Commentary on the Gospel of John

Above, the Evangelist set down certain occasions of the passion and death of Christ; in this part he shows how Christ prepares his disciples before his passion, and first he shows how he formed them by example; second, how he comforted them by word, and this below in chapter 14, "let not your heart be troubled"; third, how he fortified them by the support of prayers, below in chapter 17, "these things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the example which Christ offered his disciples to imitate; second, the disciples' shortcoming, who were not yet fit to follow, there: "when Jesus had said these things, he was troubled." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the example; second he adds the usefulness of the example, there: "he came therefore to Simon Peter"; third he leads them to imitation, there: "after therefore he had washed their feet ... he said to them." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the affection of Christ giving the example; second he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, there: "and supper being made," and so on. Concerning the first three things are touched upon. First indeed the present feast; second the imminent death of Christ; third the fervent love of Christ.

The present feast was the Passover; and this is what he says: "before the feast day of the Passover," and so on. Here it must be noted that some say this name "Pascha" is Greek, so that it is said from "passio" [suffering], as though this feast were called Pascha because then the Lord's passion is celebrated; and indeed it agrees with the Greek, for "Pascha" in Greek is the same as "to suffer." But the first origin of this word is had from the Hebrew: for "Pascha" is said as it were "phase," that is, the passage of the Lord, as is said in Exodus chapter 12:11. The Evangelist, however, interprets it here in this way on account of a twofold passage: one which preceded, namely that of the angel striking the firstborn of Egypt and saving the firstborn of the Hebrews; the other, which follows, of the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea. And therefore it was rightly done that this feast should be called Pascha. And thus we can say that our Pascha has the signification of both languages, namely the Hebrew and the Greek, because in the very passion of the Lord there was a passage of Christ from this world to the Father; Acts 10:38: "he went about doing good and healing." Likewise a passage of all of us, following Christ, either by penance and martyrdom, according to that of Psalm 65:12: "we passed through fire and water; and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment," or by the desire of the mind panting after heavenly things, according to that of Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my generations." Now as to his saying "feast day," it is said by way of pre-eminence. For, as is read in Exodus 23:14 and following, there were three solemn days of the year, on which the Jews had to assemble in the place which the Lord had chosen: namely the phase, when the Passover was immolated, and Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles, namely Scenopegia. But the day of the Passover was the most celebrated among the others.

But a doubt arises here concerning his saying "before the feast day of the Passover": for that day is called the feast day of the Passover on which the lamb was immolated, which was the fourteenth moon. Since therefore he says that this was before the feast day of the Passover, it seems that this was done on the thirteenth moon, which preceded the fourteenth moon. The Greeks, following this, say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, when the Jews were to celebrate their Passover; and therefore the Lord, knowing that his passion was imminent, anticipated the celebration of the Passover, and on the preceding day celebrated his own Passover, before the feast of the Passover of the Jews. But because in Exodus 12:18 it is commanded that from the fourteenth day at evening until the twenty-first day of the month no leaven should be found among the Hebrews, they say further that the Lord made the supper not with unleavened bread, but with leavened: for "before the feast day of the Passover," that is, on the thirteenth moon, leavened bread was still found among the Hebrews.

But the other three Evangelists are contrary to this opinion: for they say, namely Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, that it was the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover was to be immolated. From which it follows that the Lord's supper was made on that day on which the Passover of the Jews was immolated. To this indeed the Greeks respond, saying that the other Evangelists did not truly narrate this event, and therefore John, who wrote the last Gospel, corrected them. But it is heretical to say that anything false is found, not only in the Gospels, but in any canonical Scripture whatsoever; and therefore it is necessary to say that all the Evangelists say the same thing, and disagree in nothing. For the evidence of this, then, it must be known that, as is had in Leviticus 23:5, the solemnities of the Jews began from the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this is that they numbered days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening, whence they also reckoned the day from one evening to the next. And thus among them the solemnity of the Passover began from the evening of the preceding day, and ended in the evening of the day of the Passover; just as feasts are also celebrated among us. Thus therefore something done among us on the vigil of the Lord's Nativity can be said to have been done on the feast of the Nativity. Following this manner, the other Evangelists said that the supper was made on the first day of unleavened bread, because it was made on the preceding day toward evening, since it already belonged to the first day of unleavened bread. But John the Evangelist here takes "the feast day of the Passover" for that day which was wholly festive, not for that day whose evening only was festive, which was the day preceding the Passover; and therefore he says "before the feast day of the Passover." It is clear, therefore, that the Lord's supper was made on the fourteenth moon, toward evening.

Now the imminent death of Christ was his passage out of this world through the passion; and as to this he says, "Jesus knowing that his hour was come": for that solemnity of the Jews was a figure of the passion of Christ, "for all these things happened to them in figure," 1 Corinthians 10:11, and therefore he immediately sets down the truth, namely the passion of Christ. And as though explaining that Pascha is said from "phase," that is, passage, he makes mention of the passage: "that he should pass," he says, "out of this world to the Father." Here he sets down three things concerning the passion of Christ. First, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; third, that it was promotive and exalting.

It was foreseen indeed, not accidental, and as to this he says "Jesus knowing"; as if to say: not unwilling, not unknowing, but knowing and voluntary he suffered, etc.; below, John 18:4: "Jesus knowing all things that were to come." The converse is said of us, Ecclesiastes 8:6: "the affliction of man is great: because he knoweth not the things past, and what is to come he cannot know by any means." It was fitting, moreover, as to time, and as to this he says "that his hour was come," that is, the very day of the Passover, on which he was to pass through the cross; Ecclesiastes 8:6: "there is a time and opportunity for every business." This is that hour of which it is said above, John 2:4: "my hour is not yet come." Nor is this hour to be understood as fatal, as though subject to the course and disposition of the stars, but as determined by divine disposition and providence. Therefore, I say, it was determined for the Passover of the Jews, because it was fitting to the solemnity of the Jews that the truth should follow the figure, so that when the lamb, which figured Christ, was immolated, Christ, who is truly the lamb of God, might be immolated; 1 Peter 1:18: "you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." It was fitting also as to the matters accomplished. For already Christ had been glorified; below in the same chapter: "now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Already he had manifested the Father to the world; below, John 17:6: "Father, I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world." It remained, therefore, that he should consummate the work of the passion and of human redemption, of which it is said below, John 19:30: "it is consummated," and it follows: "bowing his head, he gave up the ghost."

The passion of Christ was promotive and exalting, and not oppressive: because "that he should pass out of this world to the Father," that is, by making human nature a partaker of the Father's glory; below, John 20:17: "I ascend to your Father, my God and your God." Nor is it to be understood that he passes from place to place, since God the Father is not comprehended by place; Jeremiah 23:24: "I fill heaven and earth." But just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by forsaking him but by assuming a lower nature like to ours, so also he is said to have returned to him only insofar as, even according to his humanity, he was made a partaker of the Father's glory; Romans 6:10: "for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God"; Philippians 2:11: "that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father."

Consequently, when he says "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end," the fervent love of Christ is commended, and this as to four things. First, as to this, that it was preventing, according to that of 1 John 4:10: "not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us." And as to this he says "having loved his own," as though beforehand: he loved, I say, before he created; Wisdom 11:25: "thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made." He loved before he called; Jeremiah 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." He loved before he redeemed; below, John 15:13: "greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Second, his love is commended as to this, that it was fitting, because "he loved his own." Here it must be known that, according as some are "his own" in different ways, so according to this they are loved by God in different ways. Now some are his own in three ways. First by creation; and these he loves by preserving for them the goods of nature; above, John 1:11: "he came unto his own," by creation, "and his own received him not." Others, however, are his own by dedication, namely those who were given by God the Father through faith; below, John 17:6: "thine they were, and to me thou gavest them, and they have kept thy word." And these he loves by preserving them in the goods of grace. Others, however, are his own by special devotion; 1 Chronicles 11:1: "we are thine, O David, and thy flesh." These he loves by consoling them specially.

Third, the love of Christ is commended as to this, that it was necessary, because "he loved his own who were in the world." For some are his own who were already in the glory of the Father, because even the ancient fathers were his own, inasmuch as they hoped to be freed through him; Deuteronomy 33:3: "all his saints are in his hand." But these did not need such love so much as those who were in the world; and therefore he says "who were in the world," namely in body, but not in mind.

Fourth, it is commended as to this, that it was perfect, whence he says "he loved them unto the end." Now "end" is said in two ways: because there is the end of intention, and the end of execution. That indeed is the end of intention to which our intention is ordered; and such an end ought to be eternal life, according to that of Romans 6:22: "you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." Again, this end ought to be Christ himself; Romans 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law, unto justice, to every one that believeth." And these two are one end: because eternal life is nothing other than the enjoyment of Christ according to his divinity; below, John 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." According to this, then, he says "he loved them unto the end"; that he might lead them into himself as their end, or into eternal life, which is nothing other than that; Jeremiah 31:3: "in charity I have loved thee, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee."

That, however, is the end of execution which is the terminus of a thing; and thus death can be called an end, so that it be said "he loved them unto the end," that is, unto death: which can have a threefold sense. In one way, according to Augustine, so that it be said, in a certain human manner, that Christ loved his own until death only, and no further. But this sense is false: for far be it that he should have ended his love with death, who was not ended in death. In another way it can be understood so that the "unto" indicates a cause; and thus the sense is: "he loved them unto the end," that is, love brought him even unto death; Galatians 2:20: "he loved us, and delivered himself for us." In a third way it can be understood so that the sense be: "unto the end," that is, whereas he had shown them many signs of love before, at the end, that is, around the time of his death, he showed them signs of greater love; below, John 16:5: "these things I told you not from the beginning, because I was with you," as if he were to say: it was not necessary then for me to show you how much I loved you, except at my departure, so that thus the love and memory of me might be more deeply impressed in your hearts.

Consequently, when he says "and supper being made," he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, and first he describes the hour of the deed; second he adds the dignity of the doer, there: "Jesus therefore knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," etc.; third he pursues the humility of the deed, there: "he riseth from supper." Now he describes the time from two things: from one which pertained to his charity, and from the other which aggravated the iniquity of Judas, there: "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him."

He says therefore, as to the first, "and supper being made." Here it must be known that a thing is said to be "made" differently in permanent things, and differently in successive things. In permanent things, indeed, a thing is said to be made when it arrives at the perfection of its own proper species and form, as a house is said to be made when it has its proper form. In successive things, however, a thing is said to be made when it is already consummated; as the world is said to have been made when it was completed. In this way also a thing is said to be made when it receives its proper species. When therefore he says "and supper being made," it is not to be understood that the supper had been completed and finished: because after he washed the feet of the disciples, he reclined again, and gave the morsel to Judas. It is to be understood, therefore, that "supper being made" means, that is, prepared, and already brought to its proper species: for they had already begun to sup, and afterward he rose. Whence in the midst of supping he washed the feet of the disciples. Concerning this supper it is had in Luke 14:16: "a certain man made a great supper." Now "dinner" differs from "supper." For "dinner" is said to be that which takes place in the first part of the day, but "supper" that which takes place at the end. Thus, then, spiritual refreshment is called "dinner," insofar as it is fitting for beginners; but "supper," insofar as it is fitting for the perfect.

Consequently, when he says "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him," he describes the time from the fact that it aggravates the iniquity of the betrayer: which indeed the Evangelist describes for two reasons. First, indeed, that the iniquity of Judas might be shown the more, who, amid so many tokens of love and so many offices of humility, was contemplating committing so great an iniquity; Psalm 40:10: "he that ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Second, that the love of Christ might be rendered the more admirable, who, although he knew this, nevertheless, offering him the office of love and humility, washed his feet; Psalm 119:6: "with them that hated peace I was peaceable."

But can the devil put anything into the heart of a man? It seems that he can. For in Psalm 77:49 it is said: "sendings in by evil angels." But to this it must be said that that is said to be in the heart of a man which is in his thought and will, whence what is said, "when he had now put into the heart," etc., is to be understood, that is, into his will. But to put something into the heart in this way can happen in two ways. Directly; and thus only he can put something into the heart of a man who has the power of moving his will from within, and this only God can do; and therefore he alone can directly impress upon the will of man; Proverbs 20:1: "the heart of kings is in the hand," that is, in the power, "of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it." But because the will is moved by an exterior object as by an apprehended good, hence it is that he who suggests that something is good is said to put that into the heart of a man, indirectly making him apprehend something as good, from which the will is moved. But this happens in two ways: either by suggesting exteriorly, and in this way even a man can put something into the heart; or by suggesting interiorly, and in this way the devil puts it in. For the imaginative power, since it is corporeal, when God permits, is subject to the power of the demon. Whence, whether waking or sleeping, he forms in it certain images, from the apprehension of which the will of man is moved to desire something. Thus, therefore, the devil puts something into the heart of a man, not directly by way of a mover, but indirectly by way of a suggester.

Consequently, when he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," he treats of the dignity of the doer. Because it is said in Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "the greater thou art, humble thyself," therefore the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, first sets forth his greatest dignity; and this as to four things.

First as to knowledge; and as to this he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands." For such are spiritual gifts, that once given they are not unknown; 1 Corinthians 2:12: "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God." And therefore Christ knew the things that had been given to him by God. He says this, however, so that his humility might be the more commendable. For sometimes it happens that someone is of great dignity, and yet, on account of his simplicity, does not recognize his own dignity. If such a one, then, were to do something humble, it would not be reputed to him for great praise, according to that of the Song of Songs 1:7: "if thou know not thyself, O fairest among women." But if someone knows the state of his own dignity, and yet his affection inclines toward humble things, his humility is to be commended. And therefore the Evangelist says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," yet he did not omit to do those things which are humble.

Second, as to power, because "the Father had given him all things into his hands," that is, into his power. God gave to Christ as man, in time, those things which nevertheless had been in the power of the Son from eternity; Matthew, last chapter, 18: "all power is given to me in heaven and on earth." He says, however, "the Father had given him all things into his hands," for two reasons: to show that Christ did not suffer unwillingly. For if all things were in his hand, that is, in his power, it is manifest that his adversaries could do nothing to him thereby against his will. Second, because when someone of little importance is exalted, he easily grows proud, and does nothing humble, lest he seem to derogate from his dignity; but he who, existing in a great state, is exalted, does not neglect humble things: and therefore he makes mention of the dignity of Christ.

Third, as to his nobility, and as to this he says "that he came from God, and goeth to God"; Wisdom 8:3: "having the fellowship of God." Fourth, as to his holiness, because "he goeth to God." In this consists the holiness of man, that he go to God. And he sets this down here for the reason that, since he himself goes to God, it is proper to him to lead others back to God: which indeed is done especially through humility and charity; and therefore he offered them an example of humility and charity.

After the Evangelist commended the majesty of Christ, here he commends his humility, which he shows in the washing of the feet. And first the preparation of Christ for the office of humility is set forth; second, the office itself is described, at the place then he poured water into a basin, and so on. Concerning the first, it must be known that Christ, in the office of humility, shows himself a minister, according to that saying of Matthew 20:28: "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." Now three things are required for a good minister. First, that he be watchful to see all things that might be lacking to the service, and this would be greatly hindered if he were sitting or lying down; hence it belongs to servants to stand; and therefore it says he rises from supper. Luke 22:27: "which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth?" Second, that he be unencumbered so that he can suitably carry out all the things necessary for the service; and to this a multitude of garments is a great hindrance; and therefore the Lord lays aside his garments. This was indeed signified in Genesis 17:23, that Abraham chose unencumbered servants. Third, that he be ready to serve, that is, that he have all the things necessary for the service. Luke 10:40 says of Martha that she was busy about much serving. And hence it is that the Lord, having taken a towel, girded himself, so that he might be ready not only to wash the feet but also to wipe them; by which he tramples down every kind of swelling pride, in that he who goes to God and came forth from God washes feet. Now this deed can be understood mystically as referring to two things: namely to the incarnation of Christ, and to his passion. If indeed it is referred to the incarnation, then three things are here taken concerning Christ. First, the will to come to the aid of the human race, in that he rises from supper. For as long as God allows us to be afflicted, he seems to remain seated; but when he snatches us from affliction, he seems to rise up; Psalm 43:26: "arise, O Lord, help us." Second, his emptying of himself: not indeed that he laid aside the majesty of his dignity, but that he concealed it, by assuming smallness; Isaiah 45:15: "verily thou art a hidden God." And this is signified in that he lays aside his garments; Philippians 2:7: "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." Third, the assumption of our mortality in that he girded himself with a towel; Philippians 2:7: "taking the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man." But if it is referred to the passion of Christ, then according to the letter he laid aside his garments when the soldiers stripped him, and cast lots upon his vesture, below in chapter 19:24. Then also he was girded with a linen cloth in the tomb. In the passion also he laid aside the garments of our mortality, and took up the linen cloth, that is, the brightness of immortality; Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more: death shall no more have dominion over him."

Next, when he says then he poured water into a basin, and so on, he sets forth the office of Christ, in which his humility is commended as to three things. First, as to the kind of service; which was exceedingly humble, that the Lord of majesty should bow himself down to wash the feet of servants. Second, as to the fullness of the service, because he poured water into the basin, washed the feet, and wiped them, and so on. Third, as to the manner of doing it, because he did it not through others, nor with the help of others, but through himself. Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "the greater thou art, humble thyself in all things." Now mystically, three things can be understood by these actions. For first, by his pouring water into the basin is signified the pouring out of his blood upon the earth. For the blood of Jesus can be called water, because it has a washing power; Apocalypse 1:5: "he washed us from our sins in his own blood." And hence it is that water and blood came forth together from his side, so that it might be understood that that blood was a washer-away of sins. Or by the water can be understood the passion of Christ: for in Scripture water signifies tribulations, Psalm 68:2: "save me, O God, for the waters are come in even unto my soul," that is, tribulations. He poured, then, water into the basin, that is, he impressed the memory of the passion upon the souls of the faithful through faith and devotion; Lamentations 3:19: "remember my poverty, and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall." Second, by his saying and he began to wash, human imperfection is suggested: for the apostles, though more perfect than others after Christ, nevertheless needed washing, having certain uncleannesses. So that it might be understood that however perfect a man may be, he nonetheless still needs to be made more perfect, and contracts certain uncleannesses, according to that saying of Proverbs 20:9: "who can say: my heart is clean, I am pure from sin?" Yet such persons have these uncleannesses only in the feet. But certain others are not only unclean in the feet, but are wholly infected. For those are wholly defiled by earthly uncleannesses who lie prostrate upon them; hence those who cling wholly, both in affection and in sense, to the love of earthly things, are wholly unclean. But those who stand, that is, who tend with mind and desire toward heavenly things, contract uncleanness only in the feet. For just as a man standing must at least touch the ground with his feet, so as long as we live in this mortal life, which needs earthly things for the sustenance of the body, we contract at least something on the part of sensuality. And therefore the Lord commanded the disciples, Luke 9:5, that they should shake off the dust from their feet. Now he said he began to wash, because the washing away of earthly affections begins here, and is completed in the future. For then will be fulfilled what is said in Isaiah 35:8: "it shall be called the holy way." But it must be noted, according to Origen, that he began to wash the feet of the disciples as the passion was drawing near, because if he had washed them long before, they would have become soiled again. Hence he began then, because shortly after he was going to wash them with the water of the Holy Spirit, namely after the passion; Acts 1:5: "but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Thus, then, the pouring forth of his blood appears through his pouring water into the basin; and the washing away of our sins through his beginning to wash the feet of the disciples. There appears, third, the taking upon himself of our punishments: for he did not only wash away our stains, but took upon himself the punishments owed for them. For our punishments and penances would not suffice, unless they were grounded in the merit and power of Christ's passion. And this indeed appears in that he wiped the feet of the disciples with a towel, namely of his own body: 1 Peter 2:21.

Next, when he says he cometh therefore to Simon Peter, and so on, he sets forth the usefulness of the example through a certain contention between disciple and master: in which contention indeed the Lord shows concerning this example, first, that it is mystical and that it is necessary, at the place Peter saith to him: thou shalt never wash my feet; second, that it is fitting, at the place Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Concerning the first he does two things. First the occasion for the words of Christ is set forth; second the words of Christ themselves are appended, at the place Jesus answered, and said to him, and so on. Now the occasion of the words of Christ was the refusal of Peter, refusing to accept the example of humility; and this is what is said, he cometh therefore to Simon Peter, and so on. This indeed is explained in three ways. First, according to Origen, that the Lord began to wash from the last. And this because, just as a physician, intent on the cure of very many sick persons, begins his own care from those who are most in need, so also Christ, who washes the filthy feet of the disciples, begins from those who were more filthy, and thus comes to Peter as one less in need than the others; Matthew 20:8: "beginning from the last even to the first." And this indeed the words of the Gospel seem to suggest: he began to wash the feet of the disciples, and afterward follows he cometh therefore to Simon Peter. From which it seems that he first washed the feet of the others. But if it is asked why Peter, more than the others, refused this, Origen answers that he did this on account of the excessive fervor of love which he had for Christ. For the other disciples, with a certain fear, revered Christ, and therefore endured whatever was done without discussion. But Peter, more fervent than they, according to that saying of John, last chapter, 15: "Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee," taking confidence from love, refuses to bear the deed and inquires the reason; Ecclesiasticus 6:11: "if a friend continue steadfast, he shall be to thee as thyself, and shall act with confidence among them of thy household." And therefore Peter is found in Scripture frequently inquiring, and promptly bringing forth what seems better to him. Second, it is explained, according to Chrysostom, namely that Christ began first to wash the feet from the first of the apostles. But because that betrayer was foolish and proud, namely Judas, he reclined first for the washing of the feet, before Peter. For none of the others would have dared to go before Peter. Hence the Evangelist speaks of Judas, saying he began to wash the feet of the disciples, namely of Judas, who indeed, being proud and foolish, in no way resisted, nor refused to bear what the Lord was doing. But after he came to Peter, who revered and loved the master, he refuses with fear, and inquires the reason for the deed: and any of the others would have done the same. Third, it is explained, according to Augustine, that from the words of the Evangelist we ought not to understand that the Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples, and afterward came to Peter; but that the Evangelist, according to his custom, first sets down the deed, and afterward narrates the order of the deed, just as also above, in chapter 6, he does. Hence he first suggests the whole deed, namely that he washed the feet of the disciples; and afterward, if it is asked how the deed was done, he says that he first came to Simon Peter. And therefore Peter first refused, saying Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Which words indeed carry great weight. Lord, he says, thou, who art the Son of the living God, washest my feet? I who am Simon Bar-Jona, that is, Simon son of John, Matthew 16:17. Again: Lord, thou, who art the spotless lamb, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, washest my feet, I who am a sinful man? According to that saying of Luke 5:8: "depart from me, for I am a sinful man." Lord, thou, who art the creator, washest my feet, I who am a creature, and of little faith? Peter said these things, terrified from the consideration of the majesty of Christ, according to that saying of Habakkuk 3:1: "I considered thy works, and was afraid."

Next, when he says Jesus answered, and so on, the words of Christ are set forth, from which it is shown that that deed is mystical. Hence he said to him what I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. This deed indeed is both an example and a mystery. It is indeed an example of humanity to be shown; below, in the same place: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do. But it is a mystery of interior cleansing. Below, in the same place: he that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, and so on. In two ways, then, can this saying what I do be understood. In one way, what I do, that is, the manner in which I act as an example, thou knowest not now, that is, thou dost not understand, but thou shalt know hereafter, namely then when he explained it to them, saying: know you what I have done to you? Below, in the same place. In another way, what I do, thou knowest not now; that is, this is a mystery, and it is a secret, and it signifies an interior cleansing, which cannot be brought about except through me, which thou dost not understand now, but thou shalt know hereafter, namely when receiving the Holy Spirit; below, chapter 16:12: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."

Next, when he says Peter saith to him, and so on, he shows that deed to be mystical, and first he sets forth the words of Peter furnishing the occasion for the words of Christ; second he adds the words of Christ. He says therefore first, Peter, thou shalt never wash my feet, that is, never. As if he should say: far be it from me that I should endure this from my master, my Lord and my God. And although Peter did this out of zeal, nevertheless his zeal was indiscreet and disordered; Romans 10:2: "they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." Which zeal indeed was disordered on account of three things: because he refuses what was useful and necessary: for, as is said in Romans 3:26, "we know not what we should pray for as we ought"; and therefore we indiscreetly refuse to receive what God bestows on us, even if it should seem contrary. So also Paul sought the removal of the thorn, 2 Corinthians 12:8, which was nevertheless useful to him. Again, because it seems to carry a certain irreverence toward Christ, in that he wishes to break his ordinance. Again, because it seems to tend toward a disparagement of his companions, since what the others, according to Origen, had received from Christ without contradiction, he himself refused to accept, saying thou shalt never wash my feet. And therefore the Lord rebuked him, saying if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me: which indeed can be referred to two things, namely to the deed which Christ was doing, and to what it signified. But if indeed it is referred to what is signified, then what is said is plain. For no one can become a partaker of the eternal inheritance and co-heir of Christ, unless he be spiritually cleansed: because this is said in Apocalypse 21:27: "there shall not enter into it any thing defiled." In Psalm 14:1: "Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle?" And in answer it adds: "innocent in hands, and clean of heart." As if then he should say if I wash thee not, thou shalt not be clean, and, if thou art not clean, thou shalt not have a part with me. But if it is referred to the deed, then it is doubtful whether this washing is necessary for salvation. To which it must be said, that just as certain things are forbidden because they are evil, and certain things are evil because they are forbidden, so certain things are commanded because they are necessary, and certain things are necessary because they are commanded. This deed of washing, then, of which the Lord says if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me, considered in itself is not necessary for salvation, but, granted that it is commanded by Christ, it has thereby become necessary; 1 Kings 15:22: "obedience is better than sacrifices"; and thus: to be unwilling to acquiesce is as it were the crime of idolatry.

Here he shows that deed to be fitting. And first the words of Peter are set forth; second the response of Christ is added. But in the words of Peter is suggested his most fervent love for Christ. For above, when the Lord said to him what I do thou knowest not now, he had given him to understand that this deed would be useful; yet, this usefulness having been set aside, he could not be brought to accept the washing of the feet. But when the Lord threatened him with separation from himself, saying thou shalt have no part with me, he offered himself not only to those things, but to receive even further things, saying Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. For in this answer, terrified, he offers his whole self to be washed, disturbed by love and by fear. For as is read in the Itinerary of Clement, Peter was so affected toward the bodily presence of Christ, whom he had loved most fervently, that after Christ's ascension, when he remembered that most sweet presence and most holy converse, he would be wholly dissolved into tears, so that his cheeks seemed scorched. Now it must be known that in man there are three things: the head, which is the highest; the feet, which are the lowest; the hands, which are the middle. And likewise in the interior man, namely in the soul, there is a head, namely the higher reason, by which the soul clings to God, 1 Corinthians 11:3: "the head of the woman is the man," that is, the higher reason; and hands, that is, the lower reason, which occupies itself with the works of the active life; and the feet are the sensuality. But the Lord knew his disciples to be clean as to the head, because they were joined to God through faith and charity; and as to the hands, because of their holy works; but as to the feet, some of them had certain affections for earthly things arising from sensuality. Peter, then, fearing the threat of Christ, consents not only to the washing of the feet, but also of the hands and the head, saying Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. As if he should say: I know not whether I need the washing of hand and head, for I am conscious of nothing in myself; but I am not hereby justified: 1 Corinthians 4:4; and therefore I am ready to wash not only the feet, that is, the lower affections, Song of Songs 5:3: "I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them?" but also the hands, that is, the works, Psalm 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the innocent"; and the head, that is, the higher reason, Matthew 6:17: "wash thy face."

Next, when he says Jesus saith to them, the response of the Lord is set forth, and first he gives a certain general teaching; second he adapts it to the matter at hand, at the place and you are clean, but not all; third the Evangelist explains the words of Christ, at the place for he knew who he was that would betray him. He says therefore first: he that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly; understand, except for the feet, by which he touches the ground. By which it is given to be understood that the apostles were already baptized. For he says he that is washed, and so on, and afterward adds you are clean, and so on, namely because they had been baptized. But some say that they had been baptized only with the baptism of John; which does not seem true, because in that case they would not have been washed, for the baptism of John did not cleanse interiorly from guilt. And therefore it must be said that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ, according to Augustine. And if you object that Christ did not baptize, but his disciples, as is said above in chapter 4:2, I say that he did not baptize the crowds; but he baptized his own disciples, who were familiar and of his household. But since baptism washes away even the filth of the feet, it seems that he that is washed, that is, baptized, does not need to have his feet washed. But to this it must be said, that if they had passed from this world immediately after baptism, they would certainly not have needed this washing, because, being wholly clean, they would have flown away at once. But those who after baptism live in this mortal life cannot ascend to so great a summit of perfection that disordered movements of sensuality do not arise from earthly affections; and therefore it is necessary that they wash their feet, either through martyrdom, which is the baptism of blood, or through penance, which is the baptism of desire, so that they may be able to fly away. Next, when he says and you are clean, but not all, the Lord adapts the general teaching to the matter at hand. But if they were clean, why did the Lord again wash them? To which Augustine says that they were clean as to hands and head, but were in need as to the feet. Chrysostom, however, says that they were clean not indeed absolutely, because they were not yet clean from original uncleanness, since Christ had not yet suffered, and the price of our redemption had not yet been paid; but as to something, they were clean, namely from the errors of the Jews. Origen, however, says that they were clean, but there was still need of a greater cleansing, because reason ought always to be zealous for the better gifts, ought always to climb the heights of virtues, to shine with the brightness of righteousness; Apocalypse, last chapter, 2: "he that is holy, let him be sanctified still." But not all: because one of them had both head and hands unclean. And therefore next the Evangelist sets forth the words of the Lord, saying for he knew who he was that would betray him, as if he should say: he therefore said not all, because he knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. For two things universally cleanse a man: namely almsgiving and mercy toward the poor, Luke 11:41: "give alms, and behold, all things are clean unto you," and the love of God: Luke 7:47: "many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much"; Proverbs 10:12: "charity covereth all sins." For these two were lacking in Judas. Mercy indeed, because he was a thief, and having the purse, he used to defraud the alms of the poor. Likewise love toward Christ, because already the devil had put it into his heart to betray him to the chief priests, to be crucified, and so on.

After the Lord showed that the service of humility is necessary, he here consequently leads them to its imitation, and first he sets forth the circumstances of the admonition; second he proposes the admonition itself, at the words "You know what I have done for you?" and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First the Evangelist intimates the order of the admonition; second he manifests the disposition of the one admonishing, at the words "he took his garments" and so on. Now the order of the admonition is that what he first did in deed, he should teach in word; and as to this he says, "After therefore he had washed their feet, he took his garments" and so on. Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach"; Matthew 5:19: "He that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." But the disposition of the one admonishing is intimated both as to attire and as to posture. As to attire indeed: because different attire befits different persons, according to the diversity of their proper acts; Ecclesiasticus 19:27: "The attire of a man declares of him." One attire, then, befits a minister, another a teacher. To a minister, since he ought to be unencumbered for service, it befits that he lay aside the impediments of his garments; and therefore Christ, when he wished to minister, "rises from supper" and "lays aside his garments." But to a teacher, who ought to be grave and preeminent in authority, a becoming adornment of garments befits: and therefore the Lord, wishing to teach, "took his garments." As to posture indeed, because wishing to minister he rose, whence it says: "he rose from supper"; but now wishing to teach, he reclines, whence it says: "and when he had sat down again, he said to them" — and this because teaching ought to be in tranquility. For by sitting and being at rest the soul becomes wise and prudent.

These three things can have a mystical sense. For since Christ furnished perfect doctrine to his disciples when he sent them the Holy Spirit; below, John 14:26: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." Three things preceded that very sending. Namely, the washing away of sins through the Passion; Apocalypse 1:5: "he washed us from our sins in his own blood." And as to this he says, "after therefore he had washed their feet," that is, the purgation through blood having been accomplished. Likewise the resurrection. For Christ before his Passion had a mortal body, which mortality indeed did not befit him on the part of the person of the Son of God, but on the part of the human nature assumed; but after he rose again by the power of his divinity, he received the immortality of the body: and as to this he says, "he took his garments," that is, rising he was made immortal. And he says "his," because by his own power he received it; Romans 6:10: "for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God," that is, by the power of God. Of these garments it is said, Apocalypse 3:5: "He that shall overcome, shall be clothed with white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life." Likewise the sitting preceded, and this in the Ascension; below, John 16:7: "For if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you" and so on. And as to this he says, "when he had sat down again," namely sitting and residing at the right hand of the Father; Mark, last chapter, 19: "And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." And he says "again," not because, insofar as he is the Son of God, he ever ceased to sit — rather he is from eternity in the bosom of the Father — but because insofar as he is man he was exalted to the higher goods of the Father; Philippians 2:9: "For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names." Thus, therefore, before he poured forth the Holy Spirit who teaches perfectly, he washed with blood poured out; he took his garments, by rising again; he sat down, by ascending into glory.

Consequently, when he says "You know what I have done for you?" he proposes the admonition itself, and first he questions; second he assumes; third he concludes; fourth he confirms the conclusion. He questions indeed, when he says "You know what I have done for you?" As if he were to say: you have indeed seen the deeds, but nevertheless you do not understand why I have done this; and therefore he asks in this way so as to show the greatness of the deed, and to lead them to consideration. For the works of God are to be considered, because they are deep; Psalm 91:6: "O Lord, how great are thy works! Thy thoughts are exceeding deep." For we can scarcely know the works of God sufficiently, according to that word of Ecclesiastes 8:17: "I understood that man can find no reason of all those works of God." They are also delightful to consider; Psalm 91:5: "For thou hast given me, O Lord, a delight in thy doings: and in the works of thy hands I shall rejoice." They are also useful, because they lead to the knowledge of the author; Wisdom 13: "if they had attended to his works," etc.; above, John 5:36: "For the works which the Father hath given me to perfect... give testimony of me." It can also be, according to Origen, that what is said, "You know what I have done for you," be taken imperatively; as if he were to say: know what I have done for you. And then the Lord says this so as to raise up their understanding.

