1727 Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his disciples before his passion. First, we see how he formed them by his example; secondly, how he comforted them with his words (c 14); thirdly, how he strengthened them by the help of his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate; and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that the example was useful (v 6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example; secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). Concerning the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, Christ's burning love.

1728 The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, Now before the feast of the Passover. Here we should note that some say the [Latin] word pascha comes from the Greek word for "passion," and that this feast is called the Pascha because it is then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word pascha in Greek does mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, pesah, which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is the pesah," passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the Pascha, [translated into English as Passover].

We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew. For the passage of Christ from this world to the Father took place through his passion. "He passed about doing good and healing all" [Acts 10:38]. Again, all of us who follow Christ have our own passage: either by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, "We have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment" [Ps 66:12]; or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things: "Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits" [Sir 24:19].

1729 As we read in Exodus (23:14), the Jews had three great feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: The Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.

A problem arises as to why he says here, before the feast of the Passover, for the feast of the Passover is when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he says, before the feast of the Passover, it seems that this was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And because it is commanded in Exodus (12:18) that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread, because Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover.

But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It follows from this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the Jews sacrificed the lamb.

1730 The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.

To elucidate this it should be noted that, as is stated in Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, meaning it took place on the evening before the first full day of the feast of Unleavened Bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says, before the feast of the Passover. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord's supper took place on the 14th day in the evening [the beginning of the 14th day, the day beginning in the evening].

1731 The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knew that his hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ, "All these things happened to them as symbols" [1 Cor 10:11]. So he at once mentions the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word pascha came from pesah, meaning a passage, he mentions his passage, to depart, pass, out of this world to the Father.

1732 Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was fitting; thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.

It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus knew. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him" (18:4). The opposite is said of us: "There is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot know in any way" [Eccl 8:7].

1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time; and as to this he says, that his hour had come, which was the time of the Passover, when his passage would be by the cross: "There is a time and opportunity for every business" [Eccl 8:6]. This is the hour of which he said, "My hour has not yet come" (2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting to this Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. "You know that you were ransomed…not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18-19).

It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world" (17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).

1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could depart out of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). This does not mean that he would pass from one place to another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jer 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by leaving him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our own, so he is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in his human nature, he became a sharer in the Father's glory. "The life he lives he lives to God" (Rom 6:10); "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" [Phil 2:11].

1735 Then when he says, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love of Christ; and this on four points.

First, because his love was first, according to "Not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. And as to this he says, having loved his own, trying to suggest that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: "For thou lovest all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3]. And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13).

1736 Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he loved his own. Here we should note that God loves persons in various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods of nature: "He came to his own home, and his own people," by creation, "received him not" (1:11). Others are his by donation, that is, those given to him by God the Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me, and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a special way.[2]

1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was needed, since he loved his own who were in the world. Those who were already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: "All his holy ones are in his hand" [Deut 33:3]. But these do not need such love as this as much as those who were in the world; so he says, who were in the world, that is, in body, but not in mind.

1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, so he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life, according to, "The return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Rom 6:22). Again this end should be Christ: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified" (Rom 10:4). But these two are really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them to the end, in order to lead them to himself, the end; or, to lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" [Jer 31:3].

The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he loved them to the end, that is, up to death. Used in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a very human way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then no longer.[3] This meaning is false: for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends his love at death. Another meaning would take the word "to" as indicating a cause; and then it would mean, he loved them to the end, that is, his love for them led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them many signs of his love, yet to the end, that is, at the time of his death, he showed them signs of a greater love: "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you" (16:4). He would be saying in effect: it was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more deeply into your hearts.

1739 Then when he says, during supper, he describes the act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time of the action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); thirdly, his humility (v 4). He describes the time in two ways: in one way, as the time of Christ's love; in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas.

1740 In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when supper was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was completed. But even things like this can be said to be made or done when they receive their appropriate species. So when he says here, literally, "when supper was done," he does not mean it was finished and over with: for after Christ washed the feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. "When supper was done" rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples during supper.

We read about such a supper in Luke [14:16], "A man once gave a great supper." A breakfast and supper are different. What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is given at its end is called supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper.

1741 Then when the Evangelist says, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the better to show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: "With those who hated peace I was peaceable" [Ps 120:7].

1742 But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" [Ps 77:49]. To explain this, we should note that what is in a person's thought and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.

Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and in this way only one who has the power to move our will from within can put something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, he alone can directly move our will: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand," in the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prv 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended as a good, it follows that anyone who brings to mind, or suggests that something is good is said to put something into our heart indirectly, by making us apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another's heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, move our will to desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion.[4]

1743 Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, for "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge, saying, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not unrecognized when given: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God" (1 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ's humility would be more admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because of his simplicity he does not realize it. If such a person were to do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: "If you do not know yourself, O fairest among women…" [Song 1:8]. But if someone does know his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was humble.

Secondly, we see his dignity as to his power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me" (Mt 28:18). He says, the Father had given all things into his hands, for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will. For if all things were in his hands, that is, in his power, it is clear that his enemies could do nothing to him against his will. Secondly, because when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so Christ's dignity is mentioned here.

Thirdly, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to God: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity because of his holiness, because he was going to God, for our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love.

1744 After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation for this humble task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).

1745 In regard to the first, we should note that in performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ rose from supper: "For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. Thirdly, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. In Luke (10:40) we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our Lord girded himself with a towel, so he would be ready not just to wash their feet, but to dry them as well. And since he who had come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of others, he is treading under foot the universal tendency to pride.

1746 As to its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to two things: the incarnation of Christ and his passion. If it is referred to his incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, he was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact that he rose from supper. For God seems to be sitting down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise up, come to our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). This is shown by the fact that he laid aside his garments: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, the fact that he girded himself with a towel indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).

If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then he literally set aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him: "for my clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with a towel in the tomb. And also in his passion he laid aside the garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9).

1747 Then when the Evangelist says, Then he poured water into a basin…, he describes Christ's service, and shows his admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his servants. Secondly, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to the way it was done: for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by himself. "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18).

1748 As for the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ's blood on the earth is indicated by his pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:4). And so blood and water came out of his side at the same time to show us that his blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: "Save me O God! For the waters," that is, tribulations, "have come up to my soul" [Ps 69:1]. Therefore, he poured water into a basin, that is, he impressed the memory of his passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: "Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall!" (Lam 3:19).

1749 Secondly, when he says, and began to wash, it indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more perfect than others, and yet even they needed to be washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires some uncleanness, and still needs to become more perfect: "Who can say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" (Prv 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and desire, become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Lk 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ began to wash, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah (35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."

Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet of his disciples right before his passion, for if he had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again.[6] So he began to wash them a short time before he would wash the apostles with the water of the Holy Spirit, after his passion: "Before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 1:5). In short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of his blood; and when he began to wash the feet of his apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.

1750 Thirdly, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of Christ's passion. This is shown by the fact that he wiped the feet of his disciples with his towel, that is, his body (1 Pet 2:21).

1751 Then when the Evangelist says, he came to Simon Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter our Lord shows that this example is both a mystery and necessary (v 8); and secondly, that it is appropriate (v 9). As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v 7).

1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, he came to Simon Peter, and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? There are three explanations for this.

According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by beginning with the last.[7] The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of sick begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when he washed the grimy feet of his disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who needed it less than the others: "beginning with the last, up to the first" (Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ began to wash the disciples' feet, and then he follows this with, he came to Simon Peter. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.

1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ.[8] The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?…Yes Lord; you know that I love you" (21:15) - and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household" [Sir 6:11]. This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best.

1754 The second explanation is by Chrysostom.[9] He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the disciples' feet, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as proud and foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when he came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the others would have done the same.

1755 The third explanation is by Augustine.[10] He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and after that gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, Christ washed the feet of his disciples; and then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that he came first to Simon Peter. And so he was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?

These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you, who are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, do you wash my feet, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:8). Lord, do you, who are the Creator, wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and have feared" [Hab 1:3].

1756 Then (v 7), we see the words of Christ, which show that this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand. This action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: "For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).

So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, What I am doing you do not know now, that is, you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but afterward you will understand, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, What I am doing you do not know now; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand, when you receive the Holy Spirit: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (16:12).

1757 Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; secondly, we see what Christ said.

1758 Peter says, You shall never wash my feet. He is saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You shall never wash my feet.[11]

1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, you have not part in me. This statement can refer to two things: to the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified.

If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: "But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm (15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you have no part in me.

But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, If I do not wash you, you have no part in me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so "stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).

1760 Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate. First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.

1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, and his holy manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.[12]

1762 We may note that there are three things in a person: the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The same is true for the inner person, that is, for the soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God. "The head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. The hands are the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the feet are the sensuality. Now our Lord knew that his disciples were clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity; and their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious because of our Lord's warning, agrees not only to have his feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands and feet need washing - "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4) - and so I am ready to wash not my feet only, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?" (Song 5:3) - but also my hands, that is, my works - "I will wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - and my head, that is, my higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17).

1763 Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. First, our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to this situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ.

1764 He says at first, he who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over, except for his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already been baptized. For he says, he who has bathed, and then adds, and you are clean, that is, because they had been baptized.

1765 Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of John. But this does not seem to be true, because then they would not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ.[13] If you object that Christ did not baptize but only his disciples, as was stated above (4:2), I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples and those he knew well.

But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed, that is, is baptized, does not need to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for this washing, for since they would be entirely clean, they would go to God at once. But those who live in this world after their baptism cannot reach such perfection that disordered movement of the sensuality in regard to earthly affections never arise. And so it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom, which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism of fire, so that they can return to God.

1766 Then when he says, you are clean, but not all of you, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation. But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed washing.[14] Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet been cleansed from original sin: for since Christ had not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid - but they were clean in a limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews.[15] Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: "He who is holy, let him be sanctified further" [Rev 22:11]. But not all of you, because one of them was dirty both in hands and head.[16]

1767 This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was to betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of you, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are two things which cleans a person: alms and compassion for the poor - "Give alms and then all things are clean for you" [Lk 11:41] - and love for God - "her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.

1768 After our Lord showed that his humble service was necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist describes the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he mentions the exhortation itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he mentions the sequence in this exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the exhortation (v 12a).

1769 The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this he says, When he had washed their feet: "Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).

1770 He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: "A man's attire…shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a teacher. Now because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when he wished to serve, "rose from supper, laid aside his garments." And a teacher, who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments.

As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about to teach, he reclines; he says, he resumed his place again, he said to them. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere or serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and discerning.

1771 Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete teaching: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (14:26). But three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by his passion: "He washed us from our sins in his own blood" [Rev 1:5]. In reference to this he says, when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood. Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, the Son or God; his mortality was due to the human nature he assumed. But after he rose from the dead by the power of his divinity, he took on bodily immortality. And in reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that is, he arose immortal. He says his garments because he did this by his own power: "The life he lives he lives to God," that is, by the power of God (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated [next to the Father] after his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" (16:7). And referring to this he says, and resumed his place again, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: "The Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God" (Mk 16:19). He says, again, not because as the Son of God he had ever ceased to sit with the Father, for he is in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, but because as man he was raised to the greater goods of the Father: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9).

And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by ascending in glory.

1772 Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks a question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he draws a conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this conclusion.

1773 Christ questions them when he says, Do you know what I have done to you? This means: You have seen what I have done, but you do not know why I did it. And he asks them in this way in order to show the greatness of his action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because they are profound: "How great are thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep" (Ps 92:5). We can barely know the works of God: "Then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, these works are helpful, because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: "For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator" (Wis 13:5); "These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (5:36).

According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, Know what I have done to you.[18] In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying: You ought to understand what I have done to you. In this interpretation our Lord said this to rouse their understanding.

1774 Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, You call me Teacher and Lord. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than he approves of it.

1775 As to the first, we should note that in 1 Corinthians (1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and the wisdom of God. As the power of God, he rules all things, for as Ambrose says, the word "Lord" is a name of power.[19] As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him Lord - "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - and Teacher - "Rabbi, eat" (4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: "Know that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt 23:10).

1776 When he says, and you are right, he approves their acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and this happens if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said: "Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth" (Eph 4:25). For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he says, and you are right; because what you say is true, for it applies to me, for so I am, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.

Secondly, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; and such people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, "Lord, Lord, open to us," the answer is given, "Truly, I say to you, I do not know you" (Mt 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and you are right, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I am, that is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher - "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (6:6) - and you follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).

1777 This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs (27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." It seems, therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise himself. Augustine answers this in two ways.[20] First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud: because if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above everything, then no matter how much he praises himself, he does not commend himself too much.

Augustine also says that sometimes it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to others.[21] The Apostle commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now for us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that he reveal his greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one who knows. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir 24:1).

1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. He is arguing here from what is less [expected] to what is more [expected]. For it seems less [expected] that one who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, If I then, who am greater, because I am your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, then you who are not as great, because you are disciples and servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another's feet: "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant…even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve" (Mt 20:26).

1779 It seems that the statement, you ought to wash one another's feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a serious way. Therefore, [it is a serious sin not to wash the feet of others]. I reply, according to Augustine, that every one should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or spiritual way.[22] And it is much better, and true beyond argument, that one should do this in a physical way, so that a Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what Christ did. For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility is awakened in his heart, or if already there it is made stronger.

If one cannot do this in a physical way, it should at least be done in one's heart. When feet are washed, their stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three ways. The first way is by forgiving their offenses, as in "And if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive" (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas 5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. The third way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of the keys: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" (20:22).

We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, or gives food to one in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of the saints" (Rom 12:13).

1780 He supports his conclusion in four ways: first, by his intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the reward due this action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed (v 20).

1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an example; so you also ought to wash one another's feet, because that was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of people, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give example by one's actions.

Now the example of a mere human being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take into account. And so there was given to us the example of the Son of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus Augustine says: "Pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine humility" 11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[23]; and the same is true of avarice and the other vices.

Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for us. For he is the art of the Father, and just as he was the model or pattern for every thing created, so he was the model for our justification: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside," as we read in Job (23:11).

1782 Then when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, he strengthens his conclusion by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the work they do.

Then the status of the disciples is that they are servants: "so you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is to be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He…chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 6:13). So he says: I say that "you also ought to wash one another's feet" as I have washed yours, because a servant is not greater than his master, and this refers to their status, nor is he who is sent grater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him.

1783 This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing." I answer that there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, "filial fear," and this produces a good servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John (13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment, "servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in "You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind of servant our Lord refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants" (15:15).

1784 When he says, If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18).

1785 If you know these things, which many do know, blessed are you if you do them, which is true of few. He says, "know" and "do" because we read: "Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it" (Lk 11:28); and "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). On the other hand, "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (Jas 4:17).

1786 He excludes someone when he says, I am not speaking of you all. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he gives the reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he said there was an exception (v 19). He does two things about the first: he mentions there is an exception; he answers an unspoken question.

1787 He says there is an exception when he says, I am not speaking of you all. He is saying in effect: You will be blessed, but not all of you, because I am not speaking of you all when I say you will be blessed: "All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize" (1 Cor 9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do these things.

According to Origen, our Lord did not say blessed are you, without qualification; but he added a condition, if you do them.[24] And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from his servants, "a servant is not greater than his master" (v 16). It was like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, but I am not speaking of you all: for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the Divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart.

