use of the citation for his own purpose. And perhaps there is also a case where, to those who are not Jews but are under the law, he becomes as under the law.
These examples are useful to us not only for the matters concerning the Savior, but also for those concerning the disciples, concerning whom too there is a certain discrepancy according to the letter. For perhaps, in conception, the one who is found by his own brother, Andrew, Simon, and who hears, "You shall be called Cephas," is different from the one who is seen, together with his brother, by Jesus as he walked by the Sea of Galilee, and who, along with that Andrew, hears, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men."
For it was fitting that he who proclaims in a more theological manner concerning the Word who became flesh, and who for this reason did not record the birth of the Word who in the beginning was with God, should likewise not speak of him who was found by the sea and called from there, but of him who was found by his brother, having remained with Jesus at the tenth hour, and who, on account of being found in this manner, immediately received the name Cephas.
For he who is seen by Jesus as he walked by the Sea of Galilee only later, and with difficulty, receives the words, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."
And the Jesus in John is known among the Pharisees as baptizing — baptizing among his own disciples too, doing this along with certain other exceptional things; whereas the Jesus in the three does not baptize at all.
Moreover, John the Baptist, in the Gospel of the evangelist bearing the same name, continues for a long time not yet having been cast into prison; but in Matthew, almost at the very time Jesus is being tempted, he is handed over to prison — on account of which Jesus also withdraws into Galilee, avoiding being cast into the prison; yet the Baptist is nowhere found in John being handed over to prison.
Who, then, is so wise and so capable as to learn the whole of Jesus from the four evangelists, and to understand each severally, and to see all his sojournings, sayings, and deeds in each several place?
Now, concerning the passage before us, we consider it consistent that on the sixth day, when the dispensation concerning the marriage in Cana of Galilee had taken place, the Savior went down together with his mother and his brothers and his disciples into Capernaum, which is interpreted "field of consolation."
For it was fitting that, after the festivity in the wine, the Savior should also come into that of "consolation," together with his mother and disciples, to encourage, on account of the fruits that were to come in the † multitude field, those who were becoming disciples and the soul that had conceived him from the Holy Spirit, or those who were benefited there.
One must inquire, however, why to the marriage his brothers are not invited, nor indeed were they even there (for it is not so stated), while they go down to Capernaum along with him and his mother and the disciples; and further, one must examine why now they do not enter into Capernaum, nor go up into it, but go down.
Consider, then, whether here his brothers are to be understood in place of the powers which went down together with him, since they were not invited to the marriage according to the narrative we have mentioned, but at a lower stage, among those disciples of Christ of lesser standing who are benefited in a different manner; because, if his mother is called, there are certain persons bearing fruit, to whom the Lord himself, together with the ministers of the Word and the disciples, comes down, benefiting such persons, with his mother also present with him.
It seems that those called Capernaum could not contain the more extended sojourn of Jesus and those who went down with him; whence they remain with them, but not many days; for the field of the lower consolation cannot contain the illumination concerning the greater number of doctrines, being capable of receiving only the lesser.
For the sake of contemplating the differences among those who receive Jesus more or less, one should set alongside the words "There they remained not many days," what is said in Matthew, in the words spoken to those who had been made disciples after his resurrection and were being sent out to make disciples of all nations — namely: "Behold, I am with you all the days, even to the completion of the age." For to those who, still being here, are to know all things that human nature admits, it is said, in a demonstrative manner, "Behold, I am with you"; and, concerning every day of the dawning that is to be contemplated, which makes many days for the most blessed — "all the days, even to the completion of the age." But concerning those in Capernaum, to whom, as being of lesser standing, not only Jesus but also his mother and his brothers and his disciples go down: "There they remained not many days."
X. It is likely, and not without reason, that some will ask whether, after all the days of this age, he who said, "Behold, I am with" those who have made room for him, will no longer be so "even to the completion of the age"; for the word "until" seems to indicate a certain circumscription of time.
But this too must be said in answer, that "I am with you" is not the same as "I am in you." Perhaps, then, we would more properly say that the Savior is present, not "in" those being made disciples, but "with" them, in so far as they have not yet arrived at the completion of the age.
But when they behold, to the extent that lies in their own preparation, the completion of the world, which has been crucified to them, as having already arrived, then Jesus, being no longer "with" them but having come to be "in" them, they will say: "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," and, "If you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me."
