The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.

“Now on the first day he then treats of the institution of the sacrament, and because new things succeed old things, as is said in Leviticus 26:10: "when new things come in, you shall cast out the old"; first he treats of the old; second, of the new. Concerning the first there are two parts. First, the preparation of the Passover is set forth; second, the foretelling of the betrayer is set forth, at the words "and as they were eating, he said," etc. And concerning the first, first the time is designated; second, the preparation of the feast; third, the institution of the sacrament. He says therefore, "on the first day of the unleavened bread." And here there can be an objection, because this day was the first day of the Passover. And this seems to be against what is said in John 13:1: "before the feast day of the Passover," etc. The Greeks say that Matthew, Luke, and Mark erred, and that John corrected them, because it was done before the day of the Passover. Hence they say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, and made the supper on the thirteenth. Hence they say that the Lord confected the sacrament not in unleavened bread, but in leavened. And they strive to confirm this with many arguments. First, because it is said in John 18:28 that they did not enter in, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover; and thus on the day of the passion they were still to eat the Passover. Likewise another argument of theirs, that the women prepared spices, therefore etc. But this cannot stand, because the Lord did not break the ceremonies: for it is not found that the Passover was anticipated, though it is found that it was prolonged. And granted that it were anticipated, this does not help the Greeks, because it is written that the Passover had to be eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. If therefore he had done otherwise, he would have acted against the law. Therefore, according to what the three Evangelists say, this was done on the fourteenth moon, and then it was necessary to eat the Passover. What then is to be answered to that which John says: "before the feast day of the Passover"? It must be said that the custom was that they began the day from the evening, and so the paschal day began from the evening. And this is found in Exodus 12:18: "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover"; and from then on leavened bread was not to be found in the houses of the Jews until the twenty-first day. Hence if we compute from the evening of the fourteenth moon, the preparation was made before the day of the Passover, and yet it was the fourteenth moon. John therefore calls that day the day of unleavened bread, and calls the day of the Passover the fifteenth moon. As to what you say secondly, that they did not enter the praetorium etc., Chrysostom resolves it thus, and says that the Lord omitted nothing of the legal observances; hence he ate the Passover on the fourteenth moon. But these rulers were bent on the killing of Christ, on account of which they delayed, and so did not celebrate then, and this was against their own law. Or by "Passover" are understood the unleavened loaves. As to what they say concerning the women, Augustine says that they had many solemnities; but the sabbath was the more solemn solemnity. Hence it was not lawful to prepare food on the sabbath, which however was lawful on other feasts, but not on the sabbath day. Therefore it then so happened that the feast of the Passover fell on a Friday, and the sabbath followed; therefore they prepared then, and rested on the sabbath day. Therefore we can say that he celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth moon. There follows the solicitude of the disciples: "the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" And first the inquiry is set forth; second, the command; third, the fulfillment. He says, "his disciples came." But which disciples? Remigius says that Judas came out of a show of duty, so as to conceal his betrayal. Yet Pope Leo says that others also came. "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" By this it is signified that Christ had no house there, nor did anyone of his company; thus his poverty is signified; hence above, Matthew 8:20: "but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." "And he said" — here the command is set forth. And first he announces the host; second, the passion; third he requests the place for the banquet. He says therefore, "go into the city to a certain man." And you should note that he was not lodging in the city, but in Bethany. But what is the meaning of his saying "a certain man"? Augustine says that the Lord named some definite person; but because it was not necessary to name him, Matthew omitted to name him. Chrysostom says that he says "go to a certain man," that is, to whomever, because he wished to show his power, so that they would not be troubled about the passion. For his fame had so spread abroad that it was already decreed that whoever should receive him would be put outside the synagogue. Hence he wished it to be understood that no one would receive him unless he changed that one's heart; Proverbs 21:1: "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, and he will incline it wherever he will." "And say to him," etc. He foretells the passion so that they may not be troubled; hence he says "time" — not just any time whatever, but one determined by the Father. In this manner it is said in John 7:6: "my time has not yet