Enarration of Denis the Carthusian on Matthew 26:14–25
Mt 26:14
“Then”—not on the day when the
anointing just described took place and when Jesus spoke these words,
but “then,” that is, about that time, namely on Wednesday—one of the
twelve Apostles, called Judas Iscariot (of whom before the Passion
Christ said, “Did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”),
went. Judas, therefore, was one of them by calling, not by
predestination; by name, not by merit.
After Judas went out, that holy
company was cleansed of the son of darkness and perdition; therefore
Christ immediately after Judas’s departure said, “Now is the Son of Man
glorified.” He is called Judas Iscariot because, as is read, he was born
in a village named Carioth, which was in the territory of Issachar.
Mt 26:15
He went to the chief priests, whom
he found assembled and reasonably judged to be consulting about the
death of Jesus—especially since he had heard from Christ that after two
days he would be delivered to be crucified—and said, “What will you give
me, and I will deliver him to you?” as if to say: I know why you have
gathered, and I am ready to bring your desire to effect, provided you
give me what I want as payment.
But they agreed—that is, they
promised—to give him thirty pieces of silver. According to Luke and Mark
they rejoiced when they heard Judas’s words, for he promised to deliver
him secretly. Therefore they changed their previous plan in which they
had said, “Not during the feast,” for it seemed to them that no more
fitting way of seizing Christ could be found than that he be sold and
delivered by his own disciple, since in this way they would appear in
some measure innocent and Christ would appear guilty, as one betrayed by
his own disciple to death.
Judas promised to deliver Jesus to
them when they had agreed upon thirty pieces of silver. The ointment
mentioned earlier was of such value, and Judas was so grieved at being
deprived of its price that, desiring to recover it, he sold Jesus. For
each of those thirty pieces of silver is said to have been worth ten
ordinary denarii, and thus thirty pieces amounted to three hundred
denarii, which was the price of that ointment, as has been shown.
O unhappy Judas, how little was the
Son of God worth in your estimation! Yet it is not surprising, since
you were avaricious. And the avaricious man has not only Christ but even
his own soul for sale.
Mt 26:16
“And from that time,” that is, from
that hour, Judas sought an opportunity—that is, a suitable place and
time—to deliver him to the Jews without the crowd that believed in or
gladly listened to Christ.
Mt 26:17–19
Now, on the first day of Unleavened Bread—that is, on Thursday of Passion Week, which was the vigil of the Preparation (Parasceve), and the fourteenth moon of April, as stated previously—it is called the "first day of Unleavened Bread," that is, of bread without leaven. This is because from the evening of this day, the Jews began to eat unleavened bread, which they continued to eat until the evening of the twenty-first day of the same month, namely for seven days, just as it was commanded in Exodus (12).
The disciples—that is, the Apostles—approached Jesus, saying: "Where do you wish us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" that is, the paschal lamb.
At this point, the disagreement which exists between the Latins and the Greeks concerning the time of the Supper and the Passion, as well as concerning the matter in which Christ consecrated His own body, ought to be examined.
The Greeks therefore say that Christ, knowing He was to be killed on the feast day of Passover (that is, on Friday, according to them), anticipated the eating of the paschal lamb by one day, consuming it on Wednesday, or the thirteenth moon. And because on this day the Jews ate leavened bread, they say that Christ consecrated [the Eucharist] in leavened bread, and thus they [the Greeks] consecrate, asserting that they are imitating the institution of Christ. They therefore say that Christ was crucified on Thursday of Holy Week.
But because this is manifestly contrary to the words of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who say that on the first day of Unleavened Bread Christ supped and instituted the Sacrament of the Altar, they burst forth into such madness as to say that these most blessed Evangelists erred and wrote falsely, and were corrected by John, who wrote his Gospel last, when he says: "Before the feast day of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come," etc. (John 13:1), where he teaches that the Supper was made on the day preceding the paschal solemnity.
They therefore prove their insanity first by the authority of John already alleged. For the "feast day of Passover" was called that on which the paschal lamb was immolated and eaten, namely Friday. Therefore, before this Friday, Christ supped and consecrated.
