Lecture 2 — Beginning of the Last Supper

^26:17^ And on the first day of the azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: where do you wish for us to prepare for you to eat the Pasch? [n. 2151]

^26:18^ But Jesus said: go into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master said, my time is near at hand, with you I make the Pasch with my disciples. [n. 2154]

^26:19^ And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the Pasch. [n. 2157]

^26:20^ But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples. [n. 2158]

^26:21^ And while they were eating, he said: amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. [n. 2159]

^26:22^ And they, being very troubled, began everyone to say: is it I, Lord? [n. 2161]

^26:23^ But he, answering, said: he who dips his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me. [n. 2162]

^26:24^ The Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man will be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. [n. 2164]

^26:25^ And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: is it I, Rabbi? He said to him: you have said it. [n. 2166]

2150. On the first day. Next he treats of the institution of the sacrament, and since the new follows on the old, as is said, new coming on, you will cast away the old (Lev 26:10).

first, he treats of the old;

second, of the new.

Concerning the first, two things:

first, the preparation for the Pasch is set down;

second, the prediction of the betrayer is set down, at and while they were at supper.

And concerning the first,

first, the time is designated;

second, the preparation of the meal;

third, the institution of the sacrament.

2151. He says therefore, and on the first day of the azymes. And here there can be an objection, because this day was the first day of the Pasch. And it seems contrary to what is said, before the festival day of the Pasch (John 13:1). The Greeks say that Matthew, Luke (Luke 22:7), and Mark (Mark 14:12) were mistaken, and that John corrected them, because it happened before the day of the Pasch. Hence they say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth day of the month, and had the supper on the thirteenth. So they say that the Lord prepared the meal not with unleavened bread, but with leavened. And they strive to confirm this with many arguments. First, because it says that they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch (John 18:28); and thus they had to eat the Pasch on the day of the passion. Similarly, another of their arguments is that the women prepared spices.

But this cannot stand, for the Lord did not break the ceremonies: for nowhere is it found that the Pasch was anticipated, yet it is found that it was prolonged. And given that it was anticipated, this is not favorable to the Greeks, because it is written that the Pasch had to be eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. If therefore he had done otherwise, he would have acted against the law. Therefore, in accordance with what the three evangelists say, this was done on the fourteenth day of the month, and at that time it was necessary to eat the Pasch.

What then should one respond to what John says: before the festival day of the Pasch? (John 13:1). One should say that it was customary that they began the day from the evening, and thus the Paschal day began from the evening. And this is found, the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you will eat unleavened bread (Exod 12:18): and from that time no leavened bread was found in the homes of the Jews until the twenty-first day. Hence if we reckon from the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, the preparation was made before the day of the Pasch, yet it was the fourteenth day of the month. Therefore, John calls that day the day of unleavened bread, and calls the day of the Pasch the fifteenth day of the month.

As for what you say in the second place, that they went not into the praetorium (John 18:28), Chrysostom resolves it this way, and says that the Lord did not omit anything of the legal observances, hence he ate the Pasch on the fourteenth day of the month. But the chief priests yearned to kill Christ, for the sake of which they delayed, and did not celebrate the Pasch at that time, and this contrary to their own law. Or, by ‘the Pasch’ is meant the unleavened bread.

As for what they say about the women, Augustine says that they had many solemnities; but the Sabbath was more solemn than a solemnity. Hence it was not permitted to prepare food on the Sabbath, which nevertheless was permitted on the other feast days, but not on the Sabbath day. So it happened at that time that the festival of the Pasch fell on Friday, and the Sabbath followed; for this reason they prepared the spices then, and went seeking on the Sabbath day. Therefore we can say that he celebrated the Pasch on the fourteenth day of the month.

2152. There follows the disciples’ solicitude: the disciples came to Jesus, saying: where do you wish for us to prepare for you to eat the Pasch? And

first, the questioning is set down;

second, the command;

third, the fulfillment.

2153. He says, the disciples came. But which disciples? Remigius says that Judas came out of obsequiousness, to conceal his betrayal. Yet Pope Leo says that others also came. Where do you wish for us to prepare for you to eat the Pasch? This indicates that Christ did not have a house there, nor someone of the society; which indicates his poverty. Hence above, **the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head **(Matt 8:20).

2154. But Jesus said. Here the command is set down. And

first, he foretells the host;

second, the passion;

third, he requests a place for having the meal.

2155. He says then, go into the city to a certain man. And you should notice that he had not been a guest in the city, but in Bethania.

But why does he say, a certain man? Augustine says that the Lord named some certain man; but since it was not necessary to name him, Matthew omits the name. Chrysostom says that he says, go to a certain man, i.e., to anyone at all, because he wished to show his power, that they might not be disturbed over the passion. For his reputation was so well known that it was already decided that anyone who received him would be put out of the synagogue. Hence he wished to give the disciples to understand that no one would receive him unless he changed his heart; the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: wherever he will he will turn it (Prov 21:1).

2156. And say to him. He foretells the passion so that they will not be disturbed; hence he speaks of the time, not whatever is said, but what has been determined by the Father. John says it in this manner, my time is not yet come; but your time is always ready (John 7:6).

With you I make the Pasch, i.e., I celebrate the Paschal meal with you. And he adds with my disciples, to designate that he would not celebrate secretly, but publicly. According to Chrysostom, he said this because he wanted them to prepare food enough for both himself and the disciples.