come, but your time is always ready." "I will keep the Passover at thy house," that is, I will celebrate the paschal feast at your house. And he adds "with my disciples," to denote that it was not in secret, but publicly. According to Chrysostom he said this, because he wanted sufficient food to be prepared both for himself and for the disciples. But how is it that he celebrated it, and we ought not to celebrate it? For it is said in John 13:15: "I have given you an example, that as I have done, so you also should do." To this Augustine responds, that just as Christ suffered in order to redeem us from death, so he willed to observe the law, in order to free us from the law. Then follows the execution: "and the disciples did as Jesus had commanded them," etc. Similarly it is found in Exodus 24:3: "all the words which the Lord has commanded we will do." Consequently the feast is treated: "and when evening was come, he sat down with his twelve disciples." And it says "in the evening," because, as is commanded in Exodus 12:18, "on the fourteenth moon, at evening, you shall celebrate the Passover." Or "in the evening," because it tends toward its setting; Zechariah 14:7: "and at evening time there shall be light." Or the true passing-over of Christ is signified, namely his end: for evening is the end of the day. "And as they were eating, he said," etc. Here is set forth the foretelling of the betrayer. And first he indicates it from companionship; second, from authority; third, from his own voice. The second at the words "but he answering," etc.; the third at the words "thou hast said it." And concerning the first, first the foretelling is set forth; second, the effect: "and they were sorrowful." Hence he says: "and as they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me." "Amen I say" — he affirms, because he was saying something great, namely that one of you, whom I chose to be the pillars of the Church; Ecclesiasticus 6:10: "there is a friend, a companion at the table, and he does not remain in the day of need." And in Jeremiah 9:4: "have no confidence in any brother of yours." Then follows the effect, and it is a twofold effect: sorrow and doubt. As to sorrow, he says "and they were sorrowful." And why? They were saddened over the death of Christ, because it was bitter to them to be without such a leader, such a patron. Likewise they were saddened over such a crime that was to come; Jeremiah 9:1: "who will give a fountain of tears to my eyes?" Then the doubt is set forth: "they began each one to say." But why did they doubt? Was not each one certain of himself? Response: the disciples had been instructed that men are quickly prone to sin; hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: "let him who stands take heed lest he fall." Likewise they doubted, because they trusted him more than their own conscience. Similar is what is said in 1 Corinthians 4:4: "I am conscious of nothing to myself, yet I am not thereby justified." "But he answering said: he who dips his hand in the dish, he will betray me." Here is set forth the foretelling from the prophetic word. And first he sets forth the prophetic foretelling; second, the necessity of the passion; third, the punishment of the betrayer. He says therefore, "but he answering said." Of this can be understood that saying of Psalm 40:10: "he who ate my bread has magnified his supplanting against me." "He who dips his hand in the dish." Mark says "in the bowl." A paropsis is called a four-cornered vessel, and is so called as having equal sides. A catinus is called an earthen vessel for receiving liquids; hence liquids were placed in the catinus, dry things in the paropsis; hence there could be both there. Or it was called a paropsis, but by its function a catinus. And what does it mean when he says, "he who dips his hand in the dish"? It must be said that the custom among the ancients was that many ate from one dish, and perhaps took the vessel. Hence all, in astonishment, drew back their hand, except Judas — so that he might the more excuse himself; and therefore the word was ambiguous, because he was dipping at the same time along with all of them; therefore he was unwilling to expose him, lest he become a greater sinner. Or it can be said that they sat two by two, and he had placed this one with himself, in order to draw him back. But many are not drawn back by friendship. "The Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him." What is it that you say, that you will be betrayed? He says "the Son of Man goes," namely by his own will. "He was offered because it was his own will," as it is written in Isaiah 53:7. Hence the passion was foretold by the prophets, as is found in Luke, last chapter, 27: "and beginning from Moses, and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him." And thus nothing harms the Son of Man, because what comes to pass is what he himself ordained. But someone will say: if he goes by his own will, then it is not to be imputed to Judas. It must be said that, on the contrary, it is to be imputed, because he was doing with an evil will that which the Son was doing willingly. Therefore there follows the punishment: "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed." As above, 17:7: "it must needs be that scandals come; but woe to that man by whom the scandal comes." And the greatness of the punishment is touched upon: "it were good for him if that man had not been born." From this follows an occasion of error. For some say that punishment is not inflicted on what does not exist, and therefore