13

Lectio 1 LECTURE I

1 πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς. 2 καὶ δείπνου γινομένου, τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα παραδοῖ αὐτὸν Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου, 3 εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπάγει,

1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God [1]

Supra Evangelista posuit quasdam occasiones passionis et mortis Christi; in parte ista ostendit quomodo Christus discipulos suos praeparat ante suam passionem, et primo ostendit quomodo informavit eos exemplo; secundo quomodo confortavit verbo, et hoc infra XIV capit. non turbetur cor vestrum; tertio quomodo praemunivit eos orationum suffragio, infra XVII haec locutus est Iesus, et sublevatis oculis in caelum, dixit et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit exemplum quod Christus praebuit suis discipulis imitandum; secundo discipulorum defectum, qui nondum erant idonei ad sequendum, ibi cum haec dixisset Iesus, turbatus est. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit exemplum; secundo subdit exempli utilitatem, ibi venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum; tertio ad imitandum inducit, ibi postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum (...) dixit eis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit Christi, exemplum dantis, affectum; secundo innuit factum in quo dedit exemplum, ibi et coena facta et cetera. Circa primum tria tanguntur. Primo quidem festum praesens; secundo mors Christi imminens; tertio Christi dilectio fervens. Festum praesens, Pascha erat; et hoc est quod dicit ante diem festum Paschae et cetera. 1727 Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his disciples before his passion. First, we see how he formed them by his example; secondly, how he comforted them with his words (c 14); thirdly, how he strengthened them by the help of his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate; and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that the example was useful (v 6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example; secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). Concerning the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, Christ's burning love.
Hic notandum est, quod hoc nomen Pascha quidam dicunt esse Graecum, ita quod dicatur a passione, quasi inde festum istud vocetur Pascha, quia tunc celebratur passio dominica; et quidem concordat cum Graeco, nam Pascha in Graeco idem est quod pati prima autem origo huius vocabuli ex Hebraeo habetur: Pascha enim dicitur quasi phase, idest transitus domini, ut dicitur Ex. c. XII, 11. Interpretatur autem hic isto modo Evangelista propter duplicem transitum. Unum qui praecessit, scilicet Angeli percutientis primogenita Aegypti, et salvantis primogenita Hebraeorum; alium, qui sequitur, filiorum Israel transeuntium mare rubrum. Et ideo bene factum est ut vocetur Pascha festum istud. 1728 The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, Now before the feast of the Passover. Here we should note that some say the [Latin] word pascha comes from the Greek word for "passion," and that this feast is called the Pascha because it is then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word pascha in Greek does mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, pesah, which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is the pesah," passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the Pascha, [translated into English as Passover].
Et sic possumus dicere, quod Pascha nostrum habet significationem utriusque linguae, Hebraeae scilicet, et Graecae, quia in ipsa passione domini fuit transitus Christi ex hoc mundo ad patrem; Act. X, v. 38: pertransivit benefaciendo et sanando. Item transitus omnium nostrum, sequendo Christum, vel per poenitentiam et martyrium, secundum illud Ps. LXV, 12: transivimus per ignem et aquam; et eduxisti nos in refrigerium, vel mentis desiderio ad caelestia anhelando, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, v. 26: transite ad me, omnes qui concupiscitis me, et a generationibus meis implemini. Hoc autem quod dicit diem festum, antonomastice dicitur. We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ from this world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed about doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us who follow Christ have our own passage: either by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, "We have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment" [Ps 66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things: "Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits" [Sir 24:19].
Nam, ut legitur Ex. XXIII, 14 ss., tres dies anni solemnes erant, in quibus Iudaei convenire debebant in locum quem elegerat dominus: scilicet phase, quando immolabatur Pascha, et Pentecosten, et festum tabernaculorum, scilicet Scenopegiae. Sed dies Paschae inter alios celeberrimus erat. 1729 As we read in Exodus (23:14), the Jews had three great feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: The Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.
Sed dubium hic incidit de hoc quod dicit ante diem festum Paschae: nam dies festus Paschae dicitur ille dies in quo immolabatur agnus, quod erat luna quartadecima. Cum ergo dicat quod hoc fuit ante diem festum Paschae, videtur quod hoc fuerit factum luna tertiadecima, quae praecedebat quartamdecimam lunam. Quod quidem Graeci sequentes, dicunt quod dominus passus est luna quartadecima quando Iudaei suum Pascha celebrare debebant: et ideo dominus sciens sibi imminere passionem, praevenit celebrationem Paschae, et in praecedenti die celebravit Pascha suum, ante festum Paschae Iudaeorum. Sed quia Ex. XII, 18 praecipitur ut a decimaquarta die ad vesperam usque ad vigesimam primam diem mensis non inveniretur fermentum apud Hebraeos, dicunt ulterius, quod dominus confecit non in azymis, sed in fermentato: nam ante diem festum Paschae, idest tertiadecima luna, inveniebatur fermentatum apud Hebraeos. A problem arises as to why he says here, before the feast of the Passover, for the feast of the Passover is when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he says, before the feast of the Passover, it seems that this was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread, because Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.
Huic autem sententiae tres alii Evangelistae contrariantur: nam ipsi dicunt, scilicet Matth. XXVI, 17, Mc. XIV, 12, Lc. XXII, 7, quod fuit prima die azymorum quando debebat immolari Pascha. Ex quo sequitur quod coena domini eo die facta fuit quo immolabatur Pascha Iudaeorum. But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It follows from this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the Jews sacrificed the lamb.
Ad quod quidem Graeci respondent dicentes, alios Evangelistas non vere narrasse hoc factum, et ideo Ioannes, qui ultimum Evangelium scripsit, eos correxit. Sed haereticum est dicere, quod aliquid falsum, non solum in Evangeliis, sed etiam in quacumque canonica Scriptura inveniatur: et ideo necessarium est dicere, quod omnes Evangelistae dicunt idem, et in nullo discordant. 1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.
Ad huius igitur evidentiam sciendum est, quod, sicut habetur Lev. XXIII, 5, solemnitates Iudaeorum incipiebant a vespera praecedentis diei. Cuius ratio est, quia numerabant dies secundum lunam, quae de sero primo apparet, unde et diem computabant de uno sero in alium. Et sic apud eos solemnitas Paschae incipiebat a vespera praecedentis diei, et terminabatur in vespere diei Paschae; sicut et apud nos festa celebrantur. Sic ergo aliquid factum apud nos in vigilia natalis domini, potest dici factum esse in festo natalis. Quem quidem modum servantes, alii Evangelistae dixerunt coenam esse factam primo die azymorum, quia facta fuit die praecedenti ad vesperam, quia iam pertinebat ad primum diem azymorum. Ioannes autem Evangelista hic diem festum Paschae accipit pro illo die qui totus celebris erat, non autem pro illo cuius vespere solum erat celebre, qui erat dies praecedens Pascha: et ideo dicit ante diem festum Paschae. Patet ergo quod coena domini facta est luna quartadecima ad vesperam. To elucidate this it should be noted that, as is stated in Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place on the evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says, before the feast of the Passover. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord's supper took place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the 14th day, the day beginning in the evening].
Mors autem Christi imminens, erat transitus eius ex hoc mundo per passionem; et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius: nam illa solemnitas Iudaeorum, figura erat passionis Christi, omnia enim in figura contingebant illis: I Cor. c. X, 11, et ideo statim ponit veritatem, scilicet passionem Christi. Et quasi exponens quod Pascha dicatur a phase, idest transitu, mentionem facit de transitu ut transeat, inquit, ex hoc mundo ad patrem. 1731 The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knew that his hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ, "All these things happened to them as symbols" [1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word pascha came from pesah, meaning a passage, he mentions his passage, to depart, pass, out of this world to the Father.
Ubi tria ponit circa passionem Christi. Primo, quod fuit praevisa; secundo, quod fuit congrua, tertio, quod fuit promotiva et exaltativa. 1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was fitting; thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.
Praevisa quidem fuit, non casualis, et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens Iesus; quasi dicat: non invitus, non inscius, sed sciens et voluntarius passus est etc.; infra XVIII, 4: sciens Jesus omnia quae ventura erant. E converso dicitur de nobis, Eccle. VIII, 6: multa hominis afflictio: quia nescit praeterita, et quae ventura sunt nullo modo scire potest. It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus knew. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot know in any way" [Eccl 8:7].
Congrua autem fuit quantum ad tempus, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia venit hora eius, idest ipse dies Paschae, quo transiret per crucem; Eccle. VIII, 6: omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas. Haec est hora illa de qua dicitur supra II, 4: nondum venit hora mea. Nec est intelligenda hora ista fatalis, quasi subiecta cursui et dispositioni stellarum, sed determinata dispositione et providentia divina. Ideo, inquam, determinata in Pascha Iudaeorum, quia congruebat solemnitati Iudaeorum ut veritas sequeretur figuram, dum quando agnus, qui figurabat Christum, immolaretur Christus, qui est vere agnus Dei; I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis; sed pretioso sanguine agni immaculati Christi, et incontaminati. 1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time; and as to this he says, that his hour had come, which was the time of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: "There is a time and opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6]. This is the hour of which he said, "My hour has not yet come" (2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. "You know that you were ransomednot with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19).
Congruebat etiam negotiis. Iam enim Christus clarificatus erat; infra eodem: nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Iam patrem manifestaverat mundo; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus, quos dedisti mihi de mundo. Restabat ergo ut consummaret opus passionis et humanae redemptionis, de quo dicitur infra XIX, 30: consummatum est, et sequitur: inclinato capite, emisit spiritum. It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world" (17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).
Promotiva fuit passio Christi et exaltativa, et non oppressiva: quia ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem, idest, faciendo humanam naturam participem paternae gloriae; infra XX, 17: ascendo ad patrem vestrum, Deum meum, et Deum vestrum. Non autem intelligendum est quod transeat de loco ad locum, cum Deus pater non comprehendatur loco; Ier. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Sed, sicut Christus dicitur venisse a patre non eum deserendo sed assumendo naturam inferiorem similem nobis, ita et intantum dicitur ad eum rediisse inquantum etiam secundum humanitatem factus est consors paternae gloriae; Rom. VI, 10: quod autem vivit, vivit Deo; Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur, quia dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris. 1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could depart out of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). This does not mean that he would pass from one place to another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our own, so he is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in his human nature, he became a sharer in the Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives to God" (Rom 6:10); "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11].
Consequenter cum dicit cum dilexisset suos, qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos, commendatur fervens Christi dilectio, et hoc quantum ad quatuor. 1735 Then when he says, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love of Christ; and this on four points.
Primo quantum ad hoc quod fuit praeveniens, secundum illud I Io. IV, 10: non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. Et quantum ad hoc dicit cum dilexisset suos, quasi antea: dilexit, inquam, antequam crearet; Sap. XI, 25: diligis omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti. Dilexit antequam vocaret; Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. Dilexit antequam redimeret; infra XV, 13: maiorem caritatem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. First, because his love was first, according to "Not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. And as to this he says, having loved his own, trying to suggest that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: "For thou lovest all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13).
Secundo commendatur eius dilectio quantum ad hoc quod fuit congrua, quia dilexit suos. Ubi sciendum est quod secundum quod aliqui diversimode sunt sui, secundum hoc a Deo diversimode diliguntur. Sunt autem aliqui sui tripliciter. Primo creatione; et hos diligit conservando eis bona naturae; supra I, v. 11: in propria venit, et sui, per creationem, eum non receperunt. Aliqui vero sunt sui dedicatione, qui scilicet dati sunt a Deo patre per fidem; infra XVII, 6: tui erant, et mihi eos dedisti, et sermonem tuum servaverunt. Et hos diligit conservando in bonis gratiae. Aliqui vero sunt sui speciali devotione; I Paral. XI, 1: tui sumus, o David, et caro tua. Hos diligit specialiter consolando. 1736 Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he loved his own. Here we should note that God loves persons in various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods of nature: "He came to his own home, and his own people," by creation, "received him not" (1:11). Others are his by donation, that is, those given to him by God the Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me, and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a special way. [2]
Tertio commendatur dilectio Christi quantum ad hoc quod fuit necessaria, quia dilexit suos qui erant in mundo. Nam aliqui sunt sui, qui iam erant in gloria patris, quia etiam antiqui patres sui erant, inquantum speraverunt liberari per eum; Deut. XXXIII, 3: omnes sancti in manu illius sunt. Sed isti non tantum indigent huiusmodi dilectione quantum hi qui erant in mundo; et ideo dicit qui erant in mundo, corpore scilicet, sed non mente. 1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was needed, since he loved his own who were in the world. Those who were already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: "All his holy ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But these do not need such love as this as much as those who were in the world; so he says, who were in the world, that is, in body, but not in mind.
Quarto commendatur quantum ad hoc quod fuit perfecta, unde dicit in finem dilexit eos. Finis autem dicitur dupliciter: quia finis intentionis, et finis executionis. Illud quidem est finis intentionis ad quod nostra ordinatur intentio; et huiusmodi finis debet esse vita aeterna, secundum illud Rom. VI, 22: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam. Iterum finis huiusmodi Christus debet esse; Rom. X, 4: finis legis Christus ad iustitiam omni credenti. Et haec duo sunt unus finis: quia nihil est aliud vita aeterna quam fruitio Christi, secundum divinitatem; infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti, Iesum Christum. Secundum hoc ergo dicit in finem dilexit eos; ut perduceret in se finem, vel in vitam aeternam, quae nihil aliud est; Ier. c. XXXI, 3: in caritate dilexi te, propterea attraxi te, miserans. 1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, so he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life, according to, "The return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Rom 6:22). Again this end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them to the end, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3].
Illud autem est finis executionis quod est terminus rei; et sic mors potest dici finis, ut dicatur in finem dilexit eos, idest in mortem: quod potest habere triplicem sensum uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut quodam humano modo dicatur Christus dilexit suos usque ad mortem tantum, et non ultra. Sed hic sensus est falsus: absit enim ut dilectionem morte finierit qui non est in morte finitus. Alio modo potest intelligi, ut ly in indicet causam; et sic est sensus: in finem dilexit eos, idest, usque ad mortem illum dilectio ipsorum perduxit; Gal. II, v. 20: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis. Tertio modo potest intelligi ut sit sensus: in finem, idest, cum multa signa dilectionis ostenderit eis ante, in finem, idest circa mortem, maioris eis signa dilectionis ostendit; infra XVI, 5: haec ab initio vobis non dixi, quia vobiscum eram, quasi diceret: non tunc necessarium fuit vobis, ut ostenderem quantum vos diligerem, nisi in recessu, ut sic amor et memoria mei in cordibus vestris profundius imprimeretur. The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he loved them to the end, that is, up to death. Used in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then no longer. [3] This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends his love at death. Another meaning would take the word "to" as indicating a cause; and then it would mean, he loved them to the end, that is, his love for them led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them many signs of his love, yet to the end, that is, at the time of his death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you" (16:4). He would be saying in effect: it was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more deeply into your hearts.
Consequenter cum dicit et coena facta, innuit factum, in quo dabat exemplum, et primo describit horam facti; secundo subdit dignitatem facientis, ibi sciens itaque Iesus quod omnia dedit ei pater in manus etc.; tertio prosequitur de facti humilitate, ibi surgit a coena. Tempus autem describit ex duobus. Ex uno quod pertinebat ad eius caritatem, et ex alio quod exaggerabat Iudae iniquitatem, ibi cum Diabolus iam misisset in cor, ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotes. 1739 Then when he says, during supper, he describes the act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time of the action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); thirdly, his humility (v 4). He describes the time in two ways: in one way, as the time of Christ's love; in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas.
Dicit ergo quantum ad primum et coena facta. Ubi sciendum est, quod aliter dicitur esse factum in permanentibus, et aliter in successivis. In permanentibus autem dicitur aliquid esse factum quando pervenit ad perfectionem propriae speciei et formae, sicut domus dicitur esse facta quando habet propriam formam. In successivis vero dicitur aliquid esse factum quando iam est consummatum; sicut mundus factus esse dicitur quando completus. Hoc etiam modo aliquid factum esse dicitur quando accipit propriam speciem. Cum ergo dicit et coena facta, non intelligendum est quod coena fuerit completa et peracta: quia postquam lavit pedes discipulorum, recubuit, et bucellam tradidit Iudae. Est ergo intelligendum coena facta, idest parata, et ad propriam speciem iam perducta: iam enim coenare inceperant, et postea surrexit. Unde inter coenandum lavit pedes discipulorum. 1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when supper was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done when they receive their appropriate species. So when he says here, literally, "when supper was done," he does not mean it was finished and over with: for after Christ washed the feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. "When supper was done" rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples during supper.
De ista coena habetur Lc. XIV, 16: homo quidam fecit coenam magnam. Differt autem prandium a coena. Prandium enim dicitur quod fit in prima parte diei, coena vero quae fit in ultima. Sic ergo spiritualis refectio dicitur prandium, secundum quod congruit incipientibus; coena vero, secundum quod congruit perfectis. We read about such a supper in Luke [14:16], "A man once gave a great supper." A breakfast and supper are different. What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper.
Consequenter cum dicit cum Diabolus iam misisset in cor, ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotes, describit tempus, ex eo quod exaggerat iniquitatem proditoris: quod quidem describit Evangelista propter duo. Primo quidem ut ostendatur magis iniquitas Iudae, qui inter tot caritatis indicia, et tot humilitatis officia, tantam iniquitatem committere cogitabat; Ps. XL, 10: qui manducat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem. Secundo vero ut reddatur magis admirabilis caritas Christi, qui licet hoc sciret, tamen ei caritatis et humilitatis praebens officium, eius pedes lavit; Ps. CXIX, 6: cum his qui oderunt pacem eram pacificus. 1741 Then when the Evangelist says, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the better to show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: "With those who hated peace I was peaceable" [Ps 120:7].
Sed numquid Diabolus aliquid mittere potest in cor hominis? Videtur quod sic. In Ps. LXXVII, 49 enim dicitur: immissiones per Angelos malos. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod id dicitur esse in corde hominis quod est in cogitatione et voluntate eius, unde quod dicitur cum iam misisset in cor etc. intelligendum est, idest, in voluntate eius. 1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49]. To explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.
Sed sic mittere in cor, potest esse dupliciter. Directe; et sic solus ille potest aliquid mittere in cor hominis qui habet potestatem movendi interius voluntatem eius: et hoc potest solus Deus; et ideo solus ipse potest directe in voluntatem hominis imprimere; Prov. XX, 1: cor regum in manu, idest in potestate, domini; quocumque voluerit inclinabit illud. Quia vero voluntas movetur ab exteriori obiecto sicut a bono apprehenso, inde est quod qui suggerit aliquid esse bonum, dicitur illud mittere in cor hominis, indirecte faciendo ipsum apprehendere aliquid ut bonum, ex quo voluntas movetur. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter, quia, aut suggerendo exterius: et hoc modo etiam homo potest in cor aliquid mittere; aut suggerendo interius: et hoc modo immittit Diabolus. Nam vis imaginativa cum sit corporalis, quando Deus permittit, subiecta est potestati Daemonis. Unde, sive vigilando sive dormiendo, format in ea aliquas species, ex quibus apprehensis movetur voluntas hominis ad aliquid appetendum. Sic ergo immittit Diabolus in cor hominis, non directe per modum moventis, sed indirecte per modum suggerentis. Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and in this way only one who has the power to move our will from within can put something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand," in the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prv 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended as a good, it follows that anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good is said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another's heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, move our will to desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion. [4]
Consequenter cum dicit sciens quia omnia dedit ei pater in manus, agit de dignitate facientis. Quia Eccli. III, 20, dicitur: quanto maior es, humilia te, ideo Evangelista dicturus de Christi humilitate, praemittit eius maximam dignitatem; et hoc quantum ad quatuor. Primo quantum ad scientiam; et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens quia omnia dedit ei pater in manus. Talia enim sunt spiritualia dona, quod data non ignorantur; I Cor. II, 12: nos spiritum non huius mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Et ideo Christus sciebat ea quae sibi data erant a Deo. Hoc autem ideo dicit ut humilitas magis sit commendabilis. Quandoque enim contingit quod aliquis magnae dignitatis est, et tamen, propter simplicitatem suam, dignitatem suam non recognoscit. Talis ergo si faceret aliquid humile, non reputaretur sibi ad magnam laudem, secundum illud Cant. I, 7: si ignoras te, pulcherrima inter mulieres. Sed si aliquis cognoscit suae dignitatis statum, et tamen affectus eius ad humilia inclinatur, eius humilitas est commendanda. Et ideo dicit Evangelista sciens quia omnia dedit ei pater in manus, tamen non omisit quae humilia sunt facere. 1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, for "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge, saying, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ's humility would be more admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: "If you do not know yourself, O fairest among women" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was humble.
Secundo quantum ad potestatem quia omnia dedit ei pater in manus, idest, in potestate eius. Dedit Deus Christo homini ex tempore, quae tamen fuerant in potestate filii ab aeterno; Matth. ult., 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Dicit autem omnia dedit ei pater in manus, propter duo: ut ostendat quod Christus non invitus patiebatur. Nam si omnia erant in manu eius, idest in potestate, manifestum est quod eius adversarii inde nihil ei contra eius voluntatem facere poterant. Secundo, quia quando aliquis parvi momenti exaltatur, de facili superbit, nec aliquid humile facit, ne videatur derogare suae dignitati; sed qui in magno statu existens exaltatur, non negligit humilia: et ideo de dignitate Christi mentionem facit. Secondly, we see his dignity as to his power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me" (Mt 28:18). He says, the Father had given all things into his hands, for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will. For if all things were in his hands, that is, in his power, it is clear that his enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so Christ's dignity is mentioned here.
Tertio quantum ad nobilitatem eius, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit; Sap. VIII, 3: contubernium habens Dei. Thirdly, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to God: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says.
Quarto quantum ad sanctitatem, quia ad Deum vadit. In hoc est sanctitas hominis quod ad Deum vadat. Et hoc ideo ponit infra, quia ex quo ipse ad Deum vadit, proprium est sibi alios ad Deum reducere: quod quidem specialiter fit per humilitatem et caritatem; et ideo humilitatis et caritatis eis exemplum praebuit. Fourthly, his dignity because of his holiness, because he was going to God, for our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love.

Lectio 2 LECTURE 2

4 ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου καὶ τίθησιν τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν. 5 εἶτα βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος. Peter protests 13:6-11 6 ἔρχεται οὖν πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον. λέγει αὐτῷ, κύριε, σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; 7 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ὃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ σὺ οὐκ οἶδας ἄρτι, γνώσῃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα. 8 λέγει αὐτῷ Πέτρος, οὐ μὴ νίψῃς μου τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς αὐτῷ, ἐὰν μὴ νίψω σε, οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ' ἐμοῦ. 9 λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος, κύριε, μὴ τοὺς πόδας μου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν κεφαλήν. 10 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὁ λελουμένος οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀλλ' ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος: καὶ ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ πάντες. 11 ᾔδει γὰρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν: διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν ὅτι οὐχὶ πάντες καθαροί ἐστε.

4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. 6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7 Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean." [5]

Postquam Evangelista commendavit Christi maiestatem hic commendat eius humilitatem, quam ostendit in pedum ablutione. Et primo praemittitur praeparatio Christi ad humilitatis obsequium; secundo describitur ipsum obsequium, ibi deinde misit aquam in pelvim et cetera. 1744 After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation for this humble task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Christus in humilitatis obsequio se ministrum exhibet, secundum illud Matth. XX, v. 28: filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare, et dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis. Ad bonum autem ministrum tria requiruntur. Primo quod sit circumspectus ad omnia videnda quae deesse possunt ministerio, et hoc maxime impediretur si sederet vel iaceret: unde ministrorum est stare; et ideo dixit surgit a coena. Luc. XXII, 27: quis maior est, qui recumbit, an qui ministrat? Secundo, quod sit expeditus ut possit omnia congrue peragere quae necessaria sunt ministerio: et ad hoc multum impedit vestium multitudo; et ideo dominus ponit vestimenta sua. Quod quidem significatum est Gen. XVII, 23, quod Abraham elegit expeditos vernaculos. Tertio, quod sit promptus ad serviendum, ut scilicet omnia habeat quae ad ministerium necessaria sunt. Lc. X, v. 40, dicitur de Martha, quod satagebat circa frequens ministerium. Et inde est quod dominus cum accepisset linteum praecinxit se, ut sic paratus esset non solum ad lavandum pedes, sed etiam ad tergendum: ex quo universum conculcat tumorem, dum is qui ad Deum vadit et a Deo exivit, pedes lavit. 1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ rose from supper: "For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. Thirdly, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. In Luke (10:40) we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our Lord girded himself with a towel, so he would be ready not just to wash their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of others, he is treading under foot the universal tendency to pride.
Mystice autem potest hoc factum ad duo referri: scilicet ad incarnationem Christi, et ad passionem eius. Si quidem referatur ad incarnationem, sic tria hic accipiuntur de Christo. Primo quidem voluntas subveniendi humano generi, in hoc quod surgit a coena. Nam Deus quamdiu patitur nos tribulari, residere videtur; sed cum nos a tribulatione eripit, videtur exurgere; Ps. XLIII, 26: exsurge, domine, adiuva nos. Secundo, exinanitio eius: non quidem quod suae dignitatis maiestatem deponeret, sed eam occultaret, parvitatem assumendo; Is. XLV, v. 15: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Et hoc signatur in hoc quod ponit vestimenta sua; Phil. II, 7: exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens. Tertio, assumptio nostrae mortalitatis in hoc quod praecinxit se linteo; Phil. II, 7: formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. 1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is referred to his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, he was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact that he rose from supper. For God seems to be sitting down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise up, come to our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). This is shown by the fact that he laid aside his garments: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, the fact that he girded himself with a towel indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).
Si vero referatur ad passionem Christi, tunc ad litteram vestimenta deposuit quando milites exuerunt eum, et super vestem suam miserunt sortem, infra XIX, 24. Tunc etiam linteo praecinctus est in sepulcro. In passione etiam deposuit vestimenta nostrae mortalitatis, et assumpsit linteum, idest candorem immortalitatis; Rom. VI, 9: Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur: mors illi ultra non dominabitur. If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then he literally set aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him: "for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with a towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9).
Consequenter cum dicit deinde misit aquam in pelvim etc., ponit Christi obsequium: in quo commendatur eius humilitas quantum ad tria. Primo quidem quantum ad obsequii genus; quod fuit valde humile, ut dominus maiestatis se ad lavandum pedes servorum inclinaret. Secundo quantum ad obsequii multitudinem, quia misit aquam in pelvim, lavit pedes, et tersit et cetera. Tertio quantum ad faciendi modum, quia non per alios, nec aliorum subsidio, sed per seipsum. Eccli. III, v. 20: quanto maior es, humilia te in omnibus. 1747 Then when the Evangelist says, Then he poured water into a basin, he describes Christ's service, and shows his admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his servants. Secondly, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it was done: for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18).
Mystice autem per haec, tria possunt intelligi. Nam primo per hoc quod aquam misit in pelvim, signatur effusio sanguinis eius in terram. Sanguis enim Iesu aqua dici potest, quia habet vim ablutivam; Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Et inde est quod simul exivit aqua et sanguis de latere eius, ut daretur intelligi quod sanguis ille peccatorum ablutivus esset. Vel per aquam potest intelligi passio Christi: nam in Scriptura aqua tribulationes significat, Ps. LXVIII, 2: salvum me fac, Deus, quoniam intraverunt aquae usque ad animam meam, idest tribulationes. Misit ergo aquam in pelvim, idest, memoriam passionis fidelium animabus impressit per fidem et devotionem; Thren. III, 19: recordare paupertatis meae et transgressionis meae, absinthii et fellis. 1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4). And so blood and water came out of his side at the same time to show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: "Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come up to my soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, he poured water into a basin, that is, he impressed the memory of his passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall!" (Lam 3:19).
Secundo per hoc quod dixit et coepit lavare, insinuatur humana imperfectio: nam apostoli post Christum perfectiores erant, et tamen lotione indigebant aliquas habentes immunditias. Ut sic detur intelligi quod quantumcumque homo sit perfectus, nihilominus tamen magis perfici indiget, et aliquas immunditias contrahit, secundum illud Prov. XX, 9: quis potest dicere: mundum est cor meum, et purus sum a peccato? Sed tamen huiusmodi immunditias habent in pedibus tantum. Quidam autem non solum in pedibus, sed etiam totaliter sunt infecti. Illi enim totaliter terrenis immunditiis sordidantur qui supra eas iacent: unde qui totaliter et secundum affectum et secundum sensum amori terrenorum inhaerent, totaliter immundi sunt. Sed illi qui stant, idest mente et desiderio tendunt ad caelestia, immunditiam contrahunt solum in pedibus. Sicut enim hominem stantem oportet ad minus pedibus terram contingere, ita quamdiu vivimus in hac vita mortali, quae rebus terrenis ad sustentationem corporis indiget, ad minus ex parte sensualitatis aliquid contrahimus. Et ideo dominus praecepit discipulis, Lc. IX, 5 quod excuterent pulverem de pedibus eorum. Dixit autem coepit lavare, quia ablutio affectuum terrenorum hic incipit, et in futuro consummatur. Tunc enim implebitur quod dicitur Is. XXXV, 8: via sancta vocabitur. 1749 Secondly, when he says, and began to wash, it indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires some uncleanness, and still needs to become more perfect: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" (Prv 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Lk 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ began to wash, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah (35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."
Sed attendendum, secundum Origenem, quod discipulorum pedes imminente passione coepit lavare, quia si diu ante lavisset eos, fuissent iterum sordidati. Unde tunc incepit quando post modicum abluturus erat eos aqua spiritus sancti, scilicet post passionem; Act. I, 5: vos autem baptizabimini spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies. Sic ergo apparet sanguinis eius effusio per hoc quod misit aquam in pelvim; et peccatorum nostrorum ablutio per hoc quod coepit lavare pedes discipulorum. Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet of his disciples right before his passion, for if he had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again. [6] So he began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles with the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of his blood; and when he began to wash the feet of his apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.
Apparet, tertio, poenarum nostrarum in seipso susceptio: non enim solum maculas nostras lavit, sed poenas pro eis debitas in seipso assumpsit. Non enim poenae et poenitentiae nostrae sufficerent, nisi fundarentur in merito et virtute passionis Christi. Quod quidem apparet in hoc quod extersit pedes discipulorum linteo, scilicet corporis sui: I Petr. II, 21. 1750 Thirdly, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of Christ's passion. This is shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his disciples with his towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).
Consequenter cum dicit venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum etc. ponit exempli utilitatem per quamdam concertationem discipuli et magistri: in qua quidem concertatione dominus ostendit de isto exemplo, primo quod sit mysticum et quod sit necessarium, ibi dixit ei Petrus: non lavabis mihi pedes; secundo quod sit congruum, ibi dixit ei Simon Petrus: domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus et caput. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur occasio verborum Christi: secundo ipsa verba Christi subduntur, ibi respondit Iesus, et dixit ei et cetera. 1751 Then when the Evangelist says, he came to Simon Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter our Lord shows that this example is both a mystery and necessary (v 8); and secondly, that it is appropriate (v 9). As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v 7).
Occasio quidem verborum Christi fuit recusatio Petri recusantis suscipere humilitatis exemplum: et hoc est quod dicit venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum et cetera. Quod quidem tripliciter exponitur. 1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, he came to Simon Peter, and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? There are three explanations for this.
Primo quidem, secundum Origenem, quod dominus coepit lavare ab ultimis. Et hoc ideo, quia sicut medicus plurimorum aegrorum intentus curae, ab his qui magis indigent, propriam curam incipit; sic et Christus, qui pedes abluit discipulorum foedos, exorditur ab his qui erant magis foedi, et sic venit ad Petrum quasi minus aliis indigentem; Matth. XX, v. 8: incipiens a novissimis usque ad primos. Et hoc quidem sonare videntur verba Evangelii: coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et postmodum sequitur venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum. Ex quo videtur quod prius lavit pedes aliorum. According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by beginning with the last. [7] The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of sick begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when he washed the grimy feet of his disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the first" (Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ began to wash the disciples' feet, and then he follows this with, he came to Simon Peter. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.
Si vero quaeratur quare Petrus hoc prae aliis recusavit, respondet Origenes, quia hoc fecit propter nimium fervorem amoris quem habebat ad Christum. Alii vero discipuli cum timore quodam reverebantur Christum, et ideo absque discussione omne factum sustinebant. Petrus vero eis ferventior secundum illud Ioan. ult., 15: Simon Iona, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: etiam, domine, tu scis quia amo te ex amore fiduciam assumens, ferre recusat factum et causam inquirit; Eccli. VI, 11: amicus si permanserit fixus, erit tibi quasi coaequalis, et in domesticis tuis fiducialiter aget. Et ideo Petrus invenitur in Scriptura frequenter inquirere, et prompte proferre quae sibi meliora videntur. 1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ. [8] The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?Yes Lord; you know that I love you" (21:15) - and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best.
Secundo exponitur, secundum Chrysostomum, ut scilicet Christus inceperit prius lavare pedes a primis apostolorum. Sed quia proditor ille stultus erat et superbus, scilicet Iudas, prior ad pedum ablutionem recubuit ante Petrum. Nullus enim aliorum ausus fuisset Petrum praevenire. Unde de Iuda loquitur Evangelista, dicens coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, scilicet Iudae, qui quidem utpote superbus et stultus, in nullo renisus est, nec recusavit ferre quod dominus faciebat. Sed postquam venit ad Petrum, qui reverebatur et diligebat magistrum, cum timore recusat, et causam facti inquirit: et simile fecisset quilibet aliorum. 1754 The second explanation is by Chrysostom. [9] He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the disciples' feet, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when he came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the others would have done the same.
Tertio vero exponitur, secundum Augustinum, quod ex verbis Evangelistae non debemus intelligere quod dominus laverit prius pedes aliis discipulis, et postmodum venerit ad Petrum; sed quod Evangelista, secundum consuetudinem suam, primo ponit factum, et postmodum narrat ordinem facti, sicut et supra VI, facit. Unde primo insinuat totum factum, scilicet quod lavit pedes discipulorum; et postmodum si quaeratur quomodo factum fuit, dicit quod primo venit ad Simonem Petrum. Et ideo primo ipse recusavit dicens domine tu mihi lavas pedes? 1755 The third explanation is by Augustine. [10] He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, Christ washed the feet of his disciples; and then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that he came first to Simon Peter. And so he was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?
Quae quidem verba magnum pondus habent. Domine, inquit, tu, qui es filius Dei vivi, mihi lavas pedes? Qui sum Simon Bariona, idest Simon Iona, Matth. XVI, 17. Item: domine, tu, qui es agnus incontaminatus, speculum sine macula, et candor lucis aeternae, mihi lavas pedes, qui homo peccator sum? Secundum illud Lc. V, 8: exi a me, quia homo peccator sum. Domine, tu, qui es creator, mihi lavas pedes, qui sum creatura, et modicae fidei? Haec dicebat Petrus territus ex consideratione maiestatis Christi, secundum illud Hab. III, 1: consideravi opera tua, et expavi. These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you, who are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, do you wash my feet, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:8). Lord, do you, who are the Creator, wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and have feared" [Hab 1:3].
Consequenter cum dicit respondit Iesus etc. ponuntur verba Christi, ex quibus ostenditur factum illud esse mysticum. Unde dixit ei quod ego facio tu nescis modo, scies autem postea. Quod quidem factum, exemplum est et mysterium. Exemplum quidem humanitatis exhibendae; infra eodem exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. Mysterium autem interioris mundationis. Infra eodem: qui lotus est non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet et cetera. 1756 Then (v 7), we see the words of Christ, which show that this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand. This action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).
Dupliciter ergo potest intelligi hoc quod dicit quod ego facio. Uno modo, quod ego facio, idest, quomodo ego facio in exemplum, tu nescis modo, idest non intelligis, scies autem postea, tunc scilicet quando exposuit eis dicens: scitis quid ego fecerim vobis? Infra eodem. Alio modo, quod ego facio, tu nescis modo; idest, hoc mysterium est, et secretum est, et significat interiorem mundationem, quae non potest fieri nisi per me, quod non intelligis modo, scies autem postea, scilicet recipiens spiritum sanctum; infra XVI, 12: multa habeo vobis dicere; sed non potestis portare modo. Cum autem venerit ille spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem veritatem. So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, What I am doing you do not know now, that is, you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but afterward you will understand, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, What I am doing you do not know now; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand, when you receive the Holy Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (16:12).
Consequenter cum dicit dixit ei Petrus etc., ostendit factum illud esse mysticum, et primo ponit verba Petri praestantia occasionem verbis Christi; secundo subiungit Christi verba. 1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; secondly, we see what Christ said.
Dicit ergo primo Petrus non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum, idest numquam. Quasi diceret: absit a me ut hoc sustineam a magistro, domino et Deo meo. Et licet Petrus hoc ex zelo faceret, eius tamen zelus indiscretus et inordinatus erat; Rom. X, 2: zelum Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam. Qui quidem zelus inordinatus erat propter tria: quia recusat quod utile erat et necessarium: nam, sicut dicitur Rom. III, 26, quid oremus, sicut oportet, nescimus; et ideo indiscrete recusamus recipere quod Deus nobis largitur, etiam si contrarium videatur. Sic etiam et Paulus petebat remotionem stimuli, II Cor. XII, 8, qui tamen ei utilis erat. Item, quia videtur quamdam irreverentiam ad Christum importare in hoc quod eius ordinationem infringere vult. Item, quia videtur vergere in derogationem sociorum, dum quod alii, secundum Origenem, a Christo absque contradictione susceperant, ipse accipere recusabat, dicens non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. 1758 Peter says, You shall never wash my feet. He is saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You shall never wash my feet. [11]
Et ideo redarguit eum dominus dicens si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum: quod quidem ad duo referri potest, videlicet ad factum quod Christus faciebat, et ad signatum eius. 1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, you have not part in me. This statement can refer to two things: to the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified.
Sed si quidem referatur ad signatum, tunc planum est quod dicitur. Nullus enim aeternae haereditatis particeps fieri potest et Christi cohaeres, nisi spiritualiter sit mundatus: quia hoc dicitur Apoc. XXI, 27: nihil coinquinatum intrabit. In Ps. XIV, 1: domine, quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo? Et respondens subdit: innocens manibus, et mundo corde. Quasi ergo dicat si non lavero te, non eris mundus, et, si non es mundus, non habebis partem mecum. If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: "But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm (15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you have no part in me.
Sed si referatur ad factum, tunc dubium est utrum haec ablutio sit de necessitate salutis. Ad quod dicendum est, quod sicut quaedam sunt prohibita quia mala, et quaedam mala quia prohibita, ita quaedam sunt praecepta quia necessaria, et quaedam necessaria quia praecepta. Hoc ergo ablutionis factum de quo dominus dicit si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum, in se consideratum non est necessarium ad salutem, sed, supposito quod mandetur a Christo, iam factum est necessarium I Reg. XV, 22: melior est obedientia quam victima; et ita: quasi scelus idolatriae nolle acquiescere. But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, If I do not wash you, you have no part in me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so "stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).
Hic ostendit factum illud esse congruum. Et ponuntur primo verba Petri; secundo subditur responsio Christi. 1760 Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate. First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.
Sed in verbis Petri insinuatur ferventissimus amor eius ad Christum. Nam supra, quando dominus dixit ei: quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, dederat ei intelligere hoc factum utile fore; tamen, hac utilitate neglecta, induci non poterat ad pedum ablutionem recipiendam. Sed quando dominus comminatus est separationem suam ab ipso, dicens: non habebis partem mecum, non solum ad illa, sed ad ulteriora recipienda se obtulit, dicens domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus et caput. In hac enim responsione territus totum se offert ad abluendum, amore turbatus et timore. Ut enim legitur in itinerario Clementis, Petrus adeo afficiebatur ad Christi corporalem praesentiam, quam ferventissime dilexerat, quod post Christi ascensionem cum dulcissimae praesentiae et sanctissimae conversationis memor erat, totus resolvebatur in lacrymas, ita ut genae eius viderentur adustae. 1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed. [12]
Sciendum est autem, quod in homine tria sunt: caput, quod est summum; pedes, qui sunt infimi: manus, quae sunt mediae. Et similiter in interiori homine, scilicet in anima, est caput, ratio scilicet superior, qua anima inhaeret Deo, I Cor. XI, 3: caput mulieris vir, idest superior ratio; manus autem, idest inferior ratio, quae vacat operibus activae; pedes autem sunt sensualitas. Sed dominus sciebat discipulos suos mundos quantum ad caput, quia Deo coniuncti erant per fidem et caritatem; et quantum ad manus, quia eorum sancta opera: sed quantum ad pedes, aliquos affectus terrenorum ex sensualitate habebant. Petrus autem timens Christi comminationem, consentit non solum ad ablutionem pedum, sed etiam manus et capitis, dicens domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus et caput. Quasi dicat: nescio an indigeam ablutione manus et capitis, nihil enim mihi conscius sum; sed non in hoc iustificatus sum: I Cor. V, 4, et ideo paratus sum lavare non tantum pedes, idest affectus inferiores, Cant. V, 3: lavi pedes meos, quomodo inquinabo illos, sed et manus, idest opera, Ps. XXV, 6: lavabo inter innocentes manus meas, et caput, idest rationem superiorem, Matth. VI, 17: faciem tuam lava. 1762 We may note that there are three things in a person: the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The same is true for the inner person, that is, for the soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God. "The head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity; and their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands and feet need washing - "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4) - and so I am ready to wash not my feet only, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?" (Song 5:3) - but also my hands, that is, my works - "I will wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - and my head, that is, my higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17).
Consequenter cum dicit dixit eis Iesus, ponitur responsio domini, et primo dat quoddam generale documentum; secundo adaptat illud ad propositum, ibi et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes; tertio Evangelista exponit verba Christi, ibi sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum. 1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. First, our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to this situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ.
Dicit ergo primo: qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet; sed est mundus totus; supple, praeter pedes, quibus terram tangit. Per quod datur intelligi quod apostoli iam baptizati erant. Dicit enim qui lotus est etc., et postea subdit vos mundi estis etc., quia scilicet baptizati erant. 1764 He says at first, he who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over, except for his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already been baptized. For he says, he who has bathed, and then adds, and you are clean, that is, because they had been baptized.
Sed quidam dicunt, quod baptizati erant solum Baptismate Ioannis: quod non videtur verum, quia sic non erant loti, nam Baptisma Ioannis non mundabat interius a culpa. Et ideo dicendum, quod baptizati erant Baptismo Christi, secundum Augustinum. Et si obiicis, quod Christus non baptizabat, sed discipuli eius, ut dicitur supra IV, 2, dico quod non baptizabat turbas; sed discipulos suos sibi familiares et domesticos baptizavit. 1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ. [13] If you object that Christ did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated above (4:2), I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples and those he knew well.
Sed cum Baptismus abstergat etiam sordes pedum, videtur quod qui lotus est, idest baptizatus, non indiget ut pedes lavet. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod si statim post Baptismum transirent de mundo non utique indigerent hac ablutione, quia cum sint mundi toti, statim evolarent. Sed qui post Baptismum vivunt in hac vita mortali non possunt ad tantum culmen perfectionis ascendere quin etiam inordinati motus sensualitatis de affectibus terrenis insurgant: et ideo oportet quod pedes lavent vel per martyrium, quod est Baptismus sanguinis, vel per poenitentiam, quae est Baptismus flaminis, ut evolare possint. But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, does not need to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for this washing, for since they would be entirely clean, they would go to God at once. But those who live in this world after their baptism cannot reach such perfection that disordered movement of the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never arise. And so it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom, which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism of fire, so that they can return to God.
Consequenter cum dicit et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes, adaptat dominus ad propositum generale documentum. Sed si mundi erant, quare iterum dominus eos abluebat? Ad quod Augustinus dicit, quod mundi erant quantum ad manus et caput sed indigebant quantum ad pedes. Chrysostomus vero dicit, quod mundi erant non quidem simpliciter, quia nondum mundi erant ab immunditia originali: cum nondum Christus passus esset, nondum solutum esset pretium nostrae redemptionis; sed quantum ad aliquid, mundi erant, scilicet ab erroribus Iudaeorum. Origenes vero dicit, quod mundi erant, sed adhuc maiori mundatione opus erat, quia semper ratio aemulari debet charismata meliora, semper debet virtutum alta conscendere, iustitiae candore nitescere; Apoc. ult., 2: qui sanctus est, sanctificetur adhuc. Sed non omnes: quia unus eorum et caput et manus immundas habebat. 1766 Then when he says, you are clean, but not all of you, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation. But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed washing. [14] Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid - but they were clean in a limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews. [15] Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him be sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. But not all of you, because one of them was dirty both in hands and head. [16]
Et ideo consequenter Evangelista ponit verba domini, dicens sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum, quasi dicat: ideo dixit non omnes, quia sciebat immunditiam Iudae proditoris. Duo enim hominem universaliter emundant: scilicet eleemosyna et misericordia in pauperes, Lc. XI, 41: date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis, et amor Dei: Lc. VII, 47: dimissa sunt ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum; Prov. X, 12: universa delicta operit caritas. Haec enim duo deficiebant Iudae. Misericordia quidem, quia fur erat, et loculos habens, et defraudabat eleemosynas pauperum. Item amor ad Christum, quia iam Diabolus miserat in cor eius ut traderet eum principibus sacerdotum ad crucifigendum et cetera. 1767 This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was to betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of you, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are two things which cleans a person: alms and compassion for the poor - "Give alms and then all things are clean for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.

