Ad huius igitur evidentiam sciendum est, quod, sicut habetur Lev. XXIII, 5, solemnitates Iudaeorum incipiebant a vespera praecedentis diei. Cuius ratio est, quia numerabant dies secundum lunam, quae de sero primo apparet, unde et diem computabant de uno sero in alium. Et sic apud eos solemnitas Paschae incipiebat a vespera praecedentis diei, et terminabatur in vespere diei Paschae; sicut et apud nos festa celebrantur. Sic ergo aliquid factum apud nos in vigilia natalis Domini, potest dici factum esse in festo natalis. Quem quidem modum servantes, alii Evangelistae dixerunt coenam esse factam primo die azymorum, quia facta fuit die praecedenti ad vesperam, qui iam pertinebat ad primum diem azymorum. Ioannes autem Evangelista hic diem festum Paschae accipit pro illo die qui totus celebris erat, non autem pro illo cuius vespere solum erat celebre, qui erat dies praecedens Pascha: et ideo dicit ante diem festum Paschae.
To elucidate this it should be noted that, the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day (Lev 23:5). 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 festival day of the Pasch.
Patet ergo quod coena Domini facta est luna quartadecima ad vesperam.
Consequently, it is clear that our Lord’s supper took place on the 14th day in the evening.
1731. Mors autem Christi imminens, erat transitus eius ex hoc mundo per passionem; et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius: nam illa solemnitas Iudaeorum, figura erat passionis Christi, omnia enim in figura contingebant illis: I Cor. c. X, 11, et ideo statim ponit veritatem, scilicet passionem Christi. Et quasi exponens quod ‘pascha’ dicatur a ‘phase’, idest transitu, mentionem facit de transitu ut transeat, inquit, ex hoc mundo ad Patrem.
1731. The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knowing 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, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.
1732. Ubi tria ponit circa passionem Christi. Primo, quod fuit praevisa; secundo, quod fuit congrua, tertio, quod fuit promotiva et exaltativa.
1732. Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; third, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.
Praevisa quidem fuit, non casualis, et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens Iesus; quasi dicat: non invitus, non inscius, sed sciens et voluntarius passus est etc.; infra XVIII, 4: sciens Jesus omnia quae ventura erant. E converso dicitur de nobis, Eccle. VIII, 6: multa hominis afflictio: quia nescit praeterita, et quae ventura sunt nullo modo scire potest.
It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus knowing. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him (John 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. Congrua autem fuit quantum ad tempus, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia venit hora eius, idest ipse dies Paschae, quo transiret per crucem; Eccle. VIII, 6: omni negotio tempus est et opportunitas. Haec est hora illa de qua dicitur supra II, 4: nondum venit hora mea. Nec est intelligenda hora ista fatalis, quasi subiecta cursui et dispositioni stellarum, sed determinata dispositione et providentia divina. Ideo, inquam, determinata in Pascha Iudaeorum, quia congruebat solemnitati Iudaeorum ut veritas sequeretur figuram, dum quando agnus, qui figurabat Christum, immolaretur Christus, qui est vere Agnus Dei; I Petr. I, 18: non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis; sed pretioso sanguine Agni immaculati Christi, et incontaminati.
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 (John 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).
Congruebat etiam negotiis. Iam enim Christus clarificatus erat; infra eodem: nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo. Iam Patrem manifestaverat mundo; infra XVII, 6: Pater, manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus, quos dedisti mihi de mundo. Restabat ergo ut consummaret opus passionis et humanae redemptionis, de quo dicitur infra XIX, 30: consummatum est, et sequitur: inclinato capite, emisit spiritum.
It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him (John 13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world (John 17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: it is consummated, followed by, and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
1734. Promotiva fuit passio Christi et exaltativa, et non oppressiva: quia ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem, idest, faciendo humanam naturam participem Paternae gloriae; infra XX, 17: ascendo ad Patrem vestrum, Deum meum, et Deum vestrum. Non autem intelligendum est quod transeat de loco ad locum, cum Deus Pater non comprehendatur loco; Ier. XXIII, 24: caelum et terram ego impleo. Sed, sicut Christus dicitur venisse a Patre non eum deserendo sed assumendo naturam inferiorem similem nobis, ita et intantum dicitur ad eum rediisse inquantum etiam secundum humanitatem factum est consors Paternae gloriae; Rom. VI, 10: quod autem vivit, vivit Deo; Phil. II, 11: omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris.
