Lecture 4 — Prophecy of Judas’s betrayal

^13:21^ When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: amen, amen I say to you, one of you will betray me. [n. 1796]

^13:22^ The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. [n. 1800]

^13:23^ Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. [n. 1802]

^13:24^ Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: who is it of whom he speaks? [n. 1805]

^13:25^ He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him: Lord, who is it? [n. 1807]

^13:26^ Jesus answered: it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. [n. 1808]

^13:27^ And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: that which you do, do quickly. [n. 1810]

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;

second, of the disciple who denied him: Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where do you go? (John 13:36).

Two things are done with the first:

one of the disciples is said to be a betrayer;

second, we see him leave the supper, when he was therefore gone out, Jesus said (John 13:31).

Two things are done concerning the first:

the betrayal is predicted;

then we see it beginning to be executed: that which you do, do quickly.

Two things are done about the first:

the crime of the traitor is foretold;

second, the traitor is identified: the disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

1796. Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; second, 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 said these things, 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: and an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond (John 5:4); the infirm man answered him: sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond (John 5:6). 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 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’. 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. Another disturbance is that which proceeds from reason, insofar as from the judgment and deliberation of reason the sensitive appetite is disturbed. And this disturbance was in Christ, whence significantly the Evangelist says, troubled in spirit, that is, there was a disturbance in the sensitive appetite in Christ from the judgment of reason. Whence, above he says troubled himself (John 11:33). For in Christ, all deliberation of reason comes forth also in the inferior sensitive appetite: whence neither are the sudden motion of the sensuality in Christ.

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.

Second, 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. 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, amen, amen, 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 John 2:19). One of you will betray me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.

1800. Next, the traitor is privately identified: the disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

First, the occasions for this are mentioned;

second, the traitor is identified: Jesus answered: it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it;

third, we see the effect of his identification: and after the morsel, satan entered into him.

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, at now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom.

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 therefore looked one upon another, doubting 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 you will plunge me into a pit (Job 9:30).

1802. Next, the disciple’s question is stated: now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

First we see the intimacy he had with Christ;

second, what led him to ask: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him;

third, his question: he therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him: Lord, who is it?

1803. The disciple’s intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him, now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples.

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 (Matt 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). Second, 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 leaning on Jesus’ bosom, for the bosom signifies things that are hidden: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath made him known (John 1:18). Third, 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 (Prov 22:11). Second, 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 (Prov 14:35). Third, because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: I love those who love me (Prov 8:17).

1805. Then when he says, Simon Peter therefore 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 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? Why does he have another ask the question?

Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. 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 will have no part with me **(John 13:8). 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 (Luke 10:39).

1807. Then when he says, he therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to him, 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 (Prov 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 will 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, and when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so. 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, and 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.

1811. It was said above: **the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him **(John 13:2). 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 says that satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel (Luke 22:3). 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).