Lectio 3 LECTURE 3

12 ὅτε οὖν ἔνιψεν τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν [καὶ] ἔλαβεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνέπεσεν πάλιν, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν; 13 ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με ὁ διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε, εἰμὶ γάρ. 14 εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος, καὶ ὑμεῖς ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας: 15 ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε. 16 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν. 17 εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά. 18 οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω: ἐγὼ οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην: ἀλλ' ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ' ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ. 19 ἀπ' ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι. 20 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με.

12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives he who sent me." [17]

Postquam dominus ostendit humilitatis obsequium esse necessarium hic consequenter inducit ad imitationem, et primo praemittit circumstantias admonitionis; secundo ipsam admonitionem proponit, ibi scitis quid fecerim vobis? et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo insinuat Evangelista admonitionis ordinem; secundo manifestat admonentis dispositionem, ibi accepit vestimenta sua et cetera. 1768 After our Lord showed that his humble service was necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist describes the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he mentions the exhortation itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he mentions the sequence in this exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the exhortation (v 12a).
Ordo autem admonitionis est ut quod primo fecit opere, doceat sermone; et quantum ad hoc dicit postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, accepit vestimenta sua et cetera. Act. I, 1: coepit Iesus facere et docere; Matth. V, 19: qui fecerit et docuerit, hic magnus vocabitur in regno caelorum. 1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this he says, When he had washed their feet: "Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).
Dispositio autem admonentis insinuatur et quantum ad habitum, et quantum ad situm. Ad habitum quidem: quia diversus habitus diversis personis convenit, secundum propriorum actuum diversitatem; Eccli. XIX, 27: amictus hominis annuntiat de illo. Alius ergo habitus competit ministro, alius doctori. Ministro autem, quia debet esse expeditus ad obsequium, competit ut vestium impedimenta deponat; et ideo Christus cum ministrare voluit, surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua. Doctori autem, qui debet esse gravis, et auctoritate praeeminens, competit vestium decens ornatus: et ideo dominus docere volens, accepit vestimenta sua. 1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: "A man's attireshows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished to serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher, who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments.
Quantum ad situm vero, quia ministrare volens, surrexit, unde dicit: surrexit a coena: nunc autem volens docere, recumbit, unde dicit et cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: et hoc ideo, quia doctrina debet esse in tranquillitate. Sedendo enim et quiescendo anima fit sapiens et prudens. As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about to teach, he reclines; he says, he resumed his place again, he said to them. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere or serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and discerning.
Possunt haec tria habere mysterium. Cum enim Christus perfectam doctrinam discipulis praebuerit, quando spiritum sanctum eis misit; infra XIV, 26: Paraclitus autem spiritus sanctus, quem mittet pater in nomine meo, ipse vos docebit omnia, et suggeret vobis omnia quaecumque dixero vobis. Tria praecesserunt ipsam missionem. Scilicet peccatorum ablutio per passionem; Apoc. c. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. Et quantum ad hoc dicit postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, idest, impleta purgatione per sanguinem. Item resurrectio. Christus enim ante passionem suam mortale corpus habuit, quae quidem mortalitas non competebat ei ex parte personae filii Dei sed ex parte humanae naturae assumptae, sed postquam resurrexit ex virtute divinitatis, accepit corporis immortalitatem: et quantum ad hoc dicit accepit vestimenta sua, idest, surgens factus est immortalis. Et dicit sua, quia sua virtute accepit; Rom. VI, v. 10: quod autem vivit, vivit Deo, idest virtute Dei. De istis vestimentis dicitur Apoc. c. III, 5: qui vicerit, vestietur vestimentis albis, et non delebo nomen eius de libro vitae. Item praecessit sessio, et hoc in ascensione; infra XVI, 7: si enim non abiero, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos et cetera. Et quantum ad hoc dicit cum recubuisset iterum, scilicet ad dexteram patris residens et sedens; Marc. ult., 19: et dominus quidem Iesus postquam locutus est, assumptus est in caelis, et sedet a dextris Dei. Et dicit iterum, non quod inquantum filius Dei unquam sedere desierit, quinimmo ab aeterno est in sinu patris, sed quia inquantum homo exaltatus est ad potiora bona patris; Phil. II, 9: propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. 1771 Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). But three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says, when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood. Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, the Son or God; his mortality was due to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from the dead by the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that is, he arose immortal. He says his garments because he did this by his own power: "The life he lives he lives to God," that is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father] after his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" (16:7). And referring to this he says, and resumed his place again, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God" (Mk 16:19). He says, again, not because as the Son of God he had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to the greater goods of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9).
Sic ergo antequam spiritum sanctum perfecte docentem infunderet, lavit sanguine fuso; accepit vestimenta, resurgendo; recubuit, in gloria ascendendo. And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by ascending in glory.
Consequenter cum dicit scitis quid fecerim vobis? Proponit ipsam admonitionem, et primo interrogat; secundo assumit; tertio concludit; quarto conclusionem confirmat. 1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks a question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he draws a conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this conclusion.
Interrogat quidem, cum dicit scitis quid fecerim vobis? Quasi dicat: facta quidem vidistis, sed tamen quare hoc fecerim, non intelligitis: et ideo sic quaerit ut ostendat facti magnitudinem, et ad considerandum inducat. Opera enim Dei consideranda sunt, quia profunda; Ps. XCI, 6: quam magnificata sunt opera tua, domine. Nimis profundae factae sunt cogitationes tuae. Vix enim sufficienter opera Dei scire possumus secundum illud Eccle. VIII, 17: intellexi quod rationem operum Dei nullam possit homo invenire. Sunt etiam delectabilia ad considerandum; Ps. XCI, 5: delectasti me, domine, in factura tua, et in operibus manuum tuarum exultabo. Sunt etiam utilia, quia ducunt in cognitionem auctoris; Sap. XIII: si operibus intendissent etc.; supra V, 36: opera enim quae dedit mihi pater ut faciam, ipsa sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me. 1773 Christ questions them when he says, Do you know what I have done to you? This means: You have seen what I have done, but you do not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in order to show the greatness of his action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because they are profound: "How great are thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the works of God: "Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, these works are helpful, because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis 13:5); "These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36).
Potest etiam, secundum Origenem, hoc quod dicitur scitis quid fecerim vobis accipi imperative; quasi dicat: sciatis quid fecerim vobis. Et tunc hoc dicit dominus, ut eorum erigat intellectum. According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, Know what I have done to you. [18] In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying: You ought to understand what I have done to you. In this interpretation our Lord said this to rouse their understanding.
Assumit eorum confessionem, dicens vos vocatis me magister et domine, et primo proponit eorum confessionem; secundo commendat eam, ibi et bene dicitis. 1774 Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, You call me Teacher and Lord. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than he approves of it.
Circa primum sciendum est, quod apostolus, I Cor. I, duo dicit de Christo; scilicet quod sit Dei virtus et Dei sapientia. Inquantum est virtus Dei, omnibus dominatur, ut enim dicit Ambrosius, dominus nomen est potestatis, inquantum est Dei sapientia, omnes instruit, et ideo discipuli vocabant eum dominum, supra VI, 69: domine, ad quem ibimus? Et magistrum; supra c. IV, 31: Rabbi, manduca. Et merito: ipse enim dominus est solus creans et recreans; Ps. XCIX, 3: scitote quoniam ipse est dominus, ipse solus est magister interius docens: Matth. XXIII, 10: magister vester unus est Christus, omnes autem vos fratres estis. 1775 As to the first, we should note that in 1 Corinthians (1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all things, for as Ambrose says, the word "Lord" is a name of power. [19] As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him Lord - "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - and Teacher - "Rabbi, eat" (4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: "Know that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt 23:10).
Consequenter cum dicit et bene dicitis, commendat eorum confessionem. Circa quod sciendum est, quod aliquid redditur commendabile dupliciter. Uno modo si id quod dicitur conveniat rei de qua dicitur; quod fit per veritatem, quia si sit falsum, non convenit ei; unde bene dicitur Eph. IV, 25: deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem. Adeo enim vitanda sunt mendacia, ut etiam si cedere videantur ad laudem Dei, non sunt dicenda. Quantum ad hoc ergo dicit bene dicitis; et hoc ideo, quia verum est quod dicitis, quia competit mihi, sum etenim, scilicet magister et dominus. Magister, inquam, propter sapientiam quam doceo verbis; dominus propter potentiam quam ostendo miraculis. 1776 When he says, and you are right, he approves their acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and this happens if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said: "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he says, and you are right; because what you say is true, for it applies to me, for so I am, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.
Alio modo redditur commendabile, si quod dicitur conveniat personae dicentis. Aliqui enim sunt qui vocant Christum magistrum et dominum, quibus non competit, cum non subiiciant se disciplinae et mandato Dei: et isti non bene dicunt. Unde Matth. XXV, 12, illis qui dicunt, domine, aperi nobis, respondetur: amen, amen dico vobis, nescio vos, quia hoc non corde dicunt, sed ore tantum. Istud apostoli bene dicebant, quia hoc eis competebat; unde dicit eis et bene dicitis, idest verum, sum etenim, scilicet vobis magister et dominus: nam me auditis ut magistrum, supra VI, 69: ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae habes, sequimini ut dominum; Matth. XIX, 27: ecce nos reliquimus omnia et secuti sumus te. Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open to us," the answer is given, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and you are right, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I am, that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher - "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:6) - and you follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).
Sed contra hoc est quod dicitur Prov. XXVII, 2: laudet te alienus, et non os tuum; extraneus, et non labia tua. Videtur ergo quod dominus non bene fecerit laudando se. Sed ad hoc respondet Augustinus dupliciter. Uno modo, quia vituperabile est quod quis se commendet propter periculum superbiendi: nam periculosum est sibi placere cui cavendum est superbire. Ubi ergo non imminet periculum superbiendi, non est vituperium propria commendatio. In Christo autem hoc periculum non timebatur, ille enim qui super omnia est, quantumcumque se laudet, non se extollit excelsius. 1777 This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs (27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems, therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself. Augustine answers this in two ways. [20] First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud: because if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he does not commend himself too much.
Alio modo, quia aliquando laudabile est quod homo se commendet, quando scilicet cedit ad utilitatem fidelium: et sic apostolus commendat se, II Cor. XI. Sed valde nobis utile est, et per omnem modum necessarium, ut Deum cognoscamus, cum in hoc consistat tota perfectio nostra; unde expedit nobis ut revelet nobis magnitudinem suam, alioquin nullo modo eam scire possemus, si non indicet se ipse qui novit. Et ideo oportet quod ipse se nobis laudet, quia, ut dicit Augustinus, si non se laudando quasi arrogantiam vitare voluerit, nobis sapientiam denegabit; Eccli. XXIV, 1: sapientia laudabit animam suam. Augustine also says that sometimes it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to others. [21] The Apostle commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that he reveal his greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one who knows. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir 24:1).
Concludit vero cum dicit si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros dominus et magister, et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes. Ubi arguit ab eo quod minus videtur ad id quod magis. Minus enim videtur quod maior debeat facere aliquod humile, quam minor; et secundum hoc concludit si ergo ego, qui sum maior, quia magister et dominus, lavi pedes vestros, et vos, multo magis, qui estis minores, qui estis discipuli et servi, debetis alter alterius lavare pedes; Matth. XX, 26: qui maior est vestrum, sit vester minister (...) nam filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare. 1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. He is arguing here from what is less [expected] to what is more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, If I then, who am greater, because I am your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, then you who are not as great, because you are disciples and servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another's feet: "Whoever would be great among you must be your servanteven as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve" (Mt 20:26).
Sed contra, videtur quod hoc quod dicitur vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes, habeat rationem praecepti: sed qui negligit praeceptum peccat mortaliter; ergo et cetera. Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod omnis homo debet lavare pedes alterius vel corporaliter vel spiritualiter; et multo melius est, et sine controversia verius, ut aliquis faciat opere, ne dedignetur quod fecit Christus, facere Christianus. Cum enim ad pedes fratris inclinatur corpus, etiam in corde ipso vel excitatur, vel si iam inerat, confirmatur humilitatis affectus. 1779 It seems that the statement, you ought to wash one another's feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash the feet of others]. I reply, according to Augustine, that every one should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or spiritual way. [22] And it is much better, and true beyond argument, that one should do this in a physical way, so that a Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what Christ did. For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made stronger.
Quod si non fiat opere, saltem hoc corde facere debemus. In lotione enim pedum datur intelligi lotio macularum. Tunc ergo spiritualiter lavas pedes fratris tui, cum, quantum in te est, abluis maculas eius. Et hoc fit tripliciter: remittendo scilicet ei offensam, secundum illud Col. III, 13: donantes invicem vobismetipsis, si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam: sicut et dominus donavit vobis, ita et vos. Item orando pro peccatis eius, secundum illud Iacob. ult., 16: orate pro invicem ut salvemini. Et iste duplex lavandi modus communis est omnibus fidelibus. Tertius modus pertinet ad praelatos, qui lavare debent remittendo peccata auctoritate clavium, secundum illud infra XX, 22: accipite spiritum sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. If one cannot do this in a physical way, it should at least be done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in "And if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas 5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" (20:22).
Possumus etiam dicere, quod hoc in facto dominus ostendit omnia opera misericordiae. Nam qui dat panem esurienti, pedes eius lavat, similiter qui eum hospitio recipit, et qui operit nudum, et sic de aliis; Rom. XII, 13: necessitatibus sanctorum communicantes. We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to one in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of the saints" (Rom 12:13).
Confirmat autem conclusionem cum dicit exemplum enim dedi vobis etc.: et hoc quidem ex quatuor. Primo quidem ex sua intentione; secundo vero ex auctoritate, ibi amen, amen dico vobis; tertio ex praemio quod ipsi operi debetur, ibi si haec scitis, beati eritis, si feceritis ea; quarto ex dignitate eorum quibus pedes lavat, ibi amen, amen dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit. 1780 He supports his conclusion in four ways: first, by his intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the reward due this action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed (v 20).
