Translated by Qwen.
St. Anselm of Canterbury’s Enarration on Matthew 26:14-25
Then one of the twelve went away…
Mt 26:14 “Then one went away”—namely, at that very time when the chief priests were gathered together—“one of the twelve went away,” not summoned, not compelled, but of his own accord entering into a wicked counsel, desiring to compensate for the outpouring of ointment upon his Master with the price of betrayal.
Mt 26:15 He did not even stipulate a fixed sum in order to carry out his treacherous act; rather, like a cheaply sold slave, he left it to the buyers to offer whatever amount they pleased. “And they agreed to give him thirty pieces of silver”—the very same price for which Joseph was sold by his brothers.
Mt 26:16 It follows: “And from that time he sought an opportunity to betray Him when there was no crowd.”
Many today who curse Judas’s deed do the very same thing: whenever, for the sake of reward, they bear false witness, or deny the truth, they sell God—who is Truth itself. By violating charity, they betray God—who is Charity Himself—especially when they do this not out of ignorance, but after deliberately seeking the opportunity to do so.
Mt 26:17 “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread…”
He calls the “first day of Unleavened Bread” the fourteenth day of the first month, when, having cast aside leaven, the Jews customarily sacrificed—that is, slaughtered—the paschal lamb toward evening. Although Christ was crucified on the following day (the fifteenth moon), He nevertheless, on this night—when the lamb was being slain—handed over to His disciples the mystery of His Body and Blood to be celebrated. For it was at this moment that He was seized and bound by the Jews; thus, the immolation of the true Lamb—His Passion—began.
“Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
Note that He had no fixed dwelling place. From this we see how superfluous is the building of elaborate houses.
Mt 26:18-19 “But Jesus said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man…’”
Mark adds: “Go into the city, and a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready; there make preparation.’”
Thus, He did not identify the man by name, but by signs—so as to manifest His divine foreknowledge, by which He could beforehand reveal to His disciples things that would happen elsewhere. Therefore, He again chose to indicate the man by signs rather than by name, because through signs He wished to signify something mystical.
Whoever wishes to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must follow the water-bearer. Water signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit; elsewhere it is said: “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”—and this, Scripture explains, refers to the Holy Spirit. The water-bearer represents the preacher, who ought to offer spiritual grace to all. The pitcher (lagena) signifies the preacher’s fragility, of which the Apostle says: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.”
Therefore, whoever desires to celebrate the Lord’s Passover should follow such a preacher, who will lead him to the house of the Church. There, the “master of the house”—that is, the ecclesiastical prelate—will show him where the Lord’s Passover is to be celebrated. “He will show you a large upper room, furnished.” This upper room, situated above other rooms, signifies the height and depth of the mystery of the sacraments of God. Thus, whoever celebrates the Lord’s Passover ought to do so “on high”—not “below.” One celebrates it “on high” who understands something beyond the sign itself—that is, beyond the literal lamb—and does not merely observe the outward figures of the Old Law. But one celebrates it “below” who receives only the legal types and perceives nothing spiritual beneath them.
For this reason, the Gospel omits the names of the Lord’s hosts: because, at that time, they were still designated not by personal names but by signs. For there was as yet no honor in the Christian name—neither in its prelates nor in its preachers.
Mt 26:20 “And when evening had come, He reclined with His twelve disciples…”
He supped with them in the evening because, in Christ’s Passion—when the true Sun hastened toward its setting—the eternal refreshment was prepared for all the faithful.
Mt 26:21 “And as they were eating, He said: ‘Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.’”
Out of the greatness of His mercy, the Lord sought in many ways to recall His traitorous disciple to repentance: through hidden indications, through warnings, through the sacrament of unity, and through the example of humility.
Through hidden indications: Though Judas thought his conscience was hidden from God, Christ showed it was manifest—yet He did not name the disciple, lest openly reproving him should harden him further. By touching upon the crime without naming the sinner, He invited him to repentance.
By silence regarding the name, He avoided making him more shameless.
Through warnings, He said: “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!”
Through the sacrament of unity, He gave him His own Body.
Through the example of humility, He washed his feet.
Mt 26:22 “They were exceedingly sorrowful…”
It is certain that the eleven disciples were not fully conscious of their own innocence; yet they trusted their Master more than themselves. Fearing their own human frailty, lest some hidden will to betray might arise within them, they asked Him—whose knowledge penetrates all future things—saying: “Is it I, Lord?”
Mt 26:23 “He who dips his hand with Me in the dish…”
When the betrayer persisted in his evil, Christ rebuked him more openly—yet still did not explicitly name him. While the others, stricken with grief, withdrew their hands, Judas—with the same boldness and shamelessness with which he intended betrayal—dared to put his hand into the dish with his Master, as if his audacity could counterfeit a good conscience.
Matthew says “in the dish” (paropsis); Mark says “in the bowl” (catinus). A paropsis is a square vessel for food, named from its equal sides (paribus assibus). A catinus is an open earthenware vessel for pouring liquid. It could well be that, at table, an earthenware bowl was placed within a square frame.
Mt 26:24 “The Son of Man indeed goes as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
Though admonished once and again, Judas did not withdraw his foot from betrayal. Instead, he fed his own shamelessness on the Lord’s patience and stored up for himself the wrath of God. Therefore, punishment is foretold—not to satisfy vengeance, but so that the announcement of coming torment might correct him whom shame had failed to move.
And even today—and forevermore—woe is due to that person who approaches the Lord’s table with malice in his heart, who, steeped in some hidden sin, dares without fear to partake of these sacred mysteries.
“It would have been better for that man if he had never been born.”
This is to be understood simply and literally—as if to say: Far better never to have existed at all than to exist so wickedly. This does not mean that non-existence is inherently preferable to existence (for one who does not exist cannot be made good), but it is a common way of speaking.
Moreover, the phrase “if that man had not been born” can be understood in two ways:
“If he had not been born”—that is, if Judas had never come into being.
Or, “if that man [Christ] had not been born”—though this is less likely.
Alternatively, the verse may be interpreted comparatively: It would have been better—i.e., less evil—for Judas if he had not been born into the faith, into the election of the Apostles through Christ’s call. For unless he had been “born” through that vocation, he would not have become an apostate through betrayal.
Or again: It would have been better if he had not been born into the world at all—but had died in his mother’s womb as a miscarriage.
Mt 26:25 “Then Judas, who betrayed Him, answered and said: ‘Is it I, Rabbi?’”
Since the other disciples had asked sadly, he too questioned Christ—lest by remaining silent he appear guilty and betray himself. Others said, “Lord”; but he said, “Rabbi”—as if he regarded betraying a mere teacher as less grave than betraying a Lord. In this, he revealed a flattering affectation, pretending affection while plotting treachery.
“He said to him: ‘You have said it.’”
As if to say: You have accused yourself—not I. You, by your question, have confessed the truth.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment