Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 62

St Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) · In Joannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV · PL 35, 1379–1976

62.1 Chapter XIII. 26–31 PL 35, 1801

1. I Know, dearly beloved, that some may be moved, as the godly to inquire into the meaning of, and the ungodly to find fault with, the statement, that it was after the Lord had given the bread, that had been dipped, to His betrayer that Satan entered into him. For so it is written: “And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the Son of Simon. And after the bread, then entered Satan into him.” For they say, Was this the worth of Christ’s bread, given from Christ’s own table, that after it Satan should enter into His disciple? And the answer we give them is, that thereby we are taught rather how much we need to beware of receiving what is good in a sinful spirit. For the point of special importance is, not the thing that is received, but the person that receives it; and not the character of the thing that is given, but of him to whom it is given. For even good things are hurtful, and evil things are beneficial, according to the character of the recipients. “Sin,” says the apostle, “that it might appear sin, wrought death to me by that which is good.” Thus, you see, evil is brought about by the good, so long as that which is good is wrongly received. It is he also that says: “Lest I should be exalted unduly through the greatness of my revelations, there was given to me a thorn in my flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. For which thing I besought the Lord thrice, that He would take it away from me; and He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for strength is made perfect in weakness.” And here, you see, good was brought about by that which was evil, when the evil was received in a good spirit. Why, then, do we wonder if Christ’s bread was given to Judas, that thereby he should be made over to the devil; when we see, on the other hand, that Paul was visited by a messenger of the devil, that by such an instrumentality he might be perfected in Christ? In this way, both the good was injurious to the evil man, and the evil was beneficial to the good. Bear in mind the meaning of the Scripture, “Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” And when the apostle said this, he was dealing with those who were taking the body of the Lord, like any other food, in an undiscerning and careless spirit. If, then, he is thus taken to task who does not discern, that is, does not distinguish from the other kinds of food, the body of the Lord, what condemnation must be his, who in the guise of a friend comes as an enemy to His table! If negligence in the guest is thus visited with blame, what must be the punishment that will fall on the man that sells the very person who has invited him to his table! And why was the bread given to the traitor, but as an evidence of the grace he had treated with ingratitude?

Scio, charissimi, moveri posse nonnullos, sive pios ut requirant, sive impios ut reprehendant, quod posteaquam panem tinctum traditori suo Dominus dedit, intraverit in illum satanas. Sic enim scriptum est: Et cum tinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae; et post panem tunc introivit in illum satanas. Dicunt enim: Itane hoc meruit panis Christi porrectus de mensa Christi, ut post illum intraret in ejus discipulum satanas? Quibus respondemus, hinc nos potius doceri quam sit cavendum male accipere bonum. Multum quippe interest, non quid accipiat, sed quis accipiat; nec quale sit quod datur, sed qualis sit ipse cui datur. Nam et bona obsunt, et mala prosunt, sicut fuerint quibus dantur. Peccatum, inquit Apostolus, ut appareat peccatum, per bonum mihi operatum est mortem . Ecce per bonum factum est malum, dum male accipitur bonum. Itemque ipse ait, « In magnitudine revelationum mearum ne extollar, datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae, angelus satanae qui me colaphizet. Propter quod ter Dominum rogavi, ut auferret eum a me, et dixit mihi: Sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur » . Ecce per malum factum est bonum, dum bene accipitur malum. Quid ergo miraris si datus est Judae panis Christi, per quem manciparetur diabolo; cum videas e contrario datum Paulo angelum diaboli, per quem perficeretur in Christo? Ita et malo bonum obfuit, et malum bono profuit. Recordamini unde sit scriptum, Quicumque manducaverit panem, aut biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini . Et de his erat sermo, cum hoc Apostolus diceret, qui Domini corpus velut alium cibum quemlibet indiscrete negligenterque sumebant. Hic ergo si corripitur qui non dijudicat, hoc est, non discernit a caeteris cibis Dominicum corpus; quo modo damnatur qui ad ejus mensam fingens amicum, accedit inimicus? Si reprehensione tangitur negligentia convivantis, qua poena percutitur venditor invitantis? Quid erat autem panis traditori datus, nisi demonstratio cui gratiae fuisset ingratus?

