Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 26

The Evangelist, having related the preparatory events for the Passion, here begins to discuss Christ’s Passion, which is divided into two parts. First, the Passion is recounted concerning what was done by the Jews; and second, it is recounted regarding what was done by the Gentiles: And when morning was come, etc. (Matthew 27:1). Concerning the first part, he addresses two things. First, the foretelling of the Lord’s Passion is related; and second, the Passion and the order of events are related, where it is said, Then went one of the twelve.

The Passion is foretold in three ways: by Christ’s words, by the plotting of His enemies, and third, by an action and homage. The second part is where it is said, Then were gathered together the chief priests and ancients of the people; and the third part is where it is said, And when Jesus was in Bethany.

Concerning the first point, he first relates the order of the foretelling, and then the foretelling itself. He relates the foretelling, where it is said: And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended all these words.

And the Evangelist speaks this way because Christ is the only one who can complete them. We ourselves can begin but not complete, as it is written: We say much, and yet want words . Likewise, he says, These words, namely, the words which Jesus had said from the beginning of His preaching, among which Jesus had said, Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17). Or he is referring to the words which He had said concerning the foretelling of glory, because His Passion was an exaltation of glory: For which cause, God also hath exalted him and hath given him a name which is above all names, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9–11). Similarly, he does not merely say that Christ completed ‘all His words,’ but instead, all these words, because He spoke everything that would be useful for believers and for the faith.

You know that after two days shall be the pasch. In this prediction, He does not merely predict the Pasch, but instead He says: After two days shall be the pasch. This was done to designate that Christ’s Passion is not just any suffering, but one signified by the Paschal sacrifice. And He says, After two days. By this, you should consider that these words were spoken on the thirteenth day of the lunar month, that is, on Tuesday, because on the fifteenth day the Pasch is celebrated. It is stated in John 12 that the Lord came to Bethany, and this was Saturday. The next day He came to Jerusalem, and He then cast out the buyers and the sellers. On the following day, He returned to Bethany, and then on that day He delivered these parables.

And on that day, when He had ended all these words, He said: You know that after two days shall be the pasch. This name Pascha, according to what Jerome says, is derived from the word for feeding, but more properly it is derived from the Phase [Pasach], which means Passover.

Now there is a fourfold Passover, in that the Pasch may be understood in four ways:

• Historically, the Pasch was celebrated when the destroyer slew the firstborn of Egypt; then the Lord commanded that they eat the Pasch (Exodus 12).
• Allegorically, it is understood as Christ’s passing away by death; concerning this it is written: Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father, etc. (John 13:1).
• Moreover, in the moral or typical sense, it is understood as one having passed from a worldly way of life to a spiritual way of life: Come over to me, all ye that desire me .
• Again, there is a general passage, in that it is said that heaven and earth shall pass away, etc.

Hence, it is said, after two days, namely, after the teaching of the Old Law and of the New Law. In Greek, the word Pasch is derived from the word pasqui, which means to be driven to pasture. Therefore, Christ, suitably knowing that He would pass from the world to His Father, said: And the Son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified.

He does not say by whom He shall be delivered up, because He was delivered up by His Father: He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Romans 8:32). Likewise, He was delivered up by Himself: He hath loved us and hath delivered himself for us, etc. (Ephesians 5:2). Similarly, He was delivered up by Judas: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? (Matthew 26:15). Moreover, He was delivered up by the Jews to Pilate: Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me (John 18:35). Again, He was delivered up by Pilate to the Gentiles; hence, it is said: He delivered him to them to be crucified (John 19:16).

Then were gathered together the chief priests, etc. In this part, the perverse plan of the Pharisees is related. First, their plan concerning Christ’s Passion is related; and second, their plan concerning a delay is related, where it is said, But they said: Not on the festival day.

Concerning the first point, we can observe that the Jews’ sin is aggravated by the time of their sin, because their sin was then, when the Paschal festival was at hand: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy own will in my holy day (Isaiah 58:13). But, as I believe, the word then does not refer to that very day, but to about that time, because it is stated in John 11 that They gathered a council and from that day therefore they devised to put him to death (John 11:47, 53). And, thereafter, it is said that Jesus withdrew into a region near the desert. Hence, this was not done immediately.

Likewise, the Jews’ sin is aggravated by several factors:

• By their large number; hence, it is said: My soul hateth your solemnities: for your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:14–15).
• By the status of those sinning, for they were the chief men; hence, it is said, chief priests: I will go to the great men, and will speak to them; and afterwards it continues, These have altogether broken the yoke more, and have burst the bonds (Jeremiah 5:5). And: The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord, and against his Christ (Psalms 2:2).
• By the place where they sinned, because they met in the court of the high priest. Hence, these men should have restrained others from evil, but they themselves were doing it: Iniquity came out from the ancient judges (Daniel 13:5).

But were there many chief priests? For the Lord had commanded that there would be only one chief priest, but he was not enough for them. Hence, on account of greed, they divided the chief priesthood. Likewise, they had already lost the chief priesthood, because they were buying the chief priesthood from the Romans. Or they call priests those who previously had been the high priests, and high priest the one who had held the office that year.

Likewise, what they were planning is mentioned: That by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus. And this was foolish, that is, to believe that they could apprehend by subtilty Him who knew all things: Their tongue is a piercing arrow, it hath spoken deceit (Jeremiah 9:8).

But they said: Not on the festival day. Here the delay is discussed, and the plan and the reason for the plan are related. But they said: Not on the festival day. Someone could say that they said this out of devotion; for that reason, the Evangelist eliminates this interpretation, saying: lest perhaps there should be a tumult among the people. For they knew that many held Him to be a prophet, and some even held Him to be Christ; for that reason, there was a dissension among the people, as it is stated in John 7 and John 10. Therefore, they feared that the people might take Him from their hands.

