When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me.

“(Hom. lxii. 1) Our Lord after His twofold promise of assistance to the Apostles in their future labours, remembers that the traitor is cut off from both, and is troubled at the thought: When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.”

“(Tr. lx. 1) This did not come into His mind’then for the first time; but He was now about to make the traitor known, and single him out from the rest, and therefore was troubled in spirit. The traitor too was now just about to go forth to execute his purpose. He was troubled at the thought of His Passion being so near at hand, at the dangers to which His faithful followers would be brought at the hand of the traitor, which were even now impending over Him. Our Lord deigned to be troubled also, to shew that false brethren cannot be cut off, even in the most urgent necessity, without the troubling of the Church. (Tr. lxi. 1.). He was troubled not in flesh, but in spirit; for on occasion of scandals of this kind, the spirit is troubled, not perversely, but in love, lest in separating the tares, some of the wheat too be plucked up with them. (Tr. lx. 5.). But whether He was troubled by pity for perishing Judas, or, by the near approach of His own death, He was troubled not through weakness of mind, but power: He was not troubled because any thing compelled Him, but He troubled Himself, as was said above. And in that He was troubled, He consoles the weak members of His body, i. e. His Church, that they may not think themselves reprobate, should they be troubled at the approach of death.”

“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.”

“When He had said these things , Jesus was troubled in spirit , and testified (openly and plainly), saying , Verify, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me. In the Syriac, “ These things said Jeschua, and groaned in spirit, and testified and said, Amin, amin, I say to you,” x.r.A. In the Arabic Version “was moved in spirit.” This emotion, then, was an immense grief and indignation at the crime of Judas. Christ was pained in the innermost feelings of His soul, and groaned in spirit for the enormity of this crime as well as for the perdition of Judas. And this sorrow he did not suffer involuntarily, but admitted it of His free will, and took it upon Him at this point of His own accord, as He did at the death of Lazarus. See commentary on ch. xi. ver. 33. The question arises here, Did this prediction of Christ take place before or after the institution of the Eucharist? John omits all mention of that event, it having been narrated fully by the other Evangelists. Matthew and Mark put the prediction before the institution of the Eucharist in order of time, but Luke puts it after. There are three probable opinions on this point. The first is that of Jansenius and Francis Lucas, who think that Christ predicted the treason of Judas after the Eucharist, as Luke has it, and that Matthew and Mark, in making it come before, anticipate intenDigitized by v^iOOQLe 6o tionally. The reason for this view is that if Christ had predicted the treason of Judas before the institution of the Eucharist, He would have disturbed the minds of the apostles, moved them to anger, and rendered their dispositions for its reception less collected than would have been fitting. But this is not conclusive. For Christ before the Eucharist foretold His passion and death, and this disturbed the apostles far more : and soon after the Eucharist— as these interpreters themselves admit — He foretold the treason of Judas, and this disturbed them then, so that they did not duly dispose themselves for that recollection which is proper after Communion. Then again this prediction would, before the Eucharist, have had the force of deterring Judas from his crime, as well as producing compunction in the hearts of the apostles and making them all careful to examine each one his own conscience, lest Christ should there find anything to bring to light and complain of, as He did the crime of Judas. The second opinion is that of Baronius (Anno Dni. 34, ch. 58). He thinks that Christ made this prediction before the institution of the Eucharist, as Matthew and Mark have it Baronius, then, is of opinion that the events took place in the order given by John, namely, that after the washing of the feet, Jesus spoke of His betrayal, that it was then that He gave John the sign of the morsel dipped in the dish, but that, as for Judas having gone out immediately after he had taken the morsel, we are not to take the phrase as meaning without any delay in point of time, but that, driven on by a kind of madness, he did not wait for the lengthy discourse which our Lord made after the Supper. For S. Luke clearly bears witness that Judas stayed with the others until the end of the Communion ; and after this, according to the Jewish ceremonial, it would seem that nothing was left on the table in which the morsel of bread could have been dipped, so, too, it seems impossible to say that this morsel of bread was the Eucharist But then Judas, after taking the morsel, did go out immediately , nay, that very moment according to the Syriac. He did not, then, wait for the lengthy Communion of the apostles, if that took place after the incident of the morsel. Digitized by v^iOOQLe THE SOP GIVEN TO JUDAS. 61 Hence it is with greater likelihood that other upholders of this view maintain that the morsel given to Judas by Christ was itself the Eucharist ; and he, driven, as it were, to madness by the devil when he had received it unworthily, straightway went forth to carry out the crime he was meditating. Moreover, during and after the institution of the Eucharist Christ reclined at the table, and there, as Luke has it, foretold the treason of Judas. It is, therefore, altogether probable that the table had not yet been removed, but that on it there remained bread and fragments of food out of which Christ could take the bread which He dipped and gave to Judas. The third opinion, therefore, holding a middle place between the two former, seems to be the more correct — namely, that Christ both foretold His betrayal by Judas before the Eucharist, and repeated the prediction after it ; and this both because He felt the atrocity of the crime, and was, as John here says, disturbed in spirit by it, again, that He might place his own wickedness before Judas, show him that He knew of it, and deter him from carrying it out, and also to prepare and fortify the minds of the Apostles, that when they should soon after see the actual betrayal and the capture of Jesus they might not be shocked, but might persevere with constancy in His faith. In this way we best reconcile Matthew and Mark with Luke. This is the expressed view of S. Augustine (De Consensu Evang ;, bk. iii. ch. i), of Euthymius, and of Toletus, who say that the order of events was as follows. The Supper of the Paschal Lamb having been finished, and the ordinary Supper begun, Christ, while they were supping, arose and washed the feet of His disciples ; then, reclining once more, He said all these things which John narrates ; being troubled in spirit He speaks of His betrayer, and they all ask, one by one, “ Is it I ? ” Judas receiving the answer, “Thou hast said.” Next He institutes the Eucharist, and this being done, and the Mystery having been celebrated, He again speaks of His betrayer, as Luke relates, ch. xxii. “Nevertheless,” He says, “behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at table,” &c. Then Peter asks John, “Who is it of whom He speaks?” and John askDigitized by v^iOOQLe 62 ing Jesus, receives the answer, “ He to whom I shall offer the bread when I have dipped it.” And after this morsel Satan entered into Judas, and he went away ; and when he went away, and the Supper was quite finished, Christ made to His disciples the wonderful discourse shortly after recorded by John”

