Augustinus, In Joannis Evangelium tractatus LI-LXIV

in spirit, let them look upon Him, lest, thinking themselves reprobate for this very reason, they be swallowed up by the worse death of despair. How great a good, then, ought we to expect and hope for from the participation of His divinity, Whose very disturbance calms us, and Whose weakness makes us firm? Whether, then, in this place He was troubled out of pity for Judas himself as he perished, or was troubled as His own death drew near, it is nevertheless in no way to be doubted that He was troubled not by weakness of soul but by power; lest despair of salvation arise in us when we are troubled not by power but by weakness. For He bore the weakness of the flesh, which weakness was consumed by the resurrection. But He Who was not only man but also God surpassed the whole human race in fortitude of soul by an ineffable distance. He was not, therefore, troubled under compulsion from anything, but He troubled Himself; and this is expressly stated of Him when He raised Lazarus: for there it is written that He troubled Himself (John 11:33), so that this may be understood also where it is not read written, and yet He is read to have been troubled. For He Who took up the whole man by power stirred human feeling in Himself by power, when He judged it fitting.

Tractate 61.

From where the Lord says, Amen, amen I say to you, that one of you will betray Me; as far as, He it is to whom I shall hand the dipped bread. Chapter 13, verses 21-26.

1. This little chapter of the Gospel, brothers, has been set before us for exposition in this reading in such a way that we must now also say something about the betrayer of the Lord, who was made quite plainly known by the bread dipped and handed to him. And indeed, concerning the fact that Jesus, when He was now about to point him out, was troubled in spirit, I discoursed in the previous sermon; but perhaps, what I did not say there, the Lord deigned to signify to us by His disturbance this also: namely, that false brothers and those tares of the Lord's field must be tolerated among the wheat until the time of harvest (Matt. 13:29–30), in such a way that, when some urgent cause compels some of them to be separated even before the harvest, this cannot take place without disturbance to the Church. This disturbance of His saints, which was to come through schismatics and heretics, the Lord, as it were foretelling it, prefigured in Himself when, as Judas, a wicked man, was about to go out and to leave by a most open separation the mixture of the wheat in which he had long been tolerated, He was troubled not in the flesh but in spirit. For His spiritual ones are troubled in scandals of this kind not by perversity but by charity, lest perhaps in the separation of some tares some of the wheat be rooted up at the same time.

2. Jesus, then, was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, that one of you will betray Me. One of you: in number, not in merit; in appearance, not in virtue; by bodily mingling, not by spiritual bond; a companion by conjunction of the flesh, not by unity of heart: therefore not one who is of you, but one who is about to go out from you. For how will what the Lord testified be true, when He said, One of you, if

true what the same man says in his Epistle, whose this Gospel is: 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 (1 John 2:19)? Judas, therefore, was not of them; for he would have remained with them, if he had been of them. What then is, One of you will betray Me, unless, One of you is going to go out, who will betray Me? For he too who says, If they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us, had already said, They went out from us. And so both are true, both of us and not of us: in one respect of us, in another respect not of us; according to the communion of the Sacraments of us, according to the particular character of their own crimes, not of us.

3. The disciples therefore looked at one another, uncertain of whom He was speaking. For such was the devout love in them towards their Master that human weakness nevertheless pricked them, one about another. Each one's conscience was indeed known to himself; but because his neighbour's was unknown, each was so sure of himself that each individually was unsure about the rest, and the rest about each individually.

4. There was therefore reclining one of His disciples in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved. What he meant by in the bosom he says a little later, where he says, upon the breast of Jesus. He is John, whose this Gospel is, as he afterwards makes plain (John 21:20–24). For this was the custom of those who have ministered the sacred Scriptures to us, that when the divine history was being narrated by any one of them, on coming to himself he would speak as if of another; and thus he would insert himself into the order of his narrative as a writer of things done, not as a proclaimer of his own self. For holy Matthew too did this, who, when in the course of his narrative he had come to himself, says, He saw a certain publican sitting at the tax office, named Matthew, and said to him, Follow Me (Matt. 9:9): he does not say, He saw me and said to me. Blessed Moses also did this; he narrated everything about himself as if about another, and says: The Lord said to Moses (Exod. 6:1). More unusually the apostle Paul did this, not in a history, where a narrative of things done is undertaken to be set forth, but in an Epistle. For he certainly says of himself: I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago (whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows), such a one caught up even to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2). Therefore, that here too the blessed Evangelist does not say, I was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, but says, One of the disciples was reclining, let us recognize it as the custom of our authors rather than wonder at it. For what is lost to truth when both the thing itself is told and, by a certain manner of speaking, boasting is avoided? For he was narrating what pertained to his own very great praise.

5. But what is whom Jesus loved? As though He did not love the others, of whom the same John said above, He loved them to the end (John 13:1). And the Lord Himself: Greater love than this no one has, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). And who could enumerate all the testimonies of the divine pages by which the Lord Jesus, not only of that man nor only of those who were then, but also of His members who were to come afterwards,

and of His whole Church, is shown to be the lover? But assuredly something lies hidden here, and it pertains to the bosom on which he was reclining who was saying these things. For what is signified by the bosom but a secret? But there is another, more fitting place, where the Lord may grant us to say something of this secret, as much as may suffice.