Dixit ergo, quod hoc ideo feci ut darem vobis exemplum; et ideo debetis alter alterius lavare pedes, quia hoc in facto illo intendebam. Nam in actibus hominum plus movent exempla quam verba. Id enim homo agit et eligit quod videtur ei bonum: unde magis ostendit esse bonum quod ipsemet eligit, quam quod docet esse eligendum. Et inde est quod quando aliquis dicit aliquid, et tamen aliud facit, magis suadet aliis quod facit, quam illud quod docet: et ideo maxime necessarium est ex ipso facto exemplum dare. 1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an example; so you also ought to wash one another's feet, because that was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of people, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example by one's actions.
Sed exemplum quidem puri hominis humano generi non erat sufficiens ad imitandum, tum quia ratio humana ab omni consideratione deficit, tum quia in ipsa rerum consideratione decipitur: et ideo datur nobis exemplum filii Dei, quod est infallibile, et ad omnia sufficiens. Unde dicit Augustinus: quia superbia non sanatur, si humilitate divina non sanatur similiter quae avaritia, et sic de aliis. Now the example of a mere human being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine humility" 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[23]; and the same is true of avarice and the other vices.
Sed attende, quod satis convenienter filius Dei est nobis in exemplum virtutum. Ipse enim est ars patris, ut sicut fuit exemplar creationis, esset etiam exemplar iustificationis; I Petr. II, 21: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum, ut sequamini vestigia eius. Iob XXIII, 11: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus: viam eius custodivi, et non declinavi ex ea. Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for us. For he is the art of the Father, and just as he was the model or pattern for every thing created, so he was the model for our justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside," as we read in Job (23:11).
Consequenter cum dicit amen, amen dico vobis: non est servus maior domino suo etc., confirmat conclusionem ex auctoritate: et primo tangit discipulorum conditionem; secundo ipsorum officium. 1782 Then when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, he strengthens his conclusion by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the work they do.
Conditio autem discipulorum est quod sunt servi; Lc. XVII, 10: cum omnia bene feceritis, dicite quia servi inutiles sumus. Officium autem eorum est quod sint apostoli; Lc. VI, 13: elegit duodecim, quos apostolos nominavit. Sic ergo dicit: dico, quod debetis alter alterius lavare pedes, sicut et ego lavi, quia non est servus maior domino suo, quantum ad primum, neque apostolus, idest missus, maior eo qui misit illum. Licet autem ipse filius Dei, qui est apostolus confessionis nostrae, ut dicitur ad Hebr. III, v. 1, sit aequalis illi qui misit eum, scilicet patri, de omnibus tamen aliis verum est quod hic dicitur neque apostolus maior est eo qui misit illum. Then the status of the disciples is that they are servants: "so you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is to be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "Hechose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I say that "you also ought to wash one another's feet" as I have washed yours, because a servant is not greater than his master, and this refers to their status, nor is he who is sent grater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him.
Sed contra: infra enim XV, 15, dominus dicit discipulis suis: iam non dicam vos servos, quia servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius. Respondeo. Dicendum quod duplex est servitus. Una, quae procedit ex timore filiali, quae facit bonum servum; secundum illud Matth. XXV, 23: euge serve bone et fidelis: et hoc modo dominus vocat eos servos. Alia est servitus quam facit timor servilis; de qua dicitur Matth. XVIII, 32: serve nequam, omne debitum dimisi tibi quoniam rogasti me. Et de hac dicit dominus: iam non dicam vos servos et cetera. 1783 This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing." I answer that there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, "filial fear," and this produces a good servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John (13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment, "servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in "You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind of servant our Lord refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants" (15:15).
Consequenter cum dicit si haec scitis, beati eritis, si feceritis ea, confirmat conclusionem ex praemio, et primo proponit praemium; secundo excipit aliquem ab eo, ibi non de omnibus vobis dico. 1784 When he says, If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18).
Dicit ergo si haec scitis, quasi dicat: tu haec dicis nobis, quae quidem non ignoramus. Quare ergo dicis nobis? Ideo, inquam, quia et si haec scitis, quod quidem est omnium, tamen beati eritis, si feceritis ea, quod est paucorum. Et dicit si scitis et feceritis, scilicet quia, ut dicitur Lc. XI, 28, beati qui audiunt verbum Dei, et custodiunt illud. Et Ps. CX, 10: intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum. E contra dicitur Iacob. IV, 17: scienti bonum facere, et non facienti, peccatum est illi. 1785 If you know these things, which many do know, blessed are you if you do them, which is true of few. He says, "know" and "do" because we read: "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it" (Lk 11:28); and "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). On the other hand, "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (Jas 4:17).
Excipit autem quemdam, cum dicit non de omnibus vobis dico, et primo proponit exceptionem; secundo assignat exceptionis rationem, ibi sed ut impleatur Scriptura; tertio assignat rationem quare ponit exceptionem, ibi amodo dico vobis priusquam fiat. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit exceptionem; secundo respondet tacitae quaestioni. 1786 He excludes someone when he says, I am not speaking of you all. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he gives the reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he said there was an exception (v 19). He does two things about the first: he mentions there is an exception; he answers an unspoken question.
Exceptionem ponit cum dicit non de omnibus vobis dico etc., quasi dicat: beati eritis, tamen non omnes, quia non dico de omnibus vobis, quod ad beatitudinem perveniatis; I Cor. IX, 24: omnes quidem currunt, sed unus accipit bravium. Est enim aliquis inter vos, idest Iudas, qui non erit beatus; neque faciet ea. 1787 He says there is an exception when he says, I am not speaking of you all. He is saying in effect: You will be blessed, but not all of you, because I am not speaking of you all when I say you will be blessed: "All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor 9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do these things.
Sed, secundum Origenem, dominus non dicit beati eritis absolute, sed apposuit conditionem, dicens si feceritis ea: quod quidem verum est in omnibus, etiam in Iuda; si enim Iudas fecisset ea, beatus fuisset. Unde vult quod magis excipiat hoc quod dicit non est servus maior domino suo etc., quasi diceret: dico quod estis servi et apostoli; non tamen de omnibus hoc dico: Iudas enim dum esset servus peccati, non erat servus divini verbi, neque apostolus, Diabolo ingresso in cor eius. According to Origen, our Lord did not say blessed are you, without qualification; but he added a condition, if you do them. [24] And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from his servants, "a servant is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, but I am not speaking of you all: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart.
Sed quia posset aliquis dicere: ex quo non dicit de omnibus ut sint beati, vel eius apostoli, ergo ex improviso aliquis est de eius collegio periturus. Ideo dominus ad haec respondens, dicit ego scio quos elegerim, quasi diceret: electi non peribunt; sed non omnes sunt electi. Ille ergo peribit qui electus non est, scilicet Iudas; infra XV, v. 16: non vos me elegistis, sed ego elegi vos. 1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all are blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, I know whom I have chosen. This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will not perish; but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16).
Sed contra est quod dicitur supra VI, 71: nonne ego vos elegi duodecim? Cum ergo Iudas esset unus ex duodecim, videtur quod fuerit electus. Sed dicendum, quod duplex est electio. Una est ad praesentem iustitiam, et ad hanc electus fuit Iudas; alia electio est ad finalem gloriam, et secundum hanc Iudas non fuit electus. 1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can be chosen in two ways. One is for a present righteousness; and Judas was chosen for this. The other is for final glory; and Judas was not chosen for this.
Ratio autem huius exceptionis est ut impleatur Scriptura: quae hic praedicit, non quod cogat, sed quia hoc quod futurum erat, non tacuit; Lc. ult. 44: oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege Moysi et prophetis et Psalmis de me; Matth. c. V, 18: iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege donec omnia fiant. Quae quidem Scriptura dicit qui manducat panem mecum, levabit contra me calcaneum suum. Hoc est secundum aliam translationem, ubi nos habemus: etenim homo pacis meae, in quo speravi, qui edebat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem. Ubi ostenditur Iudae ad Christum familiaritas, cum dicit qui manducat panem mecum. Iudas enim panem cum aliis discipulis cum Christo comedit, etiam consecratum. Item ostenditur eius malignus conatus contra Christum, cum dicit levabit contra me calcaneum suum; idest, conabitur ad meam conculcationem. Calcaneo enim comprimimus hostes; Gen. III, 15: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. Tunc ergo dicitur aliquis levare calcaneum suum contra aliquem, quando conatur eum opprimere. Sed hoc Iudas non poterit: quia unde ipse credit me opprimere, inde exaltabor; supra XII, 32: ego, si exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia traham ad meipsum. 1790 The reason there was an exception was so that the scripture may be fulfilled - not that scripture forced the event, but it did mention an event that would happen: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. This is another translation of what we have in the Psalm [41:9] as: "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me." The intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, he who ate my bread: for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when it says, has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen 3:15]. And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself" [12:32].
In quo habemus exemplum, ut si quando a famulis aut ab aliquibus vilioribus patiamur aliquod malum, non scandalizemur, respicientes Iudae exemplum, qui infinitis potitus bonis, in contrarium remuneravit benefactorem. Ideo autem dominus Iudam, quem futurum noverat esse malum, elegit, ut daret intelligere quod nulla societas hominum sine alicuius mali admixtione futura erat: Cant. II, 2: sicut lilium inter spinas, sic amica mea inter filias. Unde Augustinus dicit in quadam epistola: non audeo mihi arrogare quod domus mea sit melior coetu apostolorum. Item ut si contingat quod aliquis ab aliquo praelato in societatem Ecclesiae assumptus, malus efficiatur, non sit in condemnationem ipsius praelati. Ecce enim quod Iudas electus a Christo, proditor efficitur. Sic etiam Act. VIII, 13 Philippus assumpsit Simonem magum; Ier. c. XVIII, 20: numquid redditur pro bono malum, quia foderunt foveam animae meae? Matth. X, 36: inimici hominis, domestici eius. 1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom he knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: "As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of his letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my household is better than the group of the apostles." [25] We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician: "Shall they repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's foes will be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).
Consequenter cum dicit amodo dico vobis priusquam fiat, assignat causam quare exceptionem posuit; quasi dicat: diu tacui eius malitiam sed quia tempus est ut prodeat in publicum, ideo dico vobis, idest manifesto, antequam fiat, ut credatis quia ego sum qui futura praedico, et occulta cordis manifesto; quod est proprium Dei; Ier. c. XVII, 9: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile: quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus scrutans cor, et probans renes; Is. LXI, v. 23: secutura quoque annuntiate nobis, et sciemus quia dii estis vos. Vel: ego sum qui sum, Ex. III, 14. 1792 Then when he says, I tell you this now, he gives the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it will appear publicly, therefore, I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he who predicts the future and reveals the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of God. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the heart'" (Jer 17:9); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex 3:14].
Consequenter cum dicit amen, amen dico vobis etc., confirmat conclusionem inductam ex dignitate eorum quibus pedes lavit: quorum tanta est dignitas ut obsequia eis impensa quodammodo videantur redundare in Deum, sed tamen secundum quemdam gradum: quia quae fiunt fidelibus per Christum, redundant in Deum patrem. 1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the dignity of those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although according to a certain progression: because things done for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.
Ostendit ergo primo quomodo ea quae fiunt discipulis Christi, redundant in Christum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit amen, amen dico vobis; quasi diceret: vere, debetis lavare pedes, quia qui recipit si quem misero, me accipit, idest, obsequium quod exhibetur his quos ego mitto, mihi attribuo factum; Matth. X, 40: quis vos recipit, me recipit. Secundo ostendit quomodo obsequium Christo exhibitum redundat in patrem, dicens qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit; supra V, 23: ut omnes honorificent filium sicut honorificant patrem. First, he shows how those things done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this he says, Truly, truly, I say to you. He is saying in effect: Truly, you ought to wash their feet, because he who receives any one whom I send receives me, that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those whom I send: "He who receives you receives me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, he who receives me receives him who sent me: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23).
Secundum autem Origenem, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo connexim; et sic est sensus: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit etc. idest, qui recipit missos a me, recipit et patrem. Qui ergo recipit si quem misero, recipit patrem. Alio modo distinctim; et sic est sensus: qui recipit si quem misero, me accipit: verum est corporaliter, sed qui recipit me, scilicet spiritualiter ad animas venientem, secundum illud Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris, accipit eum qui me misit, scilicet patrem. Non tantum ego in eo manebo, sed et pater; infra XIV, 23: ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in two ways. [26] In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the sense is: he who receives those sent by me also receives the Father. The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me, the Father. Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: "We will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23).
Sed ex hoc Arius errorem suum confirmare nititur hoc modo. Dominus dicit, quod qui recipit ipsum, recipit patrem: ergo eadem est comparatio patris mittentis ad filium, quae est filii mittentis ad discipulos; sed Christus mittens, est maior discipulis missis: ergo pater est maior filio. 1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the Son.
Sed ad hoc dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod in Christo fuerunt duae naturae, humana scilicet, et divina: et secundum hoc loquitur ex una parte secundum humanam naturam, dicens qui accipit si quem misero, me, hominem, accipit, qui communico cum eis in una natura; et ex alia parte loquitur secundum divinitatem qui autem me, Deum, accipit, accipit eum qui me misit, qui cum eo sum unius naturae. We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a divine nature. [27] In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, he who receives any one whom I send receives me, as human, for I share with them in one [human] nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I have the same [divine] nature as him.
Vel qui accipit eum quem ego mitto, accipit me, cuius auctoritas est in eis; et qui me accipit, accipit patrem, cuius auctoritas est in me; ut sic in verbis istis importetur quasi mediatio Christi inter Deum et hominem, secundum illud I Tim. II, 5: mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Iesus. Or, we could understand it to mean: he who receives one whom I send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and he who receives me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way, these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in "There is one mediator between God and the men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

Lectio 4 LECTURE 4

21 ταῦτα εἰπὼν [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν καὶ εἶπεν, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με. 22 ἔβλεπον εἰς ἀλλήλους οἱ μαθηταὶ ἀπορούμενοι περὶ τίνος λέγει. 23 ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς: 24 νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει. 25 ἀναπεσὼν οὖν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγει αὐτῷ, κύριε, τίς ἐστιν; 26 ἀποκρίνεται [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ. βάψας οὖν τὸ ψωμίον [λαμβάνει καὶ] δίδωσιν ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου. 27 καὶ μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον τότε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ σατανᾶς.