they say that it is simply better not to have been, which is against the Apostle in Romans 9. Hence, according to Jerome, it must be said that he speaks according to the common manner of speaking, that is, a lesser harm — that is, he feels a greater torment than if he had not been born. And to this end seems to serve what is said in Ecclesiastes 4:2: "I praised the dead more than the living." And this is against Augustine in the book On Free Will. What is nothing cannot be chosen. Likewise, what we choose is nearer to happiness. But what does not exist is not near to happiness. What then must be said? Can someone choose not to be, rather than to be in a state of punishment? Therefore it must be said that "not to be" can be taken in two ways: either in itself, or by comparison to something else. In itself, I say that it is not choiceworthy, as Augustine says, but by comparison to something else it is choiceworthy, as Jerome says. Because this is not something in nature, but according to the apprehension of the soul it is taken as something, as "not to sit." But choice is taken from that which is apprehended: therefore to be without evil is taken as a good. When therefore one chooses it, one chooses it not for its own sake, but insofar as it excludes evil, as the Philosopher says. By this the answer to the second is clear. He says therefore that that which more removes one from evil is taken as nearer to happiness; hence, for a man with a fever, to be without the fever seems to be happiness, because he seems not to be under miseries; hence it is better not to be, than to be under miseries. "And Judas, who betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi?" It should be noted that he said this in pretense; hence, because he delayed in asking, he signified that he was sorrowful, but it was a pretense. Likewise, the others call him Lord, but this one calls him Master. Yet he was both; John 13:13: "you call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am." "He said to him: thou hast said it." Note the meekness of the Lord. Above, Matthew 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart"; and this so that he might give us an example of meekness; hence he says "thou hast said it," that is, you have confessed it. Or: you say these things — I do not assert it, but you say it. Hence it is not the word of one asserting. For he did not wish to expose him; as if he were saying: I do not assert it, but you say it.”

“The Son of Man indeed goeth, &c. Good were it for 172 that man if he had not been born. For “ far better is it not to exist at all, than to exist in evil The punishment is foretold, that him whom shame had not conquered, the denunciation of punishment might correct,” says S. Jerome. He threatens him with the woe of damnation. For far better is it not to be, than to exist only to be endlessly miserable, as I have shown on Eccles. iv. 2, 3. Wisely does S. Jerome say (Fpist. ad Furiam ), “ It is not their beginning which is inquired about in Christians, but their ending. Paul began badly but ended well Judas* beginning was comr mended, but his end was to be condemned as a traitor.” Goeth. “ By this word,” says Victor of Antioch, “ Christ showeth that His death is like rather to a departure or passing away, than to real death. He signifies, likewise, by it that He went voluntarily to death.” Moreover, the betrayal of Judas was an act of infinite sacrilege, perpetrated directly against the very Person of Christ and God. Thus it was true deicide. Wherefore it is exceedingly probable that Judas abides in the deepest pit of Gehenna, near to Lucifer, and is there grievously tormented. And this seems to be indicated by the word woe, which Christ here pronounces upon him above the rest of the reprobates. Blessed Francis Borgia was wont, in meditation, in the depth of his humility, to place himself at the feet of Judas, that is to say, in the lowest pit of hell, exclaiming that there was no other place fit for him, neither in Heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, as the due reward of his sins”

“Then Judas, which betrayed him,.... Or that was about to betray him, as the Ethiopic version reads it: he had taken a step towards it, was seeking an opportunity to do it, and at length effected it: the Persic version reads, Judas Iscariot; who after all the rest had put the question, answered and said, Master, is it I? Who though he knew what he had been doing, and what he further resolved to do, and was conscious to himself he was the man; nay, though he had been pointed out as the person, and the most dreadful woe denounced on him, that should be the betrayer, in his hearing; yet all this did not at all affect his marble heart; but in the most audacious manner, and without any concern of mind, or show of guilt, asks if he was the person; suggesting, that surely he could, not mean him. It is observed by some, that the word Rabbi, used by Judas, is a more honourable name than that of Lord, used by the disciples; thereby reigning to give Christ more honour, and exceed in his respect to him, than the rest of the disciples; in order, if he could, to cover his wicked designs: he said unto him, thou hast said: that is, it is as thou hast said; thou hast said right, thou art the man; a way of speaking used, when what is asked is assented to as truth: thus it being "said to a certain person, is Rabbi dead? He replied to them, , "ye have said"; and they rent their clothes (i).'' Taking it for granted, by that answer, that so it was. (i) T. Hieros Kilaim, fol. 32. 2.”