Christ washes his disciples’ feet. The treason of Judas. The new commandment of love.
As his last supper, to giue his farevvel, and that in most vvonderful louing maner, 4 he vvasheth his Disciples feete, 6 beginning vvith Peter, 8 (shevving hovv necessaris it is for vs to be vvashed by him in Baptisme. and needful also after Baptisme) 1• and by this example teaching them al humilitie one tovvard an other. 21 Then he foretelleth, that (notvvithstanding his exceding loue tovvard them) 〈◊〉 euen of them vvil betray him, meaning Iudas, 22 as to Iohn he secretly shevveth. After whose going out, he reioyceth and saith that euen now the houre is come, 14 commendeth vnto them to loue together, as a nevv commaundement, •6 and foretelleth Peter vvho presumed to much of his ovvne strength, that euen this night he vvil deny him thrise.
1Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.Prima della festa di Pasqua sapendo Gesù, come era giunto il tempo per lui di passare da questo mondo al Padre, avendo egli amato i suoi, che eran nel mondo, gli amò sino alla fine.AND before the festiual day of Pasche, IESVS knovving that his houre was come that he should passe out of this vvorld to his Father: vvhereas he had loued his that vvere in the vvorld, vnto the end he loued them.Ante diem festum Paschæ, sciens Jesus quia venit hora ejus ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos, qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos. 2And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),E fatta la cena (avendo già il Diavolo messo in cuore a Giuda Iscariote figliuolo di Simone, che lo tradisse),And vvhen supper vvas done, vvhereas the deuil novv had put into the hart of Iudas Iscariote the sonne of Simon, to betray him:Et cœna facta, cum diabolus jam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Judas Simonis Iscariotæ: 3Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands and that he came from God and goeth to God,Sapendo Gesù come il Padre avea poste tutte le cose nelle sue mani, e come era venuto da Dio, e a Dio andava,knovving that the Father gaue him al things into his handes, and that he came from God, and goeth to God:sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit: 4He riseth from supper and layeth aside his garments and, having taken a towel, girded himself.Si leva da cena, e depone le sue vestimenta: e preso uno sciugatojo, se lo cinse.he riseth from supper, and laieth aside his garments, and hauing taken a tovvel, girded him self.surgit a cœna, et ponit vestimenta sua, et cum accepisset linteum, præcinxit se. 5After that, he putteth water into a basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.Quindi versò dell'acqua in un catino, e cominciò a lavare i piedi de' discepoli, e a rasciugarli collo sciugatojo, onde era cinto.After that, he put vvater into a bason, and began to vvash the feete of the disciples, and to vvipe them vvith the tovvel vvherevvith he vvas girded.Deinde mittit aquam in pelvim, et cœpit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo, quo erat præcinctus.
6He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet?Va adunque da Simone Pietro. E Pietro gli dice: Signore, che tu lavi a me i piedi?He commeth therfore to Simon Peter. And Peter saith to him, Lord, doest thou vvash my feete?Venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum. Et dicit ei Petrus: Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes ? 7Jesus answered and said to him: What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.Rispose Gesù, e dissegli: Quello che io fo, tu ora non l'intendi, lo intenderai in appresso.IESVS ansvvered and said to him, That vvhich I doe, thou knovvest not novv, hereafter thou shalt knovv.Respondit Jesus, et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo: scies autem postea. 8Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet, Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.Dissegli Pietro: Non laverai a me i piedi in eterno. Gesù gli rispose: Se non ti laverò, non avrai parte meco.Peter saith to him, Thou shalt not vvash my feete for euer. IESVS ansvvered him, If I vvash thee not, thou shalt not haue part vvith me.Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis mihi pedes in æternum. Respondit ei Jesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum. 9Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.Dissegli Simon Pietro: Signore, non solamente miei piedi, ma anche le mani, e il capo.Simon Peter saith to him, Lord, not only my feete, but also handes, and head.Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput. 10Jesus saith to him: He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.Dissegli Gesù: Chi è stato lavato, non ha bisogno di lavarsi, non i piedi, ma è interamente mondo. E voi siete mondi, ma non tutti.IESVS saith to him, He that is vvashed, nedeeth not but to vvash his feete, but is cleane vvholy. And you are cleane, but not al.Dicit ei Jesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes. 11For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.Imperocché sapeva, chi fosse colui, che lo tradiva: per questo disse: Non siete mondi tutti.For he knevv vvho he vvas that vvould betray him. therfore he said, You are not cleane al.Sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum; propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes. 12Then after he had washed their feet and taken his garments, being set down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you?Dopo di aver adunque lavati loro i piedi, e ripigliate le sue vestimenta, rimessosi a mensa, disse loro: Intendete quel, che ho fatto a voi?Therfore, after he had vvashed their feete, and taken his garments, being set dovvne, againe he said to them, Knovv you vvhat I haue done to you?Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua, cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis ?
13You call me Master and Lord. And you say well: for so I am.Voi mi chiamate Maestro, e Signore, e dite bene, perché io lo sono.You cal me, Maister, and Lord: and you say vvel, for I am so.Vos vocatis me Magister et Domine, et bene dicitis: sum etenim. 14If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another’s feet.Se adunque ho lavati i vostri piedi io, Maestro, e Signore: dovete anche voi lavarvi i piedi l'uno all'Altro.If then I haue vvashed your feete, Lord and Maister, you also ought to vvash one an others feete.Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister, et vos debetis alter alterutrum lavare pedes. 15For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.Conciossiachè vi ho dato l'esempio, affinchè, come ho fatto io, facciate anche voi.For I haue giuen you an example, that as I haue done to you, so you doe also.Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis. 16Amen, amen, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord: neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.In verità, in verità vi dico: non v'ha servo maggiore del suo padrone: né ambasciadore maggiore di colui, che lo ha inviato.Amen, amen I say to you, a seruant is not greater then his lord, neither is an apostle greater then he that sent him.Amen, amen dico vobis: non est servus major domino suo: neque apostolus major est eo qui misit illum. 17If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.Se tali cose voi comprendete, i beati sarete, quando le mettiate in pratica.If you knovv these things, you shal be blessed if you doe them.Si hæc scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea. 18I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen. But that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me shall lift up his heel against me,Non di tutti voi parlo: conosco quelli, che ho eletti: ma convien, che si adempia quella Scrittura: Uno, che mangia il pane con me leverà le sue calcagna contro di me.I speake not of you al: I knovv vvhom I haue chosen. But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread vvith me, shal lift vp his heele against me.Non de omnibus vobis dico: ego scio quos elegerim; sed ut adimpleatur Scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum. 19At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am he.Fin d'adesso vel dico, prima, che succeda: affinchè quando sarà succeduto, crediate, che io son quell'io.From this time I tel you, before it come to passe: that vvhen it shal come to passe, you may beleeue, that I am he.Amodo dico vobis, priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.
20Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.In verità, in verità vi dico: chi riceve colui, che io avrò mandato, riceve me: e chi riceve me, riceve lui, che mi ha mandato.Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiueth any that I send, receiueth me: & he that receiueth me, receiueth him that sent me.Amen, amen dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit; qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit. 21When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.Dette che ebbe tali cose, Gesù si turbò inferiormente, e protestò, e disse: In verità, in verità vi dico, che uno di voi mi tradirà.Vvhen IESVS had said these things, he vvas troubled in spirit: and he protested, and said: Amen, amen I say to you: that one of you shal betray me.Cum hæc dixisset Jesus, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est, et dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis tradet me. 22The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.Si guardavan perciò l'un l'altro i discepoli dubitosi, di chi parlasse.The disciples therfore looked one vpon an other, doubting of whom he spake.Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, hæsitantes de quo diceret. 23Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.Stava però uno de' discepoli, che era amato da Gesù, posando nel seno di lui.There vvas therfore one of his disciples leaning in the bosome of IESVS, he vvhom IESVS loued.Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis ejus in sinu Jesu, quem diligebat Jesus. 24Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?A questo perciò fece cenno Simon Pietro, e dissegli: Di chi parla egli?Therfore Simon Peter beckeneth to him, and said to him, who is it of vvhom he speaketh?Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, de quo dicit ? 25He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it?Quegli pertanto posando sul petto di Gesù, gli disse: Signore, chi e mai?,He therfore leaning vpon the breast of IESVS, saith to him, Lord, vvho is he?Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Jesu, dicit ei: Domine, quis est ? 26Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.Gli rispose Gesù: È colui, cui io porgerò un pezzetto di pane intinto. E avendo intinto un pezzetto di pane, lo diede a Giuda Iscariota figliuolo di Simone.IESVS ansvvered: He it is to vvhom I shal reach the dipped bread. And vvhen he had dipped the bread, he gaue it to Iudas Iscariote Simons sonne.Respondit Jesus: Ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Judæ Simonis Iscariotæ.
27And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.E dopo quel boccone entrò dentro di lui Satana. E Gesù gli disse: Quello, che fai, fallo presto.And after the morsel, then Satan entred into him. And IESVS saith to him, That vvhich thou doest, doe it quickely.Et post buccellam, introivit in eum Satanas. Et dixit ei Jesus: Quod facis, fac citius. 28Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.Nissuno però di quelli, che erano a tavola, intese il perché gli avesse parlato così.But no man knevv of those that sate at table to vvhat purpose he said this vnto him.Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. 29For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.Imperocché alcuni pensarono, che avendo Giuda la borsa, gli avesse detto Gesù: Compra quello, che bisogna a noi per la festa: ovvero che desse qualche cosa a' poveri.For certaine thought, because Iudas had the purse, that IESVS had said to him, Bie those things vvhich are needeful for vs to the festiual day: or that he should giue some thing to the poore.Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Judas, quod dixisset ei Jesus: Eme ea quæ opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret. 30He therefore, having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.Ma egli preso che ebbe il boccone, subito si parti. Ed era notte.He therfore hauing receiued the morsel, incontinent vvent forth. And it vvas night.Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox. 31When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the Son of man glorified; and God is glorified in him.Ma uscito che egli fu, Gesù disse: Adesso è stato glorificato il Figliuolo dell'uomo: e Dio è stato glorificato in lui.Vvhen he therfore vvas gone forth, IESVS said, Novv the Sonne of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him.Cum ergo exisset, dixit Jesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo. 32If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.Se Dio è stato glorificato in lui, Dio altresì lo glorificherà egli stesso: e lo glorificherà ben presto.If God be glorified in him, God also vvil glorifie him in him self, and incōtinent vvil he glorifie him.Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit eum. 33Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me. And as I said to the Jews: Whither I go you cannot come; so I say to you now.Figliuolini, per poco tempo ancora sono con voi. Mi cercherete: ma come dissi a' Giudei: Dove vo io, non potete venir voi: anche a voi lo dico adesso.Litle children, yet a litle vvhile I am vvith you. You shal seeke me, & as I said to the Ievves, Vvhither I goe, you can not come: to you also I say novv.Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum. Quæretis me; et sicut dixi Judæis, quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo.
34A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.Un nuovo comandamento do a voi, che vi amiate l'un l'altro, che vi amiate anche voi l'un l'altro, come io vi ho amati.A nevv cōmaundemēt I giue to you, That you loue one an other: as I haue loued you, that you also loue one an other.Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem: sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem. 35By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.Da questo conosceranno tutti, che siete miei discepoli, se avrete amore l'uno per l'altro.In this al men shal knovv that you are my disciples, if you haue loue one to an other.In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem. 36Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now: but thou shalt follow hereafter.Dissegli Simon Pietro: Signore, dove vai tu? Risposegli Gesù: Dove io vo, non puoi adesso seguirmi: mi seguirai però in appresso.Simon Peter saith to him, Lord, vvhither goest thou? IESVS ansvvered, vvhither I goe, thou canst not novv folovv me, but hereafter thou shalt folovv.Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis ? Respondit Jesus: Quo ego vado non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea. 37Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.Dissegli Pietro: Signore, perché non poss'io seguirti adesso? Darò per te la mia vita.Peter saith to him, Vvhy can not I folovv thee novv? I vvil yeld my life for thee.Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non possum te sequi modo ? animam meam pro te ponam. 38Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.Gli rispose Gesù: Darai la tua vita per me? In verità, in verità ti dico: Non canterà il gallo, fin a tanto che mi abbi rinnegato tre volte.IESVS ansvvered him, Thy life vvilt thou yeld for me? Amen, amen I say to thee, the cocke shal not crovv, vntil thou denie me thrise.Respondit ei Jesus: Animam tuam pro me pones ? amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.
13:1
about the year A.D. 33.
Witham
Before the festival day, or feast of the Pasch. See the note on this word Pasch, Matthew xxvi. ver. 2. Here when St. John says, before the festival day, he means in the evening, or latter evening after sunset, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the great feast of Azyms or unleavened bread was begun, (for the Jews began their feasts from sunset on the foregoing day) so that the hours from sunset, at least, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (at which time the paschal lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread belonged to the first, and great day of Azyms, which lasted till sunset on the 15th day of the month [of] Nisan. St. John therefore says, the day before, meaning after sunset on the 14th day of the month; but yet it was part of the same great feast, which was kept on the 15th day. See also the note Matthew xxvi. ver. 17. (Witham)
13:2
St. Augustine
And when supper was done. By this we must not understand, that the supper was over; for we afterwards find that Jesus again sat down, and gave bread to the traitor. But these words only mean, that all had partook of refreshment, and might be therefore said to have supped. (St. Augustine, tract. 55. in Joan.)
St. Augustine
He knew that he went out from God, and would return to God; but at the same time, he did not leave God, when he went out from him, nor us, when he returns to him. (St. Augustine, as above.)
And though he went out from God, and returns to him, yet here he condescends to perform the office, not of the Lord God of the universe, but of a man and a slave; (St. Augustine) and this, says St. Chrysostom, (hom. lxix. in Joan.) that he might tread all pride under foot: doing every thing himself on this occasion, to teach us with what eagerness we ought to perform the duties of humility.
13:4
Witham
He riseth from supper; that is, after supper was done, or ended, as it is here said, (ver. 2. and 1 Corinthians 11:25.) girded himself like a servant, to wash and wipe the feet of his apostles. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
If we compare the text of the four evangelists, it will appear that the washing of the feet preceded the institution of the blessed Eucharist, of which St. John is silent. (Bible de Vence)
13:5
St. Ambrose and St. Bernard shew that this washing was mysterious, and significative of the very great purity expected of those that receive the blessed Eucharist.
13:6
Witham
Lord, dost thou wash my feet? My master, my Lord, the true Son of the living God, wilt thou wash the feet of me, thy servant, thy disciple, a poor vile sinner? this must not be. (Witham)
13:8
Witham
If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. At this, Peter, as one thunderstruck, replied: Lord, not my feet only, but my head; whatever my Lord pleaseth. (Witham)
13:10
Witham
He that is washed, etc. The feet are always apt to contract some dust or dirt; and in the mystical sense, he that is washed by the sacraments of baptism, or penance, from greater sins, must still endeavour to cleanse, and purify his affections from lesser failings of human frailty. And you, my apostles, are clean from greater offences, but not all of you, meaning the traitor Judas. (Witham)
Origen † AD 253
It is impossible that the extremities of the soul (if we may be allowed the expression) should not, as long as we tread upon this earth, receive some stain or other; although in the opinion of men, the soul appear just. Many indeed after baptism, are covered with the dust of sin, even to the head, but those who are disciples indeed, need only to wash their feet. (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)
St. Ambrose
The foulness of the feet, when the rest is clean, signifies the earthly affections, and remains of former sins remitted, which are to be cleansed by devout acts of charity and humility. (St. Ambrose, lib. 3:de Sacram. John 1; St. Bernard, de caen. Dom. ser. 1.)
Origen † AD 253
Though his disciples were clean, still he washed their feet, comformably to that of the Apocalypse (Apocalypse 22.) "He that is clean, let him be cleansed still." (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)
13:14
Witham
You also ought to wash one another's feet. Not that he made this a standing precept according to the letter; but designed it as a lesson of humility. We find this custom literally observed in several churches, as it is now done every year by diverse prelates, and by Christian kings and princes. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
He gives us an example of a more elevated act of virtue, that we may at least learn to practise the lower degrees of it. For he indeed was their Lord, but when we perform this office, we can but do it to our fellow-servants. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx. in Joan.)
St. Augustine
This it is, blessed Peter, which you were ignorant of, but which he promises to explain afterwards. (St. Augustine, tract. 58. in Joan.)
13:18
Witham
Shall lift up his heel against me. It is the sense of those words, (Psalm 40:10.) hath supplanted me; and they were spoken of Judas's sin in betraying Christ. (Witham)
Bible de Vence
Jesus Christ applies in this place to the perfidy of Judas, that which David appears to have said on occasion of the perfidy of Achitophel, who was thus a figure of the perfidious Judas. (Bible de Vence)
13:23
Witham
One of his disciples. St. John himself was lying at table in (or towards) the bosom of Jesus.[Ver. 23. Erat recumbens in sinu Jesu, ver. 23. And cum recubuisset super pectus Jesu, ver. 25. In the Greek, ver. 23, anakeimenos epi to kolpo tou Iesou; and ver. 25, epipeson epi to stethos tou Iesou. The word anakeimenos from anakeisthai, seems to express no more than the manner in those days of leaning, or lying at table: as in the Latin, accumbere, or discumbere; but epipeson, from epipiptein epi to stethos, signifies a bowing or falling down on Christ's breast, as it were in a fit of trouble or grief. See the author of the Analysis, diss. xxxvi. St. Chrysostom, (hom. lxxii. p. 423, tom. 8, Nov. Ed. Ben.) seems to make a difference betwixt these two expressions, when he says: Joannes ... in sinu Jesu recubat, nec recubat solùm, sed in pectus incidit: neque hoc solum quaesitu dignum est, etc. o Ioannes anakeitai eis ton kolpon tou Iesou, kai ouk anakeitai monon, alla kai to stethei epipiptei, kai ou touto monon axion zeteseos, etc.] These words seem to express the manner that the Jews were placed at table. They had couches about a table, to lean or lie upon; and three for example upon each couch. The master, or head of the company, was placed in the midst; so that we may suppose, that Christ was placed on one of these couches in the midst, St. Peter on one side of him, and St. John on the other; and that St. John, in that resting and leaning posture, had his head all the time turned, and inclined towards Christ's bosom: yet it can scarce be imagined, that his head laid continually upon our Saviour's breast or bosom; for this posture would have been very uneasy to Jesus, or to any one. St. John then leaned all supper time towards Jesus's bosom or breast, but not upon it. (Witham)
St. Chrysostom
Whilst all were fearing for themselves, and Peter, the very head of the apostles, was trembling, St. John rests; reposing on the bosom of Jesus. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxi. in Joan.)
13:25
Witham
When Christ had said, one of you is to betray me, St. Peter whispered with St. John, by turning to him behind Jesus's back, and desired him to ask, who this was: now when John had leaned down upon the breast of Jesus, or as the Greek hath it, falling down on the breast of Jesus, as a person may do in a great concern, or fit of grief, he said, Lord, who is it? This posture seems to have been only for that moment of whispering, and to have been different from the posture of eating at table. (Witham)
13:27
Witham
Satan entered into him, who presently went out with great anger and indignation. It was then night, likely about nine o'clock. (Witham)
Challoner
That which thou dost, do quickly. It is not a license, much less a command, to go about his treason: but a signification to him, that Christ would not hinder or resist what he was about, do it as soon as he pleased: but was both ready, and desirous to suffer for our redemption. (Challoner)
St. Chrysostom
Christ does not by these words exhort the traitor, much less command him, to perform his wicked deed; but he means to reprobate it, and at the same time testify that he would not hinder his being betrayed. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxi. in Joan.)
St. Leo
It is the voice not of command, but of permission, not of a person in fear, but of one prepared for death. (St. Leo)
13:31
Witham
Jesus said: now is the Son of man glorified: the time is at hand, when he shall be glorified by miracles at his death, resurrection, etc. (Witham)
13:34
Bristow
The commandment of mutual love had been previously given, but evidently misconstrued and abridged by the Jews to friends only, to this life only, and for earthly respects: but Jesus Christ reneweth it and enlargeth it after the form of his own love towards us, and giveth grace to observe it. (Bristow)
13:36
St. Augustine
You cannot follow me yet to the dying for justice sake, for you are not yet prepared for martyrdom; you cannot yet follow me to the glory of my body, when risen from the dead, but must wait till the general resurrection; you cannot follow me to the bosom of my Father, being not yet sufficiently perfected in charity. (St. Augustine, tract. 64. in Joan.)
13:37
St. Augustine
This commandment was already in the old law, where it is written, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; how then does our Saviour call it a new command? It is new, not because we simply love one another; but because we love one another, as he has loved us: not as men love one another, as being fellow creatures, but united in love, as being all the children of the Most High; that so we may be brethren to his only begotten Son, bearing to all the same love that he has borne to us. (St. Augustine, tract. 64. in Joan.)
Bible de Vence
By this shall I moreover know that you truly love me. (Bible de Vence)
13:38
St. Bernard
The love which St. Peter bore our Saviour was exceedingly tender, but it was not yet sufficiently strong. (St. Bernard, Serm. 4:in Cant.)
Menochius
Jesus therefore asks him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Do you think yourselves sufficiently strong to perform this heroic act for love of me? so far are you from exposing your life for me, that you will shortly deny me. (Menochius)
13:1
Before the festival day of the pasch.... This was the fourth and last pasch of the ministry of Christ, and according to the common computation, was in the thirty-third year of our Lord: and in the year of the world 4036. Some chronologers are of opinion that our Saviour suffered in the thirty-seventh year of his age: but these different opinions on this subject are of no consequence.
13:27
That which thou dost, do quickly.... It is not a license, much less a command, to go about his treason: but a signification to him that Christ would not hinder or resist what he was about, do it as soon as he pleased: but was both ready and desirous to suffer for our redemption.
13:1
In the liturgy The Gospel vpō Maūdy thursday at Masse, and at the washing of feete.
Concordance Mt. 26, 1.
Concordance Mr. 14,
Concordance 1. Luc. 22, 1.
13:2
By supper, he meaneth the eating of the Paschal lambe. for, the institution of the B. Sacrament was after this.
MAVNDY THVRSDAY.
13:5
5. Began to vvash.) Puritie required to the receiuing of the B. Sacrament. This lotion was not onely of curtesy, such as the Iewes vsed tovvard their ghests, nor onely for example of humilitie: but for mysterie and signification of the great puritie that is required before we come to receiue the holy Sacrament, which straight after this washing was to be instituted and giuen to the Apostles. Ambr. li. 3. de Sacra. c. 1. Bernard. de ••na Domini Serm. 1.
13:10
10. To vvash his feete.) Venial sinnes taken avvay by sacred ceremonies. The foulnes of the feete, when al the rest is cleane, signifieth the earthly affections and relikes of former sinnes remitted: which are to be cleansed by deuout actes of charitie & humilitie, as S. Ambrose li. 3 de Sacr. c. 1. and S. Augustine ep. 10•. & tract. 56. in •o. do note. And because this was onely a ceremonie, & yet had such force, both now and afterward vsed of the Apostles, Ambr. & Bern. locis cita•is. that it purged smaller offenses and filthines of the soule, as S. Ambrose and S. Bernard gather, it may not seeme strange that holy water and such ceremonies may remit venial sinnes.
13:14
14. You also ought.) Our Maister neuer spake plainer, nor seemed to commaund more precisely, either of Baptisme or the Eucharist or any other Sacrament: and yet by the Churches iudgement directed by the Holy Ghost, we know this to be no Sacrament nor necessarie ceremonie, and the other to be. The Church defineth which are Sacraments and which not &c. And why do they beleeue the Church in this, and do not credit her affirming the chalice not to be necessarie for the communicants?
13:18
Concordance Ps. 40, 10.
13:21
Concordance Mat. 26, 18. Mar. 14, 16.
13:22
Concordance Luc. 22, 21.
13:29
Christ had some prouision before hand giuen him by the Collections of the faithful, which was vsed both in his owne necessities, & bestowed vpon the poore.
13:33
Concordance Io. 7, 34.
13:34
34. A nevv commaundement.) The commaundement of mutual loue was giuen before, but manifoldly misconstrued, and abridged by the Iewes to freends onely, to this life onely, for earthly respects onely: but Christ reneweth it and enlargeth it after the forme of his owne loue toward vs, and giueth grace to fulfil it.
Concordance 1 Io. 3, 23.
13:36
Concordance Mt. 26, 35. Mr. 14, 29.
13:38
Concordance Lu. 22, 33.
13:1
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Simon Cephas said unto him, Then, my [20] Lord, wash not for me my feet alone, but my hands also and my head. Jesus said unto him, He that batheth needeth not to wash save his feet, whereas his whole [21] body is clean: and ye also are clean, but not all of you. For Jesus knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.22.3
… Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judæa], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, “Go thy way, thy son liveth.” Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover
Tertullian † AD 220 On Idolatry 18
… If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry;
Tertullian † AD 220 The Chaplet, or De Corona 8
… Paul, too, has his cloak. If at once, of every article of furniture and each household vessel, you name some god of the world as the originator, well, I must recognise Christ, both as He reclines on a couch, and when He presents a basin for the feet of His disciples, and when He pours water into it from a ewer, and when He is girt about with a linen towel
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 23
… and therefore he adds concerning his own meaning: “Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God, and was going to God.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 9
… invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His own sempiternal water ; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor (child); recruits His strength at a well ; walks over the water ; willingly crosses the sea ; ministers water to His disciples.
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 7
… For through the image, which is like (the original), the Father is made readily known. But if thou hast not known the image, which is the Son, how dost thou seek to see the Father? And that this is the case is made clear by the rest of the chapter, which signifies that the Son who “has been set forth was sent from the Father, and goeth to the Father.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.5
… For wishing to show that the disciples asked for no slight thing, but one they could not obtain, He reserved His own peculiar rights for His Father’s honour, not fearing to detract aught from His own rights: “Who thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” and loving, too, His disciples (for “He loved them,” as it is written, “unto the end”),
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
By the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the evening, and he makes mention of this in which in the evening the passover must be killed;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.2
… life.” And the same evangelist who records that saying is to be understood as desiring to give emphatic testimony to this, when, speaking of the Lord as about to celebrate with His disciples the passover, at which He instituted the sacramental supper, he says, “When Jesus knew that His hour was come, that He should depart from this world unto the Father.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.17
… Thence it is that He would not have His back parts seen, unless as He passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For that which is Pascha in Hebrew, is translated Passover. Whence John the Evangelist also says, “Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come, that He should pass out of this world unto the Father.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 32
… And now, in that, when about to go forth unto His Passion, He washed the feet of His disciples, and most openly taught them to do for their fellow-disciples and fellow-servants this, which He their Lord and Master had done for them; how greatly did He commend humility?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.80
… He said unto him, Thou hast said.” In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists, who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 53.6
… Is He still crowned with thorns? Is He still scourged? Is He still crucified? Is He still wounded with a spear? “He hath passed by.” And so too the Gospel tells us, when He kept the Paschal feast with His disciples. What says the Gospel? “But when the hour was come that Jesus should pass out of this world unto the Father.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 61.5
5. But what mean the words, “whom Jesus loved”? As if He did not love the others, of whom this same John has said above, “He loved them to the end” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.37
… in order that there may come to pass in Her that which the Bridegroom Himself saith, who hath passed hence from this world to the Father,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.2
… Pascha doth intimate passage. Of which even John the Evangelist hath admonished us, who (just before the Passion when the Lord was coming to the supper wherein He set forth the Sacrament of His Body and Blood) thus speaketh: “But when there had come the hour, wherein Jesus was to pass from this world to the Father.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 141.14
14. Pascha, as they say who know, and who have explained to us what to read, meaneth “Passover.” When then the Lord’s Passion was about to come, the Evangelist, as though he would use this very word, saith, “When the hour was come that Jesus should pass over to the Father.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 72
For which reason the very feast which by us is named Pascha , among the Hebrews is called Phase , that is Pass-over , as the evangelist attests, saying, “Before the feast of Pascha, Jesus knowing that His hour was come that He should pass out of this world unto the Father
13:2
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[11] And before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the hour was arrived for his departure from this world unto his Father; and he loved his own in this world, [12] and to the last he loved them.
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.2.4
… For Scripture testifies that the “devil had already put it into his heart to betray Him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.30
… The words, “He knew what was in man,” could also be taken as referring to the powers, better or worse, which work in men. For if any one gives place to the devil, Satan enters into him; thus did Judas give place, and thus did the devil put it in his heart to betray Jesus, and “after the sop,” therefore, “the devil entered into him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
But how do Matthew and the other evangelists say, that, when he made the agreement touching the treason, then the devil seized him; but John, that “after the sop Satan entered into him.” And John himself knew this, for further back he saith, “The devil having now put into the heart of Judas, that he should betray Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 2 . “And supper being ended, the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas to betray Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.7
… and, at the same time, does not the dissimilarity of the causes make a real difference? Again, God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. Of the Son also it is said, “who loved me, and gave Himself for me;” and it is also said of Judas that Satan entered into him that he might betray Christ.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
… For, at an earlier point, and previous to [his notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these terms: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.4
… “We wrestle not against flesh and blood;” that is, against men whom ye see raging against you. They are but vessels, which another uses, they are but instruments which another handles. “The devil,” saith the Scripture, “entered into the heart of Judas, that he should betray the Lord.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 1.19
… as when the evangelist tells us: “And when supper was ended, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 7.14
Germanus : In this way, which you describe, those spirits cannot possibly see into our thoughts. But we think it utterly absurd to hold such an opinion, when Scripture says: “If the spirit of him that hath power ascend upon thee;” and again: “When the devil had put it into the heart of Simon Iscariot to betray the Lord.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.34
But that the devil enters into the heart of man cannot be denied, if the Gospel is believed. For it is there written, And after the sop Satan entered into him ( John xiii. 27 ). And again it is therein also said, When the devil had now put himself into the heart of Judas, that Judas should betray Him (
13:3
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[11] And before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the hour was arrived for his departure from this world unto his Father; and he loved his own in this world, [12] and to the last he loved them. And at the time of the feast, Satan put into the [13] heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to deliver him up.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 3 . “Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God.”
13:4
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… and he loved his own in this world, [12] and to the last he loved them. And at the time of the feast, Satan put into the [13] heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to deliver him up. And Jesus, because he knew that the Father had delivered into his hands everything, and that he came [14] forth from the Father, and goeth unto God,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.1
… For neither is there any profit in calling Him man without Godhead nor any salvation in refusing to confess the Manhood together with the Godhead. Let us confess the presence of Him who is both King and Physician. For Jesus the King when about to become our Physician, girded Himself with the linen of humanity
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 45
… Do you Reproach God with this? Do you conceive of Him as less because He girds Himself with a towel and washes His disciples,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.pref.12
12. Let us come now to the Gospel of God. I find the Lord stripping Himself of His garments, and girding Himself with a towel, pouring water into a basin, and washing the disciples’ feet.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 4
… He commanded men to be lowly-minded, and meek, and He taught this by His words: but see how He also teaches it by His deeds. For having said “Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek,” He shows how these virtues ought to be practised. How then did He teach them? He took a towel and girded Himself and washed the disciples’ feet.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 4 . “And having risen from supper, and laid aside His garments.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.9
… And as our Lord was presently to enter on this way with all humility, and to lead those who humbly followed Him to perfection, as He washed the feet of His servants,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 93.3
… Because He was humble when He girded Himself with a towel. He washed the feet of His own disciples. But all strength is in humility: because all pride is fragile: therefore when He was speaking of strength, he added, “He is girded:” that thou mayest remember how thy God was girded in humility, when He washed His disciples’ feet.
13:5
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… And at the time of the feast, Satan put into the [13] heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to deliver him up. And Jesus, because he knew that the Father had delivered into his hands everything, and that he came [14] forth from the Father, and goeth unto God, rose from supper, and laid aside his [15] garments;
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.22
1. Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself “wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion,” when He washed the disciples’ feet with His own hands.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 4 . “And having risen from supper, and laid aside His garments.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 12
While the disciples were disputing concerning precedence our Lord, the teacher of humility, took a little child and said: “Except ye be converted and become as little children ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” And lest He should seem to preach more than he practised, He fulfilled His own precept in His life. For He washed His disciples’ feet,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 38
… Thou shalt not go unto her, who watered with tears the feet of her Lord, seeking forgiveness of heavy sins; but thou shalt go unto Him, Who, granting forgiveness of all sins, washed the feet of His own disciples.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… Let him also consider that most true and wholesome precept which is couched in the words, “The greater thou art, the more humble thyself in all.” For the evangelist who presents Christ to us in a far loftier strain of teaching than all the others, is also the one in whose narrative the Lord washes the disciples’ feet.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 57.1
… but while thereafter he liveth in this present world, and with the feet of his human passions treadeth on this earth, that is, in his life-intercourse with others, he contracts enough to call forth the prayer, “Forgive us our debts.” And thus from these also is he cleansed by Him who washed His disciples’ feet,
13:6
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… and took a towel, and girded his waist, and poured water into a bason, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith [16] his waist was girded.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 6 . “Then cometh He to Simon Peter and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?”
13:7
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… and took a towel, and girded his waist, and poured water into a bason, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith [16] his waist was girded. And when he came to Simon Cephas, Simon said unto [17] him, Dost thou, my Lord, wash for me my feet?
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.pref.15
… he was willing as one who would do a service, not as one who would confer fellowship with himself. This is a great mystery which no one knew. Lastly, the Lord said to Peter: “What I do thou knowest not now, but shalt know hereafter.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 12
… but what? “And comest Thou to me?” What then doth Christ? What He did afterwards with respect to Peter, this did He then also. For so he too would have forbidden Him to wash his feet, but when he had heard, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter,” and “thou hast no part with me,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 7 . “He saith unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know here after.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 58.2
… for he had been put off when, in the midst of his trembling and asserting, “Thou shalt never wash my feet,” he received the answer, “What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter” (
13:8
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… And when he came to Simon Cephas, Simon said unto [17] him, Dost thou, my Lord, wash for me my feet? Jesus answered and said unto [18] him, What I do, now thou knowest not; but afterwards thou shalt learn.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 12
Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly “that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.7
… or how can He be styled arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments in the presence of His disciples, and, after girding Himself with a towel, and pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash the feet of each disciple, and rebuked him who was unwilling to allow them to be washed, with the words, “Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with Me?”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.pref.12
… And now let the feet of our minds be stretched out. The Lord Jesus wills also to wash our feet, for He says, not to Peter alone, but to each of the faithful: “If I wash not thy feet thou wilt have no part with Me.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 6
31. You went up from the font; remember the Gospel lesson. For our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel washed the feet of His disciples. When He came to Simon Peter, Peter said: “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 1.7
… Thou, O Lord, sayest that Thou art sick, and feelest our infirmity in the least of us, saying: “I was sick and ye visited Me.” Novatian does not visit that least one in whom Thou desirest to be visited. Thou saidst to Peter when he excused himself from having his feet washed by Thee: “If I wash not thy feet, thou wilt have no part with Me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 52
Thus as John, accounting it unworthy of Christ to be baptized by him, was persuaded of Christ to baptize Him, He saying, “Thus it becometh us,” and this same Peter too, forbidding Him to wash his feet, by the words, “Thou hast no part with me, unless I wash thy feet;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… 22 .) Art thou not even so sobered, but art thou yet vehement?” “Yea,” he saith, “for what is being done is a great matter, and full of amazement.” Since then he did this from exceeding love, Christ in turn subdueth him by the same; and as there He effected this by sharply rebuking him, and saying, “Thou art an offense unto Me,” so here also by saying,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 73
… Christ had said that He must be betrayed; Peter replied, “Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not happen unto Thee.” ( Matt. xvi. 22 .) He was rebuked, but not instructed. On the contrary, when Christ desired to wash his feet, he said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 83.1
… And what is this joy of ours which He says is to be made full, but our having fellowship with Him? On this account He had said to the blessed Peter, “If I wash thee not, thou shall have no part with me.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.9
And both these points are very clearly shown by the cases of S. Peter the Apostle and Herod. For the former, because he departed from his expressed determination which he had as it were confirmed with an oath saying “Thou shalt never wash my feet,”
13:9
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… And when he came to Simon Cephas, Simon said unto [17] him, Dost thou, my Lord, wash for me my feet? Jesus answered and said unto [18] him, What I do, now thou knowest not; but afterwards thou shalt learn. Simon said unto him, Thou shalt never wash for me my feet. Jesus said unto him, If I [19] wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 12
… (saying to Peter, who was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, “He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… he that leaped in the womb, to Him Who was adored in the womb; he who was and is to be the Forerunner to Him Who was and is to be manifested. “I have need to be baptized of Thee;” add to this “and for Thee;” for he knew that he would be baptized by Martyrdom, or, like Peter, that he would be cleansed not only as to his feet.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 6
… And the Lord answered him: “If I wash not thy feet, thou wilt have no part with Me.” Peter, hearing this, replies: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” The Lord answered: “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet but is clean every whit.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 9 . “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.”
13:10
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Jesus answered and said unto [18] him, What I do, now thou knowest not; but afterwards thou shalt learn. Simon said unto him, Thou shalt never wash for me my feet. Jesus said unto him, If I [19] wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Cephas said unto him, Then, my [20] Lord, wash not for me my feet alone, but my hands also and my head.
Tertullian † AD 220 On Repentance 6
… Have they some different hope or reward? some different dread of judgment? some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed
Tertullian † AD 220 On Baptism 15
… We enter, then, the font once: once are sins washed away, because they ought never to be repeated. But the Jewish Israel bathes daily, because he is daily being defiled: and, for fear that defilement should be practised among us also, therefore was the definition touching the one bathing
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
Ver. 10, 11 . “He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who should betray Him.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 14.10
… Christ is your true head. Does the boundless solitude of the desert terrify you? In the spirit you may walk always in paradise. Do but turn your thoughts thither and you will be no more in the desert. Is your skin rough and scaly because you no longer bathe? He that is once washed in Christ needeth not to wash again.
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 2.3
3. The apostle Peter, to whom it was said,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 44.10
… Again, how could they receive the Eucharist if not previously baptized? or how could the Lord in that case have said in reply to Peter, who was willing to be wholly washed by Him, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.14
… I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men’s feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man’s feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter, "He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.22
… For this is what He said, in His very words: ‘He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. But this he said on account of Judas, who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 3.12
… for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 40.2
… For can we compare ourselves with the Apostles, to whom the Lord Himself said, “If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children?” If we consider the Scriptures, there was but one evil one among the twelve Apostles, with reference to whom the Lord said in a certain place, “And ye are clean, but not all.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 80.3
… Take away the word, and the water is neither more nor less than water. The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament, as if itself also a kind of visible word. For He had said also to the same effect, when washing the disciples’ feet, “He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 11.45
… But, if he acknowledges that the Egyptians really died, he must needs acknowledge that sins die entirely in baptism, since surely the truth avails more in our absolution than the shadow of the truth. In the Gospel the Lord says, He that is washed needeth not to wash, but is clean every whit (
13:11
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Jesus said unto him, If I [19] wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Cephas said unto him, Then, my [20] Lord, wash not for me my feet alone, but my hands also and my head. Jesus said unto him, He that batheth needeth not to wash save his feet, whereas his whole [21] body is clean: and ye also are clean, but not all of you.
13:12
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… but that the scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth with me bread lifted against me his [29] heel. Henceforth I say unto you before it come to pass, that, when it cometh to [30] pass, ye may believe that I am he . Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 2
… Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If therefore I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, ye also should do
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 7
… For if all was a mere shadow, there was no reality. If He had not real hands, how did He wash their feet? If He had not real loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? and what kind of garments did he take? for Scripture says, “He took His garments.” (
13:13
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[22] [Arabic, p. 168] So when he had washed their feet, he took his garments, and sat down, and [23] said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you?
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.23
… when He comes, He will tell us all things,” Jesus answers, “I that speak unto thee am He.” Again, when He washed the disciples’ feet, He declared Himself in these words
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.31
… For “the servant knoweth not what the master wills,” since he is no longer his master, but has become his friend. The Lord Himself teaches this, for He says to hearers who were still servants:
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.18
18. That He did not shrink from the title of good, or decline the office of master, but resented the unbelief which perceived no more in Him than body and flesh, may be proved from the difference of His language, when the apostles confessed Him their Master, Ye call Me Master, and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.16
… and ye say well, for so I am.’ And when Thomas said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 61
2. But if they are in doubt whether He is God at all, let them reverence Thomas, who handled the Crucified and pronounced Him Lord and God . Or let them fear the Lord Himself, who said, after washing the feet of the disciples: ‘Ye call Me Lord and Master
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 10.4
… And why should I bring forward the declarations of Paul in evidence of the lordship of the Lord? For Paul’s Master Himself tells His disciples that He is truly Lord, accepting as He does the confession of those who called Him Master and Lord. For He says, “Ye call Me Master and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.pref.14
… as God, Thou sendest dew from heaven. Nor dost Thou wash the feet only, but also invitest us to sit down with Thee, and by the example of Thy dignity dost exhort us, saying: “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye do well, for so I am. If, then, I the Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.15
… God forbid, for the Son Himself said: “Do not serve two lords.” But certainly He denied not either Himself or the Father to be Lord; for He called the Father Lord, as you read: “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” And the Lord spoke of Himself, as we read in the Gospel: “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye do well, for so I am.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.5
… Then didst Thou speak falsely, Lord Jesu, in calling Thyself Master and Lord, and Thou didst deceive Thy disciples by Thy words: “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 71
Ver. 13 . “Ye call Me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for so I am.”
13:14
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[22] [Arabic, p. 168] So when he had washed their feet, he took his garments, and sat down, and [23] said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me, Master, [24] and, Lord: and ye say well; so I am.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 5.2
… For then He washed His disciples’ feet, saying, “If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.40
… and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in glory of God the Father.” Of this same thing in the Gospel according to John: “If I have washed your feet, being your Master and Lord, ye also ought to wash the feet of others. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye also should do to others.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 6
… v. 45 .) When He would lead to endurance of wrong He brought an example, “Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” ( Matt. xi. 29 .) And again, “If I your Lord and Master do these things, how much more should ye”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 14
… The widows should perform these services themselves, not commit them to their handmaids. For Christ said, “If I your Master and Lord have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 60
… For when He saith to His disciples, “If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet; for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 71
Ver. 14, 15 . “If I then,” He saith, “your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
13:15
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
[22] [Arabic, p. 168] So when he had washed their feet, he took his garments, and sat down, and [23] said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me, Master, [24] and, Lord: and ye say well; so I am. If then I, now, who am your Lord and Master, have washed for you your feet, how needful is it that ye should wash one another’s feet! [25]
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 61
… to draw thee off from that, He saith, “I have made myself an example to you, that as I have done, ye should do also.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 130.10
… For forty days and forty nights Moses lived by the intimate converse which he had with God, thus proving in his own case the complete truth of the saying, “man doth not live by bread only but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.” The Saviour of the world, who in His virtues and His mode of life has left us an example to follow,
13:16
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Ye call me, Master, [24] and, Lord: and ye say well; so I am. If then I, now, who am your Lord and Master, have washed for you your feet, how needful is it that ye should wash one another’s feet! [25] This have I given you as an example, that as I have done to you so ye should do [26] also.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 6.4
… I hid not my face from the filthiness of spitting.” And dares any one now, who lives by and in this very One, lift up himself and be haughty, forgetful, as well of the deeds which He did, as of the commands which He left to us either by Himself or by His apostles? But if “the servant is not greater than his Lord,”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.6
… But call not ye Rabbi, for One is your Master.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “The servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle greater than He that sent himself. If ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye shall do them.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 71
Ver. 16–18 . “Verily I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all —but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel against Me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 84
… the crown of thorns, the robe, the reed, the blows, the smiting on the cheek, the spittings, the irony. These things, if continually meditated on, are sufficient to take down all anger; and if we be mocked at, if we suffer injustice, let us still say, “The servant is not greater than his Lord” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 51
… One thing I know, that those great ones, such as we are not, such as we have not as yet made proof of, by how much they are great, by so much humble themselves in all things, that they may find grace before God. For, let them be how great soever they will, “there is no servant greater than his Lord, nor disciple greater than his master.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 71.3
… because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.” And so He promised that He Himself would also do those greater works. Let not the servant exalt himself above his Lord, or the disciple above his Master.
13:17
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… so I am. If then I, now, who am your Lord and Master, have washed for you your feet, how needful is it that ye should wash one another’s feet! [25] This have I given you as an example, that as I have done to you so ye should do [26] also. Verily, verily, I say unto you, No servant is greater than his lord; nor an [27] apostle greater than he that sent him.
13:18
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… [25] This have I given you as an example, that as I have done to you so ye should do [26] also. Verily, verily, I say unto you, No servant is greater than his lord; nor an [27] apostle greater than he that sent him. If ye know that, ye are happy if ye do it. [28]
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 3
… But not such were those nine lepers who were cleansed from their leprosy, and yet were unthankful to the Lord who healed them; nor Judas, who obtained the lot of an apostle, and was named a disciple of the Lord, but at last, ‘while eating bread with the Saviour, lifted up his heel against Him, and became a traitor
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 71
… Observe, for instance, when Judas had thrown himself into sin, how great assistance he enjoyed, yet not even so was he raised. Christ said to him, “One of you is a devil” ( c. vi. 71 ); He said, “Not all believe” ( c. vi. 65 ); He said, “I speak not of all,” and, “I know whom I have chosen” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
… On this account “no man at the table knew.” Not even John? Not even he: for he could not have expected that a disciple would arrive at such a pitch of wickedness. For since they were far from such iniquity themselves, they could not suspect such things concerning others. As before He had told them, “I speak not of you all” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 60.1
… Was it not a little before that He was using these words, “He that eateth bread with me will lift up his heel against me”? And had He not also, previously to that, said, “And ye are clean, but not all”? where the evangelist added, “For He knew who should betray Him:”
13:19
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… Verily, verily, I say unto you, No servant is greater than his lord; nor an [27] apostle greater than he that sent him. If ye know that, ye are happy if ye do it. [28] My saying this is not for all of you: for I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth with me bread lifted against me his [29] heel.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 32
… ( Is. xli. 22, 23 .) And Christ Himself after working so many signs saith that this was no small sign of His divinity: and continually adds, “But these things have I told you, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He.” (S.
13:20
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… If ye know that, ye are happy if ye do it. [28] My saying this is not for all of you: for I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth with me bread lifted against me his [29] heel. Henceforth I say unto you before it come to pass, that, when it cometh to [30] pass, ye may believe that I am he .
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 82.11
… I am not so much puffed up in mind as not to know what is due to the priests of Christ. For he who receives them, receives not them but Him, whose bishops they are.
13:21
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… And the Son of man goeth, as it is written of him: woe then to that man by whose hand the Son of man is betrayed! for it [49] would have been better for that man had he not been born. And the disciples [50] looked one on another, for they knew not to whom he referred; and they began to search among themselves, who that might be who was to do this .
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again .’ And He said the same another time; ‘Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;’ and ‘When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 21 . “When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.10
… for we read in the Gospel according to John: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one upon another, doubting of whom He spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ breast one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckons to him, and says to him, Who is it of whom He speaks?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
… He presents it thus: “When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, That one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked (as the same John subjoins) one on another, doubting of whom He spake.”
13:22
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 44
… And lo, the hand of [48] him that betrayeth me is on the table. And the Son of man goeth, as it is written of him: woe then to that man by whose hand the Son of man is betrayed! for it [49] would have been better for that man had he not been born.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
Intolerable sorrow thereupon seized that holy company. And John indeed saith, they “were in doubt, and looked one upon another,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
… Soothing them therefore by word and by the question, He makes a way beforehand, and allows him to lean on His breast. Observe too his modesty; he mentions not his own name, but, “whom He loved.” As also Paul, when he said, “I knew a man about fourteen years ago.” Now for the first time Jesus convicted the traitor, but not even now by name; but how?
13:23
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… And some of them thought, because Judas had the box, that he was bidding him buy what would be needed for the feast; or, that he might pay [8] something to the poor. Judas the betrayer answered and said, Can it be I, my [9] Master? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said. And Judas took the bread straightway, and went forth without: and it was still night.
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 6.25.9
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 7.25
12. “But that he who wrote these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
… but they deemed the declaration of Christ more to be believed than their own thoughts. Wherefore they “looked one on another.” By laying the whole upon one, Jesus would have cut short their fear, but by adding, “one of you,” He troubled all. What then? The rest looked upon one another; but the ever fervent Peter “beckoneth”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 146
… But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, the disciple whom Jesus loved
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 25
… To these are added those other sins also, for which the daily cry of the whole Church is, “Forgive us our debts:” and, that we should not think spiritual persons exempt from these, not any one soever of carnal persons, nor any one soever of spiritual persons themselves, but he, who lay on the breast of the Lord,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 1.4
… For he is like one who has drunk in the secret of His divinity more richly and somehow more familiarly than others, as if he drew it from the very bosom of his Lord on which it was his wont to recline when He sat at meat.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
… He then, when he had laid himself on Jesus’ breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the sop Satan then entered into him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 69.1
… For the Gospel lesson has just now taught us a high and divine mystery. For this beginning of the Gospel St. John poured forth for that he drank it in from the Lord’s Breast. For ye remember, that it has been very lately read to you, how that this St. John the Evangelist lay in the Lord’s Bosom.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 83.6
… What said John, that Christ spake falsely? Whence came John? From Christ. Is he who came from Him, to tell me truth, when He from whom he came lied? I have read in the Gospel plainly, “John lay on the Lord’s Breast;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 85.8
… did ye cease to have sin? Tell us, I pray you. Let us hear, that sinners may not despair, that they may not leave off to pray to God, because they are not without sin. Tell us. One of them saith. And who? He whom the Lord loved the most, and who lay on the Lord’s Breast,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.2
2. “But Jesus was followed,” he says, “by Simon Peter, and another disciple.” Who that other disciple is, we cannot affirm with confidence, because it is left unnoticed here. But it is in this way that John usually refers to himself, with the addition, “whom Jesus loved.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 119.2
… for the evangelist says, “And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own,” speaking of himself. In this way, indeed, he usually refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved: who certainly loved them all, but him beyond the others, and with a closer familiarity, so that He even made him lean upon His bosom at supper;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 5.1
… If John was not born of God, John, of whom ye have heard that he lay in the Lord’s bosom; does any man dare engage for himself that in him has taken place that regeneration which it was not granted to that man to have, to whom it was granted to lie in the bosom of the Lord? The man whom the Lord loved more than the rest,
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 16.14
… This also, we read, was very clearly shown in the case of John the Evangelist, where these words are used of him: “that disciple whom Jesus loved,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 23.19
… Finally that chosen Apostle “whom Jesus loved,”
13:24
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[1, 2] [Arabic, p. 170] And one of his disciples was sitting in his bosom, he whom Jesus loved.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 8
Everywhere we find these two Apostles in great harmony together. “To him Simon Peter beckoned.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… while Peter being rebuked but once on a former occasion, and for words which he spake from loving affection, was so abashed, that being even distressed and trembling, he begged another to ask a question. But Judas, though continually convicted, felt not. (
13:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[1, 2] [Arabic, p. 170] And one of his disciples was sitting in his bosom, he whom Jesus loved. To him Simon Cephas beckoned, that he should ask him who this was , concerning [3] whom he spake.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 22
… of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor,
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.26
… And yet John, one of the disciples, who is related to have been the youngest of the Apostles, and who was a virgin when he embraced Christianity, remained a virgin, and on that account was more beloved by our Lord, and lay upon the breast of Jesus. And what Peter, who had had a wife, did not dare ask,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 69.1
… For this beginning of the Gospel St. John poured forth for that he drank it in from the Lord’s Breast. For ye remember, that it has been very lately read to you, how that this St. John the Evangelist lay in the Lord’s Bosom. And wishing to explain this clearly, he says, “On the Lord’s Breast;”
13:26
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[1, 2] [Arabic, p. 170] And one of his disciples was sitting in his bosom, he whom Jesus loved. To him Simon Cephas beckoned, that he should ask him who this was , concerning [3] whom he spake. And that disciple leaned on Jesus’ breast, and said unto him, [4] My Lord, who is this?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
… But this evangelist saith, that “being exceeding sorrowful, they began every one of them to say unto Him, Is it I, Lord? And He answered and said, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 26 . “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 125.1
… For instance, the robber believes upon the cross and immediately hears the assuring words: “verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise:” while Judas falls from the pinnacle of the apostolate into the abyss of perdition. Neither the close intercourse of the banquet nor the dipping of the sop
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 41.10
… By the words of His prophecy: by the sop He marked Him out, that it might appear said of him, “Which did eat of My bread.”
