Aquinas: john/english/John13.html comparison

comparison john/english/John13.html @ 31:25a799388159

originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm

author	ht
date	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000
parents
children	d79bd8213f32

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:b56c501d878e
+:25a799388159
+<html>
+<head>
+</head>
+<body style=text-align:justify><blockquote>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 60pt">13</span>
+<p align=center><B>LECTURE I
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew
+that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved
+his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 And during supper,
+when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's
+son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into
+his hand, and that he had come from God and was going to God…<a href="#_ftn1"
+name="_ftnref1">[1]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
+<p>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.
+<p>1728 The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, <b>Now
+before the feast of the Passover</b>. Here we should note that some say the
+[Latin] word <i>pascha</i> comes from the Greek word for "passion," and that
+this feast is called the <i>Pascha</i> because it is then that we celebrate the
+passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word <i>pascha</i> in Greek does
+mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, <i>pesah</i>,
+which means a "passage," as in Exodus [12:11]: "It is the <i>pesah</i>,"
+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 <i>Pascha</i>, [translated
+into English as Passover].
+<p>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].
+<p>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 <i>Skenopegia</i>. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.
+<p>A problem arises as to why he says
+here, <b>before the feast of the Passover</b>, 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, <b>before the feast of the Passover</b>, 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.
+<p>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.
+<p>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.
+<p>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,
+<b>before the feast of the Passover</b>. 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].
+<p>1731 The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage
+from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, <b>Jesus knew that his
+hour had come</b>: 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 <i>pascha</i> came from <i>pesah</i>, meaning a passage, he mentions his
+passage, <b>to depart</b>, pass, <b>out of this world to the Father</b>.
+<p>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.
+<p>It was foreseen and not fortuitous;
+so he says, <b>Jesus knew</b>. 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].
+<p>1733 The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its
+time; and as to this he says, <b>that his hour had come</b>, 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).
+<p>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).
+<p>1734 The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and
+glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could <b>depart out of
+this world to the Father</b>, 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].
+<p>1735 Then when he says, <b>having loved his own who were in
+the world, he loved them to the end</b>, he commends the intense love of
+Christ; and this on four points.
+<p>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, <b>having loved his own</b>, 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).
+<p>1736 Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he
+loved <b>his own</b>. 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.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>
+<p>1737 Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was
+needed, since he loved <b>his own who were in the world</b>. 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, <b>who were in the world</b>,
+that is, in body, but not in mind.
+<p>1738 Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect,
+so he says, <b>he loved them to the end</b>. 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, <b>he
+loved them to the end</b>, 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].
+<p>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, <b>he loved them to the end</b>, 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.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>
+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, <b>he loved them to the end</b>, 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 <b>to the end</b>, 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.
+<p>1739 Then when he says, <b>during supper</b>, 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.
+<p>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 <b>during
+supper</b>.
+<p>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.
+<p>1741 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>when the devil had
+already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him</b>,
+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].
+<p>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, <b>when the devil had already put it
+into the heart of Judas</b>, should be understood to refer to his will.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn4"
+name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>
+<p>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, <b>Jesus, knowing that the Father had
+given all things into his hands</b>. 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, <b>Jesus,
+knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands</b>; and he still
+did not neglect to do what was humble.
+<p>Secondly, we see his dignity as to
+his power, because <b>the Father had given all things into his hands</b>, 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, <b>the Father had given all things into his hands</b>,
+for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against his will.
+For if all things were in <b>his hands</b>, 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.
+<p>Thirdly, we see his dignity because
+of his nobility, when he says, <b>that he had come from God and was going to
+God</b>: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity because of
+his holiness, because he <b>was going to God</b>, 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.
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 2
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>4 [He] rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and
+girded himself with a towel. 5 Then he poured water into a basin, and began to
+wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.
+6 He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" 7
+Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you
+will understand." 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus
+answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have not part in me." 9 Simon Peter
+said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus
+said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but
+he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not all of you." 11 For he knew
+who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean."<a
+href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
+<p>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).
+<p>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 <b>rose from supper</b>: "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 <b>laid aside his garments</b>.
+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 <b>girded himself with a towel</b>, 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.
+<p>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 <b>rose from supper</b>.