21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast [lap] of Jesus; 24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." 25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. [28]

Supra ostendit exemplum Evangelista quod Christus praebuit suis discipulis ad imitandum; hic ostendit defectum discipulorum, quem praenuntiat eis Iesus, qui nondum erant idonei ad sequendum, et primo ponit defectum discipuli qui eum tradidit; secundo defectum discipuli qui eum negavit, ibi dixit ei Simon Petrus: domine, quo vadis? Circa primum duo facit. Primo denuntiat discipuli proditionem; secundo eius separationem, ibi cum ergo exisset dixit Iesus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur praenuntiatio futurae proditionis; secundo ipsius proditionis executio, ad veritatem praenuntiantis comprobatam, ibi quod facis, fac citius. 1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which Christ predicted. First, we see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who denied him (v 36). Two things are done with the first: one of the disciples is said to be a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see it beginning to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the first: the crime of the traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 22).
Circa primum duo facit. Primo praenuntiat scelus proditionis; secundo personam proditoris, ibi aspiciebant ergo discipuli ad invicem. Circa primum, primo praemittit praenuntiantis affectum, secundo ponit praenuntiatum effectum. 1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted is mentioned.
Praenuntians ergo Christus est, qui afficitur ad turbationem: et quantum ad hoc dicit cum hoc dixisset Iesus, reinvitans eos ad caritatem, qua privatum videbat proditorem discipulum, turbatus est spiritu. Circa quod sciendum est, quod turbatio designat commotionem quamdam: et hoc apparet per hoc quod habetur supra V, 4: Angelus domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam, et movebatur aqua, et postea sequitur: domine, hominem non habeo, ut cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam: quod pro eodem accipit aquam turbari, et moveri. Secundum hunc etiam modum dicimus mare turbatum, quando est commotum. Turbatio ergo animi, eius commotionem designat. Sed sunt quidam actus animae sine commotione corporis, idest actus intellectivae partis. Actus autem appetitus sensitivi sunt cum corporis commotione; unde affectiones appetitus sensitivi, passiones dicuntur. Inter omnes autem affectiones seu passiones appetitus sensitivi, tristitia magis vim commotionis habet. Delectatio enim, cum dicat quietem in bono praesenti, magis rationem quietis habet quam commotionis. Timor etiam, cum sit de malo futuro, minus movet quam tristitia, quae est de malo praesenti. Et inde est quod turbatio animi praecipue dicitur tristitia. Turbatus est ergo Iesus, idest tristatus. The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, When Jesus had thus spoken, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in spirit. Here we should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: "From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and the water was disturbedthe sick man said, 'Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed. Now there are some acts of the soul which do not involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad.
Sed attendendum, quod quidam philosophi fuerunt, scilicet Stoici, dicentes, quod huiusmodi turbatio et huiusmodi passiones in sapientem non cadunt; quamvis enim sapiens secundum eos timeat, gaudeat, et desideret, nullo modo tamen tristatur. Sed horum falsitas manifeste apparet ex hoc quod Iesus, qui est summa sapientia, turbatur. 1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is clear that this is false because Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, was troubled.
Sciendum tamen, quod duplex est turbatio. Quaedam procedit ex carne, quando scilicet quis turbatur praeter iudicium rationis ex apprehensione sensuali, quae quidem turbatio quandoque quidem consistit intra limites rationis, in nullo eam obnubilans. Quae non perfecta passio, sed propassio dicitur a Hieronymo; et haec in sapientem cadit. Quandoque autem rationis limitem excedit, et eam turbat, et est non solum passio, sed etiam turbatio; et haec in sapientem non cadit. Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, which means that one is troubled because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a propassion. [29] This can happen in one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise.
Alia est turbatio quae procedit ex ratione, quando scilicet ex rationis iudicio et deliberatione turbatur quis in appetitu sensitivo. Et haec turbatio fuit in Christo: unde signanter dicit Evangelista, quod turbatus est spiritu, idest turbatio quae fuit in appetitu sensitivo, in Christo fuit ex iudicio rationis. Unde supra XI, 33, dicit quod turbavit semetipsum. In Christo enim omnia ex deliberatione rationis etiam in inferiori appetitu sensitivo proveniebant: unde nec subiti motus sensualitatis in Christo fuerunt. The second way of being troubled is to have it come from one's reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory appetite because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say that he was troubled in spirit, that is, the sensory appetite of Christ was troubled because of a judgment of his reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus "troubled himself." For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of reason, even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden disturbances of his sensuality.
Voluit autem hic Iesus turbari propter duo. Primo quidem propter fidei nostrae instructionem. Nam imminebat ei passio, et mors, quam naturaliter refugit natura humana, et, cum eam sibi sentit imminere, tristatur tamquam de malo et nocivo sibi praesente. Ut ergo ostenderet se veram naturam humanam habere, voluit turbationis affectum ex iudicio rationis etiam quantum ad ipsam animam pati. Per quod excluditur error Apollinaris dicentis, in Christo non fuisse animam, sed verbum loco animae. 1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him; and when he realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who said that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.
Secundo, propter nostram aedificationem. Videbat enim, secundum Augustinum, quod proditor ille exiturus erat, ut Iudaeos qui eum caperent, adduceret: ex quo separabatur a collegio sanctorum, et sententiam mortis contra se accipiebat. Et ideo ex quodam pietatis affectu ad eum tristabatur, dans per hoc exemplum praelatis, quod si duram sententiam quandoque contra subditos proferre contingat, cum dolore cordis proferant, secundum illud Ps. CXL, 5: corripiet me iustus in misericordia. Nam ipse proditionem Iudae aliis manifestare volens, turbatus est spiritu, et protestatus est, ne scilicet quasi ignorans proderetur, et dixit: amen, amen dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis me tradet. Secondly, he did this to aid our own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him. [30] By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness" (Ps 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, he was troubled in spirit and testified, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.
Signanter autem dicit unus ex vobis electis scilicet ad sanctum collegium, ut det intelligere quod nullum futurum foret adeo sanctum collegium quin aliquis peccator et malus in ipso inveniatur; Iob I, 6: cum venissent filii Dei ut assisterent coram domino, affuit inter eos etiam Satan. 1799 He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., one of those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and those who are evil: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them" (Job 1:6).
Dicit autem unus, non duo vel plures, ne collegium detestari videatur, sed proditorem ex collegio. Nam propter unum malum ex collegio, collegium malum reputari non debet. Ideo autem si plures mali essent, collegium posset malum reputari. Unus, inquit, ex vobis, numero, non merito, et spiritus vinculo: I Io. II, 19: ex nobis prodierunt; sed non erant ex nobis: nam si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum; me tradet. Ecce enuntiatio: me, inquam, magistrum, me dominum, me salvatorem. He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group bad because one member is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad. He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not one of you in merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19). One of you will betray me. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.
Consequenter cum dicit aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli etc., occulte designat personam proditoris, et primo ponitur designationis occasio; secundo personae designatio, ibi respondit Iesus: ille est cui intinctum panem porrexero, tertio designationis effectus, ibi et post buccellam introivit in eum Satanas. Est autem designationis duplex occasio. Una discipulorum communis haesitatio; alia fuit praedicta interrogatio. Primo ergo ponit primam, secundo secundam, ibi erat ergo recumbens. 1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. First, the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification (v 27). There were two occasions for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples. First, John mentions their uncertainty; and then the disciple's question.
Sciendum est circa primum, quod boni discipuli habebant ad Christum maximam caritatem, et maximam fidei firmitatem. Ex caritate quidem praesumebat quilibet ex se, quod nullus eum erat negaturus; sed ex fidei firmitate certissime tenebant quod verbum Christi falsum esse non poterat. Et ideo, licet nullius sibi ipsis conscii essent mali, tamen praenuntiationem Christi propriis cogitationibus veriorem et credibilem esse putabant. Unde se homines esse memores, et alterabilem esse affectum, etiam ad hoc provectorum, ita ut contrarium velit ei quod prius voluit, magis de se dubitabant quam de Christi veritate: et ideo aspiciebant ad invicem haesitantes de quo diceret, I Cor. X, 12: qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat; Iob IX, 30: si lotus fuero quasi aquis nivis, et fulserint velut mundissimae manus meae: tamen sordibus intinges me. 1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ; yet because their faith was so strong they were most certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke: "Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).
Consequenter cum dicit erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, ponitur inquisitio discipuli, et primo describitur eius ad Christum familiaritas; secundo excitatio eius ad interrogandum ibi innuit huic ergo Simon Petrus; tertio subditur eius interrogatio, ibi itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei. 1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First we see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask (v 24); thirdly, his question (v 25).
Familiaritas autem discipuli ad Christum ostenditur in hoc quod super eum recumbit, unde dicit erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu. Discipulus iste Ioannes Evangelista fuit, qui hoc Evangelium scripsit, et de se in persona alterius loquitur, volens vitare iactantiam, secutus morem aliorum qui sacras Scripturas conscripserunt. Sic enim Moyses in libris suis de se sicut de quodam altero loquitur, dicens locutus est dominus ad Moysen dicens et cetera. Sic et Matthaeus: vidit hominem sedentem in telonio Matthaeum nomine et cetera. Et Paulus II Cor. XII, 2: scio hominem in Christo (...) raptum huiusmodi usque ad tertium caelum. 1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him. He says, one of the disciples was lying close to the lap of Jesus. This was John the Evangelist who wrote his Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this he followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" (Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).
Tria autem hic Ioannes de se tangit. Primo quidem amorem quo quiescebat in Christo, dicens, quod erat recumbens, idest quiescens; Iob XXII, 26: tunc super omnipotentem deliciis afflues, et elevabis ad Deum faciem tuam; Ps. XXII, 2: super aquas refectionis educavit me. Secundo secretorum notitiam, quae ei Christus revelabat, et specialiter in conscriptione huius Evangelii, unde dicit quod recubuit in sinu Iesu: per sinum enim secretum significatur; supra I, v. 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris ipse enarravit. Tertio specialem dilectionem qua eum Christus diligebat, unde dicit quem diligebat Iesus: non quidem singulariter, sed quasi quodammodo excellentius prae aliis dilexit. Quomodo autem eum excellentius prae aliis dilexerit, magis in fine huius libri dicetur. 1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was lying, that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps 23:2). Secondly, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was lying close to the lap of Jesus, for the lap signifies things that are hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap of the Father, he has made him known" [1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book.
Quantum ad praesens autem sciendum, quod Ioannes fuit magis dilectus a Christo propter tria. Primo quidem propter munditiam puritatis: quia virgo est electus a domino, et virgo in aevum permansit. Et Prov. c. XXII, 11: qui diligit cordis munditiam, propter gratiam labiorum suorum habebit amicum regem. Secundo propter sublimitatem suae sapientiae, quia ceteris altius arcana divinitatis intuitus est: unde et aquilae comparatur; Prov. XIV, 35: acceptus est regi minister intelligens. Tertio propter vehementem fervorem affectus sui ad Christum; Prov. c. VIII, 17: ego diligentes me diligo. For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A wise servant has the king's favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17).
Consequenter cum dicit innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, ponitur excitatio ad interrogandum. Sed cum innuere sit absque verbo insinuare, ad quid est hoc quod dicit: innuit ergo (...) et dicit? Ad hoc dicendum, quod nos dicimur aliquid innuere quando aliquid interius cogitamus; secundum illud Ps. LII, 1: dixit insipiens in corde et cetera. Multo ergo magis dicimur aliquid dicere innuendo iam exterius quibuscumque vel qualibuscumque signis, quod fuerat corde conceptum. Et sic est sensus: innuit (...) et dicit; idest, innuendo dicit. Vel potest dici, quod primo innuit signo, et postea dicit verbo, hoc scilicet quod sequitur: quis est de quo dicit? Quod scilicet eum tradet. 1805 Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him, John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both beckonedand said? I answer that the [Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think something within ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart" (Ps 53:1). And, even more so, we can say that someone said something when he indicates by some external sign or gesture what he has conceived in his heart. This is the meaning of his saying that Peter beckonedand said, that is, thinking of something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: Who is it of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray him.
Sed cum Petrus ubique in Evangeliis semper audax, et primus ad respondendum propter amoris fervorem inveniatur, quid est quod hic tacet? Quid est quod alteri interrogationem committit? Cuius quidem ratio potest esse triplex, secundum Chrysostomum. Una, quia cum supra est reprehensus a domino de hoc quod lavari sibi pedes non patiebatur a domino, et audivisset si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum: dubitabat nunc de hoc dominum molestare. Alia ratio est, quia Petrus nolebat quod dominus hoc publice, ita quod alii possent audire, manifestaret. Unde, quia ipse remotus erat a Christo, nec ipse tantum audivisset, Ioannem, qui proximus erat Christo, ad interrogandum excitat. 1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. [31] One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask him.
Habet etiam rationem mysticam. Per Ioannem enim contemplativa, per Petrum activa vita signatur. Petrus vero mediante Ioanne instruitur a Christo: quia vita activa de divinis instruitur mediante contemplativa: Maria enim sedens secus pedes domini audiebat verba illius; sed Martha satagebat circa frequens ministerium: Lc. X, 39. The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ by means of John because the active life learns about divine things by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving" (Lk 10:39).
Consequenter cum dicit itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesus, dicit ei etc., ponitur interrogatio. Sed notandum, quod cum Petrus innuit ut interrogaret, recumbebat Ioannes in sinu Iesu; nunc vero eum interrogat Ioannes, qui supra pectus eius recumbit. Pectus enim vicinius est ori quam sinus. Ioannes ergo secretius audire volens responsum, et magis silenter, de sinu conscendit ad pectus. 1807 Then when he says, So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? he mentions the question. Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord, John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly and privately.
Mystice autem per hoc datur intelligi, quod quanto magis homo vult divinae sapientiae secreta capere, tanto magis conari debet ut propinquior fiat Iesu, secundum illud Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Nam divinae sapientiae secreta illis praecipue revelantur qui Deo iuncti sunt per amorem; Iob XXXVI, 33: annuntiat de ea amico suo, quod possessio eius sit; Prov. c. XVIII, 17: venit amicus eius, et investigavit eum. As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: "Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He shows his friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His friend comes and searches into him" [Prv 18:17].
Consequenter cum dicit respondit Iesus etc. designat personam proditoris: et primo verbo, secundo facto. Verbo quidem, cum dicit ille est cui intinctum panem porrexero: quod potest duo significare, secundum quod potest dupliciter accipi. Quia si accipiatur hic in malum, significat Iudae simulationem. Nam sicut panis intinctus infectus est ex eo quod intingitur, et mutat colorem, ita et simulator, dum aliud gerit in corde et aliud praetendit ore: et sic erat Iudas, qui exterius praetendebat se magistrum diligere, in corde proditionem tractabat; Ps. XXVII, 3: loquuntur pacem cum proximo suo, mala autem in cordibus eorum. 1808 Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he says, It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it. This can signify two things, depending on how bread is understood. If it is understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance so also a pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: The wicked "speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).
Si vero accipiatur in bonum, sic ponitur ad exaggerandam eius malignitatem. Panis enim intinctus magis sapidus est. Ut ergo ostendat quod licet multa bona a Christo receperit Iudas, eorum tamen immemor prodit eum, panem sibi intinctum porrigit; Ps. LIV, 14: tu vero homo unanimis, dux meus, et notus meus, qui dulces simul mecum capiebas cibos. If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these he betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps 55:13).
Facto autem ostendit, cum dicit et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae. Hinc aliqui dicunt, hunc panem fuisse corpus Christi consecratum. Sed hoc, secundum Augustinum, non est verum. Nam, sicut ex aliis Evangeliis habetur. Dominus cum coenaret, discipulis corpus suum dedit: et ideo patet quod Iudas cum aliis discipulis simul corpus Christi accepit in coena. Christus autem postquam aliquantulum in coena processerat, surrexit a coena, et lavit pedes discipulorum, quibus lotis resedit, et postmodum panem tinctum Iudae tradidit. Unde patet quod non erat corpus Christi. 1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, so when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so. [32] For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.
Sequitur designationis effectus, cum dicit et post buccellam introivit in eum Satanas. Sed quaeritur hic quomodo Satanas in hominem intrat? Ad quod dicendum, quod Satanam intrare in hominem, potest intelligi dupliciter. Quia intrare potest in corpus hominis, sicut patet in his qui corporaliter a Daemonio vexantur; et sic potest Diabolus essentialiter in hominem intrare. Vel potest intelligi intrare in mentem, ita quod menti Daemon essentialiter illabatur. Et sic nullus potest intrare in hominem nisi solus Deus. Anima enim rationalis non habet dimensiones quantitatis, ut aliquid in ea esse dicatur, quasi infra eius dimensionem contentum sit. Nihil potest in ea esse nisi quod ei dat esse, quod est ibi per virtutem suam. Ubi autem est virtus Dei, ibi est et essentia Dei: in Deo enim idem est essentia et virtus. Manifestum est ergo quod Deus essentialiter est in anima. Dicitur tamen Diabolus illabi menti humanae per effectum et affectum malitiae, inquantum scilicet homo ab eo seductus, sequitur eum ad perpetrandum malum. 1810 He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Here we might ask how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there are two ways of understanding Satan's entering into a person. He could enter into a person's body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except what gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect of the devil's malice, which someone has loved. [33]
Sed cum supra dixerit: cum Diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas, hic autem dicit introivit in eum Satanas: videtur aliud esse mittere et intrare. Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod hoc non est dictum ad significandum differentiam, sed ad insinuandum augmentum malitiae. Tunc enim dicitur Diabolus immittere aliquod malum in cor hominis cum homo praebet ei assensum ad malum, tamen cum quadam trepidatione an hoc facere debeat; sed tunc intrat in cor quando homo totaliter dat se ad sequendum eius instinctum, et in nullo ei resistit. Intravit ergo in eum Satanas, ut plenius possideret, et ad perpetrandum malitiam duceret, in quem prius miserat ut deciperet. 1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him". But now he says, Satan entered into him. So there seems to be a difference between "put into" and "enter into." I say that this was not said to indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But he enters into a person's heart when one totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.
Quaeritur quare Lc. XXII, 3, dicatur, quod intravit Satanas in eum, quod quidem fuit antequam buccellam acciperet. Et hoc est contra illud quod Ioannes hic dicit, scilicet quod post buccellam introivit Satanas in eum. Responsio. Dicendum, quod tunc introivit ad proditionem faciendam, sed nunc introivit ad eam exequendam et complendam. 1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after the morsel, Satan entered into him. I answer that in the first cast Satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish and complete it.
Sed numquid buccellam dare Iudae, post quam introivit in eum Satanas, fuit malum? Responsio. Dicendum quod non. Sed ipse Iudas cum esset malus, bono usus est male. Sic cum quis indigne accipit Eucharistiam, quod bonum est et optimum, male accipit, et vertitur sibi in malum, quia iudicium sibi manducat et bibit: I Cor. XI, 29. 1813 Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).