Secondly, by this which is had in John, that the Jews did not enter the praetorium of Pilate, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover (John 18:28). Therefore, on the day on which they ate the paschal lamb, they crucified Christ.
Thirdly, because the women prepared spices on the day of the Parasceve (Luke 23:56). But this was not permitted on Friday, because that day was most holy. Therefore, the day of the Parasceve on which Jesus suffered was Thursday, and the fourteenth moon.
But these persuasions of the Greeks are solved easily through a distinction of this name Pascha, which in the Divine Scriptures is accepted in various modes:
First, for the whole week of Unleavened Bread. Thus in the Acts of the Apostles it is said of Herod that he wished after the Passover to bring him forth (Acts 12:4), namely Peter, to the people.
Secondly, for the paschal solemnity itself, namely for the day following the evening on which the paschal lamb was eaten, namely for the day or the fifteenth moon. Thus it is taken, according to one exposition, in Luke: The day of the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1).
Thirdly, for the hour of the immolation and eating of the paschal lamb, just as it is written in Mark: It was the Passover and the Unleavened Bread after two days (Mark 14:1).
Fourthly, for any food or bread with which the Jews fed during the paschal solemnity. Thus it is taken in John: The Jews did not enter the praetorium... that they might eat the Passover (John 18:28). That is, [they might eat] the unleavened bread with which alone they fed for seven days, nor was it permitted for them to eat these breads unless they were clean according to the Law, according to which they were defiled by entering the house of Gentiles. By this, the solution to the second argument of the Greeks is clear. For John does not take Pascha in the aforementioned place for the paschal lamb, but for unleavened breads.
Fifthly, it is accepted for the paschal lamb itself.
Sixthly, for the figure of that lamb, that is, for Christ, concerning whom the Church sings: "For Christ our Passover is immolated" (1 Cor 5:7).
Seventhly, for the festivity of the paschal meals, just as it is written: There was no such Passover from the days of the Judges as Josiah made (2 Chronicles 35:18).
From these things, moreover, the response to the first objection of the Greeks is clear. For when John says, "Before the feast day of the Passover," etc., he does not take the "feast day" for the day of the immolation of the lamb, but for the following day which was more solemn, whose solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day.
To their third persuasion, it must be said that to prepare ointments for a dead person by anointing was not a servile work, but a religious and pious one; therefore, it was permitted on the day of the Parasceve.
Finally, according to the truth, the legal or ceremonial [rites] of the Law ceased immediately when Christ was offered or suffered, as far as obligation is concerned.
It is evident, therefore, that Christ celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday. And because then the Jews did not use leavened bread, it is established that Christ consecrated in unleavened bread. Again, because He came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it, it is certain that He did not eat the flesh of the paschal lamb with leavened breads, but with unleavened.
Lastly, that the Greeks assert that the three Evangelists erred confounds and destroys the authority and firmness of Canonical Scripture. For by what reason is it conceded that the Apostles, Evangelists, or Prophets erred somewhere, by the same reason it would be conceded that they erred elsewhere, as though speaking by their own sense and human spirit. From this also [it would follow] that Scripture was not given and inspired by the Holy Spirit, which the Savior says: "The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name... He will teach you all things and suggest to you all things whatsoever I have said to you" (John 14:26, 16:13).
Moreover, what appearance of truth has it that the three Evangelists would have forgotten on what day Christ supped and suffered, of whom one was present at the Supper, and another was instructed by Peter, and the third also testifies that he heard the things which he wrote from the Apostles themselves (Luke 1:2)?
It must be noted, however, that as Thomas [Aquinas] reports, the whole Church at first consecrated in unleavened bread, just as Christ did. Afterwards, when the heresy of those arose who said that legal [rites] were to be kept along with the Gospel, the whole Church, by the familiar counsel of the Holy Spirit, consecrated in leavened bread, lest it seem to Judaize and so that that heresy might be destroyed. Whence, this heresy having ceased, the Latin Church again, as of old, consecrates in unleavened bread. The Greeks, however, irrationally kept the ancient custom. For the cause having ceased, the effect ought to cease. Hence, therefore, the later Greeks, for the defense of their error, fabricated many lies, affirming that Christ consecrated in leavened bread, and the other things which have been commemorated already and reproved.