+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 <b>laid aside his garments</b>: "He emptied himself, taking the
+form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, the fact that he <b>girded himself with
+a towel</b> indicates that he took on our mortality: "taking the form of a
+servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7).
+<p>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).
+<p>1747 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>Then he poured water
+into a basin…</b>, 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).
+<p>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, <b>he poured water into a basin</b>, 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).
+<p>1749 Secondly, when he says, <b>and began to wash</b>, 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 <b>began to wash</b>, 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."
+<p>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.<a
+href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>
+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.
+<p>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).
+<p>1751 Then when the Evangelist says, <b>he came to Simon
+Peter</b>, 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).
+<p>1752 The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of
+Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, <b>he came to Simon Peter,
+and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? </b>There are three
+explanations for this.
+<p>According to Origen, our Lord began
+to wash their feet by beginning with the last.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"
+title="">[7]</a>
+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 <b>began to wash
+the disciples' feet</b>, and then he follows this with, <b>he came to Simon
+Peter</b>. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.
+<p>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.<a
+href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>
+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.
+<p>1754 The second explanation is by Chrysostom.<a href="#_ftn9"
+name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>
+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, <b>he began to wash the disciples' feet</b>,
+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.
+<p>1755 The third explanation is by Augustine.<a href="#_ftn10"
+name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>
+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, <b>Lord, do you wash my feet?</b>
+<p>These words have great depth. He
+says, <b>Lord, do you</b>, who are the Son of the living God, <b>wash my feet</b>,
+who am Simon, the son of Jonah? <b>Lord, do you</b>, the Lamb without spot, the
+mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, <b>do you wash my
+feet</b>, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk
+5:8). <b>Lord, do you</b>, who are the Creator, <b>wash my feet</b>, 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].
+<p>1756 Then (v 7), we see the words of Christ, which show that
+this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: <b>What I am doing you do not
+know now, but afterward you will understand</b>. 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).
+<p>So what Christ said can be understood
+in two ways. In one way, <b>What I am doing you do not know now</b>, that is,
+you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; <b>but afterward
+you will understand</b>, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what
+I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, <b>What I am doing you do not know
+now</b>; 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, <b>but afterward you will understand</b>, 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).
+<p>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.
+<p>1758 Peter says, <b>You shall never wash my feet</b>. 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, <b>You shall never
+wash my feet</b>.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>
+<p>1759 Our Lord reproved him, saying, <b>If I do not wash you,
+you have not part in me</b>. This statement can refer to two things: to the
+action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified.
+<p>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: <b>If I
+do not wash you</b>, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, <b>you
+have no part in me</b>.
+<p>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, <b>If
+I do not wash you, you have no part in me</b>, 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).
+<p>1760 Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate.
+First, the words of Peter are given; and then Christ's answer.
+<p>1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ.
+Before, when our Lord said to him, <b>What I am doing you do not know now</b>,
+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,<b> you have no part
+in me</b>, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, <b>Lord, not my feet
+only, but also my hands and my head! </b>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 <i>Itinerary</i> 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.<a
+href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a>
+<p>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, <b>Lord, not my feet only but
+also my hands and my head</b>. 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 <b>not my feet
+only</b>, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I
+soil them?" (Song 5:3) - <b>but also my hands</b>, that is, my works - "I will
+wash my hands among the innocent" [26:6] - <b>and my head</b>, that is, my
+higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17).
+<p>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.
+<p>1764 He says at first, <b>he who has bathed does not need to
+wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over</b>, except for his feet,
+which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already
+been baptized. For he says, <b>he who has bathed</b>, and then adds, <b>and you
+are clean</b>, that is, because they had been baptized.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a>
+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.
+<p>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.
+<p>1766 Then when he says, <b>you are clean, but not all of you</b>,
+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.<a href="#_ftn14"
+name="_ftnref14">[14]</a>
+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.<a href="#_ftn15"
+name="_ftnref15">[15]</a>
+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]. <b>But not all of you</b>, because one of
+them was dirty both in hands and head.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"
+title="">[16]</a>
+<p>1767 This is why the Evangelist says, <b>for he knew who was
+to betray him</b>. He is saying that Christ said, <b>but not all of you</b>,
+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.