1734. The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could that he should pass out of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the glory of the Father: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God (John 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. Consequenter cum dicit cum dilexisset suos, qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos, commendatur fervens Christi dilectio, et hoc quantum ad quatuor.
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.
Primo quantum ad hoc quod fuit praeveniens, secundum illud I Io. IV, 10: non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. Et quantum ad hoc dicit cum dilexisset suos, quasi antea: dilexit, inquam, antequam crearet; Sap. XI, 25: diligis omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti. Dilexit antequam vocaret; Ier. XXXI, 3: in caritate perpetua dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans. Dilexit antequam redimeret; infra XV, 13: maiorem caritatem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis.
First, because his love was first, according to not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:10). And as to this he says, having loved his own, suggesting that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: for you love all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things which you have 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 than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).
1736. Secundo commendatur eius dilectio quantum ad hoc quod fuit congrua, quia dilexit suos.
1736. Second, his love is commended as fitting, because he loved them.
Ubi sciendum est quod secundum quod aliqui diversimode sunt sui, secundum hoc a Deo diversimode diliguntur. Sunt autem aliqui sui tripliciter. Primo creatione; et hos diligit conservando eis bona naturae; supra I, v. 11: in propria venit, et sui, per creationem, eum non receperunt. Aliqui vero sunt sui dedicatione, qui scilicet dati sunt a Deo Patre per fidem; infra XVII, 6: tui erant, et mihi eos dedisti, et sermonem tuum servaverunt. Et hos diligit conservando in bonis gratiae. Aliqui vero sunt sui speciali devotione; I Paral. XI, 1: tui sumus, O David, et caro tua. Hos diligit specialiter consolando.
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 unto his own, and his own, by creation, received him not (John 1:11). Others are his by dedication, that is, those given to him by God the Father through faith: yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word (John 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 Chr 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a special way.
1737. Tertio commendatur dilectio Christi quantum ad hoc quod fuit necessaria, quia dilexit suos qui erant in mundo. Nam aliqui sunt sui, qui iam erant in gloria Patris, quia etiam antiqui Patres sui erant, inquantum speraverunt liberari per eum; Deut. XXXIII, 3: omnes sancti in manu illius sunt. Sed isti non tantum indigent huiusmodi dilectione quantum hi qui erant in mundo; et ideo dicit qui erant in mundo, corpore scilicet, sed non mente.
1737. Third, Christ’s love is commended because it was needed, since having 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. Quarto commendatur quantum ad hoc quod fuit perfecta, unde dicit in finem dilexit eos. Finis autem dicitur dupliciter: quia finis intentionis, et finis executionis. Illud quidem est finis intentionis ad quod nostra ordinatur intentio; et huiusmodi finis debet esse vita aeterna, secundum illud Rom. VI, 22: habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam. Iterum finis huiusmodi Christus debet esse; Rom. X, 4: finis legis Christus ad iustitiam omni credenti. Et haec duo sunt unus finis: quia nihil est aliud vita aeterna quam fruitio Christi, secundum divinitatem; infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti, Iesum Christum. Secundum hoc ergo dicit in finem dilexit eos; ut perduceret in se finem, vel in vitam aeternam, quae nihil aliud est; Ier. c. XXXI, 3: in caritate dilexi te, propterea attraxi te, miserans.
1738. Fourth, 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: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them unto 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).