These men were thinking this, but Christ thought something else. Therefore, they were thinking two things: first, that they wanted to kill Him, and second, that He not be crucified on the feast day, which would signify that this immolation was superseding the immolation of the Paschal lamb.

And when Jesus was in Bethany. Here the foretelling is related by a woman’s action. First, the action is related; second, the reproach is related; and third, the excusing of the action is related. The second part is where it is said, And the disciples seeing it had indignation; and the third part is where it is said, And Jesus knowing it.

Concerning the first part, the Evangelist does four things:

1. The place is described.
2. The person is described.
3. The opportunity is related.
4. The deed is related.

First, the place is related in two ways, namely, in general and in particular. The general area is related when he says: And when Jesus was in Bethany; the particular place is related when he says: in the house of Simon the leper.

Note that he was not then a leper, but had been cured by Christ; for if he were then a leper, Christ would not have stayed with him, since that was forbidden in the Law. Nevertheless, both the general and particular places pertain to a mystery. Bethany means ‘house of obedience’; thus, His obedience is signified by this: He became obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8). Thus, it is fitting for Him to be in the house of a leper: And we have thought him as it were a leper (Isaiah 53:4). And He came there especially on account of these passages.

Another reason can be a literal one: specifically, it was so that this woman would have the confidence to come to Christ, because this leper was known to Mary, and his physical leprosy was cured by Him, and she was coming to be cured of her spiritual leprosy. And it should be noted that no one else is said to have come to Christ for spiritual health except this woman; for that reason, she deserved praise.

There came to him a woman. Consider the person. Matthew and Mark say that this happened in the same place, but John and Luke say it was not the same place (Luke 7; John 12). Therefore, this is an opinion of some, such as Origen, that there were multiple women.

Let us speak concerning the opinions of the two most prominent of these men. Jerome expressly says that this woman, about whom Luke speaks, was not the sister of Lazarus, because it is said of another woman that she anointed His feet, and of this woman that she anointed His head and feet. Ambrose, commenting on Luke’s Gospel, says that both can be said: that is, that she is the same woman, or that there are different women. If we say that she is the same, then we can say: ‘Even if she is the same woman, nevertheless, they do not have the same merit; but a sinner should not dare to touch His head, but after gaining confidence she anointed His head.’

And Augustine proves that she is the same woman, because in John 11:1-5, before she came to do this, he says: Now there was Mary the sister of Lazarus, who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair. Thus it seems that the woman of whom Luke speaks is the same as she who is the sister of Lazarus.

Origen says that the women—the one of whom Luke speaks and another of whom John speaks—are not the same. This can be proved by reason of the time, because that deed is read to have occurred before He went to Jerusalem; this was done when He says: You know that after two days shall be the pasch.

Likewise, it can be proved from the place, because the former woman was in Martha’s house (about whom it is written in John), while the latter was in the house of Simon.

Likewise, it can be proved by the fact that there a woman anointed His feet, but here a woman anointed His head. The fourth proof is what Judas said: To what purpose is this waste? But elsewhere he said, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor? (John 12:5).

Augustine says that she is the same woman and he replies to Origen’s reasons. To the first argument, he says that Matthew does not keep chronological order but relates the event, because due to this incident, Judas took the occasion of sinning when he saw the ointment poured out. What Origen objects to concerning the place, Augustine does not resolve. It can, however, be solved as follows: that this man was a high official and had authority, and the house belonged to them both because she was his relative. Otherwise, how else is it true what is said, namely, that They made him a supper there… and Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him (John 12:2)?

There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of ointment. Alabaster is a type of marble that is translucent, and some windows are made of it. Certain boxes were made out of this rock, in which ointments were stored (just as now they are made out of ground clay) because the ointments were preserved by its coolness; hence, the word alabastrum means an alabaster box full of ointment. It is said here to be precious, but elsewhere is said to be pistic nard. The word pistic is derived from the Greek word for ‘faith,’ from which pistic means ‘faithful.’ Hence, the word pistic means genuine or unadulterated. Afterwards, her action is related: And she poured it on his head as he was at table.

But here there is a twofold question. Why did Christ allow this, since it seems extravagant? Augustine replies to this in his book, On Christian Doctrine. Christ can be considered in one way as an ordinary person, and in another way as a prophetic person. Now considered as an ordinary person, this was something done to Him, but as a prophetic person, this was something done to Him as having a meaning.

An allegorical exposition is that it signifies Christ’s burial, because in ancient times it was customary that bodies would be anointed. In Mark 14 it is stated that she came beforehand to anoint His body for the burial.

Likewise, the anointing mystically signifies any good deed. Now this deed can be done in two ways, since some deeds are not done for God’s sake but for the sake of natural justice, such as a good deed of a Gentile; this is an ointment, but it is not precious. If one does a good deed for God’s sake, it is precious ointment. Hence, one anoints His feet when one does a good deed for the sake of one’s neighbor; but when one does a good deed for the glory of God, then one anoints His head.

But why does John say that she anointed His feet, while Matthew says that she anointed His head? Augustine says that she anointed both.

And why does Mark say that she broke the alabaster box? Augustine says that just as it sometimes happens that someone pours out a container so that nothing remains, and afterwards breaks the container, so, since nothing remained, she also broke it afterwards. Thus she did these things: she both poured out the ointment and also broke the container. Or, if someone wishes to misrepresent her actions, it can be said that she first anointed His feet, and then His head.