Mt 26:18
But Jesus said: "Go into the city to a certain man." He does not express whom, but according to Luke and Mark, Christ gave the disciples whom He sent a sign for knowing the house and the person to whom they were sent, namely that entering into the city, a man carrying a jar of water would meet them, whom they should follow into the house which he entered, and say to the master or father of the family of that house what follows: "The Master says," namely Christ, the supreme Master, who says: "Do not be called Rabbi... for one is your Master, Christ" (Matt 23:8, 10).
From this it appears that this citizen of Jerusalem was a disciple of Christ, whom he recognized to be designated by the name of Master, although perhaps hidden, just as Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38). According to Chrysostom, this man was magnanimous, who dared to host and treat Christ and His disciples well against the will of the pontiffs, Scribes, and Pharisees. But Christ could most easily give him this magnanimity and all perfection of virtues, infusing it by creating [it in him].
Jerome says that the name of this man is not explained because such a mode of speaking is frequent in the Old Testament and in the idiom of the Hebrews. Moreover, Ambrose says that therefore his name is not expressed so that he might be esteemed to have been ignoble. Whence, according to Ambrose, he was not rich or powerful, but Christ chose the lodging of a poor host.
Others say the opposite, and this is estimated to be truer, because concerning this man it is written, Luke testifying: "He will show you a large upper room furnished" (Luke 22:12). Which upper room or dwelling was indeed so large that in it sat one hundred and twenty men, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15). But poor men are not accustomed to have such houses. I estimate, therefore, that this man was very powerful, rich, and noble, not needing to fear the Jews. Otherwise, how would he have dared, even after the Passion of Christ until the day of Pentecost, to keep the disciples of Christ in his house, whom, as I suppose, he often supported, since they were poor and rarely dared to go out? For the Savior wished to have even some rich disciples, by whom He and His might sometimes be sustained, namely Lazarus, Martha, etc.
"My time is at hand," that is, the hour of My Passion now approaches. "I keep the Passover at your house," that is, in your house I will eat the paschal lamb with My disciples.
Mt 26:19-20
And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them, and prepared the Passover, that is, they cooked the paschal lamb. These disciples were Peter and John, as Luke has it.
And when evening was come, that is, at the evening hour of Thursday, on which after midday He came from Bethania, as is believed, to Jerusalem, He sat down, that is, He ate the Passover with His twelve disciples, that is, the Apostles. Therefore, some of the number of the seventy-two disciples do not seem to have been present, although some say the opposite, namely that they were present.
And as they were eating, namely Christ and the disciples, Jesus said: "Amen I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." Just as concerning the Passion, so now concerning the traitor He pronounces, so that, as much as is in Him, He might recall him from so evil a purpose. For Judas, who was conscious to himself of so great a crime, would have deservedly repented hearing himself noted; and yet, feeling himself so patiently and piously tolerated by his own Master...
Mt 26:21–22
And they being very much grieved. They were grieved for a threefold cause: firstly and most of all, because of the most impious betrayal and impending death of their innocent and beloved Master; secondly, because each of them feared for himself, lest through human fragility he might incur such a crime, knowing the words of their Master could not be lying; thirdly, because there was among them someone so perverse, for the crime of one from the congregation often redounds upon the whole congregation, and a good colleague grieves for the lapse of a companion as for his own.
Therefore they began to say every one, or together or separately or successively: "Is it I, Lord?" According to Mark, they questioned one by one: "Is it I, Lord?" (Mark 14:19). Each of the eleven Apostles knew that he did not have the purpose of doing that act, but he asks that he might be excused and certified by Christ that he is not about to perpetrate so great a flagitious deed. And perhaps they asked so that Christ might show the traitor, which having been done, they themselves might restrain him and impede the betrayal of their Master.
In John it is read that when Christ had said this, they looked one at another (John 13:22). Finally, Luke has it that they began to inquire among themselves which of them it was that would do this (Luke 22:23). First, therefore, they inquired among themselves, and when they presumed nothing of the sort concerning any of them, they questioned the Master individually, according to Mark.