62.2 PL 35, 1802

2. It was after this bread, then, that Satan entered into the Lord’s betrayer, that, as now given over to his power, he might take full possession of one into whom before this he had only entered in order to lead him into error. For we are not to suppose that he was not in him when he went to the Jews and bargained about the price of betraying the Lord; for the evangelist Luke very plainly attests this when he says: “Then entered Satan into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, being one of the twelve; and he went his way, and communed with the chief priests.” Here, you see, it is shown that Satan had already entered into Judas. His first entrance, therefore, was when he implanted in his heart the thought of betraying Christ; for in such a spirit had he already come to the supper. But now, after the bread, he entered into him, no longer to tempt one who belonged to another, but to take possession of him as his own.

Intravit ergo post hunc panem satanas in Domini traditorem, ut sibi jam traditum plenius possideret, in quem prius intraverat ut deciperet. Neque enim non in illo erat quando perrexit ad Judaeos, et de pretio tradendi Domini pactus est, cum haec apertissime Lucas evangelista testetur et dicat: Intravit autem satanas in Judam, qui cognominabatur Iscariotes, unum de duodecim; et abiit, et locutus est cum principibus sacerdotum . Ecce ubi ostenditur quod jam intraverat satanas in Judam. Prius ergo intraverat, immittendo in cor ejus cogitationem qua traderet Christum: talis enim jam venerat ad coenandum. Nunc autem post panem intravit in eum, non ut adhuc alienum tentaret, sed ut proprium possideret.

62.3 PL 35, 1802

3. But it was not then, as some thoughtless readers suppose, that Judas received the body of Christ. For we are to understand that the Lord had already dispensed to all of them the sacrament of His body and blood, when Judas also was present, as very clearly related by Saint Luke; and it was after this that we come to the moment when, in accordance with John’s account, the Lord made a full disclosure of His betrayer by dipping and holding out to him the morsel of bread, and intimating perhaps by the dipping of the bread the false pretensions of the other. For the dipping of a thing does not always imply its washing; but some things are dipped in order to be dyed. But if a good meaning is to be here attached to the dipping, his ingratitude for that good was deservedly followed by damnation.

Non autem, ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit. Intelligendum est enim quod jam omnibus eis distribuerat Dominus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui, ubi et ipse Judas erat, sicut sanctus Lucas evidentissime narrat : ac deinde ad hoc ventum est, ubi secundum narrationem Joannis apertissime 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 hic significat tinctio, eidem bono ingratum non immerito est secuta damnatio.

62.4 PL 35, 1802

4. But still, possessed as Judas now was, not by the Lord, but by the devil, and now that the bread had entered the belly, and an enemy the soul of this man of ingratitude: still, I say, there was this enormous wickedness, already conceived in his heart, waiting to be wrought out to its full issue, for which the damnable desire had always preceded. Accordingly, when the Lord, the living Bread, had given this bread to the dead, and in giving it had revealed the betrayer of the Bread, He said, “What thou doest, do quickly.” He did not command the crime, but foretold evil to Judas, and good to us. For what could be worse for Judas, or what could be better for us, than the delivering up of Christ,—a deed done by him to his own destruction, but done, apart from him, in our behalf? “What thou doest, do quickly.” Oh that word of One whose wish was to be ready rather than to be angry! That word! expressing not so much the punishment of the traitor as the reward awaiting the Redeemer! For He said, “What thou doest, do quickly,” not as wrathfully looking to the destruction of the trust-betrayer, but in His own haste to accomplish the salvation of the faithful; for He was delivered for our offences, and He loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And as the apostle also says of himself: “Who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” Had not, then, Christ given Himself, no one could have given Him up. What is there in Judas’ conduct but sin? For in delivering up Christ he had no thought of our salvation, for which Christ was really delivered, but thought only of his money gain, and found the loss of his soul. He got the wages he wished, but had also given him, against his wish, the wages he merited. Judas delivered up Christ, Christ delivered Himself up: the former transacted the business of his own selling of his Master, the latter the business of our redemption. “What thou doest, do quickly,” not because thou hast the power in thyself, but because He wills it who has all the power.