Then the rebuke of the woman follows: And the disciples seeing it had indignation. But here there is a conflict, because in John 12 it is said that only Judas said this, but this Evangelist says that they all spoke. There is a twofold answer, according to Jerome: for what is said here, that is, that the disciples spoke, is said by way of a synecdoche. ‘The disciples’ means ‘a disciple,’ and this manner of speech is common in Scripture; it is said, They were cut asunder (Hebrews 11:37), because one was cut asunder, specifically, no one else but Isaiah.

Or it can be said that all spoke, because, according to what Augustine says, Judas instigated them all to speak. Likewise, it can be said that the others were motivated by the needs of the poor, but this man (Judas) was motivated by greed; hence, they say: To what purpose is this waste?

But why did they say this? It is because they had heard the Lord often recommend works of mercy: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor (Matthew 19:21).

And Jesus knowing it, said to them. Here the excusing of the woman is related, and He does two things. First, He excuses and commends her; and second, He mentions her reward.

Amen I say to you, etc. First, He excuses her; second, He answers the disciples’ objection; and third, He explains what He had said. He says, therefore: Why do you trouble this woman? The Lord is always the advocate of this woman. Because the Pharisee was accusing her of sin, he said: If he were a prophet, he would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner, etc. (Luke 7:39), and the Lord excused her on the basis of her love.

Likewise, in Luke 10, Martha also accused her of idleness, and the Lord again excused her on the basis of her contemplation. Here, the disciples were accusing her for pouring out the ointment, and the Lord excuses her on the grounds of her devotion, saying: Why do you trouble this woman? You rush in upon the fatherless, and you endeavor to overthrow your friend (Job 6:27). She hath wrought a good work upon me; Do not withhold him from doing good, who is able: if thou art able, do good thyself (Proverbs 3:27).

Chrysostom says: It sometimes happens that someone does a good deed, generally speaking, and perhaps he could have done better. Therefore, one should act differently before the good deed and after the deed was done. After it has been done, one should be commended for the deed; but if the person were to come before doing the deed, he should be advised to do what is better. Therefore, one should suppose that if she had asked for His advice beforehand, He would have told her that she should give the ointment to the poor.

For the poor you have always with you, etc. Here, His answer to their objection is related, because they were saying that she could have given it to the poor. But me you have not always. This is true in relation to His bodily presence, but it is not true in relation to His spiritual presence. Hence, He says below: Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20). And why did she do this? For she in pouring this ointment on my body hath done it for my burial.

And what is this? Did she intend to bury Christ? No. But, as Augustine says, just as the Holy Ghost moves someone to speak, so other times He moves someone to act; hence, it is written: Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, are not under the law (Romans 8:14; Galatians 5:18). Hence, it happens that someone may be instructed by the Holy Ghost to act for some meaning which one does not intend. So this woman intended to do a good deed, but the Holy Ghost ordained it for His burial.

He says: She hath wrought a good work upon me. Someone could say that to give to one’s neighbor would be a good work. That is true, but it would not be so good that it would be preached throughout the whole world. Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done shall be told for a memory of her, meaning in remembrance of her.

Jerome says that He, being about to be crucified, foretells the spread of the Gospel in the whole world; and yet, it was not yet published, since Matthew had not yet written it. Likewise, observe that many men wanted to make known their own birth throughout the whole world, and the remembrance of them has been obliterated; yet, the remembrance of this deed has not been obliterated: The memory of the just is with praises (Proverbs 10:7); The just shall be in everlasting remembrance (Psalms 111:7).

Then went one of the twelve. Above, the Evangelist related the triple prediction of the Lord’s Passion; here he intends to narrate the Passion itself. He does two things: first, he introduces some preparatory events; and second, he treats of the Passion itself, where it is said, As he yet spoke, etc.

Now there are three preparatory events:

1. An account of the betrayal is related.
2. The institution of the Lord’s Communion is related.
3. An account of Christ’s prayer is related.

The second part is where it is said, And on the first day of the Azymes; and the third part is where it is said, Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani.

Concerning the first part, he does three things:

1. The person of the betrayer is described.
2. An account of the betrayal is related.
3. The caution of the betrayer is related.

Concerning the first part, he does three things. First, the person of the betrayer is described; second, an account of the betrayal is related; and third, the caution of the betrayer is related. He says, therefore, Then. You understand that he is not referring to what immediately preceded, because the account of this woman is said by a transposition; but it refers to what was said, that the chief priests and ancients of the people were gathered together… by subtilty they might apprehend Jesus and put him to death.

Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot. And his person is described by three things. He is described by his position, because he was one of the twelve—not merely one of the disciples, but one of the twelve specially called men: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil? (John 6:71).

But why did He choose a man who would be wicked and a traitor? The first reason can be to signify that He condemns no one because of his predestination, nor does He save anyone because of his predestination, but rather He saves on account of present justice. Hence, if a man were to be condemned on account of his predestination, deeds would not be ascribed to anyone.

Likewise, He chose him for the consolation of men, for He knew it would happen that many would be deceived in their choices (for example, this happened to Philip, who chose Simon the Magician); therefore, the Lord permitted that there be a traitor among His disciples.

Another reason could be so that no one would be reproached if someone in their group were wicked, since even in the first College of the Apostles, there was a wicked man.

Similarly, the person of the traitor is described by his name: Who was called Judas. Among the disciples there were two men who were called by this name; yet, one was wicked, by which it is indicated that some who confess God are good while others are wicked. Concerning the good it is said: Judea was made his sanctuary (Psalms 113:2). Concerning the wicked it is said: They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him (Titus 1:16).

Moreover, he is described by his homeland, Iscariot. It is a certain village, and it is interpreted to mean ‘memorial of death,’ because Judas’s sin is held in remembrance. This can refer to what is said: The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond (Jeremiah 17:1).