“When Jesus had thus said,.... Having spoken of the mission of his disciples by him, of their reception among men, and the notice that would be taken of it by him: he was troubled in spirit; in his soul, which shows him to be truly and really man, and to have an human soul, which some have denied; and that to be of like passions with ours, only without sin: he was troubled, not at what he had said, but at what he was about to say concerning the betrayer; and that not so much on his own account, because of the danger, the sorrows, and sufferings he should be exposed to, as on account of the horrible blackness of the crime, and the vengeance that would fall upon the criminal; and being thus inwardly distressed at this affair, he testified and said: he spake out openly and plainly, what he had before secretly intimated, and that with the greatest certainty: verily, verily, I say unto you; it is truth, it may be believed, however unexpected and strange it may seem to be: that one of you shall betray me; to the chief priests and elders, in order to be put to death.”

“Was troubled in spirit - See the note on Joh 11:33. And testified - Spoke with great earnestness. Shall betray me - Παραδωσει με, Will deliver me up. Judas had already betrayed our blessed Lord, and he was now on the point of delivering him up into the hands of the chief priests. By all these warnings, did not our Lord intend that Judas should be benefited? - that he should repent of his iniquity, and turn and find mercy?”

“THE TRAITOR INDICATED--HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM. (Joh 13:21-30) When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, One of you shall betray me--The announcement of Joh 13:18 seems not to have been plain enough to be quite apprehended, save by the traitor himself. He will therefore speak it out in terms not to be misunderstood. But how much it cost Him to do this, appears from the "trouble" that came over His "spirit"--visible emotion, no doubt--before He got it uttered. What wounded susceptibility does this disclose, and what exquisite delicacy in His social intercourse with the Twelve, to whom He cannot, without an effort, break the subject!”