1817. Sed hic oritur quaestio. Cum enim Ioanni Dominus personam proditoris designasset, dicens: ille cui intinctum panem porrexero, et dedisset panem intinctum Iudae: nimium videntur rudes fuisse discipuli, quod verbum Domini non intellexerunt.
1817. A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it (John 13:26), and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said.
Ad quod dicendum est, quod Dominus verba illa occulte dixerat Ioanni tantum, ut non fieret proditor manifestus. Cuius ratio est, quia Petrus ita fervidus erat in amore Christi quod si pro certo scivisset Iudam fuisse Christum traditurum, statim occidisset eum.
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. Sed cum Ioannes unus esset ex discumbentibus, adhuc incidit alia quaestio, cur dixerit, quod nemo scivit discumbentium.
1818. Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him?
Ad quod dicendum est, quod consuetudo boni animi et innocentis est ut etiam alios procul ab iniquitate esse credat, a qua seipsos noverunt immunes. Quia igitur Ioannes innocentissimus erat, et a proditionis iniquitate semotus, nequaquam suspicabatur quod discipulus in tantum iniquitatis prodiret.
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. Quid autem discipuli veram causam verborum ignorantes de ipsis verbis aestimarent, subdit Evangelista, dicens quidam autem ex ipsis, scilicet discipulis, putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas etc.
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, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him.
Ubi sciendum est, quod Dominus Deus caeli, qui dat escam omni carni, loculos habuit, non quod possideret aliquid terrenum, sed a fidelibus oblata conservans, suis necessitatibus et aliis indigentibus subveniret: quos quidem loculos Iudas conferebat.
Here we should note that the Lord God of heaven, who feeds all living things, had a money bag, 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 money bag was in the care of Judas.
In quo datur exemplum, ut Augustinus dicit, quod Ecclesia potest habere pecuniam et reservare pro necessitatibus imminentibus.
As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.
In quo etiam instruimur, quod Ecclesiastica pecunia sit expendenda solum in duobus. Primo quidem in his quae pertinent ad cultum divinum; unde dicit eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, idest quibus Deum colere possumus in die festo; Malach. c. III, 10; inferte omnem decimam in horreum meum, et sit cibus in domo mea. Deinde vero in his quae pertinent ad pauperum sustentationem, ut subdit aut egenis aliquid daret.
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 those things which we have need of 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). Second, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.
1820. Sed si obiicias contra id quod dicit Dominus, Matth. VI, 34: nolite cogitare in crastinum, ad hoc respondet Augustinus, et dicit, quod hoc non fuit praeceptum a Domino ad hoc ut nihil pecuniae seu aliarum rerum unius diei a sanctis servetur in crastinum; sed ideo Dominus dixit, nolite cogitare in crastinum, ne scilicet praedicaremus et alia Dei servitia faceremus ut provideatur nobis in posterum: vel ne desistamus ab his quae virtutis sunt, propter diei crastini sollicitudinem. Ex quo patet quod Dominus dicens, nolite solliciti esse de crastino, duo prohibet. Unum, ut non faciamus bona propter crastinum; aliud, ut non retrahamur a bonis propter timorem crastinae inopiae etc.
1820. One might argue against this that Matthew says, do not be anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34). Augustine answered this and said that our Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next. 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; second, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.
Chrysostomus autem planius exponit dicens: nolite cogitare de crastino; idest, curam quae incumbit diei crastino, nolite anticipare in diem hodiernum: sufficit enim diei malitia sua.
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.
1821. Dubitatur etiam hic, quod Dominus praecepit discipulis suis, Lc. X, 4: nolite portare in via sacculum, neque peram neque calceamenta. Quomodo ergo ipse loculos habebat?
1821. Some might also wonder why our Lord had a money bag, since he told his disciples, carry no money bag, no bag, no sandals (Luke 10:4). In what way, therefore, could he himself have a money bag?
Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, Dominus loculos ferebat ad inopum ministerium, ut hinc discas quod quantumcumque pauperem et mundo crucifixum, oportet de pauperibus curam habere: secundum illud Ps. CXI, 9: dispersit, dedit pauperibus etc. Vel dicendum, quod hoc quod dicit, nihil tuleritis in via etc., referendum est ad singulares praedicatores et apostolos, qui nihil portare debent quando ad praedicandum vadunt. Non autem referendum est ad totum collegium, quod oportet aliquid habere et pro seipsis et pro egenis.
According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a money bag 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). Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on the 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. Consequenter cum dicit cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo, ponitur adimpletio rei praenuntiatae, et
1822. Next, John shows that what was predicted came about: he therefore having received the morself, went out immediately.
primo ponitur executio;
First, he mentions the action which was done;
secundo temporis determinatio.
second, the time when it was done.
1823. Executio quidem festina: quia cum buccellam accepisset, exivit continuo.
1823. What was done was done quickly, because having received the morsel, he immediately went out.
Ubi attende, secundum Origenem, quod non dicit Evangelista, cum comedisset buccellam, sed accepisset: quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quod proditor in hoc tantum sollicitus obedire Magistro, accepto pane non comederit eum; sed forte in mensa dimisso, nullam traxit moram, vadens ad proditionem perpetrandam. Cuius quidem ratio esse potest, quod diabolus, qui iam intraverat in cor Iudae, timens ne si panem comederet, eum cedere oporteret, non valentem in eodem loco cum Iesu esse, non permisit Iudam panem comedere; II Cor. VI, 15: quae conventio Christi ad Belial? I Cor. X, v. 21: non potestis simul esse participes mensae Domini et mensae daemoniorum.
Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it. 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).
Alio modo potest intelligi, quod panem acceptum comedit; et sic est sensus cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, non solum in manu, sed etiam comedendo, sic exivit continuo, male utens bono. Sicut et qui indigne manducat panem Domini, aut bibit eius calicem, in praeiudicium sibi manducat atque bibit et magis aggravatur peccatis; sic panis a Iesu datus Iudae, fuit in damnum, ut post panem intraret in eum satanas.
Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, having received 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. Tempus autem seu hora determinatur tenebrosa; unde dicit erat autem nox: quod quidem determinat propter duo. Primo ad eius malitiam aggravandam, quae intantum invaluerat in cor eius, ut nec propter temporis inopportunitatem usque mane perstitisset; Iob XXIV, 14: mane primo consurgit homicida . . . et de nocte efficitur fur.
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).
Secundo ad designandam mentis qualitatem erat enim nox: quia mens Iudae proditoris obscura erat a luce divina. Supra XI, 9: qui ambulat in die, non offendit, quia lucem huius mundi videt; qui autem ambulat in nocte, offendit, quia lux non est in eo.
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 a man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if he walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him (John 11:9–10).
Lectio 6
Lecture 6
Glorificatio Filii Hominum
Glorification of the Son of Man
13:31 Cum ergo exisset, dixit Iesus: nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus clarificatus est in eo. [n. 1826]
13:31 When he therefore had gone out, Jesus said: now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. [n. 1826]
13:32 Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso, et continuo clarificabit eum. [n. 1827]
13:32 If God is glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself; and immediately he will glorify him. [n. 1827]
1825. Post egressum Iudae ad mortem Domini procurandam, agit Dominus de recessu suo ad gloriam, et
1825. After Judas left to bring about our Lord’s death, Jesus mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory.
primo annuntiat eis gloriam ad quam vadit, ut inde consolentur;
First, to console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going;
secundo praenuntiat eis suum recessum, ibi filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum etc.
second, he foretells his leaving: little children, yet a little while I am with you (John 13:33).
1826. Gloria autem ad quam vadit est glorificatio et exaltatio Christi inquantum est Filius hominis: et hoc est quod dicit cum ergo exisset, scilicet Iudas, dixit Iesus, discipulis suis, nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis etc.