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 3
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments,
+and resumed his place [again], he said to them, "Do you know what I have done
+to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If
+I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
+one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do
+as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater
+than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you
+know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of you
+all; I know whom I have chosen; it is that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He
+who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' 19 I tell you this now,
+before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am
+he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives
+me; and he who receives me receives he who sent me."<a href="#_ftn17"
+name="_ftnref17">[17]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
+<p>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).
+<p>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, <b>When he had washed their feet</b>: "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).
+<p>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 <b>taken his garments</b>.
+<p>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, <b>he resumed his place again, he said to them</b>.
+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.
+<p>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, <b>when
+he had washed their feet</b>, 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 <b>taken his garments</b>, that is, he arose
+immortal. He says <b>his garments</b> 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, <b>and resumed his place again</b>, 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, <b>again</b>, 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).
+<p>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.
+<p>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.
+<p>1773 Christ questions them when he says, <b>Do you know what
+I have done to you? </b>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).
+<p>According to Origen, this statement
+can be rendered as, <b>Know what I have done to you</b>.<a href="#_ftn18"
+name="_ftnref18">[18]</a>
+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.
+<p>1774 Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, <b>You call me
+Teacher and Lord</b>. He mentions what they acknowledge; and than he approves
+of it.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"
+title="">[19]</a>
+As the wisdom of God he teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called him <b>Lord
+</b>- "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - <b>and Teacher </b>- "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).
+<p>1776 When he says, <b>and you are right</b>, 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, <b>and you are right</b>; because what you say is true, for it applies to
+me, <b>for so I am</b>, 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.
+<p>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, <b>and
+you are right</b>, that is, you are speaking the truth, <b>for so I am</b>,
+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).
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a>
+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.
+<p>Augustine also says that sometimes
+it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to
+others.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a>
+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).
+<p>1778 He draws the conclusion when he says, <b>If I then,
+your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one
+another's feet</b>. 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, <b>If
+I then</b>, who am greater, because I am <b>your Lord and Teacher, have washed
+your feet</b>, then <b>you</b> who are not as great, because you are disciples
+and servants,<b> ought</b>, far more than I, <b>to wash one another's feet</b>:
+"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).
+<p>1779 It seems that the statement, <b>you ought to wash one
+another's feet</b>, 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.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"
+title="">[22]</a>
+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.
+<p>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).
+<p>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).
+<p>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).
+<p>1781 He said the reason I did this was to give you an
+example; so <b>you also ought to wash one another's feet</b>, 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.
+<p>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" <a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"
+title="">11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>[23]</a>; and the same is true of avarice and the
+other vices.
+<p>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).
+<p>1782 Then when he says, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, a
+servant is not greater than his master</b>, he strengthens his conclusion by
+his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the
+work they do.
+<p>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 <b>a servant is not
+greater than his master</b>, and this refers to their status, <b>nor is he who
+is sent grater than he who sent him</b>. 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.
+<p>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).
+<p>1784 When he says, <b>If you know these things, blessed are
+you if you do them</b>, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he
+mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18).
+<p class=MsoHeader>&nbsp;
+<p>1785 <b>If you know these things</b>, which many do know, <b>blessed
+are you if you do them</b>, 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).
+<p>1786 He excludes someone when he says, <b>I am not speaking
+of you all</b>. 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.
+<p>1787 He says there is an exception when he says, <b>I am not
+speaking of you all</b>. He is saying in effect: You will be blessed, but not
+all of you, because <b>I am not speaking of you all </b>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.
+<p>According to Origen, our Lord did
+not say <b>blessed are you</b>, without qualification; but he added a
+condition, <b>if you do them</b>.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a>
+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, <b>but I am not speaking of
+you all</b>: 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.
+<p>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, <b>I know whom I have chosen</b>.
+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).
+<p>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.
+<p>1790 The reason there was an exception was so <b>that the scripture
+may be fulfilled </b>- 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: <b>He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me</b>. 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, <b>he who ate my bread</b>:
+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, <b>has lifted his heel against me</b>; 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].
+<p>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."<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a>
+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).
+<p>1792 Then when he says, <b>I tell you this now</b>, 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, <b>I tell you this now, before it takes place,
+that when it does take place you may believe that I am he </b>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].
+<p>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.
+<p>First, he shows how those things
+done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this
+he says, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you</b>. He is saying in effect: Truly, you
+ought to wash their feet, because <b>he who receives any one whom I send
+receives me</b>, 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, <b>he who receives
+me receives him who sent me</b>: "That all may honor the Son, even as they
+honor the Father" (5:23).