He assumes their confession, saying "you call me Master and Lord," and first he proposes their confession; second he commends it, at "and you say well." Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 1, says two things about Christ: namely, that he is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Insofar as he is the power of God, he rules over all — for as Ambrose says, "Lord" is a name of power; insofar as he is the wisdom of God, he instructs all, and therefore the disciples called him Lord — above, John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" — and Master — above, chapter 4:31: "Rabbi, eat." And deservedly: for he alone is Lord who creates and re-creates; Psalm 99:3: "Know ye that he is the Lord"; he alone is the Master teaching inwardly: Matthew 23:10: "for one is your master, Christ; and all you are brethren." Consequently, when he says "and you say well," he commends their confession. Concerning this it must be known that a thing is rendered commendable in two ways. In one way, if what is said befits the thing of which it is said; which happens through truth, because if it is false, it does not befit it; whence it is well said, Ephesians 4:25: "putting away lying, speak ye the truth." For lies are so much to be avoided that even if they should seem to redound to the praise of God, they are not to be spoken. As to this, then, he says "you say well"; and this because what you say is true, because it befits me, "for so I am," namely Master and Lord. Master, I say, on account of the wisdom which I teach by words; Lord, on account of the power which I show by miracles. In another way a thing is rendered commendable if what is said befits the person of the one speaking. For there are some who call Christ Master and Lord, whom it does not befit, since they do not subject themselves to the discipline and command of God: and these do not say well. Whence, Matthew 25:12, to those who say "Lord, open to us," it is answered: "Amen, amen I say to you, I know you not," because they say this not from the heart, but only with the mouth. But the apostles were saying it well, because it befitted them; whence he says to them, "and you say well," that is, truly, "for so I am," namely Master and Lord to you: for you hear me as a master — above, John 6:69: "to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life" — you follow me as a lord; Matthew 19:27: "Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee."

But against this stands what is said, Proverbs 27:2: "Let another praise thee, and not thy own mouth: a stranger, and not thy own lips." It seems, therefore, that the Lord did not do well in praising himself. But to this Augustine answers in two ways. In one way, because it is blameworthy that one commend himself on account of the danger of growing proud: for it is dangerous for one to please himself, who must beware of pride. Where, then, no danger of pride threatens, self-commendation is no fault. But in Christ this danger was not to be feared, for he who is above all things, however much he praise himself, does not exalt himself higher than he is. In another way, because sometimes it is praiseworthy that a man commend himself, namely when it redounds to the benefit of the faithful: and thus the Apostle commends himself, 2 Corinthians 11. But it is very useful to us, and in every way necessary, that we should know God, since our whole perfection consists in this; whence it is expedient for us that he reveal to us his greatness, otherwise we could in no way know it, unless he who alone knows himself should indicate it. And therefore it is fitting that he himself praise himself to us, because, as Augustine says, if he had wished to avoid, as it were, arrogance by not praising himself, he would deny us wisdom; Ecclesiasticus 24:1: "Wisdom shall praise her own self."

He concludes indeed when he says "if then I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." Here he argues from what seems the lesser to what is greater. For it seems a lesser thing that the greater should do something humble, than that the lesser should; and according to this he concludes: "if then I," who am the greater, because Master and Lord, "have washed your feet," "you," much more, who are the lesser, who are disciples and servants, "ought to wash one another's feet"; Matthew 20:26: "he that is the greater among you, let him be your minister... for the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister."

But against this, it seems that what is said, "you ought to wash one another's feet," has the character of a precept: but he who neglects a precept sins mortally; therefore, etc. The response: it must be said, according to Augustine, that every man ought to wash the feet of another either bodily or spiritually; and it is much better, and without controversy truer, that one do it in deed, lest a Christian disdain to do what Christ did. For when the body is bent down to the feet of a brother, in the very heart itself the affection of humility is either aroused, or, if it was already present, confirmed. And if this is not done in deed, at least we ought to do it in heart. For in the washing of feet is given to understand the washing away of stains. Then, therefore, do you spiritually wash the feet of your brother, when, as much as is in you, you wash away his stains. And this is done in three ways: namely by remitting an offense against him, according to that word of Colossians 3:13: "forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also." Likewise by praying for his sins, according to that word of James, last chapter, 16: "Pray for one another, that you may be saved." And this twofold manner of washing is common to all the faithful. A third manner pertains to prelates, who ought to wash by remitting sins by the authority of the keys, according to that word below, John 20:22: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." We can also say that in this deed the Lord showed all the works of mercy. For he who gives bread to the hungry washes his feet, and likewise he who receives him into hospitality, and he who covers the naked, and so of the others; Romans 12:13: "communicating to the necessities of the saints."

But he confirms the conclusion when he says "For I have given you an example" etc.: and this indeed from four things. First indeed from his own intention; second from authority, at "Amen, amen I say to you"; third from the reward which is owed to the work itself, at "if you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them"; fourth from the dignity of those whose feet he washes, at "Amen, amen I say to you: he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me." He said, therefore, that he had done this in order to give them an example; and therefore "you ought to wash one another's feet," because this is what he intended in that deed. For in the acts of men, examples move more than words. For a man does and chooses what seems good to him: whence he shows more clearly that a thing is good by choosing it himself than by teaching that it is to be chosen. And hence it is that when someone says one thing, and nevertheless does another, he persuades others more by what he does than by what he teaches: and therefore it is most necessary to give an example from the very deed. But the example of a mere man was not sufficient for the human race to imitate, both because human reason falls short in every consideration, and because in the very consideration of things it is deceived: and therefore there is given to us the example of the Son of God, which is infallible, and sufficient for all things. Whence Augustine says: because pride is not healed unless it is healed by divine humility, and likewise avarice, and so of the others. But note that quite fittingly the Son of God is for us an example of the virtues. For he himself is the art of the Father, so that, as he was the exemplar of creation, he might also be the exemplar of justification; 1 Peter 2:21: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow his steps." Job 23:11: "My foot hath followed his steps: I have kept his way, and have not declined from it."

Consequently, when he says "Amen, amen I say to you: the servant is not greater than his lord" etc., he confirms the conclusion from authority: and first he touches the condition of the disciples; second their office. Now the condition of the disciples is that they are servants; Luke 17:10: "when you shall have done all things well, say: We are unprofitable servants." But their office is that they be apostles; Luke 6:13: "he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles." Thus, therefore, he says: I say that you ought to wash one another's feet, as I also have washed, because "the servant is not greater than his lord," as to the first, nor is "the apostle," that is, one sent, "greater than he that sent him." Now although the Son of God himself, who is the apostle of our confession, as is said in Hebrews 3:1, is equal to him who sent him, namely the Father, nevertheless concerning all others it is true what is here said, "neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him." But against this: for below, John 15:15, the Lord says to his disciples: "now I will not call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth." I answer. It must be said that servitude is twofold. One, which proceeds from filial fear, which makes a good servant; according to that word of Matthew 25:23: "Well done, good and faithful servant": and in this way the Lord calls them servants. The other is the servitude which servile fear makes; concerning which it is said, Matthew 18:32: "Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me." And of this the Lord says: "now I will not call you servants" etc.

Consequently, when he says "if you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them," he confirms the conclusion from the reward, and first he proposes the reward; second he excepts someone from it, at "I speak not of you all." He says therefore "if you know these things," as if he were to say: you say these things to us, which indeed we do not fail to know. Why then do you say this to us? For this reason, I say, that even though "you know these things," which indeed is the case of all, nevertheless "you shall be blessed if you do them," which is the case of few. And he says "if you know and do them," namely because, as it is said, Luke 11:28, "Blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it." And Psalm 110:10: "a good understanding to all that do it." On the contrary it is said, James 4:17: "to him therefore who knoweth to do good, and doth it not, to him it is sin."

But he excepts a certain one, when he says "I speak not of you all," and first he proposes the exception; second he assigns the reason for the exception, at "but that the Scripture may be fulfilled"; third he assigns the reason why he makes the exception, at "at present I tell you, before it come to pass." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the exception; second he answers a tacit question. He sets forth the exception when he says "I speak not of you all" etc., as if he were to say: you shall be blessed, yet not all of you, because "I speak not of you all," that you should attain to blessedness; 1 Corinthians 9:24: "they all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize." For there is one among you, namely Judas, who will not be blessed; nor will he do these things. But, according to Origen, the Lord does not say "you shall be blessed" absolutely, but attached a condition, saying "if you do them": which indeed is true of all, even of Judas; for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. Whence he holds that it is rather this that he excepts, when he says "the servant is not greater than his lord" etc., as if he were to say: I say that you are servants and apostles; yet I do not say this of all: for Judas, while he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the divine word, nor an apostle, the Devil having entered into his heart. But since someone could say: since he does not say of all that they shall be blessed, or that they are his apostles, therefore unexpectedly someone from his company is going to perish. Therefore the Lord, answering to this, says "I know whom I have chosen," as if he were to say: the elect will not perish; but not all are elect. He, then, will perish who is not elect, namely Judas; below, John 15:16: "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." But against this is what is said above, John 6:71: "Have not I chosen you twelve?" Since therefore Judas was one of the twelve, it seems that he was elect. But it must be said that election is twofold. One is to present righteousness, and to this Judas was elect; the other election is to final glory, and according to this Judas was not elect.

Now the reason for this exception is "that the Scripture may be fulfilled," which he here foretells, not that it compels, but because he did not keep silent about what was going to come to pass; Luke, last chapter, 44: "all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me"; Matthew 5:18: "one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." Now this Scripture says: "He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me." This is according to another translation, where we have: "for even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Where the familiarity of Judas with Christ is shown, when he says "he that eateth bread with me." For Judas ate bread with Christ along with the other disciples, even the consecrated bread. Likewise his malicious effort against Christ is shown, when he says "shall lift up his heel against me," that is, he will strive for my trampling down. For with the heel we crush enemies; Genesis 3:15: "she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." Then, therefore, someone is said to lift up his heel against another, when he strives to oppress him. But Judas will not be able to do this: because whence he believes he will oppress me, thence I shall be exalted; above, John 12:32: "if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself." In which we have an example, that if at any time we should suffer some evil from servants or from certain more lowly persons, we should not be scandalized, looking to the example of Judas, who, having obtained infinite goods, repaid his benefactor with the contrary. But the Lord chose Judas, whom he knew was going to be evil, in order to give us to understand that no society of men would ever be without some admixture of evil; Song of Songs 2:2: "As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters." Whence Augustine says in a certain letter: "I do not dare to arrogate to myself that my household is better than the company of the apostles." Likewise, that if it should happen that someone, assumed into the society of the Church by some prelate, should become evil, this should not be to the condemnation of that prelate. For behold, Judas, chosen by Christ, became a traitor. So too, Acts 8:13, Philip took up Simon the magician; Jeremiah 18:20: "shall evil be rendered for good, because they have digged a pit for my soul?" Matthew 10:36: "a man's enemies shall be they of his own household."

Consequently, when he says "at present I tell you, before it come to pass," he assigns the cause why he made the exception; as if he were to say: for a long time I kept silent about his malice, but because the time is come that it should go forth into public, therefore "I tell you," that is, I make manifest, before it comes to pass, that you may believe that I am he who foretells things to come, and who manifests the hidden things of the heart; which is proper to God; Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable: who can know it? I am the Lord who search the heart, and prove the reins." Isaiah 41:23: "Shew the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods." Or: "I am who am," Exodus 3:14.