Mt 26:23
But He answering, said: "He who dips his hand with Me in the dish," that is, in a square vessel in which there were meats of the lamb, which Mark calls a catinus (basin), because it was earthenware (Mark 14:20). He will betray Me.
By this He did not designate Judas openly, as some say, nor did He give an evident sign, because He did not wish to publish a hidden sinner nor impede His own Passion. In Mark it is read that Christ responded: "One of the twelve." From which some elicit that other disciples were also present.
Besides this indeterminate sign, Christ gave a certain and determined sign concerning the traitor. For as it is read in John, John himself was reclining or leaning in the bosom of Jesus, and rested upon the breast of Jesus as a familiar, pre-beloved, and as it were son. To whom Peter nodded and said: "Who is it of whom He speaks?" And John said to Jesus secretly: "Lord, who is it?" And Jesus said: "He it is, to whom I shall reach bread dipped." And when He had dipped it, He reached the sop to Judas. Nevertheless, Christ so disposing, John did not indicate this sign to Peter, because from the fervor of love toward Jesus, he would soon have invaded the traitor, nor was it fitting that such a disturbance should happen at the Supper of a peaceful Master.
Mt 26:24
"The Son of Man indeed goes," to death, as it is written of Him in the books of the Prophets, namely in the Psalm where it is foretold that He is to be betrayed by His disciple. For "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has magnified his supplanting against me" (Ps 40:10). And again: "I am esteemed with those that go down into the pit: I am become as a man without help, free among the dead" (Ps 87:5-6). Isaiah also: "As a sheep to the slaughter He shall be led" (Isa 53:7). And "He was offered because He willed." Likewise Jeremiah: "I," he says, "as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim" (Jer 11:19).
"But woe," that is, eternal damnation, is due and impends to that man by whom," that is, by whom, the Son of Man shall be betrayed."
"It were better for him," that is, to be desired, and it would be a lesser evil for the traitor, if that man had not been born," that is, if he had never proceeded from non-being to being. For it would have been better never to have been than to perpetrate such great crimes, and to be deprived of grace and glory forever. But it is more desirable for a man absolutely not to be than to be damned, because of eternal and most penal misery. And although to be damned is not worse than not to be by reason of the penalty (which does not take away all created being), yet it is worse by reason of the guilt and the eternal aversion annexed, and it is in all modes more undesirable to be damned than not to be, on the part of the damned one, although not on the part of the thing [of existence itself]. Nor is it doubtful that the wretched in hell would wish themselves not to be.
Mt 26:25
But Judas, who betrayed Him, answering, said: "Is it I, Rabbi?" Therefore he inquires, lest if he himself were silent, with others questioning, he might make himself suspect, as though fearing more than the others and evil to his own conscience. And that he might show himself more innocent and secure than the others, he names Jesus not "Lord" but "Master," as though showing a flattering affection and a charitable and docile submission. For simulators and cunning men are accustomed to speak thus and use singular names, lest anything evil be estimated concerning them.
He said to him: "You have said it," that is, you have expressed the truth, although you have not expressed it under the form of a proposition and affirmation. For by saying "Is it I?" he said "I am," which was true. Whence, the sign of interrogation omitted, he expressed the truth.
Not only by this response but also by that which He said above: "He who dips his hand with Me in the dish, he will betray Me," Christ gave Judas to understand that he was the traitor and that Christ Himself knew this. For as Jerome says: When Christ had said "One of you will betray Me," the other disciples ceased eating from sorrow; but Judas, with the temerity and impudence with which he was about to betray his Master, still placed his hand with Him in the basin. And so, what He said "He who dips with Me," etc., could at that time be understood of Judas alone, although the disciples did not notice this. For omnipotent Christ so noted and warned Judas by His words that it latently [escaped] the others.
And in these things it must be weighed how moderately, orderly, and piously, and finally how terribly Christ admonished Judas. For first He said: "One of you will betray Me"; secondly: "He who dips with Me"; and He added the penalty: "Woe to that man," etc.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment