Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 4:43-46

"And after the two days he went forth from thence into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. So when he came into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast. He came therefore again unto Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum." — John 4:43-46 (ASV)

1. Having described the conversion of the Gentiles through teaching, the Evangelist now presents their conversion through miracles. He mentions a miracle performed by Christ, outlining it in three parts:

   First, he gives the location: he came again into Cana of Galilee.

   Second, he describes the miracle itself, beginning with, and there was a certain ruler, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

   Third, he shows its effect, starting with, the father therefore knew that it was at the same hour (John 4:53).

   Regarding the location, the author first gives the general area of the miracle—Christ’s own homeland—and then the specific place: therefore he came again into Cana of Galilee. In discussing the general location, he first mentions the place itself and then describes how Christ was received there, beginning with, and when he had come into Galilee. Finally, in indicating the general place, he provides a reason for it, starting with, for Jesus himself gave testimony.

2. The text says first of all: I say that Jesus remained with these Samaritans for two days, and after two days, he departed from there, that is, from Samaria, and went to Galilee, where he had been raised. This signifies that at the end of the world, when the Gentiles have been confirmed in the faith and in the truth, a return will be made to convert the Jews, according to the scripture: until the full number of the gentiles enters, and so all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25).

3. Then he gives a reason, saying: Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

   There are two questions here: one concerns the literal meaning, and the other concerns the continuity of this passage with what came before.

   The problem with the literal meaning is that the statement, a prophet has no honor in his own country, does not seem to be true, for we read that other prophets were honored in their own land.

   Chrysostom answers this by saying that the Lord is speaking here about what happens in the majority of cases. So, although there might be an exception in some individual instances, what is said here should not be considered false. In matters concerning nature and morals, a rule is considered true if it is verified in most cases; if a few cases are otherwise, the rule is not considered false. Now, what the Lord says was true for most of the prophets, because in the Old Testament it is hard to find any prophet who did not suffer persecution from his own people: Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? (Acts 7:52); Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you (Matthew 23:37).

   Furthermore, as Origen says, this statement of our Lord holds true not only for the prophets among the Jews but also for many among the Gentiles, who were held in contempt and put to death by their fellow citizens. Living with people in the usual way, and too much familiarity, lessens respect and breeds contempt. Thus, we come to revere less those with whom we are more familiar, and we regard more highly those with whom we cannot become acquainted. However, the opposite happens with God: for the more intimate we become with God through love and contemplation, realizing how superior He is, the more we respect Him and the less we esteem ourselves. I have heard you, but now I see you, and so I reprove myself, and do penance in dust and ashes (Job 42:5). The reason for this is that human nature is weak and fragile; when one lives with another for a long time, he notices certain weaknesses in him, and this results in a loss of respect. But since God is infinitely perfect, the more a person knows Him, the more he admires His superior perfection, and as a result, the more he respects Him.

4. But was Christ a prophet? At first glance, it seems not, because prophecy involves obscure knowledge: if there is a prophet of the Lord among you, I will appear to him in a vision (Numbers 12:6). Christ’s knowledge, however, was not obscure.

   Yet he was a prophet, as is clear from Deuteronomy 18:15: the Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you, from your nation and your brothers; he will be like me. You will listen to him. This text is referred to Christ.

   I answer that a prophet has a twofold function. First, that of seeing: he who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer (1 Samuel 9:9). Second, he makes known or announces. Christ was a prophet in this second sense, for he made known the truth about God: for this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth (John 18:37). As for the seeing function of a prophet, we should note that Christ was at once both a wayfarer and one of the blessed. He was a wayfarer in the sufferings of his human nature and in all things related to this life. He was blessed in his union with the divinity, by which he enjoyed God in the most perfect way.

   There are two aspects to the vision or seeing of a prophet. First is the intellectual light of his mind; in this regard, Christ was not a prophet, because his light was not at all deficient—his light was that of the blessed. Second, an imaginary vision is also involved; with respect to this, Christ did have a likeness to the prophets insofar as he was a wayfarer and was able to form various images with his imagination.