But why is it that he himself celebrated the Pasch, and we should not celebrate it? For John says, I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also (John 13:15). Augustine responds to this that, as Christ suffered to redeem us from death, so he willed to observe the law, to free us from the law.

2157. Then there follows the execution of the command: and the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them. A similar thing is found: we will do all the words of the Lord, which he has spoken (Exod 24:3).

2158. Next, he treats of the meal: but when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples. And it says evening because, as is commanded, the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you will eat unleavened bread (Exod 12:18). Or evening, because he approached his setting; and in the time of the evening there will be light (Zech 14:7). Or, it signifies Christ’s true passing over, namely the end: for the end of the day is at evening.

2159. And while they were eating, he said. Here the prediction of the betrayer is set down. And

first, he designates the betrayer by company;

second, by authority;

third, by his own voice.

The second is at but he answering, said; the third, at you have said it.

And concerning the first,

first, the prediction is set down;

second, the effect, at and they, being very troubled.

2160. Hence it says, and while they were eating, he said: amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. Amen, I say, he affirms what he says, because he said a great thing, that one of you, whom I chose to be the pillars of the Church; and there is a friend a companion at the table, and he will not abide in the day of distress (Sir 6:10). And, let him not trust in any brother of his (Jer 9:4).

2161. Then there follows the effect, and there are two effects, sorrow and doubt. As regards sorrow, it says, and they, being very troubled. And why? They were troubled over Christ’s death, for it was bitter for them to lose such a leader, such a patron. Similarly, they sorrowed over such an evil which was to happen; who will give . . . a fountain of tears to my eyes? (Jer 9:1).

Then the doubt is set down: began everyone to say.

But why did they doubt? Was not each one certain about himself? The response: the disciples had been taught that men are quickly prone to sin; hence the Apostle, wherefore he who thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12). Again, they doubted because they believed him more than their own consciences. What is said in Corinthians is similar: I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified (1 Cor 4:4).

2162. But he, answering, said: he who dips his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me. Here the prediction by prophetic word is set down. And

first, he sets out the prophetic prediction;

second, the necessity of the passion;

third, the punishment of the betrayer.

2163. It says therefore, but he, answering, said. The Psalm can be understood as about this: even the man of peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly supplanted me (Ps 40:10).

He who dips his hand with me in the dish. Mark says, in the bowl (Mark 14:20). A bowl is an earthenware vessel for holding liquids: hence liquids were placed in a bowl, and dry stuff in a dish; hence it could have been either one there. Or, it was called a dish, but was a bowl in function.

And why does he say, he who dips his hand with me in the dish? One should say that it was customary among the ancients that many ate from one saucer, and perhaps they took a vessel. Hence everyone withdrew their hands, being astonished, except Judas, that he might better excuse himself: and so it was an uncertain saying, since he was dipping at the same time as everyone. For he did not want to expose him, lest he should become even more of a sinner. Or it can be said that they were sitting two by two, and this one was with him, that he might draw him back. But many are not drawn back through friendship.

2164. The Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him. What is this you are saying, that you will be betrayed? He says, the Son of man indeed goes, namely by his own will. He was offered because it was his own will (Isa 53:7). For the passion had been predicted by the prophets, as is said, and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him (Luke 24:27). And thus nothing harms the Son of man, because he himself ordains what comes to pass.

But someone will say: if he went by his own will, then it should not be blamed on Judas. One should say that rather he brought about with a bad will what the Son freely did.

2165. For this reason, the punishment comes next: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man will be betrayed. As above, for it is necessary that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal comes (Matt 18:7). And he touches upon the magnitude of the punishment: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. From this arises an occasion of error. For some say that punishment is not inflicted on those who do not exist, and for this reason they say that it is better simply speaking not to have been, which is contrary to the Apostle (Rom 9). Hence, according to Jerome, one should say that he speaks according to the common way of speaking, i.e., it would have been a lesser harm, i.e., he feels a greater torment than if he had not been born. And what is said in Sirach seems to support this: and I praised the dead rather than the living (Sir 4:2).

And this is contrary to Augustine, in the book On Free Will. That which is nothing cannot be chosen. Similarly, we choose is what is closer to happiness. But what is not, is not closer to happiness.

What then should be said? Could not someone choose non-being rather than a punitive being? Therefore one should say that not to be can be taken in two ways: either in itself, or in comparison to another. In itself, I say that it is not able to be chosen, as Augustine says; but in comparison to another it is able to be chosen, as Jerome says. For this is not something in nature, but is taken as something in the soul’s perception, such as not to sit. But a choice is made from that which is perceived: for this reason, to lack an evil is taken as a good. Therefore, when a man chooses something not for its own sake, but insofar as it excludes an evil, then he chooses it, as the Philosopher says.

By this, the response to the second argument becomes clear. He says therefore that what is further removed from an evil is taken as closer to happiness; hence to a man with a fever, not to have a fever seems to be happiness, because it seems not to be in misery. Hence it is better not to be than to be in misery.

2166. And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: is it I, Rabbi? One should notice that he said this in pretense; hence the fact that he delayed to ask signified that he was sorrowful, but he pretended. Also, the others called him Lord, but this man called him Rabbi. Yet he was both; you call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am (John 13:13).

He said to him: you have said it. Note the Lord’s gentleness. Above, learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart (Matt 11:29). And he did this to give us an example of gentleness: hence he says, you have said it, i.e., you have confessed. Or, you say this thing; I do not assert it, but you say it. Hence it is not the word of one who asserts. For he did not want to expose him. It is as though he said, I do not assert it, but you say it.