Lectio 5 LECTURE 5

27b λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον. 28 τοῦτο [δὲ] οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τῶν ἀνακειμένων πρὸς τί εἶπεν αὐτῷ: 29 τινὲς γὰρ ἐδόκουν, ἐπεὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν Ἰούδας, ὅτι λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ. 30 λαβὼν οὖν τὸ ψωμίον ἐκεῖνος ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς:

27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night. [34]

Posita praenuntiatione futurae proditionis hic ponitur consummatio ipsius rei praenuntiatae, scilicet perpetratio proditionis, et primo permittit Iudae adimplere quod dixerat; secundo ostendit quomodo adimpleretur, ibi cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit verba domini permittentis; secundo manifestat ipsorum verborum obscuritatem; tertio subdit quomodo illa verba fuerunt ab apostolis intellecta. 1814 We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted. First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.
Verba autem domini sunt ista quod facis, fac citius. Quae quidem verba non sunt praecipientis, seu consulentis, cum peccatum cadere non possit sub praecepto et consilio divino, quia dicitur in Ps. XVIII, 9: praeceptum domini lucidum illuminans oculos, sed sunt verba permittentis. Nam, ut dictum est, Diabolus miserat in cor Iudae ut traderet eum, scilicet Iesum, quod iam tractaverat cum principibus; sed implere non poterat nisi ipse Christus permitteret: quia supra X, 18: nemo tollet a me animam meam: sed ego pono eam a me ipso; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est quia ipse voluit. 1815 Our Lord's words were: What you are going to do, do quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is 53:7].
Sunt etiam verba crimen proditionis exprobrantis, ut ostenderet quod dum ille conferret beneficia, iste intentaret mortem; Ps. c. XLIX, 21: arguam te et statuam contra faciem tuam. Sunt etiam verba ad opus nostrae redemptionis anhelantis, ut Augustinus dicit. Non tamen praecepit facinus, sed praedixit, non tam in perniciem perfidi saeviendo, quam ad salutem fidelium festinando; Lc. XII, 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari, et quomodo coarctor donec perficiatur? These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption. [35] Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).
Verba autem domini obscura erant tantum ad discipulos; et ideo dicit hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit. In quo datur intelligi quod verba Christi adeo profunda sunt et humanum intellectum excedentia, quod non plus inde capere possumus nisi quantum ipse revelat; Prov. XXV, 2: gloria domini est celare verbum. 1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].
Sed hic oritur quaestio. Cum enim Ioanni dominus personam proditoris designasset, dicens: ille cui intinctum panem porrexero, et dedisset panem intinctum Iudae: nimium videntur rudes fuisse discipuli, quod verbum domini non intellexerunt. Ad quod dicendum est, quod dominus verba illa occulte dixerat Ioanni tantum, ut non fieret proditor manifestus. Cuius ratio est, quia Petrus ita fervidus erat in amore Christi quod si pro certo scivisset Iudam fuisse Christum traditurum, statim occidisset eum. 1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said. I answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.
Sed cum Ioannes unus esset ex discumbentibus, adhuc incidit alia quaestio, cur dixerit, quod nemo scivit discumbentium. Ad quod dicendum est, quod consuetudo boni animi et innocentis est ut etiam alios procul ab iniquitate esse credat, a qua seipsos noverunt immunes. Quia igitur Ioannes innocentissimus erat, et a proditionis iniquitate semotus, nequaquam suspicabatur quod discipulus in tantum iniquitatis prodiret. 1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no one at the table knew why he said this to him ? I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime.
Quid autem discipuli veram causam verborum ignorantes de ipsis verbis aestimarent, subdit Evangelista, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet discipulis, putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod dominus Deus caeli, qui dat escam omni carni, loculos habuit, non quod possideret aliquid terrenum, sed a fidelibus oblata conservans, suis necessitatibus et aliis indigentibus subveniret: quos quidem loculos Iudas conferebat. In quo datur exemplum, ut Augustinus dicit, quod Ecclesia potest habere pecuniam et reservare pro necessitatibus imminentibus. In quo etiam instruimur, quod ecclesiastica pecunia sit expendenda solum in duobus. Primo quidem in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum; unde dicit eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, idest quibus Deum colere possumus in die festo; Malach. c. III, 10; inferte omnem decimam in horreum meum, et sit cibus in domo mea. Deinde vero in his quae pertinent ad pauperum sustentationem, ut subdit aut egenis aliquid daret. 1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This purse was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs. [36] It also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, Buy what we need for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: "Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.
Sed si obiicias contra id quod dicit dominus, Matth. VI, 34: nolite cogitare in crastinum, ad hoc respondet Augustinus, et dicit, quod hoc non fuit praeceptum a domino ad hoc ut nihil pecuniae seu aliarum rerum unius diei a sanctis servetur in crastinum; sed ideo dominus dixit, nolite cogitare in crastinum, ne scilicet praedicaremus et alia Dei servitia faceremus ut provideatur nobis in posterum: vel ne desistamus ab his quae virtutis sunt, propter diei crastini sollicitudinem. Ex quo patet quod dominus dicens, nolite solliciti esse de crastino, duo prohibet. Unum, ut non faciamus bona propter crastinum; aliud, ut non retrahamur a bonis propter timorem crastinae inopiae et cetera. 1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said that or Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next. [37] Rather, he said, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure our future; secondly, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.
Chrysostomus autem planius exponit dicens: nolite cogitare de crastino; idest, curam quae incumbit diei crastino, nolite anticipare in diem hodiernum: sufficit enim diei malitia sua. Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough." [38]
Dubitatur etiam hic, quod dominus praecepit discipulis suis, Lc. X, 4: nolite portare in via sacculum, neque peram neque calceamenta. Quomodo ergo ipse loculos habebat? Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, dominus loculos ferebat ad inopum ministerium, ut hinc discas quod quantumcumque pauperem et mundo crucifixum, oportet de pauperibus curam habere: secundum illud Ps. CXI, 9: dispersit, dedit pauperibus et cetera. Vel dicendum, quod hoc quod dicit, nihil tuleritis in via etc., referendum est ad singulares praedicatores et apostolos, qui nihil portare debent quando ad praedicandum vadunt. Non autem referendum est ad totum collegium, quod oportet aliquid habere et pro seipsis et pro egenis. 1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor" (Ps 112:9). [39] Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their way, he was referring to individual preachers and Apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something for themselves and for the poor.
Consequenter cum dicit cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo, ponitur adimpletio rei praenuntiatae, et primo ponitur executio; secundo temporis determinatio. 1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it was done.
Executio quidem festina: quia cum buccellam accepisset, exivit continuo. Ubi attende, secundum Origenem, quod non dicit Evangelista, cum comedisset buccellam, sed accepisset: quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod proditor in hoc tantum sollicitus obedire magistro, accepto pane non comederit eum; sed forte in mensa dimisso, nullam traxit moram, vadens ad proditionem perpetrandam. Cuius quidem ratio esse potest, quod Diabolus, qui iam intraverat in cor Iudae, timens ne si panem comederet, eum cedere oporteret, non valentem in eodem loco cum Iesu esse, non permisit Iudam panem comedere; II Cor. VI, 15: quae conventio Christi ad Belial? I Cor. X, v. 21: non potestis simul esse participes mensae domini et mensae Daemoniorum. 1823 What was done was done quickly, because after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it. [40] This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).
Alio modo potest intelligi, quod panem acceptum comedit; et sic est sensus cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, non solum in manu, sed etiam comedendo, sic exivit continuo, male utens bono. Sicut et qui indigne manducat panem domini, aut bibit eius calicem, in praeiudicium sibi manducat atque bibit et magis aggravatur peccatis; sic panis a Iesu datus Iudae, fuit in damnum, ut post panem intraret in eum Satanas. Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, after receiving the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did Satan.
Tempus autem seu hora determinatur tenebrosa; unde dicit erat autem nox: quod quidem determinat propter duo. Primo ad eius malitiam aggravandam, quae intantum invaluerat in cor eius, ut nec propter temporis inopportunitatem usque mane perstitisset; Iob XXIV, 14: mane primo consurgit homicida (...) et de nocte efficitur fur. 1824 The time is described as one of darkness: and it was night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: "The murderer rises in the darkand in the night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).
Secundo ad designandam mentis qualitatem erat enim nox: quia mens Iudae proditoris obscura erat a luce divina. Supra XI, 9: qui ambulat in die, non offendit, quia lucem huius mundi videt; qui autem ambulat in nocte, offendit, quia lux non est in eo. In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10).

Lectio 6 LECTURE 6

31 ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθεν λέγει Ἰησοῦς, νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ: 32 [εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ] καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν.

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of man glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him at once.

Post egressum Iudae ad mortem domini procurandam, agit dominus de recessu suo ad gloriam, et primo annuntiat eis gloriam ad quam vadit, ut inde consolentur; secundo praenuntiat eis suum recessum, ibi filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum et cetera. 1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, he foretells his leaving (v 33).
Gloria autem ad quam vadit est glorificatio et exaltatio Christi inquantum est filius hominis: et hoc est quod dicit cum ergo exisset, scilicet Iudas, dixit Iesus, discipulis suis, nunc clarificatus est filius hominis et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod clarificari idem est quod glorificari: gloria enim dicitur quasi claria. Unde secundum Ambrosium, gloria est clara cum laude notitia. Unde expositores ubi in Graeco est clarificare, transferunt glorificare, et e converso. Et sic idem est quod hic dicitur nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, quod glorificatus. 1826 The glory to which he is going is the glorification and exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he had gone out, that is Judas, Jesus said, to his disciples, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified. The [Latin] word used was actually "clarified" and not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and made known) is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised. [41] And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice versa.
Potest ergo exponi quadrupliciter, scilicet referendo ad quadruplicem gloriam Christi. Primo quidem ad gloriam crucis; secundo ad gloriam iudiciariae potestatis; tertio ad gloriam resurrectionis; quarto ad gloriam cognitionis Christi in fide populorum. Hanc enim quadruplicem gloriam Scriptura attribuit Christo. We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.
Primo ergo Christus clarificatus fuit in crucis exaltatione, unde etiam Paulus in ipsa cruce gloriam suam dicit esse, Gal. ult., 14: mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce domini nostri Iesu Christi. Et de hac gloria exponit Chrysostomus. Unde circa hoc dominus quatuor tangit de gloria crucis. Primo ipsam gloriam, secundo gloriae fructum, tertio gloriae auctorem, quarto gloriae tempus. 1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text. [42] In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.
Quantum ad primum dicit nunc clarificatus est filius hominis et cetera. Sciendum est enim, quod quando aliquid incipit fieri, videtur quasi esse factum. Iuda autem exeunte ad ducendum milites, videtur negotium passionis Christi, per quam glorificandus erat, inchoatum esse, et ideo dicit nunc clarificatus est filius hominis etc., idest incipit passio in qua glorificabitur. Clarificatus est enim Christus per passionem crucis,

quia per eam de inimicis, scilicet morte et Diabolo, triumphavit; Hebr. II, 14: ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium.
Item quia per eam coniunxit terrena caelestibus; Coloss. I, 20: pacificans per sanguinem crucis sive quae in terris, sive quae in caelis sunt.
Item quia per eam omnia regna obtinuit. Ps. XCV, 9, secundum aliam litteram: dicite in gentibus, quia dominus regnavit a ligno.
Item quia in ea multa miracula ostendit: nam velum templi scissum est, mota est terra, petrae sunt scissae, et sol obscuratus est, et multa corpora sanctorum surrexerunt, ut dicitur Matth. XXVII, 51 s. Propter hoc ergo imminente passione dicit nunc clarificatus est filius hominis: quasi, nunc incipit passio mea, quae est mea glorificatio.
As to the first [the very glory of the cross] he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. Note that when something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ's passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: "to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship. One version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: "Say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) states. So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, now is the Son of man glorified. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my glory.
Fructus autem huius gloriae est quod inde Deus glorificetur; et ideo dicit et Deus clarificatus est in eo; idest, in filio hominis glorificato: quia gloria passionis ad hoc tendit, ut Deus inde glorificetur. Si enim Deus glorificatur de morte Petri, infra ult., 19, hoc dixit significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum, multo magis clarificatus est per mortem Christi. The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter—"This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more glorified by the death of Christ.
Auctor autem huius gloriae non est Angelus neque homo, sed ipsemet Deus: et ideo dicit si Deus glorificatus est in eo; idest, si tanta est gloria quod Deus inde glorificetur, non debuit per alium clarificari; sed ipse Deus clarificavit ipsum in semetipso, idest per semetipsum; infra XVII, 5: clarifica me, pater, claritate quam habui priusquam mundus esset, apud te. The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him in himself, that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me" [43] (17:5).
Tempus autem huius gloriae est festinum, quia continuo, idest statim, clarificabit eum; idest, dabit ei clarificationem crucis. Crux enim, licet gentibus et his qui pereunt sit stultitia, nobis tamen credentibus est maxima Dei sapientia, et Dei virtus: I Cor. I, 30. The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God will glorify him at once, that is, he will give him the glory of the cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the Gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).
Secunda autem gloria Christi, est gloria iudiciariae potestatis; Mc. XIII, 26: tunc videbunt filium hominis venientem in nubibus, cum virtute multa et gloria. Et de hac gloria exponit Augustinus, ut in Glossa tangitur. Unde secundum hoc quatuor hic facit. Primo ponit gloriam iudiciariae potestatis; secundo ostendit meritum quo ad hanc pervenitur; tertio hoc exponit; quarto demonstrat huius gloriae principium. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum nunc clarificatus est filius hominis. Ubi sciendum est, quod in sacra Scriptura res significatae appellantur nomine rerum significantium, significatione non expressa, secundum illud I Cor. X, 4: petra autem erat Christus. Ubi non dicit, petra significat Christum. In hoc autem facto quod Iudas exivit ab apostolis repraesentatur figura futuri iudicii, ubi mali separabuntur a bonis, cum statuet oves a dextris, haedos autem a sinistris, ut habetur Matth. XXV, 33. In hoc ergo quod Iudas exivit, quia futurum iudicium figurabatur; ideo dominus post exitum Iudae agit de gloria iudiciariae potestatis, qua iudicaturus est, dicens nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, idest, per eius exitum repraesentata est gloria filii hominis quam habebit in iudicio, ubi malorum nullus erit ubi bonorum nullus perit. Non autem dicitur: nunc significata est glorificatio filii hominis; sed nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, more Scripturae sacrae praedicto. 1828 The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks, as the gloss says. [44] In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the source of Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; rather, it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of his judicial power, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified; that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not say: "Now is the glorification of the Son of man signified," but rather, Now is the Son of man glorified, in keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.
Meritum autem huius glorificationis est ut Deus glorificetur in eo. In illis enim clarificatur Deus qui quaerunt facere voluntatem eius, non suam; talis autem erat Christus; supra VI, 38: non veni facere voluntatem meam, sed eius qui misit me. Et ideo Deus clarificatus est in eo. Exponit autem hoc cum dicit si Deus clarificatus est in eo, idest, si voluntatem Dei faciens, Deum clarificat, merito Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso, ut scilicet natura humana quae a verbo aeterno suscepta est, etiam immortali aeternitate donetur; et ideo in semetipso, idest in gloria sua; Phil. II, 9: propter quod exaltavit illum, et donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. Ipsa ergo glorificatio qua Deus glorificatus est in Christo, est meritum in quo Christus secundum quod homo glorificatus est in semetipso, idest in gloria Dei. Et hoc fuit quando humana natura, deposita infirmitate per mortem crucis, accepit gloriam immortalitatis in resurrectione. Inde ipsa resurrectio fuit principium quo inchoata est ista gloria. Ideo dicit et continuo clarificabit eum, in resurrectione, quae scilicet statim erit, secundum illum Ps. CVII, 3: exurgam diluculo. Et alibi, Ps. XV, 10: non dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem. Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And this is why in him God is glorified. He amplifies on this when he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified in himself, that is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, and will glorify him at once, at the resurrection, which will quickly come: "I will arise in the morning early" [Ps 108:2]: and also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" [Ps 16:10].
Tertia Christi gloria, est gloria resurrectionis de qua dicitur Rom. VI, 4: quomodo surrexit Christus per gloriam patris; ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. Et de hac gloria exponit hic Hilarius, et etiam partim Augustinus. 1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection, about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part. [45]
Et secundum hoc primo praenuntiat Christus hanc suam gloriam, dicens nunc clarificatus est filius hominis. Et loquitur de futuro per modum praeteriti: quia quae statim fieri credimus, quasi facta habemus. Gloria autem resurrectionis in proximo imminebat; et ideo dicit nunc clarificatus est, quasi corpus naturae divinae consociatione, gloriam quodammodo divinitatis adeptum est. From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified. Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the resurrection was very near, and so he says, Now is the Son of man glorified, as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.
Secundo subiungit causam huius glorificationis, et valde subtiliter: nam, ut ipse dicit, humanitas Christi in resurrectione glorificata est ex coniunctione divinae naturae eam assumentis in persona verbi, quia hoc dicitur in Ps. XV, 10: non derelinques animam meam in Inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum, qui est sanctus sanctorum, videre corruptionem. Debetur etiam Christo homini talis gloria inquantum est Deus. Nos etiam intantum gloriam resurrectionis habebimus, inquantum participes sumus divinitatis; Rom. VIII, 11: qui suscitavit Iesum Christum a mortuis, resuscitabit et mortalia corpora vestra propter inhabitantem spiritum eius in vobis. Et ideo dicit, quod filius hominis, scilicet Christus, secundum humanam naturam, clarificatus est, per resurrectionem. Et quis clarificabit eum? Deus, inquit, clarificabit eum in semetipso, ut scilicet Christus homo, qui regnat in gloria quae ex Dei gloria est, et ipse exinde in Dei gloriam transeat, scilicet mansurus totus in Deo; quasi deificatus ex ea qua homo est dispensatione. Sicut si dicerem: lampas clara est, quia ignis clarescit in ea. Illud ergo quod emittit radios claritatis ad humanitatem Christi, est Deus: et sic humanitas Christi clarificatur a gloria divinitatis eius, et humanitas Christi inducitur in gloriam divinitatis, non per transmutationem naturae, sed per participationem gloriae, inquantum ipse Christus homo adoratur tamquam Deus; Phil. II, 9: propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur. Et ideo dicit et Deus clarificatus est in eo; idest, si ita est quod gloria divinitatis ad gloriam humanitatis redundet, Deus clarificavit eum, idest, fecit eum participem suae gloriae, eum ad suam gloriam assumendo. Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur quia dominus Iesus in gloria est Dei patris. Secondly, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul in Sheol; you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of all, "see corruption" [Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Rom 8:11). So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ considered in his human nature, is glorified, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, God will also glorify him in himself, so that this human being, Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: A lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if it is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father" [Phil 2:11].
Et sic duplex est gloria Christi. Una quae est in humanitate eius a divinitate derivata; alia est divinitatis, ad quam quodammodo assumitur humanitas, ut dictum est: sed aliter et aliter. Nam prima gloria habuit principium temporis, et ideo de ipsa loquitur in praeterito dicens et Deus clarificavit eum in semetipso, quod fuit in die resurrectionis. Secunda gloria est perpetua, quia ab aeterno verbum Dei est Deus, ad quam humanitas Christi assumpta in perpetuum glorificabitur; unde de ista loquitur in futuro dicens et continuo clarificabit eum; idest, semper faciet eum in illa gloria in perpetuum esse. Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and in him God is, or has been, glorified, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he will always establish him in that glory forever.
Quarta gloria Christi est gloria cognitionis in fide populorum; et de hac exponit Origenes. Ubi notandum est, quod gloria, secundum eum, aliter accipitur in communi usu hominum, et aliter in Scriptura. Nam secundum communem usum, gloria nihil aliud est quam a pluribus collata praeconia, vel clara cum laude notitia, ut Ambrosius dicit; in sacra Scriptura gloria importat aliquod divinum indicium super homines. Unde Ex. XL, 32: gloria domini apparuit super tabernaculum, idest, aliquod divinum indicium requievit super ipsum. Et similiter illud quod dicitur de facie Moysi, quod glorificata esset. Et sicut gloria corporaliter dicit aliquod divinum indicium super homines, ita etiam et spiritualiter intellectus hominis dicitur glorificari quando ita deificatus, et transcendens omnia materialia, elevatur ad Dei cognitionem: per hoc enim efficitur particeps gloriae ipsius, II Cor. III, 18: nos autem revelata facie gloriam domini speculantes in eamdem imaginem transformamur. Si ergo quicumque cognoscit Deum, glorificatur, et particeps gloriae effectus est, manifestum est quod Christus, qui perfectissime Deum cognovit, utpote totius divinae gloriae splendor existens, Hebr. I, 3, et totius gloriae divinae fulgorem capere valens; si, inquam, ita est; Christus perfectissime est glorificatus, et etiam omnes qui Deum cognoscunt, hoc a Christo habent. 1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his exposition. [46] According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose says. [47] While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one. We read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord appeared over the tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ.
Sed Christum sic glorificatum esse in perfectissima cognitione et participatione divinitatis nondum homines cognoscebant: et ideo, licet in se glorificatus esset, non tamen glorificatus erat in notitia hominum. Sed hanc gloriam incepit habere in resurrectione et in passione, in quibus homines cognoscere coeperunt suam virtutem et suam divinitatem. De hac ergo sua glorificatione dominus hic loquens, dicit nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, scilicet, secundum humanitatem, in sua passione, quae imminebat, clarus effectus est in notitia hominum; et Deus, scilicet pater, glorificatus est in eo. Filius enim non solum revelat se, sed etiam patrem; infra XVII, 6: pater, manifestavi nomen tuum: et ideo non solum clarificatus est filius, sed etiam pater; Matth. XI, 27: patrem nemo novit nisi filius, et cui voluerit filius revelare. Et dicit in eo, quia qui videt filium, videt et patrem: infra XIV, 9. But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, Now is the Son of man glorified, that is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching passion. And in him God, the Father, is glorified. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: "[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). He says, in him, because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9).
Maioris autem est ut aliquid maius rependat, et ideo subdit et si Deus clarificatus est in eo, idest si ex claritate filii hominis quodammodo crescit gloria Deo patri, inquantum magis ab omnibus cognoscitur, et Deus clarificavit eum in semetipso, idest, notificavit, quod Christus Iesus est in sua gloria. Et hoc non differtur, quia continuo clarificabit eum, idest statim et cetera. It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in him, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, God will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he will glorify him at once.