5. Second, there is the problem of continuity. The Evangelist does not seem to be right in connecting the fact that now after two days, he departed from there and went into Galilee with the statement that a prophet has no honor in his own country. It would seem that the Evangelist should have said that Christ did not go into Galilee, because if he was not honored there, that would be a reason for not going. The text says, for Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

   Augustine answers this by suggesting that the Evangelist said this to answer a question that could have been raised: why did Christ return to Galilee, since he had lived there for a long time and the Galileans were still not converted to him, while the Samaritans were converted in two days? It is the same as saying: even though the Galileans had not been converted, Jesus still went there, for Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

   Chrysostom explains this in a different way: after two days, he departed from there, not for Capernaum, which was his homeland because of his continuous residence there, nor for Bethlehem, where he was born, nor for Nazareth, where he was raised. Thus he did not go to Capernaum; hence he upbraids them, saying: and you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will descend even to hell (Matthew 11:23). He went instead to Cana in Galilee. And he gives the reason here: because they were ill-disposed toward him. This is what he means by saying, for Jesus himself gave testimony that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

6. Was Christ seeking glory from men? It seems not, for he says, I do not seek my own glory (John 8:50).

   I answer that it is only God who seeks His own glory without sin. A man should not seek his own glory from men, but rather the glory of God. Christ, however, as God, fittingly sought His own glory, and as man, He sought the glory of God in Himself.

7. Then he shows that Christ was received by the Galileans more respectfully than before, saying, and when he had come into Galilee, the Galileans received him honorably. The reason for this was that they had seen all the things he had done at Jerusalem on the festival day; for they also went to the festival day, as the law commanded.

   This seems to conflict with the fact that we did not read earlier of any miracles being performed by Christ in Jerusalem.

   I answer, with the opinion of Origen, that the Jews thought it a great miracle that Christ drove the traders from the temple with such authority (John 2:14). Or, we could say that Christ performed many miracles that were not written down, according to John 20:30: many other signs as well did Jesus do . . . which are not written in this book.

8. In its mystical sense, this gives us an example that if we wish to receive Jesus Christ within ourselves, we should go up to Jerusalem on a festive day—that is, we should seek tranquility of mind and examine everything which Jesus does there: look upon Zion, the city of our festive days (Isaiah 33:20); I have meditated on all Your works (Psalms 142:5).

9. Note that as men were lesser in dignity, they were better with respect to God. The Judeans were superior in dignity to the Galileans: search the Scriptures and see that, out of Galilee, a prophet does not rise (John 7:52). The Galileans, in turn, were superior in dignity to the Samaritans: the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans (John 4:9). On the other hand, the Samaritans were better than the Galileans because more of them believed in Christ in two days without any miracles than the Galileans did over a long period, even with the miracle of the wine, for none of them believed in him except his disciples. Finally, the Judeans were worse than the Galileans, because none of them believed in Jesus, except perhaps Nicodemus.

10. Then he says, he came again into Cana of Galilee. According to Chrysostom, this is given as a conclusion from what went before; it is as though he were saying: Christ did not go to Capernaum because he was not held in honor there. But he was under an obligation to go to Cana in Galilee, for on the first occasion he had been invited to the wedding, and now he goes again without being invited. The Evangelist mentions the two trips to Cana to show their hardness of heart: for at the first miracle of the wine, only his disciples believed in Christ, and at the second miracle, only the official and his household believed. The Samaritans, on the other hand, believed on Christ’s words alone.

11. In the mystical sense, the two visits to Cana signify the effect of God’s words on our minds. First, they cause delight, because those who hear the word receive the word with joy (Matthew 13:20). This is signified in the miracle of the wine, which gladdens the heart of man (Psalms 103:15). Second, the word of God heals: it was neither a herb nor a poultice that healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all things . This is signified by the curing of the sick son.

    Further, these two visits to Cana indicate the two comings of the Son of God. The first coming was in all gentleness to bring joy: rejoice and give praise, people of Zion, for he is great who is in your midst, the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 12:6). So the angel said to the shepherds: I bring you good news of great joy . . . this day a savior has been born to you (Luke 2:10). This is signified by the wine. His second coming into the world will be in majesty, when he will come to take away our weaknesses and our punishments, and to make us like his radiant body. This is signified in the cure of the sick son.