+<pIndent2>However, according to Origen, this verse can be
+understood in two ways.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26">[26]</a>
+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).
+<p>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.
+<p>We should answer this, according to
+Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ, a human and a
+divine nature.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27">[27]</a>
+In the first part he is speaking with reference to his human nature, saying, <b>he
+who receives any one whom I send receives me</b>, as human, for I share with
+them in one [human] nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his
+divinity: <b>he who receives me</b>, who am God, <b>receives him who sent me</b>,
+for I have the same [divine] nature as him.
+<p>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).
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 4
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>21 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit,
+and testified, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." 22 The
+disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his
+disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast [lap] of Jesus; 24
+so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks."
+25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is
+it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is he whom I shall give this morsel [bread] when I
+have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel [bread], he gave it to Judas,
+the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him.<a
+href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28">[28]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
+<p>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).
+<p>1796 Two things are done about the first: the emotions of
+the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted
+is mentioned.
+<p>The one foretelling the betrayal is
+Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, <b>When Jesus had
+thus spoken</b>, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the
+disciple who was to betray him and <b>he was troubled in spirit</b>. 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.
+<p>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.
+<p>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 <i>propassion</i>.<a
+href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29">[29]</a>
+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.
+<p>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<b> he was
+troubled in spirit</b>, 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.
+<p>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.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn30"
+name="_ftnref30">[30]</a>
+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, <b>he was
+troubled in spirit and testified</b>, to show he was not ignorant of his
+betrayal, and said, <b>Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me</b>.
+<p>1799 He is careful to say, <b>one of you</b>, 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).
+<p>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, <b>one of you</b>, 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).<b> One of
+you will betray me</b>. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.
+<p>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.
+<p>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, <b>the disciples looked at one another,
+uncertain of whom he spoke</b>: "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).
+<p>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).
+<p>1803 The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the
+fact that he was lying close to him. He says, <b>one of the disciples was lying
+close to the lap of Jesus</b>. 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).
+<p>1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First,
+the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he <b>was lying</b>,
+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 <b>close to the lap of Jesus</b>, 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, <b>whom
+Jesus loved</b>, 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.
+<p>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).
+<p>1805 Then when he says, <b>so Simon Peter beckoned to him</b>,
+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 <b>beckoned…and
+said? </b>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 <b>beckoned…and said</b>, 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: <b>Who is it
+of whom he speaks? </b>that is, who will betray him.
+<p>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.<a
+href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31">[31]</a>
+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.
+<p>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).
+<p>1807 Then when he says, <b>So lying thus, close to the
+breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it?</b> 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.
+<p>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].
+<p>1808 Then when he says, <b>Jesus answered</b>, he identifies
+the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he
+says, <b>It is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it</b>.
+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).
+<p>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).
+<p>1809 He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says,<b>
+so when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot</b>.
+Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to
+Augustine, this is not so.<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32">[32]</a>
+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.
+<p>1810 He continues with the effect of this identification,
+saying, <b>then after the morsel, Satan entered into him</b>. 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.<a href="#_ftn33"
+name="_ftnref33">[33]</a>
+<p>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, <b>Satan entered into him</b>. 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.
+<p>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 <b>after the morsel, Satan entered into him</b>. 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.
+<p>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).
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 5
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>27b Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do
+quickly." 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some
+thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what
+we need for the feast"; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 So,
+after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.<a
+href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34">[34]</b></a></BLOCKQUOTE>
+<p>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.
+<p>1815 Our Lord's words were: <b>What you are going to do, do
+quickly</b>. 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].
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn35"
+name="_ftnref35">[35]</a>
+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).
+<p>1816 What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John
+says, <b>Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>. 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].
+<p>1817 A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to
+John who the traitor was, saying, <b>it is he to whom I shall give this bread
+when I have dipped it</b>, 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.
+<p>1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why
+did he say, <b>no one at the table knew why he said this to him</b>? 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.
+<p>1819 Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples,
+ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the
+disciples <b>thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
+him…</b> 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.<a href="#_ftn36"
+name="_ftnref36">[36]</a>
+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, <b>Buy what we need
+for the feast</b>, 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 <b>that
+he should give something to the poor</b>.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37">[37]</a>
+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.