We say these things while somewhat preserving, in a particular way, also the interpretation that presents itself: that "all the days, even to the completion of the age" is said with reference to what is attainable by human nature, still being here, to comprehend. For it is also possible, while preserving that other interpretation, to attend closely to the word "I," so that the one who is with those sent out to make disciples of all the nations, until the completion of the age, is he who "emptied himself" and "took the form of a servant"; whereas, as it were, another than this one, in the
state which was his before he emptied himself, comes to be with these people after the completion of the age, until all his enemies are put by the Father as a footstool for his feet; after which, when the Son delivers up the kingdom to God and the Father, the Father will say to them, "Behold, I am with you." But whether "all the days" up to that time, or simply "all the days," or not "all" but rather "every," it will be possible for whoever wishes to consider. For at present the matters before us do not require us to digress so far from our discourse.
Heraclon, however, in explaining "After this he went down to Capernaum, he himself," says that the beginning of yet another dispensation is being indicated, the word "went down" not being used idly; and he says that Capernaum signifies these extreme parts of the world, these material things into which he came down; and because, he says, the place was unsuited to him, he is not even said to have done or spoken anything in it.
Now if, indeed, in the other Gospels also the Lord had not been recorded as having done or said anything in Capernaum, perhaps we would have hesitated about accepting his interpretation.
But as it stands, Matthew says that our Lord, having left Nazareth, came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, and that from that time he made the beginning of his preaching, saying:
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near." And Mark, after the temptation by the devil, upon John being handed over, reports to us that the Lord came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God; and after the choosing of the four fishermen for the apostleship, they enter into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath he was teaching in the synagogue, and they were astonished at his teaching.
And he also records a deed of his that occurred in Capernaum: "Immediately," he says, "there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, 'Ha! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? We know who you are — the Son of God.'"
"And Jesus rebuked him, saying, 'Be silenced, and come out of him.' And when the unclean spirit had convulsed him and cried out with a loud voice, it came out of him; and they were all amazed. And Simon's mother-in-law was freed from her fever" in Capernaum.
And Luke too reports things similar to Mark's concerning Capernaum, saying: "And he came to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbaths; and they were astonished at his teaching, because his word was with authority."
"And in the synagogue there was a man having a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, 'Ha! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? I know who you are — the Holy One of God.' And Jesus rebuked him, saying, 'Be silenced, and come out of him.' Then the demon, having thrown him down in the midst, came out of him, having done him no harm."
And after these things he reports: "And the Lord, rising up, went from the synagogue into the house of Simon; and rebuking the fever that afflicted his mother-in-law, he freed her from the disease; and after she had been healed, when the sun was setting, it says, all who had those sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he, laying his hands on each one of them, healed them. And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, 'You are the Son of God'; and rebuking them, he did not allow them to speak, because they knew him to be the Christ."
All these things we have set forth concerning what was said and done by the Savior in Capernaum, for the purpose of refuting the interpretation of Heraclon, who says: "For this reason, he is not even said to have done or spoken anything in it."
For either let him himself also give two conceptions of Capernaum, and set them forth and persuade us as to what sorts they are; or, if he is unable to do this, let him desist from saying that the Savior sojourned in vain in any place.
And we too, God granting it, having come, in the course of our reading together, to such passages where it might seem that nothing at all had been accomplished in certain places, will attempt to make clear that his sojourn there was not in vain.
Moreover, Matthew says that when the Lord had entered into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, saying, "My servant is lying at home paralyzed, grievously tormented," and, after other things spoken, heard from the Lord, "Go, and as you have believed, so let it be done to you." And he too set forth the matter concerning Peter's mother-in-law in agreement with the other two.
I consider it fitting and befitting for the lover of learning in Christ to gather together from the four Gospels all that is recorded concerning Capernaum, and the words and deeds of the Lord in it, and how many times he sojourned in it, and when he is said to have gone down into it, and when to have entered into it, and from where. For these things, when set together with one another, will not permit us to fall into error concerning the interpretation of Capernaum.
Nevertheless, even though the sick are healed there and other mighty works occur there, and the preaching, "The kingdom of heaven has drawn near," begins from there, it still seems to be a symbol, as we indicated at the outset, of a somewhat inferior place, perhaps becoming so on account of Jesus consoling those, for the sake of what he taught and did there, concerning that region; for we know also of place-names that are appropriate to what happened concerning Jesus — as, for instance, Gergesa, where the citizens of the swine besought him to depart from their borders — which is interpreted "sojourning."
And this too we have noted concerning Capernaum: that not only did the preaching, "The kingdom of heaven has drawn near," begin to be proclaimed in it, but also, according to three of the evangelists, he performed his first mighty works there.