Illud autem est finis executionis quod est terminus rei; et sic mors potest dici finis, ut dicatur in finem dilexit eos, idest in mortem: quod potest habere triplicem sensum uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut quodam humano modo dicatur Christus dilexit suos usque ad mortem tantum, et non ultra. Sed hic sensus est falsus: absit enim ut dilectionem morte finierit qui non est in morte finitus. Alio modo potest intelligi, ut ly in indicet causam; et sic est sensus: in finem dilexit eos, idest, usque ad mortem illum dilectio ipsorum perduxit; Gal. II, v. 20: dilexit nos, et tradidit semetipsum pro nobis. Tertio modo potest intelligi ut sit sensus: in finem, idest, cum multa signa dilectionis ostenderit eis ante, in finem, idest circa mortem, maioris eis signa dilectionis ostendit; infra XVI, 5: haec ab initio vobis non dixi, quia vobiscum eram, quasi diceret: non tunc necessarium fuit vobis, ut ostenderem quantum vos diligerem, nisi in recessu, ut sic amor et memoria mei in cordibus vestris profundius imprimeretur.
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 unto 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. 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 unto as indicating a cause; and then it would mean, he loved them unto 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: but I told you not these things from the beginning, because I was with you (John 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. Consequenter cum dicit et coena facta, innuit factum, in quo dabat exemplum, et
1739. Then when he says, when supper was done, he describes the act by which Christ gave his example.
primo describit horam facti;
First, he mentions the time of the action;
secundo subdit dignitatem facientis, ibi sciens itaque Iesus quod omnia dedit ei Pater in manus etc.;
second, the dignity of the one acting: knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands (John 13:3);
tertio prosequitur de facti humilitate, ibi surgit a coena.
third, his humility: he rose from supper (John 13:4).
Tempus autem describit ex duobus.
He describes the time in two ways:
Ex uno quod pertinebat ad eius caritatem,
in one way, as the time of Christ’s love;
et ex alio quod exaggerabat Iudae iniquitatem, ibi cum diabolus iam misisset in cor, ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotes.
in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas: the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.
1740. Dicit ergo quantum ad primum et coena facta. Ubi sciendum est, quod aliter dicitur esse factum in permanentibus, et aliter in successivis. In permanentibus autem dicitur aliquid esse factum quando pervenit ad perfectionem propriae speciei et formae, sicut domus dicitur esse facta quando habet propriam formam. In successivis vero dicitur aliquid esse factum quando iam est consummatum; sicut mundus factus esse dicitur quando completus. Hoc etiam modo aliquid factum esse dicitur quando accipit propriam speciem.
1740. In regard to the first, he says, literally, when supper was done. 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.
Cum ergo dicit et coena facta, non intelligendum est quod coena fuerit completa et peracta: quia postquam lavit pedes discipulorum, recubuit, et bucellam tradidit Iudae. Est ergo intelligendum coena facta, idest parata, et ad propriam speciem iam perducta: iam enim coenare inceperant, et postea surrexit. Unde inter coenandum lavit pedes discipulorum.
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.
De ista coena habetur Lc. XIV, 16: homo quidam fecit coenam magnam. Differt autem prandium a coena. Prandium enim dicitur quod fit in prima parte diei, coena vero quae fit in ultima. Sic ergo spiritualis refectio dicitur prandium, secundum quod congruit incipientibus; coena vero, secundum quod congruit perfectis.
We read about such a supper in Luke, a man once gave a great supper (14:16). 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. Consequenter cum dicit cum diabolus iam misisset in cor, ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotes, describit tempus, ex eo quod exaggerat iniquitatem proditoris: quod quidem describit Evangelista propter duo. Primo quidem ut ostendatur magis iniquitas Iudae, qui inter tot caritatis indicia, et tot humilitatis officia, tantam iniquitatem committere cogitabat; Ps. XL, 10: qui manducat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem.
1741. Then when the Evangelist says, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, 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 says: even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me (Ps 41:9).
Secundo vero ut reddatur magis admirabilis caritas Christi, qui licet hoc sciret, tamen ei caritatis et humilitatis praebens officium, eius pedes lavit; Ps. CXIX, 6: cum his qui oderunt pacem eram pacificus.
And second, 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. Sed numquid diabolus aliquid mittere potest in cor hominis? Videtur quod sic. In Ps. LXXVII, 49 enim dicitur: immissiones per angelos malos.
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).
Sed ad hoc dicendum, quod id dicitur esse in corde hominis quod est in cogitatione et voluntate eius, unde quod dicitur cum iam misisset in cor etc. intelligendum est, idest, in voluntate eius.
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 having now put into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.
Sed sic mittere in cor, potest esse dupliciter. Directe; et sic solus ille potest aliquid mittere in cor hominis qui habet potestatem movendi interius voluntatem eius: et hoc potest solus Deus; et ideo solus ipse potest directe in voluntatem hominis imprimere; Prov. XX, 1: cor regum in manu, idest in potestate, Domini; quocumque voluerit inclinabit illud. Quia vero voluntas movetur ab exteriori obiecto sicut a bono apprehenso, inde est quod qui suggerit aliquid esse bonum, dicitur illud mittere in cor hominis, indirecte faciendo ipsum apprehendere aliquid ut bonum, ex quo voluntas movetur. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter, quia, aut suggerendo exterius: et hoc modo etiam homo potest in cor aliquid mittere; aut suggerendo interius: et hoc modo immittit diabolus. Nam vis imaginativa cum sit corporalis, quando Deus permittit, subiecta est potestati Daemonis. Unde, sive vigilando sive dormiendo, format in ea aliquas species, ex quibus apprehensis movetur voluntas hominis ad aliquid appetendum. Sic ergo immittit diabolus in cor hominis, non directe per modum moventis, sed indirecte per modum suggerentis.
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 (Prov 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.
1743. Consequenter cum dicit sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, agit de dignitate facientis. Quia Eccli. III, 20, dicitur: quanto maior es, humilia te, ideo Evangelista dicturus de Christi humilitate, praemittit eius maximam dignitatem; et hoc quantum ad quatuor.
1743. Then, knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (John 13:3), 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, and this is to the fourth.
Primo quantum ad scientiam; et quantum ad hoc dicit sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus. Talia enim sunt spiritualia dona, quod data non ignorantur; I Cor. II, 12: nos spiritum non huius mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Et ideo Christus sciebat ea quae sibi data erant a Deo. Hoc autem ideo dicit ut humilitas magis sit commendabilis. Quandoque enim contingit quod aliquis magnae dignitatis est, et tamen, propter simplicitatem suam, dignitatem suam non recognoscit. Talis ergo si faceret aliquid humile, non reputaretur sibi ad magnam laudem, secundum illud Cant. I, 7: si ignorans te, pulcherrima inter mulieres. Sed si aliquis cognoscit suae dignitatis statum, et tamen affectus eius ad humilia inclinatur, eius humilitas est commendanda. Et ideo dicit Evangelista sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, tamen non omisit quae humilia sunt facere.
First saying, 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, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was humble.
Secundo quantum ad potestatem quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, idest, in potestate eius. Dedit Deus Christo homini ex tempore, quae tamen fuerant in potestate Filii ab aeterno; Matth. ult., 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Dicit autem omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, propter duo: ut ostendat quod Christus non invitus patiebatur. Nam si omnia erant in manu eius, idest in potestate, manifestum est quod eius adversarii inde nihil ei contra eius voluntatem facere poterant. Secundo, quia quando aliquis parvi momenti exaltatur, de facili superbit, nec aliquid humile facit, ne videatur derogare suae dignitati; sed qui in magno statu existens exaltatur, non negligit humilia: et ideo de dignitate Christi mentionem facit.
Second, 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 (Matt 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. Second, 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.
Tertio quantum ad nobilitatem eius, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit; Sap. VIII, 3: contubernium habens Dei.
Third, 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 (Wis 8:3).
Quarto quantum ad sanctitatem, quia ad Deum vadit. In hoc est sanctitas hominis quod ad Deum vadat. Et hoc ideo ponit infra, quia ex quo ipse ad Deum vadit, proprium est sibi alios ad Deum reducere: quod quidem specialiter fit per humilitatem et caritatem; et ideo humilitatis et caritatis eis exemplum praebuit.
Fourth, 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.