Adhuc tamen Judae possesso, non a Domino, sed a diabolo, cum homini ingrato intrasset panis in ventrem, hostis in mentem: adhuc, inquam, tanti mali jam corde concepti plenus restabat effectus, cujus jam praecesserat damnandus affectus. Itaque cum Dominus panis vivus panem mortuo tradidisset, et panem tradendo panis traditorem ostendisset: Quod facis, inquit, fac citius. Non praecepit facinus; sed praedixit Judae malum, nobis bonum. Quid enim Judae pejus, et quid nobis melius quam traditus Christus, ab illo adversus illum, pro nobis praeter illum? Quod facis, fac citius. O verbum libentius parati, quam irati! o verbum non tam poenam exprimens proditoris, quam mercedem significans Redemptoris! Dixit enim, Quod facis, fac citius, non tam in perniciem perfidi saeviendo, quam ad salutem fidelium festinando; quia traditus est propter delicta nostra , et dilexit Ecclesiam, et semetipsum tradidit pro ea . Unde et de seipso dicit Apostolus: Qui dilexit me, et tradidit seipsum pro me . Nisi ergo se traderet Christus, nemo traderet Christum. Quid habet Judas, nisi peccatum? Neque enim in tradendo Christo salutem nostram cogitavit, propter quam traditus est Christus, sed cogitavit pecuniae lucrum, et invenit animae detrimentum. Accepit mercedem quam voluit, sed nolenti est data quam meruit. Tradidit Judas Christum, tradidit Christus seipsum: ille agebat negotium suae venditionis, iste nostrae redemptionis. Quod facis, fac citius, non quia tu potes, sed quia hoc vult qui totum potest.

62.5 PL 35, 1803

5. “Now no one of those at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the money-bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things which we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.” The Lord, therefore, had also a money-box, where He kept the offerings of believers, and distributed to the necessities of His own, and to others who were in need. It was then that the custom of having church-money was first introduced, so that thereby we might understand that His precept about taking no thought for the morrow was not a command that no money should be kept by His saints, but that God should not be served for any such end, and that the doing of what is right should not be held in abeyance through the fear of want. For the apostle also has this foresight for the future, when he says: “If any believer hath widows, let him give them enough, that the church may not be burdened, that it may have enough for them that are widows indeed.”

Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Judas, quia dicit ei Jesus, Eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum; aut egenis ut aliquid daret. Habebat ergo et Dominus loculos, et a fidelibus oblata conservans, et suorum necessitatibus et aliis indigentibus tribuebat. Tunc primum ecclesiasticae pecuniae forma est instituta, ubi intelligeremus quod praecepit non cogitandum esse de crastino , non ad hoc fuisse praeceptum, ut nihil pecuniae servetur a sanctis; sed ne Deo pro ista serviatur, et propter inopiae timorem justitia deseratur. Nam et Apostolus in posterum providens, ait: Si quis fidelis habet viduas, sufficienter tribuat eis, ut non gravetur Ecclesia, quo veris viduis sufficere possit .

62.6 PL 35, 1803

6. “He then, having received the morsel of bread, went immediately out: and it was night.” And he that went out was himself the night. “Therefore when” the night “was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified.” The day therefore uttered speech unto the day, that is, Christ did so to His faithful disciples, that they might hear and love Him as His followers; and the night showed knowledge unto the night, that is, Judas did so to the unbelieving Jews, that they might come as His persecutors, and make Him their prisoner. But now, in considering these words of the Lord, which were addressed to the godly, before His arrest by the ungodly, special attention on the part of the hearer is required; and therefore it will be more becoming in the preacher, instead of hurriedly considering them now, to defer them till a future occasion.

Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exiit continuo. Erat autem nox. Et ipse qui exivit, erat nox. Cum ergo exisset nox, ait Jesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis. Dies ergo diei eructavit verbum, id est, Christus discipulis fidelibus, ut audirent cum, et amarent sequendo; et nox nocti annuntiavit scientiam , id est, Judas Judaeis infidelibus, ut venirent ad eum, et apprehenderent persequendo. Sed jam hinc in sermonem Domini, qui factus est ad pios, antequam teneretur ab impiis, intentior flagitatur auditor; et ideo cum praecipitare non debet, sed differre potius disputator.

Philip Schaff (ed.), Buffalo/New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886-1889. Public domain: English translation first published 1885-1900 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series). Latin: Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1855), public domain; transcription from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich).

Save for later

Enter your email and we will send you a sign-in link. No password. What you save (articles, verses, chapters, documents) follows you to any device.