13:27
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… To him Simon Cephas beckoned, that he should ask him who this was , concerning [3] whom he spake. And that disciple leaned on Jesus’ breast, and said unto him, [4] My Lord, who is this? Jesus answered and said, He to whom I shall dip bread, and give it. And Jesus dipped bread, and gave to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. [5]
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.2.1
… Even Judas, too, when the devil had already put it in his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it is written, that after the sop “Satan entered into him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.8
… Let it be granted, then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up the Son to the opposing powers, and that then they delivered Him up into the hands of men, among which men Judas also was, into whom after the sop
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.81
… “Jesus said, Thou couldest have no power against me, unless it were given thee from above.” Also in the third of Kings: “And God stirred up Satan against Solomon himself.” Also in Job, first of all God permitted, and then it was allowed to the devil; and in the Gospel, the Lord first permitted, by saying to Judas, “What thou doest, do quickly.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 33
… For “after the sop Satan entered into him”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
But how do Matthew and the other evangelists say, that, when he made the agreement touching the treason, then the devil seized him; but John, that “after the sop Satan entered into him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 54
… for surely the devil does not bring about all (our evil doings); no, much comes also from our own sluggishness by itself alone: and if he too is anywhere concerned as a cause, it is from our offering the occasion. For say, why did the devil prevail in Judas’ case? When “Satan entered into him” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 5
… he was delivered to the wolf. For as the cloud designated the camp of the Hebrews, so the Spirit distinguished the Church. If any one therefore was without, he was consumed, and it was by the judgment of the Apostles that he was cast out of the pale. So also the Lord delivered Judas to Satan. For immediately “after the sop Satan entered into him.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 27 . “Then Satan entered into him.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus 2.7
… You say ‘he is the universal cause of sin;’ and, while you make him the author of all crimes, you free men from fault, and take away the freedom of the will. Our Lord says that ‘from our heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, railings,’ and of Judas we read in the Gospel;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.8
… For as Judas, to whom the Lord gave a morsel, gave a place within himself of the devil, not by re ceiving what was bad, but by receiving it badly,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 51.12
… and although he had the exceeding wickedness to steal of its contents, yet it was he also who provided what was needful for the meal. And so also, when our Lord said to him, “What thou doest, do quickly,” there were some who thought that He only gave him orders to make some needful preparations for the feast-day, or to give something to the poor.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 3.1
… From whose face although it may be understood historically that He fled, when on his departure He withdrew with the rest to the mountain; yet in a spiritual sense, when the Son of God, that is the Power and Wisdom of God, abandoned the mind of Judas; when the Devil wholly occupied him; as it is written, “The Devil entered into his heart,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 1.19
… as when the evangelist tells us: “And when supper was ended, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray” the Lord: and again also “after the sop,” he says, “Satan entered into him.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 58
… For only in body was he lying there with those at meat: in mind he was arming the hatred of the priests, the falseness of the witnesses, and the fury of the ignorant mob. At last the Lord , seeing on what a gross crime Judas was bent says, “What thou doest, do quickly
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.34
But that the devil enters into the heart of man cannot be denied, if the Gospel is believed. For it is there written, And after the sop Satan entered into him (
13:28
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… And that disciple leaned on Jesus’ breast, and said unto him, [4] My Lord, who is this? Jesus answered and said, He to whom I shall dip bread, and give it. And Jesus dipped bread, and gave to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. [5] And after the bread, Satan entered him. And Jesus said unto him, What thou [6] desirest to do, hasten the doing of it.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 28 . “Now no man at the table knew with what intent He spake this unto him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.1
… or, that he should give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him: and if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.”
13:29
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… Jesus answered and said, He to whom I shall dip bread, and give it. And Jesus dipped bread, and gave to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. [5] And after the bread, Satan entered him. And Jesus said unto him, What thou [6] desirest to do, hasten the doing of it. And no man of them that sat knew why he [7] said this unto him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 28 . “Now no man at the table knew with what intent He spake this unto him.”
13:30
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… And no man of them that sat knew why he [7] said this unto him. And some of them thought, because Judas had the box, that he was bidding him buy what would be needed for the feast; or, that he might pay [8] something to the poor. Judas the betrayer answered and said, Can it be I, my [9] Master? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.25
… Therefore I question the Donatist and say: In thy Council thou hast set down of the Maximianists, “Swift are the feet of them to shed blood.” Show me one of whom the Maximianists have hurt so much as a finger! What other thing to me is he to answer, than that which I say? They that have separated themselves from unity,
13:31
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[10] And Jesus said, Now is the Son of man being glorified, and God is being glorified [11] in him; and if God is glorified in him, God also will glorify him in him, and straightway will glorify him.
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 23
… because, even in the Son’s case, the treason which the devil wrought against Him contributed nothing to his advantage. It was, then, the Son of God, who was in the Son of man, that was betrayed, as the Scripture says afterwards: “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.40
… Filled with joy that His purpose was now to be fully accomplished, He said, Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, He hath glorified Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.29
29. But, perhaps, in their misguided and impious perversity, they infer His weakness from the fact that His soul was sorrowful unto death . It is not yet the time to blame you, heretic, for misunderstanding the passage. For the present I will only ask you, Why do you forget that when Judas went forth to betray Him, He said, Now is the Son of Man glorified
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.42
42. Does He not reveal to His Apostles the Dispensation of this glory by the express signification of the words, Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God hath been glorified in Him, God hath glorified Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.10
… “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, to the end that His Son may be glorified by Him.” But not only is the Son glorified through the Father and by the Father, as it is written: “Glorify Me, Father;” and again: “Now hath the Son of Man been glorified, and God hath been glorified in Him, and God glorifieth Him,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.8
112. And so, also, when we read that the Lord said: “My time is not yet full come;” and: “Yet a little while I am with you;” and: “I go unto Him that sent Me;” and: “Now is the Son of Man glorified;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 11.2
… And what marvel is it that faint-hearted men have felt this, when we find that the Disciples also fell into the same infirmity. For after that mystic Supper, when Christ took
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 31 . “Now is the Son of Man glorified.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 77
… For if we reflect on these things, all will be most easy and tolerable. Since if one suffering for those he loves is even proud of it, what feeling of things dreadful will he have who suffers for the sake of God? For if He, for our sake, calleth that shameful thing, the Cross, “glory” (
13:32
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[10] And Jesus said, Now is the Son of man being glorified, and God is being glorified [11] in him;
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 23
… “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.” Who is here meant by “God?” Certainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father, who was in the Son of man—that is in the flesh, in which Jesus had been already glorified by the divine power and word. “And God,” says He, “shall also glorify Him in Himself;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 32 . “And God shall glorify Him.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 74
Seest thou again that it is He who doeth it? “I,” saith He, “will do it”; not, “I will ask of the Father,” but, “that the Father may be glorified in Me.” In another place He said, “God shall glorify Him in Himself” (
13:33
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… and as I have loved [21] you, so shall ye also love one another. By this shall every man know that ye are [22] my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Cephas said unto him, Our Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered and said unto him, Whither I go, thou canst not now follow me; but later thou shalt come.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 33 . “Little children, yet a little while I am with you—and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say to you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.2
… Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 31.9
… and therefore He says, “Where I am, thither ye cannot come.” Nor did He say, “Ye shall not be able.” but “ye are not able to come;” for at that time they were such as were not able. And that ye may know that this was not said to cause despair, He said something of the same kind also to His disciples: “Whither I go ye cannot come.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 38.2
… And then He adds, “Whither I go, ye cannot come.” He said the same to the disciples also in another place; and yet He said not to them, “Ye shall die in your sin.” But what did He say? The same as to these men: “Whither I go, ye cannot come.”
13:34
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Smyrnæans: Shorter and Longer Versions 6
… For, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself.” And the Lord says, “This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.” And again, “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[19] My children, another little while am I with you. And ye shall seek me: and as [20] I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; I say unto you now also.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 7
… Now what love did He show for us? His precious Blood did He shed for us when we were enemies, and had done the greatest wrong to Him. This do thou also do in thy brother’s case (for this is the end of His saying “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye so love one another as I have loved you”) (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 34 . “A new commandment I give unto you.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 82
After having thus spoken concerning their salvation, and their being sanctified by faith and the Sacrifice, He afterwards speaketh of concord, and finally closeth his discourse with this, having begun with it and ended in it. For at the beginning He saith, “A new commandment I give unto you” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
… 35 .) And showing how, He mentioned not the miracles, but what? “If ye have love one with another.” And again He saith to the Father, “Hereby shall they know that Thou hast sent Me, if they be one.” ( John xvii. 21 .) And He said to His disciples, “A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 16
… 20 .) Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do. So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, “a new commandment I give unto you.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.27
… and therefore He said, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." This is the New Testament in which the promise of the kingdom of heaven is made to this love; which was typified in the Old Testament, suitably to the times of that dispensation. So Christ says again; "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 1.18
… But what is really fruit, save that new offspring, of which He further says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.19
… Whence also He says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another;" and again, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.76
… "But to us the Lord Christ, in opposition to your deadly commands, commanded simple patience and harmlessness. For what says He? ‘A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.’ And again, ‘By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.’"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 83
… Either, therefore, a man has not love, and then it is grievous; or he has love, and then it is not grievous. But he possesses love if he does what is there enjoined on Israel, by returning to the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul. “A new commandment,” says He, “do I give unto you, that ye love one another;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 36
… Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Also, in the Gospel according to St. John, He says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.10
… All those things therefore which he mentioned are as it were the thirty-eight years; but because charity was not there, there was infirmity. From that infirmity who then shall make whole, but He who came to give charity? “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 76.15
… be they nourished, perfected. Whereby? By the commandments. What commandments? “He that loveth Me, keepeth My commandments.” What commandments? For already do we wish to increase, to be strengthened, perfected, that we may see the “Seeing” of the Word. Tell us, Lord, now what commandments? “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 64.4
… And to show them, therefore, how it is that they may attain the fitness to proceed, where He was going before them, He says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 83.2
… But He had already made this same announcement on a former occasion, when, as ye ought to remember, I repounded it to you to the best of my ability. For this is what He says there, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 97.4
… but there was nothing new signified by such a name; for what is called Homousios is just this: “I and my Father are one,” to wit, of one and the same substance. For if every novelty were profane, as little should we have it said by the Lord, “A new commandment I give unto you;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 1.9
… For we were asking, what commandments, and he saith, “But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected.” Mark the Gospel, whether this be not the commandment: “A new commandment,” saith the Lord, “give I unto you, that ye love one another.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 1.10
… Which ye had,” saith he, “from the beginning. Old” then, in this regard, that ye have already heard it: otherwise he will contradict the Lord, where He saith, “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 1.12
… And of whom saith he that they take not and make not occasion of stumbling? They that love God’s law. Consequently they are in charity. But some man will say, “He said it of them that love God’s law, not of the brethren.” Hear thou what the Lord saith: “A new commandment give I unto you that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 5.3
… There is a certain sin, which he that is born of God cannot commit; a sin, which not being committed, other sins are loosed, and being committed, other sins are confirmed. What is this sin? To do contrary to the commandment of Christ, contrary to the New Testament. What is the new commandment? “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 6.4
… and whatsoever we ask, we shall receive of Him:” howbeit, because we keep His commandments. What are “His commandments”? Must we be always repeating? “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 9.11
… Who shall say, I love the emperor, but I hate his laws? In this the emperor understands whether thou love him, that his laws be observed throughout the provinces. Our Emperor’s law, what is it? “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.3
… Now what are His members, ye know, brethren: none other than the Church of God. “In this we know that we love the sons of God, in that we love God.” And how? Are not the sons of God one thing, God Himself another? But he that loves God, loves His precepts. And what are the precepts of God? “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 10.4
… It is not without reason that ye heard just now in the Psalm, “The unrighteous told me of delights, but not as is Thy law, O Lord.” What is the Law of God? The commandment of God. What is the commandment of God? That “new commandment,” which is called new because it maketh new: “A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 15.7
… For when He was returning to the Father, He prepared, so to speak, His will and left this to His disciples: “A new commandment,” said He, “give I unto you that ye love one another; as I have loved you, so do ye also love one another:” and at once He subjoined: “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love to one another.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 16.14
… “As I have loved you, so do ye also love one another;” of whom elsewhere also it is said: “Loving His own who were in the world, He loved them even to the end.”
13:35
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
[19] My children, another little while am I with you. And ye shall seek me: and as [20] I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; I say unto you now also. A new commandment I give you, that ye may love one another; and as I have loved [21] you, so shall ye also love one another.
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 191
… This is a privilege whereof, like all the rest, the enemy of Christ’s Churches has robbed us. We are confined each in his own city, and every one looks at his neighbour with distrust. What more is to be said but that our love has grown cold, whereby alone our Lord has told us that His disciples are distinguished?
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 204.1
… The greatest and first is this, our Lord’s command, pointedly saying, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Making of Man 5
… Again, God is love, and the fount of love: for this the great John declares, that “love is of God,” and “God is love ”: the Fashioner of our nature has made this to be our feature too: for “hereby,” He says, “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 2.5
… And now the first question I wish to ask of you is this: do you know how great the power of love is? For omitting all the miracles which were to be wrought by the apostles, Christ said, “Hereby shall men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 32
… me in that day, Have we not prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils, and done many mighty works, and then I will profess unto them, I know you not.” And when He was about to be crucified, He called His disciples, and said unto them, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,” not “if ye cast out devils,” but “if ye have love one to another.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… nowhere any envying as there was before, nor any of the old hankering after the preeminence, but all virtue brought in them to its last finish, and shining through all, with surpassing lustre, that charity, concerning which the Lord had given so many charges saying, “In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 27
… Continue to do thy own part. “What if he grow more perverse?” He is but procuring to thee so much greater return, and shows thee so much the greater imitator of Christ. For if the loving one another was to be the characteristic of disciples (“For hereby,” He says, “shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another”), (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 32
… For so in the case of the rich man, He said, not merely, “sell thy goods, and give to the poor,” but He added, “and come, follow Me.” Now not even the following Him proves any man a disciple of Christ so completely as the loving one another. For, “by this shall all men know,” saith He, “that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (S.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
… 11 .) For a “kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.” ( Mark iii. 24 .) For this cause he everywhere counsels his disciples much to be of one mind. And Christ says, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 72
Ver. 35 . “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
Hast thou seen the gift? Covet earnestly this gift. This is greater than raising the dead. This is far better than all the rest. And that it is so, hear what Christ Himself saith, discoursing with His disciples, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 31
[1.] There are many things characteristic of Christianity: but more than all, and better than all, Love towards one another, and Peace. Therefore Christ also saith, “My peace I give unto you.” ( John xiv. 27 .) And again, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 17.6
… The Lord has vouchsafed both to manifest and to impart this love, by sending the Holy Spirit to His believing people. So it is said by the same apostle: "The love of God is shed abroad in our heart by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." And the Lord Himself says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 16.6
… “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” Or in what way will he admit anything which grieves the brother, who thinks that nothing is more precious than the blessing of peace, and never forgets these words of the Lord: “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, that ye love one another;”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 11.28
… For through signs gains of souls should be sought, and His glory by whose power these very signs are done. But there is one sign that the Lord has given us for which we may exceedingly rejoice, and acknowledge the glory of election in ourselves, seeing that He says, In this shall it be known that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Zephyrinus 2.1
… who also has thundered through His servants, saying, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Assist ye, therefore, one another in good faith, and by deed and with a hearty will; nor let any one remove his hand from the help of a brother, since “by this,” saith the Lord, “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Pope Fabian 2.2
… for their mind meditates rapine, and their lips speak deceits.” Dearly beloved, beware of these things. Ponder these things, and minister comfort to the brethren in all things; for, as the Truth says in His own person, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
13:36
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… And ye shall seek me: and as [20] I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; I say unto you now also. A new commandment I give you, that ye may love one another; and as I have loved [21] you, so shall ye also love one another. By this shall every man know that ye are [22] my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… For if they said on a former occasion, “Whither goest Thou?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
… And when he had denied Him, it was not the punishment he was grieved for, but that he had denied Him Whom he longed for, which was more bitter to him than any punishment. And all this did he show before the grace of the Spirit was given. And he perseveringly pressed the question, “Whither goest thou?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… For had He said, “Suffer it, for by this I persuade you to be humbleminded,” Peter would have promised it ten thousand times, in order that his Master might not do this thing. But now what saith He? He speaketh of that which Peter most feared and dreaded, the being separated from Him; for it is he who continually asks, “Whither goest Thou?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 78
… but when we fall into human vicissitudes, then despondency is useless. And now when it has overthrown the disciples who were not yet perfect, see how Christ raiseth them again by His rebuke. They who before this had asked Him ten thousand questions, (for Peter said, “Whither goest Thou?” [
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 82
… How then didst Thou say to them, ‘Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones’? ( Matt. xix. 28 .) How didst Thou promise other things more and greater?” Seest thou that He saith all in the way of condescension? since how would He have said, “Thou shalt follow afterwards”? (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 93.3
… Nevertheless the weakness of such men ought not to be regarded as hopeless, but to be supported until they gain more strength. Nor may we forget what the Lord Himself said to Peter when he was yet weak: “Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shall follow Me afterwards.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 31.9
… “Whither I go ye cannot come.” Yet while praying in their behalf, He said, “Father, I will that where I am they also may be with me.” And, finally, this He expounded to Peter, and says to him, “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me hereafter.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 64.4
… because He says so a little afterwards in the plainest terms to the Apostle Peter. For, on the latter inquiring, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” He replied to him, “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 94.3
… and none of you,” He says, “asketh me, Whither goest Thou?” He means that His departure would be such that none would ask Him of that which they should see taking place in broad daylight before their eyes: for previously to this they had asked Him whither He was going, and had been answered that He was going whither they themselves could not then come.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 96.1
… For at that time the apostles were not yet fitted even to die for Christ, when He said to them, “Ye cannot follow me now,” and when the very foremost of them, Peter, who had presumptuously declared that he was already able, met with a different experience from what he anticipated:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 141.13
… Then came the trial; then came the test; then came the accusation; and now, questioned not by some great power, but by a humble slave, and that a woman, questioned by a handmaid, he yielded; he denied thrice.…“He wept bitterly,” it saith. Not yet was he fitted to suffer. To him was said, “Thou shalt follow Me afterwards.”
13:37
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… it is written, I [24] will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. But after my [25] rising, I shall go before you into Galilee. Simon Cephas answered and said unto [26] him, My Lord, if every man desert thee, I shall at no time desert thee. I am with thee ready for imprisonment and for death.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Decease of His Brother Satyrus 2.27
27. Peter also, though full of faith and devotion, yet because, not yet conscious of our common weakness, he had presumptuously said to the Lord, “I will lay down my life for Thy sake,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.5
… The prophet reckons nothing impossible with God. The prophet doubts not; think you that the Son doubts? Wilt thou put God lower than man? What—God hath doubts of His Father, and is fearful at the thought of death! Christ, then, is afraid—afraid, whilst Peter fears nothing. Peter saith: “I will lay down my life for Thy sake.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 54
… For in proof that not so much out of fear for himself he said these things, hear what he saith, when Christ was declaring beforehand His future death, and the assault upon Him: “I will lay down my life for Thy sake.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… But now what saith He? He speaketh of that which Peter most feared and dreaded, the being separated from Him; for it is he who continually asks, “Whither goest Thou?” ( Ver. 36 .) Wherefore also he said, “I will give even my life for Thee.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 73
Ver. 37 . “Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thee.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 88
And yet this he did will, and desired; on which account also He hath revealed it to him. For since Peter had continually said, “I will lay down my life for Thee” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 33
… “There is no fear in love,” says the Evangelist John in his first Epistle, “but perfect love casteth out fear.” But yet, however small and imperfect his love was, it was not wholly wanting when he said to the Lord, “I will lay down my life for Thy sake;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 24
… This might moreover be the word of the Apostle Peter, because he also had said in his abundance, “I will lay down my life for Thy sake;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.2
… For he had heard Him say, “Whither I go, ye cannot come.” Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter: “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shall follow me afterwards.” Thereupon Peter expressed himself thus: “Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.11
… but it is not all who lay it down for Christ. And no one has power to resume what he has laid down. But Christ both laid it down for us, and did so when it pleased Him; and when it pleased Him, He took it again. To lay down one’s soul then, is to die. As also the Apostle Peter said to the Lord: “I will lay down my life [soul] for Thy sake;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.2
… He saith, I am not.” Lo, the pillar of greatest strength has at a single breath of air trembled to its foundations. Where is now all that boldness of the promiser, and his overweening confidence in himself beforehand? What now of those words, when he said, “Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 123.4
… For the needful order was that Christ should first die for Peter’s salvation, and then that Peter should die for the preaching of Christ. The boldness thus begun by human temerity was an utter inversion of the order that had been instituted by the Truth. Peter thought to lay down his life for Christ,
13:38
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 45
… But after my [25] rising, I shall go before you into Galilee. Simon Cephas answered and said unto [26] him, My Lord, if every man desert thee, I shall at no time desert thee. I am with thee ready for imprisonment and for death. And my life will I give up for thee. [27] [Arabic, p. 172]
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 67.2
… And therein they might have heard the words, “Let not your heart be troubled.” For, was there any of them that could be free from fear, when Peter, the most confident and forward of them all, was told, “The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 113.6
… Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew.” Behold, the prediction of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man is brought to the light. For there is no performance of what the latter had asserted, “I will lay down my life for Thy sake;” but a performance of what the former had predicted, “Thou shalt thrice deny me.”
13:1
Theophylact † 1107
Our Lord being about to depart out of this life, shews His great care for His disciples: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.
St Bede † AD 735
The Jews had many feasts, but the principal one was the passover; and therefore it is particularly said, Before the feast of the passover.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv
Pascha is not a Greek word, as some think, but Hebrew: though there is remarkable agreement of the two languages in it. The Greek word to suffer being πασχεῖν, pascha has been thought to mean passion, as being derived from the above word. But in Hebrew, pascha is a passing over; the feast deriving its name from the passing of the people of God over the Red Sea into Egypt. All was now to take place in reality, of which that passover was the type. Christ was led as a lamb to the slaughter; whose blood sprinkled upon our door-posts, i. e. whose sign of the cross marked on our foreheads, delivers us from the dominion of this world, as from Egyptian bondage. And we perform a most wholesome journey or pass-over, when we pass over from the devil to Christ, from this unstable world to His sure kingdom. In this way the Evangelist seems to interpret the word: When Jesus knew that His hour was come when He should pass over1 out of this world unto the Father. This is the pascha, this the passing over.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 1
He did not know then for the first time: He had known long before. By His departure He means His death. Being so near leaving His disciples, He shews the more love for them: Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end; i. e. He left nothing undone which one who greatly loved should do. He reserved this for the last, that their love might be increased by it, and to prepare them by such consolation for the trials that were coming. His own He calls them, in the sense of intimacy. The word was used in another sense in the beginning of the Gospel: (c. 1:11) His own received Him not. It follows, which were in the world: for those were dead who were His own, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were not in the world. These then, His own which were in the world, He loved all along, and at the last manifested His love in completeness: He loved them unto the end.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv. 2
He loved them unto the end, i. e. that they themselves too might pass out of this worlda, by love, unto Him their head. For what is unto the end, but unto Christ? (Rom. 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But these words may be understood after a human sort, to mean that Christ loved His own up to His death. But God forbid that He should end His love by death, who is not ended by death: except indeed we understand it thus: He loved His own unto death: i. e. His love for them led Him to death. And supper having been made, i. e. having been got ready, and laid on the table before them; not having been consumed and finished: for it was during supper that He rose, and washed His disciples’ feet; as after this He sat at table again, and gave the sop to the traitor. What follows: The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, refers to a secret suggestion, not made to the ear, but to the mind; the suggestions of the devil being part of our own thoughts. Judas then had already conceived, through diabolical instigation, the intention of betraying his Master.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 1
The Evangelist inserts this as if in astonishment: our Lord being about to wash the feet of the very person who had resolved to betray Him. It shews the great wickedness too of the traitor, that even the partaking of the same table, which is a check to the worst of men, did not stop him.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv. 6
The Evangelist being about to relate so great an instance of our Lord’s humility, reminds us first of His lofty nature: knowing that the Father had given all things into His hand, not excepting the traitor.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604
He knew that He had even His persecutors in His hand that He might convert them from malice to love of Him.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxiv. 3
The Father hath given all things into His hands; i. e. into His power; for His hands hold all thingsb: or to Him, for His work; My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:17)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 1
Had given all things into His hand. What is given Him is the salvation of the believers. Think not of this giving up in a human way. It signifies His honour for, and agreement with, the Father. For as the Father hath given up all things to Him, so hath He given up all things to the Father. (1 Cor. 15:24) When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv. 5
Knowing too, that He was come from God, and went to God; not that He left God when He came, or will leave us when He returns.
Theophylact † 1107
The Father having given up all things into His hands, i. e. having given up to Him the salvation of the faithful, He deemed it right to shew them all things that pertained to their salvation; and gave them a lesson of humility, by washing His disciples’ feet. Though knowing that He was from God, and went to God, He thought it in no way took from His glory, to wash His disciples’ feet; thus proving that He did not usurp His greatness. For usurpers do not condescend, for fear of losing what they have irregularly got.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv. 6
Since the Father had given all things into His hands, He washed not His disciples’ hands indeed, but their feet; and since He knew that He came from God, and went to God, He performed the work not of God and Lord, but of a man and servant.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 1
It was a thing worthy of Him, Who came from God, and went to God, to trample upon all pride; He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garment, and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a bason, and began to wash His disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded. (c. 2). See what humility He shews, not only in washing their feet, but in other things. For it was not before, but after they had sat down, that He rose; and He not only washed them, but laid aside His garments, and girded Himself with a towel, and filled a bason; He did not order others to do all this, but did it Himself, teaching us that we should be willing and ready to do such things.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 2.
Mystically, dinner is the first meal, taken early in the spiritual day, and adapted to those who have just entered upon this day. Supper is the last meal, and is set before those who are farther advanced. According to another sense, dinner is the understanding of the Old Testament, the supper the understanding the mysteries hid in the New. Yet even they who sup with Jesus, who partake of the final meal, need a certain washing, not indeed of the top parts of their body, i. e. the soul, but its lower parts and extremities, which cleave necessarily to earth. (c. 4.). It is, And began to wash; for He did not finish His washing till afterwards. The feet of the Apostles were defiled now: All of ye shall be offended because of Me this night. (Matt. 26:31) But afterwards He cleansed them, so that they needed no more cleansing.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lv. 7
He laid aside His garments, when, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself; He girded. Himself with a towel, took upon Him the form of a servant; He poured water into a bason, out of which He washed His disciples’ feet. He shed His blood on the earth, with which He washed away the filth of their sins; He wiped them with the towel wherewith He was girded; with the flesh wherewith He was clothed, He established the steps of the Evangelists; He laid aside His garments, to gird Himself with the towel; that He might take upon Him the form of a servant, He emptied Himself, not laying aside indeed what He had, but assuming what He had not. Before He was crucified, He was stripped of His garments, and when dead was wound up in linena clothes: the whole of His passion is our cleansing.
The Latin text
Theophylactus
Quia dominus transmigraturus erat de praesenti saeculo, explicat qualem erga suos amicitiam gereret; unde dicitur ante diem festum Paschae, sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem, cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos
Beda
Plurimas siquidem festivitates Iudaei habebant; sed apud eos insignior atque celebrior erat Paschae festivitas; propter quod signanter dicit ante diem festum Paschae
Augustinus in Ioannem
Pascha, non sicut quidam existimant, Graecum nomen est, sed Hebraeum; opportunissime tamen occurrit in hoc nomine quaedam congruentia utrarumque linguarum: quia enim pati Graece paschin dicitur, ideo Pascha passio putata est, ut hoc nomen a passione sit appellatum: in sua vero lingua, hoc est in Hebraea, Pascha transitus dicitur, propterea quia tunc primum Pascha celebravit populus Dei quando ex Aegypto fugientes, rubrum mare transierunt. Nunc ergo figura illa prophetica in veritate completa est, cum sicut ovis ad immolandum ducitur Christus, cuius sanguine illinitis postibus nostris, idest cuius signo crucis signatis frontibus nostris, a perditione huius saeculi, tamquam a captivitate Aegyptiaca, liberamur, et agimus saluberrimum transitum, cum de Diabolo transimus ad Christum, et ab isto instabili saeculo ad eius fundatissimum regnum. Hoc itaque nomen, idest Pascha, velut interpretans nobis Evangelista, dicit sciens quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad patrem. Ecce Pascha, ecce transitus
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Non solum autem tunc sciens, sed olim. Transitum autem eius mortem vocat. Relicturus autem discipulos maiorem eis demonstravit amorem; et hoc est quod dicit cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos; hoc est, nihil dereliquit, eorum quae eum qui valde amat, decens est facere. Non autem a principio hoc fecit, sed maiora postea adiecit ut eorum augeat familiaritatem, et multam eis praeparet consolationem ad ea quae superventura erant; suos autem eos vocat secundum familiaritatis rationem, quia et alios suos dicit secundum conditionis rationem, ut cum dicitur: sui eum non receperunt. Addit autem qui erant in mundo: quia sui erant etiam defuncti, ut Abraham, Isaac et Iacob; sed in mundo non erant. Hos ergo suos qui erant in mundo, mansit amans continue, et tandem perfectam amicitiam circa eos ostendit; et hoc est in finem dilexit eos
Augustinus
Vel aliter in finem dilexit eos, ut et ipsi de hoc mundo ad suum caput dilectione transirent. Quid est enim in finem, nisi in Christum? Finis enim legis Christus ad iustitiam omni credenti, finis perficiens, non interficiens. Video autem posse ista verba quodam humano modo etiam sic accipi tamquam usque ad mortem Christus dilexerit suos. Sed absit ut dilectionem morte finierit qui non est morte finitus: nisi forte sit ita intelligendum: usque ad mortem dilexit eos: idest, usque ad mortem illum dilectio ipsa perduxit. Sequitur et coena facta, idest iam peracta, et ad convivantium mensam usumque perducta. Non enim ita debemus intelligere coenam factam, veluti iam consumptam atque transactam: adhuc enim coenabatur cum surrexit, et pedes lavit discipulis: nam postea recubuit, et buccellam traditori dedit. Quod autem ait cum iam Diabolus misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotis, missio ista spiritualis suggestio est, et non fit per aurem, sed per cogitationem: diabolicae enim suggestiones immittuntur, et humanis cogitationibus immiscentur. Factum ergo iam fuerat in corde Iudae per immissionem diabolicam ut traderet discipulus magistrum
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem quasi stupens interseruit Evangelista, quoniam eum qui iam prodere statuerat, dominus lavit: ostendit etiam proditoris multam nequitiam, quoniam neque talis eum communicatio detinuit, quod maxime consuevit nequitiam detinere
Augustinus
Locuturus autem Evangelista de tanta domini humilitate, prius eius celsitudinem voluit commendare; ad quod pertinet quod dicit sciens quia omnia dedit ei pater in manus: ergo et ipsum traditorem
Gregorius Moralium
Sciebat enim quod in manu sua ipsos etiam persecutores acceperat, ut ipse in se ad usum pietatis intorqueret quidquid eorum contra se malitia permissa saeviret
Origenes in Ioannem
Omnia enim tradidit ei pater in manus, hoc est in opere eius et potestate. Pater enim meus usque huc, inquit, operatur et ego operor. Vel omnia tradidit ei pater in manus cuncta capientes, ut quaelibet ei famulentur
Chrysostomus
Traditionem enim hic salutem fidelium vocat. Cum autem audieris traditionem, nihil humanum suspiceris; eum enim qui ad patrem est ostendit honorem et concordiam. Sicut enim pater ei tradidit, ita ipse patri: unde Paulus: cum tradiderit, inquit, regnum Deo et patri
Augustinus
Sciens etiam quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit, nec Deum cum inde exiret, nec nos deserens cum rediret
Theophylactus
Quia ergo pater omnia ei commisit in manus; idest, salutem ei commisit fidelium; decens reputabat quaecumque spectant ad salutem, illis ostendere. Sciens etiam quod a Deo exivit et ad Deum vadit, nullatenus eius gloria minui poterat dum pedes discipulorum ablueret: neque enim gloriam usurpavit: qui enim dignitatem usurpant, minime condescendunt, ne dissipent quod incongrue sibi diripuerunt
Augustinus
Cum ergo illi pater omnia dedisset in manus, ille discipulorum non manus, sed pedes lavit; et cum se sciret a Deo exisse et pergere ad Deum, non Dei domini, sed hominis servi implevit officium
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem dignum erat, eo quod a Deo exivit et ad Deum vadit, ut universum conculcaret tumorem; unde sequitur surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua, et cum accepisset linteum, praecinxit se. Deinde misit aquam in pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus. Vide qualiter humilitatem ostendit non solum in lavando pedes, sed etiam aliter. Non enim antequam recumberet, sed postquam resederunt omnes, tunc surrexit: deinde non solum lavit, sed vestimenta deposuit, linteum praecinxit, et pelvim implevit, et non alii impleri iussit; sed omnia operatur, ostendens quod cum omni studio oportet talia facere
Origenes
Mystice autem prandium primus cibus esse dignoscitur; et ante terminum diei spiritualis, qui in vita praesenti consideratur, et his qui introducuntur, conveniens existit: coena vero finalis; et his qui iam ultra progressi sunt apponitur. Aliter quoque poterit quis asserere prandium fore intellectionem Scripturarum antiquarum, coenam vero recondita in novo testamento mysteria. Puto autem quod qui una cum Iesu coenant, et in finali vitae praesentis die secum convivantur, egent lavacro quodam, non utique erga quod primorum, ut ita loquar, corporis et animae, sed quod ad ultima et postrema, quae terrae necessario haerent. Dicit autem, quod coepit lavare pedes; nam postmodum lavit, et finivit loturam: quia pedes apostolorum fuerunt contaminati, iuxta illud: omnes vos scandalizabimini ista nocte in me. Postea autem perfecit eos lavare, purgans eos, ut ultra non foedentur
Augustinus
Posuit autem vestimenta sua, qui cum in forma Dei esset, semetipsum exinanivit; praecinxit se linteo, qui formam servi accepit; misit aquam in pelvim unde lavaret pedes discipulorum, qui in terram sanguinem fudit, quo immunditiam dilueret peccatorum: linteo autem quo erat praecinctus, pedes quos laverat tersit, qui carne qua erat indutus, Evangelistarum vestigia confortavit; et linteo quidem ut se praecingeret, posuit vestimenta quae habebat; ut autem formam servi acciperet, quando semetipsum exinanivit, non quod habebat deposuit, sed quod non habebat accepit; crucifigendus sane, suis expoliatus est vestimentis, et mortuus involutus est linteis, et tota eius passio nostra purgatio est
13:6
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii.
As a physician, who has many sick under his care, begins with those who want his attention most; so Christ, in washing His disciples’ feet, begins with the most unclean, and so comes at last to Peter, who needed the washing less than any: Then cometh He to Simon Peter. Peter resisted being washed, perhaps because his feet were nearly clean: And Peter said unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feel?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 1
What is the meaning of Thou and my feet? It is better to think than speak of this; lest one should fail in explaining adequately what might have been rightly conceived.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 2
Though Peter was the first of the Apostles, yet it is possible that the traitor petulantly placed himself above him; and that this may be the reason, why our Lord first began to wash, and then cometh to Peter.
Theophylact † 1107
It is plain that our Lord did not wash Peter first, but none other of the disciples would have attempted to be washed before him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 2
Some one will ask why none of them prevented Him, except Peter, this being a sign not of want of love, but of reverence. The reason seems to be, that He washed the traitor first, and came next to Peter, and that the other disciples were checked by the reply to Peter. Any of the rest would have said what Peter did, had his turn come first.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 5.
Or thus: All the rest put out their feet, certain that so great a one would not want to wash them without reason: but Peter, looking only to the thing itself, and seeing nothing beyond it, refused out of reverence to let his feet be washed. He often appears in Scripture as hasty in putting forth his own ideas of what is right and expedient.
St Augustine † AD 430
Or thus: We must not suppose that Peter was afraid and refused, when the others had willingly and gladly submitted to the washing. Our Lord did not go through the others first, and to the first of the Apostles afterwards; (for who is ignorant that the most blessed Peter was the first of all the Apostles?) but began with him: and Peter being the first to whom He came, was afraid; as indeed any of the others would have been. Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 2
i. e. How useful a lesson of humility it teaches thee, and how directly this virtue leads to God.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii.
Or our Lord insinuates that this is a mystery. By washing and wiping, He made beautiful the feet of those who were to preach glad tidings, (Is. 52:7.) and to walk on that way of which He tells them, I am the way. (infr. 14:6) Jesus laid aside His garments that He might make their clean feet still cleaner, or that He might receive the uncleanness of their feet unto His own body, by the towel with which alone He was girded: for He hath borne our griefs. Observe too, He chose for washing His disciples’ feet the very time that the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Him, and the dispensation for mankind was about to take place. Before this the time was not come for washing their feet. And who would have washed their feet in the interval between this and the Passion? During the Passion, there was no other Jesus to do it. And after it the Holy Ghost came upon them, by which time they should already have had their feet washed. This mystery, our Lord says to Peter, is too great for thee to understand now, but thou shalt know it hereafter when thou art enlightened.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 2
He did not refuse, because our Lord’s act was above his understanding, but he could not bear to see Him bending at his feet: Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt not wash my feel for ever; i. e. I will never suffer it: not for ever is the same as never.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 5.
This is an instance, that a man may say a thing with a good intention, and yet ignorantly to His hurt. Peter, ignorant of our Lord’s deep meaning, at first, as if in doubt, says mildly, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? and then, Thou shalt never wash my feet; which was in reality to cut himself off from having a part with Jesus. Whence he not only blames our Lord for washing the disciples’ feet, but also his fellow-disciples for giving their feet to be washed. (c. 6.). As Peter then did not see his own good, our Lord did not allow His wish to be fulfilled: Jesus answered and said unto him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 2
If I wash thee not, He says, though it was only his feet that He was going to wash, just as we say, Thou treadest on me; though it is only our foot that is trodden on.
Origen † AD 253
Let those who refuse to allegorize these and like passages, say how it is probable that he who out of reverence for Jesus said, Thou shalt never wash my feet, would have had no part with the Son of God; as if not having his feet washed was a deadly wickedness. Wherefore it is our feet, i. e. the affections of our mind, that are to be given up to Jesus to be washed, that our feet may be beautiful; especially if we emulate higher gifts, and wish to be numbered with those who preach glad tidings.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 2
He does not say on what account He performs this act of washing, but only threatens him. For Peter was not persuaded by the first answer: Thou shalt know hereafter: he did not say, Teach me then that I may submit. But when he was threatened with separation from Christ, then he submitted.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 6.
This saying we may use against those who make hasty and indiscreet resolutions. By shewing them, that if they adhere to these, they will have no part with Jesus, we disengage them from such resolves; even though they may have bound themselves by oath.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 2
But he, agitated by fear and love, dreaded more the being denied Christ, than the seeing Him at His feet: Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Origen † AD 253
Jesus was unwilling to wash hands, and despised what was said of Him in this respect: Thy disciples wash not their hands when they eat bread. (Matt. 15:2) And He did not wish the head to be submerged, in which was apparent the image and glory of the Father; it was enough for Him that the feet were given Him to wash: Jesus answered and said, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 4
Clean all except the feet. The whole of a man is washed in baptism, not excepting his feet; but living in the world afterwards, we tread upon the earth. Those human affections then, without which we cannot live in this world, are, as it were, our feet, which connect us with human things, so that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. (1 John 1:8) But if we confess our sins, He who washed the disciples’ feet, forgives us our sins even down to our feet, wherewith we hold our converse with earth.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii.
It was impossible that the lowest parts and extremities of a soul should escape defilement, even in one perfect as far as man can be; and many, even after baptism, are covered up to their head with the dust of wickedness; but the real disciples of Christ only need washing for their feet.
St Augustine † AD 430 Ad. Seleuc. Ep. c. viii.
From what is here said, we understand that Peter was already baptized. Indeed that He baptized by His disciples, shews that His disciples must have been baptized, either with John’s baptism, or, which is more probable, Christ’s. He baptized by means of baptized servants; for He did not refuse the ministry of baptizing, Who had the humility to wash feet.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lviii. 1
And ye are clean, but not all: what this means the Evangelist immediately explains: For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 6.
Ye are clean, refers to the eleven; but not all, to Judas. He was unclean, first, because he cared not for the poor, but was a thief; secondly, because the devil had put it into his heart to betray Christ. Christ washes their feet after they are clean, shewing that grace goes beyond necessity, according to the text, He that is holy, let him be holy still. (Apoc. 22:11)
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lvi. 4
Or, the disciples when washed had only to have their feet washed; because while man lives in this world, he contracts himself with earth, by means of his human affections, which are as it were his feet.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 2
Or thus: When He calls them clean, you must not suppose that they were delivered from sin before the victim was offered. He means cleanness in respect of knowledge; for they were now delivered from Jewish error.
The Latin text
Origenes in Ioannem
Sicut medicus plurium aegrotorum intentus curae, ab his qui magis indigent, propriam curam incipit; sic et Christus, qui foedos abluit pedes discipulorum, exorditur ab his qui magis erant foedi, et sic ultimo venit ad Petrum, quasi minus aliis indigentem lotura pedum; unde dicitur venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum; cui quodammodo ad resistendum pene munda pedum conscientia persuadebat; unde sequitur et dixit ei Petrus: domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid est tu? Quid est mihi? Cogitanda sunt potius quam dicenda; ne forte quod ex his verbis aliquatenus quidem digne concepit anima, non explicet lingua
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel Petrus primus erat, sed credibile est proditorem stultum existentem ante eum recubuisse; quod Evangelista significavit cum dixit coepit lavare; deinde venit ad Petrum
Theophylactus
Ex quo patet quod non primitus lavit Petrum; ex ceteris vero discipulis nullus tentavisset ante Petrum lavari
Chrysostomus
Quaereret autem utique quis quare nullus eum aliorum prohibuit, sed solus Petrus; quod non parvi amoris et verecundiae erat. Ex hoc igitur mihi videtur prius solum proditorem lavisse; deinde ad Petrum venisse, et alios discipulos per eum de reliquo castigatos. Si enim quemquam ex ceteris lavare coepisset, prohibuisset dominum, et dixisset quae Petrus dixit. Vel aliter. Omnes porrigebant pedes, decernentes quod tantus non irrationabiliter eorum lavaret pedes: solus autem Petrus nullam aliam considerationem conferens, tamquam reverens Iesum, non praebebat pedes suos ad lavandum: saepe enim Scriptura designavit Petrum fervidum ad insinuandum quae sibi visa sunt utiliora et meliora
Augustinus
Vel aliter. Non debemus putare hoc Petrum inter ceteros formidasse atque recusasse, cum et id alii ante ipsum libenter vel aequanimiter fieri permisissent; non enim ita intelligendum est quasi aliquibus iam lavisset, et post eos venisset ad primum: quis enim nesciat primum apostolorum esse beatissimum Petrum? Sed quod ab illo coeperit. Quando ergo pedes discipulorum lavare coepit, venit ad eum a quo coepit, idest ad Petrum; et tunc Petrus expavit; quod etiam quilibet eorum expavesceret. Sequitur respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea
Chrysostomus
Idest humilitatem huius doctrinae, et quomodo humilitas sufficit in Deum perducere
Origenes
Vel insinuat dominus quod hoc erat mysterium. Lavando enim et exsiccando pedes eorum, faciebat eos decoros, debentes evangelizare honesta, ut ostendere valeant iter sanctum, ac pergere per eum qui dixit: ego sum via. Oportebat autem lavari pedes discipulorum a Iesu deponente vestimenta, ut mundos pedes mundiores efficiat, vel ut immunditiam pedum discipulorum suscipiat in proprium corpus per linteum, quo solo praecinctus manebat: ipse namque languores nostros portavit. Attende etiam, quod cum debeat pedes discipulorum abluere, non aliud tempus elegit quam cum Diabolus iam intraverat in cor Iudae ut eum proderet, et futura pro hominibus dispensatio imminebat: nam ante hoc non erat opportunum pedes discipulorum lavari a Iesu. Quis enim pedum eorum sorditiem intermedii temporis usque ad passionem lavasset? Sed neque tempore passionis; alter enim Iesus non aderat qui pedes eorum lavaret; sed neque post dispensationem; illo namque tempore spiritu sancto superveniente, eorum loti sunt pedes. Huius ergo mysterii, dicit dominus Petro, tu non es capax; sed post haec nosces, cum illud perceperis illustratus
Augustinus
Nec tamen ille dominici facti altitudine exterritus permittit fieri, quod cur fieret ignorabat; sed usque ad suos pedes humilem Christum videre non potest sustinere; nam sequitur dicit ei Petrus: non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum; hoc est, nunquam hoc patiar. Hoc quippe in aeternum non fit quod nunquam fit
Origenes in Ioannem
Ex hoc autem accipimus exemplum, quoniam possibile est quemquam secundum purum propositum dicere propter ignorantiam quod sibi non prodest. Petrus enim ignorans hoc esse conveniens, primo quidem quasi dubitans suaviter dixit: domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? Secundo: non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum: quod erat prohibitivum operis perducentis eum ad habendum partem cum Iesu: in quo etiam non tantum Iesum arguit inconvenienter lavantem pedes discipulorum, sed etiam condiscipulos indecenter suos pedes porrigentes. Cum ergo non esset expediens Petro proprium responsum, non permisit illud dominus verificari; nam subditur respondit ei Iesus: si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum
Augustinus
Ita dictum est: si non lavero te, cum de solis pedibus ageretur, quomodo dici solet: calcas me, quando sola planta calcatur
Origenes
Qui autem recusant haec et similia tropologizare, dicant quomodo probabile est eum qui ob reverentiam Iesu dixit non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum, non habiturum partem cum Dei filio, propter non lavari pedes ab eo, sicut propter immane scelus: et ideo praestandi sunt pedes, idest mentis affectus, lavandi a Iesu, ut sint pedes nostri decori, et praesertim cum aemulantes potiora dona, volumus adnumerari eis qui evangelizant bona
Chrysostomus
Ideo autem non dixit cuius gratia hoc faciebat, sed minas imposuit, quia ille nequaquam persuasus esset; audiens enim scies autem postea, non dixit: doce igitur me ut permittam; sed quando comminatus est id quod maxime timebat, scilicet separari ab eo, tunc permisit
Origenes
Hoc dicto utemur contra eos qui indiscretius se facere statuerunt quod eis non prodest: nam ostendendo illis quod non sunt habituri partem cum Iesu, dum praesumptuosum decretum observant, admonebimus illos ne immorentur male decretis, etiam si iureiurando ex multo impetu illud firmaverunt
Augustinus
At ille amore et timore perturbatus plus expavit Christum sibi negari quam usque ad suos pedes humiliari; unde sequitur dicit ei Simon Petrus: domine, non tantum pedes, sed et manus et caput
Origenes
Manus autem lavare nolebat Iesus, contemnens quae dicebantur quoniam discipuli tui non lavant manus, cum panem manducant, caput autem submergi nolebat, in quo imago et gloria patris extiterat: satis est autem ei ut pedes lavandos porrigeret; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus
Augustinus
Totus utique praeter pedes, vel nisi pedes, quos habet opus lavare: homo enim in Baptismo totus abluitur, non praeter pedes, sed totus omnino; verumtamen cum in rebus humanis postea vivitur, utique terra calcatur. Ipsi igitur humani affectus, sine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quasi pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur, ut si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos decipiamus. Si autem confitemur peccata nostra, qui pedes discipulorum lavit, nobis peccata dimittit usque ad pedes, quibus conversamur in terra
Origenes
Impossibile autem puto non contaminari extrema animae et infima eius, quamquam quo ad homines perfectus quis esse putetur; plurimi autem et post Baptismum implentur pulvere scelerum usque ad verticem; qui vero legitime discipuli Christi sunt, erga solos pedes indigent lavatione
Augustinus ad Seleucianum
Ex hoc autem quod hic dicitur, intelligitur quod iam Petrus baptizatus fuerat: intelligimus enim eius discipulos, per quos baptizabat, iam fuisse baptizatos, sive Baptismo Ioannis, sicut nonnulli arbitrantur, sive, quod magis credibile est, Baptismo Christi. Neque enim renuit ministerium baptizandi, ut haberet baptizatos servos per quos ceteros baptizaret, qui non defuit humilitatis ministerio, quando eis pedes lavit; unde sequitur et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes
Augustinus in Ioannem
Hoc quid sit ne quaeramus, ipse Evangelista patefecit adiungens sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: non estis mundi omnes
Origenes
Quod ergo dicit vos mundi estis, refertur ad undecim; quod vero subditur sed non omnes, dicitur propter Iudam existentem immundum: primo quidem quia pauperes non erant sibi curae, sed fur erat; demum Diabolo ingresso in cor eius, ut proderet Christum. Lavat autem pedes postquam mundi erant: quoniam gratia transcendit necessitatem; et, sicut dicit Ioannes: mundus mundificetur adhuc
Augustinus
Vel ipsi discipuli, cum loti essent, non opus habebant nisi pedes lavare; quia dum in isto saeculo vivit homo, humanis affectibus terram velut pedibus calcans contrahit
Chrysostomus
Vel aliter. Non dicit eos mundos, ut a peccatis erutos aestimes, victima nondum oblata; sed eam quae cognitionis est mundationem dicit: iam enim ab errore Iudaico eruti erant
13:12
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lviii. 2
Our Lord, mindful of His promise to Peter that he should know the meaning of His act, Thou shalt know hereafter, now begins to teach him: So after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and was sat down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 7.