Consequently, when he says "Amen, amen I say to you" etc., he confirms the conclusion drawn from the dignity of those whose feet he washes: whose dignity is so great that the services rendered to them seem in a certain way to redound to God, yet according to a certain degree: because what is done to the faithful through Christ redounds to God the Father. He shows, therefore, first how the things which are done to the disciples of Christ redound to Christ. And as to this he says "Amen, amen I say to you," as if he were to say: truly, you ought to wash feet, because "he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me," that is, the service which is shown to those whom I send, I attribute as done to me; Matthew 10:40: "he that receiveth you, receiveth me." Second he shows how the service shown to Christ redounds to the Father, saying "and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me"; above, John 5:23: "that all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father." But according to Origen, this can be understood in two ways. In one way conjointly; and thus the sense is: "he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me" etc., that is, he who receives those sent by me, receives also the Father. He, then, who receives whomsoever I send, receives the Father. In another way distinctly; and thus the sense is: "he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me" — this is true bodily; but he who receives me, namely as coming spiritually to souls, according to that word of Ephesians 3:17, that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts, "receiveth him that sent me," namely the Father. Not only shall I remain in him, but the Father also; below, John 14:23: "we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."

But from this Arius strives to confirm his error in this way. The Lord says that he who receives him, receives the Father: therefore the relation of the Father sending to the Son is the same as that of the Son sending to the disciples; but Christ, sending, is greater than the disciples sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son. But to this it must be said, according to Augustine, that in Christ there were two natures, namely the human and the divine: and according to this he speaks on the one hand according to the human nature, saying "he that receiveth whomsoever I send," receives "me," a man, who share with them in one nature; and on the other hand he speaks according to his divinity: "and he that receiveth me," God, "receiveth him that sent me," with whom I am of one nature. Or: he who receives him whom I send, receives me, whose authority is in them; and he who receives me, receives the Father, whose authority is in me; so that in these words there is imported, as it were, the mediation of Christ between God and man, according to that word of 1 Timothy 2:5: "a mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Above, the Evangelist showed the example that Christ offered to his disciples for their imitation; here he shows the failure of the disciples, which Jesus foretells to them, who were not yet fit to follow him. And first he sets down the failure of the disciple who betrayed him; second, the failure of the disciple who denied him, at the place, "Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where are you going?" (John 13:36). Concerning the first he does two things. First he announces the betrayal of the disciple; second, his separation, at the place, "When therefore he had gone out, Jesus said," and so on (John 13:31). Concerning the first he does two things. First is set down the foretelling of the future betrayal; second, the carrying out of the betrayal itself, in confirmation of the truth of the one foretelling it, at the place, "What you do, do quickly" (John 13:27). Concerning the first he does two things. First he foretells the crime of the betrayal; second, the person of the betrayer, at the place, "The disciples therefore looked at one another" (John 13:22). Concerning the first, first he sets forth the feeling of the one foretelling it, second he sets down the effect foretold.

The one foretelling it, then, is Christ, who is affected by trouble; and as to this he says, "When Jesus had said this" — recalling them to charity, of which he saw the betraying disciple to be deprived — "he was troubled in spirit" (John 13:21).

Concerning which it must be known that trouble designates a certain commotion; and this appears from what is found above, in chapter 5:4: "An angel of the Lord descended at a certain time into the pool, and the water was moved," and afterward it follows: "Lord, I have no man, that when the water is troubled, he may put me into the pool" (John 5:7) — which takes "the water is troubled" and "is moved" as the same thing. According to this manner also we say the sea is troubled when it is stirred up. The trouble of the soul, then, designates its commotion.

But there are certain acts of the soul without commotion of the body, that is, the acts of the intellective part. But the acts of the sensitive appetite are with commotion of the body; hence the affections of the sensitive appetite are called passions. Now among all the affections or passions of the sensitive appetite, sadness has the greater force of commotion. For delight, since it denotes rest in a present good, has more the character of rest than of commotion. Fear too, since it concerns a future evil, moves less than sadness, which concerns a present evil. And hence it is that the trouble of the soul is chiefly called sadness. Jesus was troubled, then, that is, he was made sad.

But it must be noted that there were certain philosophers, namely the Stoics, saying that trouble of this kind and passions of this kind do not befall the wise man; for although the wise man, according to them, may fear, rejoice, and desire, nevertheless he is in no way made sad. But the falsity of these men appears manifestly from the fact that Jesus, who is the highest wisdom, is troubled.

It must be known, however, that trouble is twofold. One proceeds from the flesh, namely when someone is troubled apart from the judgment of reason, from sensual apprehension; and this trouble sometimes indeed remains within the bounds of reason, in no way clouding it. This is called by Jerome not a perfect passion but a propassion; and this does befall the wise man. But sometimes it exceeds the bound of reason and troubles it, and this is not only a passion but also a trouble; and this does not befall the wise man.

The other trouble is that which proceeds from reason, namely when, from the judgment and deliberation of reason, someone is troubled in the sensitive appetite. And this trouble was in Christ; hence the Evangelist says pointedly that "he was troubled in spirit" (John 13:21) — that is, the trouble which was in the sensitive appetite was in Christ from the judgment of reason. Hence above, in chapter 11:33, he says that "he troubled himself."

For in Christ all things, even in the lower sensitive appetite, arose from the deliberation of reason; hence there were not even sudden movements of sensuality in Christ.

Here Jesus willed to be troubled for two reasons. First, indeed, for the instruction of our faith. For his passion and death were imminent to him, which human nature naturally shuns, and when it senses them to be imminent to it, it is made sad, as at an evil and harmful thing present to it. In order, therefore, to show that he had a true human nature, he willed to suffer, from the judgment of reason, the affection of trouble even as regards the soul itself. By this the error of Apollinaris is excluded, who said that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word in place of the soul.

Second, for our edification. For he saw, according to Augustine, that that betrayer was about to go out, in order to bring the Jews who would seize him — by which he was being separated from the company of the saints, and was receiving against himself the sentence of death. And therefore, out of a certain affection of piety, he was made sad on his account, giving by this an example to prelates, that if it should happen that they must sometimes pronounce a harsh sentence against their subjects, they should pronounce it with sorrow of heart, according to that word of Psalm 140:5: "The just man shall correct me in mercy."

For he himself, wishing to make known to the others the betrayal of Judas, was troubled in spirit and testified — namely, lest he be betrayed as though unknowing — and said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, that one of you will betray me" (John 13:21).

He says pointedly, "one of you" — of those chosen, namely, for the holy company — so as to give one to understand that there would be no company so holy that some sinner and evil man might not be found in it; Job 1:6: "When the sons of God had come to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them."

But he says "one," not two or more, lest he seem to condemn the company, but only the betrayer from the company. For on account of one evil man from the company, the company ought not to be reckoned evil. But if there were several evil men, the company could be reckoned evil.

"One," he says, "of you" — in number, not in merit, and in the bond of spirit: 1 John 2:19: "They went out from us; but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us." "Will betray me." Behold the declaration: "me," I say — me the master, me the lord, me the savior.

Next, when he says, "The disciples therefore looked at one another," and so on (John 13:22), he secretly designates the person of the betrayer; and first the occasion of the designation is set down; second, the designation of the person, at the place, "Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach the dipped bread" (John 13:26); third, the effect of the designation, at the place, "And after the morsel, Satan entered into him" (John 13:27).

Now the occasion of the designation is twofold. One is the common hesitation of the disciples; the other was the aforesaid question. First, therefore, he sets down the first, second the second, at the place, "Now there was reclining..."

It must be known concerning the first that the good disciples had the greatest charity toward Christ, and the greatest firmness of faith. From charity indeed each one presumed of himself that none of them was going to deny him; but from firmness of faith they held most certainly that Christ's word could not be false.

And therefore, although they were conscious of no evil in themselves, nevertheless they thought Christ's foretelling more true and credible than their own thoughts. Hence, remembering that they were men, and that affection is changeable, even in those advanced to this point, so that one may will the contrary of what he willed before, they doubted more concerning themselves than concerning the truth of Christ; and therefore they looked at one another, hesitating as to of whom he spoke (John 13:22); 1 Corinthians 10:12: "He who thinks he stands, let him take heed lest he fall"; Job 9:30-31: "If I shall be washed as it were with snow waters, and my hands shall shine ever so clean, yet you will plunge me in filth."

Next, when he says, "Now there was reclining one of his disciples in the bosom of Jesus" (John 13:23), the inquiry of the disciple is set down; and first his familiarity with Christ is described; second, his being roused to ask, at the place, "Simon Peter therefore beckoned to this one" (John 13:24); third, his question is added, at the place, "When therefore he had leaned upon the breast of Jesus, he said to him" (John 13:25).

The disciple's familiarity with Christ is shown in the fact that he reclines upon him; hence he says, "Now there was reclining one of his disciples in the bosom of Jesus."

This disciple was John the Evangelist, who wrote this Gospel, and speaks of himself in the person of another, wishing to avoid boastfulness, following the custom of the others who wrote the sacred Scriptures.

For thus Moses in his books speaks of himself as of a certain other, saying, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying," and so on. So too Matthew: "He saw a man sitting at the tax office, named Matthew," and so on (Matthew 9:9). And Paul, 2 Corinthians 12:2: "I know a man in Christ ... caught up in this way even to the third heaven."

Now here John touches on three things about himself. First, indeed, the love by which he rested in Christ, saying that he "was reclining," that is, resting; Job 22:26: "Then you shall abound with delights in the Almighty, and you shall lift up your face to God"; Psalm 22:2: "He brought me up beside the waters of refreshment."

Second, the knowledge of secrets which Christ revealed to him, and especially in the writing of this Gospel; hence he says that he leaned on the bosom of Jesus, for by the bosom a secret is signified; above, in chapter 1, verse 18: "The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

Third, the special love with which Christ loved him; hence he says, "whom Jesus loved" — not indeed exclusively, but as it were loving him in some way more excellently than the others. But how he loved him more excellently than the others will be told more fully at the end of this book.

But for the present it must be known that John was more loved by Christ on account of three things. First, indeed, on account of the cleanness of his purity: for he was chosen by the Lord a virgin, and remained a virgin forever. And Proverbs 22:11: "He who loves cleanness of heart, for the grace of his lips shall have the king for his friend."

Second, on account of the sublimity of his wisdom, for he gazed upon the secrets of the divinity more deeply than the rest; hence he is also compared to an eagle; Proverbs 14:35: "An intelligent servant is acceptable to the king."

Third, on account of the vehement fervor of his affection toward Christ; Proverbs 8:17: "I love those who love me."

Next, when he says, "Simon Peter therefore beckoned to this one" (John 13:24), his being roused to ask is set down. But since to beckon is to hint at something without a word, why is it that he says: "he beckoned... and said"? To this it must be said that we are said to hint at something when we think something inwardly, according to that word of Psalm 52:1: "The fool has said in his heart," and so on.

Much more, then, are we said to say something by hinting, when now outwardly, by whatever signs of whatever kind, that is expressed which had been conceived in the heart. And so the sense is: "he beckoned ... and said," that is, he said by beckoning.

Or it can be said that first he hinted by a sign, and afterward said in words what follows, namely: "Who is it of whom he speaks?" — namely, that he will betray him.

But since Peter is found everywhere in the Gospels always bold, and the first to answer on account of the fervor of his love, what is it that he is silent here? What is it that he entrusts the question to another?

The reason for this can be threefold, according to Chrysostom. One, because since above he was rebuked by the Lord for this, that he would not allow his feet to be washed by the Lord, and had heard, "If I do not wash you, you shall have no part with me" (John 13:8), he now hesitated to trouble the Lord about this.