Lectio 7 LECTURE 7

33 τεκνία, ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι: ζητήσετέ με, καὶ καθὼς εἶπον τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν,καὶ ὑμῖν λέγω ἄρτι. 34 ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους: καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. 35 ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.

33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Supra posuit dominus claritatem quam adepturus erat per suum recessum; hic ipsum suum recessum praenuntiat eis, et primo praenuntiat eis suum recessum; secundo ostendit quod nondum discipuli idonei erant ad eum sequendum, ibi quaeretis me; tertio docet quomodo idonei fiant, ibi mandatum novum do vobis. 1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, he foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they can become fit, A new commandment I give to you.
Recessum autem futurum in brevi praenuntiat eis, dicens filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum. Et utitur verbo filiationis ad maiorem inflammationem. Nam quando amici ab invicem discedunt, tunc maxime affectu amoris inardescunt. Supra eodem cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos. Sed dicit filioli mei, in diminutivo, ut ostendat eorum imperfectionem, nondum enim erant perfecte filii, quia nondum perfecte diligebant: nondum erant in caritate perfecti; Gal. IV, 19: filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in vobis. Nihilominus tamen satis creverant in perfectione, quia ex servis facti sunt filioli, ut hic habetur, et fratres, infra XX, 17: vade ad fratres meos, et dic eis et cetera. 1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, Little children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, little children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in charity: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be informed in you" (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren, "Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).
Notandum tamen, quod hoc quod dicitur adhuc modicum, tripliciter exponi potest, secundum quod Christus est tripliciter cum suis discipulis. Christus enim cum suis discipulis erat corporaliter. Corpus autem eius potest considerari dupliciter. Primo secundum similitudinem conditionis naturae humanae, nam Christus secundum corpus mortalis erat, sicut et ceteri homines; et sic ly modicum accipitur pro tempore quod erat inter verba sermonis huiusmodi, et mortem suam. Ut sit sensus adhuc modicum vobiscum sum, idest, modicum temporis extat quod capiar et moriar, et tunc resurgam, deinceps immortalis, etiam secundum corpus, existens; Rom. VI, v. 9: Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur, mors illi ultra non dominabitur. Et ideo dicitur Lc. ult., 44: haec dicebam vobis, dum adhuc essem vobiscum et cetera. 1833 We should note that the expression, yet a little while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So, a little while, is understood as the time between these words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) says: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."
Secundo fuit cum eis praesentia corporali, sed secundum quod corpus eius erat iam glorificatum; et sic ly modicum accipitur pro tempore quod erat usque ad ascensionem; infra XVI, 16: modicum, et iam non videbitis me; et iterum modicum, et videbitis me, quia vado ad patrem; Aggaei II, 7: adhuc modicum, et ego movebo caelum et terram et mare et aridam. Secondly, he was with them in body, but a body that was already glorified. Then, a little while, indicates the time that intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go to the Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag 2:6).
Tertio exponitur secundum quod Christus fuit cum eis spiritualiter secundum suae divinitatis praesentiam, et in sacramentis; et sic ly modicum accipitur pro tempore quod existebat usque ad consummationem saeculi: quod quidem tempus dicitur esse modicum in comparatione ad aeternitatem; I Io. II, 18: filioli mei, novissima hora est. Et sic est sensus modicum vobiscum sum, idest, licet a vobis corporaliter discedam, tamen spiritualiter adhuc sum vobiscum modicum istud temporis quod extat usque ad consummationem saeculi; Matth. ult., 20: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Thirdly, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" (1 Jn 2:18). Then the meaning is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for a little while which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).
Sed haec expositio non congruit secundum praesentiam divinitatis suae, quia non solum usque ad consummationem saeculi, sed etiam in perpetuum erit cum eis. Et ideo Origenes aliter exponit, dicens, quod Christus cum perfectis non peccantibus mortaliter, est semper, sed cum imperfectis non est, quia cum peccant, recedit ab eis. Discipuli vero post modicum tempus recessuri erant a Christo, et scandalum passuri, et eum relicturi; Matth. c. XXVI, 31: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte. Et sic Christus spiritualiter recedebat ab eis; et quantum ad hoc dicit adhuc modicum vobiscum sum, idest, modicum temporis est quod vos fugietis, me relicto, et sic non ero vobiscum. Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen explains it another way. [48] He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this he says, yet a little while I am with you, that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.
Consequenter cum dicit quaeretis me etc., ostendit eorum insufficientiam ad sequendum: et primo ponit eorum conatum, dicens quaeretis me, quem spiritualiter dereliquistis, et fugientes et negantes. Quaeretis, inquam, per poenitentiam, sicut Petrus qui flevit amare; Is. LV, 6: quaerite dominum dum inveniri potest; Oseae VI, 1: in tribulatione sua mane consurgent ad me. Vel, quaeretis me, idest praesentiam corporalem per desiderium; Lc. XVII, 22: venient dies in quibus desiderabitis videre unum diem filii hominis, et non videbitis. 1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek me, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: "Seek the Lord while he may be found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, you will seek me, that is, you will want me to be present in body: "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it" (Lk 17:22).
Secundo eorum defectum ostendit dicens et sicut dixi Iudaeis: quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire. Sed aliter et aliter: quia cum inter Iudaeos essent aliqui qui numquam convertendi erant, de illis dictum est simpliciter, quod non poterant ire quo Christus ibat. Sed iam Iuda egresso, nullus erat inter discipulos a Christo separandus, et ideo non dixit simpliciter non potestis venire, sed addidit vobis dico modo. Quasi dicat: Iudaeis dixi, quod numquam, scilicet quantum ad obstinatos; sed vobis dico, quod modo non potestis me sequi, quia non estis perfecti in caritate, ut velitis mori pro me: ego enim per mortem discessurus sum. Item ego iturus sum ad gloriam patris, ad quam nullus venire potest, nisi sit caritate perfectus. Secondly, he shows their weakness, saying, as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you cannot come. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say absolutely, you cannot come, but added, now I say to you. It is like saying: I said to the Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could never come. But I say to you, that for now, you cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying.
Item ego sum glorificandus modo, quia, ut dictum est, nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, sed nondum est tempus quod corpora vestra glorificentur: et ideo quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire. Again, I am going to the glory of my Father, to which no one can come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I will be glorified now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, where I am going you cannot come.
Consequenter cum dicit mandatum novum do vobis, docet quomodo idonei efficiantur ad sequendum, et primo ponit conditionem mandati; secundo ostendit causam quare illud debeant implere, ibi in hoc cognoscent omnes quod mei discipuli estis. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit mandati qualitatem; secundo eius tenorem; et tertio tenoris exemplum. 1835 Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow him: a new commandment I give to you. First, he mentions the special character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they should live up to it (v 35). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions a feature of this commandment, secondly, its meaning; and thirdly, its standard.
Sed qualitas mandati commendatur ex novitate, unde dicit mandatum novum. Sed numquid in veteri testamento vel lege datum non est mandatum de dilectione proximi? Datum quippe est, quia Matth. c. XXII, 37, Christus interrogatus a legisperito quod esset primum mandatum, respondit: diliges dominum Deum tuum, et subditur: et proximum tuum sicut teipsum. Quod habetur Lev. XIX, 18: diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum. 1836 The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its newness. Thus he says, a new commandment. But did not the Old Testament or Law have a commandment about the love of one's neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he replied: "You shall love the Lord your God," and continued, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).
Specialiter autem mandatum istud dicitur novum propter tria.Primo propter effectum innovationis quem efficit; Col. III, 9: exuentes vos veterem hominem cum actibus suis, et induentes novum, eum qui renovatur in agnitionem, secundum imaginem eius qui creavit illum. Haec autem novitas est per caritatem, ad quam hortatur Christus.Secundo istud mandatum dicitur novum propter causam quae hoc efficit, quia est a novo spiritu. Est enim duplex spiritus, scilicet vetus et novus. Vetus quidem est spiritus servitutis; novus autem spiritus amoris; ille generat servos, hic filios adoptionis; Rom. VIII, v. 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis spiritum adoptionis filiorum; Ezech. XXXVI, 26: dabo vobis cor novum, et spiritum novum ponam in medio vestri. Et hic spiritus inflammat ad caritatem: quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum; Rom. V, v. 5.Tertio per effectum quem constituit, scilicet novum testamentum. Nam brevis differentia novi et veteris testamenti est timor et amor; ut enim dicit Ier. XXXI, 31: feriam domui Israel foedus novum. Quod autem mandatum istud in veteri testamento ex timore et amore sancto erat, pertinebat ad novum testamentum: unde hoc mandatum erat in veteri lege, non tamquam proprium eius, sed ut praeparativum novae legis. Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, children by adoption: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: as we read in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law.
Tenor autem mandati est mutua dilectio; unde dicit ut diligatis invicem et cetera. De ratione enim amicitiae est quod non sit latens, alias enim non esset amicitia, sed benevolentia quaedam. Et ideo oportet ad veram amicitiam et firmam, quod amici se mutuo diligant; quia tunc amicitia iusta est et firma, quasi duplicata. Dominus ergo volens inter suos fideles et discipulos perfectam amicitiam esse, dedit eis praeceptum de mutua dilectione; Eccli. VI, 17: qui timet Deum, habebit amicitiam bonam. 1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says: that you love one another. It is of the very nature of friendship that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright" (Sir 6:17).
Exemplum tenoris ponit cum dicit sicut dilexi vos. Tripliciter enim dilexit nos Christus: gratuite, efficaciter et recte. 1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he says, as I have loved you. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously, effectively and rightly.
Gratuite, quia ipse incepit, nec expectavit quod nos inciperemus amare; I Io. IV, 10: non quasi dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. Sic et nos debemus prius diligere proximos, nec expectare praeveniri, seu beneficari. He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we loved God, but because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to do us a favor.
Efficaciter autem dilexit, quod patet per opus: probatio enim dilectionis exhibitio est operis. Maius autem quod homo pro amico potest facere, est ut det seipsum pro eo, quod et Christus fecit; Eph. V, 2: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis; unde dicebat, infra XV, 13: maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Nos ergo huius exemplo efficaciter et fructuose invicem diligamus; I Io. III, 18: non diligamus verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend. This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be led by this example and love one another effectively and fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).
Recte vero, quia cum omnis amicitia fundetur super aliquam communicationem (similitudo enim est causa amoris), illa est recta amicitia quae est propter similitudinem, seu communicationem in bono. Christus autem intantum dilexit nos, inquantum similes sumus ei per gratiam adoptionis, diligendo secundum hanc similitudinem, ut ad Deum traheret. Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. Sic ergo et nos in amato non tantum quod beneficii est, seu delectationis, sed quod Dei est, debemus diligere. Et in tali dilectione proximi includitur etiam dilectio Dei. Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption, loving us in the light of this similarity in order to draw us to God. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.
Consequenter cum dicit in hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis etc. ponitur rationem implendi hoc praeceptum. Sciendum est autem, quod quicumque connumeratur militiae alicuius regis, debet portare eius insignia. Insignia autem Christi sunt insignia caritatis. Quicumque ergo vult annumerari militiae Christi, debet caritatis charactere insigniri; et hoc est quod dicit in hoc cognoscent omnes quod mei estis discipuli, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem: dilectionem, inquam, sanctam; Eccli. XXIV, 24. Ego mater pulchrae dilectionis, et timoris, et agnitionis, et sanctae spei. 1839 Then when he says, By this all men will know that you are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this command. Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir 24:24].
Attende autem, quod cum apostoli multa dona receperunt a Christo, sicut vita, et intellectus, et bona habitudo corporis: quaedam vero spiritualia, sicut opera miraculorum; Lc. XXI, 15: ego dabo vobis os et sapientiam etc.; omnia ista non sunt signa discipulatus Christi, cum possint esse communia bonis et malis. Sed speciale discipulatus Christi signum est caritas, et mutua dilectio; II Cor. I, 22: signavit nos et dedit spiritum. Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; "He has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).

Lectio 8 LECTURE 8

36 λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος, κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις; ἀπεκρίθη [αὐτῷ] Ἰησοῦς, ὅπου ὑπάγω οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι, ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον. 37 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος, κύριε, διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαί σοι ἀκολουθῆσαι ἄρτι; τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω. 38 ἀποκρίνεται Ἰησοῦς, τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις; ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς.

36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times."

Posito defectu discipuli, scilicet Iudae tradentis, hic ponit defectum discipuli, scilicet Petri negantis, et primo ponitur praenuntiandi occasio; secundo negationis praenuntiatio, ibi respondit Iesus: animam tuam pro me pones? Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit Petri desiderium; secundo ponit eius fiduciam, ibi dicit ei Petrus: quare non possum te sequi modo? Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit desiderii ostensionem; secundo dilationem, ibi respondit Iesus: quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi. 1840 Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you now? He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, you cannot follow me now.
Ostenditur autem Petri desiderium in prompta interrogatione, cum dicit dicit ei Simon Petrus: domine, quo vadis? Audierat enim a domino quod adhuc modicum cum eis esset: ex quo sollicitus est de Christi recessu ab eis, et ideo quaerit dicens quo vadis? Ubi Chrysostomus dicit: magnus profecto est Petri amor, et ipso igne vehementior, cuius nulla prohibitio promptum impetum impedire potest. Et inde est quod etiam Christo dicente: quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire, ipsum Petrus sequi volebat; et ideo interrogabat quo iret, quasi una de adolescentulis quaerentibus in Cant. V, 17: quo abiit dilectus tuus, o pulcherrima mulierum, quo abiit? Et quaeremus eum tecum. 1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, Where are you going? Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that nothing could stop." [49] This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1).
Dilatio autem huius desiderii est, quia ad praesens impeditur a sequendo; et hoc est quod dicit quo ego vado non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea; quasi dicat: adhuc imperfectus es, et ideo non potes me modo sequi; postea autem, quando perfectus eris, sequeris me. Simile est quod dicit infra ult., 18: amen dico tibi, cum esses iunior, quasi imperfectus, cingebas te (...) cum autem senueris, et perfectionis arcem conscenderis, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget. 1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded yourselfbut when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" (21:18).
Consequenter cum dicit dicit ei Petrus etc., ponit Petri fiduciam. Intellexerat enim Petrus quod dominus verba praedicta dixerat, quasi de perfectione sui amoris diffidens. Perfectus autem amor est cum quis seipsum pro amicis exponit morti; infra XV, v. 13: maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Quia ergo Petrus paratus erat pro Christo mori, ostendebat se in amore perfectum, cum dicit animam meam ponam pro te, idest, paratus sum pro te mori. Hoc dicebat, quantum sibi videbatur, non ficto animo. Sed tamen nescit homo virtutem affectus sui, tunc potissime cum periculum imminet; I Cor. c. IV, 4: nihil mihi conscius sum; sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. 1843 When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).
Consequenter cum dicit respondit ei Iesus etc., negationem Petri praenuntiat, et primo redarguit praesumptionem; secundo praedicit negationem, ibi amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. 1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter. First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Petrus de se praesumens, Christo sibi dicente non potes me modo sequi, dicebat se eum sequi posse, et mori pro ipso: et ideo dominus eum reprimens, dicit animam tuam pro me pones? Quasi diceret. Considera quid loquaris. Magis scio quid in te sit, quam tu scias; tu non scis ponderare amoris tui pondus. Noli ergo de te ultra modum praesumere; Rom. XI, 20: noli altum sapere, sed time. Et huiusmodi ratio assignatur Matth. XXVI, 41: spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma. 1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, Will you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Permisit autem dominus Petrum tentari et cadere, ut exaltatus ad principatum Ecclesiae, discat de se humilia sentire, et peccantibus subditis compati; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia pro similitudine, absque peccato. Sed in Petro invaluit tentatio usque ad culpam; in Christo autem fuit intentatio usque ad similitudinem poenae: quia peccatum non fecit. Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in character.
Negationem praedicit, dicens amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Hic primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Videtur enim esse falsum: quia statim, post primam negationem Petri, gallus cantavit, ut habetur Mc. XIV, 68. Sed ad hoc Augustinus respondet dupliciter. Uno modo, ut dominus magis affectionem Petri, quam actus expresserit: nam animam Petri tantus timor invaserat quod paratus erat ad primum cantum galli, non solum semel, sed ter negare; et sic est sensus: antequam gallus cantet, paratus eris ter me negare. Alio modo, ut referatur ad negationis initium: quia aliquid dicitur fieri ante aliud, etiam si incipiat tantum fieri. Dominus autem praedixit trinam negationem, quae incepit ante primum galli cantum, licet non ante perfecta fuerit; et tunc est sensus non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges, idest, trinam negationem incipies antequam gallus cantet. 1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in [some versions of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two ways. [50] In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock crows.
Item quaeritur de loco ubi haec verba fuerunt; nam et Matthaeus et Marcus dicunt, quod dominus dixit haec verba Petro postquam exiverat de loco ubi cum discipulis coenaverat; Lucas autem et Ioannes dicunt quod haec verba dixit in loco ubi coenaverat. Nam post sermonem istum dominus dixit infra XIV, 31: surgite, eamus hinc. Ad hoc autem dicendum, quod verum est dominum haec verba dixisse in loco in quo coenaverat; Matthaeus autem et Marcus sequuntur ordinem memoriae, non historiae. 1847 There is also a question about where these words were spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, but of memory.
Potest autem dici, secundum Augustinum, quod dominus haec verba ter dixit. Nam si quis diligenter consideret verba domini, ex quibus processum est ad praenuntiationem negationis Petri, inveniet tripliciter esse dicta: nam in Matthaeo et Marco habetur, quod dixit dominus: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in nocte ista. Et Petrus respondet: et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego numquam scandalizabor. Et ait illi Iesus: quia hodie in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. In Luca autem, habetur: dixit eis Iesus: ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua. Et tunc Petrus dixit ei: domine, tecum paratus sum et in carcerem et in mortem ire. Et dominus illi: dico tibi, Petre: non cantabit hodie gallus donec ter abneges nosse me. Hic autem cum Petrus quaereret a domino quo vadis? etc., dixit ei dominus amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Unde colligitur quod pluries dominus negationem Petri praedixerat. One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this three times. [51] A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.