Know ye, is either interrogative, to shew the greatness of the act, or imperative, to rouse their minds.
Alcuin † AD 804
Mystically, when at our redemption we were changed by the shedding of His blood, He took again His garments, rising from the grave the third day, and clothed in the same body now immortal, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the world.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxi. 1
He speaks now not to Peter alone, but to all: Ye call Me Master and Lord. He accepts their judgment; and to prevent the words being set down merely to favour on their parts, adds, And ye say well, for so I am.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lviii. 3
It is enjoined in the Proverbs, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. (Prov. 27:2.) For it is dangerous for one to praise himself, who has to beware of pride. But He who is above all things, howsoever He praise Himself, extolleth not Himself too highly. Nor can God be called arrogant: for that we should know Him is no gain to Him, but to us. Nor can any one know Him, unless He who knows, shews Himself. So that if to avoid arrogance He did not praise Himself, He would be denying us wisdom. But why should the Truth fear arrogance? To His calling Himself Master, no one could object, even were He man only, since professors in different arts call themselves so without presumption. But what free man can bear the title of lord in a man? Yet when God speaks, height cannot exalt itself, truth cannot lie; it is for us to submit to that height, to obey that truth. Wherefore ye say well in that ye call Me Master and Lord, for so I am; but if I were not what ye say, ye would say ill.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 7.
They do not say well, Lord, to whom it shall be said, Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:23) But the Apostles say well, Master and Lord, for wickedness had not dominion over them, but the Word of God. If then I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxx. 1
He shews us the greater, that we may do the less. For He was the Lord, but we, if we do it, do it to our fellow-servants: For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
St Bede † AD 735
Our Lord first did a thing, then taught it: as it is said, Jesus began both to do and to teach. (Acts 1:1)
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lviii. 4
This is, blessed Peter, what thou wast ignorant of; this thou wert told that thou shouldest know afterwards.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. c. 7.
But it is not necessary for one who wishes to do all the commandments of Jesus, literally to perform the act of washing feet. This is merely a matter of custom; and the custom is now generally dropped.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lviii. 4
This act is done literally by many1, when they receive one another in hospitality. For it is unquestionably better that it should be done with the hands, and that the Christian disdain not to do what Christ did. For when the body is bent at the feet of a brother, the feeling of humility is made to rise in the heart, or, if it be there already, is confirmed. But besides this moral meaning, is not a brother able to change a brother from the pollution of sin? Let us confess our faults one to another, forgive one another’s faults, pray for one another’s faults. In this way we shall wash one another’s feet.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 7.
Or thus: This spiritual washing of the feet is done primarily by Jesus Himself, secondarily by His disciples, in that He said to them, Ye ought to wash one another’s feet. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples as their Master, of His servants as their Lord. But the object of the master is to make His disciples as Himself; and our Saviour beyond all other masters and lords, wished His disciples to be as their Master and Lord, not having the spirit of bondage, but the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father. (Rom. 8:19) So then before they become masters and lords, they need the washing of the feet, being as yet insufficient disciples, and savouring of the spirit of bondage. But when they have attained to the state of master and lord, they then are able to imitate their Master, and to wash the disciples’ feet by their doctrine.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxi. 2
He continues to urge them to wash one another’s feet; Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither He that is sent greater than He that sent Him; as if to say, If I do it, much more ought you.
Theophylact † 1107
This was a necessary admonition to the Apostles, some of whom were about to rise higher, others to lower degrees of eminence. That none might exult over another, He changes the hearts of all.
St Bede † AD 735
To know what is good, and not to do it, tendeth not to happiness, but to condemnation; as James saith, To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17). Wherefore He adds, If ye know these things, happy are ye if yo do them.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. Lxxi. 2
For all know, but all do not do. He then rebukes the traitor, not openly, but covertly: I speak not of you all.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lix. 1
As if to say, There is one among you who will not be blessed, nor doeth these things. I know whom I have chosen. Whom, but those who shall be happy by doing His commandments? Judas therefore was not chosen. But if so, why does He say in another place, Have not I chosen you twelve? Because Judas was chosen for that for which he was necessary, but not for that happiness of which He says, Happy are ye, if ye do them.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 8.
Or thus: I speak not of you all, does not refer to, Happy are ye if ye do them. For of Judas, or any other person, it may be said, Happy is he if he do them. The words refer to the sentence above, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither He that is sent greater than He that sent Him. For Judas, being a servant of sin, was not a servant of the Divine Word; nor an Apostle, when the devil had entered into him. Our Lord knew those who were His, and did not know who were not His, and therefore says, not, I know all present, but, I know whom I have chosen, i. e. I know My Elect.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxi. 1
Then, that He might not sadden them all, He adds, But that the Scripture must be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with Me, hath lifted up his heel against Me: shewing that He knew who the traitor was, an intimation that would surely have checked him, if any thing would. He does not say, shall betray Me, but, shall lift up his heel against Me, alluding to his deceit and secret plotting.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lix. 1
Shall lift up his heel against Me, i. e. shall tread upon Me. The traitor Judas is meant.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxi. 2
He that eateth bread with Me; i. e. who was fed by Me, who partook of My table. So that if injured ever by our servants or inferiors, we need not be offended. Judas had received infinite benefits, and yet thus requited his Benefactor.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lix. 1
They then who were chosen ate the Lord; he ate the bread of the Lord, to injure the Lord; they ate life, he damnation; for he that eateth unworthily, eateth damnation to himself. (1 Cor. 11:27) Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come, ye may believe that I am He, i. e. of whom that Scripture foretold.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 9.
That ye may believe, is not said, as if the Apostles did not believe already, but is equivalent to saying, Do as ye believe, and persevere in your belief, seeking for no occasion of falling away. For besides the evidences the disciples had already seen, they had now that of the fulfilment of prophecy.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. Lxxii. 3
As the disciples were about to go forth and to suffer many things, He consoles them by promising His own assistance and that of others; His own, when He says, Happy are ye if ye do them; that of others, in what follows, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 10.
For he that receiveth him whom Jesus sends, receiveth Jesus who is represented by him; and he that receiveth Jesus, receiveth the Father. Therefore he that receiveth whom Jesus sends, receiveth the Father that sent. The words may have this meaning too: He that receiveth whom I send, had attained unto receiving Me: he who receiveth Me not by means of any Apostle, but by My own entrance into his soul, receiveth the Father; so that not only I abide in him, but the Father also.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. xlix. 2
The Arians, when they hear this passage, appeal immediately to the gradations in their system, that as far as the Apostle is from the Lord, so far is the Son from the Father. But our Lord hath left us no room for doubt on this head; for He saith, I and My Father are one. (supr. 10:30) But how shall we understand those words of our Lord, He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me? If we take them to mean that the Father and the Son are of one nature, it will seem to follow, when He says, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me, that the Son and an Apostle are of one nature. May not the meaning be, He that receiveth whosoever I send, receiveth Me, i. e. Me as man: But He that receiveth Me, i. e. as God, receiveth Him that sent Me. But it is not this unity of nature, which is here put forth, but the authority of the Sender, as represented by Him who is sent. In Peter hear Christ, the Master of the disciple, in the Son the Father, the Begotten of the Only Begotten.
The Latin text
Augustinus
Memor dominus se promisisse scientiam facti sui Petro, dicens: scies autem postea, quid sit quod fecit, docere nunc incipit; unde dicitur postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, accepit vestimenta sua: et cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: scitis quid fecerim vobis?
Origenes in Ioannem
Quid vel interrogative proferatur, ut ostendat facti magnitudinem, vel imperative, ut eorum erigat intellectum
Alcuinus
Mystice autem, impleta redemptionis nostrae purgatione per sanguinis sui effusionem, accepit vestimenta sua, tertia die de sepulchro resurgens, et eodem corpore iam immortali vestitus; et cum recubuisset ascendens in caelum in dextera paterna divinitatis recumbens, inde venturus est ad iudicandum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Non autem adhuc ad solum Petrum, sed ad omnes loquitur dicens vos vocatis me magister et domine: in quo eorum iudicium assumit; deinde ut non illorum gratiae esse putentur haec verba, subiungit et bene dicitis, sum etenim
Augustinus
Homini praeceptum est: non te laudet os tuum, sed laudet te os proximi tui: periculosum est enim sibi placere, cui cavendum est superbire. Ille autem qui super omnia est, quantumcumque se laudet, non se extollit excelsius. Nec potest recte dici arrogans Deus: nobis namque expedit Deum nosse, non illi; nec eum quisque cognoscit, si non se indicet ipse qui novit. Si ergo se laudando quasi arrogantiam vitare voluerit, nobis sapientiam denegabit. Quomodo autem arrogantiam veritas timet? Et quidem quod magistrum se dicit, nemo reprehenderet, etiam qui eum nihil aliud quam hominem crederet; quoniam id profitetur quod et ipsi homines in quibuslibet artibus usque adeo sine arrogantia profitentur, ut professores vocentur; quod vero dominum discipulorum se dicit, cum sint secundum saeculum ingenui, quis ferat in homine? Sed cum Deus loquitur, nulla est elatio tantae celsitudinis, nullum mendacium veritatis: nobis subiacere utile est illi celsitudini, servire veritati. Ideo bene ergo dicitis, vocando me magistrum et dominum, quia sum: nam si non essem quod dicitis, male diceretis
Origenes
Et illi quidem non bene dicunt domine, quibus dicetur: discedite a me qui operamini iniquitatem; sed apostoli bene dicunt: magister et domine: non enim eis nequitia dominabatur, sed verbum Dei. Sequitur si ergo lavi pedes vestros dominus et magister, et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes
Chrysostomus
A maioribus rebus accipit exemplum, ut quod minus est operemur: nam ipse quidem dominus est; nos autem ad conservos facimus, si fecerimus; et ideo subdit exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis
Beda
Primum dominus egit factis quod postmodum docuit verbis, secundum illud: coepit Iesus facere et docere
Augustinus in Ioannem
Hoc est, beate Petre, quod nesciebas; hoc tibi postea sciendum promisit
Origenes
Considerandum vero est si necessarium est quemlibet volentem disciplinam Iesu perficere, velut debitum opus prosequi lavacrum sensibilium pedum; propter hoc quod dicit debetis ad invicem lavare pedes. Sed hic mos vel non fit, vel admodum raro
Augustinus
Est enim apud plerosque consuetudo huius humilitatis, cum se invicem hospitio suscipiunt, et faciunt hoc sibi invicem fratres, etiam opere ipso visibili. Multo enim melius est et sine controversia verius, ut etiam manibus fiat, ne dedignetur quod fecit Christus, facere Christianus. Cum enim ad pedes fratrum inclinatur corpus, etiam in corde ipso excitatur, vel, si iam inerat, confirmatur humilitatis affectus. Sed excepto hoc morali intellectu, numquid etiam frater fratrem a delicti poterit contagione mundare? Sed confiteamur invicem delicta nostra, invicem nos delicta donemus, et pro nostris delictis invicem oremus; atque ita quodammodo invicem pedes nostros lavemus
Origenes
Vel aliter. Hoc lavacrum spirituale pedum, de quo dictum est, principaliter quidem a nullo nisi a solo Iesu potest effici: secundario vero a discipulis eius quibus dixit vos debetis ad invicem lavare pedes. Iesus enim lavit pedes discipulorum inquantum magister, et servorum in eo quod dominus. Hic autem est finis magistri, ut discipulum faciat sicut se: quod de salvatore apparet, qui, prae ceteris magistris et dominis, vult ut fiant eius discipuli quasi magister et dominus, non habentes spiritum servitutis, sed spiritum filiationis, in quo clamant: abba, pater. Prius ergo quam fiant et magister et dominus, egent lavacro pedum, velut insufficientes discipuli, et adhuc sapientes spiritum servitutis; cum autem aliquis eorum statum magistri attingit et domini, tunc imitari poterit eum qui lavit discipulorum pedes, ac lavare pedes per doctrinam quasi magister
Chrysostomus
Adhuc autem provocans eos ad lavandum pedes, subiungit amen, amen dico vobis: non est servus maior domino suo, neque apostolus maior eo qui misit illum; quasi dicat: si ergo haec a me facta sunt, multo magis a vobis oportet haec fieri
Theophylactus
Necessario etiam hic apostolos admonet: quia enim ad dignitates habebant attingere, et hic quidem maiores, hic minores, ne insurgant ad invicem, serenat conscientiam omnium
Beda
Quia vero scire bonum, et non facere, non pertinet ad beatitudinem, sed ad condemnationem, secundum illud: scienti bonum et non facienti, peccatum est illi, subiungit si haec scitis, beati eritis, si feceritis ea
Chrysostomus
Nam scire quidem omnium est, facere vero non omnium. Deinde proditorem non manifeste redarguit, sed obumbrate, cum subditur non de omnibus vobis dico
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quasi dicat: est inter vos qui non erit beatus, neque facit ea. Ego scio quos elegerim. Quos, nisi eos qui beati erunt, faciendo quae praecepit? Non est igitur Iudas electus. Quid est ergo quod alio loco dicit: nonne ego vos duodecim elegi? An ipse ad aliquid est electus, ad quod erat utique necessarius, non autem ad beatitudinem, de qua dicit beati eritis, si feceritis ea
Origenes in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Non recte existimo posse referri quod dicitur non de omnibus vobis dico, ad hoc quod dictum est beati eritis, si feceritis ea: totum enim hoc et de Iuda et de quolibet alio verum est dicere: beatus talis, si fecerit hoc. Reducemus autem haec ad illud dictum: non est servus maior domino suo, nec apostolus maior eo qui misit illum. Iudas enim, cum esset servus peccati, non erat servus divini verbi, nec apostolus, Diabolo ingresso in cor eius. Cum ergo dominus novisset qui sunt sui, alienos a se non novit: propter quod non ait: ego scio cunctos praesentes; sed ego scio quos elegerim; quasi dicat: electos meos novi
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Deinde ut non multos contristet suo sermone, subiungit sed ut impleatur Scriptura: qui manducat mecum panem, levabit calcaneum suum contra me; ostendens quod non ignorans traditur; quod maxime sufficiens erat Iudam retinere. Et non dixit: tradet me; sed levabit contra me calcaneum suum, dolum et occultationem insidiarum repraesentare volens
Augustinus
Quid est enim levabit calcaneum suum super me, nisi conculcabit me? In quo Iudas traditor eius attingitur
Chrysostomus
Dicit autem qui manducat mecum panem; idest, qui a me nutritus est, qui mea mensa communicavit: ut si quando a famulis aut aliquibus vilioribus patiamur aliquod malum, non scandalizemur, respicientes Iudae exemplum, qui infinitis potitus bonis, in contrarium remuneravit benefactorem
Augustinus
Illi ergo qui electi erant, manducabant dominum; ille manducabat panem domini contra dominum: illi vitam, ille poenam. Qui enim manducat indigne, ait apostolus, iudicium sibi manducat. Sequitur amodo dico vobis priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis quia ego sum, de quo scilicet illa Scriptura praecessit
Origenes
Non autem dictum est apostolis ut credatis, quasi non credentibus; sed dictum est tamquam aequipolleat ei quod est: ut credentes operemini, perseverantes in credulitate, nec aliquam occasionem ad repulsam captantes: super ea enim quae obtinebant discipuli ad fidem facientia, hoc etiam adepti sunt, videre perfici Scripturam praedictam
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia ergo discipuli exituri erant ad praedicandum et multa passuri, duobus modis eos consolatur: uno modo a seipso, cum dicit: beati eritis, si feceritis ea; alio vero modo consolatus est eos ab aliis, eo scilicet quod ab hominibus multa potientur procuratione; unde subdit amen, amen, dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit: qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit
Origenes
Qui enim recipit quem mittit Iesus, Iesum, qui in misso consistit, recipit; qui autem Iesum recipit, patrem recipit. Igitur qui recipit quem mittit Iesus, mittentem recipit patrem. Potest etiam et hic sermo fore: qui recipit quem ego misero, usque ad mei receptionem attingit; qui vero non per aliquem apostolorum meorum me recipit, sed recipit me venientem ad animas, patrem recipit, ut non tantum ego in eo maneam, sed et pater
Augustinus in Ioannem
Ariani autem cum hoc audiunt, statim ad gradus sui dogmatis currunt, dicentes: quantum apostolus distat a domino, tantum filius a patre. Sed ubi dominus dixit: ego et pater unum sumus, nullam distantiae suspicionem reliquit. Quoniam ergo nos accepturi sumus haec verba dominica qui me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit, quod unius naturae sunt pater et filius, consequens videbitur, quia dixit qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit, ut unius naturae sint filius et apostolus. Ita dixisse possit videri: qui accipit si quem misero, me secundum hominem accipit; qui autem me secundum Deum accipit, accipit eum qui me misit. Sed cum ista dicebat, non ab illo naturae unitas, sed in eo qui mittitur, mittentis commendabatur auctoritas. Si ergo attendas Christum in Petro, discipuli praeceptorem; si autem patrem in filio, invenies unigeniti genitorem
13:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxii. 1
Our Lord after His twofold promise of assistance to the Apostles in their future labours, remembers that the traitor is cut off from both, and is troubled at the thought: When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lx. 1
This did not come into His mind’then for the first time; but He was now about to make the traitor known, and single him out from the rest, and therefore was troubled in spirit. The traitor too was now just about to go forth to execute his purpose. He was troubled at the thought of His Passion being so near at hand, at the dangers to which His faithful followers would be brought at the hand of the traitor, which were even now impending over Him. Our Lord deigned to be troubled also, to shew that false brethren cannot be cut off, even in the most urgent necessity, without the troubling of the Church. (Tr. lxi. 1.). He was troubled not in flesh, but in spirit; for on occasion of scandals of this kind, the spirit is troubled, not perversely, but in love, lest in separating the tares, some of the wheat too be plucked up with them. (Tr. lx. 5.). But whether He was troubled by pity for perishing Judas, or, by the near approach of His own death, He was troubled not through weakness of mind, but power: He was not troubled because any thing compelled Him, but He troubled Himself, as was said above. And in that He was troubled, He consoles the weak members of His body, i. e. His Church, that they may not think themselves reprobate, should they be troubled at the approach of death.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 11.
His being troubled in spirit, was the human part, suffering under the 1excess of the spiritual. For if every Saint lives, acts, and suffers in the spirit, how much more is this true of Jesus, the Rewarder of Saints.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lx. 3
Away then with the reasonings of the Stoics, who deny that perturbation of mind can come upon a wise man; who, as they take vanity for truth, so make their healthy state of mind insensibility. It is good that the mind of the Christian may be perturbed, not by misery, but by pity. (lxi. 2). One of you,He saith, i. e. one in respect of number, not of merit, in appearance1 not in virtue.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 1
As He did not mention Him by name, all began to fear: Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake; not conscious of any evil in themselves, and yet trusting to Christ’s words, more than to their own thoughts.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxi. 3
They had a devoted love for their Master, but yet so that human weakness made them doubt of one another2.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 12.
They remembered too, that, as men, before they were matured, their minds were liable to change, so as to form wishes the very opposite to what they might have had before.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
While all were trembling, and not excepting even Peter, their head, John, as the beloved disciple, lay upon Jesus’ breast. He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxi. 4
This is John, whose Gospel this is, as he afterwards declares. It is the custom of the sacred writers, when they come to any thing relating to themselves, to speak of themselves, as if they were speaking of another. For if the thing itself is related correctly, what does truth lose by the omission of boasting on the writer’s part?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 1
If thou want to know the cause of this familiarity, it is love: Whom Jesus loved. Others were loved, but he was loved more than any.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 13.
I think this has a peculiar meaning, viz. that John was admitted to a knowledge of the more secret mysteries of the Word.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 1
Whom Jesus loved. This John says to shew his own innocence, and also why it was that Peter beckoned to him, inasmuch as he was not Peter’s superior: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. Peter had been just reproved, and therefore, checking the customary vehemence of his love, he did not speak himself now, but made John speak for him. He always appears in Scripture as zealous, and an intimate friend of John’s.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxi. 6.
Observe too his mode of speaking, which was not by word, but by beckoning; Beckoned and spake, i. e. spake by beckoning. If even thoughts speak, as when it is said, They spake among themselves, much more may beckonings, which are a kind of outward expression of our thoughts.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 13.
Or, at first he beckoned, and then not content with beckoning, spake: Who is it of whom he speaks? He then lying on Jesus’ breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lx. 4
On Jesus’ breast; the same as in Jesus’ bosom. Or, he lay first in Jesus’ bosom, and then ascended higher, and lay upon His breast; as if, had he remained lying in His bosom, and not ascended to lie on His breast, our Lord would not have told him what Peter wanted to know. By his lying at last on Jesus’ breast, is expressed that greater and more abundant grace, which made him Jesus’ special disciple.
St Bede † AD 735
That he lay in the bosom, and upon the breast, was not only an evidence of present love, but also a sign of the future, (non occ.). viz. of those new and mysterious doctrines which he was afterwards commissioned to reveal to the world.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxi. 6
For by bosom what else is signified but secret? Here is the hollow of the breast, the secret1 chamber of wisdom.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 1
But not even then did our Lord expose the traitor by name; Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. Such a mode of declaring him, should itself have turned him from his purpose. Even if a partaking of the same table did not shame him, a partaking of the same bread might have. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxii. 3
Not as some careless readers think, that then Judas received singly Christ’s body. For our Lord had already distributed the sacraments of His body and blood to all of them, while Judas was there, as Luke relates; and after this He dipped the sop, as John relates, and gave it to the traitor; the dipping of the bread perhaps signifying the deep dye of his sin; for some dipping cannot be washed out again; i. e. when things are dipped, in order to receive a permanent dye. If however this dipping meant any thing good, he was ungrateful for it, and deserved the damnation which followed him; And after the sop, Satan entered into him.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 14.
Observe, that at first Satan did not enter into Judas, but only put it into his heart to betray his Master. But after the bread, he entered into him. Wherefore let us beware, that Satan thrust not any of his flaming darts into our heart; for if he do, he then watches till he gets an entrance there himself.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxii. 1
So long as he was one of the twelve, the devil did not dare to force an entrance into him; but when he was pointed out, and expelled, then he easily leaped into him,
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxii. 2
Or entered into him, that he might have more full possession of him: for he was in him, when he agreed with the Jews to betray our Lord for a sum of money, according to Luke: Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot, and he went away, and communed with the chief priests. (Luke 22:3. 4) In this state he came to the supper. But after the sop the devil entered, not to tempt him, as though he were independent but to possess him as his own,
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 14.
It was proper that by the ceremony of the bread, that good should be taken from him, which he thought he had: whereof being deprived, he was laid open to admit Satan’s entrance.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxii
But some will say, was his being given up to the devil the effect of his receiving the sop from Christ? To whom we answer, that they may learn here the danger of receiving amiss what is in itself good. If he is reproved who does not discern, i. e. who does not distinguish, the Lord’s body from other food, how is he condemned who, feigning himself a friend, comes an enemy to the Lord’s table? Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 15.
This may have been said either to Judas, or to Satan, either to provoke the enemy to the combat, or the traitor to do his part in bringing on that dispensation, which was to save the world; which He wished not to be delayed any longer, but to be as soon as possible matured.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxii. 4
He did not however enjoin the act, but foretold it, not from desire for the destruction of the perfidious, but to hasten on the salvation of the faithful.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 2.
That thou doest, do quickly, is not a command, or a recommendation, but a reproof, meant to shew too that He was not going to offer any hindrance to His betrayal. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. It is not easy to see, when the disciples had asked, Who is he, and He had replied, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, how it was that they did not understand Him; unless it was that He spoke too low to be heard; and that John lay upon His breast, when he asked the question, for that very reason, i. e. that the traitor might not be made known. For had Christ made him known, perhaps Peter would have killed him. So it was then, that none at the table knew what our Lord meant. But why not John? Because he could not conceive how a disciple could fall into such wickedness: he was far from such wickedness himself, and therefore did not suspect it of others. What they thought He meant we are told in what follows: For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast, or, that he should give something to the poor.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxii. 5
Our Lord then had bags, in which He kept the oblations of the faithful, to supply the wants of His own followers, or the poor. Here is the first institution of ecclesiastical property. Our Lord shews that His commandment not to think of the morrow, does not mean that the Saints should never save money; but that they should not neglect the service of God for it, or let the fear of want tempt them to injustice.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 2.
None of the disciples contributed this money, but it is hinted that it was certain women, who, it is said, ministered to Him of their means. But how was it that He Who forbad scrip, and staff, and money, carried bags for the relief of the poor? It was to shew thee, that even the very poor, those who are crucified to this world, ought to attend to this duty. He did many things in order to instruct us in our duty.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 16.
Our Lord then said to Judas, That thou doest, do quickly, and the traitor this once obeyed his Master. For having received the sop, he started immediately on his work: He then having received the sop, went, immediately out. And indeed he did go out, not only from the house in which he was, but from Jesus altogether. It would seem that Satan, after he had entered into Judas, could not bear to be in the same place with Jesus: for there is no agreement between Jesus and Satan. Nor is it idle enquiring why after he had received the sop, it is not added, that he ate it. Why did not Judas cat the bread, after he received it? Perhaps because, as soon as he had received it, the devil, who had put it into his heart to betray Christ, fearful that the bread, if eaten, might drive out what he had put in, entered into him, so that he went out immediately, before he ate it. And it may be serviceable to remark, that as he who eateth our Lord’s bread and drinketh His cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh to his own damnation; so the bread which Jesus gave him was eaten by the rest to their salvation, but by Judas to his damnation, inasmuch as after it the devil entered into him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 2.
It follows: And it was night, to shew the impetuosity of Judas, in persisting in spite of the unseasonableness of the hour.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 16.
The time of night corresponded with the night which overspread the soul of Judas.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 ii. Mor. 11
By the time of the day is signified the end of the action. Judas went out in the night to accomplish his perfidy, for which he was never to be pardoned.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia dominus apostolis debentibus orbem terrarum universum percurrere, exhibuerat duplicem consolationem praedictam, cogitans quod utraque proditor privatus est, turbatur; et hoc significat Evangelista dicens cum haec dixisset Iesus, turbatus est spiritu, et protestatus est, et dixit: amen, amen, dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis me tradet
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non illi hoc tunc primum venit in mentem; sed quia proditorem iam fuerat expressurus, ut non lateret in ceteris, ideo turbatus est spiritu: et quia ipse traditor iam fuerat exiturus, ut Iudaeos, quibus dominus ab eo traderetur, adduceret. Turbavit eum imminens passio, et periculum proximorum, et traditoris impendentes manus, cuius fuerat praecognitus animus. Hoc etiam dominus significare sua turbatione dignatus est, quod quando ex falsis fratribus aliquos separari, etiam ante messem, urgens causa compellit, fieri sine Ecclesiae turbatione non possit. Turbatus est autem non carne, sed spiritu: spiritus enim in huiusmodi scandalis non perversitate, sed caritate turbatur; ne forte in separatione aliquorum zizaniorum, simul aliquod eradicetur et triticum. Sive ergo ipsum Iudam pereuntem miserando, sive sua morte appropinquante, turbatus est; non animi infirmitate, sed potestate turbatur: non enim aliquo cogente turbatur, sed turbavit semetipsum, ut supra dictum est. Quod autem turbatur, infirmos in suo corpore, hoc est in sua Ecclesia, consolatur, ut si qui suorum morte imminente turbantur, non se reprobos putent
Origenes in Ioannem
In eo enim quod dicit turbatus est spiritu, quod humanum est, scilicet passio, proveniebat ab exuberantia spiritus: si enim sanctus quilibet in spiritu vivit, et agit, et patitur, quanto magis haec dicenda sunt de Iesu sanctorum praemiatore?
Augustinus
Pereant igitur argumenta Stoicorum, qui negant in sapientem cadere perturbationem animorum; qui profecto, sicut vanitatem aestimant veritatem, sic stuporem deputant sanitatem. Turbetur plane animus Christiani, non miseria, sed misericordia. Dicit autem unus ex vobis, numero, non merito; specie, non virtute
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia vero non nominatim dixit, rursum in omnes inducit timorem; unde sequitur aspiciebant ergo discipuli ad invicem, haesitantes de quo diceret. Et nimirum nullius sibi ipsis conscii mali, tamen enuntiationem Christi propriis cogitationibus credibiliorem putabant
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sic etiam in eis erat erga magistrum suum pia caritas, ut tamen eos humana, alterum de altero, stimularet infirmitas
Origenes
Reminiscebantur etiam, ut homines existentes, quoniam alterabilis est affectus adhuc provectorum, ac susceptibilis appetitus contrariorum his quae prius voluerant
Chrysostomus
Omnibus autem trementibus, et ipso vertice, scilicet Petro, formidante, Ioannes velut dilectus recubuit in sinu Iesu; unde sequitur erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus
Augustinus
Ipse est Ioannes, cuius est hoc Evangelium, sicut postea manifestat. Erat enim haec eorum consuetudo qui sacras nobis litteras ministrarunt, ut quando ab aliquo eorum divina narrabatur historia, cum ad seipsum veniret, tamquam de alio loqueretur. Quid enim deperit veritati, quando et res ipsa dicitur, et quodammodo dicentis iactantia devitatur?
Chrysostomus
Si autem huiusmodi familiaritatis causam quaeris discere, amoris res erat: propterea dicit quem diligebat Iesus: quamvis enim et alii amarentur, tamen iste plus aliis
Origenes
Aestimo autem quod etiam hoc protendit, quod Ioannes recumbens verbo, ac in secretioribus pausans, incumbebat gremio verbi
Chrysostomus
Volebat etiam ostendere seipsum esse alienum a crimine; et hoc etiam dicit, ne aestimes quod Petrus ei ut maiori existenti innueret; nam sequitur innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dicit ei: quis est de quo dicit? Ubique enim invenitur Petrus ab amore impetum faciens; et quia primo increpatus est non locutus est, sed mediante Ioanne vult discere. Ubique enim Scriptura ostendit Petrum fervidum, et familiaritatem habentem ad Ioannem
Augustinus
Notanda autem locutio est, dicere aliquid non sonando, sed tantummodo innuendo: innuit, inquit, et dicit; idest, innuendo dicit. Si enim cogitando aliquid dicitur, sicut illud: dixerunt apud semetipsos, quanto magis innuendo, ubi iam foris qualibuscumque signis promitur quod fuerit corde conceptum?
Origenes in Ioannem
Vel primo innuit, et deinde non contentus nutu, dixit illi: dic quis sit de quo dicit. Sequitur itaque cum recubuisset ille super pectus Iesu, dicit ei: domine, quis est?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quod autem nunc supra pectus dicit, paulo supra dixerat in sinu. Vel aliter. Primo quidem iacens in sinu Iesu, superascendit, et incubuit supra pectus; quasi si non incubuisset in pectore, sed remansisset iacens in sinu, nequaquam dominus ei tradidisset verbum quod Petrus scire cupierat. Per hoc ergo quod ultimo supra pectus incubuit, exprimitur tamquam per maiorem et abundantiorem gratiam, specialis Iesu discipulus esse
Beda
Quod autem in sinu et supra pectus recubuit, non solum fuit praesentis amoris indicium, sed etiam futurae rei signum: quod scilicet inde vocem sumeret, quam postmodum cunctis saeculis inauditam emitteret
Augustinus
Per sinum enim quid aliud significatur quam secretum? Hic est utique pectoris sinus, sapientiae secretum
Chrysostomus
Neque autem tunc nominatim proditorem dominus manifestavit; nam sequitur respondit Iesus: ille est cui intinctum panem porrexero. Et modus ipse manifestationis conversurus erat: quia enim ob mensationem verecundatus non est, eodem pane communicans verecundari debuit. Sequitur et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotis. Non, ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Iudas solus Christi corpus accepit: intelligendum est enim quod iam eis omnibus distribuerat dominus sacramenta corporis et sanguinis sui, ubi et ipse Iudas erat, sicut Lucas narrat; at demum ad hoc ventum est, ubi secundum narrationem Ioannis dominus per buccellam tinctam atque porrectam suum exprimit traditorem; fortassis per panis tinctionem illius significans fictionem: non enim omnia quae tinguntur abluuntur: sed ut inficiantur, nonnulla tinguntur. Si autem bonum aliquid haec significat tinctio, eidem bono ingratum merito est secuta damnatio; sequitur enim et post buccellam, tunc introivit in eum Satanas
Origenes in Ioannem
Attende quod primo quidem non introivit Satanas in Iudam, sed immisit in cor eius solum ut proderet praeceptorem, post panem autem in eum ingressus est. Quamobrem nobis cavendum est ne Diabolus intrudat in cor nostrum aliquid ignitorum telorum suorum: nam si intruserit, insidiatur deinde ut et ipse introeat
Chrysostomus
Donec enim fuit in collegio, non audebat insilire, sed extrorsum immittebat; quando vero eum manifestum fecit et expulit, libere in eum de cetero exilivit
Augustinus
Vel intravit in eum, ut sibi iam traditum plenius possideret: neque enim non in illo erat quando ad Iudaeos de pretio tradendi dominum pactus est, cum Lucas dicat: intravit autem Satanas in Iudam; et abiit, et locutus est cum principibus sacerdotum. Talis iam venerat ad coenandum; sed post panem introivit in eum, non ut adhuc alienum tentaret, sed ut proprium possideret
Origenes
Decebat enim, ut aestimo, propter panis exhibitionem auferri ab indigno bonum quod se habere credebat; quo privatus, factus est capax ingressus Satanae in ipsum
Augustinus in Ioannem
Dicunt autem aliqui: ita ne hoc meruit panis porrectus de mensa Christi, ut post illum intraret in discipulum Satanas? Quibus respondemus, hinc potius nos doceri quam sit cavendum male accipere bonum: si enim corripitur qui non diiudicat, hoc est non discernit a ceteris cibis domini corpus, quomodo damnatus qui ad eius mensam fingens se amicum, accedit inimicus? Sequitur et dicit ei Iesus: quod facis, fac citius
Origenes
Cui autem id ambiguum est quoniam potuit vel Iudae vel Satanae dominus dixisse quod facis, citius, provocans adversarium ad pugnam, vel proditorem ad subministrandum dispensationi quae erat futura salubris saeculo? Quam non amplius tardari nec protrahi, sed pro posse maturari volebat
Augustinus
Non tamen praecepit facinus, sed praedixit: non tam in perniciem perfidi saeviendo, quam ad salutem fidelium festinando
Chrysostomus
Hoc enim quod dicit quod facis, fac citius, non praecipientis est neque consiliantis, sed exprobrantis, et ostendentis quoniam ipse nolebat suam proditionem impedire. Sequitur hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. Multam utique quis hic dubitationem inveniet, si interrogantibus discipulis: quis est? Dixit: cui ego intingens panem dabo, et tamen non intellexerunt: nisi dicatur, quod latenter dixit, ut nullus audiret; et propterea supra pectus Ioannes residens interrogat, quasi ad aurem, ut non fieret proditor manifestus. Fortasse enim si Christus eum manifestum fecisset, Petrus utique eum interfecisset. Propterea dicit, quod nullus cognovit recumbentium, sed neque Ioannes: nequaquam enim putavit quod discipulus in tantum iniquitatis prodiret: quia enim procul a tali iniquitate erat, non de aliis hoc suspicabatur. Veram igitur causam eorum quae a Christo dicta sunt ignoraverunt. Quid autem aestimarent, ostendit Evangelista, cum subdit quidam putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum; aut ut egenis aliquid daret
Augustinus
Habebat ergo dominus loculos, et a fidelibus oblata conservans, et suorum necessitatibus, et aliis indigentibus tribuebat. Tunc primum ecclesiasticae pecuniae forma est instituta, ut intelligeremus, quod praecepit non cogitandum esse de crastino, non ad hoc esse praeceptum ut nihil pecuniae servetur a sanctis; sed ne Deo propter ista serviatur, et propter inopiae timorem iustitia deseratur
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Et nimirum nullus discipulorum pecunias afferebat; sed per hoc quod dicit hic, occulte insinuat quod quaedam mulieres eum de suis facultatibus nutriebant. Qui autem non peram, non virgam, non aes iubet deferre, loculos ferebat ad inopum ministerium; ut discas quoniam valde pauperem et mundo crucifixum, huius oportet partis multam facere procurationem; multa enim ad nostram dispensans doctrinam agebat
Origenes
Sic igitur Iudae salvator dicebat quod facis, fac citius; ac proditor in hoc tantum ad praesens obedivit magistro: accepto namque pane, nullam traxit moram; unde sequitur cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Et revera exiit, non solum recedendo de domo in qua tenebatur; sed omnino egressus est a Iesu. Ego autem opinor, quod post panem ingressus Satanas in Iudam, non tolerabat in eodem loco cum Iesu esse: nulla namque conformitas est Iesu ad Satanam. Non frustra autem requiram, quare super hoc quod est et accipiens panem, non adicitur: et manducans. Numquid igitur accepto pane non manducavit Iudas? Post panem enim forsan acceptum a Iuda, non esum, qui semel in cor eius immiserat ut magistrum prodat, timore ductus ne quod immissum fuerat evanesceret usu panis, quam cito panem Iudas recepit, introivit in eum, et statim domum excessit. Aliter quoque non inepte dicetur, quod sicut qui indigne manducat panem domini, aut bibit eius calicem, in praeiudicium sibi comedit atque bibit; sic panis Iesu datus aliis fuit ad salutem, Iudae in damnum, ut post panem intraret in eum Satanas
Chrysostomus
Subdit autem erat autem nox, ut discas Iudae temeritatem, quoniam neque tempus eum tenuit ab impetu
Origenes in Ioannem
Nox etiam sensibilis instar extitit obductae noctis in anima Iudae
Gregorius Moralium
A qualitate enim temporis, finis exprimitur actionis: dum non rediturus ad veniam, ad traditionis perfidiam nocte Iudas exisse perhibetur
13:31
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 17.
After the glory of His miracles, and His transfiguration, the next glorifying of the Son of man began, when Judas went out with Satan, who had entered into him; Therefore when he was gone out, Jems said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. For it is not the eternal only-begotten Word, but the glory of the Man born of the seed of David, which is here meant. Christ at His death, in which He glorified God, having spoiled principalities and powers, made a shew of them, openly triumphing over them. (Colos. 2:15) And again, Made peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things unto Himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colos. 1:20) Thus the Son of man was glorified, and God glorified in Him; for Christ cannot be glorified, except the Father be glorified with Him. But whoever is glorified, is glorified by some one. By whom then is the Son of man glorified? He tells you; If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 2.
i. e. by Himself, not by any other. And shall straightway glorify Him, i. e. not at any distant time, but immediately, while He is yet on the very cross shall His glory appear. For the sun was darkened, rocks were rent, and many bodies of those that slept arose. In this way He restores the drooping spirits of His disciples, and persuades them, instead of sorrowing, to rejoice.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxiii. 2
Or thus: The unclean went out: the clean remained with their cleanser. Thus will it be when the tares are separated from the wheat; The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matt. 13:43) Our Lord, foreseeing this, said, when Judas went out, as if the tares were now separated, and He left alone with the wheat, the holy Apostles, Now is the Son of man glorified; as if to say, Behold what will take place at My glorifying, at winch none of the wicked shall be present, none of the righteous shall perish. He does not say, Now is the glorifying of the Son of man signified; but, Now is the Son of man glorified; as it is not that rock signified Christ, but, That Rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:4) Scripture often speaks of the things signifying, as if they were the things signified. (c. 3). But the glorifying of the Son of man, is the glorifying of God in Him; as He adds, And God is glorified in Him, which He proceeds to explain; If God is glorified in Him—for He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him—God shall also glorify Him in Himself, so that the human nature which was assumed by the eternal Word, shall also be endowed with eternity. And shall straightway glorify Him. He predicts His own resurrection, which was to follow immediately, not at the end of the world, like ours. Thus it is; Now is the Son of man glorified; the now referring not to His approaching Passion, but the resurrection which was immediately to follow it: as if that which was so very soon to be, had already taken place.
St Hilary † AD 367 xi. de. Trin. c. 42
That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God’s glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shewn in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God is glorified in Him? The Son of man is not another Person from the Son of God, for, the Word was made flesh. (John 1:14) How is God glorified in this Son of man, who is the Son of God? The next clause helps us; If God is glorified in Him, God also will glorify Him in Himself. A man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God who is glorified in man, because He receives glory, cease to be God. So the words, God is glorified in Him, either mean that Christ is glorified in the flesh, or that God is glorified in Christ. If God means Christ, it is Christ who is glorified in the flesh; if the Father, then it is the Sacrament of unity, the Father glorified in the Son. Again, God glorifies in Himself God glorified in the Son of man. This overthrows the impious doctrine that Christ is not very God, in verity of nature. For how can that which God glorifies in Himself be out of Himself? He whom the Father glorifies must be confessed to be in His glory, and He who is glorified in the glory of the Father, must be understood to be in the same case with the Father.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 17.
Or thus: The word glory is here used in a different sense from that which some Pagans attach to it, who defined glory to be the collected praises of the many. It is evident that glory in such a sense is a different thing from that mentioned in Exodus, where it is said, that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle, (Exod. 40:34) and that the face of Moses was glorified. The glory here mentioned is something visible, a certain divine appearance in the temple, and on Moses’ face; but in a higher and more spiritual sense we are glorified, when with the eye of the understanding we penetrate into the things of God. For the mind when it ascends above material things, and spiritually sees God, is deified: and of this spiritual glory, the visible glory on the face of Moses is a figure: for his mind it was that was deified by converse with God. But there is no comparison between the excellent glory of Christ, and the knowledge of Moses, whereby the face of his soul was glorified: for the whole of the Father’s glory shines upon the Son, who is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person. (Heb. 1:3) (c. 18.). Yea, and from the light of this whole glory there go forth particular glories, throughout the whole rational creation: though none can take in the whole of the divine glory, except the Son. But so far as the Son was known to the world, so far only was He glorified. And as yet He was not fully known. But afterward the Father spread the knowledge of Him over the whole world, and then was the Son of man glorified in those who knew Him. And of this glory He hath made all who know Him partakers: as saith the Apostle; We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, (2 Cor. 3:18) i. e. from His glory receive glory. When He was approaching then that dispensation, by which He was to become known to the world, and to be glorified in the glory of those who glorified Him, He says, Now is the Son of man glorified. (Matt. 11:27) And because no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him, and the Son by the dispensation (ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας) was about to reveal the Father; for this reason He saith, And God is glorified in Him. Or compare this with the text below: He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father. (c. 14:9) The Father who begat the Word is seen in the Word, who is God, and the image of the invisible God. But the words may be taken in a larger sense. For as through some the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles, so through the saints whose good deeds are seen and acknowledged by the world, the name of the Father in heaven is magnified. But in whom was He so glorified as in Jesus, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth? Such being the Son, He is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. And if God is glorified in Him, the Father returns Him more than He gave. For the glory of the Son of man, when the Father glorifies Him, far exceeds the Father’s glory, when He is glorified in the Son: it being fit that the greater should return the greater glory. And as this, viz. the glorifying of the Son of man, was just about to be accomplished, our Lord adds, And will straightway glorify Him.
The Latin text
Origenes in Ioannem
Post evenientia ex prodigiis, nec non ex transfiguratione praeconia, initium glorificandi filii hominis fuit exitus Iudae a loco ubi morabatur Iesus, cum Satana, qui eum ingressus est; unde dicitur cum ergo exisset, dixit Iesus: nunc clarificatus est filius hominis. Non enim immortalis unigeniti verbi, sed hominis qui factus est ex semine David, gloria hic narratur. Si enim in morte Christi glorificantis Deum illud verum est: exuens principatus et potestates, traduxit confidenter triumphans in ligno, et illud: concilians per sanguinem crucis suae sive quae in terris sive quae in caelis sunt, in his omnibus glorificatus est filius hominis, Deo etiam glorificato in eo; unde sequitur et Deus clarificatus est in eo; quia non est Christum glorificari, nisi cum eo quoque glorificetur et pater. At quoniam quicumque glorificatur, ab aliquo glorificatur; si quaeras de eo quod clarificatus est filius hominis, a quo, respondens subdit si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Hoc est per seipsum, non per alium. Sequitur et continuo clarificabit eum: quasi dicat: non post longum tempus, sed confestim in ipsa cruce ea quae clara sunt apparebunt. Sol namque aversus est, petrae scissae sunt, multa corpora eorum qui dormierant surrexerunt. Hac autem via eas quae ceciderant, cogitationes discipulorum restituit, et suadet non solum non tristari, sed etiam laetari
Augustinus in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Exeunte immundo, omnes mundi cum suo mundatore manserunt. Tale aliquid erit cum zizaniis a tritico separatis, iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno patris sui. Hoc futurum praevidens dominus discedente Iuda, tamquam zizaniis separatis, remanentibus tamquam tritico apostolis sanctis, dixit nunc clarificatus est filius hominis: tamquam diceret: ecce in illa mea clarificatione quid erit, ubi malorum nullus erit, ubi bonorum nullus perit. Sic autem non est dictum: nunc significata est clarificatio filii hominis; sed nunc clarificatus est filius hominis: sicut non est dictum: petra significat Christum; sed petra erat Christus. Solet enim loqui Scriptura, res significantes, tamquam illa quae significantur appellans. Est autem clarificatio filii hominis, ut Deus clarificetur in eo; unde adiungit et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Denique tamquam ista exponens, adiungit et dicit si filius clarificatus est in eo, quia non venit facere voluntatem suam, sed voluntatem eius qui eum misit et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso, ut natura humana, quae ab aeterno verbo suscepta est, etiam immortali aeternitati donetur. Sequitur et continuo clarificabit eum; resurrectionem scilicet suam, non sicut nostram in fine saeculi, sed continuo futuram, hac attestatione praedicens. Potest et de ista clarificatione dictum videri nunc clarificatus est filius hominis; ut quod ait nunc, non ad imminentem passionem, sed ad vicinam resurrectionem pertinere credatur; tamquam fuerit factum quod erat tam proxime iam futurum
Hilarius de Trin
Quod autem Deus in eo glorificatus est, ad corporis gloriam spectat, per quam Dei intellecta est gloria, quasi corpus ex naturae divinae consociatione gloriam mutuaret. Quod vero quia glorificatus in eo Deus est, ideo glorificavit eum in se, ut qui regnat in gloria quae ex Dei gloria est, ipse exinde in Dei gloriam transeat, toto iam in Deo ex ea qua homo est dispensatione mansuro. Nec sane de tempore tacuit, dicens et continuo clarificabit eum: ut quia prodeunte ad proditionem Iuda, gloriam quae sibi post passionem, consecuta resurrectione, futura esset, significasset in praesens, eam qua in se Deus eum clarificaturus esset, in posterum reservaret, Dei in eo gloria per virtutem resurrectionis ostensa; ipso vero in Dei gloria ex subiectionis dispensatione mansuro
Hilarius de Trin
Primam autem significationem huius dicti non ambiguam existimo, cum ait nunc clarificatus est filius hominis: gloria enim non verbo, sed carni acquirebatur. Hoc vero quod sequitur, et Deus clarificatus est in eo, quid significet interrogo; et cum non alius sit filius hominis, neque alius filius Dei: verbum enim caro factum est, requiro quis in hoc filio hominis, qui et filius Dei est, glorificatus sit Deus. Et videamus quid sit hoc quod tertio dicitur si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso. Homo utique non per se glorificatur, neque rursum qui in homine glorificatur Deus, licet gloriam accipiat, non tamen aliud ipse quam Deus est. Utique aut Christum necesse est esse qui glorificatur in carne, aut patrem qui glorificatur in Christo. Si Christus est Deus, certe Christus est qui glorificatur in carne: si pater, sacramentum est unitatis, cum pater glorificatur in filio. De eo vero quod glorificatum in filio hominis Deum Deus glorificat in seipso, in quo relicta facultas exerendae impietatis existimatur, ne secundum naturae veritatem verus Deus Christus sit? Numquid enim extra se est quod glorificat in seipso? Quem enim in seipso pater glorificat, in eius gloria confitendus est; et qui in patris gloria glorificandus est, in his intelligendus est esse in quibus est pater
Origenes in Ioannem
Vel aliter. Nomen gloriae non hic accipitur iuxta quosdam Paganorum, qui definiunt gloriam esse a pluribus collata praeconia. Palam est enim quod hoc aliud est ab eo quod in Exodo dicitur, quod gloria Dei repletum est tabernaculum, et quod aspectus Moysi glorificatus erat: quantum enim ad corporalia divinior quaedam apparitio contigit in tabernaculo, necnon in facie Moysi cum Deo locuti; quantum ad anagogiam vero gloria Dei dicitur esse quae apparuit: quoniam deificatus ac transcendens cuncta materialia intellectus, ut scrutetur divinam visionem in his quae cernit, deificatur: ut hoc sit tropice quod glorificata est facies Moysi, eo facto divino secundum intellectum. Nulla autem comparatio fuit excellentiae Christi ad cognitionem Moysi glorificantem faciem animae eius: totius enim divinae gloriae fulgorem esse filium aestimo, dicente Paulo: qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius; quinimmo proveniunt ab hac totius gloriae luce singulares splendores ad totam rationalem creaturam: non enim arbitror quempiam totum posse capere totius divinae gloriae fulgorem, nisi filium eius. Inquantum igitur non erat notus filius mundo, nondum in mundo glorificatus erat; cum autem pater aliquibus de mundo existentibus tradidit Iesu notitiam, tunc glorificatus est filius hominis in his qui cognoverunt eum; et hoc dedit gloriam cognoscentibus: nam qui libera facie divinam gloriam intuentur, secundum eamdem transfigurantur imaginem a gloria glorificati in glorificantium gloriam. Cum igitur appropinquavit ad eam dispensationem, qua mundo notus debebat gloriam promereri in gloria glorificantium ipsum, ait nunc clarificatus est filius hominis. Et quia nullus novit patrem nisi filius, et cui revelaverit filius, debebat autem ex dispensatione depromere patrem filius, ob hoc etiam Deus glorificatus in illo dignoscitur. Vel hoc quod est et Deus clarificatus est in eo, cum illo perscrutaberis: qui me videt, et patrem meum videt: nam videbitur in verbo, cum Deus existat, et imago invisibilis Dei, qui genuit eum pater. Amplius autem sic quoque clarius quae sunt in hoc loco capientur. Velut enim per quosdam nomen Dei blasphematur in gentibus, sic per sanctos, quorum bona gesta coram hominibus plenissime discernuntur, celsi patris nomen extollitur. In quo vero adeo glorificatus est, ut in Iesu, dum peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus est in ore eius? Cum ergo talis est filius, glorificatus est, et Deus glorificatus est in eo. At si Deus in eo glorificatus est, recompensat ei pater maius illo quod filius hominis exercuit. Longe enim superstans est gloria in filio hominis cum glorificat eum pater, quam in patre cum in illo glorificatus est: et decebat praepotentem maiorem rependere gloriam. Deinceps quoniam statim haec erant futura (dico autem filium hominis in Deo glorificari), ob hoc subiecit et continuo glorificabit eum
13:33
St Augustine † AD 430
After He had said, And shall straightway glorify Him, that they might not think that God was going to glorify Him in such a way, as that He would no longer have any converse with them on earth, He says, Little children, yet a little while I am with you: as if He said, I shall indeed straightway be glorified by My resurrection, but I shall not straightway ascend to heaven. For we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that He was with them forty days after His resurrection. These forty days are what He means by, A little while I am with you.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 19.