1788 Someone could say: Since Christ does not say that all are blessed or his apostles, then some member of his group might perish unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this saying, I know whom I have chosen. This was like saying: Those who have been chosen will not perish; but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (15:16).

1789 This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). Therefore, since Judas was one of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen. I answer that one can be chosen in two ways. One is for a present righteousness; and Judas was chosen for this. The other is for final glory; and Judas was not chosen for this.

1790 The reason there was an exception was so that the scripture may be fulfilled - not that scripture forced the event, but it did mention an event that would happen: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. This is another translation of what we have in the Psalm [41:9] as: "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me." The intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, he who ate my bread: for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated bread. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when it says, has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel" [Gen 3:15]. And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush me: "And I, when am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself" [12:32].

1791 We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom he knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: "As a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of his letters Augustine says: "I don't care to assume that my household is better than the group of the apostles."[25] We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ he turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician: "Shall they repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life?" [Jer 18:20]; "A man's foes will be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).

1792 Then when he says, I tell you this now, he gives the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. As if to say: I have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it will appear publicly, therefore, I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he who predicts the future and reveals the secrets of the heart: things which are characteristic of God. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? 'I the Lord search the mind and try the heart'" (Jer 17:9); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). Or, "I am who am" [Ex 3:14].

1793 Next (v 20), he confirms his conclusion from the dignity of those whose feet he washed. For their dignity was so great that services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although according to a certain progression: because things done for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.

First, he shows how those things done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this he says, Truly, truly, I say to you. He is saying in effect: Truly, you ought to wash their feet, because he who receives any one whom I send receives me, that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those whom I send: "He who receives you receives me" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, he who receives me receives him who sent me: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23). However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in two ways.[26] In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then the sense is: he who receives those sent by me also receives the Father. The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the meaning is: he who receives, that is, in a physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives him who sent me, the Father. Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: "We will come to him and make our home with him" (14:23).

1794 Arius used this text in the following way to help support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the Father; and so the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the Son.

We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a divine nature.[27] In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, he who receives any one whom I send receives me, as human, for I share with them in one [human] nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I have the same [divine] nature as him.

Or, we could understand it to mean: he who receives one whom I send, receives me, for my authority is in him; and he who receives me receives the Father, whose authority is in me. In this way, these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in "There is one mediator between God and the men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

1795 Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who were not yet ready to follow him; a failure which Christ predicted. First, we see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him; secondly, of the disciple who denied him (v 36). Two things are done with the first: one of the disciples is said to be a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see it beginning to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the first: the crime of the traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 22).

1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted is mentioned.

The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, When Jesus had thus spoken, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in spirit. Here we should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: "From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and the water was disturbed…the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. We also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so to say that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed. Now there are some acts of the soul which do not involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance; and so the affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad.

1797 We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one is never sad. It is clear that this is false because Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, was troubled.

Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, which means that one is troubled because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not cloud one's reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a propassion.[29] This can happen in one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise.

The second way of being troubled is to have it come from one's reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory appetite because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say that he was troubled in spirit, that is, the sensory appetite of Christ was troubled because of a judgment of his reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus "troubled himself." For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of reason, even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden disturbances of his sensuality.

1798 Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him; and when he realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris who said that Christ did not have a soul, but the Word took its place.

Secondly, he did this to aid our own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him.[30] By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of death upon himself. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness" (Ps 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, he was troubled in spirit and testified, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.

1799 He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., one of those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and those who are evil: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them" (Job 1:6).

He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group bad because one member is bad; although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad. He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not one of you in merit or one in spirit: "They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us" (1 Jn 2:19). One of you will betray me. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.

1800 Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. First, the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification (v 27). There were two occasions for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples. First, John mentions their uncertainty; and then the disciple's question.

1801 With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of their love each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ; yet because their faith was so strong they were most certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their own opinion. Accordingly, considering that they were human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke: "Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).

1802 Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First we see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask (v 24); thirdly, his question (v 25).

1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him. He says, one of the disciples was lying close to the lap of Jesus. This was John the Evangelist who wrote his Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this he followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" (Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).

1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was lying, that is resting: "Then you will delight yourself in the Almighty, and lift up your face to God" (Job 22:26); "He leads me beside the waters of rest" (Ps 23:2). Secondly, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was lying close to the lap of Jesus, for the lap signifies things that are hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap of the Father, he has made him known" [1:18]. Thirdly, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others. Exactly how Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book.

For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord, and always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle, "A wise servant has the king's favor" [Prv 14:35]. Thirdly, because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17).

1805 Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him, John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both beckoned…and said? I answer that the [Latin] word beckon can also mean just to think something within ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart…" (Ps 53:1). And, even more so, we can say that someone said something when he indicates by some external sign or gesture what he has conceived in his heart. This is the meaning of his saying that Peter beckoned…and said, that is, thinking of something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: Who is it of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray him.

1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this.[31] One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to wash his feet, and had heard, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask him.

The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ by means of John because the active life learns about divine things by means of the contemplative life: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving" (Lk 10:39).

1807 Then when he says, So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? he mentions the question. Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord, John was leaning near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly and privately.

As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: "Come to him and be enlightened" [Ps 34:5]. For the secrets of divine wisdom are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He shows his friend that it is his possession" [Job 36:33]; "His friend comes and searches into him" [Prv 18:17].

1808 Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he says, It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it. This can signify two things, depending on how bread is understood. If it is understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance so also a pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: The wicked "speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 28:3).

If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although Judas had received many good things from Christ, in spite of these he betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps 55:13).

1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, so when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so.[32] For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this meal Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned to his place. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.

1810 He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Here we might ask how Satan enters into a person. I answer that there are two ways of understanding Satan's entering into a person. He could enter into a person's body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except what gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence: for in God essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul essentially. Yet the devil can enter into the human mind in the sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect of the devil's malice, which someone has loved.[33]

1811 It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him…". But now he says, Satan entered into him. So there seems to be a difference between "put into" and "enter into." I say that this was not said to indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to put something evil into a person's heart when the person yields to him and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do this or not. But he enters into a person's heart when one totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.

1812 One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after the morsel, Satan entered into him. I answer that in the first cast Satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish and complete it.

1813 Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for after that Satan would enter into him? I say, no. Judas himself was evil, and used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he "eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).

1814 We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted. First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.

1815 Our Lord's words were: What you are going to do, do quickly. This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 19:8). It is, rather, a permission. As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because "No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" [Is 53:7].

These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal, and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: "But now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you" (Ps 50:21). As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption.[35] Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: "I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Lk 12:50).

1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: "It is the glory of God to conceal the word" [Prv 25:2].

1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said. I answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.

1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no one at the table knew why he said this to him? I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime.

1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him… Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This purse was in the care of Judas. As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.[36] It also teaches us that the Church's money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, Buy what we need for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: "Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.

1820 One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do not be anxious about tomorrow." Augustine answered this and said that or Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next.[37] Rather, he said, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow." This means that we should not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure our future; secondly, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.

Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: "Do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough."[38]

1821 Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse to provide for those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor" (Ps 112:9).[39] Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their way, he was referring to individual preachers and Apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something for themselves and for the poor.

1822 Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it was done.

1823 What was done was done quickly, because after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it.[40] This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: "What accord has Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).

Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, after receiving the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did Satan.

1824 The time is described as one of darkness: and it was night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait till the morning: "The murderer rises in the dark…and in the night he is as a thief" (Job 24:14).

In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, without divine light. "If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10).

1826 The glory to which he is going is the glorification and exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he had gone out, that is Judas, Jesus said, to his disciples, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified. The [Latin] word used was actually "clarified" and not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and made known) is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised.[41] And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice versa.

We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.

1827 First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text.[42] In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.

As to the first [the very glory of the cross] he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. Note that when something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ's passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: "to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship. One version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: "Say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) states. So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, now is the Son of man glorified. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my glory.

The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more glorified by the death of Christ.

The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him in himself, that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me"[43] (17:5).

The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God will glorify him at once, that is, he will give him the glory of the cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the Gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).

1828 The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks, as the gloss says.[44] In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the source of Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; rather, it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of his judicial power, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified; that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not say: "Now is the glorification of the Son of man signified," but rather, Now is the Son of man glorified, in keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.

Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And this is why in him God is glorified. He amplifies on this when he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified in himself, that is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, and will glorify him at once, at the resurrection, which will quickly come: "I will arise in the morning early" [Ps 108:2]: and also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" [Ps 16:10].

1829 The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection, about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part.[45]

From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified. Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the resurrection was very near, and so he says, Now is the Son of man glorified, as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.

Secondly, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul in Sheol; you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of all, "see corruption" [Ps 16:10]. Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Rom 8:11). So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ considered in his human nature, is glorified, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, God will also glorify him in himself, so that this human being, Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: A lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if it is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father" [Phil 2:11].

Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and in him God is, or has been, glorified, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he will always establish him in that glory forever.

1830 The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his exposition.[46] According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose says.[47] While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one. We read in Exodus [40:34] that "The glory of the Lord appeared over the tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ.

But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, Now is the Son of man glorified, that is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching passion. And in him God, the Father, is glorified. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: "[Father] I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). He says, in him, because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9).

It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in him, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, God will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he will glorify him at once.

1831 Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, he foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they can become fit, A new commandment I give to you.

1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, Little children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, little children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in charity: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be informed in you" (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren, "Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).

1833 We should note that the expression, yet a little while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So, a little while, is understood as the time between these words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) says: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."

Secondly, he was with them in body, but a body that was already glorified. Then, a little while, indicates the time that intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go to the Father" [16:16]; "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag 2:6).

Thirdly, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" (1 Jn 2:18). Then the meaning is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for a little while which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).

Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen explains it another way.[48] He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this he says, yet a little while I am with you, that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.

1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek me, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: "Seek the Lord while he may be found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, you will seek me, that is, you will want me to be present in body: "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it" (Lk 17:22).

Secondly, he shows their weakness, saying, as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you cannot come. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say absolutely, you cannot come, but added, now I say to you. It is like saying: I said to the Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could never come. But I say to you, that for now, you cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying.

Again, I am going to the glory of my Father, to which no one can come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I will be glorified now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, where I am going you cannot come.

1835 Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow him: a new commandment I give to you. First, he mentions the special character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they should live up to it (v 35). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions a feature of this commandment, secondly, its meaning; and thirdly, its standard.

1836 The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its newness. Thus he says, a new commandment. But did not the Old Testament or Law have a commandment about the love of one's neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he replied: "You shall love the Lord your God," and continued, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, children by adoption: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: as we read in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law.

1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says: that you love one another. It is of the very nature of friendship that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright" (Sir 6:17).

1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he says, as I have loved you. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously, effectively and rightly.

He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we loved God, but because he first loved us" [1 Jn 4:10]. In the same way we should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to do us a favor.

Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend. This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be led by this example and love one another effectively and fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).

Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption, loving us in the light of this similarity in order to draw us to God. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn you" [Jer 31:3]. We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.

1839 Then when he says, By this all men will know that you are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this command. Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" [Sir 24:24].

Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; "He has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).

1840 Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you now? He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, you cannot follow me now.

1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, Where are you going? Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that nothing could stop."[49] This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1).

1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded yourself…but when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" (21:18).

1843 When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).

1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter. First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.

1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, Will you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in character.

1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in [some versions of] Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two ways.[50] In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock crows.

1847 There is also a question about where these words were spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, but of memory.

One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this three times.[51] A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.

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

[2] Summa-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12] Clement, Itinerary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[44] Gloss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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