+<p>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."<a
+href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38">[38]</a>
+<p>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).<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39"
+title="">[39]</a>
+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.
+<p>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.
+<p>1823 What was done was done quickly, because <b>after
+receiving the morsel, he immediately went out</b>. Note that, as Origen says,
+the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it.<a
+href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40">[40]</a>
+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).
+<p>Taken the other way, we could think
+that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, <b>after receiving
+the morsel</b>, not only in his hand, but even eating it, <b>he immediately
+went out</b>. 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.
+<p>1824 The time is described as one of darkness: <b>and it was
+night</b>. 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).
+<p>In the second place, he wants to
+show his state of mind. <b>It was night</b>, 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).
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 6
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of
+man glorified and in him God is glorified; 32 if God is glorified in him, God
+will also glorify him in himself, and [will] glorify him at once.
+<p>1825 After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus
+mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to console them, he
+mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, he foretells his leaving (v
+33).</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
+<p>1826 The glory to which he is going is the glorification and
+exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. <b>When he had gone out</b>,
+that is Judas, <b>Jesus said</b>, to his disciples, <b>Now is the Son of man
+glorified, and in him God is glorified</b>. 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.<a
+href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41">[41]</a>
+And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice
+versa.
+<p>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.
+<p>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.<a
+href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42">[42]</a>
+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.
+<p>As to the first [the very glory of
+the cross] he says, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>. 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, <b>now
+is the Son of man glorified</b>, 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, <b>now is
+the Son of man glorified</b>. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning,
+the passion which is my glory.
+<p>The fruit of this glory is that God
+is glorified by it. So he says, <b>and in him God is glorified</b>, 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.
+<p>The author of this glory is not an
+angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>,
+that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need
+to be glorified by another. But <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>,
+that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me"<a href="#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43"
+title="">[43]</a>
+(17:5).
+<p>The time for this glory is fast
+approaching, because God <b>will glorify him at once</b>, 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).
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44">[44]</a>
+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, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>.
+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, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>;
+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, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>, in
+keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.
+<p>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 <b>in him God is glorified</b>. He amplifies on this when he says, <b>if
+God is glorified in him</b>, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he
+glorifies God, then rightly <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, so
+that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal
+glory. Thus, <b>in himself</b>, 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 <b>in himself</b>, 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, <b>and will glorify him at once</b>,
+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].
+<p>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.<a
+href="#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45">[45]</a>
+<p>From this aspect, Christ first
+foretells this glory of his, saying, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>.
+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, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>,
+as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the
+glory of the divinity.
+<p>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 <b>the Son of man</b>, that is, Christ considered in his human
+nature, <b>is glorified</b>, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He
+says, <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, 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, <b>if God is glorified in him</b>, that is, if it
+is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity,
+subsequently <b>God will also glorify him in himself</b>, 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].
+<p>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, <b>and in him God is</b>, or has
+been, <b>glorified</b>, 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: <b>and will glorify him at once</b>, that is, he will
+always establish him in that glory forever.
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46">[46]</a>
+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.<a href="#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47">[47]</a>
+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.
+<p>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, <b>Now is the Son of man glorified</b>, that
+is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men
+because of his approaching passion. <b>And in him God</b>, the Father, <b>is
+glorified</b>. 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, <b>in him</b>,
+because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9).
+<p>It is characteristic of one who is
+greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, <b>if God is glorified in
+him</b>, 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, <b>God
+will also glorify him in himself</b>, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus
+is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he <b>will glorify him at once</b>.
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 7
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>33 "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You
+will seek me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, 'Where I am going
+you cannot come.' 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
+another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this
+all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
+<p> 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, <b>A new
+commandment I give to you</b>.
+<p>1832 He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, <b>Little
+children, yet a little while I am with you</b>. 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, <b>little
+children</b>, 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).
+<p>1833 We should note that the expression, <b>yet a little
+while</b>, 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, <b>a little while</b>, is understood as the time between these
+words and his death. So the sense is: <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>,
+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."
+<p>Secondly, he was with them in body,
+but a body that was already glorified. Then, <b>a little while</b>, 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).
+<p>Thirdly, it can be explained as
+applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and
+in the sacraments. Then, <b>a little while</b>, 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: <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>, that is, although I will
+leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for <b>a little while</b>
+which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close
+of the age" (Mt 28:20).