Little children, He says; for their souls were yet in infancy. But these little children, after His death, were made brethren; as before they were little children, they were servants.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxiv. 1
It may be understood too thus: I am as yet in this frail flesh, even as ye are, until I die and rise again. He was with them after His resurrection, by bodily presence, not by participation of human frailty. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, (Luke 24:44) He says to His disciples after His resurrection; meaning, while I was in mortal flesh, as ye are. He was in the same flesh then with them, but not subject to the same mortality. But there is another Divine Presence unknown to mortal senses, of which He saith, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Mat. 28:20) This is not the presence meant by, A little while I am with you; for it is not a little while to the end of the world: or even if it is a little while, because that in the eye of God, a thousand years are as one day, yet what follows shews that it is not what our Lord is here alluding to; for He adds, Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now. At the end of the world they were to follow Him, whither He went; as He saith below; Father, I will that they be with Me, where I am. (c. 17:24)
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 19.
But may there not be a deeper meaning in the words, yet a little while &c. After a little while He was not with them. In what sense not with them? Not because He was not with them according to the flesh, in that He was taken from them, was brought before Pilate, was crucified, descended into hell: but because they all forsook Him, fulfilling His prophecy: All ye shall be offended because of Me this night. He was not with them, because He only dwells with those who are worthy of Him. But though they thus wandered from Jesus for a little while, it was only for a little while; they soon sought Him again. Peter wept bitterly after his denial of Jesus, and by his tears sought Him: and therefore it follows, Ye shall seek Me, and as I said unto the Jews, whither I go, ye cannot follow Me now. To seek Jesus, is to seek the Word, wisdom, righteousness, truth, all which is Christ. To His disciples therefore who wish to follow Him, not in a bodily sense, as the ignorant think, but in the way He ordains, Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after Me, cannot be My disciple. Our Lord saith, Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now. For though they wished to follow the Word, and to confess Him, they were not yet strong enough to do so; The Spirit was not yet given to them, because that Jesus was not yet glorified. (supra c. 7)
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxiv. 4
Or He means that they were not yet fit to follow Him to death for righteousness’ sake. For how could they, when they were not ripe for martyrdom? Or how could they follow our Lord to immortality, they who were to die, and not to rise again till the end of the world? Or how could they follow Him to the bosom of the Father, when none could partake of that felicity, but they whose love was perfected? When He told the Jews this, He did not add now. But the disciples, though they could not follow Him then, would be able to do so afterwards, and therefore He addsc, So now I say to you.
Origen † AD 253 t. xxxii. 19.
As if He said, I say it to you, but with the addition of now. The Jews, who He foresaw would die in their sins, would never be able to follow Him; but the disciples were unable only for a little time.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 3
And therefore He said, little children; for He did not mean to speak to them, as He had to the Jews. Ye cannot follow Me now, He says, in order to rouse the love of His disciples. For the departure of loved friends kindles all our affection, and especially if they are going to a place where we cannot follow them. He purposely too speaks of His death, as a kind of translation, a happy removal to a place, where mortal bodies do not enter.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxv. 1
And now He teaches them how to fit themselves to follow Him: A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. (Levit. 19:18) But does not the old law say, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? Why then does He call it a new commandment? Is it because it strips us of the old man, and puts on us the new? That it renews the hearer, or rather the doer of it? Love does do this; but it is that love which our Lord distinguishes from the carnal affection: As I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Not the love with which men love one another, but that of the children of the Most High God, who would be brethren of His only-begotten Son, and therefore love one another with that love with which He loved them, and would lead them to the fulfilment of their desires.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 3
Or, as I have loved you: for My love has not been the payment of something owing to you, but had its beginning on My side. And ye ought in like manner to do one another good, though ye may not owe it.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxiv. 2
But do not think that that greater commandment, viz. that we should love the Lord our God, is passed by. For, if we understand the two precepts aright, each is implied in the other. He who loves God cannot despise His commandment that he should love his neighbour; and he who loves his neighbour in a heavenly spiritual way, in the neighbour loves God. That is the love which our Lord distinguishes from all human love, when He adds, As I have loved you. For what did He, in loving us, love, but God in us; not who was in us, but so that He might be? Wherefore let each of us so love the other, as that by this working of love, we make each other the habitations of God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 4
Passing over the miracles, which they were to perform, He makes love the distinguishing mark of His followers; By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another. This it is that evidences the saint or the disciple, as He calls him.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxv. 3
if He said, Other gifts are shared with you by those who are not mine; birth, life, sense, reason, and such good things as belong alike to man and brutes; nay, and tongues, sacraments, prophecy, knowledge, faith, bestowing of goods upon the poor, giving the body to be burned: but forasmuch as they have not charity, they are tinkling cymbals, they are nothing: nothing profits them.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum dixisset superius: et continuo clarificabit eum, ne putarent quod sic eum clarificaturus esset Deus ut non eis coniungeretur ulterius ea conversatione quae in terra est, adiecit, atque ait filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum; tamquam diceret: continuo quidem resurrectione clarificabor, non tamen continuo ascensurus in coelum. Sicut enim scriptum est in actibus apostolorum, fuit cum eis post resurrectionem quadraginta dies. Hos igitur quadraginta dies significavit dicendo adhuc modicum vobiscum sum
Origenes in Ioannem
Per hoc autem quod dicit filioli, ostendit adhuc imminentem animabus eorum parvitatem. Hi autem quibus nunc dicit filioli, post resurrectionem fiunt fratres: sicut et antequam essent filioli, fuerunt servi
Augustinus
Potest etiam et sic intelligi: adhuc sicut vos in hac infirmitate carnis etiam ipse sum, donec scilicet moreretur atque resurgeret. Cum illis quidem fuit postquam resurrexit, exhibitione praesentiae corporalis; sed non cum illis fuit consortio infirmitatis humanae. Apud alium enim Evangelistam post resurrectionem ait: haec locutus sum vobis, dum adhuc essem vobiscum; idest, in carne mortali cum essem sicut et vos. Tunc enim in eadem quidem carne erat, sed cum illis in eadem mortalitate iam non erat. Est et alia divina praesentia sensibus ignota mortalibus, de qua idem dicit: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Hoc non est adhuc modicum sum vobiscum: non enim modicum est usque ad consummationem saeculi; aut si et hoc modicum est, quia in oculis Dei mille anni sunt dies unus, non tamen hoc significare voluisse credendus est nunc, quando secutus adiunxit quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire. Numquid enim post consummationem saeculi, quo ipse vadit, venire non poterant? De quibus postea dicturus est: pater, volo ut ubi ego sum, et ipsi sint mecum
Origenes in Ioannem
Intrinsecus autem sciscitaberis, an post multum non fuit cum eis: non ideo quod non aderat illis secundum carnem; sed eo modico consummato, vos scandalizabimini in me in ista nocte, et sic non erit cum eis qui cum dignis tantummodo conversatur. Sed si cum eis non erat, nihilominus ipsi quaesituri erant Iesum; velut Petrus post negationem graviter plorabat quaerens puto Iesum; et ideo sequitur quaeritis me, et, sicut dixi Iudaeis, quo ego vado vos non potestis venire. Quaerere Iesum, est verbum quaerere, sapientiam, iustitiam, veritatem, divinam virtutem, quae omnia Christus est. Volentibus ergo discipulis sequi Iesum: non quippe velut rudiores arbitrantur corporaliter, sed ut significat illud: qui non tollit crucem suam et sequitur me, non potest meus esse discipulus, ait nunc dominus quo ego vado vos non potestis venire; nam etsi vellent sequi verbum et illud confiteri, tamen nondum erant validi circa hoc: cum nondum esset spiritus datus, eo quod Iesus non erat glorificatus
Augustinus
Vel hoc dicit, quia adhuc minus idonei erant sequi moriturum dominum pro iustitia: quomodo enim iam fuerant secuturi martyrio non maturi? Aut iturum dominum ad immortalitatem carnis, quomodo iam fuerant secuturi, non quandolibet morituri, sed in fine saeculi resurrecturi? Aut iturum dominum ad sinum patris quomodo iam erant secuturi, cum esse nemo possit in illa felicitate nisi perfectus in caritate? Iudaeis autem cum hoc diceret, non addidit modo. Ipsi autem non poterant venire tunc quo ille ibat, sed poterant postea; et ideo subdit et vobis dico: modo
Origenes
Quasi dicat: et vobis dico non absque additione huius adverbii modo. Iudaei namque, quos praevidebat in suis facinoribus morituros, in brevi tempore non valebant pergere quo Iesus ibat: sed discipuli post breve tempus poterant sequi verbum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Ne autem audientes discipuli: sicut dixi Iudaeis, aestiment similiter et in eos dictum esse, adiecit filioli
Origenes in Ioannem
Quod est exprimentis imminentem adhuc animae discipulorum modicitatem. Fiunt autem post resurrectionem hi quibus dixit filioli, fratres; sicut et prius servi fuerant antequam essent filioli
Chrysostomus
Hoc autem dicit eum qui in seipsum est, erigens discipulorum amorem. Cum enim viderimus aliquos dilectissimorum discedentes, exardescimus, et maxime cum viderimus eos in locum abeuntes in quem non est possibile nobis abire. Simul etiam ostendit quoniam mors eius quaedam translatio est et transpositio melior ad loca mortalia corpora non suscipientia
Augustinus in Ioannem
Docens autem quomodo idonei esse possint pergere quo ille antecedebat, subiungit mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem. Nonne iam hoc erat mandatum in antiqua lege Dei, ubi scriptum est: diliges proximum tuum tamquam teipsum? Cur ergo novum mandatum appellatur a domino? An quia exuto vetere induit nos hominem novum? Innovat quippe audientem, vel potius obedientem, non omnis, sed ista dilectio, quam dominus, ut a carnali dilectione distingueret, addidit sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem: non sicut se diligunt qui corrumpunt, nec sicut se diligunt homines, quia homines sunt; sed sicut se diligunt qui Dei sunt et filii altissimi omnes, ut sint filio eius unico fratres, ea dilectione invicem diligentes qua ipse dilexit eos, perducturus eos ad illum finem ubi satiabitur in bonis desiderium eorum
Chrysostomus
Vel dicit sicut dilexi vos: non enim praeexistentibus vestris iustitiis debitum vobis reddidi, sed ipse incepi: ita et vos benefacere oportet, etiam nihil debentes
Augustinus
Noli autem putare illud maius praetermissum esse mandatum, quo praecipitur ut diligamus dominum Deum nostrum; sed bene intelligentibus utrumque invenitur in singulis: nam et qui diligit Deum, non eum potest contemnere praecipientem ut diligat proximum; et qui superne ac spiritualiter diligit proximum, quid in eo diligit nisi Deum? Ipsa est dilectio, quam ab omni mundana dilectione distinguendo addidit dominus sicut dilexi vos. Quid enim nisi Deum dilexit in nobis, non quem habebamus, sed ut haberemus? Sic ergo et nos invicem diligamus, ut quantum possumus, invicem ad habendum in nobis Deum cura dilectionis attrahamus
Chrysostomus
Praetermittens autem miracula quae erant facturi, ab amore eos designat, subdens in hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei estis discipuli, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem: hoc enim est quod maxime homines sanctos ostendit; hos enim dicit esse discipulos
Augustinus
Tamquam diceret: alia munera mea habent vobiscum etiam non mei, non solum naturam, vitam, sensum, rationem, et eam salutem quae hominibus pecoribusque communis est; verum etiam linguam, sacramenta, prophetiam, scientiam, fidem, distributionem rerum suarum pauperibus, et traditionem corporis sui, ut ardeant; sed quoniam caritatem non habent, ut cymbala concrepant, nihil sunt, nihil eis prodest
13:36
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxiii. 3
Great is love, and stronger than fire; nothing can stop its course. Peter the most ardent of all, as soon as he hears our Lord say, Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now, asks, Lord, whither goest Thou?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxvi. 1
The disciple asks this, as if he were ready to follow. But our Lord saw his heart; Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now; He checks his forwardness, but does not destroy his hope; nay, confirms it; But thou shalt follow Me afterwards. Why hastenest thou, Peter? The Rock has not yet established thee with His spirit. Be not lifted up with presumptions, thou canst not now; be not cast down with despair, thou shalt follow Me afterwards.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxii. 1
Peter, on receiving this answer, does not check his desire, but hastily conceives favourable hopes from it, and having got rid of the fear of betraying our Lord, feels secure, and becomes himself the interrogator, while the rest are silent: Peter said unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. What sayest thou, Peter? He hath said, thou canst not, and thou sayest, thou canst: wherefore thou shalt know by experience, that thy love is nothing, unless thou art enabled from above: Jesus answered him, Will thou lay down thy life for My sake?
St Bede † AD 735
Which sentence may be read in two ways: either as affirming, thou shalt lay down thy life for My sake, but now through fear of the death of the body, thou shalt incur spiritual death: or as mocking; as if He said,
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxvi. 1
Wilt thou do that for Me, which I have not done yet for thee? Canst thou go before, who canst not come after? Why presumest thou so? Hear what thou art: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice. Thou who promisest Me thy death, shall thrice deny thy life. Peter knew his great desire, his strength he knew not: he boasted of his will, while he was yet weak; but the Physician saw his weakness. (c. 2.). Some who perversely favour Peter, excuse him, and say that he did not deny Christ, because when asked by the servant maid, he said he did not know Him, as the other Evangelists witness more expressly. As if to deny the man Christ, was not to deny Christ; yea, that in Christ, which He was made for our sakes, that that which He made us, might not perish. By what is He the Head of the Church, but by His humanity? And how then is he in the body of Christ, who denies the man Christ? But why do I argue so long? Our Lord does not say, The cock shall not crow till thou deniest man, or the Son of man, but till thou deniest Me. What is Me, but that which He was? So then whatever Peter denied, he denied Christ: it is impious to doubt it. Christ said so, and Christ said true: beyond a doubt, Peter denied Christ. Let us not, to defend Peter, accuse Christ. The frailty of Peter himself, acknowledged its sin, when he witnessed by his tears the evil he had done in denying Christ. Nor do we say this, because we have pleasure in blaming the first of the Apostles; but that we may take warning from him, not to be confident of our own strength.
St Bede † AD 735
Nevertheless, should any one fall, let the example of Peter save him from despair, and teach him that he can without delay obtain pardon from God.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxiii. 1
It is manifest that our Lord permitted Peter’s fall. He might have recalled him to begin with, but as he persisted in his vehemence, though He did not drive him to a denial, He let him go without assistance, that He might learn his own weakness, and not fall into such sin again, when the superintendence of the world had come to him, but that remembering what had happened to himd, he might know himself.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. lxvi. 2
That took place in the soul of Peter, which he offered in the body; though differently from what he meant. For before the death and resurrection of our Lord, he both died by his denial, and lived again by his tears.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Evang. iii. c. 2. [5.]
This speech, The cock shall not crow, occurs in all the Evangelists, but not at the same time in all. Matthew and Mark introduce it after they have left the house, in which they were eating; Luke and John before. We may suppose either that the two former are recurring to what had passed, or the two latter anticipating what is coming. Or the great difference not only of the words, but of the subjects which precede the speech, and which excite Peter to the presumption of offering to die, for or with our Lord, may lead us to conclude that he made this offer three times, and that our Lord three times replied, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Magnus amor, et ipso igne vehementior; et nulla est prohibitio quae eius promptum impetum detinere possit. Ardentissimus itaque Petrus audiens: quo ego vado vos non potestis venire, eum interrogavit; unde sequitur dicit ei Simon Petrus: domine, quo vadis?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sic utique hoc dixit magistro discipulus tamquam sequi paratus: propterea dominus, qui eius animum vidit, sic ei respondit; nam sequitur respondit ei Iesus: quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi. Dilationem intulit, non spem abstulit, sed eam sequenti voce firmavit, dicens sequeris autem postea. Quid festinas, Petre? Nondum te suo spiritu solidaverat petra: noli extolli praesumendo, non potes modo: noli deici desperando; sequeris enim postea
Chrysostomus
Audiens autem hoc Petrus, neque ita desiderium detinuit, sed benignam spem accipiens properat: et quia timorem excussit proditionis, cum securitate per seipsum de reliquo interrogat, aliis silentibus; unde sequitur dicit ei Petrus: quare non possum te modo sequi? Animam meam pro te ponam. Quid dicis, Petre? Dixi quoniam non potes, et tu dicis quoniam possum; quocirca scies per experientiam quoniam nihil est tuus amor, nisi praesente superna liberatione; unde sequitur respondit Iesus: animam tuam pro me pones?
Beda
Quae sententia duobus modis potest pronuntiari: uno modo affirmando, ac si dicat: animam tuam pro me pones; sed nunc timendo mortem carnis, animae mortem incurres; alio modo insultando, quasi diceret
Augustinus
Ita ne facies pro me, quod nondum ego pro te? Praeire potes, qui sequi non potes? Quid tantum praesumis? Audi quis sis: amen, amen, dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges. Qui mihi promittis mortem tuam, ter negabis vitam tuam. Quid in animo eius esset cupiditatis videbat, quid virium non videbat: voluntatem suam iactabat infirmus; sed inspiciebat valetudinem medicus. An apostolus Petrus, sicuti cum favore perverso excusare quidam nituntur, Christum non negavit, quia interrogatus ab ancilla hominem se nescire respondit, sicut alii Evangelistae testantur expressius? Quasi qui hominem Christum negat, non Christum neget; et hoc in eo neget quod factus est propter nos, ne periret quod fecerat nos. Per quid autem caput est Ecclesiae, nisi per hominem? Quomodo est igitur in corpore Christi qui negat hominem Christum? Sed quid multis immorer? Non enim dominus ait non cantabit gallus, donec hominem aut filium hominis neges; sed donec me neges. Quid est me, nisi quod erat? Quicquid eius negavit, Christum negavit. Siquidem dubitare nefas est. Christus hoc dixit, verumque praedixit; proculdubio Petrus Christum negavit. Non accusemus Christum, cum defendimus Petrum. Agnovit plane peccatum suum infirmitas Petri. Et quantum mali Christum negando commiserit, plorando monstravit. Neque nos cum ita dicimus, primum apostolorum accusare delectat; sed hunc intuendo admoneri nos oportet, ne homo quisquam de humanis viribus fidat
Beda
Resipiscendi nihilominus unusquisque, si in lapsum corruerit, exemplum capiat ne desperet, sed incunctanter veniam se posse promereri credat
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Unde manifestum est quoniam et casum Petri dominus concessit: nam poterat quidem et a principio revocare; sed quia permanebat in vehementia, ipse quidem non impulit ad negationem, sed dimisit desertum, ut discat propriam imbecillitatem, et ut post haec talia non patiatur, cum orbis terrarum dispensationem susceperit; sed reminiscens eorum quae passus est, cognoscat seipsum
Augustinus
In anima itaque contigit Petri quod offerebat in corpore; sed aliter quam putabat: nam ante mortem et resurrectionem domini, et mortuus est negando et revixit plorando
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc autem de praedicta negatione sua Petro non solum Ioannes, sed et ceteri tres commemorant; non sane omnes ex una eademque occasione sermonis ad eam commemorandam veniunt: nam Matthaeus et Marcus eam subnectunt postquam dominus egressus est ex illa domo ubi manducaverat Pascha; Lucas vero et Ioannes antequam inde esset egressus. Sed facile possumus intelligere, aut illos duos eam recapitulando posuisse, aut istis praeoccupando; nisi magis moveret quod tam diversa non tantum verba, sed etiam sententias domini praemittunt, quibus permotus Petrus illam praesumptionem proferret pro domino vel cum domino moriendi, ut magis cogant intelligi ter eum expressisse praesumptionem suam diversis locis sermonis Christi, et ter illi a domino responsum, quod eum esset ante galli cantum ter negaturus
13:1
Ver. 1. Before the Feast of the Passover. About the thirteenth day of the first month; the Passover, say the Greeks, having to be celebrated by the Law of the Jews on the fourteenth day. For they make out from these very words of John that Christ, on account of the approach of His Passion, anticipated the Pasch, celebrating it on the thirteenth day, and therefore ate the lamb with leavened and not with unleavened bread. For the use of unleavened bread began with the Passover on the fourteenth day. For this reason they say that Christ consecrated the Eucharist with leavened bread, and they therefore consecrate and celebrate in leavened and not unleavened bread. But this is opposed to the other Evangelists, who assert that Christ celebrated the Pasch and instituted the Eucharist on the first day of unleavened bread on which day the Jews used to sacrifice the Paschal Lamb the fourteenth day of the month, for thus the Law prescribes in Exodus xii. As for what John says, that Christ did it on the day before the feast of the Passover, this must be understood to mean His having done it on the fourteenth day, in the evening preceding the feast, preceding the first day of unleavened bread, which was the fifteenth day, the morning of the Friday on which Christ was crucified. And in favour of this view, it is to be observed that, though the sacrifice of the lamb took place on the fourteenth day, in the evening, still the feast of the first day of unleavened bread properly began on the morning of the fifteenth. It is in this sense that John says Christ celebrated the Pasch on the day before the Feast of the Pasch, because He celebrated it in the evening of the fourteenth day. But the other three Evangelists, because they couple the evening of the fourteenth day with the morning of the fifteenth, as being one and the same feast (for feasts were begun by the Hebrews on the evening of the day before, and lasted until the evening of the succeeding day, as is still the practice in the Vespers of the Ecclesiastical Office), for this reason say that Christ celebrated the Passover and the Eucharist on the first day of unleavened bread, the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, this being the beginning of the festival, and belonging to both the fourteenth and fifteenth days. So that if we take it as being the end of the fourteenth day, it must be considered as being before the first day of unleavened bread. But if we take it in the beginning of the feast to be held on the next day, then in this sense it belonged to, and was called, the fifteenth day or the first day of unleavened bread, as the other three Evangelists call it.
Jesus, knowing that the hour was come for Him (by His Cross and death) to pass from this world to the Father. This is an allusion to the name Passover, a passing, or rather a leaping over. Jesus, knowing that it was now the Feast of the Passover, when the Hebrews of old, led by Moses, went out of Egypt and passed into the promised land by the immolation of the lamb (for it was by the blood of this lamb that they were delivered from the angel when he smote the Egyptians), the type of His Immolation, which was about to be accomplished on the Cross, and by which He was about to pass from this world into heaven and return to His Father on the day of His Ascension, that so He might cause us also to pass thither, and leap after death from the world into heaven, knowing this, He prepared Himself for this day by heroic acts of the supremest humility inasmuch as He washed the feet of His disciples and of the sublimest love inasmuch as He instituted the Eucharist. By these acts He prepared for death and martyrdom that He might teach us to do likewise, to multiply and intensify towards the end of our lives our virtuous actions, especially our acts of humility and charity. And this, first, because it becomes us to grow and advance in virtue daily, with the advance of our lives, to pass the latest day and hour of life in the holiest manner, and to be already beginning the heavenly life, thought, and habits to which we aspire. Secondly, because it is right that when we go out of this world we should leave our brethren, our associates, our friends, and all men a great example of virtue, for the things which we do when going away from them, or dying, make a more lasting impression on the minds of our friends. Thirdly, because it is fitting that we should be prepared in this manner for a generous death, in some cases for martyrdom, and, as it were, earn it from God. Thus S. Laurence, two days before his martyrdom, prepared himself for it by washing the feet of the poor and distributing to them the treasures of the Church, and this was for him the occasion even the meritorious cause of so glorious a martyrdom. So too SS. Cyriacus, Largus, Smaragdus, and Sisinnius the Deacons, ministering to the ten thousand Christian soldiers condemned by Diocietian to labour in the construction of his baths, carrying on their shoulders the burdens of old men, and distributing the alms supplied to them by S. Marcellus the Pope and Thraso, obtained as their reward the glorious laurels of martyrdom, as appears from the record of their acts in Surius. Moreover, faithful and pious souls pass from this world in one way those without faith in another. For, as S. Augustine says (Tract 55), "It is one thing to pass from the world, another to pass with it; one thing to pass to a Father, another thing to a foe. For the Egyptians too passed over... yet did they not pass through the sea to the kingdom, but to destruction in the sea."
Having loved His own (the faithful ones of His household, the Apostles whose feet He soon after washed) who were in the world. Cyril thinks that this is added for the sake of distinguishing them from the angels who are in heaven; but S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius consider it as marking the distinction of the patriarchs and prophets who were not now in the world but in Limbo, as having passed away from this life. The connection is more appropriate with the preceding " for Him to bass from this world." Being about to leave the Apostles, His most dear children, in the world, and in its troubles, perils, and persecutions, so numerous and so great, Jesus, taking pity on them, gave them, before He went, the highest token of His love towards them, and furnished them, in the Eucharist, with the supreme remedy for all the tribulations of the world, that in it He might always be present to them to fortify and strengthen them against all that might be opposed to their salvation
He loved them to the end. To the end of life, unto death, say S. Cyril, S. Augustine, and Rupert; or, as S. Chrysostom (Hom. 69) explains it, always. Whence Nonnus says, "Having loved His own from the beginning, so also He loved them to the end." Secondly, to the end of His love He loved them with a supreme love, the Greek τέλος, end, being put for τελείωσις, perfection, as S. Chrysostom, Leontius, and Theophylact explain. Euthymius too interprets "to the end" as vehemently, for τέλος; is the end, the last, the sum of a thing, its highest perfection, its issue, completion, and crowning point. Christ had hitherto loved His disciples exceedingly, but now, being about to pass away to the Father, He manifested to them His most perfect love by washing their feet, by instituting the Eucharist, by exhorting them with the most ardent charity, and by rousing them to the love of God, to constancy, and to all virtue. Of these two meanings the former is the plainer and simpler, and, therefore, that which Christ first intended; the latter, however, is, the more full of meaning, and therefore Christ had it in view at the same time. So says Toletus. For He (Christ) gives it to be understood that His love to His disciples was so great that, though He knew a fearful and instant death to be awaiting Him, yet, as though forgetful of this, He poured forth His whole being in the love and service of His disciples. Wherefore S. Thomas (Opusc. 57) says, "Wherefore, that the vastness of this charity might be the more deeply impressed upon the hearts of the faithful in the Last Supper, when, after celebrating the Pasch with His disciples, He was about to pass from this world to the Father, He instituted this sacrament as an everlasting memorial of His Passion, the fulfilment of ancient types, the greatest of the miracles wrought by Him, and the peculiar solace for their grief at His absence." S. Augustine and Bede understand Christ by the end, symbolically. For Christ is "the end of the Law" (Rom 10:4); He loved His own, therefore, to the end, that is, on account of Himself, or by communicating to them His own glory. The Interlinear says that He loved His own unto the end, that is, by dying for them, that they by His love might pass from the world.
And s upper being over, when Satan had put it into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot, to betray Him. After the legal supper and the common supper too, before the Sacred Supper the institution of the Eucharist Christ washed the feet of His disciples; for by this washing He wished to show with how great purity and humility we ought to approach the Eucharist. Observe that Christ partook of a triple supper with His disciples, the ceremonial, the ordinary supper, and the Supper of the Eucharist. In families of ample means, the lamb being insufficient to satisfy the hunger of so many persons, there usually followed the ordinary supper, at which they ate other kinds of meat. And so Christ washed the feet of the Apostles after the two former suppers and before the third. And hence it is clear this washing of feet was not merely the ordinary usage of the Jews according to which they were accustomed to wash the feet of their guests, but a sacramental ablution, by which Christ was preparing His disciples for the reception of the Eucharist, converting the ordinary usage into a sacred ceremony. So that they are in error who gather from this passage that Christ washed the feet of His disciples after the Eucharistic Supper and before the lengthy discourse which He then made them, and which is subjoined by John. Of this number is S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the "Treatise on the Washing of Feet." "The Lord," he says, "had now distributed to the Apostles the Sacrament of His Body; Judas had now gone out; when, rising from the table, He girt Himself with a towel, and at the knees of Peter the Lord Himself, on bended knee, about to wash the feet of His servant, discharged towards him an office of consummate humility."
13:2
When the devil. The betrayal of Christ by Judas being now at hand the result of a diabolical prompting and His murder by the Jews, He wished first to leave us in the Eucharist a perpetual memorial of Himself, by means of which He would also recall to our minds His Passion and Death endured for us, and so incite us to a reciprocal love of Him. Again, John mentions the treachery of Judas in order to increase our appreciation of Christ's humility, patience, and loving-kindness. For, knowing that He had been sold for money, and was soon to be betrayed by Judas, He nevertheless was so persistent in the love of His Disciples that He wished to wash their feet, even the feet of Judas. So say S. Cyril, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Rupert. The Evangelist tells us that the devil put this treachery into the heart of Judas; by which he wishes to imply that its atrocity was such that it could only have been the work of the devil. Ver. 3. Knowing that the Father gave all things into His hands, and that He came forth from God and went to God. That is, first, though Christ knew Himself to be such, and so great as to have all things in His power, and indeed to be Very God of Very God, and that, as He had come forth from, so he was about to return to, and sit down at the right hand of God, yet He humbled Himself so far as to kneel down and wash the feet of His disciples and of Judas His betrayer. So Cyril, Augustine, Bede, and S. Gregory (Morals, Book iii., chap. 12). Maldonatus adds that Christ knew that all things were given Him by the Father, that is, that it was now permitted Him by the Father's ordinance to complete all the things that were given Him to do; that hitherto He had not been permitted to die, because the time appointed by the Father had not yet come, but that now that time had come when it was permitted Him to do all that belonged to the redemption of man. Again, John here assigns three very fitting and efficacious motives which impelled Christ to wash the feet of His disciples. The first is, that " the Father gave all things into His hands;" that is, because the Father intrusted to Him the salvation of mankind, and committed their whole care to Him; for this trust incited Him to leave to mankind before His departure these stupendous examples of humility and charity. As for what is meant by the Father's making over all things to Christ, see the remarks on Mat 11:27. The second motive was that " He came forth from God." It was fitting that Christ the Son should by this washing of feet manifest His supreme love and reverence towards God the Father. For by nothing is God more honoured and gratified than by our humility; so that humility is the highest praise of God. And the third was that " He went to God." Knowing that His death was near at hand, and wishing the last act of His life to be one of the most sublime virtue, He would now do an act of the greatest charity and humility, and leave it as a legacy to posterity. Such is the view of Toletus.
13:4
He rises from supper and lays aside His garments, and taking a towel girded Himself. John enumerates all the actions, conditions, and circumstances of the washing of feet to show us how attentive, exact, and observant of decorum Christ was in this, as in all else that He did, that we may learn to do likewise even in the smallest matters, according to the words of Ecclus. xxxiii. 23, "In all thy works [be thou careful to] excel."
Lays aside His garments the outer tunic, keeping on the inner lest His body should be exposed; or rather the robe which those about to partake of supper usually put on over their ordinary dress. The Greek has ίμάτια, the outermost garments or garment, such as the toga or pallium. By the figure of enallage the plural number is here put for the singular.
Girt Himself that He might not soil His garments, that He might be the more unimpeded in the work of washing, that He might wipe their feet when He had washed them, and also that He might assume for this servile office the servile garb which befitted it, and in this way abase Himself completely. "What wonder," says S. Augustine, "if He who, when He was in the form of God, did make Himself void, arose from supper and laid aside His garments?" For humility is the distinctive virtue of Christ and Christians. S. Basil (Constit., chap. xvi.) says that humility guards the treasure-house of the virtues. Humility, says S. Macarius (Homil. xv.), is the badge of Christianity, which he who lacks is a vessel of the Evil One; humility is the ballast of the virtues. This is what S. Augustine says in his first Discourse on Psalm xxiii. "As David laid Goliath low, it is Christ who hath slain the devil. And what is the Christ who hath slain the devil? Humility hath slain pride. When therefore, my brethren, I mention Christ, humility is chiefly commanded to us. For by humility He hath made a way for us, inasmuch as by pride we had receded from God. Except by humility we could not have returned to Him, and we had none to set before us as an example to imitate, for all mortals had become puffed up with human pride. And if there existed any man humble in spirit, as were the prophets and patriarchs, the human race disdained to imitate humble persons. Then let not man disdain to imitate a humble man; God hath become humble that so the pride of the human race might at least not disdain to follow the footsteps of God."
13:5
Ver. 5. Then He puts water into a bason and begins to wash the feet of his disciples, and wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. S. Cyprian, Theophylact, and Euthymius note that Christ did all these things by Himself, without the aid or help of any one, to teach us how attentively and carefully we ought to serve others. Euthymius adds that Christ Himself asked the master of the house for the basin, and drew and brought the water. "What wonder," says S. Augustine (Tract 55), "if He who poured forth His blood on the earth to wash away the uncleanness of sin poured water into a bason to wash the feet of His disciples? What wonder if He who made firm with the flesh He had taken upon Him the footsteps of His Evangelists, wiped with the towel He was girded with the feet that He had washed?" Symbolically, S. Ambrose (Book i., "On the Holy Spirit") says, "This water was the heavenly dew. This it was that was prophesied, that with that heavenly dew the Lord Jesus should wash the feet of His disciples." And later on, "Come, therefore, O Lord Jesus! put off the garments that Thou hast for my sake put upon Thee; be Thou naked, that Thou mayest clothe us with Thy mercy. Gird Thyself for our sakes with linen, that Thou mayest gird us with the immortality of Thy (muneris immortalitate) free gift. Pour water in the bason, and wash not our feet only but our head also; and not only those of the body, but I would also put off from the footsoles of the mind all the uncleanness of my frailty, that I too may say, 'I have put off my garment in the night, how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I soil them?'" (Song v.)
13:6
Ver. 6. He comes therefore to Simon Peter: so as to begin here as elsewhere with Peter, the Head and Primate of the Apostles. For if He had gone first to the other Apostles, they would assuredly have protested as much as Peter against so great and unusual an act of condescension on the part of their Lord; but when they saw Peter acquiesce after having been rebuked by Christ, they too acquiesced, and allowed their feet to be washed by Him. So S. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, Maldonatus, and others. Christ here indicates figuratively that visitation and reformation must be begun with the head and those who bear rule, for that so it will be easy to reform the faithful who are subject to them. However, Origen and Leontius think that Peter was the last in this washing of feet, and with Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius, hold that Christ first of all washed the feet of Judas that He might soften his heart and recall him from his wicked treason, and might give us an example of the love of our enemies, that we may repay their injuries with kindness, and do them the more good the more spiteful we feel them to be towards us.
And Peter says to Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet ? That is, dost Thou prepare to do so? The action is represented as just beginning, or rather intended, for Christ had not yet begun to wash his feet. Peter said this in stupefied amazement at the humility of Christ, and out of the depth of his reverence for Him, says Cyril; and hence every one of the words is emphatic. Thou who art the King of kings and Lord of lords, my feet, who am a low fisherman, and but a worm of this earth, feet that are muddy and filthy, dost Thou wash them with Thine own blessed hands? "These things," says S. Augustine, "must be thought upon rather than spoken of, lest the tongue fail to express what the mind has more or less worthily comprehended by these words."
13:7
Ver. 7. Jesus answered and said to him, What I do thou knowest not now, but hereafter thou shalt know. Christ means that in this washing of feet, mysteries are hidden which as yet Peter knew not. "Peter," says S. Ambrose (in his work, De iis qui initiantur, ch. 6), "saw not the hidden meaning, and therefore rejected the service, thinking that the humility of the servant would be compromised should he suffer his Lord to do him this office." " Hereafter thou shalt know," that is, first, "when I shall tell you (ver. 14) that I do this to give to thee, to the apostles, and to the rest of the faithful an example of the greatest humility and most sublime charity;" so S. Cyril interprets. Secondly, because by this ablution penance is signified, and this sacrament must precede that of the Eucharist, as thou, O Peter, shalt understand after the Holy Spirit has been sent, for "He shall teach you all things." So S. Cyprian, (Tract. de Cœnâ Dom.), S. Pacianus (Eph 1, contra Novat.), S. Gregory (bk. ix. Ep. 39), and SS. Augustine and Bernard imply the same. It was as a type of this that the Jewish priests used, when entering the temple to sacrifice, to wash their hands and feet in the brazen layer that was set for this purpose in front of the Holy of Holies; and this they did for the sake of bodily cleanliness, that by it they might be admonished of spiritual purity. On this point S. Ambrose is singular in his view; for in his work "On the Sacraments" (bk. iii. ch. 1, and in De iis qui initiantur, ch. 6) he holds that this bodily washing of feet is necessary for all the faithful before baptism, that by it they may be prepared for the Holy Eucharist just as Christ prepared the apostles. Hence he maintains that the washing of feet is a kind of sacrament or sacred rite here sanctioned by Christ, by which we are to be strengthened against the devil's endeavours to trip us up. And for this reason he reckons the washing of feet amongst the rites or ceremonies of baptism, so that it came into use as such at Milan. S. Bernard, too, in his sermon "On the Lord's Supper," calls the washing of feet a sacrament, and implies that it has power for the remission of venial sins; "for," he says, "that we may not be in doubt about the remission of our daily sins, we have the sacrament of it the washing of feet." By " sacrament," however, S. Bernard here understands symbol or figure, as he himself explains a little farther on. Symbolically, Origen and S. Jerome (in his epistle to Damasus on the first vision of Isaiah) think that Christ washed His apostles' feet to prepare them for the preaching of the gospel, according to the words, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring good tidings1" (Isa. 1ii. 7.) Secondly, S. Ambrose thinks that Christ in baptism washes away actual sin by washing the head, but that here, in washing their feet, He washed away the remains of original sin, the movements of concupiscence, for that by this washing He strengthened their feet that is, their affections to make generous resistance to their lower appetites. Thirdly, S. Augustine and S. Bernard (l.c.) say that by the feet with which we tread the earth are signified the loves, the stains, and the defects which, while we are amid the things of earth, adhere to our affections, as dust or mud to our feet. S. Ambrose (De Initiandis, ch. 6) gives the mystical reason for the washing of feet as follows: "Peter was clean, but He must wash his foot, for he had by inheritance the sin of the first man when the serpent tripped him up and led him astray; and therefore is his foot washed, that these hereditary sins may he taken away." He alludes here to the word spoken by God to the serpent, "Thou shalt ensnare his heel" (Gen 3:15). The same Saint says again (De Sacram, book iii. ch. 1), "Because Adam was tripped up by the devil and the venom was poured out over thy feet, therefore dost thou wash thy feet that in that part where the serpent ensnared thee there may be added the more abundant aid of sanctification, so that he be not able to trip thee up hereafter," κ.τ.λ. Another more literal reason was that those who were to be baptized used to go barefooted as a sign of humility. This going barefooted is called by S. Augustine ("On the Creed," bk. 2Ch 1) "the humility of the feet." And so they used to wash off the stains contracted by their bare feet. This custom spread from the Church of Milan to other churches (see S. Augustine, Epp. 118, 119). Palladius, too, in his Lauriaca, ch. 73, tells how Serapion the Sindonite converted two comic actors, washed their feet and then baptized them; but afterwards, as a great many persons came to think that this washing of feet was sufficient without baptism, it was forbidden by the Council of Eliberis, ch. 48. The Church of Milan, however, continued the usage. Guisseppe Visconti treats at length of this subject in his De Ritibus Baptism (bk. iii. ch. 17, et seq.). Ver. 8. " Peter says to Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." Origin accuses Peter of headstrong audacity and disobedience, but S. Augustine (Tract. 56) rightly excuses him, inasmuch as this speech of his showed profound faith, reverence, fear, humility, and love. "I," (the words are St. Cyprian's in his treatise on the washing of the feet), "I am ready to die with Thee, if needs be, for this I ought to do, this fate I embrace. For Thee I will gladly present my neck to the executioner; but my God and my Lord prostrate at my feet, this I suffer not, this I dare not endure."
13:8
Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. First, S. Augustine takes this mystically. Unless I wash away thy venial sins by penance I will not give thee the Eucharist, which I am about to institute, neither shalt thou enter heaven, for nothing that is defiled can enter there. So, too, St. Cyprian in his treatise on the washing of feet. Secondly, according to SS. Chrysostom and Cyril: Unless thou receive the lesson of humility which I give thee in this washing of feet, thou shalt have no part with Me, for only the humble attain to the grace and glory of God. Thirdly, according to the letter: If thou, O Peter, persistest in thy disobedience, thou shalt not communicate with Me in the Eucharistic table, I will give thee no part of the bread that is about to be consecrated into My body, I will not have thee for My familiar friend and the companion of My sacred table. Christ threatens Peter with the loss of His intimate friendship and of the Eucharist, not the loss of His grace and glory; for though Peter was loth to obey, yet this arose from his profound humility and reverence, and was, therefore, worthy of pardon. Toletus says: He threatened not to give Peter the Eucharist by which Christ was to abide in him and he in Christ; for it was chiefly for this that He washed their feet, so that they might be clean and fitly prepared to receive Him when He should give Himself to them and be really united to them. Peter did not distinctly understand what Christ said at the time, but only understood that he was to be cut off from Christ and have nothing in common with Him unless he underwent this washing; afterwards, however, he comprehended the mystery. There is a similar expression in 1Ki 12:16, where the people, exasperated by the cruelty of Roboam, say, "What part have we in David? or what inheritance in the son of Jesse?" S. Basil, in his "Discourse on Sin," says, "For this reason threats of this kind were held out by Christ against Peter, that unless he had rectified his will by promptitude and quickening of obedience, not those wonderful blessings which had come to him from God, not his gifts, not the promises made to him, not even that declaration of such and so great a yearning towards the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, would have served him to expiate his actual disobedience." Hence S. Basil draws from this two remarkable rules of conduct: "He that opposes himself to the commands of God, even though he do so with a pious and friendly intention, such an one is nevertheless for this cause estranged from the Lord." And the second is: "Whatever is said by the Lord, that ought we to receive with all the fulness of our heart." (Reg. xii. ch. 2.)
13:9
Simon Peter says to Him, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Struck by the threat of Christ as by a thunderbolt, Peter obeys, and offers more than Christ had asked. Hence S. Basil in his Shorter Rules, 60th Answer, gives a useful rule: "Whatever we have before resolved upon beside that which is commanded by the Lord must be rescinded. This is plainly shown in the case of the Apostle Peter, who had first resolved 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,' but when he heard the Lord say positively, "Unless I wash thee, thou shalt have no part with Me,' straightway changed his mind and said, 'Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands.'" Again, in the 233rd Answer, St. Basil teaches us from this text that obedience is to be preferred to all the other virtues. "Peter," he says, "although the Lord had borne him witness of such and so great meritorious acts, and had called him and pronounced him blessed in so singular a manner, yet, having in one point only seemed to turn aside from obedience, and that too not from negligence or pride, but from reverence and respect to his Lord, for this and this only is it said to him, 'Unless I wash thy feet, thou shalt have no part with Me.'"
13:10
Ver. 10. Jesus says to him, He that has been washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean throughout. Observe that Christ here alludes to those who wash themselves in the baths and go out washed all over, but, walking barefoot on the ground soil their feet and therefore afterwards wash them only. Again, observe that Christ, as His wont is, here rises from the corporal to the spiritual washing thus He that has been spiritually washed by baptism, as I, O apostles, have washed you, or he who has been washed by Contrition and penance, such an one is washed all over in soul, but needs only to wash his feet, that is, purge frequently by contrition, bodily austerities, and the like virtues, the inclinations of the soul which is stained by contact with the things of earth, and contact from their slight impurities, and this is especially needful before receiving the Holy Eucharist. SS. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, and S. Bernard in his Sermon on the Lord's Supper, interpret more or less to this effect. So Christ by this washing of feet purged away the sins of Peter and the apostles, especially their venial sins; for by means of this act of self-abasement He pricked their consciences and reminded them of that inward purification that must be made in the soul by contrition by means of which venial sins are expiated. Lastly, S. Augustine in his 108th Letter to Seleucianus, gathers with some probability from the words "he that has been washed," that Peter and the apostles had been baptized before the Eucharist; both because no one is qualified to receive the Eucharist without having been baptized, and also because Christ baptized them before His death, for after His death He baptized no one, and it is clear that they must all have been baptized either by Christ Himself or by others in His behalf. The expression appears to be rightly applicable to the washing which takes place in baptism.
And ye are clean, but not all. Christ secretly strives to provoke Judas to think better of his plot of wicked treason; still He would not mention him by name, lest He should bring him into bad odour, and the apostles should rise up against him as a traitor, and ill-use him. Ver. 11. For He knew who it was that should betray Him; wherefore He said, Ye are not all clean. From this S. Augustine gathers that Judas was then present, and had been washed by Christ, and that he received the Blessed Sacrament (Bk ii. contra Petil. Ch. 22.). S. Cyprian, however, in his treatise on the Washing of Feet, says that Judas was not present at the washing, nor, consequently, at the Eucharist.
13:13
Ver. 13. Ye call me 'Master' and 'Lord,' and ye speak rightly, for so I am. Christ was Master and Lord of all men and of the whole world, not only as God but as man, and not only taught externally by speaking, as masters commonly do, but illuminated minds interiorly, and impelled the will whithersoever He would. See Mat 12:10. Ver. 15. I have given you an example, that as I have done so ye may do also not unto Me, seeing that I am even now going to death, but to others, your neighbours, when necessity or kindness shall require. For, as St. Gregory says in his preface to his books of Dialogues, "Examples stir us up to the love of our heavenly country more than preaching." It was thus that Jesus began first to do and then to teach (Acts i. 1), and taught more by deed than by word. Hence S. Basil teaches that he who bears rule must first do those things which he teaches his subjects to do, and that he ought to excel his subjects in humility as he does in dignity. Christ foresaw that the apostles would soon be wrangling in their pride as to who should be the greater, so He put before them this example of humility to break down and suppress their ambition; and in the event He did if not crush at least break it.
13:16
Ver. 16. Verily, verily I say to you, The slave is not greater than his Lord, nor the messenger than He that sent him. Foreseeing the contention about the chief place which would soon follow, Christ insists on the humility which He is inculcating on His apostles. Ver. 17. If Ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye do them. If you know these things and who is ignorant that a master is greater than his slave? you shall be blessed if, as you know them, you also act up to your knowledge in practice. Blessed in hope, though not yet in actuality; blessed ye shall be after death if until then ye continue to do these things, and persevere in following Me, as I know that ye all will persevere excepting only Judas. And so, to indicate this exception, He adds,
13:18
Ver. 18. I speak not of you all, because I know that Judas will not do these things which I have said. I know whom I have chosen. S. Augustine (Tract. 59) explains this with reference to the eternal predestination and election to glory by God: I speak not of all, but of those only whom I have chosen to glory, and Judas I have not chosen. This, however, seems rather harsh, both because the whole blame must be laid upon Judas and not upon Christ, and His election from which He excluded Judas, and in the next verse Christ lays the blame on Judas; and then again because Christ, when He speaks of the eternal election and predestination of God, is not wont to attribute it to Himself but to the Father, for it is a primary function of Providence, which is the attribute of the Father. Christ therefore is here speaking of His temporal election, by which He, as man, chose twelve apostles (see Luke vi.), and Judas himself among the number. This is the view of Toletus and Maldonatus. I know and have known whom and what manner of men I have elected to be apostles, who will be worthy, and who will not, who will persevere, and therefore be blessed, and who will not. I know those who will do these things which I have said, and who will not, as I know and have known, that Judas being chosen by Me, would not do these things, but would be My betrayer. Wherefore I did not choose him in ignorance, nay rather I foreknew and foresaw that he would betray Me, yet did I choose him to use his malice for the common good, that through him My Passion might be fulfilled, and through it the salvation and redemption of men. Wherefore He adds, But that the Scripture may be fulfilled; He that eateth bread with Me shall lift up his heel against Me. I knew that Judas would be My betrayer, yet I elected him an Apostle, that through him the Scripture which foretold My Passion and its manner, might be fulfilled, for it foretold that it should be begun by the treachery of My familiar friend, of one of Mine own household, of Judas who has abused My friendship and familiarity in order to betray Me. And I have been willing to allow this, that from his wickedness I may elicit an infinite good the salvation, namely, of the world just as I permitted the fall of Lucifer and of Adam, to draw from thence the Incarnation of Christ.