Another reason is that Peter did not want the Lord to make this known publicly, in such a way that others could hear it. Hence, because he himself was at a distance from Christ, and would not himself have heard enough, he rouses John, who was nearest to Christ, to ask.

It also has a mystical reason. For by John the contemplative life is signified, by Peter the active life. Peter, indeed, is instructed by Christ through the mediation of John: because the active life is instructed concerning divine things through the mediation of the contemplative life. For Mary, sitting beside the feet of the Lord, was listening to his words; but Martha was busy about much serving: Luke 10:39.

Next, when he says, "When therefore he had leaned upon the breast of Jesus, he said to him," and so on (John 13:25), the question is set down. But it must be noted that when Peter beckoned him to ask, John was reclining in the bosom of Jesus; but now John asks him while reclining upon his breast. For the breast is nearer to the mouth than the bosom.

John, therefore, wishing to hear the answer more secretly, and more silently, moved up from the bosom to the breast.

Mystically, however, it is given to be understood by this, that the more a man wishes to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he ought to strive to become nearer to Jesus, according to that word of Psalm 33:6: "Draw near to him, and be enlightened."

For the secrets of divine wisdom are revealed chiefly to those who are joined to God through love; Job 36:33: "He declares concerning it to his friend, that it is his possession"; Proverbs 18:17: "His friend comes, and searches him out."

Next, when he says, "Jesus answered," and so on, he designates the person of the betrayer: first by word, second by deed.

By word indeed, when he says, "He it is to whom I shall reach the dipped bread" (John 13:26): which can signify two things, according as it can be taken in two ways.

For if it is taken here in a bad sense, it signifies the dissimulation of Judas. For just as dipped bread is stained by the fact that it is dipped, and changes color, so too the dissembler, while he bears one thing in his heart and pretends another with his mouth; and thus was Judas, who outwardly pretended to love the Master, while in his heart he was plotting the betrayal; Psalm 27:3: "They speak peace with their neighbor, but evils are in their hearts."

But if it is taken in a good sense, then it is set down to aggravate his malice. For dipped bread is more savory. In order, therefore, to show that although Judas had received many good things from Christ, yet, unmindful of them, he betrays him, he reaches him the dipped bread; Psalm 54:14: "But you, a man of one mind with me, my guide, and my acquaintance, who took sweet food together with me."

But by deed he shows it, when he says, "And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot" (John 13:26). Hence some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But this, according to Augustine, is not true.

For, as is found from the other Gospels, the Lord, while he was at supper, gave his body to the disciples; and therefore it is clear that Judas received the body of Christ together with the other disciples at the supper. But Christ, after he had proceeded somewhat in the supper, rose from supper and washed the feet of the disciples, and when these had been washed he sat down again, and afterward gave the dipped bread to Judas. Hence it is clear that it was not the body of Christ.

There follows the effect of the designation, when he says, "And after the morsel, Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). But it is asked here, how does Satan enter into a man?

To which it must be said that Satan's entering into a man can be understood in two ways. For he can enter into the body of a man, as is clear in those who are bodily vexed by a demon; and in this way the Devil can enter into a man essentially.

Or it can be understood as entering into the mind, in such a way that the Demon essentially glides into the mind. And in this way no one can enter into a man except God alone.

For the rational soul does not have dimensions of quantity, such that something could be said to be in it as though contained within its dimension. Nothing can be in it except that which gives it being, which is there through its own power. But where the power of God is, there also is the essence of God; for in God essence and power are the same. It is manifest, therefore, that God is essentially in the soul.

The Devil, nevertheless, is said to glide into the human mind through the effect and affection of malice, inasmuch as, namely, a man, seduced by him, follows him to the perpetrating of evil.

But since above he had said, "When the Devil had now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him" (John 13:2), while here he says, "Satan entered into him," it seems that to put in and to enter are different things.

But to this it must be said that this is not said to signify a difference, but to suggest an increase of malice. For the Devil is said to put some evil into the heart of a man when the man gives him assent to evil, yet with a certain trepidation as to whether he ought to do this; but he enters into the heart when the man gives himself over wholly to following his instigation, and resists him in nothing.

Satan, therefore, entered into him so as to possess him more fully, and to lead to the perpetrating of malice him into whom he had before put something in order to deceive him.

It is asked why, in Luke 22:3, it is said that Satan entered into him, which indeed was before he received the morsel. And this is against what John says here, namely that after the morsel Satan entered into him. Response.

It must be said that at that time he entered in order to bring about the betrayal, but now he entered in order to carry it out and complete it.

But was it, then, an evil thing to give the morsel to Judas, after which Satan entered into him? Response. It must be said that no. But Judas himself, since he was evil, made evil use of a good thing.

Thus when someone unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and best of all, he receives it wrongly, and it turns to evil for him, because "he eats and drinks judgment to himself": 1 Corinthians 11:29.

Having set forth the foretelling of the future betrayal, here is set forth the consummation of the very thing foretold, namely the perpetration of the betrayal. And first he permits Judas to fulfill what he had said; secondly he shows how it was fulfilled, at the place, "When therefore he had received the morsel, he immediately went out." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the words of the Lord permitting; secondly he manifests the obscurity of those very words; thirdly he adds how those words were understood by the apostles.

Now the words of the Lord are these: "What you do, do quickly." These words are indeed not the words of one commanding, or counseling, since sin cannot fall under a divine precept or counsel, because it is said in Psalm 18:9: "The precept of the Lord is lucid, enlightening the eyes"; but they are the words of one permitting. For, as has been said, the Devil had put it into the heart of Judas that he should betray him, namely Jesus, which he had already arranged with the chief priests; but he could not accomplish it unless Christ himself permitted it: because above, John 10:18: "No one takes my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself"; Isaiah 53:7: "He was offered because he himself willed it." They are also the words of one reproaching the crime of betrayal, so as to show that while he conferred benefits, the other intended death; Psalm 49:21: "I will reprove you, and set you before your own face." They are also the words of one longing for the work of our redemption, as Augustine says. Yet he did not command the crime, but foretold it, not so much raging toward the destruction of the faithless one, as hastening toward the salvation of the faithful; Luke 12:50: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until it be accomplished?"

Now the words of the Lord were obscure only to the disciples; and therefore it says: "But this no one of those sitting at table knew, to what end he said it." In which it is given to understand that the words of Christ are so profound and exceed human understanding, that we cannot grasp of them any more than he himself reveals; Proverbs 25:2: "It is the glory of God to conceal a word."

But here a question arises. For since the Lord had pointed out to John the person of the betrayer, saying, "He to whom I shall reach the dipped bread," and had given the dipped bread to Judas, the disciples seem to have been too dull, in that they did not understand the word of the Lord. To this it must be said that the Lord had spoken those words secretly to John alone, so that the betrayer should not be made manifest. The reason for this is that Peter was so fervent in his love of Christ that, if he had known for certain that Judas was going to betray Christ, he would have killed him at once.

But since John was one of those reclining at table, another question still arises, why it says that none of those reclining knew. To this it must be said that it is the custom of a good and innocent mind to believe that others too are far from the iniquity from which they know themselves to be free. Since, therefore, John was most innocent, and removed from the iniquity of betrayal, he by no means suspected that a disciple would go forth into so great an iniquity.

But as to what the disciples, ignorant of the true cause of the words, supposed concerning those very words, the Evangelist adds, saying: "But some of them," namely the disciples, "thought, because Judas had the purse," and so on. Here it must be known that the Lord God of heaven, who gives food to all flesh, had a purse—not that he possessed any earthly thing, but keeping what was offered by the faithful, that he might come to the aid of his own needs and of others in want; and it was Judas who carried this purse. In which an example is given, as Augustine says, that the Church can have money and reserve it for pressing needs. In which we are also instructed that ecclesiastical money is to be spent only on two things.

First, indeed, on those things which pertain to divine worship; whence it says, "Buy those things which we need for the feast day," that is, the things by which we can worship God on the feast day; Malachi 3:10: "Bring in all the tithes into my storehouse, that there may be food in my house." And then, on those things which pertain to the sustenance of the poor, as it adds, "or that he should give something to the needy."

But if you should object against what the Lord says, Matthew 6:34: "Take no thought for tomorrow," Augustine responds to this, and says that this was not commanded by the Lord to the effect that no money or other things of a single day should be kept by the saints for tomorrow; but the Lord said, "Take no thought for tomorrow," for this reason: lest we should preach and perform other services of God so that provision might be made for us in the future; or lest we should desist from those things which belong to virtue, on account of anxiety for the morrow. From which it is clear that the Lord, in saying, "Do not be anxious about tomorrow," forbids two things. One, that we should not do good works for the sake of tomorrow; the other, that we should not be drawn back from good works through fear of tomorrow's want, and so on. But Chrysostom explains it more plainly, saying: "Take no thought for tomorrow"; that is, do not anticipate today the care that belongs to tomorrow's day: for sufficient for the day is its own evil.

There is also a doubt here, since the Lord commanded his disciples, Luke 10:4: "Do not carry on the way a purse, nor a scrip, nor shoes." How then did he himself have a purse? But, according to Chrysostom, the Lord carried a purse for the service of the needy, so that from this you may learn that however poor one is, and crucified to the world, one must have care for the poor: according to that saying, Psalm 111:9: "He has distributed, he has given to the poor," and so on. Or it must be said that this saying, "you shall carry nothing on the way," etc., is to be referred to individual preachers and apostles, who ought to carry nothing when they go forth to preach. But it is not to be referred to the whole company, which must have something both for themselves and for the needy.

Consequently, when it says, "When therefore he had received the morsel, he immediately went out," the fulfillment of the thing foretold is set forth; and first the execution is set forth; secondly the determination of the time.

The execution indeed was swift: for when he had received the morsel, he immediately went out. Here attend, according to Origen, that the Evangelist does not say, "when he had eaten the morsel," but "had received it": which can be understood in two ways. In one way, that the betrayer, being solicitous only to obey the master in this, did not eat the bread once received; but perhaps, having left it on the table, he brooked no delay, going to perpetrate the betrayal. The reason for this can be that the Devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, fearing that if he ate the bread he would have to yield—being unable to be in the same place together with Jesus—did not permit Judas to eat the bread; 2 Corinthians 6:15: "What agreement has Christ with Belial?"; 1 Corinthians 10:21: "You cannot be partakers at once of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils." In another way it can be understood that he ate the bread once received; and so the sense is: "When therefore he had received the morsel"—not only in hand, but also by eating it—"he thus immediately went out," making evil use of a good thing. Just as one who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks his cup, eats and drinks to his own prejudice and is the more burdened with sins; so the bread given by Jesus to Judas was unto damnation, so that after the bread Satan entered into him.

Now the time or hour is marked as dark; whence it says, "Now it was night": which indeed it specifies for two reasons. First, to aggravate his malice, which had so prevailed in his heart that not even on account of the inopportuneness of the hour did he wait until morning; Job 24:14: "The murderer rises at the very break of day (...) and in the night he becomes a thief." Secondly, to designate the quality of his mind—"for it was night"—because the mind of Judas the betrayer was darkened from the divine light. Above, John 11:9: "He who walks in the day does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world; but he who walks in the night, stumbles, because the light is not in him."

