Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?

“(Hom. lxxii. 1) Whom Jesus loved. This John says to shew his own innocence, and also why it was that Peter beckoned to him, inasmuch as he was not Peter’s superior: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. Peter had been just reproved, and therefore, checking the customary vehemence of his love, he did not speak himself now, but made John speak for him. He always appears in Scripture as zealous, and an intimate friend of John’s.”

“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.”

“Simon Peter , therefore, gave him a sign , and said to him , Who is it of whom He speaks t — Hence it is plain that Peter not only gave a sign to John by winking and nodding, as S. Augustine would have it, but also spoke to him quietly, as John here relates. Such is the opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. Peter asks this not as Prince of the Apostles (though Cyril takes this view), nor as though fearing for himself lest he should be the traitor, as Chrysostom thinks, but out of his zeal, that he might avert so enormous a crime and prevent the betrayal of Christ, just as in the garden he wished to prevent His capture by cutting off the right ear of Malchus. Verses 25, 26. — So when he had reclined upon the breast of fesus9 x.r. A. John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say ; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him. The bread I have dipped. — Observe that Judas was present at the celebration of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist ; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously ; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might Digitized by v^iOOQLe 6 4 indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing -out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear. Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss. Mystically this pipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. xli. might be fulfilled — “ He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me.” Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil's prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus. Though Matthew puts these words and Christ's answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine (De Consensu Evang . bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ;s answer, Thou hast said , straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master • is it 11 received the answer, Thou hast said , and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation”

“Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him,.... Peter perhaps lay at a distance from Christ, or in some such position, that he could not whisper to him himself; and besides, knew that John might use more freedom, as he was admitted to more familiarity with him; and being at some distance also from him, he beckoned to him; which was usually done at meals, when they could not, by reason of their posture, discourse together: this being the case, , "they made signs", by nodding to one another (k); that is, as the gloss explains it, they pointed with their hands and fingers, and by nodding or beckoning; such a method Peter took, signifying his desire, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake: which he did not out of mere curiosity, but from an honest intention and pure zeal, that he, with the rest, might show their abhorrence of such a person, and avoid him; and do all that lay in their power to hinder him from putting his designs into execution, and that the innocent might be free from all suspicion. (k) T. Bab. Beracot ib.”