Lift up his heel. He is quoting Ps. xl. 9, where the Septuagint translate "made great upon Me his tripping up," and S. Jerome, "lifted up against me the sole of his foot," that is, tried to deceive, trip up, betray, and bring Me to ruin; nay, he did indeed trip Me up by his deceit, caused Me to fall into the hands of the Jews, and brought Me to My Cross and death. David is speaking literally of Achitophel, who betrayed him to his son Absalom, but mystically of Judas, the betrayer of Christ, of whom Achitophel was a type as David was of Christ.
13:19
Ver. 19. I say to you at once, before it come to pass, that when it come to pass ye may believe that I am. Now, in the Greek, απ άζτι, which may be translated from now or from this time, as in the Syriac Version, or, as here, straightway, forthwith, indicating the treachery of Judas to be near at hand. A few hours hence Judas shall betray Me, and therefore I foretell it to you, that when you see Me betrayed, seized, and killed, you may not be disturbed, but may believe persevere in My Faith, that I am the Messiah, the Son of God, freely offering Myself to death for the redemption of mankind. I foretell all these things to you that you may believe that I know them all beforehand and could withdraw Myself from danger, but that I will not, but wish to suffer for the salvation of the world. Then, too, shall you see that I said truly, "Ye are not all clean" that Judas is unclean and wicked, and therefore to be reprobated and condemned, when you see him for the enormity of his crime strangle himself with a cord. Let, therefore, this prediction of Mine, coupled with the occurrence of the thing predicted, make you firm and strong in My faith when you are on the point of tottering. So Cyril.
13:20
Ver. 20. Verily, verily I say to you, that He that receives him whom I have sent, receives Me; and he that receives Me receives Him that sent Me. It is not clear how these words are connected with those which precede. First Chrysostom (Hom. 21), and Theophylact after him, refer them to the passion and cross of Christ, as though He were encouraging the apostles to imitate it. In other words: Fear not the persecutions, death, and crosses which you shall suffer in preaching My faith, for in this you will be following Me, suffering as My ambassadors, sent by Me and therefore by God the Father. Wherefore this suffering shall not bring ignominy on you, but glory. There is, however, no reference here to the sufferings of the apostles, but to their reception by the world. Then again Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 12) thinks that Christ is showing the heinousness of Judas' treachery by means of an argument from its contrary, thus Just as he who receives and honours one sent by Me receives and honours Me, so, too, he who rejects him that I send offers a grievous insult not only to Me, but also to God who sent Me. Here, however, we must supply a great many things which Christ did not say. Gaetano, Jansenius, and Ribera, with more probability, hold that Christ wished, at the close of His discourse on the washing of feet, to make some additional remarks by way of exhorting all the faithful to receive and treat with kindness the apostles sent to them, just as He h d previously exhorted the apostles to be kind to the faithful. In this way He consoles the apostles too, whom He had bidden labour in offices of charity for the good of all. (Chrysostom, Homily 71.) Lastly, Toletus thinks that this is connected with the example given in the washing of feet by Christ, in order that the apostles and the faithful may not excuse themselves from following it on the score that such an act lowers a man. For Christ Himself practised it, and in so doing rendered it honourable and noble. The meaning then is: He who entertains guests who are of the faith, especially apostles, and washes their feet, as it were receives Me who sent them, but he that receives Me receives also the Father who sent Me. Christ, then, here teaches that offices of humility, such as the washing of feet, must be undertaken even by apostles and prelates, and not refused by them on the score of the dignity of their station, for by these works they shall become honourable as true imitators of Christ and His genuinely accredited agents. It was for this that St. Francis Xavier when, on his voyage to India, he used to make the beds of the sick people, cook their food, and give them their medicine, hearing the complaint made that such degrading occupations were not becoming to an Apostolic Legate as he was, answered that they were becoming to a disciple and -apostle of Christ, since Christ Himself underwent, and, as it were, ennobled them. For in the school of Christ humility alone ennobles and exalts, because it makes us like Christ our God and Lord. So says Tursellinus in his life of this Saint. S. Charles Borromeo would, on an occasion of public supplication, go with his feet bare, a halter tied round his neck, carrying a cross. He used to discharge servile functions towards the poor, minister to those who were stricken with the plague, and fulfil every menial office; yet did he not by so doing derogate from his dignity as an Archbishop and a Cardinal, but rather enhanced it, and earned the name of "the Holy Cardinal." For as a carbuncle set in a gold ring increases its beauty, so does humility shed a lustre upon the insignia of high station.
13:21
Ver. 21. When He had said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified (openly and plainly), saying, Verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me. In the Syriac, "These things said Jeschua, and groaned in spirit, and testified and said, Amin, amin, I say to you," κ.τ.λ. In the Arabic Version "was moved in spirit." This emotion, then, was an immense grief and indignation at the crime of Judas. Christ was pained in the innermost feelings of His soul, and groaned in spirit for the enormity of this crime as well as for the perdition of Judas. And this sorrow he did not suffer involuntarily, but admitted it of His free will, and took it upon Him at this point of His own accord, as He did at the death of Lazarus. See commentary on Joh 11:33. The question arises here, Did this prediction of Christ take place before or after the institution of the Eucharist? John omits all mention of that event, it having been narrated fully by the other Evangelists. Matthew and Mark put the prediction before the institution of the Eucharist in order of time, but Luke puts it after. There are three probable opinions on this point. The first is that of Jansenius and Francis Lucas, who think that Christ predicted the treason of Judas after the Eucharist, as Luke has it, and that Matthew and Mark, in making it come before, anticipate intentionally. The reason for this view is that if Christ had predicted the treason of Judas before the institution of the Eucharist, He would have disturbed the minds of the apostles, moved them to anger, and rendered their dispositions for its reception less collected than would have been fitting. But this is not conclusive. For Christ before the Eucharist foretold His passion and death, and this disturbed the apostles far more: and soon after the Eucharist as these interpreters themselves admit He foretold the treason of Judas, and this disturbed them then, so that they did not duly dispose themselves for that recollection which is proper after Communion. Then again this prediction would, before the Eucharist, have had the force of deterring Judas from his crime, as well as producing compunction in the hearts of the apostles and making them all careful to examine each one his own conscience, lest Christ should there find anything to bring to light and complain of, as He did the crime of Judas. The second opinion is that of Baronius (Anno Dni. 34, ch. 58). He thinks that Christ made this prediction before the institution of the Eucharist, as Matthew and Mark have it. Baronius, then, is of opinion that the events took place in the order given by John, namely, that after the washing of the feet, Jesus spoke of His betrayal, that it was then that He gave John the sign of the morsel dipped in the dish, but that, as for Judas having gone out immediately after he had taken the morsel, we are not to take the phrase as meaning without any delay in point of time, but that, driven on by a kind of madness, he did not wait for the lengthy discourse which our Lord made after the Supper. For S. Luke clearly bears witness that Judas stayed with the others until the end of the Communion; and after this, according to the Jewish ceremonial, it would seem that nothing was left on the table in which the morsel of bread could have been dipped, so, too, it seems impossible to say that this morsel of bread was the Eucharist. But then Judas, after taking the morsel, did go out immediately, nay, that very moment according to the Syriac. He did not, then, wait for the lengthy Communion of the apostles, if that took place after the incident of the morsel. Hence it is with greater likelihood that other upholders of this view maintain that the morsel given to Judas by Christ was itself the Eucharist; and he, driven, as it were, to madness by the devil when he had received it, unworthily, straightway went forth to carry out the crime he was meditating. Moreover, during and after the institution of the Eucharist Christ reclined at the table, and there, as Luke has it, foretold the treason of Judas. It is, therefore, altogether probable that the table had not yet been removed, but that on it there remained bread and fragments of food out of which Christ could take the bread which He dipped and gave to Judas. The third opinion, therefore, holding a middle place between the two former, seems to be the more correct namely, that Christ both foretold His betrayal by Judas before the Eucharist, and repeated the prediction after it; and this both because He felt the atrocity of the crime, and was, as John here says, disturbed in spirit by it, again, that He might place his own wickedness before Judas, show him that He knew of it, and deter him from carrying it out, and also to prepare and fortify the minds of the Apostles, that when they should soon after see the actual betrayal and the capture of Jesus they might not be shocked, but might persevere with constancy in His faith. In this way we best reconcile Matthew and Mark with Luke. This is the expressed view of S. Augustine (De Consensu Evang., bk. iii. ch. 1), of Euthymius, and of Toletus, who say that the order of events was as follows. The Supper of the Paschal Lamb having been finished, and the ordinary Supper begun, Christ, while they were supping, arose and washed the feet of His disciples; then, reclining once more, He said all these things which John narrates; being troubled in spirit He speaks of His betrayer, and they all ask, one by one, "Is it I?" Judas receiving the answer, "Thou hast said." Next He institutes the Eucharist, and this being done, and the Mystery having been celebrated, He again speaks of His betrayer, as Luke relates, ch. xxii. "Nevertheless," He says, "behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at table," &c. Then Peter asks John, "Who is it of whom He speaks?" and John asking Jesus, receives the answer, "He to whom I shall offer the bread when I have dipped it." And after this morsel Satan entered into Judas, and he went away; and when he went away, and the Supper was quite finished, Christ made to His disciples the wonderful discourse shortly after recorded by John.
13:22
Ver. 22. Therefore the disciples began to look at one another, doubting of whom He was speaking, and asking, too, one by one, "Lord, is it I?" For, as Chrysostom says, "Because He did not speak of His betrayer by name, He brought fear upon all, and, though conscious to themselves of nothing evil, they yet believed Christ more than their own thoughts." And, as Origen says, "They, as being men, remembered that the feelings even of enthusiasts are liable to change." Ver. 23. There was then reclining on the bosom of Jesus one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, namely, John himself. The Apostles, desiring to know by name who was to be the traitor, Peter, more eager and fervent than the rest, hints to John, who is reclining on the bosom of Jesus, to inquire of Jesus, as John here relates, and this is the force of the "then." John being dearer to Jesus and closer to Him, inasmuch as he was reclining on His bosom, therefore, for this reason, Peter hints to him to inquire of Jesus his beloved the name of the traitor. Moreover, John is said to have reclined on the bosom of Jesus because the ancients used not to sit at table, but reclined by twos or threes on the several couches placed before the tables, so that, leaning on the lower part of the right arm, they lay rather than sat at table; and so it came to pass that the second person coming next to the first on his left hand would seem as it were to lie upon his bosom.
13:23
Whom Jesus loved not only with the love of human friendship, but also with the love of charity, for the sake of virginity and purity, his modesty and meekness, and the sweet and holy disposition by which he excelled all the others. So say Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, and St. Jerome in his letter to Heliodorus. Still it does not follow from this that John was absolutely holier than all the other apostles; Peter may have been more ardent in charity than he, and therefore holier than John. For sanctity consists chiefly in the love of God, which is its measure. Moreover, that John was reclining on the bosom of Jesus was not only a mark of His love for him at the time, but also a sign of what was to be, "That he might take from thence," says Bede, "that voice unheard through all ages which he was afterwards to send forth to the world."
13:24
Ver. 24. Simon Peter, therefore, gave him a sign, and said to him, Who is it of whom He speaks ? Hence it is plain that Peter not only gave a sign to John by winking and nodding, as S. Augustine would have it, but also spoke to him quietly, as John here relates. Such is the opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. Peter asks this not as Prince of the Apostles (though Cyril takes this view), nor as though fearing, for himself lest he should be the traitor, as Chrysostom thinks, but out of his zeal, that he might avert so enormous a crime and prevent the betrayal of Christ, just as in the garden he wished to prevent His capture by cutting of the right ear of Malchus.
13:25
Verses 25, 26. So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, κ.τ.λ. John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him.
13:26
The bread I have dipped. Observe that Judas was present at the celebration of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear. Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss. Mystically this dipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St. Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. xli. might be fulfilled "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me." Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found, out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil's prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus. Though Matthew puts these words and Christ's answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine (De Consensu, Evang. bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ's answer, Thou hast said, straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master, is it I? received the answer, Thou hast said, and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation. Ver. 27. And after the morsel Satan entered into him, urging and impelling him to avenge this his disgrace, to betray to the Jews Christ who had betrayed his villainy. Satan, who had before entered into Judas for the plotting of the betrayal, as was said in verse 2, here again entered into him for its accomplishment; both because Judas, being already called by Christ and the apostles a traitor, dared remain among them no longer lest he should be ill-treated by them, and also because the hour proper for the betrayal, and appointed first by Judas, was near at hand that hour, namely, when he knew that Christ would, after His wont, go out to pray on Mount Olivet, where He could easily be seized. Wherefore there was no need for John to point out Judas to Peter when Christ pointed out the traitor to him, for Judas soon betrayed himself both by his question and by his departure. So Satan entered into Judas to take complete possession of him, and that with certainty and with a strong hold, so that he brought him soon to the halter. Not that the morsel given him by Christ put the devil into him, for this was a sign of Christ's love by which He wanted to win the heart of Judas to love Him in return, but that Judas, ungrateful for this love of Christ, took it in bad part, thinking that Christ was giving him the morsel out of hatred and a desire to injure him and make his crime known to the apostles. Wherefore, bidding farewell to the apostolate of Christ, he went away to the household and the bondage of Satan and of the Jews as a deserter and apostate. So S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and Cyril, who observes that a kindness hurts those who are ungrateful not of itself, but through their fault and ingratitude. S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. 2Ch 4) says "When Satan put himself into the heart of Judas, Christ went away from him, and in that moment when he received the former he lost the latter." The devil entered into Judas for three reasons. First, for his ingratitude, says S. Augustine; for Christ having discharged all the offices of love towards him, and he not being moved even by these, was left to be fully possessed by the devil. Then again, because the devil knew from the words of the Lord and from outward signs that he was stubborn in his evil will, and given over by the Lord, says Chrysostom (Homily 71). Thirdly, because Judas himself understood that he was now found out, and, as it were, separated from the disciples and from their Master; so he became hardened in evil, and, as if in desperation, gave himself over entirely to the devil; and so it was that he went out, unable to bear the looks of his Lord and of the disciples, or, says Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, fearing lest he should be torn to pieces by them. So Ribera. Notice here in the case of Judas how a man who deserts Christ is palpably deserted by Christ, and when deserted is attacked by Satan possessed by him, and, when possessed, hurried into every crime, and then into the abyss. Just as Judas from an apostle became a devil, so Lucifer from the fairest of angels became the darkest of evil spirits, as the sourest vinegar is made from the sweetest wine, and the heretic Luther, for instance nay, the heresiarch, is made from the monk.
13:27
And Jesus said to him: What thou doest, do more quickly more quickly, that is quickly, as the Syriac translates it; the comparative is put for the positive. Christ is not precipitating the treason of Judas, but He permits it. He says as it were: Think not that thy doings are hidden from Me; I know that thou art meditating treason. He did not tell him to commit the crime, says S. Augustine, but He foretold it, not so much in wrathful desire for the destruction of the villain, as in haste for the safety of the faithful. He permitted it, saying, as it were: Do what thou hast begun, finish what thou didst intend; in a thousand ways could I hinder thee, but I will not; rather do I leave thee to thy free will. Do what thou hast planned in thy heart. Thirdly, S. Chrysostom says they are words of reproach. I know that thou art working great evil against Me, from whom thou hast received so many gifts; are these the injuries thou repayest Me for so many kindnesses? But do what thou hast to do. For even though I have made known thy crime, yet have I not done so as fearing it, nor would I wish to hinder it; for if I wished I could do so; but in order to cast before thine eyes thy malice and thy shamelessness, and to reprove thee. Fourthly, they are the words of a lofty mind that despises all the machinations of Judas. St. Leo (Serm. 1, On the Passion) says, "It is the voice of one who commands not but permits, of one not fearing but prepared, who, holding all time in His power, showed that He allowed no delay to the traitor, and that He so followed out the will of the Father for the redemption of the world, as neither to prompt nor fear the crime that was being matured." Fifthly, they are the words of one excluding Judas, as incorrigible, from His family and the fellowship of the apostles. Since thou wilt sever thyself from us, I exclude thee from My table, from My house, My apostolate, and My companionship; get thee gone, then, to thine own Jews and to Satan, to whom thou hast sold thyself. So S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. 2Ch 4). Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 17), following Origen, interprets in a novel fashion, taking these things as said by Christ not to Judas but to Satan, who was entering into Judas. He says that, "Just as if a mighty man against whom some one advances with hostile intent, trusting in his own might, doubts not but that his adversary shall fall, and, with loud and threatening noise, speaks: What thou doest do quickly, that thou mayest know the strength of my right hand. Such words we would not call so much the words of one in haste to die, as of one who knew before that his adversary must fall. So our Lord bids the devil run quickly to the things he has made ready, that being conquered and bound he may the sooner relieve the world of his tyranny." But from what we have said it is clear that this was said to Judas and not to Satan, as the Fathers and interpreters generally hold.
13:28
Ver. 28. But of this, none of those at table knew why He said it, κ.τ.λ. For though they knew from the words of Christ that Judas was to be His betrayer, yet they did not know that he would betray Him that very night; and therefore they did not understand that Christ, when He said, What thou doest, do quickly, was speaking of His betrayal, but interpreted it with reference to the purchase of things needful for the celebration of the Passover, Judas being the steward of Christ and the apostles.
13:30
Ver. 30. When, therefore, he had received the morsel, he straightway went out. Both because he then became possessed by the devil, and also because Christ by the foregoing words had expelled him from His household. The word " therefore " refers to both these reasons. S. Augustine remarks that, the unclean one going forth, all they that were clean remained with Him that cleanseth them, like the wheat when the tares have been separated from it. S. Cyril observes that the devil impelled Judas to go forth immediately to betray Christ, lest, by the virtue of the Eucharist which, though unworthily received, was pricking his conscience, he might repent and think better of his crime. Origen adds further, that the teaching of Christ was so efficacious as to move His betrayer afterwards to say: I have sinned in betraying the innocent blood, nay, even to such sorrow, that unable to tolerate life he hanged himself, "showing" he says, "how great was the power of the teaching of Jesus even in a sinner, a thief, and a traitor, seeing that he even could not altogether set at nought the things he had learnt from Jesus." Hence we may gather that it is good to bring about delays in the way of those who are suffering a strong temptation from the devil to commit some sin forthwith; for through this very delay, the matter being more maturely considered, the vileness, the evil results, and penalties of the sin come to be seen, and deter the man from its commission; and at last the heat of the temptation abates and slackens by reason of the mere delay. On the other hand, when we are following after good and virtuous intentions, as, for instance, a resolution to enter the Priesthood or the Religious State, there is need of haste, lest our relatives, our companions, or the devil, by interposing delays, succeed in frittering away the whole scheme. Hear what S. Chrysostom says (Hom. 57), "While this love is burning in thee, betake thee straightway to the angels themselves and inflame it yet more exceedingly. Say not, I will first speak to my relations, and set my affairs in order; for such delay is the beginning of torpor. The disciple would bury his father, and Christ suffered him not. Why so? Because the devil is eager and watchful to creep into the soul, and if he can seize but a brief delay brings thee to lukewarmness." S. Anselm and S. Bernard speak in the same sense.
And it was night. John adds this, first, for the sake of historical completeness, to mark the time when Christ was betrayed and seized by the Jews; secondly, to indicate the haste of the devil, who drove on Judas late at night to go and look for the guards who were perhaps asleep; and, thirdly, says S. Chrysostom (Hom. 71), "that we may appreciate the rashness of Judas whom the unreasonableness of the hour did not restrain." Symbolically, the Gloss says that the night-time is in keeping with the mystery, for he that went out was a son of darkness and did the works of darkness. The night indicates the darkness of mind in which Judas was, says S. Ambrose (De Cain, bk. 2Ch 4), also the impenitence and condemnation to the darkness of hell, to which Judas was on his way. S. Gregory ("Morals," ii. 2), "By the nature of the time the end of the action is expressed, and Judas, who was never to come back to pardon, is recorded to have gone forth by night.... For this cause it is said to the wicked rich man: This night shall thy soul be required of thee. His soul which is being carried away into darkness, is mentioned as being required of him not by day but by night."
13:31
Ver. 31. When, therefore, he had gone forth, Jesus said, Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him " is glorified," equivalent to " is soon to be glorified," the perfect put for the immediate future; Judas is now gone forth to betray Me, therefore is my cross and death nigh at hand, and so far is it from bringing ignominy on Me that, on the contrary, by it I am to be supremely glorified. For in it shall I be recognised as not only man and the Son of man, but also the Son of God and God; for the Divinity that lieth veiled in My humanity shall be recognised by the darkening of the sun, the cleaving asunder of rocks, the opening of sepulchres, the rising up of the dead, and the quaking of all the earth, all these things shall show forth that God suffereth and dieth upon the cross. And again by its effects, for by the cross will I subjugate to Myself the whole world, all the devils, and sin, death and hell, as the God and Lord of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. And here, note that by these signs God and the Godhead of Christ not only glorified the humanity of Christ but Itself also; for in them was made manifest the infinite goodness, power, wisdom, majesty, and glory of Christ's Godhead.
13:32
Ver. 32. If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall glorify Him straightway. If, that is because because Christ, made obedient unto the death of the cross, hath by this His obedience, reverence, and sacrifice, glorified God the Father, therefore shall God the Father in turn glorify the Son in Himself, by demonstrating and making manifest the Divinity that is hidden in Him. And this straightway quickly, for on the third day He shall raise Him up revived, and glorious in His death; on the fortieth day He shall cause Him to ascend in triumph into Heaven; and on the fiftieth to send down His Holy Spirit upon the apostles. By all these things He made known to the world that Jesus is not only man but God, and the Son of God. So Cyril and Chrysostom. Origen, in his 6th Homily, says that the glorification of Christ was twofold, the former in His death, by which He was glorified in the lowliness of His mortality; and the latter in His resurrection, by which He was glorified in the sublimity of His immortality. Secondly, S. Hilary (De Trinitate, bk. v.), and Toletus following him, think that God is said to be glorified in Christ, because He showed His own Divinity in His death and resurrection; proving Himself God and the Son of God by raising Himself from death, ascending into heaven by His own power, and thence sending down the Holy Spirit and working many wonders through the apostles. This interpretation is called for by the expressions in Him, in Himself. The Godhead was veiled in Christ until His death, but it then shone out and thrust itself forth, showing Christ to be not only man, but also the Son of God, inasmuch as He raised Himself from death by virtue of His own Divinity. Origen says, "The Son is as Paul says, the brightness of the Divine glory, from whence come its splendours upon every rational creature; for only the Son is capable of comprehending all the brightness of the Divine glory." The words " in Himself" may be referred, first, to "the Son of Man." God glorified the Man Christ, by showing that He, as man, had God indwelling in Him, and the Godhead of the Word; and secondly, to "God" God showing that the Man Christ subsists in the Divine Person of the Word, that is, in God. Ver. 33. My little children. Notice the tenderness of Christ's feeling of love towards His apostles and the faithful. He says not " my sons," but " my little children," showing in our regard the heart, as it were, of a mother towards her newly born infants. Again, little children, because the apostles were as yet little in the faith and love of Christ, for they received its fulness and, as it were, their manhood from the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Symbolically Cyril says that all the Saints are little ones in relation to Christ.
13:33
Yet a little (a little time) I am with you because an hour hence I shall be betrayed by Judas and given up to the Jews. Christ is here taking His last farewell of His own. Farewell, He says, My well-beloved children, for I am going away from you to death, and after that I shall not converse with you as we have been wont, but shall return to heaven.
Ye shall seek Me, and, as I said to the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come. I by My death return to heaven; you, O apostles, bereft of My presence, shall seek Me in the tribulations and persecutions that await you, and shall wish that I were with you that you might consult Me in your doubts and receive comfort and consolation from Me in your troubles; but whither I go you cannot come, both because you cannot by your own strength with your own feet and your own natural powers follow Me when I ascend into heaven, and you have not yet the supernatural strength of grace. For you are not yet strong enough to be able to accompany Me to the Cross and the martyr's death, not yet so perfect in grace, strength, and love as to be fit for and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Lastly, you cannot come there yet, because My Heavenly Father has determined to send you after My death to preach the gospel throughout the world, and bring all nations to My faith and salvation.
As I said to the Jews. This, says Chrysostom, He adds to show that it is nothing new or fresh, but foreseen and predicted long before, and decreed by the Father. Moreover, it was to reveal to them that they should suffer persecution and death at the hands of the Jews as He was ill-used and slain. Thirdly, to indicate that they, like the Jews, were to suffer many tribulations and, at length, death, though for a different reason and a different end. For the Jews, cut off by reason of their crimes, went into hell, but the Apostles, slain for the sake of the Gospel, took flight to heaven.
And I say to you now both in order to protect and arm you against all the tribulations that threaten you, and also that you may know at this time that you cannot yet follow Me, but that you shall follow Me when perfected in strength and merits, and following Me dying in your own death, you shall earn by faith in Me the laurel of Martyrdom in the kingdom of Heaven. Hence Christ, clearly explaining to Peter, says at ver. 36; Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter.
13:34
Ver. 34. A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another. Why new ? Various reasons are given. S. Augustine says, because the faithful, by love put off the old man and put on the new. " New," says Jansenius, "that is renewed by Christ, having grown out of date in the minds of men." Maldonatus says that " new " means excellent, surpassing. As in Rev. vii., the virgins are said to sing "a new song," that is a remarkable one. But I say that the command of love is called new, because it is the chief characteristic of the New Testament, and specially commended by the words and example of Christ; just as, on the other hand, the command of fear was the old command and the chief one among the Jews. The new law is that of love, as the old was of fear. Secondly, because Christ here taught us this precept of love more explicitly, and more forcibly than it had been taught before; and for this cause He sent forth the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that we might fulfil this new commandment of love with a new spirit of love. Thirdly, and more appropriately to the actual circumstances, new in respect of the new object and cause of love. For when Christ the Head of the Church was incarnate, there was brought about a peculiar community and union among the members of the Church, both among themselves and with Christ their Head, now made of like nature with themselves. A union both through the human nature assumed by Christ, and by the grace whose influence He, as Head, brought to bear upon us as members, and chiefly by that Sacrament of the Eucharist here instituted by Him. And this union is the foundation of that especial and more intimate love between Christ and Christians, and of that greater obligation to love one another. For by this union we are closely bound not only to the humanity of Christ, but also to His Godhead and to the Blessed Trinity, and by and through it to one another. This sense is implied by Christ when He adds: that you love one another, as I have loved you because I have loved you in a new and especial manner, taking upon Me your flesh and giving it to you by means of the Eucharist which I have just instituted as the food of your soul, that in this Sacrament I might unite you all to Me, and to one another in Me; for this cause I likewise demand of you, O Christians, that you love one another with a new and peculiar love, not merely as man loves man, because of their common nature, but as a Christian ought to love one who is united to himself in Christ, a fellow-member of the same Church of Christ and participator of the same Eucharist. For Toletus rightly observes that this command is given not to all men, but only to Christians.
As I have loved you, that ye love one another; that as I, when I was in the form of God, for love of you took the form of a slave to teach you, save you, and make you blessed, so you too descend to any humiliation or hardship whatsoever in order to help one another. This is what John says in his first Epistle, iii 16 "In this have we known the love of God, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." The words, " as I have loved you, " are but taken as relating to those which follow " that ye love one another." Toletus, and others, place a colon before the former. The former part of the verse gives the substance of the precept, the latter signifies the mode of its proper execution. Moreover, this latter part supplies a sharp incentive to this mutual love, as if to say: The love of Christ to you, O Christians, should stir you up to love one another. For those whom Christ so loved you also, His followers, must love. And again Christ in His love asks that you love one another.
13:35
Ver. 35. In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love towards one another. My school is the discipline of love. If, then, you desire to follow Me as your Teacher, to be My disciples, and to be recognised as such by all men, love one another. This privilege is granted, therefore, only to charity. For it is not miracles that constitute us disciples of Christ, nor intellect, nor eloquence, nor strength, nor anything else but only love, says S. Chrysostom. For He is the Master, Leader, Prince, and Chief of love. Hence Paul says, Rom 13:8, "He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law." Such were the early Christians of whom Luke, Act 4:32, says, "And the multitude of them that believed had one heart and one soul, and had all things in common."
13:36
Simon Peter says to Him: Lord, whither goest Thou? Peter, says Chrysostom, asked this not for information, but that he might follow Christ, whom he loved supremely. But Cyril says that he was presuming too far; for he thought that he could follow Christ through all, and he could not yet. Wherefore Christ repressed him, adding, "Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter." At Rome, before the gate of S. Sebastian, there is a spot where stands a chapel, and there Christ appeared to S. Peter, who, at the entreaty of the Christians, was fleeing from the Mamertine Prison. And when Peter then asked Him, Lord, whither goest Thou ? He answered, " I go to Rome, to be once more crucified." So S. Peter, understanding that Christ was speaking of him, went back to his prison at Rome, and was soon after crucified by Nero. And for this reason that chapel is called to this day the " Domine quo vadis ?"
Jesus saith to him: Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now. Because thou hast not yet received the Holy Ghost, by whose strength thou mayest overcome death, says Cyril. For Christ must needs go first and conquer death. Thou hast not now that constancy of soul and strength to die for Me; but the Holy Ghost will come upon thee, and then shalt thou be able. Moreover, Christ had destined Peter to be Head of the apostles, Prince and Ruler of the Church after Himself, and Founder of the Roman Pontificate.
But thou shalt follow Me hereafter, on the cross, and, by the cross, to heaven. The love and zeal of Peter at this time merited for him the privilege of being the first to follow Christ on the cross. Ver. 37. Peter says to Him, Why can I not follow Thee now ? I will lay down my life for Thee. Peter says this with his wonted fervour and zeal, but a zeal not according to knowledge. For, suspecting that Christ was going to death, as He had foretold, he offers himself as a comrade to share all dangers with Him. I am ready with Thee to take every chance of danger; I offer myself to Thee as a companion for all that may befall; with Thee and for Thee I will gladly welcome death. The affectionate feeling of Peter for Christ, though without effect, is worthy of praise; he had not yet received the wings of love from the Holy Ghost to fly to so lofty a cross.
13:38
Ver. 38. Jesus answered him: Layest thou thy life down for Me ? Verily I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow before thou deny Me thrice. Christ humbles Peter, who trusts too much in himself, and suffers him to fall, that he may learn to confide not in his own strength but in the grace of Christ. Wherefore Christ repeatedly made this prediction to Peter. Hear S. Chrysostom (Hom. 72), "Thou shalt know by experience that thy love is nothing without Divine grace. And hence it appears that Jesus permitted this fall for his benefit."
13:1
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Ubi tria ponit circa passionem Christi. Primo, quod fuit praevisa; secundo, quod fuit congrua, tertio, quod fuit promotiva et exaltativa. 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. 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. 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. 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. Consequenter cum dicit cum dilexisset suos, qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos, commendatur fervens Christi dilectio, et hoc quantum ad quatuor. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:2
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. 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. 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.
13:3
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. 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. Tertio quantum ad nobilitatem eius, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit; Sap. VIII, 3: contubernium habens Dei. 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.
13:4
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:5
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:6
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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.
13:7
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:8
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. 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. 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. Hic ostendit factum illud esse congruum. Et ponuntur primo verba Petri; secundo subditur responsio Christi. 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.
13:9
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. 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. 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.
13:10
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:11
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.
13:12
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Sic ergo antequam spiritum sanctum perfecte docentem infunderet, lavit sanguine fuso; accepit vestimenta, resurgendo; recubuit, in gloria ascendendo. Consequenter cum dicit scitis quid fecerim vobis? Proponit ipsam admonitionem, et primo interrogat; secundo assumit; tertio concludit; quarto conclusionem confirmat. 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. 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.
13:13
Assumit eorum confessionem, dicens vos vocatis me magister et domine, et primo proponit eorum confessionem; secundo commendat eam, ibi et bene dicitis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:14
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:15
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:16
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. 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. 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.
13:17
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. 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.
13:18
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:19
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. 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. 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.
13:20
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:21
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:22
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. 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.
13:23
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:24
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. 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. 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.
13:25
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:26
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.
13:27
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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?
13:28
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:29
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:30
Consequenter cum dicit cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo, ponitur adimpletio rei praenuntiatae, et primo ponitur executio; secundo temporis determinatio. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:31
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:32
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:33
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
13:34
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. 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. 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. 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. Exemplum tenoris ponit cum dicit sicut dilexi vos. Tripliciter enim dilexit nos Christus: gratuite, efficaciter et recte. 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. 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. 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.
13:35
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. 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.
13:36
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. 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. 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.
13:37
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. 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. 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. 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.
13:38
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. 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. 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.
13:1
v. 1 ante diem festum paschae sciens Iesus quia venit hora etus i. e. instare iam illam horam, de qua antea sermo erat 7,30; 8,20; 12,93. 97, ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem, monent Aug. Rup. Thom.. Bon. Lap. pascha hebraice significare transitum, unde evangelistam veluti eam vocem interpretantem dicere, ut transeat ec. ; cum dilezisset suos qui erant in mundo, quos ipse transiens ex mundo relicturus erat in mundo mediis in periculis, unde miseratione motus maiorem erga illos quam antea amorem ostendit (Maid. Lap.), in finem dilezit eos εἰς τέλος 1. e. vehementiorem (σφοδροτέραν τὴν ἀγάπην) amorem 118 exhibet (Chr. Theoph.), εἰς τέλος τὸ σφόδρα δηλοῖ (Euth.), perfectissimam dilectionem (τελειοτάτην ἀγάπησιν) exhibuit (Cyr. item Ammon. in cat. Cr.) eodemque modo explicant de specimine eximio atque indicio amoris Bon. Mald. Bar. Patr. Corl. Schz. Fil. Weiss. Sententia itaque haec est : ante festum paschae Iesus suis exhibuit insignem dilectionem; unde iungendum : ante festum paschae in finem dilexit suos. Adiunguntur duobus participiis duae causae, cur maximum illud amoris documentum exhibuerit : sciens instare tempus quo illos relinquat, et quia semper eos dilexit. Duae hae causae quam maxime aptae sunt, quibus maxima illa amoris significatio explicetur et commendetur. Solet enim dilectio amici optime augeri et exhiberi, si valedicere oportet amicis, et si semper amicum dilexit, iste amor ferventiore affectu se prodit in tempore separationis. Iesus autem animum habebat vere humanum , suorum amantissimum. Unde isto tempore discessus teneriore quoque dilectione suos prosequitur. Dilectionem hanc eximio modo exhibitam non cernes in una solum lotione pedum, verum cum Bar. Corl. Fil. Weiss in omnibus illis quae Iesus eo tempore egit et dixit et praecipue praeter eucharistiae institutionem in iis quaecap. 13-17 referuntur. Quis enim negare poterit in Iesu sermonibus 154,1 seq. insignem pandi Iesu in suos amorem? Unde iam facile constabit evangelistam, cum de excellenti amore Christi hic loquatur non de una pedum lotione cogitasse, sed id enuntiasse quod in sequentibus praecipue spectandum sit et considerandum. Si itaque v. 1 quasi inscriptionem vel summam argumenti cap. 13-17 nominaveris, certe a rei veritate non aberrabis. — Intelligi suos τοὺς ἰδίους proprios ipsius apostolos nemini dubium esse potest et ex sequenti historia perspicuum est, ait Ma/d.; nihilominus aliqui (Cyr. Ammon. Rup. Salm. Cai. Schg.) suos notione generali de omnibus fidelibus ex Iudaeis et gentibus accipi volunt. At prior acceptio est vera. Cur enim dicat ; ς ME min ACER Ve Migucsta ἸῸΝ Dra dp iv VIT Et LDOTGSBINQ e. NEP o ust Begateceer "v. - ÁN gu 4 À " . pU e . ] ZEE un MS τοὺς ἐν τῷ χόσμῳ explicatur quia suos relicturus est in mundo ipse discessurus ex mundo, illos relicturus in periculis mundi. Sententia itaque plana est : ante festum Iesus suis eximium dedit amoris documentum. Ita ipsis verbis et sensu plane cum sequentibus congruo suadetur. Quare inutile est cum ScAg. aliisque asserere sententiam grammatice et logice interrumpi et periodum cum parenthesi adstruere : ante festum (sciens Iesus...) cum suos dilexisset et diligeret in finem... surgit a coena etc.; M neque illud ante festum cum ἀγαπήσας iungi postest, αἱ alii volunt cum veri Hu sensus detrimento. Nulla est in constructione grammaticali difficultas aut VE obscuritas, dummodo εἰς τέλος ea notione concipiatur qua graeci explicant. x Obscuritas utique oritur, si accipitur : usque ad finem vitae (Lap. Schg., Aug. inter alia) aut : in perpetuum (7οί.) aut : ad salutem (Cai.); tum quae- : rendum est ad quid tandem illud ante festum spectet; verum hae accep- Com tiones gratuito asseruntur; εἰς τέλος enim duas habet notiones : postremo oM (usque ad terminum positum Matth. 10,22; 94,13; Marc. 13,13) Luc. 18,5 5 (vulg. in novissimo) et summo gradu (cf. 2 Mach. 8,29. Eccli 10,13 — prorsus, penitus, Lex. Pape, Wahl, Clavis s. v.; alia exempla praebet Weiss). Quis non videat alteram hanc notionem optime congruere? Explicat up. : dilectionem erga illos eo usque perfecit ultra quod non posset augeri, vide- licet ut animam suam poneret pro illis (sim. Aug. Bed.); at adverti debet illud ante festum. Redemptoris; iam talis venerat et videbatur et tolerabatur (Aug.). Praemittit autem id evangelista, ut Christi dilectionis magnitudinem et humilitatis profunditatem commendet qui et eius qui iam tradere decreverat pedes lavare non recusarit (To/.). Ad operis praestantiam efferendam addit alterum evangelista : quantus et qualis sit is qui non sit dedignatus talem aggredi rem (CAr.)
Ex concordi evangelistarum narratione constat Christum feria quinta coenam paschalem celebrasse et feria sexta mortem obiisse, hanc auiem feriam sextam non fuisse ipsum sollemnem diem festum ludaeorim. Hoc ex nostro evangelista apertum est et ex synopticorum quoque de passione narratione omnino colligi debet. Texit Ioannes praecipue eorum descriptionem quae a synopticis non referuntur; silentio praeterit quae illi consignarant litteris. Ita apud eum nihil de esu agni paschalis, quem mentione facta coenae satis notum esse supponit, nihil de institutione eucharistiae, de qua promissionem illam et praeparationem ante annum factam cap. 6 narraverat; hisce, utpote notis, iam non commemoratis alia scitu dignissima in medium profert et ea quidem ratione ut ostendat Iesum qui suos discipulos semper dilexerit iis ante passionem maximam amoris significationem ac testificationem exhibuisse. Quod suum consilium totidem verbis consignat
Multipliciter in hac quoque parte suam manifestat gloriam ; ostendit modo plane singulari suam in discipulos dilectionem, curam, sollicitudinem; praeclara edit documenta suae divinitatis, loquens de ratione quae sibi intercedat cum Patre et Spiritu sancto et docens in sola secum unione intima salutem haberi. Demum rationibus efficacissimis discipulos de suo discessu consolatur proponens et promittens bona quae ex discessu redundatura sint; insuper illis alium mittet Opitulatorem qui opus suum messianum ad perfectionem sit adducturus.
13:3
v. 3 sciens. quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus : data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo et in terra (Matth. 28,18) et quia a Deo eztvit 1. e. 8,842) et ad Deum vadit scil. ut sedeat ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis (Hebr. 1,3), et clarificetur apud Patrem claritate quam habuit anpotestatis, divinitatis et maximae exaltationis suae humanae naturae sibi maxime conscius erat, tamen more servi ministerium servile exhibuit suis, inter quos erat proditor. Ita Cyr. κχαίτοι γὰρ οὖν. ἡγνοηχώς etc. (sim. Aug. Ians. Bar. Corl. Schz.). Locuturus quippe de tanta Domini humilitate prius celsitudinem eius voluit commendare evangelista (Aug.) ; alii in illis tribus cernunt causas impellentes (7o/. Lap.). Haec maxime insignia enumerans evangelista nos provocare vult ut magis admiremur Christum pedes discipulorum famuli instar abluentem, et ut eius exemplum et doctrina demissionis animi altius animis inhaereat. Quaresingula enumerans totam actionem oculisquasi spectandam subiicit
13:4
v. & surgia coena et ponit vestimenta suai. e. amictum superiorem (vo) et pallium (n*7), i. e. ea vestimenta quae retenta tunica interiore (n2n») deponi poterant, et cum accepisset linteum praecinzit se
13:5
v. 5 deinae mittit aquam in pelvim; facile concipies quanta admiratione discipuli singula spectarint secum cogitantes : quid haec sibi velint. Bene expendit Chr.: « vide quomodo non lavando solum, sed et alio quoque modo humilitatem exhibeat; non enim antequam recumberet, sed postquam omnes recubuerunt, tunc surrexit; deinde non solum lavat, sed positis vestibus; neque his contentus linteo se praecingit; neque id satis habuit, sed ipse pelvim implevit, neque alteri implendam tradidit, sed haec omnia ipse facit ». In tota narratione simplicitas illa Ioanni propria et veritatis index certissima splendet (Pa/tr.), et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus ;
13:6
v. 6 venit ergo ad Simonem Peirum; haec verba aliter ab aliisintelliguntur; alii enim ita concipiunt , ut non a Petro lavandi initium ceperit (Or. Chr. Barh. Theoph. Euth. Tol. Weiss); alii, ut exprimatur a Petro eum incepisse (Aug. Nonn. Bed. Rup. Bon. Cai. Salm. Maid. lans. Bar. Lap. Corl. Schg. Schz. Fil.); « quando ergo pedes discipulorum lavare coepit, venit ad Petrum a quo coepit » (Aug.). Prius enim insinuat totum factum, scil. quod lavit pedes discipulorum; et postmodum si quaeratur quomodo factum sit, dicit quod primo venit ad Simonem Petrum (T/om.); « ergo pedes discipulorum lavare incipiens venit ad Petrum » (Rup.). Id quoque ex eo quod Petrus adeo fortiter recusat colligi potest; nam si ab alio incepisset, ille aut recusasset aut admisisset; si prius, certe a Domino compulsus paruisset, id quod Petrus intuens lotioni non tam acriter restitisset; si alterum, Petrus tali exemplo facilius cessisset. Idem ex Petri stupore et admiratione colligit Edersheim ll p. 499 aliique acatholici (Baumgarten-Crusius, Hengstenberg, Ewald apud ScAz. Weiss); quare potuit Weiss abstinere a cavillatione quod catholici propter causam primatus romani a Petro inceptum esse statuerent. Petri primatus adeo clare ex aliis locis patet, ut catholici minime indigeant ea explicatione. Petrus itaque videns quod Dominus facturus erat « expavit quod etiam quilibet eorum expavisset » (4ug.), et dicit ei Petrus : Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? « quid est tu? quid est mihi? cogitanda sunt potius quam dicenda, ne forte quod ex his verbis aliquatenus dignum concipit anima, non explicet lingua » (Aug.);
13:7
v. 7 respondit Iesus et dizit ei : quod ego facio, tu nescis modo; scies autem postea; scil. v. 13 seq., uti plerique explicant (TAeod. M. Aug. Bed. Theoph. Euth. Cai. Salm. Patr. Corl. Schz. Fil. Weiss), dum alii illud postea ad institutionem a Spiritu sancto accipiendam referunt (Chr. Rup. Mald. Schg.). « Quid ergo Petrus? adhuc cohibet » (CAr.); non attendit quod Christus dixit de causa; non curat causam fervor pectoris; reverentia Domini impulsus prosilit in negationem (cf. Bar.)
13:8
v. 8 dicit ei Petrus : non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum i. e. nunquam id patiar, nunquam hoc feram, nunquam sinam; hoc quippe in aeternum non fit, quod nunquam fit (Aug.); est vehementis affectus haec vox (To/.); respondit ei Iesus : si non lavero te, non habebis (non habes) partem mecum; « ita dictum est : si non lavero te, cum de solis pedibus ageretur, quomodo dici assolet : calcas me, quando sola planta calcatur » (Aug.); οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ non habes consortium mecum. Uti ex v. 10 et 13 seq. consequitur, Iesus id quod actione sua designatum voluit etiam ex merito suae actionis discipulis impetrat et largitur; impetrat illis et largitur (illis scil. qui iam loti sunt i. e. in statu gratiae) perfectam munditiem et perfectam exempli sui imitationem, qua demum digni evadant qui tamquam apostoli et Christi legatione fungentes consortium habeant cum ipso tum in opere messiano tum in gloria. Unde aliis verbis hac sua actione animique demissione illis impetrat apud Patrem gratiam perseverantiae in dignitate apostolatus (cf. 17,11 seq.). Quare si non lavero te, non accipies quod hac mea actione et significatur et tribuitur (v. 10. 13 seq.) et consequenter noh habes consortium mecum , partem illam singularem et eximiam in opere messiano, in dignitate apostolatus. Christus itaque minis appositis Petri zelum indiscretum et inordinatum (TÀom.) cohibet. Recusat utique ex reverentia Domini, verum post Christi responsum v. 7 debuit cognoscere id fieri consilio altissimo, debuit parere dicenti, ne Iesum quási rem inutilem faceret et minime consentaneam accusare videretur (cf. Or.). Communiter explicant ita, ut non ipsa actio Christi dicatur habere effectum salutarem vel necessarium pro Petro, sed ut dicatur Petrus excidere a familiaritate et gratia Christi, si persistat esse inobediens seu rebellis; « si non in hac re quam ego ut praeceptor et Dominus a te postulo, mihi acquieveris, illud tibi denuntio quod in poenam tuae inobedientiae de meo collegio sis eiiciendus partemque illam beatae retributionis et felicitatis aeternae quam ego una cum meis accipiam in regno Patris mei, non sis accepturus » (Zans. sim. 7ol. Lap. Bar. Nat. Corl. Fil.). Quae tamen explicatio verbis non congruere videtur; exspectaretur enim : si non obedieris, non habes partem mecum; neque ulla cernitur ratio, cur Christus dicat : si non lavero te, vel cur ex tali recusatione quae tota amore ac reverentia innitatur maximum illud detrimentum et supplicium consequatur. Sermo Christi ita est conformatus, ut ipsa actione Christi bonum conferri dicatur, ut ipsa omissione huius actionis exsistat damnum, non inobedientia alterius. Hoc sensisse alii videntur, scil. rei cardinem verti in illo : si non lavero te. Sed cum difficile videretur, quomodo lotione pedum omissa Petrus excluderetur a Christi consortio, lotionem statim transtulerunt ad lotionem animi quae sanguine Christi fiat; « vere enim nisi Christus dilectos suos lavisset a peccatis eorum in sanguine suo, nec Petrus nec quisquam ceterorum hominum partem habuisset cum illo » (Rup. sim. Cyr. Cai. Mald. Calm. Patr.). Verum haec explicatio nimis recedit ab ipsa narratione et locutionis forma. Christus enim adstans cum pelvi aqua plena et linteo vult pedes Petri abluere; si iam dicit éav μὴ νίψω cc, non potest velle significare remissionem peccatorum Petro iam concessam merito sanguinis quem effusurus sit, ita ut verba illa dicant : si non lavissem te spiritualiter, vel si non fusurus essem sanguinem etc. — Quare rem ita explico, ut actio Christi id quod ex v. 10. 13 seq. significat etiam in apostolis mundis (in statu gratiae) efficiat, quo effectu sortiuntur illud consortium cum Christo quod non sint amissuri. « Quid ergo fervens ille ardensque vic » (CAr.) hac comminatione audita?
13:9
v. 9 dicit ei Simon Petrus : Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus et caput, ecce vera Petri indoles! vehemens in recusando, vehementior in concedendo est (CAr.); pro animi praecipitantia ab una exaggeratione in alteram contrariam transit; simulque quae sit sua in Iesum fervens dilectio, quale ipsius consortii desiderium, nativa simplicitate declarat;
13:10
v. 10 dicit ei Iesus : qui lotus est non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus, respondet Iesus exemplo ex vita desumpto : qui lotus est ὁ λελουμένος, qui sumpto balneo domum suam revertitur, non indiget, nisi ut pedes lavet, quibus per viam nonnihil pulveris adhaerebat; domum reversus non iterum balneo lavat, sed ad summum pedes lavat, et est omnino mundus, toto corpore mundus. Iam hoc exemplo se velle declarare quid sua lotione efficiat ostendit addens : et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes; i.e. mundi sunt, similiter sicut is mundus est corpore qui e balneo egreditur, ita illi mundi animis, a peccato mortali immunes; verum indigent ut pedes lavent; per viam pulvis adhaerebat pedibus; sine defectibus et levioribus peccatis non vivitur; itaque ut efficiantur prorsus mundi, Christus hac sua actione iis meretur et confert; iis meretur etimpetratut gratia divina adiuti a munditie necessaria in muneris ministerio non excidant et ad munditiem perfectam tandem evehantur vel ad eam redeant. Atque Christum dicere eos esse mundos munditie illa spirituali necessaria, patet ex eo quod addit : sed non omnes; eos evehendos esse ad perfectam munditiem, indicat exemplo allato de lotione pedum, ut quis sit omnino purus quoad omnia. Pulverem pedum esse venialium peccatorum sordes, quas nemo sine singulari prorsus divino auxilio perpetuo vitare possit, facile patet (cf. Aug. Rup. Tol. Ians. Bar. Lap. Patr. Corl. Schz. Weiss). Iesus qui de excaecatione urbis Ierusalem fleverat (Luc. 19,41) profecto etiam cum magno animi dolore addidit illud sed non omnes; non designat aperte proditorem, ut ei parcat; at tamen ei occultam et utilem reprehensionem tribuit ostendens se omnino animum eius habere perspectum; « obscuro itaque sermone usus eí conscientiae acrem reprehensionem relinquens incomparabilem suae patientiae magnitudinem declaravit » (Cyr.). Addit evangelista
13:11
v. 11 sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum; propterea dizit : non estis mundi omnes; sané miranda summopere Christi clementia qui pedes proditoris lavare non dedignatur, sed simul considerandum, ad quantam obstinationem et pervicaciam pervenire possit qui malis animi cupiditatibus non resistit, quia Iudas tali amoris et benevolentiae et humilitatis exhibitione nullatenus tangitur, verum pedes lavari per Dominum sinens in sua perversitate immotus permanet. Iam alterum declarat quod actione sua significatum voluit et merito suaeactionis etiam prosuis apostolis impetravit
13:12
v. 12 postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum et accepit vestimenta sua, cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis : scitis quid fecerim vobis? « interrogatione excitat ut attentos reddat auditores suos orator gratiae et veritatis; interrogati namque quod ne- Scimus, attentius quasi manu pulsantis excitati audire solemus » (Rup.) i. e. cognoscitisne, intelligitisne quid hoc sibi velit quod fecerim vobis?