[1] St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:1 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 46, a. 9, s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1.

[2] Summa-

[3] Tract. in Io., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:1-5.

[4] Summa-will can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external suggestion

[5] St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:4 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q, 74, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn 13:5: ST III, q. 46, a. 9, ad 1; Jn 13:10: ST III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1.

[6] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:1-5.

[7] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[8] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[9] In Ioannem hom., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[10] Tract. in Io., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[11] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[12] Clement, Itinerary.

[13] Epistola 64, ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col. 178; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[14] Tract. in Io., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[15] In Ioannem hom., 70, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[16] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:6-11.

[17] St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: ST III, q. 37 a. 1, obj. 2; Jn 13:17: ST I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7, a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: ST III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c.

[18] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[19] Ambrose, Expos sec. Lucam, X, ch.3; PL 15, col. 1804-5.

[20] Tract. in Io., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[21] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[22] Tract. in Io., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[23] Augustine, De Agone Christiano, ch. XI, 12; PL 40, col. 297.

[24] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[25] Augustine, Epistola 78, ch. 8; PL 33, col. 272.

[26] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[27] Tract. in Io., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:12-20.

[28] St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3.

[29] Comm. in Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C.

[30] Tract. in Io., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[31] In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[32] Tract. in Io., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[33] Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be.

[34] St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 188, a. 7.

[35] Tract. in Io., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[36] Ibid., 5, col. 1803; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[37] Ibid.; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30

[38] In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392.

[39] In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[40] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:21-30.

[41] Ambrose, Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo III De Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A.

[42] Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32.

[43] Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ.

[44] Gloss.

[45] Augustine, Tract. in Io., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805; Hilary, De Trin., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32.

[46] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:31-32.

[47] Ambrose, Hexaemeron, III, ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B.

[48] Origen, In Ioan., XXXII, ch. 19; PG 14, col. 453; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:33-35.

[49] In Ioannem hom., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:36-38.

[50] Tract. in Io., 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. Catena Aurea, 7:9-13.

[51] De consensus evangelistarum, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. Catena Aurea, 13:36-38.

Lectio 5	LECTURE 5
27b λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον. 28 τοῦτο [δὲ] οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τῶν ἀνακειμένων πρὸς τί εἶπεν αὐτῷ: 29 τινὲς γὰρ ἐδόκουν, ἐπεὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν Ἰούδας, ὅτι λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς, ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ. 30 λαβὼν οὖν τὸ ψωμίον ἐκεῖνος ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς:	27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night. [34]
Posita praenuntiatione futurae proditionis hic ponitur consummatio ipsius rei praenuntiatae, scilicet perpetratio proditionis, et primo permittit Iudae adimplere quod dixerat; secundo ostendit quomodo adimpleretur, ibi cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit verba domini permittentis; secundo manifestat ipsorum verborum obscuritatem; tertio subdit quomodo illa verba fuerunt ab apostolis intellecta.	1814 We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted. First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.
Verba autem domini sunt ista quod facis, fac citius. Quae quidem verba non sunt praecipientis, seu consulentis, cum peccatum cadere non possit sub praecepto et consilio divino, quia dicitur in Ps. XVIII, 9: praeceptum domini lucidum illuminans oculos, sed sunt verba permittentis. Nam, ut dictum est, Diabolus miserat in cor Iudae ut traderet eum, scilicet Iesum, quod iam tractaverat cum principibus; sed implere non poterat nisi ipse Christus permitteret: quia supra X, 18: nemo tollet a me animam meam: sed ego pono eam a me ipso; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est quia ipse voluit.	1815 Our Lord's words were: What you are going to do, do quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is 53:7].
Sunt etiam verba crimen proditionis exprobrantis, ut ostenderet quod dum ille conferret beneficia, iste intentaret mortem; Ps. c. XLIX, 21: arguam te et statuam contra faciem tuam. Sunt etiam verba ad opus nostrae redemptionis anhelantis, ut Augustinus dicit. Non tamen praecepit facinus, sed praedixit, non tam in perniciem perfidi saeviendo, quam ad salutem fidelium festinando; Lc. XII, 50: Baptismo habeo baptizari, et quomodo coarctor donec perficiatur?	These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption. [35] Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).
Verba autem domini obscura erant tantum ad discipulos; et ideo dicit hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit. In quo datur intelligi quod verba Christi adeo profunda sunt et humanum intellectum excedentia, quod non plus inde capere possumus nisi quantum ipse revelat; Prov. XXV, 2: gloria domini est celare verbum.	1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].
Sed hic oritur quaestio. Cum enim Ioanni dominus personam proditoris designasset, dicens: ille cui intinctum panem porrexero, et dedisset panem intinctum Iudae: nimium videntur rudes fuisse discipuli, quod verbum domini non intellexerunt. Ad quod dicendum est, quod dominus verba illa occulte dixerat Ioanni tantum, ut non fieret proditor manifestus. Cuius ratio est, quia Petrus ita fervidus erat in amore Christi quod si pro certo scivisset Iudam fuisse Christum traditurum, statim occidisset eum.	1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said. I answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.
Sed cum Ioannes unus esset ex discumbentibus, adhuc incidit alia quaestio, cur dixerit, quod nemo scivit discumbentium. Ad quod dicendum est, quod consuetudo boni animi et innocentis est ut etiam alios procul ab iniquitate esse credat, a qua seipsos noverunt immunes. Quia igitur Ioannes innocentissimus erat, et a proditionis iniquitate semotus, nequaquam suspicabatur quod discipulus in tantum iniquitatis prodiret.	1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no one at the table knew why he said this to him ? I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime.
Quid autem discipuli veram causam verborum ignorantes de ipsis verbis aestimarent, subdit Evangelista, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet discipulis, putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas et cetera. Ubi sciendum est, quod dominus Deus caeli, qui dat escam omni carni, loculos habuit, non quod possideret aliquid terrenum, sed a fidelibus oblata conservans, suis necessitatibus et aliis indigentibus subveniret: quos quidem loculos Iudas conferebat. In quo datur exemplum, ut Augustinus dicit, quod Ecclesia potest habere pecuniam et reservare pro necessitatibus imminentibus. In quo etiam instruimur, quod ecclesiastica pecunia sit expendenda solum in duobus. Primo quidem in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum; unde dicit eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, idest quibus Deum colere possumus in die festo; Malach. c. III, 10; inferte omnem decimam in horreum meum, et sit cibus in domo mea. Deinde vero in his quae pertinent ad pauperum sustentationem, ut subdit aut egenis aliquid daret.	1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This purse was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs. [36] It also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, Buy what we need for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: "Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.
Sed si obiicias contra id quod dicit dominus, Matth. VI, 34: nolite cogitare in crastinum, ad hoc respondet Augustinus, et dicit, quod hoc non fuit praeceptum a domino ad hoc ut nihil pecuniae seu aliarum rerum unius diei a sanctis servetur in crastinum; sed ideo dominus dixit, nolite cogitare in crastinum, ne scilicet praedicaremus et alia Dei servitia faceremus ut provideatur nobis in posterum: vel ne desistamus ab his quae virtutis sunt, propter diei crastini sollicitudinem. Ex quo patet quod dominus dicens, nolite solliciti esse de crastino, duo prohibet. Unum, ut non faciamus bona propter crastinum; aliud, ut non retrahamur a bonis propter timorem crastinae inopiae et cetera.	1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said that or Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next. [37] Rather, he said, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure our future; secondly, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.
Chrysostomus autem planius exponit dicens: nolite cogitare de crastino; idest, curam quae incumbit diei crastino, nolite anticipare in diem hodiernum: sufficit enim diei malitia sua.	Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough." [38]
Dubitatur etiam hic, quod dominus praecepit discipulis suis, Lc. X, 4: nolite portare in via sacculum, neque peram neque calceamenta. Quomodo ergo ipse loculos habebat? Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, dominus loculos ferebat ad inopum ministerium, ut hinc discas quod quantumcumque pauperem et mundo crucifixum, oportet de pauperibus curam habere: secundum illud Ps. CXI, 9: dispersit, dedit pauperibus et cetera. Vel dicendum, quod hoc quod dicit, nihil tuleritis in via etc., referendum est ad singulares praedicatores et apostolos, qui nihil portare debent quando ad praedicandum vadunt. Non autem referendum est ad totum collegium, quod oportet aliquid habere et pro seipsis et pro egenis.	1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor" (Ps 112:9). [39] Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their way, he was referring to individual preachers and Apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something for themselves and for the poor.
Consequenter cum dicit cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo, ponitur adimpletio rei praenuntiatae, et primo ponitur executio; secundo temporis determinatio.	1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it was done.
Executio quidem festina: quia cum buccellam accepisset, exivit continuo. Ubi attende, secundum Origenem, quod non dicit Evangelista, cum comedisset buccellam, sed accepisset: quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod proditor in hoc tantum sollicitus obedire magistro, accepto pane non comederit eum; sed forte in mensa dimisso, nullam traxit moram, vadens ad proditionem perpetrandam. Cuius quidem ratio esse potest, quod Diabolus, qui iam intraverat in cor Iudae, timens ne si panem comederet, eum cedere oporteret, non valentem in eodem loco cum Iesu esse, non permisit Iudam panem comedere; II Cor. VI, 15: quae conventio Christi ad Belial? I Cor. X, v. 21: non potestis simul esse participes mensae domini et mensae Daemoniorum.	1823 What was done was done quickly, because after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it. [40] This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).
Alio modo potest intelligi, quod panem acceptum comedit; et sic est sensus cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, non solum in manu, sed etiam comedendo, sic exivit continuo, male utens bono. Sicut et qui indigne manducat panem domini, aut bibit eius calicem, in praeiudicium sibi manducat atque bibit et magis aggravatur peccatis; sic panis a Iesu datus Iudae, fuit in damnum, ut post panem intraret in eum Satanas.	Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, after receiving the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did Satan.
Tempus autem seu hora determinatur tenebrosa; unde dicit erat autem nox: quod quidem determinat propter duo. Primo ad eius malitiam aggravandam, quae intantum invaluerat in cor eius, ut nec propter temporis inopportunitatem usque mane perstitisset; Iob XXIV, 14: mane primo consurgit homicida (...) et de nocte efficitur fur.	1824 The time is described as one of darkness: and it was night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: "The murderer rises in the darkand in the night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).
Secundo ad designandam mentis qualitatem erat enim nox: quia mens Iudae proditoris obscura erat a luce divina. Supra XI, 9: qui ambulat in die, non offendit, quia lucem huius mundi videt; qui autem ambulat in nocte, offendit, quia lux non est in eo.	In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10).

Lectio 8	LECTURE 8
36 λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος, κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις; ἀπεκρίθη [αὐτῷ] Ἰησοῦς, ὅπου ὑπάγω οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι, ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον. 37 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος, κύριε, διὰ τί οὐ δύναμαί σοι ἀκολουθῆσαι ἄρτι; τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω. 38 ἀποκρίνεται Ἰησοῦς, τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις; ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς.	36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times."
Posito defectu discipuli, scilicet Iudae tradentis, hic ponit defectum discipuli, scilicet Petri negantis, et primo ponitur praenuntiandi occasio; secundo negationis praenuntiatio, ibi respondit Iesus: animam tuam pro me pones? Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit Petri desiderium; secundo ponit eius fiduciam, ibi dicit ei Petrus: quare non possum te sequi modo? Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit desiderii ostensionem; secundo dilationem, ibi respondit Iesus: quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi.	1840 Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you now? He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, you cannot follow me now.
Ostenditur autem Petri desiderium in prompta interrogatione, cum dicit dicit ei Simon Petrus: domine, quo vadis? Audierat enim a domino quod adhuc modicum cum eis esset: ex quo sollicitus est de Christi recessu ab eis, et ideo quaerit dicens quo vadis? Ubi Chrysostomus dicit: magnus profecto est Petri amor, et ipso igne vehementior, cuius nulla prohibitio promptum impetum impedire potest. Et inde est quod etiam Christo dicente: quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire, ipsum Petrus sequi volebat; et ideo interrogabat quo iret, quasi una de adolescentulis quaerentibus in Cant. V, 17: quo abiit dilectus tuus, o pulcherrima mulierum, quo abiit? Et quaeremus eum tecum.	1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, Where are you going? Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that nothing could stop." [49] This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1).
Dilatio autem huius desiderii est, quia ad praesens impeditur a sequendo; et hoc est quod dicit quo ego vado non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea; quasi dicat: adhuc imperfectus es, et ideo non potes me modo sequi; postea autem, quando perfectus eris, sequeris me. Simile est quod dicit infra ult., 18: amen dico tibi, cum esses iunior, quasi imperfectus, cingebas te (...) cum autem senueris, et perfectionis arcem conscenderis, extendes manus tuas, et alius te cinget.	1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded yourselfbut when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" (21:18).
Consequenter cum dicit dicit ei Petrus etc., ponit Petri fiduciam. Intellexerat enim Petrus quod dominus verba praedicta dixerat, quasi de perfectione sui amoris diffidens. Perfectus autem amor est cum quis seipsum pro amicis exponit morti; infra XV, v. 13: maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Quia ergo Petrus paratus erat pro Christo mori, ostendebat se in amore perfectum, cum dicit animam meam ponam pro te, idest, paratus sum pro te mori. Hoc dicebat, quantum sibi videbatur, non ficto animo. Sed tamen nescit homo virtutem affectus sui, tunc potissime cum periculum imminet; I Cor. c. IV, 4: nihil mihi conscius sum; sed non in hoc iustificatus sum.	1843 When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).
Consequenter cum dicit respondit ei Iesus etc., negationem Petri praenuntiat, et primo redarguit praesumptionem; secundo praedicit negationem, ibi amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.	1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter. First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.
Circa primum sciendum est, quod Petrus de se praesumens, Christo sibi dicente non potes me modo sequi, dicebat se eum sequi posse, et mori pro ipso: et ideo dominus eum reprimens, dicit animam tuam pro me pones? Quasi diceret. Considera quid loquaris. Magis scio quid in te sit, quam tu scias; tu non scis ponderare amoris tui pondus. Noli ergo de te ultra modum praesumere; Rom. XI, 20: noli altum sapere, sed time. Et huiusmodi ratio assignatur Matth. XXVI, 41: spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma.	1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, Will you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Permisit autem dominus Petrum tentari et cadere, ut exaltatus ad principatum Ecclesiae, discat de se humilia sentire, et peccantibus subditis compati; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia pro similitudine, absque peccato. Sed in Petro invaluit tentatio usque ad culpam; in Christo autem fuit intentatio usque ad similitudinem poenae: quia peccatum non fecit.	Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in character.
Negationem praedicit, dicens amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Hic primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Videtur enim esse falsum: quia statim, post primam negationem Petri, gallus cantavit, ut habetur Mc. XIV, 68. Sed ad hoc Augustinus respondet dupliciter. Uno modo, ut dominus magis affectionem Petri, quam actus expresserit: nam animam Petri tantus timor invaserat quod paratus erat ad primum cantum galli, non solum semel, sed ter negare; et sic est sensus: antequam gallus cantet, paratus eris ter me negare. Alio modo, ut referatur ad negationis initium: quia aliquid dicitur fieri ante aliud, etiam si incipiat tantum fieri. Dominus autem praedixit trinam negationem, quae incepit ante primum galli cantum, licet non ante perfecta fuerit; et tunc est sensus non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges, idest, trinam negationem incipies antequam gallus cantet.	1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in [some versions of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two ways. [50] In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock crows.
Item quaeritur de loco ubi haec verba fuerunt; nam et Matthaeus et Marcus dicunt, quod dominus dixit haec verba Petro postquam exiverat de loco ubi cum discipulis coenaverat; Lucas autem et Ioannes dicunt quod haec verba dixit in loco ubi coenaverat. Nam post sermonem istum dominus dixit infra XIV, 31: surgite, eamus hinc. Ad hoc autem dicendum, quod verum est dominum haec verba dixisse in loco in quo coenaverat; Matthaeus autem et Marcus sequuntur ordinem memoriae, non historiae.	1847 There is also a question about where these words were spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, but of memory.
Potest autem dici, secundum Augustinum, quod dominus haec verba ter dixit. Nam si quis diligenter consideret verba domini, ex quibus processum est ad praenuntiationem negationis Petri, inveniet tripliciter esse dicta: nam in Matthaeo et Marco habetur, quod dixit dominus: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in nocte ista. Et Petrus respondet: et si omnes scandalizati fuerint in te, ego numquam scandalizabor. Et ait illi Iesus: quia hodie in hac nocte antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. In Luca autem, habetur: dixit eis Iesus: ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua. Et tunc Petrus dixit ei: domine, tecum paratus sum et in carcerem et in mortem ire. Et dominus illi: dico tibi, Petre: non cantabit hodie gallus donec ter abneges nosse me. Hic autem cum Petrus quaereret a domino quo vadis? etc., dixit ei dominus amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Unde colligitur quod pluries dominus negationem Petri praedixerat.	One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this three times. [51] A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.