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, that is Judas, therefore had gone out Jesus said, to his disciples, now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Ubi sciendum est, quod clarificari idem est quod glorificari: gloria enim dicitur quasi claria. Unde secundum Ambrosium, gloria est clara cum laude notitia. Unde expositores ubi in Graeco est ‘clarificare’, transferunt ‘glorificare’, et e converso. Et sic idem est quod hic dicitur nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis, quod glorificatus.
The word used was actually ‘clarified’ and not ‘glorified’. But both words mean the same thing. To be clarified 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. Whence the commentators use ‘clarified’ in Greek, translating ‘glorified’, and the converse. The same is said here, now is the Son of man clarified, that is glorified.
Potest ergo exponi quadrupliciter, scilicet referendo ad quadruplicem gloriam Christi. Primo quidem ad gloriam crucis; secundo ad gloriam iudiciariae potestatis; tertio ad gloriam resurrectionis; quarto ad gloriam cognitionis Christi in fide populorum.
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.
Hanc enim quadruplicem gloriam Scriptura attribuit Christo.
Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.
1827. Primo ergo Christus clarificatus fuit in crucis exaltatione, unde etiam Paulus in ipsa cruce gloriam suam dicit esse, Gal. ult., 14: mihi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Et de hac gloria exponit Chrysostomus. Unde circa hoc Dominus quatuor tangit de gloria crucis. Primo ipsam gloriam, secundo gloriae fructum, tertio gloriae auctorem, quarto gloriae tempus.
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. 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.
Quantum ad primum dicit nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis etc. Sciendum est enim, quod quando aliquid incipit fieri, videtur quasi esse factum. Iuda autem exeunte ad ducendum milites, videtur negotium passionis Christi, per quam glorificandus erat, inchoatum esse, et ideo dicit nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis etc., idest incipit passio in qua glorificabitur. Clarificatus est enim Christus per passionem crucis, quia per eam de inimicis, scilicet morte et diabolo, triumphavit; Hebr. II, 14: ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium. Item quia per eam coniunxit terrena caelestibus; Coloss. I, 20: pacificans per sanguinem crucis sive quae in terris, sive quae in caelis sunt. Item quia per eam omnia regna obtinuit. Ps. XCV, 9, secundum aliam litteram: dicite in gentibus, quia Dominus regnavit a ligno. Item quia in ea multa miracula ostendit: nam velum templi scissum est, mota est terra, petrae sunt scissae, et sol obscuratus est, et multa corpora sanctorum surrexerunt, ut dicitur Matth. XXVII, 51 s. Propter hoc ergo imminente passione dicit nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis: quasi, nunc incipit passio mea, quae est mea glorificatio.
As to the first 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; say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross (Ps 95:10). 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, (Matt 27:51). 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.
Fructus autem huius gloriae est quod inde Deus glorificetur; et ideo dicit et Deus clarificatus est in eo; idest, in Filio hominis glorificato: quia gloria passionis ad hoc tendit, ut Deus inde glorificetur. Si enim Deus glorificatur de morte Petri, infra ult., 19, hoc dixit significans qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum, multo magis clarificatus est per mortem Christi.
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 (John 21:19), he was much more glorified by the death of Christ.
Auctor autem huius gloriae non est angelus neque homo, sed ipsemet Deus: et ideo dicit si Deus glorificatus est in eo; idest, si tanta est gloria quod Deus inde glorificetur, non debuit per alium clarificari; sed ipse Deus clarificavit ipsum in semetipso, idest per semetipsum; infra XVII, 5: clarifica me, Pater, claritate quam habui priusquam mundus esset, apud te.
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: and now glorify me, O Father, with yourself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with you (John 17:5).
Tempus autem huius gloriae est festinum, quia continuo, idest statim, clarificabit eum; idest, dabit ei clarificationem crucis. Crux enim, licet gentibus et his qui pereunt sit stultitia, nobis tamen credentibus est maxima Dei sapientia, et Dei virtus: I Cor. I, 30.
The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God immediately he will glorify him, 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).