13:13
v. 18 vos vocatts me Magister et Domne, et bene dicitis; sum etenim;
13:14
v. 1 st ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister, et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes; « suo exemplo humiles esse docet, sed spe- .ciem ponit pro genere; nam per lotionem pedum , quod omnium minihumilitatis » (Maid.). Id quod etiam confirmatur
13:15
v. 15 ezemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis; « hoc est, beate Petre, quod nesciebas, quando fieri non sinebas » (Aug.). Ne facta eius solum admiremur, dicit : exemplum dedi vobis, exemplum scil. humilitatis, et dicit χαθώς quemadmodum , « ut intelligamus, quod ad imitandum modum faciendi (humiliter, mansuete, benevole, studiose etc.) monet » (Cai.). Cadit enim praeceptum Domini non adeo in signum, lotionem pedum, quam in rem significatam, obsequia scil. caritatis et humilitatis proximis exhibenda (Corl. Fil. sim. Chr. Cyr. Aug. etc.). . Quod praeceptum non solum aequum esse, sed multo magis eius observationem nobis esse necessariam declarat sententia proverbiali
13:16
v. 16 amen, amen dico vobis : non est servus maior domino suo, neque apostolus ἀπόστολος legatus maior est eo qui misit illum, vide Matth. 10,94; Luc. 6,50; proin multo magis id a vobis fiat oportet (CAr.). Et additur promissio ac praemium
13:17
v. 17 s? Aaec scitis, beati eritis, si feceritis ea; « non enim scire virtutem, sed cam exercere optandum est atque laudabile » (CAr.). Non est improbabile quod iam Rup. Bon. existimant, Iesum etiam propterea pedes lavisse et admonitionem hanc dedisse, quia discipuli ante coenam inter se contenderant quis eorum videretur esse maior (Luc. 22,94), cum fortasse disceptarent de ordine accumbendi. Neque obstat ordo narrationis apud Lucam, qui scil. is est eo loco, ut prius referat coenam paschalem, dein eucharistiae institutionem , dein addat aliqua quae vel ante coenam vel inter eam et post eam dicta sunt (cf. Comment. in Luc. p. 576. 578 seq.).
13:18
v. 18 non de omnibus vobis dico, scil. beati estis; « quanta patientia! nondum proditorem arguit, sed rem obtegit hinc illi poenitentiae locum concedens » (Chr.); ego scio quos elegerim, qui sint et quales futuri sint, quos elegi ad dignitatem apostolatus, sed ut adimpleatur Scriptura : qui manducat mecum panem, levabit (levavit) contra me calcaneum suum; i. e. sed quamvis sciverim quis futurus sit proditor, eum quoque elegi, ut adimpleretur etc. ; attendenda est ratio diversa praedictionum. Peccata enim quae homines commissuri sunt idcirco praedicta sunt quia erant futura; nam Deus praevidet et quandoque annuntiat quae homines pro libero suo arbitrio facturi sunt; Christus autem ea de causa omnia faciebat , ut Patris impleret voluntatem ; ita etiam faciebat, ut ea quae praedicta erant impleret. Proin elegit Iudam quamvis sciret eum fore proditorem, quia novit Patrem id voluisse, elegit quia id scriptum erat, elegit ut id impleretur quod significatum et praedictum erat (cf. To/.). Unde illud sed ut consequenter ad Iudae peccatum praevisum et praedictum idem enuntiat ac si diceres : sed oportuit Scripturam impleri; alii post sed supplent : hoc factum est (γίνεται τὸ γενόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσοντός με, Or.). Verba deprompta sunt ex Ps. 80,10 (hebr. &1); conqueritur psalmista de insidiis quae parantur ab eo qui ad mensam secum accumbebat. Cum psalmus inscribatur ipsi David, plerumque explicant de proditione Achitophel (2 Reg. 15,129. 31 seq. 16,20; 17,1 seq.; qui postquam perfide egit contra David suspendio interiit 17,23). Quare verba illa ratione typica in Messia quoque qui David a prophetis vocatur imquem percutere ; designatur iniuria quae ab amico familiari et conviva infertur. LXX eo loco habent ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν, unde vulg. : magnificavit super me supplantationem 1. e. insidias struxit, imagine deprompta ab eo qui aliquem currentem (in stadio) supplantat , i. e. pede interiecto pedem alterius impedit, ut cadat. Manifestat itaque Christus se omnino praescivisse proditionem et ea quoque impleri Scripturam ; cur autem de ea re moneat suos enuntiat v. 19 amodo ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ab hoc ipso tempore dico vobis priusquam fiat , ut cum factum fuerit credatis quia ego sum, Messias scil. cf. 8,94 (Mald. Corl. Schz.), vel ut alii supplent : is in quo illud impletur (Euth. Aug. Bed.) ὁ προφητευθεὶς Χριστός (Or.). Ne igitur proditione illa quasi Iesus ex improviso essel captus perturbentur, ne ob rem adeo indignam de se dubitent et de sua missione, haec iis praedicit et in Scripturis ea iam esse consignata ostendit. Et postquam factum est recogitantes quae Christus dixerat in fide sua novo documento confirmantur. Adiungitur
Secundum Matth. 26,91 et Marc. 14,18 Iesus inter coenandum et puli quaerunt : numquid ego sum Domine. Ioannes id etiam inter coenandum factum esse docet eo ipso quia Christus panem intingit et Iudae porrigit ; ostendit itaqueinter coenandum sermonem esse inceptum et ad finem fere coenae Iudam accepta buccella exiisse. Manifestum est itaque ex narratione Matth. Marc. Ioan. sermonem de proditore et quaestiones discipulorum quis esset ex eis qui hoc facturus esset (Luc. 22,93) inter coenandum fuisse; quare fieri nequit, ut Lucas 92,21 sic intelligendus sit, ut haec non solum post coenam, sed etiam post institutionem eucharistiae facta sint. Quomodo Lucas intelligi debeat, iam bene vidit Rup. : « verba quae in priore coena Dominus de traditore suo dixit, Lucas sic praeposteravit, ut priorem paschae coenam et sequentem dominici corporis et sanguinis consecrationem narrando coniungeret et tunc demum verba quae in convivio dicta sunt continuaret ». Nisi igitur, quod plane superfluum est, adstruere volueris et Christum et discipulos 5:s i. c. inter coenandum et post spatium temporisinstituta eucharistia eadem dixisse (Christum : Luc. 22,22: vae etc., discipulos quaesivisse), profecto narratio apud Lucam ita concipi debet. Ioannes, uti alias, ita hic quoque aliorum narrationem supplet, omittit ea quae apud alios exposita sunt; ita quod Matth. 26,92. 25 refertur, loannes v. 22 solum innuit; reliqua v. 23-30 ipse solus narrat. Christus cum magno animi dolore ab illa laude v. 17 unum excipere debet
13:20
v. 20 amen, amen dico vobis , qui accipit si quem misero me accipit; qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit; honores et beneficia legatis collata redundant in eum, cuiuslegatione funguntur; videMatth. 10,40. Demonstrat Christus, quanti aestimanda sint beneficia suis apostolis collata; qua promissione certe homines provocantur, ut apostolis qui ἃ Christo mittuntur succurrant; itaque in verbis istis etiam continetur qualem eorum curam Christus sit habiturus. Sed qua ratione haec verba cohaerent cum antecedentibus? Hoc difficile est dictu, adeo ut sint qui ullum adesse nexum negent; esse scil. ab evangelista ea omissa quae in ipso sermone haec cum anstatuunt, sed vario modo. Et Theoph. quidem : μεγίστη μὲν οὖν ἀχολουθία ; Christum quippe duobus modis suis afferre consolationem : suo exemplo, iis scil. quae passus sit, proditori fecerit; dein praedicendo hoc loco apostolis suam protectionem et curam (sim. ScAz.). Alii verba haec referunt ad v. 16. 17 (cf. Rup. Tol. Lap. Bar.) : quamvis lavare pedes inter vos iubeam, scitote tamen me eo vos in loco ab omnibus haberi velle, ut qui recipit aliquem quem ego misero me recipiat. Cum in v. 90 asseratur dignitas apostolorum, alii ita ad v. 19 adiungunt, ut Christus innuat non obstante proditione unius manere reliquis intactam dignitatem apostolicam (ScAg. Fil.). Vide ad v. 91. Aliae quoque rationes coniungendi excogitatae sunt. Valde apta esset illa quam Cyr. proposuit, nisi videretur subtilior : « nolens, ut videtur, aperte dicere quod alibi dixit : qui non honoriflcat Filium, neque Patrem honorificat , ad id quod mitius erat se contulit , hinc cogitandum relinquens auditoribus contrarium »; quam explicationem omnium optimam Patr. existimat : sicut qui accipit quem misero me accipit, et qui me accipit, accipit eum qui misit me, ita (tacite concludendum relinquitur) : qui me non accipit neque eum accipit qui me misit, neque Deum agnoscit; crimen proin Iudae quale sit et quomodo in Deum Patrem conferat iniuriam indicari. Iudae itaque sceleris magnitudinem mitiori modo proponi. Verum quae suppleri debent sunt praecise contraria iis quae hic dicuntur; neque satis cernitur, cur ea in sententia inceperit Christus ab acceptione eius quem ipse miserit. — Alii ita ad v. 16 adnectunt : supra dictum est : apostolus non est maior eo qui misit illum ; nunc dicitur : neque est eo minor (Weiss); vel uti supra iis consortium tribulationum indicitur, ita hic consortium honoris magistro debiti (Beelen, Bisping); vel humilitate illa quam a suis exigat Christus eos nullatenus fore contemptui , immo iri consideratum locum Christi tenentes, vel admoneri apostolos, ut quos Christus missurus sit ad eos suscipiant sicut se ipsum. Neque defuerunt qui hunc v. 20 interpolatione insertum esse dicerent. Quae innuerat iam v. 10 et v. 18. 19, nunc claris verbis enuntiat non sine magna animi commotione
13:21
v. 21 cum haec dixisset Iesus turbatus est spiritu; cf. 19,91 et protestatus est ἐμαρτύρησεν quasi testimonium sollemne edidit, sollemniter testatus est et dirit : amen , amen dico vobis , quia unus ex vobis tradet me; multa concurrunt, propter quae Christus animo commoveri ac concuti voluerit. Dixerat qui me accipit etc., unde a contrario horrore corripitur enormitate sceleris proditionis ab uno ex apostolis commissae ; in hacipsa proditione cernit passionem et mortem imminentem, a qua affectus humanus cum timore ac tremore resilit; « turbavit eum imminens passio et periculum proximum et traditoris impendens manus, cuius fuerat praecognitus animus; tale quippe hoc est quod Iesus turbatus est spiritu, quale etiam illud quod ait 12,97 ; sicut ergo tunc anima eius turbata est hora propinquante passionis, ita etiam nunc exituro Iuda atque venturo et propinquante tanto scelere traditoris » (Aug. sim. Rup. Thom. Bon.); exhorruit tantum proditoris scelus ( Cyr. εἰ.) οἴ qui magno cum dolore de obcaecatione lerusalem lacrimas fudit, ei, utpote magistro dulcissimo, flebile quoque erat unum ex discipulis tam miserabiliter labi et in praecipitium mortis aeternae propria malitia ruere neque ulla persuasione velle revocari (To/. sim. Thom. Lap. Bar. Schg.). Ex qua animi commotione etiam intelligitur Iesum non solum hoc unum dixisse quod Ioannes refert, sed alia plura quae synoptici tradiderunt. Quia isti pariter iam de quaestionibus discipulorum satis scripserint , ipse solum generatim refert
13:22
v. 22 aspictebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, haesitantes, ἀπορούμενοι incerti, de quo diceret; stapor simul ac timor invadit eos (Cyr.); « nota quidem sibi erat cuiusque conscientia; verumtamen quia proximi erat ignota, ita sibi unusquisque erat certus, ut incerti essent et in ceteris singuli et in singulis ceteri » (Aug. Bed.). Sed cum sciant Servatoris sermonem irritum esse non posse, de se eliam quisque erat sollicitus, unde interrogant, sicuti synoptici narrant. | Cum vero neque mutua inter se disquisitione (Luc. 22,93) neque quaestionibus Domino positis (Marc. 15,19; cf. Matth. 26,95) deprehenderetur proditor, tum demum accidit quod Ioannes narrat, quia Petrus quo erat fervore omnino certo scire desiderabat quis esset;
13:23
v. 93 erat ergo recumbens unus ez discipulis eius in sinu Iesu quem diligebat Iesus, ipse scil. loannes qui ita de se narrat (cf. 18,15; 21,7. 20). Ad mensam enim accumbere solebant ita, ut reclinata superiore parte corporis in cubitum sinistrum , inferiore in longum porrecta, capite leviter erecto iacerent; loannesitaque iacebat in lectulo ante Iesum ad eius latus dexterum, cubito nixus sinistro, ita ut caput haberet fere coram pectore Iesu; iacebat ergo a sinu, vel in sinu Iesu (cf. LigAtfoot, Horae hebr. ad ἢ. l. Cori. ScAg. Schz. Fil.); Petrum iacuisse ad latus Iesu sinistrum aliqui existimant (L:gAtfoot l. c. Schg. Schz.); sed tum non facile videtur, quomodo innuere Ioanni commode potuerit ; quare alii eum in parte Ioanni opposita collocant (cf. Edersheim ll p. ^94). loannes diligebatur a Iesu maiore familiaritate; inde etiam nactus esse videtur specialem favorem, ut talem occuparet locum prope Iesum; « an parum te didicisse putas, cum recubuisse audis et quod tanta apud magistrum frueretur fiducia (παρρησίας) ; si vero causam quaeris, id ex amore proveniebat; ideo ait : quem diligebat Iesus » (Chr.). Eum autem speciali modo a Iesu esse dilectum propter animi puritatem passim affirmant (cf. Cyr. Theoph. Euth. Rup. Alb. Thom. Tol. Lap. Bar. etc.). Iesum nolle proditorem omnibus notum facere et indicare satis planum erat ex iis quae gesta esse synopfici narrant. Petrus tamen summopere nosse rem desiderabat eiusque noscendi impatientia indoli eius alias manifestatae plane congruit. Sperat itaque per eum quem Iesus diligebat et qui prope eum in eius sinu accumbebat rem posse sciri;
13:24
v. 2& innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dixit ei, ipso signo nutuque dicit : quis est de quo dicit; ita ergo Petrus accumbit , ut ipse clam Dominum non interrogare possit; eum nutu locutum esse loanni clarius exprimitur lectione νεύει... Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη etc., uti habet e quoque : et huic annuit ut cognosceret a Iesu de quo dixisset;
13:25
v. 95 itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesu , ἀναπεσὼν ἐχεῖνος οὕτως, Scil. ὡς ἀνέχειτο (Euth.), scil. uti v. 23 dictum est et illud zn sinu declaratur ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος ; quia enim hortatu Petri clam interrogaverat, necesse erat dicere quomodo recumberet ut clam ceteris posset interrogare et clam Iesu responsum recipere; fortasse hic dicitur supra pectus , quia ita accubitum fecerat , ut capite pectus Iesu contingeret, quo facilius clam reliquis colloqueretur; dzcit e : Domine, quis est?
13:26
v. 96 respondit Iesus : ille est, cui ego intinctum panem porrexero ; « non aliud dat Salvator rei signum quam quod per prophetae vocem olim praedictum erat » (Ps. 40,10; Cyr.) et cum tintinxisset panem, Ψωμίον frustum , buccellam , intinxit in patinam in qua erat charoseth, offa quaedam spissa, pulmentum, embamma (vide quae dixi in Com. Matth. II p. 420 nota 1), dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae; sunt qui existiment buccellam fuisse de agno paschali et Iesum , qui omnibus iam offulam porrexisset, eo momento Iudae praebuisse, vel statim postea aliis quoque dedisse, ita ut solus loannes ita designari proditorem perciperet (Corl.); id fortasse Petrus quoque advertit, quia quaestionis a loanne propositae non ignarus coniectare potuit Iesum ista actione respondisse. Iesus autem ista actione Iudae novum benevolentiae signum exhibuit iterumque ei gratiam et impulsum ad resipiscendum obtulit. | Frustra erant terribiles illae minae, frustra Iudas sciebat se plane perspici a Iesu (Matth. 26,94. 95), frustra benevolentia Iesu et gratia offerebatur; ludas magis animum in malo obfirmabat; unde
13:27
v. 27 et post buccellam introivit in eum satanas; « tunc intrat in cor quando homo totaliter dat se ad sequendum eius instinctum et in nullo ei resistit; intravit, ut plenius possideret et ad perpetrandam malitiam duceret, in quem prius miserat, ut desiperet » (Thom.). Accepit enim ludas signum benevolentiae et amicitiae; sed perfricta fronte omnes admonitiones contempsit; « hinc iusto Dei iudicio factum est ut totus testatem , quod significatur per hoc quod dicitur intrasse in eum satanas » (lans.). Hoc Dei iudicium , quo Deus dicitur tradere peccatores in desideria cordis eorum (Rom. 1,24) etiam Christus enuntiat : et dixit ei Iesus : quod facis fac citius; « videns Dominus inemendabilem Iudae malitiam et firmum proditionis propositum, ne ille existimaret se timore aliquo eum beneficiis. affecisse , quasi hisce sibi timens eum retrahere vellet et non potius illi consulere , idcirco dicit : quod facis fac citius, i. e. quod facere jam decrevisti, exsequere cito et celeriter, non contradico nec obsisto nec timeo » (Tol.). Hisce verbis simul scelus quod mente perpetravit ei obiicit et ante oculos proponit (Bar.); praeterea indicat se non permittente proditorem nihil posse efficere et vera esse quae Iudaeis dixerat : potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam (Chr.). Plerumque monent imperativum fac non esse praecipientis, sed permittentis et exprobrantis; adhibetur enim imperativus etiam, si quis dicere vult se quidquam patienter ferre, pati, se nihil opponere quominus aliquidfiat (cf. Krüger 55,4. 2; imperativum permissivum vocant, Winer 43,1); citius quam facere velle videris. Iudas certe proposuerat coena mox relicta se conferre ad synedristas et custodia accepta comprehensioni Iesu cooperari. Iesus videns eum in malo plane obduratum ab aliorum consortio et suo commercio eum removere vult, et cum ipse videretur tardare, eum monet, ut quod facere proposuit, coenam relinquere, ct/ius exsequatur. Hisce itaque Iesus eum a collegio apostolorum removet, ut qui animo iam dudum recesserat, corpore quoque separetur, ineptus et indignus qui subsequenti dilectionis Iesu significationi intersit. Si ita verba conceperis, modus imperandi nihil habere potest offensionis. Ea verba non Iudae dici, sed diabolo Cyr. arbitratur, [udae vel diabolo Or. existimat. Quam bene obtexerit Iudas perversitatem , elucet ex sequenti mar- ei ; nihil itaque suspicionis conceperant neque antea neque post annuntiationem Christi de uno proditore ex verbis illis : quod facis etc.
13:29
v. 29 quidam enim putabant quia loculos habebat Iudas, quod dixisset ei Jesus : eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum ; aut egenis ut aliquid daret; prius eo magis putare poterant, si dies subsequens tum ex aliis tum ex 18,98. Sed idem etiam existimare poterant, etsi dies subsequens fuisset dies ipse festivitatis paschalis; festi enim dies non habebant tam strictam observantiam et ab omni opere cessationem quam dies sabbati (vide quae de v. 29 dixi in Comment. Matth. II p. 407, ubi id locis allatis probatur);
13:30
v. 30 cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam , exivit continuo; erat autem noz ; ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς ; proin buccella accepta statim coenaculum reliquit. Id quod bene notandum est..Nam ea re solvitur quaestio, utrum Iudas eucharistiam acceperit necne. Buccellam hanc non esse eucharistiam evidens est. lam Aug. notat : « non autem, ut putant quidam negligenter legentes tunc Iudas Christi corpus accepit ». Sed poteritne institutio eucharistiae antea inseri? Sunt qui eucharistiae institutionem collocant post v. 22 et ante v. 93 (Aug. Tol.). Verum.ita contextus narrationis discerpitur; discipuli inter coenam et ante institutionem quaerunt de proditore, Christus vae illud etiam ante institutionem enuntiavit ; pariter dixerat proditorem unum ex discipulis secum manducare. Eadem narrat Lucas; sed uti iam dictum est, non potest assumi eadem bis et a Domino et a discipulis dicta esse et proin ordinem narrationis Lucae ita esse explanandum , uti etiam 21,37 habetur : ad rem gestam narratam (coenam paschalem et eucharisticam) addit aliquid quod narrationem supplet, quod itaque ex clara ac perspicua aliorum relatione explicari debet. Accedit quod plane improbabile sit, Petrum pro indole sua fervida quaestionem suam non eo tempore proposuisse quo omnes discipuli magnopere excitati inter se quaererent et Dominum interrogarent, sed eam distulisse et post eucharistiae institutionem demum (cum de ea re iam non esset sermo) quaestionem movisse. Certe in v. 22 evangelista id paucis innuit quod explicatius synoptici referunt ; suo modo autem eandem synopticorum narrationem supplet iis quae v. 23 seq. narrat. Proin haec ab illa narratione et a v. 22 non sunt avellenda. Proin v. 18-30 narratio est una continua, quae arcte cum antecedentibus v. 10. 11 et cum lotione pedum connectitur neque sine violentia discerpi potest. Id bene intellexerunt ii qui, ut nihilominus ludam ad eucharistiam admitterent, lotionem pedum ponunt post eucharistiam institutam (Thom.); alii, ut Jans., censent omnia de proditione acta esse post institutionem eucharistiae, quod est contra claram narrationem Matthaei et Marci; Baronius (an. 3& n. 58) recte existimat omnia gesta esse post lotionem pedum ante institutionem, uti Matth. Marc. Ioan. scribunt, Lucam uti postpositione; at illud continuo, εὐθύς, ita solum esse intelligendum vult, ut Iudas non exspectarit longum illum post coenam sermonem. Verum praeter εὐθύς etiam attendere oportet illud : quod facis, fac citius! Contra hanc sententiam, Iudam non accepisse eucharistiam !, obiectum est Patres unanimi consensu docere contrarium. Quae obiectio est falsa. Nam esse Patres qui explicite statuunt Iudam non interfuisse institutioni iam exposui in Comment. Matth. II p. 439; alii eam quaestionem non attingunt; quomodo ergo de consensu unanimi sermo fieri potest? Aliorum de eadem sententias vide in Comment. 1. c. voluit ad consilium daemonis, principis tenebrarum exsequendum; apte nox seligitur ad crimen atrocissimum, quod utique convenit ei tempori, de quo Christus dixit : haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum (Luc. 22,53). In noctem exit ludas separatus ab eo qui est lux mundi, exit tenebris obvolutam habens mentem. Merito notat Or. tempus hoc noctis non temere assignatum esse ; dicendum esse symbolice tunc noctem fuisse sub sensum cadentem quae imago exsisteret noctis factae in anima Iudae. Unde Aug. dicit : et ipse qui exivit erat nox. — Habet utique brevis haec sententia qua narratio concluditur aliquid horroris, quia animus legentis sponte monetur de nocte caliginosa qua ludas est cireumfusus et de nocte illa aeterna ad quam capessendam sibi et acquirendam exit.
13:31
v. 31 cum ergo exisset, dizit Iesus : nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, nunc quando Iudas egressus est ad proditionem perficiendam (Or. Aug.), passionem imminentem vocat suam glorificaionem, quia consummatio gloriae in passione sita erat quam pro mundi vita sustinuit (Cyr.); in ipsa passione manifestata est eius gloria variis prodigiis, passione ipse pervenit ad gloriam, passione fit causa salutis aeternae et ideo gloria et honore prosequendus ab omnibus. Hanc passionis gloriam iam enuntiavit 19,39 (Chr. Cyr. Rup.); dicit ἐδοξάσθη, « sciendum est enim quod quando aliquid incipit fieri, videtur esse quasi factum » (Thom. Schz. Corl.); per proditionem opus redemptionis iam est quasi inceptum, et loquitur Christus, quemadmodum si belli dux accepto nuntio proelii eo die futuri gestiens dicat : nunc nomen consecutus sum immortale, loquens per praeteritum de re futura, ut ostendat se habere victoriam tam certam quam si triumphans iam reverteretur (Mald.). Vocat autem tempus hoc proditionis, passionis, mortis tempus glorificationis etiam ideo, ut animos discipulorum erigat, consoletur, ut cognoscant se per passionem transire ad gloriam (Chr. Cai.) et si ipse glorificatur, etiam discipuli eius gloriae erunt consortes. Dicit itaque iam adesse illud tempus, de quo 12,23 locutus est (Euth., qui addit : si Domino gloria sunt afflicliones toleratae pro servis, multo magis servis gloria sunt quae pro Domino sustinent). Haec autem glorificatio Filii est etiam Patris gloria et Deus clarificatus est in eo; cf. 11,5; 19,28; 17,5; Iesus enim in omnibus Patris exsequitur voluntatem; in Christi gloria et regno apparet Patris gloria; in Christi opere et morte manifestatur Dei sanctitas, iustitia, immensa in genus humanum misericordia et caritas (cf. Rom. 3,26; 5,8); dein eo quod Christus honoratur et eius gloria per apostolos mundo annuntiatur, etiam Patris gloria agnoscitur et adoratur. Pater autem Filio vices reddit
Iam Iesus omnem sermonem eo convertit, ut apostolos consoletur, instruat, confirmet salutaribus documentis. Indicat evangelista ipsum Iudae discessum occasionem Christo praebuisse commutandi sermonem et de :glorificatione sua agendi (Mald.); quare scribit
13:32
v. 82 si Deus clarificatus est in eo i. e. quandoquidem, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso, eum scil. assumendo in consortium gloriae coelestis divinitati propriae, uti 17,5 dicitur : . elarifica me Pater apud temetipsum claritate quam habui priusquam mundus esset apud te (cf. Corl.). Illud gloriae consortium exprimitur in sessione ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis (Hebr. 1,3); illud ἐν αὑτῷ videtur eiusdem esse notionis ac παρὰ σεαυτῷ 17,5; alii explicant : per semetipsum eum glorificabit, non per alium (δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐ δι᾿ ἑτέρου, Chr.); sed haec gloria Christi quae per Patrem ei fit potius in sequenti membro enuntiatur ef continuo clarificabit eum εὐθύς statim, confestim, i. e. iam antequam in illam gloriae coelestis societatem assumatur, uti glorificatus est in ipsa passione et morte variis prodigiis, confessione centurionis, resurrectione sua etc. ; immo hoc statim clarificabit eum, prooemium esse potest ad eucharistiam instituendam, quae commode hoc loco inseritur, uti eam post hoc verbum iam collocavit Tatianus (cf. C:asca, Tat. evang. harm. arabice, Romae 1888 p. 80), quem Bar. quoque sequitur. Et profecto in s. eucharistia habetur insignis glorificatio Iesu, cum ibi praesens sistatur modo adeo stupendo et humana eius natura exsistentiam in plurimis locis nanciscatur. Sermo qui sequitur et etiam tenerrima illa appellatio τεχνία optime exeipit ipsam institutionem illam, quam concludit : hoc facite in meam commemorationem (Luc. 22,19. 1 Cor. 11,94). Discessum suum, de quo in eucharistiae institutione mentionem fecerat, postea clarius iis proponit v. 33 filioli τεχνία, compellatio blanda, amore plena, qua acerbum discipulis nuntium emollire studet simulque animi sui in eos affectum tenerrimum testari vult, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum; tempus usque ad captivitatem, passionem, mortem brevissimum est; de hoc modico tempore plerique recte intelligunt (cf. Theod. M. Rup. Alb. Thom. Cai. Tol. Mald. Corl. Schz.); Aug. bene notat: « ne cui autem videatur abhorrere iste sensus a vero..., apud alium quoque evangelistam post resurrectionem verba eius attendat, ubi ait : haec locutus sum vobis, cum adhuc essem vobiscum » (Luc. 94,45); unde esse cum apostolis dicit de continua sua cum iis consuetudine, qualem post resurrectionem iam non habebat. Post eius . discessum magno desiderio discipuli eius praesentiam optabunt : quaeretis me, et sicut dixi Iudaeis : quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire, et vobis dico modo; cf. 1,3*; quod antea Iudaeis dixit, hoc nunc vel modo ἄρτι discipulis dicit (ans. Mald. Schz.); ita ex oppositione ad Iudaeos quibus antea dixit iungendum erit, quamquam non pauci ita : modo non potestis venire, hoc dico (Theod. M. Aug. Bed. Thom. Cai. — Lap.). Iesus vadit ad Patrem; monet se iam Iudaeis dixisse, ut recordentur ἃ se iam antea praedictum esse : vado ad eum qui me misit (7,35); proinde suam mortem non adduci arbitrio adversariorum. Iudaeis dixerat : et non invenietis; hoc discipulis non dicit; quare simul indicat ipsis suam opem et auxilium et consolationem non defore in tribulationibus, quas ipsa voce quaeretis me et comparatione illa : sicut Iudaeis dixi, satis innuit illis occursuras esse. Non possunt venire, utique nunc, statim non possunt; « nec enim tempus adhuc erat discipulos nondum ministerio suo consummato ad supernas transire mansiones ; ea quippe migratio in congruum tempus servabatur » (Cyr.), cui rationi ex divina ordinatione et eorum munere apostolico depromptae alteram quoque addi posse censet ans. : quia propter imperfectionem nondum apti sint regno Dei aut morti pro eius gloria tolerandae. Cum itaque illis in vita mortali remanendum sit, formam vitae eos docet (ans. Tol.) simulque assignat quomodo regno Dei se idoneos reddere debeant (Rup. Thom.) et discedentis in modum paterna monita iis dat
13:34
v. 3& mandatum novum do vobis , ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis 1nvicem; prius ἵνα ut declarat ipsum mandatum et eius argumentum inducit; xa0og sicut exponit huius mandati normam et exemplum; alterum ἵνα «t indicat quid Christus hac sua dilectione etiam intenderit. Quaerunt cur dicat Iesus hoc mandatum novum, cum mandatum diligendi proximum iam etiam in lege datum sit (Lev. 19,18; cf. Matth. 5,43). Variae rationes assignantur. Frequenter novum cernunt in norma adiecta : sicut dilexi vos, quo raodo addito ostendit « suam dilectionem aliquid maius ac praeclarius habere quam vetus illa in proximos dilectio; investigandus ergo horum verborum sensus et quaerendum quomodo nos Christus dilexerit; tunc enim, tunc quid novitatis et discriminis sit in eo quod nunc datur mandato facile recensebimus » (Cyr.) et hanc novitatem exemplo Christi in eo deprehendunt, ut Christus iubeat nos alios amare plus quam nos ipsos, ita ut vitam ipsam pro iis ponere parati simus (Cyr. Theod. M. Ammon. Rup. Euth.), vel ut diligamus praestantes beneficia nullo debito obstricti, quia Ghristus non nostris meritis praecedentibus debitum persolverit, sed ipse coeperit nos amare(CAr.). Utique illud sicuz varie concipi potest; tria deprehendit TAom. : Christus nos dilexit gratuite, efficaciter (probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis) recte (i. e. nos in altero quod Dei est debemus diligere, sicut Christus nos dilexit in quantum similes sumus ei per gratiam adoptionis!; dilectionem describi ait Aug. ab omni mundana dilectione discretam, Christum enim Deum in nobis dilexisse; dilectionem designari christianam (Corl.). Alii tamen novum vocari mandatum censent quia hoc mandatum moribus hominum antiquatum et a ludaeis imperfecte observatum novus magister Christus renovavit et exemplo suo docuit (/ans.) vel quia hoc mandatum Iesus eousque non expresserat, unde nunc : novum hoc praeter alia omnia adiungo mandatum (To/.) vel mandatum de novo do vobis, ut diligatis (Mald.). Hoc symbolum et signum esse vult, quo sui a reliquis distinguantur
13:35
v. 38 in hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis , si dilectionem Aabueritis ad invicem; ponitur, ut Thom. ait, ratio implendi hoc mandatum. Quicumque connumeratur militiae regis, debet portare eius insignia; insignia autem Christi sunt insignia caritatis; caritatis igitur charactere insigniri debet, quicumque militiae Christi annumerari vult. Multa dona acceperunt apostoli, miracula patrarunt; omnia ista non sunt signa discipulatus Christi, cum gratiae gratis datae esse possint communes bonis et malis. Quare suos caritate vult esse distinctos? quaerit Chr. , « quia hoc maxime sanctorum indicium est et argumentum; omnem quippe indicat sanctitatem; per hoc maxime omnes salutem consequimur ; sic vos laudabunt omnes, cum vos viderint meam imitari dilectionem ». Hoc symbolo noti erant christiani : multitudo credentium erat cor unum et anima una (Act. &,32); hanc caritatem mirabantur gentiles teste Tertulliano : « vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant (ipsi enim invicem oderunt!), et ut pro alterutro mori sint parati (ipsi enim ad occidendum alterutrum paratiores erunt »; Apol. 39; M. 1,571). Caritas quippe est plenitudo legis (Rom. 13,10), Deus caritas est (1 Ioan. 5,8), in Christo apparuit caritas Dei et gratia (Rom. 5,8. Tit. 3,4); unde qui sunt Dei et Christi, hac caritate distinguantur oportet, prout scribit Minucius Felix : amant mutuo paene antequam noverint (Oct. 9; M. 3,261). Magna quaedam et praeclara res est dilectio; cum itaque ferventissimus Petrus (ὁ θερμότατος Πέτρος) audisset Dominum dicentem : quo ego vado etc., iam non cohibetur, et non tam discendi quam eum sequendi desiderio quaerit (CÀr.);
13:36
v. 36 dicit ei Simon Petrus : Domine, quo vadis? respondit Iesus : quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi ; ex divina enim dispositione Petrus apostolatus munere fungi debuit et hoc demum absoluto et divina ordinatione completa, segueris autem postea; negat sequelam pro praesenti, sed certam pro futuro promissionem concedit. Alii causam cur modo non possit sequi repetunt ex eius fide imperfecta ; « quid festinas, Petre? nondum te suo spiritu solidavit petra; noli extolli praesumendo » (Aug. sim. Cyr. Ammon. Rup. Alb. Thom.) ; melius alii causam repetunt ex munere quod obeundum ei erat (Apol. in cat. Schg. Schz.) et alii ex utraque ratione : tum ex officio quod antea implendum erat, tum ex eius viribus adhuc infirmis, nondum Spiritu s. accepto roboratis (Ians. Tol. Maid. Lap.). Sed postea sequi Petro non videtur satis; « se modo non posse » considerat quasi sibi defectus fortitudinis ac fidelitatis obiiceretur; unde
13:37
v. 81 dicit ei Petrus : quare non possum te sequi modo? nondum didicit verbo Domini acquiescere, quamvis in lotione pedum ea de re esset a Christo reprehensus; et se posse vult ex abundanti probare : animam meam pro te ponam paratus sum pro te mori! quale igitur periculum me posset a te separare, quia ne mortis quidem timor me retardabit? Nimiam eius confidentiam Christus retundit
13:38
v. 38 respondit ei Iesus : animam tuam pro me pones? quantum abes a tali animi robore! amen, amen dico tibi, non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges, i. e. ter negabis me nosse ante gallicinium, quae est quarta et po- Strema noctis pars sic vocata (Patr.); proin ante huius ipsius noctis finem iam tuum quod iactas robur miserrime te reliquit! « ecce quomodo tibi cito apparebis qui magna loqueris et te parvulum nescis; qui mihi promittis mortem tuam, ter negabis vitam tuam; qui te iam putas mori posse pro me, prius vive pro te : nam timendo mortem carnis tuae mortem dabis animae tuae; quanta enim vita est confiteri Christum, tanta mors est negare Christum » (Aug.).
13:1
Ce verset forme une phrase isolée, d'après l'opinion de beaucoup la plus commune. Mais on se demande s'il sert d'introduction à tout ce qui suit, y compris la mort de Jésus, où seulement au lavement des pieds. La première opinion nous paraît plus probable (West. Fill. etc.) à eause de la force et de l'étendue des termes. __ Néanmoins le verset sert en même temps d'introduction δὰ lavement des pieds, puisqu'il n'en ἃ pas d'autre. — Le δέ au début de la phrase est peut-être en opposition avec ΧΗ, 36. I y eut comme un moment d'arrêt après lequel Jésus, pleinement conscient que l'heure était venue, commença une nouvelle série d'actes d'amour — les derniers. ΠῚ s'est caché des Juifs auprès desquels sa mission était terminée; il va se consacrer aux siens. Ce nouveau point de départ est mis en vedette par une date placée en téte de tout le morceau, et qu'il ne faut lier étroitement ni à εἰδώς ni à ἠγάπησεν. C’est avant la fête de Pâque, et, par opposition avec ΧΗ, 4, le dernier soir qui précéda la Pâque, que les Juifs ne devaient manger qu'après la mort de Jésus (av, 28). La Pâque était immolée le 14 nisan avant la nuit. On était donc au mmé le 44 si la nuit avait été commencée 43 nisan, que les Juifs auraient déjà no (εἴ, 30). — εἰδώς indique comment Jésus est en réalité le seul acteur vraiment conscient du grand drame; l'heure qu'il devait attendre (ir, 4; vi, 6) était venue, et c'était l'heure qui annonçait sa gloire (x, 23), par son passage Vers 501 père. Toutefois ce passage devait continuer son œuvre en la couronnant : il avait aimé les siens (cf. 1» 11), il les aime εἰς τέλος, non pas seulement jusqu’au dernier moment au sens chronologique, mais jusqu'à l'acte suprême qui devait tout consommer. — ete τέλος peut signifier « complètement », εἶς τέλος τουτέστι παντελῶς (Diodore Sur ps. τι, 7, ettextes dans Bauer); mais ici l'opposition avec le temps écoulé jusqu'alors exige que la notion du temps soit contenue dans l’idée totale de perfection.
13:2
παραδοι (TH) plutôt que παραδω (SV).
13:3
est très difficile de choisir entre γινομένου (T HS V), d'après NBLX d syrsin. Orig. et γενομένου (Loisy, etc.), d'après la masse. — De toute façen il y eut interruption du repas, quireprend au v. 42. La lecon γενομένου semble avoir pour but ‘de bien marquer que cette interruption fut complète, et en effet il est peu vraisemblable que le Sauveur seul ait quitté la table pour laver les pieds de ses disciples qui auraient continué à manger. Mais cela même lui donne le caractère d'une correction. D'ailleurs, même avec γινομένου on doit supposer cette interruption au moment voulu. Il y eut donc une pause, et elle serait assez naturelle s’il y eut en réalité deux repas, la manducation pascale et le souper qui suivait. Loin de protester tacitement contre le repas pascal des synoptiques (Bauer, etc.), Jo. laisserait au contraire entendre qu'il y eut deux moments distincts dans le repas, Jésus ayant alors anticipé la Pâque que, d’après Jo. (xvr, 28), les Juifs ne devaient manger que le lendemain. L'invraisemblance de laver les pieds après et non avant le repas, qui ἃ (ant choqué Origène, est ainsi bien diminuée. D'ailleurs, que le texte soit γινομένου ou γενομένου, il y ἃ comme une intention de souligner le caractère insolite de l'acte de Jésus, et de ne point le confondre avec la manie des purifications qui obsédait les Juifs. Jésus n'entend pas du tout accomplir unc formalité de politesse avant le repas ou un rite de pureté pharisaïque, mais un acte d'humilité, d'autant plus inoui que déjà le traître a pris place à table. — Sur le lavage des pieds avant le repas, cf. Le. vu, 44. — Il est clair que le texte reçu τοῦ διαδόλου ἤδη βεδληχότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ἰούδα x.t.À. n’est qu'une correction du texte que nous avons imprimé avec les éditeurs critiques, correction qui le rend plus clair et en dégage bien le sens. On ἃ voulu prévenir une traduetion possible à la rigueur mais tout à fait déplacée ici : « Le diable ayant déjà mis dans son propre cœur que Judas trahirait Jésus », traduction à laquelle Origène n’a pas songé tout en lisant le texie critique. C'est comme un premier degré de la prise de possession de Judas par le diable au v. 27. La trahison est déjà arrêtée et convenue, Jo. le suppose connu d'après les synoptiques (Le. Xxu, ὃ; Cf. Me. χιν, 10; Mt. xxvi, 14 et ss.) et il va nous dire que Jésus ne l'ignorait pas (11); si cette image se présente dès à présent, c’est qu'elle inaugure vraiment l’histoire de la Passion; elle met en meilleure lumière l'amour de Jésus qui n’exclura pas le traître de son office de charité. — παράδοϊ subjonctif hellénistique (Deb. $ 95, 2), plutôt que παραδῷ, classique. 3) C'est parce que Jésus ἃ conscience de son pouvoir souverain qu’il entend l'exercer comme un service; c’est parce qu'il vient de Dieu et remonte à Dieu qu'il veut une fois encore et avec plus d’humilité que jamais se montrer un serviteur. Au moment de raconter un acte d’abaissement qui ne se trouve pas dans les synoptiques, Jo. nous rappelle qu'il n’a pas oublié qui est Jésus. Il ne semble pas cependant qu'il fasse allusion au don par le Père de la nature divine, car elle n'a pas été mise « dans les mains » du Fils, mais du pouvoir souverain conféré à celui qui est sorti de Dieu pour prendre la nature humaine, et qui va la ramener glorieuse auprès de lui. On peut aussi admettre avec Maldonat que la grandeur de Jésus est exprimée ici en termes qui marquent son départ, pour donner à son acte un caractère plus touchant. N'ayant plus le temps de prodiguer de bons offices ordinaires, étant à son terme, il va jusqu’au bout dans l'humilité. 1 4) Aucune occasion n'est indiquée qui aurait suggéré au Sauveur cette initiative. Évidemment le souper ἃ été commencé, mais peut-être est-il terminé, ou du moins arrivé à un temps d'arrêt. Le pluriel τὰ ἱμάτια étonne. Au singulier, l’himation est le manteau placé par-dessus la tunique, et dont on se débarrasse pour avoir une action plus libre (Mc. x, 50). Jo. a-t-il voulu dirc que Jésus a quitté même sa tunique? ἢ semble plutôt qu'il ἃ désigné vagnement les vétements d'apparat par opposition à la tenue des serviteurs réduite au strict nécessaire. Jésus y ajoute un λέντιον, c'est-à-dire un linteum, mot d'un sens très vague, et qui ne peut désigner ici qu'une serviette (sudarium) assez longue pour qu'on puisse la nouer autour du corps, et assez large pour qu’on puisse s'en servir pour essuyer; cf. Suétone (Calig. 26) : cenanti modo ad pluteum (dossier du lit) modo ad pedes siare succinctos linteo passus est. Jésus prend librement cette attitude que Caligula imposa à des sénateurs comme une injure atroce : il se dispose par là à l'acte le moins noble. Origène a noté que si Abrabam offrit à ses hôtes qu'on leur lavât les pieds (Gen. xvix, 4), il n’eût pas rempli lui-même cet office, abandonné aux serviteurs (TRegn. XX, 41).
13:5
Le νιπτήρ n'étail pas réservé aux bains de pieds puisque ce n'était pas même le cas du ποδανιπτήρ. C'était une cuve peu profonde et largement ouverte qui pouvait aussi servir à rincer le linge, etc. et qui devait se trouver dans chaque maison. — ἤρξατο expression très familière aux synoptiques (cf. Comm. Me, p. cxxxvu) qui ne se trouve qu'ici dans Jo. 6. λεγεν aucw (TH) plutôt que καὶ λέγει ἀυτὼ Exetvos (SV). 10. om. εἰ un τοὺς ποδχς p. χοΞιαν (T) plutôt que add. (HSV).
13:6
On se demande si Jésus ἃ réellement commencé par quelques disciples avant d'en venir à Pierre (Orig., Chrys., Bauer, Till.) ou s’il ἃ commencé par Pierre (Aug., Mald., Loisy, West). Les raisons de convenance sont peu décisives, car la primauté de Pierre n’obligeaït pas Jésus à commencer par lui : Origène a pensé que Jésus ἃ fini par Pierre parce qu'il était 18 plus pur, et Chrys. a opiné qu'il était allé d'abord à Judas : Pierre aurait éclaté par suite dè son tempérament prime-sautier, quand bien même d'autres se seraient tus avant lui. Tout dépend donc de la valeur des termes. Si ἤρξατο signifiait un commencement d'exécution, il semble que Jo. eût dù écrire καὶ ἐξέμασσεν comme Le. dans vu, .38; linfinitif ἐχμάσσειν sur le même plan que νίπτειν permet de donner à ἤρξατο le sens qu'il ἃ souvent de « se meltre à faire quelque chose » non sans quelque redondance, même chez les classiques (Journ. of theol. St. 1924, p. 400). Si le v. 6 commençait par δέ il faudrait quand même admettre que Jésus a pratiqué avec quelques-uns ce qui n’a pas réussi avec Pierre; mais οὖν après ἔρχεται indique plutôt que seulement alors commença l'exécution, expliquée par ce qui suit. Nous croyons donc plus probable que Jésus a commencé par Pierre, ce qui était à tout prendre le plus naturel, puisque dans Jo. aussi il était le chef et le porte-parole des autres (σι, 68). — La protestation de Pierre est conçue en termes très naturels et énergiques; chaque mot porte : « Seigneur », indique la révérence du disciple (νι, 68); «6 est accentué en contraste avec μον, Un service rendu par le maître au serviteur, et quel service !
13:7
Les symbolistes, après Origène (διδάσκων ὅτι μυστήριον τοῦτο ἦν), comme ncent à voir ici du mystère. Pierre ne comprendrait pas le mystère de purification intérieure (ou le symbole eucharistique) que Jésus veut insinuer. — Mais la réponse n’est pas moins simple que la protestation : Jésus entend que Pierre le laisse continuer et le renvoie à l'explication qu'il donnera tout à Fheure (μετὰ ταῦτα), au v. 12 58. S'il avait dit déjà qu'il agissait pour donner un exemple d'humilité, Pierre n'eût-il pas protesté encore plus fort qu'il n'élait pas besoin d’en venir là (Chrys.)?
13:8
Pierre ne prétend pas sans doute empêcher son Maitre d'enseigner par telle action qu’il lui plaira; maïs dui, personnellement, éprouve une répugnance extrême à se voir l’objet d’un tel office. Qu'il ait manqué quelque peu de soumission, cela «est assez clair, mais c'était par un sentiment profond du respect.qu'il devait à Jésus. On lui dit qu'il ne comprend pas; il ne prétend pas comprendre; il sait seulement qu'il ne veut pas recevoir un pareil service dans la réalité qui le choque. Loisy suppose dans Pierre un certain discernement que ce service est celui de sa mort figurée dans l’Eucharistie (p. 387)! Jésus insiste. Le sens le plus naturel de sa réponse est que, si Pierre ne cède pas, il s'exclut lui-même de la société de son Maître qu'il prétend honorer à sa façon. Avoir part « dans » ou « avec » quelqu'un, ’était étre de son parti (μερίς ἐν, ΠῚ Regn. x, 46: μετά Ps. xuix, 18; IL Cor. vi, 15), partager son sort Mt. xxiv, 513 Le. x, 46). Il est vrai que Jésus n'a pas dit : « Si tu refnses d’obéir ». Mais s'il eût pu employer «cette furmule, il était cependant plus maturel de rester dans le thème concret : « Si je ne te lave pas », c'est-à-dire les pieds, comme a compris Aug., puisque cela seul était en situation. Les symbolistes relèvent ici l'omission des pieds «et y voient l'indice (quelques-uns dans Mald., Zahn, Loisy) que Jésus met Pierre sur la voie d’un sens mystique, à savoir que nul ne peut étre sauvé s'il n’est lavé dans le sang du Christ, par le bain spirituel du baptême. Alors qu'on soit logique, et qu’on entende la lotion de celle qui remet les péchés graves puisque les péchés légers n’empécheraient pas d’avoir part avec le Christ. Mais on voit que nous sortirions ainsi complètement du thème. De ee que Jo. a souvent des sens profonds, on ne doit pas conclure qu'il ne s'exprime jamais d'une manière naturelle et sans symbolisme. Avouons seulement qu'on pouvait s'y tromper, et croire que la lotion par elle-même et dans la ‘circonstance présente, avait sa raison d'être et une efficacité mystérieuse.
13:9
C'est l'erreur de Pierre, et, selon son ‘tempérament, une fois qu'il s'est aiguillé dans ce sens, il va jusqu’au bout. 1l aime, et parce qu'il aîme, il craint d'être séparé de Jésus : il est prêt à la volte-face la plus complète, amore turbatus et timore (Thom.). En d'autres temps, le Maître eût souri sans doute. Fidèle à sen dessein d'obtenir de Pierre une obéissance aveugle, il se contente de lui montrer ce qu'il y a d’excessif et de malavisé dans son nouveau zèle.
13:10
Nous admettons avec Tischendorf la leçon courte qui omet εἰ μή (ou ἢ) ποὺς πόδας. L'omission est soutenue par N 6 et plusieurs mss. de la Ve. qui ont paru à WW représenter le texte de Jérôme, d'autant qu'il cite ce passage (6. Jovin. τι, 3) sans l'incise. De même Tert. (de baptismo 12), Optat (1v, ἀν v, 3); Aug. (epist. xuiv, 10, mais contre le Commentaire de Jo.). On ne peut dire: avec Zahn que ces latins ont changé le texte pour argumenter en faveur du baptême unique, car ils veulent surtout prouver que les Apôtres avaient été baptisés : le plus fort est le témoignage d'Origène qui cite quatre fois la leçon courte, se débat pour l'expliquer, alors qu’il lui eût suffi de préférer la leçon longue, insérée plus tard dans le texte qui sert de thème à son explication. Si cette attestation est moins imposante que celle de la leçon longue, la supériorité intrinsèque nous paraît certaine a) 1 n'y avait aucune raison de changer la lecon longue, car l'opposition entre ὅλος et εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας peut à la rigueur se résoudre avec Aug. : on pouvait toujours supposer une exception pour les pieds qui se salissent plus facilement. Au contraire, la lecon courte est intolérable pour tous ceux qui, comme Origène, admettent que la lotion des pieds est un symbole de la purification complète nécessaire aux Apôtres. Si les Apôtres n'avaient pas besoin de cette lotion, pourquoi l’administrer? On répondait qu'ils avaient tout de même besoin d’un bain de pieds. En déclarant l'addition indispensable, les symbolistes expliquent comment elle devait fatalement se produire. Mais cette préoccupation était étrangère au narrateur, comme on le voit par l'unique raison qu'il allègue (v. 12 ss.). b) En elle-même l’exception des pieds ne se justifie pas plus que celle des mains. Pierre eût pu parfaitement insister. Celui qui a pris un bain ἃ besoin de se laver les mains, surtout avant de se mettre à table, encore plus que de se laver les pieds. c) Le sens de la réponse courte est extrêmement fin, et c'est pourquoi il n'a pas été compris. Il roule sur l'opposition entre λούεσθαι, prendre un bain, et νίπτεσθαι, se laver (ou se faire laver) une partie du corps, les mains ou les pieds. Souvent, en se présentant à table, on se faisait laver les pieds ou surtout les mains. Mais si l’on sortait de la salle de bains, cette précaution eût été vraiment superflue. La réponse est donc tout à fait topique et directe. Pierre offre à Jésus de lui laver encore les mains et la tête. Répondre qu'il n'avait pas besoin de se laver les mains, mais seulement les pieds, c’eût été poser une nouvelle énigme. En réalité Pierre n'a pas besoin d'une lotion, il est suffisamment pur, les autres aussi (sauf un). Alors pourquoi la lotion? Pierre n’a pas compris, il continue à ne pas comprendre; Jésus exige qu'il se soumette, sauf à l'éclairer plus tard. d) La leçon longue exigerait une glose : vous êtes purs : mais non pas complètement, on peut toujours l'être davantage, etc., enfin quelque indice de ces raisons qu'Origène ἃ multipliées, n’en trouvant point qui le satisfit. Nous avons supposé une différence entre λούεθαι « prendre un bain » et νίπτεσθαι « se laver une partie du corps ». Elle n’est pas observée toujours en grec, en particulier dans le fragment non canonique Ox. 840 (ΗΒ. 1908, p. 538 ss.). C'est cependant de la même facon que Varron (De ling. lat. 1x, 107) distinguait in toto corpore potius utitur lavamur, in partibus lavamus, quod .dicimus lavo manus, sic pedes et caetera. C’est la distinction que Jér. ἃ eue en vue (WW). D'ailleurs en grec le moyen est plus usité que le passif, et ce doit être le cas ici, surtout si l'on adopte la lecon courte. De toute façon il s'agit d’une simple comparaison (Cyr.): si Jésus affirme que les disciples sont purs, il ne dit pas qu'ils ont été lavés, c’est-à-dire baptisés. On peut seulement raisonner d'eux relativement à la situation actuelle, comme d'un individu qui aurait pris un bain et qui n’a pas besoin de se laver les mains ou les pieds, Il y ἃ là esquisse de parabole, non une allégorie.
13:11
Jésus avait déjà dit plus clairement que l’un de ses disciples était un démon (vi, 70), le dernier mot du v. 10 était beaucoup plus vague. On eût pu croire que plusieurs n'étaient pas purs. L'évangéliste ἃ donc soin de restreindre l'application à un seul, en attendant que Jésus ait précisé sa pensée.
13:12
Jésus ayant fait ce qu'il voulait faire, quitte l'attitude du serviteur et reprend sa place. Ges détails marquent bien que toute l'importance de l'acte est dans la leçon qu'il contient. La question suppose qu’il n’a donné jusqu’à présent aucune explication, pas même à Pierre; car il est sous-entendu que la réponse est négative. Vous n'avez pas compris? Je vais vous instruire.
13:13
Le maître n'avait pas perdu un instant le sentiment de sa dignité : autorité et humilité ne sont pas incompatibles. On peut entendre (Zahn) : vous m'adressez la parole en disant : « Maître » et « Seigneur », ces mots étant au vocatif (cf. Mt. x, 26), en conservant. à φωνεῖν son sens propre, ou plutôt (à cause de la suite) l'entendre au sens large d’appeler d’un nom (cas unique?) et supposer ou une construction qui n’est pas sans analogies; cf. Χεν. Écon. vi, 44: τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ σεμνὸν ὄνομα τοῦτο τὸ καλός τε κἀγαθός, où encore que φωνεῖν est l'équivalent de NM? : « pour être nommé Rabbi » (ΔῚ Ν ΡΝ Liaw, dans Sifré, deut. 4, Schlaiter). On nommait Jésus διδάσχαλος, c’est-à-dire Rabbi, docteur : Jo. 1, 38; πὶ, 2: x1, 8. 28. κύριε était une appellation ordinaire, mais qui prend une importance spéciale sous la forme ὃ χύριος, surtout avec l'affirmation qui suit : « je le suis c'est-à-dire le Maître dont vous êtes les serviteurs.
13:14
ὃ χύριος de nouveau très en vedette et cette fois placé avant ὁ διδάσκαλος 49. mioreunre (Η) plutôt que πιστευσητε (ΤΕΥ). Les disciples ne pourront refuser ‘de suivre un pareil exemple. Il est dans le situation que la lecon s'applique surtout aux chefs. Ce sont eux qui pourraient se croire dispensés de l'humilité envers leurs inférieurs; c'est parce qu'il s'aäresse à eux que Jésus revendique si nettement ses propres prérogatives. À prendre les choses très à la lettre, les disciples auraient pu voir là un commandement spécial. Et il est de fait que la pieuse coutume de laver des pieds se perpétua parmi les chrétiens (1 Tim. v, 40; Orig. Aug.). On sait qu'elle se pratique encore le jeudi saint, où Le célébrant lave les pieds des pauvres. Depuis le moyen âge les rois de France s'en faisaient un devoir. Cependant l'Église n'impose cette pratique à aucun fidèle, pas même une fois dans sa vie, parce que, investie du droit d'interpréter l'Écriture, elle entend l’acte du Maître comme une tecçon dont il δαί surtout retenir l'esprit, en l'appliquant à des cas divers.
13:15
ὑπόδειγμα « signe », condamné par Phrynichus dans le sens de παράδειγμα « exemple », était donc l'équivalent hellénistique de ce mot. C'est un acte qui peut et doit servir de modèle et de leçon. Il faudra agir à l'instar (καθις) selon les circonstances données. On peut insister avec Aug. Zahn, etc., sur l'opportunité d'aider un frère à se purifier complètement, mais ce symbelisme n’est plus l'explication litiérale de la pensée de Jo.
13:16
Quand le moment sera venu de pratiquer l'humilité, celui qui peut-être sera le dépositaire de l'autorité de Jésus, comme c’est Le cas de certains serviteurs placés à la tête des autres, et surtout des envoyés qui parlent au nom de leur prince, ceux-là donc, si haut qu'ils soient, devront se souvenir qu'ils ne sont que des serviteurs et des envoyés, lesquels sont naturellement inférieurs à celui qui se sert d'eux. — Le dicton, en lui-même, pouvait avoir diverses applications : le serviteur étant inférieur à son maitre ne devait pas s'attendre à être mieux traité que lui : c’est le sens de Jo. xv, 20, coïncidant avec Mt. x, 24; ef. Le. vi, 10. — ἀπόστολος m'est employé que cette fois par Jo., dans le sens général d’envoyé. L’envoyé doit le prendre de très haut comme représentant de son maître; mais vis-à-vis de lui il s’efface. A plus forie raison les simples disciples par rapport à leur Maitre.
13:17
Indice significatif de ce que le fait de Jésus n'est qu’un exemple entre plusieurs. Ce qui importe, c’est l'enscignement (ταῦτα), et c'est cet enseignement qu'il faudra appliquer à l'occasion. (αὐτά). C'est quelque chose de comprendre cette leçon, mais on. n’en retire le fruit qu'en la mettant en pratique. On rapproche, pour l’expression de cette maxime chère à. tous les maîtres de là morale, Hésiode (Upera… 826 5.) : εὐδαίμων τε καὶ BXGos, ὃς τάδε πάντα εἰδὼς ἐργάζηται, — εἰ avec le présent, en tablant sur la connaissance; ἐάν avec ke subjonctif, dans l'hypothèse de la pratique; cf. 1 Cor. vu, 36.
13:18
μὸν p. τρωγὼν (ou μετ᾽ ἐμον (TV) et non euov (8).
Jésus n’a pas exclu Judas de son office charitable ; maïs le traître s'exclura lui-même de sa société — il n’en est déjà plus par le cœur — et par conséquent la leçon qui regarde Favenir ne s'adresse pas à lui. L'expression est toujours. très vague τυ. 10 οὐχὶ πάντες, iei où περὶ πάντων. Mais elle va se préciser sur une: seule personne. Le style est extrémement concis, et ἃ fait difficulté. IL ne faut pas ajouter γάρ après ἐγώ comme N À... syr., ni le sous-entendre, ni mettre (Zahn), ἐγώ-ἐξελεξάμην entre parenthèses, mais regarder ἐγώ x, +. À. comme une réponse à objection tacite : alors pourquoi tous ceux qui sont ici ont-ils été choisis par le Maître? Il sait très bien quels ils sont, et quelsil les à choisis, mais s'il & passé par-dessus Le scandale possible, c’est qu'il ἃ voulu laisser place à l'accomplissement d'une Écriture. Lire τίνας. et non οὖς, et dans le sens indiqué par Origène τίς ἐστιν ἕκαστος ὧν ἐξελεξάμην. Cette écriture est le v. 10 du Ps. χι, (heb. xw), entendu de David, lequel y confessa son péché : ce n’est donc pas une prophétie directe sur le Messie : mais la trahison est la même, el en cela comme en d’autres traits, David figure le Messie. La prophélie est donc accomplie spirituellement. Le texte des LXX est ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου, ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ nrepvtouév (m'a donné un grand éroc-en-jambe ou un coup de talon). On. peut toujours: supposer que Jo. ἃ connu une autre version, mais l'hypothèse la plus naturelle est qu'il a traduit plus littéralement l'hébreu 25ÿ Sy San, « il ἃ levé le talon contre moi », comme ferait un cheval. La leçon μου, d’après l'hébreu ei les Septante, quoique peu appuyée (BGL), doit être préférée à μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ qui vient probablement de la tradition synoptique (Mc. x1v, 18; ef. Le. xx, 21). — Quoique Jo. n'ait pas dit que les disciples présents étaient les Douze, on le conclut aisément de la comparaison de ce verset avec vr, 70.
13:19
ἀπ' ἄρτι, non pas « désormais », mais « dès maintenant », comme νῦν (xrv, 29) dans une tournure toute semblable; cf. Apoc. xiv, 43. La prophétie, lorsqu'elle se réalise, s’il s'agit d’un fait qu'aucune prévision humaine ne permettait d'affirmer, ne peut émaner que de Dieu (Is. xuut, 10; « afin que vous compreniez que c'est moi. ») Mais Jésus ne pouvait-il pressentir la trahison ou étre informé des desseins du traître? ΠῚ n'entend donc pas fournir à ses disciples une preuve de sa divinité; d'autant que les disciples croyaient déjà en lui (vr, 68); mais plutôt leur permettre de reconnaître que l'Écriture parlait de lui (Aug.). Les mots ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (vrr, 24. 28, cf. var, 58), vagues en eux-mêmes, doivent être interprétés d'après la situation. Au moment de la trahison — venant d’un disciple choisi et mis au rang des Douze, — la foi des autres sera mise à l'épreuve touchant l'omniscience de Jésus; mais prévenus par lui que ce choix était nécessaire dans l'ordre de la Providence souligné par l'Écriture, et qu'il avait donc été fait en pleine lumière, les disciples conserveront leur foi, la renouvelleront en lui, tel qu'il est pour eux, Maitre, Seisneur, Messie, Fils de Dieu.
13:20
On ἃ vainement multiplié les tentatives pour rattacher logiquement ce verset à ce qui précède ou à ce qui suit. Il serait mieux placé après le v. 146, si l'on se contente d’un pur appel de mots sans lien logique dans la pensée. Faut-il donc conclure à une interpolation d'après Mt. x, 40? Mieux vaudrait supposer que Jésus allait commencer un discours sur l’apostolat et sur sa dignité. Nous avons déjà estimé (x, 1) que ἀμὴν ἀμήν κ. τ᾿ À. pouvait introduire une idée nouvelle, quoique non pas étrangère au thème qui précède. Mais ce nouveau discours fut interrompu par l'émotion qui s'empara de Jésus à la pensée de la trahison d'un de ses apôtres, et ses recommandations comme ses consolations prirent un autre cours. Loisy voit dans ce verset une précieuse conformation de son symbole eucharislique : « Le symbole du lavement des pieds finit ainsi par s'expliquer en termes suffisamment clairs (?!) Recevoir l’envoyé de Jésus, tout fidèle du Christ (cf. Mt. x, 40) est recevoir le Christ, c'est communier avec tous les chrétiens au Christ lui-même et à Dieu dans et par l'agapé, amour-eucharistie » (p. 394). La première édition ajoutait : « Un peu de confusion se produit dans l’esprit du lecteur » (p. 722). Certes! CARACTÈRE HISTORIQUE DU LAVEMENT DES PIEDS. Nous ne revenons pas sur [ἃ question posée au début sur le sens de ce morceau. Si l'on y voit un symbole de l’eucharistie, une manière différente de celle des synoptiques d'’inculquer l'agapé, c'est afin d'attaquer de cette autre facon le caractère réel de l’Eucharistie. Il serait beaucoup moins fantaisiste d'y voir un symbole de la pénitence parfaite, mais ce ne serait qu’une interprétation pieuse, sans fondement dans le récit, et non sans l'inconvénient d'ouvrir la porte à un symbolisme factice. La réalité du fait n'en serait d'ailleurs pas atteinte. On l’a attaquée seulement parce que ce récit a paru une mise en action des paroles de Jésus dans Le. x, 27 τίς γὰρ μείζων, ὁ ἀναχείμενος ἢ ὁ διαχονῶν ; οὐχὶ ὁ ἀναχείμενος : ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν εἰμὴ ὡς ὁ διακονῶν. C’est bien le même thème, comme Origène l'avait déjà vu, mais il en avait seulement conclu que Jésus a réellement donné alors cette leçon en l’accompagnant d'un exemple. Il n’y a rien à opposer au témoignage de Jo., que l'on prétend peu enclin à insister sur les humiliations du Christ. m'a envoyé. » “Ayant dit ces choses, Jésus fut troublé en esprit, et 1] Le récit est d'ailleurs extrémement naturel. Le calme de Jésus, persistant dans son dessein charitable sans aucune ostentation, et la vivacité de Pierre, impressionnable et changeant, forment un contraste saisissant, mais qui répond bien au caractère des deux personnes. Le dialogue se déroule sans obscurité, à moins qu'on n’y sous-entende des mystères. Il n'y a rien dans Jo. qui ressemble plus à une page de Mc. Le rapprochement avec Le. xxir, 27 n'oblige pas à placer le lavement des pieds après l'institution de l'Eucharistie. Nous avons noté à propos de Luc (p. 547) qu'il a probablement rattaché aux discours de Jésus l'annonce de la trahison, ne séparant pas les deux repas qu'il a pourtant distingués. On peut très bien (cf. sur v. 2) supposer une première partie du repas qui fut le repas pascal, puis une seconde partie qui suivit le lavement des pieds. Cette seconde partie a pu commencer par la dénonciation du traître, suivie de l'institution de l'Eucharistie, d’après l'ordre de Mc. et de Mt. Alors Judas était sorti. L'intention de Jo. parait assez nette de l'exclure des discours confidentiels relatifs à l'avenir; qu'avait-il à faire dans l'institution du rite qui devait être l'instrument de l'union de Jésus ressuscité avec les siens demeurés sur la terre? Ce qui d'ailleurs est positif, c'est que Judas sortit aussitôt qu'il eut pris la bouchée (30) qui n'était pas l'Eucharistie. Or l'Eucharistie suivit le repas; en particulier, d'après Paul et Le., la coupe fut distribuée aprés. Les Pères qui ont admis que Judas avait communié : Éphrem, Chrysostome, Ambroise, Augustin, Jérôme, efc. ne sont pas d'accord sur le moment, et ne peuvent être cités que comme exégètes, non comme témoins de la tradition.
13:21
Sur ce trouble, cf. x1, 33; ΣΙ, 27. Au second de ces cas, Jésus change son discours. Il n’y a donc pas à se préoccuper du lien logique avec ce qui précède, Au moment où il allait instruire ses disciples de leurs privilèges, Jésus, qui ἃ déjà poussé si loin la mansuétude envers 16 traitre, est envahi par la tristesse, et, s'il s'agissait de nous, nous dirions par une répugnance intolérable. Le trouble en l'esprit et le trouble de l'âme (χα, 27) ne sont probablement que des manières différentes d'exprimer un mouvement intérieur, Le datif est instrumental, mais cet instrument est ici la partie de l’ème par laquelle et dans laquelle le sujet est affecté. — La désignation du traître comme dans Mt., en doublant ἀμήν selon l'usage de Jo. — μαρτυρέω renforce l'affirmation : c'est comme la déposition d'un témoin contre un accusé. 22. om. ouv p. εὄλεπον (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). 23. om. ὃε p. nv (TH) plutôt que add. (SV).
13:22
Même ignorance des apôtres que dans les synoptiques. Judas avait donc bien su cacher sen jeu! La pénétration de Jésus n'en est que plus extraordinaire : elle est surnaturelle dans la pensée des évangélistes; il arrive mèrre assez souvent que les disciples se connaissent mieux entre eux qu'ils ne sent connus de leur maître. Dans l'expression de leur étonnement il y ἃ des nuances. assez sensibles entre les synoptiques. D'après Mt. et Mc. chacun prétend obtenir une justification, implorée timidement, comme 5115 n'étaient pas assez sûrs de leur conscience; dans Le. ils commencent une enquête; dans Jo. ils s'interrogent du regard. 23 8.) Jo. avait déjà indiqué (χη, 2; xnr, 42) que Jésus prenait ces derniers repas couché à la manière gréco-romaine. Mais plusieurs commentateurs (West. Schanz, etc.) ont sans doute exagéré en concluant de ce verset et du suivant que Pierre était à gauche de Jésus, c'est-à-dire à la place d'honneur, et que pourcette raison il n’avait pu lui parler. Le protocole romain n'était guère de saison: dans sa rigidité officielle après le lavement des pieds, et il ne pouvait mênre pas s'appliquer. Le diner romain n'admettait que neuf convives et les apôtres étaient plus nombreux. Si l'usage des lits avait pénétré en Orient parmi les classes élevées, il est très probable que les disciples ont mangé simplement sur des. tapis ou tout au plus des matelas étendus par terre. Élagabale qui ἃ introduit cette pratique à Rome (Lampride, 23) l'a sûrement apportée d'Orient. Les convives étant couchés appuyés sur le bras gauche, le bras droit demeurait libre pour manger; si l'on considère séparément un groupe de deux, la tête du second devait arriver tout au plus au niveau de la poitrine du premier, pour Iui laisser les bras libres. Le second convive était donc légèrement en avant du premier vers les plals déposés à terre, et lui tournait le dos, mais il lui était facile de s'entretenir avec lui à voix basse, en retournant un peu la tête. C’ était la place du disciple que Jésus aimait (cf. Introduction, p. xiv). La divine pureté avec laquelle cela est dit n’a rien à souffrir des citations où l’on voit que c'était une place réservée à un ami particulier ou à quelqu'un qu'on voulait honorer (Prarox, Conv. 475. 213). — Où se trouvait Pierre? S'il avait élé à la gauche du Sauveur, it aurait eu à son tour Jésus « dans son sein », et il lui eût été plus facile de lui parler que de faire signe à Jean placé plus loin de lui. Puisqu'il parle en secret à Jean comme celui-ci parle à Jésus, c'est donc qu'il est placé à la suite, et en somme dans le sein de Jean, s'il n'y avait pas entre eux un peu plus d'intervalle, ce qu'il faudrait supposer si Les disciples étaient couchés sur des Lits, où, pour l'ordinaire, il n'y avait que deux convives. On ne saurait rien conclure contre la dignité de Pierre si par hasard il n'oceu— pait pas une position officielle, la seconde en dignité. On n’imagine pas que les disciples, mangeant souvent à terre au hasard des voyages, se soient habitués à un ordre protoeolaire. — Du v. 23 on rapproche Pline {1v, 22) : cenabat Nerva cum paucis; Veiento proximus aîque etiam in sinu reeumbebat.
13:24
D'après le texte des critiques (au lieu de νεύει οὖν τούτῳ 2. IL πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει, correction élégante de À D Syrr. sah.), Pierre fait signe et il parle cependant, c'est-à-dire qu'il appelle d'abord l'attention de Jean sur ce qu'il va dire, sans doute à voix basse. Présumant que Jean est au courant où jugeant qu'il lui est facile de s'informer, il s'adresse à lui plutôt qu’au Maitre dont il ne pourrait être entendu en particulier. D'après Le. xxn, 23, cette curiosité fut générale; peut-être Jo. at-il voulu donner un caractère préeis à une formule un peu vague. Pierre, le plus ardent de tous, ne pauvait supporter une incertitude aussi angoissante.
13:25
ἀναπέσων (HV) plutôt que ἐπιπεσὼν (TS); am. ouv (Η) eu add. (TV) mais non add. ὃε (5).
On peut hésiter entre ἀναπεσών (Orig. BC) et ἐπιπεσών (N AD etc.). Le premier peut être entendu de deux façons : a) dans son sens ordinaire de se mettre à table (ef. v. 42), comme dans la loeution tout à fait semblable de xx, 20. Alors οὕτως signifie : « de la façon qu'on vient de dire », expliquant ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ (23) par ἐπὶ τὸ στήθος. Il n'y à rien à objecter à cette interprétation, ne certaine redondance de style qui n’est pas étrangère à Jo. ὃ) Mais sinon ἃ Origène a pensé que jean s'était alors rapproché du Sauveur; il monte d'un degré dans son intimité, et en effet il était assez naturel de supposer que Jo. à. voulu indiquer un changement de situation. Alors οὕτως signifiera « dans cette nouvelle position », « comme cela » (ef. 1v, 6). Mais, à supposer que ἀναπίπτω ait jamais été employé dans le sens de « s'incliner sur, s'appuyer contre », ce qui me paraît plus que douteux, il était étrange de rencontrer ce nouveau sens aussitôt après celui du v. 42. On ἃ donc corrigé en ἐπιπεσών, qui donriait la nuance souhaitée d'un changement de position, que les mss. secondaires (A et Antioche) ont renforcée par δέ au lieu de οὖν (x D'ete.). Get οὖν est omis par B G Orig. mais peut-être parce qu'il figure aux vv. 24 et 26. Il est ici assez en situation. Ilicitnde affectueuse de Pierre; mais il n'est pas Le disciple s'associe à Ja 80 avait appris. Peut-être a-t-il suffi d’un dit comment il lui a communiqué ce qu'il signe,
13:26
δωσω (TH) plutôt que επιδωσω (SV).
Cette expression rappelle celle de Mc. xiv, 20 et Mt. xxvi, 23; mais tandis que dans les deux synoptiques la désignation du traître demeurait vague, on comprend très bien d'après Jo. comment elle ἃ pris une entière valeur, tout en étant réservée à une personne. Assurément un écrivain très habile pourrait obtenir cet effet par la seule transformation d’un texte, mais il arrive aussi que le récit plus exact d'un ami intime résolve une situation demeurée obscure. Tout devient limpide grâce au témoignage de celui qui avait recu la réponse en confidence. Si la clarté ne vient pas ici de la réalité des faits, il faudrait attribuer à Jo. un artifice extraordinairement subtil. — Le ψωμίον est une bouchée de pain ou de viande. Si le latin, le syriaque, le sahidique ont entendu « le pain c’est peut-être parce qu'ils pensaient à l'Eucharistie. Le pain étant à la disposition de chacun, on offre plutôt un morceau de viande. Mais rien ne suggère que c'était un morceau de l’agneau pascal trempé dans le Kharoseth (cf. Me. σιν, 20); l'usage existe encore aujourd’hui pour les repas ordinaires des Bédouins. L'article devant ψωμίον ne peut vraiment pas prouver à lui seul que ce soit une bouchée rituelle : c’est celle dont il va être question, que probablement le Sauveur ἃ déjà dans les mains. — ᾧ ἐγώ, « en vue duquel », dans l'intention de lui donner une marque d'amitié.
13:27
Dans l'antiquité, plusieurs ont regardé cette bouchée comme l’Eucharistie. On peut citer Éphrem (Lamy, Ephraemi hymni et sermones. Sermo IV in hebd. sanct, 1, 423) : Sicut verum et certum est, Dominum, cum discipulis suis panem daret, mysterium corporis sui eis dedisse, ta quoque credendum est, a Domino panem suo occisori datum in mysterium occisionis corporis sui traditum esse. Et intinæil eum, ut sic participationem indicaret caedis suae, etc. Mais ceux mêmes qui tiennent pour certain que Judas ἃ reçu l'Eucharistie, Aug. Thomas et quelques catholiques, récemment Bernhard, 5. J. (dans la Zeitschr. für kath. Theol. 1911, Ὁ. 30 ss.), estiment que ce fut avant ce moment. Cependant quelques modernes (Bauer, Loisy, etc.) l'entendent de l'Eucharistie que Judas aurait reçue pour sa condamnation (1 Cor. xl, 29), Jésus l'ayant ainsi livré à Satan (1 Cor. v, 5; 1 Tim. τ, 20). Ce serait une explication très naturelle de 273, si la bouchée pouvait être l'Eucharistie. Mais, à supposer qu'elle ait été un morceau de pain, le fait de le tremper, ce qui ne peut être que dans le plat (Mt. Mc.), exclut le rite du pain et du vin, distribués séparément par Jésus dans l'Eucharistie. D'ailleurs Jo. qui a célébré l'effet vital du Sacrement (vi) n'a indiqué nulle part ses conséquences fatales pour les indignes. Comment donc expliquer cette prise de possession par Satan à ce moment? — Ce qu’il y a d'exact dans le système de Loisy, c'est qu'à ce moment Jésus abandonne Judas (Chrys.). En le désignant comme traitre, même à un seul disciple, il lexclut de sa compagnie : le démon est donc libre de s'emparer de lui. Ammonius (Cat. Cramer, p. 544): καὶ ἕως μὲν ἢ τοῦ χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐτόλμα ὃ Σατανᾶς ἐπιπηδῆσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔξωθεν προσέδαλλεν' ἐπειδὰν δὲ δῆλον αὐτὸν ἐποίησε χαὶ ἀφώρισεν, ἐνεπήδησε λοιπὸν μετὰ ἀδείας. À prendre les choses selon la rigueur philosophique, Thomas ἃ expliqué que le démon n'entre pas dans l'âme : sed tunc intrat in ore quando homo totaliter dat se ad sequendum eius instinctum. Nous pouvons donc interpréter que Judas se sent découvert et, au lieu d'implorer son pardon, se décide à agir. Il est assez étrange que 10. ait insisté sur le moment précis, τότε (om. parNDLabcedf? Lr, Vg.-Clém.); ce ne doit pas être pour rectifier Le. χα, 3 qui place l'entrée de Satan dans Judas avant sa trahison, ni pour préciser que ce fut après et non pas en même temps que la bouchée, mais plutôt pour marquer l'importance de ce moment. Judas n’appartenant plus au groupe des disciples, Jésus ne l'invite pas à faire son œuvre à lui; mais, puisqu'il ἃ pris son parti, à agir sans tarder. — τάχειον soit dans le sens du comparatif, « plus vite » : assez de tergiversations, délivrenous de ta présence ; soit plutôt dans le sens du superlatif : « au plus tôt», ce qui peut être dit avec une ironie mélancolique : « tu n'as pas de temps à perdre, si tu veux réussir », ou parce que Jésus est empressé de consommer son sacrifice : ille agebat negolium suae venditionis, iste nostrae redemptionis (Aug.). Des deux façons ce n'est pas une invitation au mal, mais plutôt le dernier mot d'un ami découragé : si tule veux absolument, fais-le donc bien vite. puisqu'il n'y a plus rien à attendre de toi. Bauer compare très bien Épictète, IV, 9, 18 Si tu ne comprends pas l'avantage de la vertu, εἴ τινα ἄλλα τούτων μείζονα ζητεῖς, ποίει ἃ ποιεῖς" οὐδὲ θεῶν σέ τις ἔτι σῶσαι δύναται, Lu es irrévocablement perdu, fais ce que tu voudras. Cela est dit « à quelqu'un qui ἃ tourné à l'impudence peut-être aussi l'intention de Jo. était-elle de montrer que Jésus prenait Lui- initiative dans le premier acte de 58 Passion, qui ne se serait pas même li accompli sans sa volonté : Nisi ergo se traderet Christus, nemo traderet Christum n'aurait pas bougé si Le {Aug.). Bauer et Loisy insistent sur ce sens : « Judas... Christ n'avait pas voulu qu'il marchât » (Loisy, p. 398).
13:28
L'obscurité des paroles, que l'on peut prendre sous divers aspects, explique l'ininteiligence des disciples, y compris Jean et Piurre, qui désormais connaissent le traitre. Ne pénétrant pas les desseins de Dieu auxquels Jésus se conforme, il ne leur vint pas à la pensée que leur Maître invitât Judas à une action si noire, de quelque manière que gette invitation fût dite et conçue.
13:29
Il n'est pas dit cependant que Jean et Pierre soient parmi les τίνες qui firent une conjecture supposant que Judas avait encore la confiance de son: Maître; il avait la cassette (x, 6). — εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν est un des textes qui soulèvent le conflit apparent entre Jo. et les synoptiques sur le repas pascal. a) Il en est qui veulent les concilier sur le jour où la trahison de Judas ἃ été annoncée, qui serait le 44 nisan pour Jo. comme pour les synoptiques. Mais le lendemaïn 5 (commençant le 1# à la nuit) étant chômé, comment Jésus a-t-if pu dire à Judas d’acheter- quelque chose? — On pourrait imaginer deux solutions : 4) en prenant « au plus vite » très strictement, Fésus aurait dit à Judas : hâte-toi de faire les acquisitions: nécessaires pour la fête avant la nuit : puis le v. 30 indiquerait que c'était déjà trop tard. Cette solution supposerait que le festin pascal va avoir lie après un autre, ce qui est impossible, car il était interdit de faire un repas le 44 nisan après midi (Michna Pesakhim, x, #). D'ailleurs, au lieu de concilier Jo. avec les synoptiques, on les mettrait ainsi en contradiction, puisque d’après eux Judas était présent au repas pascal. Et si lon admet que le festin pascal a déjà eu lieu d’après Jo. lui-même, ce n'était pas le moment de courir les. boutiques, nécessairement fermées auparavant. C'était une nuit de recueillement, non de négoce. 2) On prend « au plus vite » largement. Jésus, voyant que Judas se retire, lui recommande de ne pas oublier ce qu'il faut dès le lendemain, pour la fête, c'est-à-dire pour quelque dépense supplémentaire, mais non pas pour le repas pascal, déjà achevé (Zañn, Kn., Fillm., etc.). Or fait observer que le premier jour de la fête le repos était moins strict que le jour du sabbat (Ex. xu, 46, comparé à Ex. xv1, 23), ce que prouvent les synoptiques (Me. xv, 46; Le. xxtn, 36). — Il est certain en effet que εἰς: τὴν ἑορτήν ne désigne pas en soi le repas pascal Les disciples auraient pu penser à quelque réjouissance à l'occasion de la féte, pour eux et pour les pauvres. Mais alors pourquoi se presser ? δ) Ceux qui reconnaissent que Jo. place la Pâque légale le lendemain (in, 28) n'ont aucune difficulté sur son texte. Il n’y avait pas à se préoccuper dw chômage qui ne commençait tout au plus que dans la soirée du lendemain. Les synoptiques ne le contredisent point expressément sur la date, comme il ne nie pas que Jésus ait fait la Pâque avec ses disciples; mais il n'y fait pas allusion, pas plus qu'à l’Eucharistie. — Pour les pauvres, les aumônes de Jésus étaient sans doute fréquentes, mais elles s'imposaient pour la Pâque ( Cf. SURENHUSIUS, Michna sur la Pâque, commentaire de Bartenora sur =, M)
13:30
En recevant la bouchée, Judas contractait une fois de plus l'alliance si sacrée pour les Orientaux entre ceux qui mangent ensemble. Cependant il la prend pour ne pas éveiller l'attention des disciples; et, pour éviter qu'ils lui la nuit. #Lors donc qu'il fut sorti, Jésus dit : « Maintenant le Fils de il sort aussitôt. C'était la nuit. Cette circonstance fassent un mauvais parti, avec l'indication des synoptiques qui font coïncide derechef, comme δεῖπνον (2), de la dernière cène un repas du soir. Ces trois monosyllabes ἦν δὲ νύξ font une impression profonde. C'est l'heare des ténèbres, que les Juifs préfèrent à la lumière (ax, 49), l'heure de la puissance des ténèbres (Le. xxn, 53) qui vient de s'emparer de l’ême trouble de Judas. C'est aussi l'heure des entretiens intimes (mr, 2) : jamais on n'avait pu dire aussi justemént que la lumière a lui dans les ténèbres (1, 5). Il ya ici trois idées qui s'enchaînent. La sortie 91-35. PRÉLUDE DES ADIEUX. dans laquelle Jésus voit déjà la gloire de Dieu lu traître inaugure la Passion, s moins une séparation, et Jésus grave son et la sienne; mais ce n’en est pa t nouveau, celui souvenir dans le cœur de ses disciples par un commandemen de la charité dont il leur a donné l'exemple.
13:31
En répétant que Judas était sorti, Jo. indique clairement qu'il y ἃ quelque ‘chose de changé. Non seulement le traître a débarrassé l'assemblée de sa présence; il a mis en branle l'œuvre du salut. Désormais Jésus parlera en confidence à ses petits enfants (33), et son premier mot est pour envisager ce qui va s'accomplir comme une gloire pour le Fils de l'homme qu'il est, et pour le Père qu'il ἃ mission de glorifier. L'action commencée est censée accomplie : Juda autem exeunte ad ducendum milites, videtur negotium passionis Christi, per quam glorificandus erat, inchoatum esse (Thom.). Le Christ n'ignore rien de ce qui va se passer, il sait que tout tournera à sa propre gloire, non pas précisément comme Fils de Dieu, mais comme cet enfant des hommes qu'il est devenu. Encore ne faut-il pas trop insister sur la distinction, car la gloire de Jésus consiste précisément à manifester 58. nature divine. Gela résultera de la Passion et de la Résurrection. ΠῚ ne faut pas non plas voir dans ce tièrement nouveau. Jésus a été glorifié νῦν le commencement d’tm ordre en dès son premier miracle (x, 11) en se manifestant comme l’objet de la foi de ses disciples, il a été glorifié comme Fils de Dieu à la résurrection de Lazare (xr, 4). Dès lors sa gloire était ordonnée à la gloire de Dieu (xt, 4. 40). On peut donc parler d’une gloire suprême (απ, 23), mais dans la même ligne que toute l'œuvre du Fils de Bieu incarné pour faire connaître son Père (vi, 38), ce qui est lui rendre gloire (wir, 18), mais dans la voie de l'humilité.
13:32
εἰ 6 θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ est omis par BCDLW, elc., abcodff? laur. Tert. (Praz. 23) Ambr. bis et quelques mss. de la Vg. et de boh., enfin par syrsin. Ces autorités seraient plus que suffisantes pour rejeter nettement ce groupe, s’il n'avait eu bien des chances d'être omis par homoïioteleuton. On ne voit yraiment pas d'où serait venue l'idée d'ajouter des mots qui ont plutôt paru redondants, ce qui n’est pas une objection dans le style de Jo. Dans sa pensée il fallait insister sur ἐν αὐτῷ qui sera repris dans un sens différent. Il est clair d'ailleurs que εἰ n’est pas une condition hypothétique, mais table sur le fait. Après donc l'affirmation que le Fils est déjà glorifié, vient un futur : Dieu le glorifiera. On pourrait croire que ce futur se rapporte à la même glorification, entrevue d’abord dans les décrets divins, et réalisée ensuite. Mais cela ne peut guère se dire, surtout si le groupe conditionnel est authentique, puisque l'acte où le Fils de l’homme est glorifié et par lequel il glorifie Dieu, est une condition de sa glorification future. Il faut donc distinguer un acte qui manifeste la puissance de Dieu comme le salut des hommes par la mort du Christ, dont la gloire n’est pas encore totale (cf. vi, 39; χη, 16), et la glorification du Fils de l'homme dans un éclat souverain et définitif, L'humanité qui ἃ souffert sera associée à cette gloire, puisqu'elle sera l'apanage du Fils de l’homme. Tout le monde est d'accord sur ce point, mais il y à une nuance très appréciable de théologie johannine selon qu'on entend εν avrw (2° après αὐτόν) de Dieu ou du Fils. Supposons qu'on lise ἐν αὑτῷ ou ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Dans ce cas ces mots doivent s'entendre du sujet θεός. C'est le sens qu'on donne communément (Loisy, Schanz, Tillm., Durand, Holtz., etc.) : Dieu donnera au Fils « la gloire qui lui est due en l’accueillant « auprès de lui » (Durand, p.122). Ἐν ἑαυτῷ serait presque synonyme de παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ : le Fils de l'homme serait exalté « sur le trône même de Dieu » (Durand, p. 123). — Nous n'avons rien à objecter contre la doctrine de cette interprétation, qui marquerait l’exaltation future de l'humanité de Jésus auprès de Dieu, à la droite de Dieu. Mais Jo. n’a pas coutume d'isoler l'humanité de Jésus, et d'autre part ἐν indique une unité plus intime que παρά, nuance qui ne doit pas être sacrifiée. Nous lisons donc ἐν αὐτῷ, et il semble que Jo. nous présente ici une première esquisse de xvn, 4-5, esquisse encore énigmatique, mais beaucoup plus impressionnante que la pensée un peu trop simple qu'on lui prête. ἐν αὐτῷ après αὐτόν se rapporte à cet αὐτόν (Zahn), et non au sujet θεός. Par une réciprocité complète, Dieu glorifiera le Fils de l'homme dans la propre personne qu'il est, qui n’est pas connue, et qui sera alors connue. Maintenant l'humanité la voile, mais, une fois associée à sa gloire, elle laissera transparaitre cette gloire que le Fils avait avant la création et que le Père lui avait donnée. Cela paraît être la pensée de Cyrille, qui ne parle pas de la glorification de l'humanité, mais de la gloire du Fils, reconnu, même avec sa chair, pour être ce qu'il était avant de prendre la chair, il va d’ailleurs sans dire que si on lit ἐν αὐτῷ cela ne peut s'entendre que du Christ. Or si on lit αὐτὼ (avec NB Orig. (a : in ipso) et non ἕαυτῷ, rien n'indique qu’il faille l’accentuer autrement que le ἐν αὐτῷ qui précède, à tout le moins une fois. Cette glorification est très prochaine, à la résurrection.
εἰ o eo ἐδοξασθὴ ἐν αὐτὼ (TSV) plutôt que om. (Η); — αὐτω 2° (T) plutôt que αὕτω (H) où saute (SV).
13:33
La giorification devait suivre la mort. Après s'être élevé à son Père, Jésus redescend auprès de ses disciples qu'il va quitter. Sa voix se fait très tendre. On n'en est que plus surpris qu'il leur rappelle ce qu'il a dit aux Juifs hostiles (vi, 34; var, 21), et qu'il l'applique à ses amis, sans même tempérer l’amertume de cette séparation, qui ici n'a pas de terme, tandis que plus tard (τιν, 2-4) il fera entrevoir la réunion. L'auteur ἃ dû avoir conscience de ce qu'il y avait là d'angoissant pour les disciples. Aussi cette comparaison avec les Juifs devait précisément faire bouillir le sang de Pierre, qui parait n’écouter plus, dans son impatience d'intervenir. Mais le lecteur peut s'abandonner à ces épanchements ; il sait que Jésus n'avait pas pour ses disciples les mêmes sentiments que pour les Juifs. Une phrase commencée par tsxvla ne pouvait être offensante, et « je le dis à vous aussi », « même à vous », ἃ dû être prononcé avec une nuance. — ἄρτι « maintenant », car je ne puis attendre plus longtemps de vous percer le cœur. — τεχνία douteux dans Gal. 1v, 19 ne se trouve peut-être qu'ici et six fois dans 1 Jo. plus τεχνία μον (1 Jo. τι, À). On peut toujours dire (Durand) que cette expression de Jésus aura frappé Jean qui l'aura faite sienne; mais Jésus a-til parlé grec? et combien il est plus vraisemblable qu'ayant compris la charité de Jésus il l'ait rendue dans sa bouche par une expression qui lui était devenue familière! Jésus a probablement parlé alors en araméen qui ne saurait distinguer τέκνα et texvia.
13:34
Au moment de mourir, plus d’un grand homme a tenu à laisser aux siens une dernière pensée, la plus intime, par laquelle il vivra encore en eux. C'est ce que Jésus fait aussi, mais comme il fonde une communauté qui devra être animée de son esprit, il fait de cette pensée une loi : la loi de ses disciples sur la charité fraternelle, non pas telle que les hommes la peuvent concevoir, mais telle que lui-même l’a éprouvée. C'est sur ce dernier point qu'est l'accent, et c'est pour cela que χαθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς est comme encadré dans le précepte, répété après que sa portée ἃ été une fois indiquée. — καθώς est « de la même manière que ». Les manifestations extérieures de cet amour devront être les mêmes, c’est-à-dire jusqu'à la mort, mais seulement si les circonstances l'exigent; ce qui importe, c'est que le principe de la charité soit aussi dominant. Jésus est le Fils de Dieu incarné pour sauver les hommes; il le fait pour obéir à son Père, par amour pour son Père : c’est ainsi que les disciples devront 86. om. αὐτώ p. ἀπεχριθη (TH) et non add. (SV); — om. eyw p. exov (HV) et non add. (TS). s'aimer entre eux. Jésus n’a pas en vue ici directement l'amour que tous les hommes doivent avoir pour leur prochain, mais celui qui doît être la loi des siens. Seulement celte loi n'exclura personne. L'Incarnation fait connaître lamour de Dieu pour le monde (m, 16 ss.); c’est l'amour même dont est antmé le Fils de Dieu; son infensité est infinie, son étendue ne connaît pas de bornes. Et c’est en cela que le commandement est nouveau. Le précepte d'aimer le prochain est ancien (ef. sur Le. x, 27); Jésus l'avait étendu même aux ennemis (Mt.wv, 43-47). avait aussi enseigné que l'amour du prochain est le même devoir que l'amour envers Dieu (Mc. xu, 28-34; Mt. xxir, 34-40). Mais en ce moment il ne s’agit pas de textes, ni d'un perfectionnement à apporter à l'anciemne Loi. Il est trop évident que les sociétés d'alors, même religieuses, n'étaient pas fondées sur l'amour mutuel en Dieu, mais sur l'intérêt ou Îa passion. Si l’on compare la haïne des Juifs pour les Gentils aux sentiments qu'ils ont les uns pour les autres, ils paraîtront s'aimer : et quia apud üpsos fides obstinata misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium (Tac. Hist. v, 5); mais on ne tardera pas à voir dans la guerre d'indépendance que c'est la haine des ennemis qui les empêche seule de se déchirer entre eux. Jésus, lui, veut que la société religieuse qu'il fonde ait pour ciment l'amour, tel que les hommes doivent le comprendre dans la lumière de son Incarnation et les sentiments de son Cœur. En cela le commandement est vraiment nouveau.
13:35
Î n'a pas toujours été obéï, hélas! mais quand, dans son Église, des fidèles ont témoigné à leurs frères une charité constante et même héroïque, ce fut bien à l'instar de l'amour de Jésus, et cette charité s'est toujours manifestée dans l'Église. Et de faït, c'est par ses œuvres de charité que l’Église séduit encore les âmes, qui y reconnaissent an fruit de la charité même du Christ. On voit clairement dans ce verset que le commandement nouveau est donné aux disciples tout d’abord pour qu'ils s'aiment entre eux (cf. T To. π΄, 7-11 ut, 13-16, etc.). Geux du dehors ne disent pas : Voyez comme ils nous aiment, mais : Voyez comme 115 s'aiment de cette charité surnatnrelle que leur Maître leur ἃ enseignée. D'ailleurs 115 ne tardent pas à comprendre que l'exemple et le précepte du Maître s'étendent à tous les hommes, et de même aussi la charité de ceux qui sont vraiment siens. On peut dire avec Loisy : « Dans le temps où écrit l’auteur, l'expérience est acquise, et il s'en glorifie, comme feront bientôt les apologistes du christianisme » (p.402). Maïs qu'il soit bien entendu qu'il s'en glorifie dans son épître en se référant au précepte déjà ancien (II Jo. 3), donné dès le commencement (1, Jo. nn, 7 58.3 nr, 11), c'est-à-dire qui est l'héritage sacré du Maître. — Il ἃ plu à Jamblique (vita Pythag. c. 33) de dire quelque chose de semblable des Pythagoriciens : οὕτω θαυμαστὴν φιλίαν παρέδωχε τοῖς χρωμένοις, ὥστε ἔστι καὶ νῦν τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ἐπὶ τῶν σφοδρότερον εὐνοούντων ἑαυτοῖς, ὅτι τῶν Πυθαγορείων εἰσί: attachement au sein d'une des sectes les plus fermées de l'antiquité grecque, non pas charité dilatée d'une société qui se sentait appelée à continuer l’œuvre de son fondateur pour le salut des hommes. — ἐν τούτῳ pourrait passer pour sémitique, mais se trouve dans le grec hellénistique pour ἐκ τούτου { Bauer).
13:36
L'intervention de Pierre se rattache au v. 33. On en a conclu (Loiïsy, Bauer, ete.) que les vv. 34 et 35 ont été ajoutés plus tard. Admirable rigidité critique à laquelle nous devons de mieux apprécier le laisser aller sans artifice du discours. Pierre n'a sans doute écouté que d'une oreille distraite, attendant l'occasion de glisser son mot, qui lui tient à cœur. On nous dit encore (les mêmes) que le v. 33 n'avait pas d'autre but que d'amener la prophétie du reniement en permettant la question de Pierre. Comme si la pensée du départ ne planait pas sur toute la scène! La question de Pierre suppose, il est vrai, qu'il n'a pas compris le départ dans le sens de la mort. Mais c'est qu’en effet les paroles de Jésus semblaient indiquer un simple éloignement furtif, suivi d’une recherche de la part des siens, ce qui n’est pas 16 cas normal après la mort. Ce qui est clair pour nous, l'était beaucoup moins pour les disciples : il faut le dire, puisqu'on affecte de parler d'une méprise grandement invraisemblable (Loisy p. 402). La réponse de Jésus maintient à l'égard de Pierre ce qu’il a dit des disciples, où δύνασθε (33). Pierre l’entendra d’un défaut de courage, mais peut-être s'est-il trompé. Il semble que où δύνασαι doive s'entendre des desseins de Dieu (Schanz) : Pierre, comme les autres, et comme chef des. autres, aura une tâche à remplir après le départ de son Maître Gou, 43 ss.; Mt. xvi, 48). Cependant pour ne pas faire à une protestation où 1} sent beaucoup d'amour une réponse purement négative, Jésus promet à Pierre qu'il le suivra plus tard, alténuation bien précieuse du v. 33, et en même temps prophétie, encore très voilée, du martyre de Pierre.
13:37
ἀχολουθησαι (TSV) el non αχολονῦειν (H).
Dans cette atmosphère d'excitation au dehors, de trahison au dedans, Pierre a du moins compris que Jésus va jouer la grande partie. 11 ἃ senti οὐ δύνα-- σαι comme un reproche, comme si tout dépendait de son courage et de sa bonne volonté! Dès maintenant il est prêt. Ne sait-il pas qu'il faut être résolu à. donner sa vie si l’on veut suivre Jésus? On dirait bien ici un écho des synoptiques (Mc. vur, 34-38 et parall.), mais dans la langue de Jo.; sur τιθέναι τὴν ψυχήν cf. x, 11. — Le dévouement si ardent de Pierre est toujours (cf. 6 ss.) accompagné de quelque suffisance, διὰ τί « el pourquoi donc »? avec l’accent d'un homme sûr de lui, et dès maintenant
13:38
Jésus reprend cette parole, téméraire en cela surtout que Pierre croyait pouvoir ce qu’il faut demander à Dieu; Aug. : Quid tantum praesumis ? Quid de te sentis? Puis l'annonce du triple reniement comme dans les synoptiques, spécialement Mt. et Le. LE DISCOURS APRÈS LA CÈNE ET LA PRIÈRE (XIV-XVII). Les admirables paroles de Jésus qui sont contenues dans ses quatre chapitres, si lumineuses, si profondes, ne forment pas un discours ni même une allocution composée avec méthode, et Jo. lui-même a marqué que 16 tout n'a pas été prononcé d’une seule haleine. Sans parler de la prière (xvu), il y a un temps d'arrêt entre xiv et xv. Les raisons que l’on trouvera dans les analyses qui suivent nous ont amené à distinguer : un entretien ou un discours qui forme un tout complet (xiv); un discours divisé en deux parties (xv); un nouvel entretien ou discours qui complète celui du ch. xtv (xvi); enfin la prière (χ νὴ. PREMIER ENTRETIEN SUR LE DÉPART DE JÉSUS (x1v). Le chapitre xiv est parfaitement délimité. Il suit La prophétie du reniement de Pierre, il se termine par l'ordre de partir. Dans son ensemble, c'est une exhortation en vue du départ du Maître, à peine interrompue par des questions posées par trois disciples, lesquelles conduisent au développement des pensées. Jésus donne d’abord à ses disciples la consolation qu’on trouve au départ d’une personne chérie dans l'espérance du revoir : cette espérance e d'autant plus certaine que Jésus lui-même est la voie, la vérité et la vie, étant uni au Père (1-11). Malgré tout, il y aura une séparation, mais: qui ne sera qu'apparente. Les disciples devront reprendre l'œuvre divine de Jésus, et garder ses commandements (12-15). Ils y seront aidés par le don du Paraclet (16-17) ei par la présence de Jésus lui-même avec son Père, présence très réelle quoiqu'invisible au monde (18-24). Que si cette nouvelle manifestation n'est point aussi sensible que la première, le Paraclet fera revivre les paroles prononcées par Jésus (25-26). Enfin Jésus termine par des paroles de réconfort parallèles au début à celles du commencement. Non seulement les disciples ne doivent pas se laisser aller au trouble, ils devraient plutôt se réjouir de voir le Fils aller à son Père après avoir fait son œuvre (27-31) : Jésus part, mais ses disciples le possèderont s'ils croient en lui et s'ils l’aiment. On trouvera ailleurs d'autres partitions. À la suite de Calmes, Durand voit trois motifs d'espérer (1-11; 12-17; 18-24). Après quoi « les mêmes considérations sont reprises, mais dans l’ordre inverse ». Durand intitule ce chapitre L'Esprit-Paraclet. C’est ne pas tenir compte de tout ce qui est dit de Jésus luimême : son but principal est d'inviter ses disciples à croire en lui, à lui obéir, à l'aimer. Jésus console, mais il exhorte encore davantage; les disciples auront à se fortifier dans la foi et la pratique des commandements; ils y seront aidés par la présence de Jésus, uni à son Père, et par le Paraclet envoyé par le Père à la prière de Jésus. Tout cet entretien est en situation à la veille de la Passion. Outre les commentateurs ordinaires on cilera : Duran» 5. 4. Le Discours de la Cène, dans les Recherches de science religieuse, 1910, 97-131; 513-539; 4911, 321-349, 521-545. Ce théologien si autorisé a fait remarquer que, spécialement dans les discours de la Cène, il fallait tenir compte de ce que Jean, le seul survivant du collège apostolique, avait eu sous les yeux durant plus d'un demi-siècle. « Des traits comme le genre de mort de saint Pierre, xur, 37, cf. xx1, 48.19, les prodiges que les disciples doivent accomplir au nom du Maitre, xiv, 12, la charité fraternelle signe distinctif des chrétiens, xur, 35, les persécutions pour le nom de Jésus, xv, 20-22; xvi, 4-6.20-22, laissent l'impression très nette de choses qui ont été non seulement entendues, mais encore vues et éprouvées. Et c’est surtout le cas des paroles concernant la promesse de l'Esprit-Paraclet, qui occupe une si large place dans le discours après la Cène » (1940, p. 118). La pensée du distingué critique paraît être que tout cela a été réellement prédit, mais que la forme a été nuancée par la réalisation des prophéties. Il est cependant difficile de dire en quoi.
13:1
ỷ. 1. ANTE DIEM FESTUM PASCHÆ. Avant la Fête de Pâque. Saint Jean l’Evangéliste n’ayant dessein que de suppléer à ce qui avoit été omis par les autres Evangélistes, n’a rien dit de tout ce qui se passa le Mardy, le Mercredy, & le Jeudy d’avant sa Passion. Mais il passe tout d’un coup du Lundy au soir, au Jeudy après le souper. Il nous dit qu’avant la Fête de Pâque, J E S U S ayant toujours tendrement aimé les siens, voulut leur donner jusqu’à la fin des preuves efficaces de son amour. Ces mots: Avant la Fête de Pâque, sont fort à remarquer en cet endroit; car si le Sauveur avoit célébré la cène pascalle ce soir-là, comme on le suppose ordinairement, certes la Fête de Pâque étoit commencée au moins trois, ou quatre heures auparavant, quand cecine leroit arrivé qu’à six, ou sept heures du soir; & l’Evangéliste n’auroit pû dire que J E S U S-C H R I S T lava les pieds à ses Apôtres avant la Fête de Pâque, & après le souper pascal. Ce feroit une contradiction visible.
13:2
ỷ. 2. ET COENA FACTA. Après le souper. Saint Jean ne parle pas de l’institution de l’Eucharistie, que les autres Evangélistes ont rapportée avec tant de soin, & d’étenduë; il nous dit ici ce qui la suivit. Après donc que le Sauveur eut donné son Corps, & son Sang à ses Disciples, dans le Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, saint Luc nous apprend que les Apôtres commencèrent à contester, pour favori qui d’entre eux seroit le premier. Cette dispute s’émût à l’occasion de ce que le Sauveur venoit de leur dire qu’il s’en alloit; & qu’un moment auparavant, il leur avoit dit que le calice qu’il bûvoit alors avec eux, étoit le dernier qu’il boiroit en ce monde. Ce fut apparemment à l’occasion de cette dispute qu’il fit l’a&tion que nous allons voir, qui étoit pour eux une leçon d’humilité d’autant plus efficace, qu’elle n’étoit pas de simple parole, mais accompagnée d’exemple. Il faut bien distinguer la fin du souper dont parle saint Luc, après laquelle JESUS-CHRIST prit le calice, & le donna à ses Disciples; & celle-ci, où il lava les pieds à ses Apôtres; & une troisiéme, après laquelle il dit l’hymne d’a&tion de graces, & sortit de la ville. Ce n’est qu’un même repas, interrompu deux fois, & enfin terminé par la prière, comme c’étoit la coûtume. L’institution del’Eucharistie se fit, les Apôtres étant à table, & mangeant encore, comme le disent expressément saint Matthieu, & saint Marc. Lors donc que saint Luc dit qu’elle se fit après le souper, cela doit s’entendre sur la fin du souper; car après que JESUS-CHRIST eut lavé les pieds à ses Apôtre, on se remit à table, & on mangea encore, puisque le Sauveur présenta du pain trem-pé à Judas, qui sortit aussi-tôt qu’il eut mangé. Les Peres, & les Interpretes enseignent communément que Judas participa au Corps, & au Sang de JESUS-CHRIST. Il faut donc que le lavement des pieds se soit fait après l’institution de l’Eucharistie; ce qui est contre l’opinion de plusieurs Commentateurs, qui veulent que cette cérémonie ait été un moyen pour disposer les Apôtres à participer à ce Sacrement; au lieu que nous la regardons comme un remede à leur orgueil, & une leçon qui leur apprenoit en quoi consistoit la vrai grandeur du Royaume de Dieu. Les instructions que le Sauveur leur donne après cette action, tendent à la même fin, & confirment toute notre explication.
CUM DIABOLUS MISISSET IN COR. Le Diable ayant déjà mis dans le cœur de Judas, le dessein de le trahir. Judas avoit formé son complot six jours auparavant, à l’occasion de ce qui étoit arrivé chez Simon le Lépreux, où Marie sœur de Lazare, oignit les pieds du Sauveur. Il étoit allé trouver les Prestres ennemis de JESUS-CHRIST, & leur avoit promis de le leur livrer, moyennant trente pièces d’argent, & dès-lors il ne cherchoit plus que l’occasion d’exécuter son mauvais dessein.
13:3
ỷ. 3. SCIENS QUIA OMNIA DEDIT EI PATER. JESUS sachant que son Pere lui avoit mis toutes choses entre les mains, & que comme il étoit sorti de Dieu, il s’en retournoit à Dieu. Le Sauveur se voyant sur le point d’achever sa carrière, & de quitter ses Apôtres, crut qu’il devoit leur laisser un exemple d’humilité, & guérir par une action d’éclat leur esprit de la fausse idée qu’ils s’étoient faite de la grandeur, & des Dignitez de son Royaume. Dans toutes les occasions, ils avoient fait éclatter leur envie de s’élever. Les fuites de cette ambition étoient à craindre dans l’établissement de l’Eglise. Après la mort de leur Maître, elle auroit mis la division parmi eux, & les auroit infailliblement dispersés. Il falloit donner un frein à cette dangereuse passion, & confirmer par un exemple remarquable, ce qu’il leur avoit dit tant de fois, que leur véritable grandeur consistoit toute dans l’humilité.
13:4
ỷ. 4. SURGIT A COENA. Il se leva de table, quitta ses habits, & se ceignit d’un linge. Il se met en l’état des esclaves, qui étoient nuds lorsqu’ils servoient leurs Maîtres à table, ou qu’ils leur lavoient les pieds. Il se ceint d’un linge, pour ne paroître pas entièrement nud, & pour faire cette action avec plus de décence. Il est plus croyable qu’il garda sa tunique, qui étoit immédiatement sur la chair, & qu’il se ceignit pour la retrousser, parce qu’elle étoit traînante.
13:5
ỷ. 5. MITTIT AQUAM IN PELVIM. Ayant versé de l’eau dans un bassin, il commença à laver les pieds de ses Disciples. C’étoit l’office des plus vils esclaves. Abigail étant choisie pour être l’épouse de David, répondit à ceux qui lui en firent la proposition, qu’elle étoit la très-humble servante de son Seigneur, & qu’elle s’estimeroit heureuse de laver les pieds de ses esclaves. Quelques anciens croient que le Sauveur commença par Judas, à laver les pieds de ses Disciples; afin de lui inspirer des sentimens de douceur, & de pénitence, & pour nous montrer de quelle forte nous devons agir envers nos ennemis. D’autres veulent qu’il ait commencé par saint Pierre; & c’est l’opinion de la plûpart des Latins. Le récit de l’Evangéliste n’a rien de contraire à cela. Comparez Matt. III. 14. Ego debeo à te baptizari, & tu venis ad me ?
13:6
ỷ. 6. VENIT ERGO AD SIMONEM PETRUM. Il vint donc à Simon Pierre; & Pierre lui dit : Quoi, Seigneur, vous me laveriez les pieds ! Il ne savoit pas apparemment ce que vouloit faire JESUS-CHRIST, lorsqu’il le vit quitter ses habits, & mettre de l’eau dans un bassin. Pierre & les autres Apôtres étoient demeurez couchez sur les lits de tables, étant nuds pieds, comme c’étoit la coûtume. Rien ne devoit leur paroître plus extraordinaire que cette action du Sauveur dans cette circonstance : Car qui avoit oüi parler de laver les pieds des conviez après le repas ? On les leur lavoit quelquefois, lorsqu’ils arrivoient de campagne, & qu’ils se mettoient à table ; mais non pas après qu’ils avoient soupé.
13:7
ỷ. 7. QUOD EGO FACIO, TU NES CIS MODO. Vous ne savez pas maintenant ce que je fais ; mais vous le saurez ensuive. Laissez-moi faire ; je vous dirai tout-à-l’heure les raisons que j’ai d’agir ainsi. Si vous saviez ce qui m’oblige de me rabaisser jusqu’à vous laver les pieds, vous ne vous opposeriez point à ma résolution. C’est un exemple que je vous donne, & que je souhaite que vous imitiez les uns à l’égard des autres. Voyez le ỷ. 14.
13:8
ỷ. 8. SI NON LAVERO TE, NON HABEBIS PARTEM MECUM. Si je ne vous lave, vous n’aurez point de part avec moi, vous ne ferez point de mes amis, ni du nombre de mes Disciples ; vous ne devez plus prétendre à mon héritage, ni à la participation de ma gloire, & de mon Royaume. Mais une telle menace devoit-elle être la peine du souverain refpest qu’avoit saint Pierre pour son Maître, & qui l’empêchoit de se laisser laver les pieds par ses mains ? Cela méritoit plûtôt des récompenses, que des menaces. Où est-ce que la privation de cette ablution extérieure étoit un si grand crime, que pour cela JESUS-CHRIST dût réellement exclure saint Pierre du nombre de ses amis, & de la jouissance de son Roiaume ? Non sans doute. Mais ou c’est une simple menace, qui marque toutefois l’importance de cette action; ou c’est à cause de la désobéissance de saint Pierre ou enfin le Sauveur entend parler d’une autre ablution, qui est celle de l’âme, & dont l’extérieure n’étoit que le symbole, & la figure. Il étoit ordinaire à JESUS-CHRIST de passer du sensible au spirituel dans presque tous ses discours, & de prendre occasion de tout ce qui se présentoit, pour instruire ses Disciples, & les élever à Dieu. Parle-t’on de pain, d’eau, de levain, de richesses, de frere, de mere ? Il détourne aussi-tôt le sens littéral de ces choses, pour parler d’un pain, d’une eau, d’un levain tout surnaturel. Ici saint Pierre fait difficulté de se laisser laver les pieds par son Seigneur; JESUS-CHRIST lui dit deux choses : La premiere ; qu’il a des raisons pour faire cela, qu’il lui dira dans la suite ; c’étoit afin de leur apprendre l’humilité. La seconde, que cette ablution étoit le symbole ou du baptême, qui nettoye l’âme de toutes ses souillures ; ou de l’innocence dans laquelle on doit vivre, pour avoir part à son Royaume ; ou de la pénitence, qui expie les péchez ordinaires, & journaliers. Voyez le ỷ. 10. Celui qui a été lavé, n’a besoin que de laver ses pieds. Ou enfin, ce qui est plus probable : Si je ne vous nettoye de ce fond d’ambition, & de vanité qui vous possede, & si je ne vous rends aussi humbles que je le parois aujourd’hui à vos yeux, en sorte que vous vous regardiez comme les serviteurs les uns des autres, vous n’aurez point de part avec moi. Quelques Anciens ont parlé du lavement des pieds, comme d’une cérémonie qui avoit à peu près le même effet que le baptême. Saint Ambroise témoigne que de son tems on lavoit les pieds aux baptisez, au sortir du bain sacré. Il semble croire que comme le baptême efface les péchez actuels, le lavement des pieds qui se donne ensuite, ôte le péché originel, ou du moins la concupiscence : Ideò planta abluitur, ut hæreditaria peccata tollantur; nostra enim propria per baptismum relaxantur. Saint Augustin cite un endroit du même Pere, où il disoit la même chose dans un Ouvrage que nous n’avons plus. Enfin saint Ambroise la répète sur le Pseaume XLVIII. ỷ. 6. n. 8. Alia est iniquitas nostra ; alia calcanei nostri… Undè Dominus Discipulis pedes lavit, ut lavaret venena serpentis. Mais il ajoute qu’il croit que ce qui est nettoyé par ce lavement des pieds, est plutôt la concupiscence, ou, comme il s’explique, le penchant que nous avons au péché, que le péché même : Undè reor iniquitatem calcanei magis lubricum delinquendi, quàm reatum aliquem nostri esse delicti. L’Auteur du troisième Livre des Sacremens, imprimé sous le nom du même Pere, témoigne que de son tems on lavoit les pieds à Milan aux nouveaux baptisez, aussi-tôt après leur baptême. Il y avoit des gens qui prétendoient que c’étoit une simple cérémonie de devotion, & de charité. Mais pour lui, il croit qu’il y a un mystère caché, & une sanctification attachée à cette cérémonie : Audi quia mysterium est, & sanctificatio : Nisi lavero tibi pedes, non habebis partem mecum. Il ajoute que le baptême ôte tout le péché de l’homme ; mais que le lavement des pieds donne une nouvelle grace pour résister aux embûches du Démon : In baptis mate omnis culpa diluitur ; … sed quia Adam supplantatus à Diabolo est ; … ideò lavat pedes, ut in ea parte in qua insidiatus est serpens, majus subsidium sanctificationis accedat. Cette coutume n’étoit pas particulière à l’Eglise de Milan. Elle se remarque aussi dans d’autres endroits d’Italie, dans les Gaules, dans l’Espagne, & dans l’Afrique. On la pratiquoit principalement le Jeudy Saint; & quelques Auteurs ne sont pas difficulté de lui donner le nom de Sacrement, & de lui attribuer la vertu de remettre les péchez vénials. Un ancien Ecrivain imprimé dans l’Appendice du cinquième Tome de saint Augustin, dit que celui qui lave les pieds aux hôtes dans un esprit de foi, & d’humilité, obtient le pardon non-seulement des moindres pechez; mais même des péchez mortels. Mais ce sentiment est outré. Ceux qui donnent à cette cérémonie le nom de Sacrement, l’entendent dans un sens générique, pour toute cérémonie sainte, & propre à augmenter la grace. Origènes n’avoit pas une si bonne opinion de cette cérémonie. Il dit qu’il est ridicule d’en fonder la nécessité sur les paroles de JESUS-CHRIST, qui ne doivent point estre prises à la lettre. Il ajoute que de son tems elle n’étoit pratiquée que par des gens idiots, & grossiers, & encore rarement. Personne ne doute que le lavement des pieds pratiqué avec foi, & humilité, ne puisse effacer les péchez vénials, de même que les autres actions de miséricorde pratiquées dans le même esprit. L’opinion de saint Ambroise touchant la vertu du lavement des pieds pratiqué dans l’Eglise de Milan, est singulière, & n’est point approuvée dans l’Eglise. Lui-même n’en parle qu’avec reserve, & modelie. Les Syriens célèbrent la Feste du lavement des pieds le Jeudy Saint. Les Grecs font le même jour ce qu’ils appellent le sacré Niptère, ou le sacré lavement. On le pratique aussi ce jour-là dans l’Eglise Latine. Le Concile d’Elvire, qui est ancien, voyant l’abus qu’on faisoit de cette cérémonie, & la trop grande confiance qu’on y avoit, la supprima en Espagne. Dans ces sortes de matieres, qui ne sont que de discipline, l’Eglise peut varier sans légreté, & sans inconstance.
13:10
ỷ. 10. QUI LOTUS EST, NON INDIGET, NISI UT PEDES LAVET. Celui qui est déjà lavé, n’a plus besoin que de se laver les pieds. Il fait allusion à la coutume des Juifs de se laver souvent, pour se purifier des souillures légales. Celui qui s’est purifié par le bain, n’a pas besoin de se baigner de nouveau ; il suffit qu’il se lave les pieds, pour nettoyer la poudre qu’il a pu contracter en marchant. Après cela, il peut se mettre à table, entrer dans le Temple, & faire toutes les autres fonctions de la vie civile, & même participer aux choses sacrées. Il satisfaisait à tout ce que la Loi exige de lui. Knatebull croit qu’on peut traduire le Grec par : C’lui qui est lavé, n’a pas besoin qu’on lui lave même les pieds : mais il est tout net. Mais la version ordinaire vaut mieux ; & plusieurs Manuscrits lisent d’une manière qui renverse la conjecture de cet Auteur. Mais sous cette idée du lavement du corps, le Sauveur entendoit autre chose. Celui qui a la foi, & la charité, & qui est purifié des souillures mortelles, qui rendent l’ame abominable aux yeux de Dieu ; celui-là n’a besoin que de laver les pieds ; c’est-à-dire, regler ses affections, réprimer les mouvemens de la concupiscence, résister à l’orgueil secret, à l’ambition, à l’amour de sa propre excellence, à la jalousie. Ce sont là des impuretez dont les Apôtres n’étoient pas bien nettoyez. Pour Judas, il étoit souillé depuis la tête jusqu’aux pieds. L’infidélité, l’endurcissement, l’avarice, le sacrilége, la trahison le rendoient un objet d’horreur aux yeux de Dieu. Ce n’étoit point assez pour lui qu’on lui lavât les pieds ; il falloit lui laver tout le corps. C’est ce que le Sauveur veut marquer par ces mots qu’il ajoute : Pour vous vous êtes purs ; mais non pas tous : Car il savoit, dit l’Evangéliste, qui étoit celui qui le devoit trahir. Plusieurs Anciens ont crû que JESUS-CHRIST vouloit parler du baptême que les Apôtres avoient reçu, & qui ne pouvoit se réiterer. Vous avez été lavez de mon baptême ; vous estes nettoyez de toutes vos soüillures ; il ne vous reste que le baptême des pieds, c’est-à-dire, la pénitence, pour expier les fautes que vous pouvez avoir commises après vôtre régénération. Mais le premier sens est plus litteral; car Judas avoit reçu le baptême de JESUS-CHRIST, aussi-bien que les autres Apôtres. Saint Ambroise lit ici : Qui lotus est totus, non habet necesse ut manus lavet : Ce qui est, dit-il, contre la superstition des Pharisiens, qui lavoient souvent leurs mains.
13:12
ỷ. 12. POSTQUAM LAVIT PEDES EORUM. Après qu’il eut lavé leurs pieds, il se remit à table : Car les Apôtres n’en étoient pas fortis, comme nous l’avons remarqué ; ils étoient demeurez couchez chacun en sa place, ainsi qu’ils étoient auparavant. JESUS ayant donc repris ses habits, & s’étant remis sur son lit de table, il commença à leur expliquer le motif qui l’avoit obligé de se rabaïsser jusqu’à leur laver les pieds. Nous avons déjà remarqué que c’étoit à l’occasion de la dispute qu’ils avoient eûe sur la prééminence. Il leur dit donc : Savez-vous ce que je viens de faire ? Vous m’appellez Maître, & Seigneur ; & vous avez raison : car je le suis. Personne de vous ne me conteste la primauté, le premier rang, l’honneur du commandement ; toutefois je viens de vous laver les pieds, pour vous apprendre à vous humilier les uns à l’égard des autres, & à vous prévenir réciproquement par des services, & des déférences, à chercher en toutes choses ce qui est de plus abjet, & de plus vil ; voilà la leçon que je voulois vous donner, avant que je vous quitte, & que je monte vers mon Pere. Qu’il n’y ait donc point parmi vous de contestation sur le premier rang ; abaïssez-vous jusqu’à vous laver les pieds les uns aux autres. C’est ainsi qu’on mérite les premières dignitez dans mon Royaume.
13:16
ỷ. 16. NON EST SERVUS, &c. Le serviteur n’est pas plus grand que son Maître. Vous n’estes pas plus grands que moi ; si donc je vous ai lavé les pieds, vous pouvez bien vous rabaïsser jusqu’à rendre de pareils devoirs à vos freres. JESUS-CHRIST a ennobli les actions d’humilité, en les pratiquant le premier. La gloire d’un Chrétien, est d’être aussi humble que son Maître.
13:18
ỷ. 18. NON DE OMNIBUS VOBIS DICO. Je ne dis pas ceci de vous tous. Il ne cesse de porter des coups à Judas, qui devroient percer ce traître jusqu’au cœur, & l’engager ou à quitter sa mauvaise résolution, ou à se hâter de l’accomplir, par l’impatience, & la honte de tant de reproches. JESUS savoit que son heure étoit venue, il ne ménageoit plus ses ennemis. Il les attiroit en quelque forte, il les irritoit. Je connois ceux que j’ai choisis, je pénètre le fond de vos dispositions les plus secrètes. Quand je vous ai choisi, je vous ai parfaitement connu, & j’ai prévu tout ce qui arriveroit. Ne croyez pas que je me fois trompé dans mon choix, ni que je me trouve aujourd’hui dans une peine, que je n’avois pas attenduë. Je savois tout ceci dès le commencement ; mais il faut que cette parole de l’Ecriture soit accomplie : Celui qui mange du pain avec moi, lévera le pied contre moi. Il regimbera, & me frappera du pied. Et afin que cette parole s’accomplît, il falloit qu’un méchant fût du nombre de mes Disciples. Je ne l’ai pas choisi méchant, ni afin qu’il le devînt : mais j’ai fort bien prévu qu’il le deviendroit. L’Evangéliste, ou plutôt le Sauveur applique à Judas ce que David dit de son fils Absalon, qui fut une des figures les plus expresses de ce traître.
13:19
ỷ. 19. AMODO DICO VOBIS. Je vous dis ceci dès maintenant, afin que lorsqu’il arrivera, vous ne croyiez pas que je me fois trompé dans mon choix, mais que vous connoissiez que je suis le Dieu qui fonde les cœurs, & les plus secrètes pensées. Autrement : Je vous ai averti de tout cela avant qu’il arrive, afin que vous ne soyez pas scandalisé lorsqu’il fera arrivé; enfin je vous dis cela, afin que vous sachiez que je suis celui dont David a parlé, lorsqu’il a dit les paroles que je vous ai rapportées.
13:20
ỷ. 20. QUI ACCIPIT, SI QUEM MISERO, ME ACCIPIT. Quiconque reçoit celui que j’ai envoyé, me reçoit moi-même. Je croi qu’il faut joindre ceci au ỷ. 16. Le serviteur n’est pas plus grand que son Maître, ni l’envoyé plus grand que celui qui l’envoye. ỷ. 20. Celui qui reçoit mon envoyé, me reçoit moi-même. Si moi qui suis vôtre Maître, me rabaisse jusqu’à vous laver les pieds, vous devez de vôtre part ne pas rougir des actions les plus humiliantes, & de rendre à vos freres les services les plus bas. Et ne craignez point que cette humilité que je vous recommande, vous rende méprisables aux yeux des hommes. Plus vous ferez humbles, & plus vous ferez véritablement grands; puisque quiconque vous reçoit, me reçoit, & quiconque vous méprise, me méprise; & que celui qui me reçoit, ou me méprise, fait le même traitement à mon Pere. En même tems donc que je vous recommande la plus profonde humilité, je vous mets en quelque forte au rang, & en la place de Dieu. Le Pere Céleste tiendra comme fait à lui-même, ce que l’on fera pour, ou contre vous. Les versets 18. & 19. font mis comme en parenthèse, à cause de Judas.
13:21
ỷ. 21. TURBATUS EST. Ayant dit ces choses, il troubla son esprit; il parut ému, troublé, comme un homme qui voit son ennemi présent, & qui se trouve enveloppé dans un péril éminent. Jesus se trouble à la vue de sa mort, & à la présence de Judas. Ce trouble fut volontaire, de même que celui qu’il excita dans lui-même, à l’approche du tombeau de Lazare, & ensuite dans le Jardin des Oliviers.
13:23
ỷ. 23. RECUMBENS IN SINU JESU. Etant couché sur le sein de Jesus. Saint Jean l’Evangéliste étoit couché à table immédiatement au-dessous de Jesus, ayant sa tête à l’endroit du sein du Sauveur ; en forte qu’en tournant sa tête en arrière, ou la penchant au-dessus de lui, elle tomboit naturellement dans le sein de JESUS-CHRIST. C’est ce qui est aisé à concevoir, quand on a une idée de la manière dont les Juifs d’alors étoient à table. Saint Pierre pouvoit estre de l’autre côté, & vis-à-vis de JESUS-CHRIST, & sur un autre lit que saint Jean. Il lui fit donc signe de demander tout bas au Sauveur, qui étoit celui qui le devoit trahir. Personne n’étoit plus à portée de le faire, que ce Disciple que Jesus aimoit plus particulièrement. Il se pencha donc dans le sein de Jesus, & lui demanda secrètement qui c’étoit.
13:26
ỷ. 26. RESPONDIT : ILLE EST CUI EGO INTINCTUM PANEM PORREXERO. Jesus lui répondit tout bas, en forte que personne ne l’entendit : C’est celui à qui je présenterai le pain que je vais tremper. Quelques Anciens ont cru que ce morceau de pain que JESUS-CHRIST trempa dans la fausse, car on n’avoit pas encore desservi, & qu’il présenta à Judas, étoit son Corps, dont il avoit dit auparavant : Prenez, & mangez ; ceci est mon Corps. Mais saint Augustin, & plusieurs autres ont soutenu avec beaucoup de raison, que c’étoit du simple pain, & que ce traître avoit reçu la Communion de la main de son divin Maître, avant qu’il reçût le pain dont il est parlé ici. On peut voir nôtre Commentaire sur saint Matthieu Chap. xxvi. 23. Nonnus, & quelques autres après lui, croyent que le Sauveur trempa dans le vin le pain qu’il présenta à Judas, & que c’est de-là que l’Antiquité avoit pris l’usage de donner quelquefois la Communion sous l’espèce du pain trempé dans celle du vin consacré. Coutume qui fut désapprouvée par lePapeJules, qui en écrivit aux Evêques d’Egypte. Ce qui n’a pas empêché qu’elle n’ait été dans la suite assez commune dans la Grece.
13:27
ỷ. 27. POST BUCELLAM. Quand il eut pris ce morceau, Satan entra en lui. Le Démon de l’avarice, & de la haine le possédoit déjà. Son complot avec les Prêtres étoit arrêté. Mais le voyant découvert, il s’affermit dans sa mauvaise résolution. Le Démon s’en rendit maître d’une manière plus forte : Intravit ut sibi jam traditum plenius possideret, in quem priùs intraverat ut deciperet, dit saint Augustin.
QUOD FACIS, FAC CITIUS. Faites au plutôt ce que vous faites Il ne lui conseille pas d’exécuter son détestable dessein; il ne l’y exhorte pas : mais il lui fait voir qu’il en est informé, qu’il ne le craint pas : Vox hac non jubentis est, sed finentis ; nec trepidi, sed parati, dit saint Léon. Il lui fait un reproche de sa perfidie, en lui disant : Faites vite ce que vous faites. C’est une concession d’un homme indigné : Allez, puisque vôtre résolution est prise ; exécutez-la promptement. C’est un parti digne de vous. Origénes croit qu’on peut prendre ces paroles comme adressées au Démon, & comme un défi que lui fait le Sauveur. Sentiment qui a été suivi de saint Cyrille, & de quelques autres Grecs.
13:28
ỷ. 28. HOC NEMO SCIVIT DISCUMBENTIUM. Nul de ceux qui étoient à table, ne comprit pourquoi il lui avoit dit cela ; si ce n’est peut-être saint Jean, à qui le Sauveur avoit dit à l’oreille que c’étoit Judas qui le devoit trahir. Mais encore pouvoit-il ne pas favorir distinctement ce que JESUS-CHRIST vouloit dire par ces paroles, à qui l’on peut donner tant de sens divers.
13:29
ỷ. 29. EME EA QUÆ OPUS SUNT NOBIS. Achettez-nous ce qui nous est nécessaire pour la Fête. Les Apôtres qui crurent que JESUS vouloit dire cela à Judas, savoient parfaitement que le jour de Pâque n’étoit pas un jour où l’on vendit, & achettât publiquement à Jérusalem. Ceci n’arriva donc pas la nuit de la Pâque ; car la Fête auroit dû être commencée dès le soir précédent, suivant l’hypothèse ordinaire, qui veut que JESUS-CHRIST ait fait la cène pascale, & légale avec les Disciples la nuit d’avant sa mort. Il nous paroît au contraire par tout le Texte de saint Jean, que la Pâque ne commença qu’après que le Sauveur eut rendu l’esprit, & qu’on commença à immoler les agneaux de la Pâque dans le Temple, & au même tems qu’il rendit l’esprit sur la Croix. Il est donc fort croyable que les Apôtres crurent que Judas alloit acheter un agneau pascal, & les autres provisions nécessaires pour manger le soir, & le jour de la Pâque.
13:30
ỷ. 30. CUM ACCEPISET BUCELLAM EXIVIT. Judas ayant reçu ce morceau, sortit aussitôt. Quelques Anciens ont cru que Judas avoit reçu dans ses mains le Corps du Sauveur ; mais qu’il ne l’avoit pas mangé. Il le garda, dit-on, & l’emporta pour le montrer aux Prêtres, & pour leur dire que Jésus enseignoit à ses Apôtres que ce pain étoit son Corps. Mais pour le Sang, il le but malgré lui, dit Théophilacte, parce qu’il ne le put cacher, comme il avoit fait l’espèce du pain. Cette opinion est visiblement fabuleuse dans ses circonstances, & n’est suivie, que je sache, par aucun Commentateur de réputation. Mais celle qui veut que Judas soit sorti de la sale, avant que Jésus-Christ instituât le Sacrement de son Corps, & de son Sang, & qui soutient par conséquent que ce traître ne participa pas à ce mystère, est fort commune dans l’Antiquité, & a été suivie par un grand nombre d’habiles Théologiens du dernier siécle, tant de l’une que de l’autre Communion : comme Turrien, Salméron, Barradius, Viringus, Keblitius, Volfang Mufculus, Zanchius, Henry Alting, Bèze, Socin, & plusieurs autres. Toutefois l’opinion contraire est presque généralement suivie dans les Eglises Grecques, & Latines, & même dans les Comm unions prétenduës réformées ; & c’est celle qui nous paroît mieux liée avec le récit des Evangélistes.
ERAT AUTEM NOX. Et il étoit nuit. Quelques Exemplaires Grecs lisent : Orilétoit nuit, lorsqu’il sortit. D’autres : Or il étoit nuit. Lors donc qu’il fut sorti, Jésus dit : &c. Ce qui est conforme à la Vulgate, à l’Ethiopien, à Origènes, à Nonnus. L’Evangéliste a remarqué cette circonstance de la nuit, pour faire voir que Judas alla secrètement, & au milieu de la nuit, trouver les Prêtres, pour exécuter son dessein ; afin qu’ils pussent prendre Jésus dans un tems, où il n’étoit point accompagné d’une foule du peuple, comme il lui étoit ordinaire : Ut traderet illum fine turbis.
13:31
ỷ. 31. NUNC CLARIFICATUS EST FILIUS HOMINIS. Maintenant le Fils de l’homme est glorifié, & Dieu est glorifié en lui. Voici le moment où je dois glorifier le Pere par mapassion. Le terme de ma propre glorification approche, puisque ma mort doit estre suivie de ma résurrection, & de mon élévation au-dessus de tous les Cieux. Judas va executer sa trahison. Voici l’heure du Prince des ténèbres. Comme un athlète sûr de la victoire, se réjouït quand l’heure du combat est venue ; ainsi JESUS-CHRIST regarde le tems de sa passion, & de sa mort, comme le tems de sa gloire, & de son triomphe.
13:32
ỷ. 32. SI DEUS CLARIFICATUS EST IN EO. Que si Dieu est glorifié en lui, il le glorifiera aussi en lui-même. Dieu mon Pere me comblera de gloire, & me donnera un nom au-dessus de tout nom ; il m’élèvera au-dessus de tout ce qu’il y a dans le Ciel, sur la terre, & dans les enfers ; en forte que toute créature fléchira le genoüil devant moi, en récompense de mon humiliation, & de la gloire que je lui ai procurée par ma mort, & par ma fidelité à exécuter ses ordres jusqu’au dernier moment.
13:33
ỷ. 33. FILIOLI, ADHUC MODICUM. Mes petits enfans, je n’ai plus que peu de tems à être avec vous. La fin de ma vie est proche ; Judas va exécuter sa trahison ; je n’ai plus que quelques heures à estre avec vous. Bien-tôt vous ferez dispersez, & séparez de moi. Je vais faire un voyage que vous ne pouvez faire avec moi. Vous me chercherez ; vous ferez quelques jours dans la désolation, & dans la douleur à cause de mon absence : mais après ma résurrection, vous me trouverez, & je vous apparoirai de nouveau. Je vous le dis, comme je l’ai dit aux Juifs en d’autres occasions, que vous ne pouvez venir où je vais : mais avec cette grande différence, que les Juifs me chercheront, & mourront dans leurs péchez au lieu que pour vous, vous me suivrez un jour, & vous viendrez dans le Ciel où je vais. Vous donnerez vôtre vie pour moi, comme je vais la donner pour vous ; & comme le Pere va me glorifier, il vous glorifiera aussi, & vous donnera la mesure de gloire que vous mériterez.
13:34
ỷ. 34. MANDATUM NOVUM. Je vous fais un commandement nouveau, qui est que vous vous aimiez les uns les autres. Le commandement d’aimer son prochain n’étoit point nouveau aux Apôtres ; ils l’avoient appris dans la Loi de Moyse : Tu aimeras ton prochain comme toi-même. Mais JESUS-CHRIST appelle nouveau le précepte de la charité qu’il donne, parce qu’il veut que l’on aime son prochain, comme il nous aimez. Or il ne nous a pas seulement aimez comme foi-même ; il nous a aimez plus que foi-même, puisqu’il a donné sa vie pour nous, qu’il s’est réduit à la forme de serviteur, & qu’il a pris sur lui toutes nos iniquitez. Voilà en quoi son commandement est nouveau, selon les Peres. D’autres croyent qu’il l’appelle nouveau, parce qu’il est excellent. Je vous renouvelle le commandement de la charité mutuelle, comme un commandement nouveau, parfait, important, excellent. C’est ainsi que dans le stile des Hébreux, on dit un cantique nouveau, une nouvelle terre, de nouveaux Cieux, un vin nouveau, un cœur nouveau, pour marquer l’excellence de ces choses par-dessus celles qui les ont précédées. Le Seigneur dit qu’il va faire de nouvelles choses sur la terre; c’est-à-dire, qu’il va changer toute sa face, & la mettre dans un état bien plus parfait qu’elle n’étoit auparavant. D’autres enfin l’entendent ainsi: Je vous donne un commandement nouveau; je renouvelle le précepte de la charité, qui a été autrefois donné par Moyse; mais qui est aujourd’hui comme effacé de la mémoire des hommes. Les Scribes, & les Pharisiens en ont altéré le sens, & renversé la pratique. Pour moi, je vous en recommande l’exécution de la manière que je l’ai pratiqué moi-même envers vous: Sicut dilexi vos. C’est-là l’héritage que je vous laisse; c’est la dernière disposition du testament d’un Pere, qui est sur le point de mourir pour sauver sa famille, & ses ennemis mêmes.
13:35
ỷ. 35. IN HOC COGNOSCIENT OMNES. C’est en cela que vous connoîtront que vous êtes mes Disciples. C’est par la charité réciproque, & fraternelle que l’on vous reconnoîtra pour mes Disciples. C’est-là le caractère de ma Religion. Ce n’est ni la science, ni la prophétie, ni l’éloquence, ni le don des miracles qui font le Chrétién; c’est la charité. Plusieurs viendront au jour du jugement me dire: Seigneur, n’avons-nous pas prophétisé, & n’avons-nous pas fait plusieurs prodiges en vôtre nom? Et je leur répondrai: Je ne vous connois point. Quand je parlerois toutes les langues des hommes, & le langage des Anges, si je n’ai la charité, je ne suis que comme un airain sonnant, & une symbole retentissante. Quand j’aurois le don de prophétie, & que je pénétrerois tous les mystéres, & que j’aurois une parfaite science de toutes choses ; quand j’aurois toute la foi possible, jusqu’à transporter les montagnes, si je n’ai la charité, je ne suis rien, disoit le grand Apôtre. Nous sommes d’autant plus parfaitemens, & d’autant plus véritablement Disciples du Sauveur, que nous approchons de plus près de la charité. Ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos. C’est à cette marque que l’on distinguoit les premiers Chrétiens, à leur amour mutuel. Ils n’avoient tous qu’un cœur, & une âme ; leurs biens temporels étoient communs. Pauvres dans le particulier, ils étoient tous également riches en commun. Voyez, disoient les Payens, comme ils s’aiment, & comme ils sont prêts de donner leur vie les uns pour les autres. C’est ce qui faisoit inventer tant de calomnies contre la Religion Chrétiennne. Cette tendresse réciproque paroifsoit suspecte aux Gentils, parce qu’elle étoit inconnuë parmi eux. Sed hujusmodi dilectionis operatio, nobis notam inurit apud quosdam. Vide, inquiunt, ut se diligent ; ipsi enim (Gentiles) invicem oderunt ; & ut pro alterutro mori parati sunt.
13:36
ỷ. 36. DOMINE, QUO VADIS ? Seigneur, où allez-vous ? Vous venez de nous dire que nous ne pouvions venir où vous allez ; ỷ. 33. oseroit-on vous demander où vous allez, & pourquoi nous ne pouvons pas vous suivre ? Si c’est à la mort, si c’est dans les liens, & dans les prisons, si c’est un supplice, pourquoi n’irions-nous pas avec vous ? Saint Pierre s’imaginoit peut-être que le Sauveur n’avoit dit qu’ils ne pouroient le suivre, que pour tenter leur zèle, & pour savoir s’ils auroient assez de résolution pour le suivre. Il prend donc la parole, & déclare que pour lui il est disposé à ne l’abandonner jamais. Mais JESUS-CHRIST lui dit Vous ne pouvez maintenant me suivre où je vais ; mais vous me suivrez après. Vous n’avez pas à present une fois assez ferme pour donner vôtre vie pour moi : mais le tems viendra que vous deviendrez plus fort, & que vous pourrez me rendre témoignage par vôtre sang.
13:37
ỷ. 37. ANIMAM MEAM PRO TE PONAM. Je donnerai ma vie pour vous. Je suis prêt à tout souffrir pour vôtre gloire, & à vous suivre jusqu’à la mort. Saint Pierre ne suivoit que son zéle, & son penchant ; il n’avoit pas assez consulté les forces. Il aimoit JESUS-CHRIST tendrement ; mais il ne l’aimoit pas assez fortement.
13:38
ỷ. 38. NON CANTABIT GALLUS. Le coq ne chantera point que vous ne m’ayez renoncé trois fois. Il faut l’entendre du dernier chant du coq : Car saint Pierre commença à renoncer JESUS-CHRIST avant le chant du coq ; & il l’avoit renoncé trois fois, avant qu’il eût chanté pour la dernière fois. On fait que le coq chante plusieurs fois la nuit. Son dernier chant est au point du jour.
13:1
Holy Week (Major Hebdomada, Hebdomada Sancta, Hebdomada Authentica)
Holy Tuesday: the Gospel reading was at first that of Jn. 13:1-32 (the washing of the feet and the denunciation of the traitor); it was still read in the 8th century (Comes of Würzburg), later replaced (9th century) by the Passio of St. Mark. …
… to the 13th of Nisan together with other Jews (this solution is held by exegetes to be the most probable; in this way the apparent divergences between the Synoptics and John are reconciled), is marked by his gifts and by his obedience to the Father. Jn. 13:1 sees in the events of the Cenacle the greatest proof of J.'s love (not excluding the rest of the Passion). …
… especially to the paschal lamb whose immolation was to take place shortly thereafter (Jn. 2:13), and to the expiatory sacrifice of the "servant of Yahweh" (Is. 53:7; cf. Acts 8:32). The Evangelist gives the greatest prominence to Jesus' paschal rite (Jn. 13:1-3, 31-33; cf. 18:28) and then goes on to emphasize the realization in him of the type of the paschal lamb (Jn. 19:33-36). The figure, expressing moral purification from sin through immolation, …
… fame» (Ps. 32, 11, 19). In the New Testament the Eucharist, as the fruit of a rethinking of love, is present in that trembling: «Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum» (Lc. 22, 15), and the mysterious Johannine expression «in finem dilexit» (Io. 13, 1) echoes in the moved thought of the Fathers: «Cum esset omnipotens plus dare non potuit, cum esset sapientissimus plus dare nescivit, cum esset ditissimus plus dare non habuit» (celebrated …
13:2
… (Jn. 11, 46-53). A second meeting of the Sanhedrin two days before the Passover deliberates on the manner of seizing J. (Mt. 26, 3-5). On the same day or at the same time Judas offers to hand J. over; it is Satan who has entered into him (Lk. 22, 3; Jn. 13, 2). The price is thirty shekels equivalent to about 116 gold lire, a price lower than that of slaves.
… A guest at the Last Supper, he does not appear to have participated in the Eucharistic Communion (John 13:2-32). He led co-
13:4
… During the ceremony a few verses of psalm 118 are sung, interspersed with an antiphon taken from Io. 13, 4; 5, 14.
13:6
Primacy of Saint Peter and of the Roman Pontiff
Peter himself was conscious of his position, since it is generally he who speaks on behalf of all (Mt. 14:28; 15:15; 16:16-22; 17:4; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33; Mk. 8:29; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29; Lk. 8:45; 9:20; 9:33; 12:41; 18:28; 22:31; Jn. 6:68; 13:6-10, 36). Peter's particular position cannot be attributed to his seniority (there is no reason to believe him the oldest), nor to priority of vocation (Jn. 1:35-42; Mk. 1:16-20 and parallel …
13:7
Arnold (Arnoldo, Ernald), Abbot of Bonneval
… Prologo dedicatory to Pope Adrian IV, of which the VIIth (De oblutione pedum) on the symbolism of the washing of the feet, echoing St. Bernard, is interesting (cf. A. Malvy, in DThC, IX, col. 34); a theory that St. R. Bellarmine and Maldonatus (In Jo. 13, 7) have pointed out as belonging to St. Cyprian (M. J. Lagrange, Ev. Selon s. Jean, 7th ed., Paris 1947, pp. 349 and 550, attributes to him, exaggerating, sacramental efficacy). 5) …
13:15
… Indeed he said: "I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also" (Jn 13:15). Example is more powerful than the word, and the conduct of the educator makes a greater impression on the minds of the pupils than his speech. …
13:18
In the Psalms (40:10; especially 54:13-15) David expresses his indignation and grief over the betrayal of his intimate confidant, to which Jesus seems to allude in reference to Judas (John 13:18).
… He then shows his disciples that he goes to death neither compelled nor unconscious; therefore he makes known the traitor, who immediately afterwards, invaded by Satan, prince of darkness, by night, leaves the Cenacle (Jn. 13:18-30). Once the traitor has left, J. gives the Apostles his Body and his Blood, and thus leaves them the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. …
… The Evangelists, besides the design of God (John 13:18; 17:12; Acts 1:16), point to avarice. …
13:20
Apostles (Gr. Ἀπόστολος "Sent One", from ἀποστέλλω)
… With the ascension of Jesus the apostles also become the vicars of Christ in a more concrete sense than before (Lk. 10, 16; Mt. 10, 40; Jn. 13, 20; 17, 18; cf. I Clem., ch. 42, etc.). …
13:23
… For some it refers to the heavenly banquet at which A. is the head of the table; he who sits at his right, reclining on the low couch and propped on his left elbow, can easily lean back upon his breast: in sim (John 13, 23; Pliny, Ep. 4, 22, 4). Other authors prefer to see in the rest upon Abraham's bosom the paternal protection and tenderness of the patriarch of believers (Rom. 4, 16 ff.) who receives …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… Despite his disorderly zeal (Lk. 9:49, 54) and his ambition (Mk. 10:35), he was not only one of the three apostles most intimate with the Master, but was the one "whom Jesus loved"; at the Supper, lying at Jesus' right, he leaned (ὁνοπεσία) on Jesus' breast (Jn. 13:23, 25), and could thus question him in secret. …
13:26
… There is no doubt that Jesus Christ followed this custom: in offering Judas "the morsel" or part of the lamb after having "dipped" it (Jn. 13:26), he alludes to a practice about which the historical sources are silent (Talmud, 116a; ed. L. Goldschmidt, II, Berlin 1901, p. 726).
13:27
He committed a fault as grave as that of Judas, and has been subject to the same punishment: "And it was then, after that morsel, that Satan took possession of him" (Jn 13, 27). Therefore, "in the depth of every guilty one" are encountered, in the first two rounds, sinners against justice, which is the foundation of family and fatherland; in the last two, …
… 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 17:14-16); S. cannot harm the children of God (I Io. 5:18). S. confesses that his power is derived (Lc. 4:6). He is a tempter who knows how to exploit even Scripture (Mt. 4:6) to seduce the Messiah; Judas is his victim (Lc. 22:3; Io. 13:27); Peter and the Apostles are shaken by him (Lc. 22:31). His power is superhuman (II Thess. 2:9), and it opposes evangelization (I Thess. 2:18). The kingdom of S. stands against the …
13:29
… Son of a certain Simon, from the city of Qerijoth (John 6:72; 13:2-26), perhaps the present-day Hirbet el-Qarjatejn, a small town in southern Judea, he was called to the apostolate (Luke 6:16) and appointed administrator of the group of the "twelve" (John 12:6; 13:29). He betrayed the Master for thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14 ff. and parallel texts). …
13:30
… St. John notes that the occasion for it was the piece of bread dipped in the haroseth and given him by Jesus (Jn. 13:30). To the rites of the legal supper Jesus added the rites with which he instituted the Eucharist. …
13:31
… The main lines of the discourse (which certainly owes much to John's redactional work) are the following: J. assures the disciples of his imminent glorification, which brings with it the glory of the Father (Jn. 13:31-33); he gives them the commandment of charity, a new commandment (ibid. 13:34), the distinguishing mark of his disciples (ibid. 13:35) on the model of his love, cf. ibid. 13:34 and 15:12-13; …
The entire Apocalypse (v.), finally, describes the grandiose p. of Jesus, to which the Fourth Gospel often alludes (Jn. 13:31-33; 14:18-23; 16:16-30; I Jn. 3:8); it will be preceded by, and in its first phases accompanied by, a long stubborn struggle between good and evil. …
13:34
… The Old Testament insisted on love of neighbor; yet on the lips of Jesus it sounded like a new commandment (Jn. 13:34). For the Jews,
2. IN THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER. - The concept of friendship was placed on a new foundation by Christianity. φιλία is transfigured into φιλαδελφία (II Pt. 1, 7), in the school of Jesus (Io. 13, 34; 17, 21), and flourishes in ἀγάπη (v. CARITÀ). …
Holy Week (Major Hebdomada, Hebdomada Sancta, Hebdomada Authentica)
… The last function of Holy Thursday is the Washing of the feet, called Mandatum from the first antiphon (Jn 13:34): an act of charity following the example of Christ (Jn 13:1-15), common in the Church (St. Augustine, Ep., 55, 18-33); from the Council of Toledo of 694 made obligatory for all bishops …
… The main lines of the discourse (which certainly owes much to John's redactional work) are the following: J. assures the disciples of his imminent glorification, which brings with it the glory of the Father (Jn. 13:31-33); he gives them the commandment of charity, a new commandment (ibid. 13:34), the distinguishing mark of his disciples (ibid. 13:35) on the model of his love, cf. ibid. 13:34 and 15:12-13; he exhorts them to faith with abandonment in God and in him (ibid. …
Religions, Comparative Study of
… Consider, then, even if only from the phenomenal point of view, what the precepts of Christ, better practiced, have produced and would produce: "Love one another, as I have loved you" (Jo. 13:34; 15:12); "what you do for the least of my brothers you do for me" (Mt. 25:40), etc. In this way humanity would be transformed into a family, whose members, without distinction of …
13:35
Fraternal charity is therefore nothing other than the extending and radiating of that which we must have for God. Hence it is the best sign of the progress of the love of God in us. "Love one another; this will be the sign that will make you be recognized as my disciples" (Io. 13:35). In Act. 4:32 the wonderful spectacle given by the first Christians through mutual love is described: "the multitude of the faithful was of one heart and one soul; no one considered …
… All men therefore form a single family, in which each one is a brother or sister of all the others; mutual love is raised up to indicate the characteristic of the Christian (Jn 13:35);
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.