+<p>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.<a href="#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48">[48]</a>
+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, <b>yet a little while I am with you</b>, that is, in a little while
+you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.
+<p>1834 Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First,
+he notes their effort, <b>you will seek me</b>, whom you have spiritually
+abandoned by your flight and denials. <b>You will seek me</b>, 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, <b>you will
+seek me</b>, 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).
+<p>Secondly, he shows their weakness,
+saying, <b>as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you
+cannot come</b>. 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, <b>you cannot come</b>, but added, <b>now I say to you</b>. It is
+like saying: <b>I said to the Jews</b>, that is, to the obstinate among them,
+that they could never come. But <b>I say to you</b>, that for <b>now</b>, 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.
+<p>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, <b>where I am going
+you cannot come</b>.
+<p>1835 Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow
+him: <b>a new commandment I give to you</b>. 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.
+<p>1836 The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its
+newness. Thus he says, <b>a new commandment</b>. 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).
+<p>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.
+<p>1837 The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he
+says: <b>that you love one another</b>. 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).
+<p>1838 The standard for this mutual love is given when he
+says, <b>as I have loved you</b>. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously,
+effectively and rightly.
+<p>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.
+<p>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).
+<p>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.
+<p>1839 Then when he says, <b>By this all men will know that
+you are my disciples</b>, 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: <b>By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you
+have love for one another</b>. 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].
+<p>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).
+<BR><BR><BR>
+<p align=center><b>LECTURE 8
+<BLOCKQUOTE><p>36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"
+Jesus answered, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall
+follow afterward." 37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I
+will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life
+for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have
+denied me three times."</BLOCKQUOTE></b>
+<p>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, <b>Why cannot I follow you
+now? </b>He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his
+desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, <b>you cannot
+follow me now</b>.
+<p>1841 Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned
+Christ: <b>Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going?</b> 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, <b>Where are you going?</b>
+Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious
+than a fire that nothing could stop."<a href="#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49">[49]</a>
+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).
+<p>1842 Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the
+present he is prevented from following Christ. <b>Where I am going you cannot
+follow me now; but you shall follow afterward</b>. 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).
+<p>1843 When John says, <b>Peter said to him</b>, 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, <b>I will lay down my life for you</b>, 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).
+<p>1844 Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter.
+First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.
+<p>1845 As to the first we should note that after Christ said <b>you
+cannot follow me now</b>, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that
+he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, <b>Will
+you lay down your life for me? </b>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."
+<p>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.
+<p>1846 Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, <b>Truly,
+truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three
+times</b>. 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.<a href="#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50"
+title="">[50]</a>
+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.
+<p>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.
+<p>One could also say, with Augustine,
+that our Lord said this three times.<a href="#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51">[51]</a>
+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.
+</div>
+<div><br clear=all>
+<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">
+<div id=ftn1>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>
+St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:1 in the <i>Summa Theologiae:
+</i>III, q. 46, a. 9, s. c. and ad 1; q. 74, a. 4, obj. 1.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn2>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>
+Summa-
+</div>
+<div id=ftn3>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 55, ch. 2, col 1785; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:1-5.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn4>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a>
+Summa-will can be moved by God, by internal suggestion and external suggestion
+</div>
+<div id=ftn5>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>
+St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:4 in the <i>Summa
+Theologiae:</i> III, q, 74, a. 4, obj. 1; Jn 13:5: <i>ST</i> III, q. 46, a. 9,
+ad 1; Jn 13:10: <i>ST</i> III, q. 72, a. 6, ad 2; q. 83, a. 5, ad 1.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn6>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
+2; PG 14, col. 405; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:1-5.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn7>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 4; PG 14, col. 411; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn8>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> Origen, <i>In
+Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 5; PG 14, col. 412; cf.
+<i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn9>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch.
+2; PG 59, col. 383; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn10>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 56, ch. 1, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn11>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
+5; PG 14, col. 412; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn12>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Clement, <i>Itinerary.</i>
+</div>
+<div id=ftn13>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a><i>Epistola
+64, </i> ch. 5, no. 10; PL 33, col. 178; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i>
+</i>13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn14>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 56, ch. 3, col. 1788; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn15>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 70, ch.
+2; PG 59, col. 384; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn16>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>,
+XXXII, ch. 6; PG 14, col. 416; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:6-11.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn17>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a>
+St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:13 in the <i>Summa
+Theologiae:</i> II-II, q. 132, a. 1, ad 1; Jn 13:15: <i>ST </i>III, q. 37 a. 1,
+obj. 2; Jn 13:17: <i>ST</i> I-II, q. 4, a. 6, s. c.; q. 5, a. 7, s. c.; q. 7,
+a. 2, ad 3; Jn 13:18: <i>ST </i>III, q. 36, a. 3, s. c.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn18>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a>  Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 57 PG 14, col. 430; cf.
+<i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn19>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> Ambrose, <i>Expos sec. Lucam</i>, X, ch .3 ; PL 15, col.
+1804-5.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn20>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 58, ch. 3, col. 1793; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn21>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Ibid.; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn22>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 58, ch. 4, col. 1794; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn23>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a>
+Augustine, <i>De Agone Christiano</i>, ch. XI, 12; PL 40,  col. 297.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn24>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
+8; PG 14, col. 424; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn25>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a>
+Augustine, <i>Epistola 78</i>, ch. 8; PL  33, col. 272.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn26>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26">[26]</a>  Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
+10; PG 14, col. 431 cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn27>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27">[27]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 59. ch. 2, col. 1796; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:12-20.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn28>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28">[28]</a>
+St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:26, 27 in the <i>Summa
+Theologiae:</i> III, q. 81, a. 2, obj. 3.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn29>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29">[29]</a> Comm.
+in Matt., I; PL 26, col. 38C.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn30>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30">[30]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 60, ch. 1, col. 1797; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn31>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31">[31]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch.
+1; PG 59, col. 389, 390; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn32>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32">[32]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 62, ch. 3, col. 1802; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn33>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33">[33]</a>
+Summa-God is in the soul essentially, but the devil cannot be.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn34>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34">[34]</a>
+St. Thomas refers to Jn 13:29 in the <i>Summa
+Theologiae:</i> II-II, q. 188, a. 7.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn35>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35">[35]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io</i>., 62, ch. 4, col. 1802-3; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn36>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36">[36]</a> Ibid.,
+5, col. 1803; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn37>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37">[37]</a> Ibid.;
+cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,<i> </i>13:21-30
+</div>
+<div id=ftn38>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38">[38]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn39>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39">[39]</a> <i>In Ioannem hom</i>., 72, ch.
+2; PG 59, col. 391, 392; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn40>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40">[40]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 16; PG 14, col. 443; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:21-30.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn41>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41">[41]</a>Ambrose,
+<i>Hexaemeron</i>, III,  ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B, see also Sermo III De
+Caritate, 11; PL 18, col. 142A.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn42>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42">[42]</a>Chrysostom,
+<i>In Ioannem hom</i>.,
+72, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 392; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn43>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43">[43]</a>
+Summa-1827-1830, the glory of Christ.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn44>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44">[44]</a> Gloss.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn45>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45">[45]</a>
+Augustine, <i>Tract. in Io</i>., 63, ch. 3, col. 1805;
+Hilary, <i>De
+Trin</i>., 11, ch. 42; PL 10; Cf. <i>Catena Aurea, </i>13:31-32.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn46>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46">[46]</a> Origen,
+<i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch. 17, 18; PG 14, col. 445-451; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:31-32.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn47>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47">[47]</a>
+Ambrose, <i>Hexaemeron</i>, III,  ch. 7, no. 30; PL col. 168B.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn48>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48">[48]</a> Origen, <i>In Ioan.</i>, XXXII, ch.
+19; PG 14, col. 453 ; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>,
+13:33-35.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn49>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49">[49]</a> <i>In
+Ioannem hom</i>., 63, ch. 3; PG 59, col. 31;
+cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn50>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50">[50]</a> <i>Tract.
+in Io.</i>, 66, ch. 2, col. 1880-1; cf. <i>Catena
+Aurea, </i>7:9-13.
+</div>
+<div id=ftn51>
+<p><a href="#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51">[51]</a> <i>De consensus evangelistarum</i>, 3, ch. 11; PL 34; cf. <i>Catena Aurea</i>, 13:36-38.
+</body></html>

Mercurial > hg > Aquinas

comparison john/english/John13.html @ 31:25a799388159