After the going-out of Judas to procure the death of the Lord, the Lord deals with his own departure to glory, and first he announces to them the glory to which he goes, that they may be consoled thereby; secondly he foretells to them his departure, at the place, "Little children, yet a little while I am with you," and so on. Now the glory to which he goes is the glorification and exaltation of Christ inasmuch as he is the Son of man: and this is what he says: "When therefore he was gone out," namely Judas, "Jesus said," to his disciples, "Now is the Son of man glorified," and so on. Here it must be known that to be clarified is the same as to be glorified: for glory is said as it were claria (brightness). Whence according to Ambrose, glory is "a bright knowledge accompanied with praise." Whence the expositors, where in the Greek it is "to clarify," translate "to glorify," and conversely. And thus what is said here, "now is the Son of man clarified," is the same as "glorified." It can therefore be expounded in a fourfold way, namely by referring it to the fourfold glory of Christ. First indeed to the glory of the cross; secondly to the glory of judiciary power; thirdly to the glory of the resurrection; fourthly to the glory of the knowledge of Christ in the faith of the peoples. For Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.

First, then, Christ was clarified in the exaltation of the cross, whence also Paul says that his glory is in the cross itself, Galatians, last chapter, 14: "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Chrysostom expounds concerning this glory. Whence regarding this the Lord touches upon four things about the glory of the cross. First the glory itself, secondly the fruit of the glory, thirdly the author of the glory, fourthly the time of the glory. As to the first he says, "Now is the Son of man clarified," and so on. For it must be known that when something begins to come about, it seems as it were already to have been done. Now with Judas going out to lead the soldiers, the business of the Passion of Christ, through which he was to be glorified, seems to have been begun; and therefore he says "now is the Son of man clarified," etc., that is, the passion begins in which he will be glorified. For Christ was clarified through the passion of the cross, because through it he triumphed over his enemies, namely death and the Devil; Hebrews 2:14: "that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death." Likewise because through it he joined earthly things to heavenly things; Colossians 1:20: "making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." Likewise because through it he obtained all kingdoms. Psalm 95:9, according to another reading: "Say among the nations, that the Lord hath reigned from the wood." Likewise because in it he showed many miracles: for the veil of the temple was torn, the earth was moved, the rocks were split, and the sun was darkened, and many bodies of the saints rose again, as is said in Matthew 27:51 and following. On account of this, then, with the passion imminent, he says "now is the Son of man clarified": as if to say, now my passion begins, which is my glorification. Now the fruit of this glory is that God may thereby be glorified; and therefore he says, "and God is clarified in him," that is, in the Son of man glorified: because the glory of the passion tends to this, that God may thereby be glorified. For if God is glorified by the death of Peter — below, last chapter, 19: "this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" — much more is he clarified through the death of Christ. Now the author of this glory is neither an angel nor a man, but God himself: and therefore he says, "if God is glorified in him," that is, if the glory is so great that God is thereby glorified, he ought not to have been clarified through another; but God himself "clarified him in himself," that is, through himself; below, chapter 17:5: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee." Now the time of this glory is speedy, because "immediately," that is, at once, "he will clarify him," that is, he will give him the clarification of the cross. For the cross, although to the Gentiles and to those who perish it is foolishness, yet to us who believe it is the greatest wisdom of God, and the power of God: 1 Corinthians 1:30.

Now the second glory of Christ is the glory of judiciary power; Mark 13:26: "then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with great power and glory." And Augustine expounds concerning this glory, as is touched upon in the Gloss. Whence according to this he does four things here. First he sets down the glory of judiciary power; secondly he shows the merit by which one arrives at this; thirdly he expounds this; fourthly he demonstrates the principle of this glory. He says, then, as to the first, "now is the Son of man clarified." Here it must be known that in Sacred Scripture the things signified are called by the name of the things signifying, the signification not being expressed, according to that saying, 1 Corinthians 10:4: "and the rock was Christ." Where it does not say, the rock signifies Christ. Now in this deed, that Judas went out from the apostles, the figure of the future judgment is represented, where the wicked will be separated from the good, when he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left, as is had in Matthew 25:33. In this, then, that Judas went out, because the future judgment was figured; therefore the Lord, after the going-out of Judas, deals with the glory of judiciary power, by which he is to judge, saying "now is the Son of man clarified," that is, through his going-out the glory of the Son of man is represented, which he will have in the judgment, where none of the wicked will remain, where none of the good will perish. Now it is not said: now the glorification of the Son of man is signified; but "now is the Son of man clarified," according to the manner of Sacred Scripture aforesaid. Now the merit of this glorification is that God may be glorified in him. For God is clarified in those who seek to do his will, not their own; and such was Christ; above, chapter 6:38: "I came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." And therefore "God is clarified in him." Now he expounds this when he says, "if God is clarified in him," that is, if in doing the will of God he clarifies God, deservedly "God will clarify him in himself," namely that the human nature which was taken up by the eternal Word may also be granted immortal eternity; and therefore "in himself," that is, in his own glory; Philippians 2:9: "for which cause he hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names." That very glorification, then, by which God is glorified in Christ, is the merit in which Christ, according as he is man, is glorified "in himself," that is, in the glory of God. And this was when human nature, having laid aside infirmity through the death of the cross, received the glory of immortality in the resurrection. Hence the resurrection itself was the principle by which this glory was begun. Therefore he says, "and immediately he will clarify him," in the resurrection, which indeed will be at once, according to that Psalm 107:3: "I will rise early." And elsewhere, Psalm 15:10: "Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption."

The third glory of Christ is the glory of the resurrection, concerning which it is said, Romans 6:4: "as Christ is risen through the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life." And Hilary, and also in part Augustine, expound concerning this glory. And according to this, first Christ foretells this his glory, saying "now is the Son of man clarified." And he speaks of the future by way of the past: because the things which we believe will come about immediately, we hold as it were already done. Now the glory of the resurrection was near at hand and imminent; and therefore he says "now is he clarified," as though the body, by association with the divine nature, had in a certain manner attained the glory of the divinity. Secondly he adjoins the cause of this glorification, and very subtly: for, as he himself says, the humanity of Christ was glorified in the resurrection from the conjunction of the divine nature assuming it in the person of the Word, because this is said in Psalm 15:10: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou suffer thy holy one" — who is the holy of holies — "to see corruption." Such glory is also owed to Christ as man inasmuch as he is God. We too shall have the glory of the resurrection only insofar as we are participants of the divinity; Romans 8:11: "he who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you." And therefore he says that "the Son of man," namely Christ, according to his human nature, "is clarified," through the resurrection. And who will clarify him? "God," he says, "will clarify him in himself," that is, that Christ as man, who reigns in the glory that is from the glory of God, may himself thence pass over into the glory of God, namely remaining wholly in God; as if deified from that dispensation by which he is man. Just as if I were to say: the lamp is bright, because fire shines brightly in it. That, then, which sends forth rays of brightness to the humanity of Christ is God: and thus the humanity of Christ is clarified by the glory of his divinity, and the humanity of Christ is brought into the glory of the divinity, not through a transmutation of nature, but through a participation of glory, inasmuch as Christ himself, as man, is adored as God; Philippians 2:9: "for which cause God also exalted him, and gave him a name which is above all names, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow." And therefore he says, "and God is clarified in him," that is, if it is so that the glory of the divinity overflows onto the glory of the humanity, "God clarified him," that is, made him a partaker of his own glory, taking him up into his own glory. Philippians 2:11: "every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the Father." And thus the glory of Christ is twofold. One is that which is in his humanity, derived from the divinity; the other is that of the divinity, to which the humanity is in a certain manner taken up, as has been said: but the one and the other in a different way. For the first glory had a beginning in time, and therefore he speaks of it in the past, saying "and God clarified him in himself," which was on the day of the resurrection. The second glory is perpetual, because from eternity the Word of God is God, to which glory the humanity of Christ, once assumed, will be glorified forever; whence of this he speaks in the future, saying "and immediately he will clarify him," that is, he will always make him to be in that glory forever.

The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of the knowledge had of him in the faith of the peoples; and Origen expounds concerning this. Here it must be noted that glory, according to him, is understood in one way in the common usage of men, and in another way in Scripture. For according to common usage, glory is nothing other than praises conferred by many, or "a bright knowledge accompanied with praise," as Ambrose says; in Sacred Scripture glory imports a certain divine sign upon men. Whence Exodus 40:32: "the glory of the Lord appeared upon the tabernacle," that is, a certain divine sign rested upon it. And likewise that which is said of the face of Moses, that it had been glorified. And just as glory bodily denotes a certain divine sign upon men, so also spiritually the understanding of man is said to be glorified when, thus deified, and transcending all material things, it is raised to the knowledge of God: for by this he is made a partaker of his glory, 2 Corinthians 3:18: "but we, with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image." If, then, whoever knows God is glorified, and is made a partaker of glory, it is manifest that Christ, who most perfectly knew God, being as it were the splendor of the whole divine glory, Hebrews 1:3, and being able to receive the brightness of the whole divine glory; if, I say, it is so; Christ is most perfectly glorified, and also all who know God have this from Christ. But that Christ was thus glorified in the most perfect knowledge and participation of the divinity, men did not yet know: and therefore, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in the knowledge of men. But he began to have this glory in the resurrection and in the passion, in which men began to know his power and his divinity. Concerning this, then, his glorification, the Lord, speaking here, says "now is the Son of man clarified," namely, according to his humanity, in his passion, which was imminent, he became clear in the knowledge of men; and "God," namely the Father, "is glorified in him." For the Son not only reveals himself, but also the Father; below, chapter 17:6: "Father, I have manifested thy name": and therefore not only is the Son clarified, but also the Father; Matthew 11:27: "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." And he says "in him," because he who sees the Son, sees also the Father: below, chapter 14:9. Now it belongs to one who is greater to repay something greater, and therefore he adds, "and if God is clarified in him," that is, if from the brightness of the Son of man the glory of God the Father in a certain manner grows, inasmuch as he is known the more by all, "God also clarified him in himself," that is, made it known, that Jesus Christ is in his own glory. And this is not delayed, because "immediately he will clarify him," that is, at once, and so on.

Above, the Lord set forth the glory which he was to obtain through his departure; here he foretells to them this very departure of his, and first he foretells to them his departure; second, he shows that the disciples were not yet fit to follow him, at the words "you shall seek me"; third, he teaches how they may become fit, at the words "a new commandment I give you."

Now he foretells to them that his departure would come soon, saying, "Little children, yet a little while I am with you." And he uses the word of sonship for the greater kindling of love. For when friends depart from one another, then most of all they are enkindled with the affection of love. Above, in the same chapter, when he had loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end. But he says "my little children," in the diminutive, in order to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly sons, because they did not yet love perfectly: they were not yet perfect in charity; Galatians 4:19: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you." Nevertheless they had grown sufficiently in perfection, because from servants they had been made little children, as is had here, and brothers, below in John 20:17: "Go to my brothers, and say to them," etc.

It should be noted, however, that this phrase "yet a little while" can be expounded in three ways, according as Christ is with his disciples in three ways. For Christ was with his disciples bodily. But his body can be considered in two ways. First, according to the likeness of the condition of human nature, for Christ according to the body was mortal, just as other men also; and thus the word "little" is taken for the time which was between the words of this discourse and his death. So that the sense is: "yet a little while I am with you," that is, a little time remains before I am seized and die, and then I shall rise again, existing thenceforth immortal, even according to the body; Romans 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over him." And therefore it is said in Luke, last chapter, 44: "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you," etc.

Second, he was with them by bodily presence, but according as his body was now glorified; and thus the word "little" is taken for the time which was until the ascension; below, John 16:16: "A little while, and now you shall not see me; and again a little while, and you shall see me, because I go to the Father"; Haggai 2:7: "Yet a little while, and I will move heaven and earth, and the sea, and the dry land."

Third, it is expounded according as Christ was with them spiritually, according to the presence of his divinity, and in the sacraments; and thus the word "little" is taken for the time which existed until the consummation of the world: which time indeed is said to be little in comparison to eternity; 1 John 2:18: "My little children, it is the last hour." And thus the sense is "a little while I am with you," that is, although I depart from you bodily, nevertheless spiritually I am still with you for this little space of time which remains until the consummation of the world; Matthew, last chapter, 20: "Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world." But this exposition does not fit according to the presence of his divinity, because he will be with them not only until the consummation of the world, but even forever.

And therefore Origen expounds otherwise, saying that Christ is always with the perfect who do not sin mortally, but with the imperfect he is not, because when they sin, he withdraws from them. But the disciples, after a little time, were going to depart from Christ, and to suffer scandal, and to leave him; Matthew 26:31: "You will all be scandalized because of me this night." And thus Christ was withdrawing from them spiritually; and as to this he says "yet a little while I am with you," that is, it is a little time until you will flee, having left me, and thus I shall not be with you.

Next, when he says "you shall seek me," etc., he shows their insufficiency for following: and first he sets down their effort, saying "you shall seek me," whom you have spiritually forsaken, both by fleeing and by denying. "You shall seek," I say, through penance, as Peter who wept bitterly; Isaiah 55:6: "Seek the Lord while he may be found"; Hosea 6:1: "In their affliction they will rise early to me." Or, "you shall seek me," that is, my bodily presence, through desire; Luke 17:22: "The days will come when you will desire to see one day of the Son of Man, and you shall not see it."

Second, he shows their defect, saying "and as I said to the Jews: where I go, you cannot come." But differently in each case: for since among the Jews there were some who were never to be converted, of these it was said simply that they could not go where Christ was going. But now, Judas having gone out, there was no one left among the disciples who was to be separated from Christ, and therefore he did not say simply "you cannot come," but added "I say to you now." As if he were to say: to the Jews I said "never," namely as regards the obstinate; but to you I say that now you cannot follow me, because you are not perfect in charity, so as to be willing to die for me: for I am about to depart through death. Likewise, I am about to go to the glory of the Father, to which no one can come unless he be perfect in charity. Likewise, I am now to be glorified, because, as has been said, "now is the Son of Man glorified," but it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified: and therefore "where I go, you cannot come."

Next, when he says "a new commandment I give you," he teaches how they may be made fit for following, and first he sets down the condition of the commandment; second he shows the reason why they ought to fulfill it, at the words "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples." Concerning the first he does three things: first he sets down the quality of the commandment; second, its tenor; and third, an example of that tenor.

Now the quality of the commandment is commended from its newness, whence he says "a new commandment." But was not a commandment about the love of neighbor already given in the Old Testament or the Law? It was indeed given, for in Matthew 22:37, Christ, being asked by the lawyer what was the first commandment, answered: "You shall love the Lord your God," and it is added: "and your neighbor as yourself." This is found in Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

But this commandment is specially called new on account of three things. First, on account of the effect of renewal which it produces; Colossians 3:9-10: "putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, him who is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of him who created him." But this newness comes about through charity, to which Christ exhorts. Second, this commandment is called new on account of the cause which produces it, because it is from a new spirit. For there is a twofold spirit, namely the old and the new. The old indeed is the spirit of servitude; but the new is the spirit of love; the former begets servants, the latter sons of adoption; Romans 8:15: "You have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, but you have received the spirit of the adoption of sons"; Ezekiel 36:26: "I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you." And this spirit kindles unto charity, because "the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Romans 5:5). Third, on account of the effect which it constitutes, namely the new testament. For the brief difference between the new and the old testament is fear and love; for as Jeremiah 31:31 says: "I will strike a new covenant with the house of Israel." But insofar as this commandment in the Old Testament proceeded from fear and holy love, it pertained to the new testament: whence this commandment was present in the old law, not as something proper to it, but as a preparation for the new law.

But the tenor of the commandment is mutual love; whence he says, "that you love one another," etc. For it belongs to the nature of friendship that it not be hidden, for otherwise it would not be friendship, but a certain benevolence. And therefore it is necessary, for a true and firm friendship, that friends love one another mutually; for then friendship is just and firm, as it were doubled. The Lord therefore, wishing there to be a perfect friendship among his faithful and his disciples, gave them a precept concerning mutual love; Ecclesiasticus 6:17: "He who fears God shall have good friendship."

He sets down the example of the tenor when he says "as I have loved you." For Christ loved us in three ways: gratuitously, effectively, and rightly. Gratuitously, because he himself began, and did not wait for us to begin to love; 1 John 4:10: "not as though we had loved God, but because he first loved us." Thus we too ought to love our neighbors first, and not wait to be anticipated, or to be benefited. But he loved effectively, which is clear through the work: for the proof of love is the showing of the deed. Now the greater thing that a man can do for a friend is to give himself for him, which Christ also did; Ephesians 5:2: "he loved us, and delivered himself up for us"; whence he said, below in John 15:13: "Greater love than this no one has, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Let us, therefore, by this example love one another effectively and fruitfully; 1 John 3:18: "let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth."

But rightly, because since every friendship is founded upon some communication (for likeness is the cause of love), that friendship is right which exists on account of likeness, or communication in the good. But Christ loved us insofar as we are like him through the grace of adoption, loving according to this likeness, so as to draw us to God. Jeremiah 31:3: "With an everlasting charity I have loved you, therefore having mercy I have drawn you." Thus, therefore, we too ought to love in the one loved not only what belongs to benefit, or to delight, but what belongs to God. And in such love of neighbor the love of God is also included.

Next, when he says "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples," etc., the reason for fulfilling this precept is set down. Now it must be known that whoever is enrolled in the army of some king ought to bear his insignia. But the insignia of Christ are the insignia of charity. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be numbered in the army of Christ, ought to be marked with the character of charity; and this is what he says: "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another": a love, I say, that is holy; Ecclesiasticus 24:24: "I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope."

But note that, although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as life, and understanding, and good bodily condition; and certain spiritual gifts, such as the working of miracles, Luke 21:15: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom," etc. — all these are not signs of discipleship of Christ, since they can be common to the good and the wicked. But the special sign of discipleship of Christ is charity, and mutual love; 2 Corinthians 1:22: "he has sealed us, and given the Spirit."

Having set down the failure of the disciple, namely of Judas the betrayer, here he sets down the failure of the disciple, namely of Peter the denier, and first the occasion of the foretelling is set down; second, the foretelling of the denial, where he says, "Jesus answered: will you lay down your life for me?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down Peter's desire; second he sets down his confidence, where it says, "Peter says to him: why can I not follow you now?" Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the showing of the desire; second the deferral of it, where it says, "Jesus answered: where I go, you cannot follow me now." Now Peter's desire is shown in his ready question, when it says, "Simon Peter says to him: Lord, where are you going?" For he had heard from the Lord that he would be with them yet a little while: from which he became anxious about Christ's departure from them, and therefore he asks, saying, "Where are you going?" On which Chrysostom says: great indeed is Peter's love, and more vehement than fire itself, whose ready impulse no prohibition can restrain. And hence it is that even when Christ says, "Where I go, you cannot come," Peter nonetheless wanted to follow him; and therefore he asked where he was going, like one of the young maidens asking in the Song of Songs 5:17: "Where has your beloved gone, O most beautiful among women, where has he gone? And we will seek him with you." Now the deferral of this desire is because for the present he is prevented from following; and this is what he says: "where I go you cannot follow me now: but you will follow afterward" — as if to say: you are still imperfect, and therefore you cannot follow me now; but afterward, when you shall be perfect, you will follow me. Similar is what he says below, in the last chapter, verse 18: "Amen I say to you, when you were younger" — that is, imperfect — "you girded yourself... but when you shall have grown old," and shall have climbed to the summit of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you."

Next, when it says, "Peter says to him," etc., he sets down Peter's confidence. For Peter had understood that the Lord had spoken the aforesaid words as though distrusting the perfection of his love. But love is perfect when someone exposes himself to death for his friends; below, chapter 15, verse 13: "No one has greater love than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." Since, therefore, Peter was prepared to die for Christ, he showed himself perfect in love, when he says, "I will lay down my life for you," that is, I am prepared to die for you. He said this, as far as he himself could see, with no feigned mind. But yet a man does not know the strength of his own affection, especially at the moment when danger is imminent; 1 Corinthians 4:4: "I am conscious to myself of nothing; yet I am not hereby justified."

Next, when it says, "Jesus answered him," etc., he foretells Peter's denial, and first he rebukes his presumption; second he predicts the denial, where it says, "Amen, amen I say to you: the cock will not crow until you deny me three times." Concerning the first it should be known that Peter, presuming of himself, when Christ said to him, "you cannot follow me now," said that he could follow him, and die for him: and therefore the Lord, restraining him, says, "Will you lay down your life for me?" — as if he were saying: consider what you are saying. I know better what is in you than you yourself know; you do not know how to weigh the weight of your own love. Do not, therefore, presume of yourself beyond measure; Romans 11:20: "Do not be high-minded, but fear." And a reason of this kind is given at Matthew 26:41: "the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Now the Lord permitted Peter to be tempted and to fall, so that, once raised to the headship of the Church, he might learn to think humbly of himself, and to have compassion on subjects who sin; Hebrews 4:15: "We have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things after the likeness of us, without sin." But in Peter the temptation prevailed even unto fault; whereas in Christ there was a being-tempted only unto the likeness of the penalty, since he committed no sin. He foretells the denial, saying, "Amen, amen I say to you: the cock will not crow until you deny me three times."

Here first a doubt arises concerning what he says, "the cock will not crow until you deny me three times." For it seems to be false: because immediately after Peter's first denial, the cock crowed, as we have it in Mark 14:68. But Augustine responds to this in two ways. In one way, that the Lord expressed Peter's affection rather than his act: for so great a fear had invaded Peter's soul that he was prepared, at the first crowing of the cock, not only once, but three times, to deny; and thus the sense is: before the cock crows, you will be prepared to deny me three times. In another way, that it be referred to the beginning of the denial: because a thing is said to happen before another thing even if it only begins to happen. Now the Lord foretold the threefold denial, which began before the first crowing of the cock, although it was not completed before it; and then the sense is, "the cock will not crow, until you deny me three times," that is, you will begin the threefold denial before the cock crows.

Likewise it is asked concerning the place where these words were spoken; for both Matthew and Mark say that the Lord spoke these words to Peter after he had gone out from the place where he had dined with the disciples; but Luke and John say that he spoke these words in the place where he had dined. For after this discourse the Lord says below, chapter 14, verse 31: "Rise, let us go from here." To this, however, it must be said that it is true that the Lord spoke these words in the place in which he had dined; but Matthew and Mark follow the order of memory, not of history. It can also be said, according to Augustine, that the Lord spoke these words three times. For if anyone carefully considers the Lord's words, from which the process advanced to the foretelling of Peter's denial, he will find them to have been spoken in three ways: for in Matthew and Mark it is recorded that the Lord said: "You will all suffer scandal because of me this night." And Peter answers: "Even if all shall be scandalized because of you, I will never be scandalized." And Jesus said to him: "Because today, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." But in Luke it is recorded: Jesus said to them: "Behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail." And then Peter said to him: "Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death." And the Lord said to him: "I say to you, Peter: the cock will not crow today until you deny three times that you know me." But here, when Peter asked the Lord, "Where are you going?" etc., the Lord said to him, "Amen, amen I say to you: the cock will not crow, until you deny me three times." Whence it is gathered that the Lord foretold Peter's denial more than once.