6. Simon Peter therefore beckons, and says to him. The expression is to be noted, that something is said not by sounding, but only by beckoning: He beckons, it says, and says; that is, he says by beckoning. For if something is said by thinking, as Scripture speaks, They said within themselves (Wis. 2:1); how much more by beckoning, where what had been conceived in the heart is now brought forth outwardly by signs of whatever kind? What then did he say by beckoning? What, but what follows? Who is it of whom He speaks? These words Peter beckoned; because he spoke not by the sound of the voice, but by a movement of the body. So when he had leaned back upon the breast of Jesus. This is indeed the bosom of the breast, the secret of wisdom. He says to Him: Lord, who is it? Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall hold out the dipped bread. And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, son of Simon, Iscariot. And after the bread, then Satan entered into him. The betrayer was disclosed, the hiding-places of darkness were laid bare. It was a good thing that he received, but he received it to his own harm, because, being evil, he received the good evilly. But concerning this dipped bread which was held out to the false one, and concerning the things that follow, much must be said: for which more time is needed than we now have, being already at the end of this sermon.

Tractate 62. From what is written, And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas; up to this, Now is the Son of Man glorified. Chapter 13, verses 26-31.

1. I know, dearly beloved, that some may be troubled, whether the devout so as to inquire, or the impious so as to find fault, that after the Lord gave the dipped bread to His betrayer, Satan entered into him. For thus it is written: And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas, son of Simon, Iscariot; and after the bread then Satan entered into him. For they say: Did the bread of Christ, held out from the table of Christ, deserve this, that after it Satan should enter into His disciple? To whom we reply that from this we are rather taught how much one must beware of receiving a good thing evilly. For it matters much, not what one receives, but who receives it; nor what sort of thing is given, but what sort of person he is to whom it is given. For both good things harm and evil things profit, according as those are to whom they are given. Sin, says the Apostle, that sin might appear, worked death in me through what is good (Rom. 7:13). Behold, through good evil was done, while the good is received evilly. And likewise he himself says, "Lest I be exalted by the greatness of my revelations, there was given to me a goad of my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me. For which reason I asked the Lord three times that He would take it away from me, and He said to me: My grace is sufficient for you; for power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:7–9). Behold, through evil good was done, while the evil is received well. Why then do you marvel if the bread of Christ was given to Judas, through which he was delivered over to the devil;

since you see, on the contrary, that an angel of the devil was given to Paul, through whom he was to be perfected in Christ? So both the good thing did harm to the bad man, and the bad thing did good to the good man. Remember whence it is written, Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27). And it was about these that the discourse was, when the Apostle said this, those who were taking the Lord's body indiscriminately and carelessly, as if it were any other food whatever. If therefore he is rebuked here who does not judge rightly, that is, does not distinguish the Lord's body from other foods, how is he condemned who comes to His table feigning a friend, an enemy? If the negligence of a guest is touched with reproof, with what punishment is the seller of his host struck? But what was the bread given to the traitor, if not a demonstration of the grace to which he had been ungrateful?

2. After this bread, therefore, Satan entered into the Lord's betrayer, so that he might more fully possess the one already handed over to him, into whom he had earlier entered in order to deceive him. For it is not that he was not in him when he went to the Jews and bargained over the price for betraying the Lord, since Luke the evangelist most plainly testifies to this and says: But Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve; and he went away and spoke with the chief priests (Luke 22:3–4). See where it is shown that Satan had already entered into Judas. He had therefore entered earlier, by sending into his heart the thought by which he would betray Christ: for such a man had he already come to supper. But now after the bread he entered into him, not to tempt him still as another's, but to possess him as his own.

3. Yet it was not then, as some who read carelessly suppose, that Judas received the body of Christ. For it must be understood that the Lord had already distributed to all of them the Sacrament of His body and blood, where Judas himself also was, as Saint Luke most clearly narrates (ibid. 22:19–21): and then it came to this point, where, according to John's narration, the Lord most plainly marks out His betrayer by a morsel dipped and held out, perhaps signifying by the dipping of the bread that man's feigning. For not all things that are dipped are washed clean; rather, some things are dipped in order to be stained. But if the dipping signifies something good here, condemnation not undeservedly followed the man ungrateful for that same good.

4. Yet for Judas, possessed not by the Lord but by the devil, when the bread had entered into the ungrateful man's belly and the enemy into his mind, there still remained, I say, the full effect of so great an evil already conceived in his heart, of which the damnable disposition had already gone before. And so, when the Lord, the living bread, had handed bread to a dead man, and by handing the bread had shown the betrayer of the bread: What you do, He said, do more quickly. He did not command the crime; but He foretold evil for Judas, good for us. For what is worse for Judas, and what better for us, than Christ betrayed, by him, against him, for us, apart from him? What you do, do more quickly. O word of one ready rather than of one angry! O word expressing not so much the punishment of the betrayer,