Went to the chief priests, who were intending to kill Christ, forgetting what was said: Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, etc. (Psalms 1:1). And Jacob says in Genesis 49:6: Let not my soul go into their counsel.

And said to them. Here the account of his betrayal is related. First, the account is related; and second, the perpetration of the betrayal is related. And first, his greed is considered; and second, his presumption is considered.

His greed is considered when he says: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? For the sake of money he despised all friendship: There is not a more wicked thing than to love money: for such a one setteth even his own soul to sale . This man, because he did not restrain his greed, fell into perdition. For because he saw that he was defrauded of the price of the ointment, he therefore wanted to recuperate it by betraying Christ.

Similarly, his presumption is mentioned when he says: I will deliver him unto you. It was great presumption to betray Him who knows all things. Likewise, he speaks as one who knows God very poorly, because when someone wishes to sell something which he loves, he gives a price to it; but when he has something of which he wants to unburden himself, he says, “Give me what seems right to you.” This man speaks in such a way: What will you give me? By this is meant, “Give me what you wish to give.” They set at naught the desirable land (Psalms 105:24).

But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. Origen says that those who send away God for some temporal good act in a similar way. For He dwells in us by faith; and then we send Him away when we adhere too much to temporal things. Hence, he said: But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver.

But why does he express himself this way? It is because it was signified by what was written: And they weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12). And it should not be said that Joseph was sold for thirty denarii, but Scripture maintains that he was sold for only twenty pieces of silver, meaning twenty denarii.

But what does it mean to say that there were thirty? It should be understood as follows: This number is composed of five and six, hence, five times six is thirty. By the number five, the five books of Moses are signified, or temporal things are signified, which are subject to the five senses; hence, it is signified that after the Law of Moses there will be salvation in the sixth age.

And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him. Here his caution is related. And why was he doing this? It was so that he might more easily and secretly perpetrate his crime, just as it is true of sinners, because he that doth evil hateth the light (John 3:20); and: The eye of the adulterer observeth darkness (Job 24:15).

Next, the Evangelist deals with the institution of the Blessed Sacrament. Because the new sacraments take the place of the old ones, as it is said, The new coming on, you shall cast away the old (Leviticus 26:10), he first deals with the old sacrament, and second, he deals with the new Sacrament.

Concerning the first part, he does two things:

1. The preparation of the Passover is related.
2. The prediction of His betrayal is related, at the words, While they were eating, he said, and so on.

And concerning the first point, he first indicates the time; second, the preparation of the meal is related; and third, the institution of the Sacrament is related. He says, therefore: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

An objection can be raised here: that this day was the first day of the Passover. This seems contrary to what is said in John 13:1: Before the festival day of the Passover, and so on. The Greeks say that Matthew, Luke, and Mark erred, and that John corrected them, because it happened before the day of the Passover. Therefore, they say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, and that He made the supper on the thirteenth day.

Consequently, they say that the Lord instituted the Sacrament not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread. They try to confirm this with many arguments. First, they argue from John 18:28, where it is said that they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover; and so on the day of the Passion, they were obliged to eat the Passover.

Likewise, another of their reasons is that the women prepared spices; therefore, and so on. But this cannot be upheld, because the Lord did not violate the ceremonies. For it is nowhere indicated that He anticipated the Passover, yet it is indicated that He extended the Passover.

And if it were conceded that the Passover was anticipated, this does not benefit the Greeks, because it is written that the Passover should be eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuces.

And so if they had done otherwise, they would have acted contrary to the Law. Thus, according to what the three Evangelists say, this was done on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, and then it was necessary to eat the Passover.

What, therefore, should be replied to what John says: Before the festival day of the Passover? It should be said that it was the custom for them to begin the day from the evening, so the Passover day began from the evening. This is stated in Exodus 12:14: On the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall celebrate the Passover. From that time, no leaven was found in the Jews' houses until the twenty-first day of the month.

Hence, if we calculate from the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, the preparation was made before the day of the Passover, yet it was the fourteenth day of the month. Therefore, John calls that day the day of unleavened bread, and the day of the Passover the fifteenth day of the month.

What the Greeks say second (from the cited passage of John), namely, that they went not into the hall, and so on, Chrysostom resolves in this manner: he says that the Lord did not omit any of the legal observances, and therefore He ate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month. But these leading men began to kill Christ, for which reason they delayed eating the Passover, and then they did not celebrate it at that time; this was contrary to their Law. Or, by "the Passover," the unleavened bread is understood.

Regarding what they say concerning the women, Augustine says that they had many solemnities, but that Sabbath was a more solemn solemnity. Hence, one was not permitted to prepare food on the Sabbath. Thus, at that time, it happened that the festival of the Passover fell on a Friday, and the Sabbath was the following day; for that reason, at that time they prepared food on Friday and rested on the Sabbath day. Therefore, we can say that He celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month.

The diligence of the disciples follows: The disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover? (Matthew 26:17). And first, a question is related; second, a command is related; and third, the fulfillment of the command is related. He says: His disciples came.

But which disciples came? Remigius says that Judas came out of servility, in order to hide his betrayal. Nevertheless, Pope Leo says that the others also came. Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover? By this it is indicated that Christ did not have a house there, nor did anyone of His group; for this reason, His poverty is indicated. Hence: The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20).

But He said. Here, His command is related. And first, He indicates the host; second, He mentions His Passion; and third, He requests a place to eat. He says, therefore: Go into the city to a certain man.

And you should observe that He was not lodged in the city, but in Bethany.

But what does He mean by, A certain man? Augustine says that the Lord named a particular man, but because it was not necessary to name him, Matthew omitted to do so. Chrysostom said that when He says, Go to a certain man, it means go to any man, because He wished to show His power so that they would not be troubled by His Passion.

For His fame was so widespread that anyone who received Him would be put out of the synagogue. Hence, He wished to make it understood that no one receives Him unless He changes that person's heart: The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: wherever he wills, he shall turn it (Proverbs 21:1).

And say to him, and so on. He predicts His Passion so that they will not be troubled; hence, He says, My time. No time is meant here except the time determined by His Father. According to this manner of speaking, it is said: My time is not yet come; but your time is always ready (John 7:6).

With you I make the Passover, meaning I will celebrate the Passover meal with you. And He adds, With my disciples, to indicate that He will not celebrate it secretly, but publicly. According to Chrysostom, He said this because He wanted enough food to be prepared for both Himself and His disciples.

But why is it that He celebrated the Passover meal and we should not celebrate it? For it is said: I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also (John 13:15). To this, Augustine replies that as Christ suffered to redeem us from death, so He willed to observe the Law to free us from the Law.

Then the execution of His command follows: And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them (Matthew 26:19), and so on. Similarly, it is stated: We will do all the words of the Lord, which he has commanded (Exodus 24:3). Afterwards, the meal is discussed: But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples (Matthew 26:20).

And it is said, When it was evening, because, as it is commanded in Exodus 12:14: On the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall celebrate the Passover. Or, When it was evening, because the time was getting close to sunset; In the time of the evening there shall be light (Zechariah 14:7). Or Christ’s passing is signified, that is to say, the end of His life, for evening is the end of the day.

And while they were eating, he said (Matthew 26:21), and so on. Here, His prediction of His betrayal is related. First, He indicates it by His dealings with His companions; second, it is indicated by Scripture; and third, it is indicated by His own speech. The second part is where it is said, But he answering (Matthew 26:23); and the third part is where it is said, You have said it (Matthew 26:25).

Concerning the first point, first the prediction is related, and second, the effect is related, at the words, And they being very much troubled (Matthew 26:22). Hence, he says: And while they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you that one of you is about to betray me (Matthew 26:21). Amen I say—He is affirming that He is saying something important—that one of you, whom I chose to be the columns of the Church (There is a friend a companion at the table, and he will not abide in the day of distress, Sirach 6:10), is about to betray Me. And in Jeremiah 9:4 it is said: Do not trust in any brother of yours.

Then the effect follows, and there is a twofold effect: sadness and doubting. Regarding the sadness, the Evangelist says, And they being troubled. And why were they troubled? They were saddened concerning Christ’s death, because it was bitter for them to be without such a leader, such a patron. Likewise, they were saddened concerning so great a crime that would occur: Who will give a fountain of tears to my eyes? (Jeremiah 9:1). Then their doubting is related: Every one began to say.

But why were they doubtful? Was not each one sure of himself? The answer is as follows. The disciples had been instructed that men are quickly prone to sin; hence, the Apostle says: He that thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). Similarly, they were doubtful because they believed Him more than their own consciences. It is similar to what is said: I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified (1 Corinthians 4:4).

But Christ, answering, says: He that dips his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me (Matthew 26:23). Here the prediction from a prophecy is related. First, He relates the prophetic prediction; second, He relates the necessity of the Passion; and third, He relates the punishment of the betrayer. He says, therefore: But he answering said.

The passage can be understood to refer to this: The man who ate my bread has greatly supplanted me (Psalms 40:10). He that dips his hand with me in the dish [paropsis]. Mark says, In the dish [catinus] (Mark 14:20). A square vessel is called a ‘catinus’, and it is so-called from its having almost equal sides. An earthen vessel for containing liquids is called a ‘catinus’; hence, liquids are put into a ‘catino’ and dry things are put into a ‘paropsis’. Thus, both could have been there. Or it was called a ‘paropsis,’ but it was called a ‘catino’ from its use.

And what does He mean when He says: He that dips his hand with me in the dish? It should be said that it was the custom among the ancients for many men to eat from one platter, and perhaps they were using a vessel. Hence, all being astonished withdrew their hands, except Judas, so that they might excuse themselves more. Thus the saying was doubtful, because He was dipping His hand with them all at the same time. For that reason, He did not wish to conceal the betrayer, lest he become a greater sinner. Or it can be said that they were sitting two by two, and He had put Judas near Himself so that He might withdraw him from sin. But many men are not withdrawn by friendship.

The Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him (Matthew 26:24). What does He mean by this, in relation to the betrayal? He says: The Son of man indeed goes, that is to say, by His own will. Therefore, His Passion was foretold by the Prophets, as it is stated: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him (Luke 24:27). And so nothing will harm the Son of man, because what He arranges comes to pass.

But someone will say: ‘If He goes by His own will, then it should not be imputed to Judas.’ It should be said that, on the contrary, it is because Judas acted through bad will, while the Son was acting spontaneously.

Therefore, his punishment follows: But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed (Matthew 26:24). As it was said above: It must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal comes (Matthew 18:7). And the greatness of the punishment is mentioned: It were better for him, if that man had not been born (Matthew 26:24).

From these words an occasion for error arises. For certain men say that no punishment is inflicted on one who does not exist; thus they say that it is simply better not to have existed, which is contrary to the Apostle’s words (Romans 9). Hence, according to Jerome, it should be said that He is speaking according to the common manner of speech, meaning it would involve less harm [not to have been born]; that is to say, he feels greater torment than if he had not been born.

And what is said in Ecclesiastes 4:2 seems to allude to this: I praised the dead rather than the living. This is opposed by Augustine in his book De Libero Arbitrio. What is nothing cannot be chosen. Likewise, what we choose is closer to happiness. But what is not, is not nearer to happiness. Therefore, what is to be said? Can it be that someone would choose not to be, rather than to be punished?

Therefore, it should be said that "to be" can be taken in two ways: either in itself, or by comparison with something else. In itself, I say that it is not something choosable, as Augustine says; but in comparison with something else it is choosable, as Jerome says. This is because "not to be" is not something in nature, but according to the apprehension in the soul it is taken as something (for example, not to sit). But a choice is made of that which is apprehended; therefore, to lack an evil is taken to be something good.

When, therefore, one chooses something not in itself but as exclusive of evil, one chooses in this way, as the Philosopher says. By this, the answer to the second objection is evident. He says, therefore, that what withdraws more from evil is taken as something nearer to happiness. Hence, to a feverish man, to be without the fever seems to be something good, because he seems to be without miseries; hence, it is better not to be than to be subject to miseries.

And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? (Matthew 26:25). One should note that he did this in a pretended manner; hence, because he was slow to ask, he shows that he was sad, but he pretended. Likewise, the other Apostles call Him “Lord,” but Judas calls Him “Master.” Nevertheless, He was both: You call me Master and Lord. And you say well: for so I am (John 13:13).

He says to him: You have said it. Notice the Lord’s kindness: Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart (Matthew 11:29). He did this to give us an example of kindness. Hence, He says, You have said it, meaning you have acknowledged it. Or, it means, "You say this, and I do not declare it, but you say it." Hence, it is not the statement of one declaring. For He did not want to make Judas known; it is as if He said, ‘I do not declare it, but you say it.’

26. And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to His disciples and said: Take you and eat. This is my body.

Above, the Evangelist related the celebration of the Passover; here, the institution of the Sacrament of the altar is related. This section covers two main points: first, the institution of the Sacrament itself; and second, the prediction of the disciples’ future stumbling, where it is said, Then Jesus says to them: All you shall be scandalized. Regarding the first point, the institution of the Sacrament, He does two things.

First, the paschal Sacrament is instituted; and second, a hymn of thanksgiving is sung, where it is said, And a hymn being said, they went out to Mount Olivet. Concerning the institution of the paschal Sacrament, the Evangelist details two aspects: first, the institution of the Sacrament under the species of bread; and second, its institution under the species of wine, where it is said, And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, etc.

Concerning the first point, the institution under the species of bread, the Evangelist first mentions Christ’s actions, and second, Christ’s words, where it is said, Take you and eat. This is my body. Regarding His actions, five things should be noted:

1. The time is related.
2. The matter is indicated.
3. The blessing is related.
4. The breaking is related.
5. The communication, or distribution, is related.

The time is mentioned when the Evangelist says, And while they were at supper, etc., meaning during their supper, meaning while they were eating.

And why did He institute this Sacrament during the meal itself and not before it? The reason is twofold. First, it is because the Lord wanted this Sacrament to replace the Old Testament sacrament, just as the truth would replace a figure; therefore, after the institution of the old sacrament, He instituted a new Sacrament: The new coming on, you shall cast away the old (Leviticus 26:10). Second, it was for another reason, namely, that He wanted it to be fixed in their memory, for the things that are heard last are deeply fixed in the memory: Remember my poverty, and transgression, the wormwood and the gall (Lamentations 3:19).

Then why did the Church determine that people should receive this Sacrament fasting? It should be said that this is for the reverence of the Sacrament, for it is fitting that it be received before food. And this is to be understood on the same day. For since the day begins at midnight, one should not eat anything from midnight until the reception of this Sacrament.

But some people inquired whether, if anything enters the mouth, this prevents its reception, such as if someone drinks water. One should know that there are two types of fasting: namely, the fasting of the Church and the fasting of nature. The drinking of water does not break the fasting of the Church, but it breaks the fasting of nature, because even if water does not nourish per se, it nourishes with other things.

And you should know that one receives water as a drink if one rinses his mouth and swallows a drop accidentally. Nevertheless, one should not forgo the reception of this Sacrament; indeed, it may be considered to be like saliva. Similarly, I say concerning food, that if someone eats aniseed late at night, and by chance some remains in the teeth, one should not forgo the reception of this Sacrament because of this. Likewise, some make it a matter of conscience that if they do not sleep, they may not receive. But this does not hold, because it is not based upon a decision of the Church. Therefore, it does not matter whether someone sleeps or does not sleep.

Jesus took bread, etc. Here the matter of the Sacrament is mentioned. It should be noted that this Sacrament, insofar as it is related to something of the old sacrament, is related to it as the truth is to its figure. The former sacrament was eaten as food, because it was commanded that they eat a lamb; and the latter Sacrament, which takes its place, should be eaten as food. And as He is the true food, so also He is the true Lamb: My flesh is meat indeed (John 6:51). Hence, that opinion is false which maintained that Christ was only symbolically present in the Sacrament, because if this were so, what more would the latter Sacrament have than the former? But the former sacrament was merely a symbol, while the latter is a figure and the truth.

But is it not an irreverence for someone to receive the Lord’s Body? It should be said that this food differs from other foods, because other foods are converted into our body; hence, if Christ were to be so converted, it would be an irreverence. But it is not so; rather, on the contrary, as Augustine says: “You will not change Me into yourself, but you will be changed into Me.” Hence, the latter Sacrament is the end and the perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is that a being that is by essence is the end and perfection of those beings which are by participation; for the other sacraments contain Christ by participation, but in this Sacrament there is Christ according to His substance. Thus Dionysius says that there is no sacrament which is not perfected by the Eucharist.

Hence, if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist should be given to him. Therefore, this Sacrament is received as food, so that the truth may correspond to the figure.

And why is the Lord’s Body not under its own species? One reason is for the sake of the merit of faith, because faith has no merit where human reason brings its own experience. Similarly, it is so that those receiving it may not be repulsed, because it is not customary that human flesh be eaten. Likewise, it is so that the Lord’s Body may be defended from the derision of unbelievers.

And why is His Body under this species? It is because He wanted the Sacrament to be celebrated by all people everywhere in the world; therefore, He wanted to give them a matter which is common to all people. Now a common food is bread, and a common drink of people is wine; therefore, bread and wine are principal foods rather than other foods. Likewise, in the other sacraments, in regard to the anointing, not just any oil is used, but the common oil, which is called olive oil, and is derived from many olives; so the Church’s unity is derived from many faithful. And so it is evident that our sacraments are older than the sacraments of the Old Law, because the sacraments of the Old Law had their beginning with Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the New Law began with Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine for Abraham.

Thus, it is said that Christ was made a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech (Psalms 109:4).

Afterwards, His blessing of the bread is treated, and this blessing relates to three things:

1. It relates to the matter of the Sacrament, because He blessed the fruit of the earth, by which is signified that Adam’s curse is revoked by Christ, which curse was pronounced when God said to him: Cursed is the earth in your work… thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you (Genesis 3:17–18).
2. It refers to what is contained in this Sacrament, namely, Christ: Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord (Matthew 21:9).
3. It is related to the fruit of this Sacrament, because by this Sacrament the faithful are blessed, and the blessing passes from the Head to His members: The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just (Proverbs 10:6).

Then the breaking of the bread is treated, where it is said, And He broke; and this signifies three things:

1. It signifies the mystery of His future Passion, because in His Passion His members were pierced, according to that which is written: They have dug my hands and feet. They have numbered all my bones (Psalms 21:17-18). And this was done because He Himself willed it: He was offered because it was His own will (Isaiah 53:7).
2. It is signified that He was broken from unity into a multiplicity; hence, it signifies His Incarnation, because while the Word of God Himself is simple, He came into this multiplicity, but without losing His simplicity.
3. The effect which He produces upon various people is signified, because, according to the Apostle, There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4).

Likewise, the distribution of the bread is related: He gave to His disciples; Give others to eat what you have in your hand . And the Evangelist says, to His disciples, because a Sacrament of this type should not be given to one who is not baptized. Just as a priest cannot consecrate this Sacrament unless he is ordained, so this Sacrament should not be given to anyone unless he is baptized.

Moreover, this Sacrament should not be given to anyone except the faithful; indeed, unbelievers should not be allowed to even see this Sacrament. Hence, in the primitive Church, when many people were catechumens, they were permitted to be in the church until the Gospel, and then they were put out of the church.

Similarly, since the Evangelist says, to His disciples, it is inquired whether Judas was there. All say that Christ gave the Sacrament to all the disciples, and even to Judas, and this was so that He might call him back from sin. It was, likewise, to give a teaching to the Church that when there is a secret sinner, he not be forbidden from receiving this Sacrament, for people are not competent to judge concerning hidden matters. Hilary says that Judas was not there because he had already left. And he attempts to prove this by that which is said in John 10:25, when the disciples asked: Who is it that shall betray you? To whom He said: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped (John 10:26). Thus, he shows that Judas had already left. But, rather, what the other Fathers say should be maintained.

And He said: Take you and eat. This is my body. Here, His words are related; and, by these words, He does three things:

1. He exhorts the disciples to receive this Sacrament.
2. He exhorts them to eat it.
3. He indicates the truth.

He says, Take you and eat. And because He says, take you, these words should be referred to a spiritual reception, because one should only receive this Sacrament with faith and charity: He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me: and I in him (John 6:57). Likewise, He encourages them to eating, Eat, not only spiritually, but also sacramentally: Eat, O friends, and drink . Likewise, He indicates the truth, This is my body. The form of the Sacrament is contained in these words, which are the Lord’s words, because, by these words of the Lord, the Sacrament was confected. Hence, if the words of Elijah had so much power that they made fire come down from the sky, much more will God’s word be able to change one body into another.

Then it is asked whether there is power in these words. And there is no doubt that this is so. Hence, it is said: He will give to His voice the voice of power (Psalms 67:34); And His word is full of power (Ecclesiastes 8:4). Hence, the priest accomplishes this in the person of Christ, and he does not speak these words in his own person, but in the person of Christ.

But what is this power? How great is this power? Concerning this, some say that there is no power there, except Christ’s power, which assists there. And this does not seem to be correct, because the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify.

But what power did the form acquire? It should be said that there is a principal agent cause, and this cause has power remaining in itself; likewise, there is an instrumental cause, and this cause does not operate by a power remaining in itself, but by a power passing from another cause. Hence, the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but as instrumental causes having power passing from another.

But then it is asked whether these words, Take you and eat, etc., actually belong to the form of the Sacrament. And it should be said that only the words, This is my body, are the form of the Sacrament. Hence, it should be understood that this Sacrament differs from other sacraments, because the consecration of the matter is sometimes necessary, but other times it is not. For example, in Baptism, the consecration of the matter of Baptism is not necessary; but in anointings there is no anointing unless the olive oil is blessed.

Also, in the other sacraments the sacrament is not received in the blessing, but in the application of the matter, because the olive oil and water, since they are inanimate, do not contain grace. Hence, when grace is the end of the sacrament, grace cannot be transmitted except through the reception of the sacrament.

But in this Sacrament, He who is the fullness of grace is contained; thus, the end of the Sacrament is not produced in us, but in the consecration of the matter.

Hence, if it is supposed that no one were to receive the Sacrament, it would nonetheless be the Sacrament; hence, its use is consequential, and it is not of necessity.

Therefore, in the other sacraments, the words that belong to the form pertain to its use: these words do not pertain to the use of this Sacrament, but to the holiness of the matter.

Hence, the words that are said, Take you and eat, which pertain to its use, do not belong to the form.

Likewise, the question is often asked whether the Lord confected the Sacrament using these words. And it seems that He did not, because it is said there, He took bread and blessed. Therefore, it seems that He consecrated at the blessing. For this reason, some people said that He did not first consecrate by His words, but by His spiritual power. And He could do this because of His power of excellence, because He was able to confer the truth of the Sacrament without the Sacrament, because He did not restrict His power by the sacraments; hence, He could do this by His power of excellence. Others say that He first spoke in secret and afterwards openly. It is better to say that He spoke once, and not twice, and He consecrated the Sacrament by these words.

Hence, it should be understood that those words that He spoke, Take you and eat, refer to His preceding words. Therefore, while saying those words, He said: This is my body.

Here it is asked what the pronoun this indicates. Some people have said that this word does not indicate to the senses but to the intellect, because the word points out merely the substance of the bread, and merely signifies it. Hence, the meaning is: This is my body, that is, what is signified by this is My Body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify; therefore, the word does nothing else than what it signifies: and it signifies Christ’s body, and so only Christ’s body is present under this sign.

Others say that the word this indicates the substance itself of Christ’s body. But how is this? Is Christ’s body immediately present when the priest says, This? It is clear that it is not, because if the priest were to die, the bread would not be consecrated unless he completed the form. For this reason, others say that the word this delays its signification, and it indicates what will be present after the saying of the word my.

This also is not suitable, because in this way it would seem that the priest is repeating the same thing, and it would be as though he were saying: ‘My Body is My Body’; and this is unbefitting to God.

Others say that the words are uttered materially, and not significatively. And this cannot stand, because Augustine says: “The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.” What, therefore, does the pronoun this indicate? It should be said that it is uttered narratively, and at the same time that it is said narratively it is also said significatively.

Why is this? It is because the priest is speaking in the person of Christ, and does this as if Christ were present; otherwise, the words would not resemble their proper matter.

What, therefore, does the pronoun this indicate? It should be said that it is different with sacramental words than with human words: for human words are merely significative, while divine words are significative and productive.

Hence, sacramental words have power from the divine power. Hence, at the same time that the priest says the sacramental words, he also produces something by divine power. For in material production, something common preexists in every change, and the common element, which is under one endpoint of the change, is also at the end under the other endpoint: take, for example, a body which changes from being black to white, in which change there was a body, but in the beginning it was black, and afterwards it was white.

Hence, in one respect it is similar, namely, in that there is something common to both endpoints; but there is something dissimilar, because they are not in the same mode. Therefore, this change differs from material changes, because in material changes there is a common subject and a different form; here, however, it is the opposite, because the common element is the accidents, and the different element is the substance. Hence, the substance is changed, and the accidents remain common.

Therefore, what does the word this indicate? It should be said that the meaning is: This is my body, that is to say, what is contained under the accidents is My Body. Or this becomes what is contained under the accidents, which is My Body. Hence, He put the noun at the end of the words, but He put the pronoun at the beginning, which signifies the indeterminate substance; but, by the noun, the determinate form is signified. Hence, the determinate form is not in the beginning, but at the end.

But how is Christ’s Body present? One opinion was that the substance of the bread remained at the same time with Christ’s Body. Hence, what He says, This is my body, refers only to His Body. Others say that the substance of bread changes into its original matter, and Christ’s Body becomes present, without the substance of bread changing into Christ’s Body. This opinion is disproved as follows.

For, according to this opinion, it would seem that something might begin to be where it was not at first, which cannot happen except either the thing be changed in respect to its place, or that something be converted into it. It is as if it were said: ‘There is no fire here. Therefore, it cannot be there afterwards unless something which is there be changed into fire.’ But, according to this opinion, the mode of conversion is taken away; therefore, Christ’s Body is not present except by a change of place. But it is impossible for a body to be in different places at the same time; therefore, etc.

For that reason, another explanation must be given: that Christ’s Body becomes present not by local movement but by the conversion of something else into it; and in this conversion the form remains, and the subject changes.

Hence, a subject is changed into a subject, which is the principle of individuation, and it is not because of this that the bread is present at the same time with Christ’s Body or that the substance of bread is annihilated; but it is by this principle that the bread is changed by conversion into Him.

But how can His Body be in such a small space? It should be said that something is there by the power of the Sacrament, and this is there principally; but something else is there by concomitance. His Body is there from the power of the Sacrament, into which the conversion is terminated. And because the bread is converted into Christ’s Body, that which is signified is Christ’s Body, and it is not without His soul, nor without His divinity; nevertheless, the bread is not converted into His soul, or into His divinity, but they are there by concomitance. Hence, if someone were to celebrate Mass during the three days when His soul was separated from His Body, His soul would not be there.

For in the bread there are two things, substance and accidents: the accidents remain, but the substance changes. Therefore, that into which the transmutation terminates is there principally; but the transmutation terminates in the substance. Therefore, the substance is there principally, but the accidents are there by concomitance; the dimensions, however, are accidents.

Christ’s Body in the Sacrament is not related to a place by its proper dimensions, but by the bread’s preexisting dimensions.

Likewise, He broke. But is not His whole Body in each part? I say that this is so. And you should know that to be in a place is different than being located in a place; for being located is to be related to a place by its dimensions, but it is not so here. Hence, it should be noted, that wherever there is some difference of quantity, this does not always make a difference in substance; but if a thing is present according to its quantity, it is divided according to its quantity.

But the soul does not have to get its totality from quantity, but it has its totality in every part. Hence, Christ’s Body is not related to the bread in relation to quantity, but only in relation to substance; therefore, just as the soul is in every part of the body, so Christ is in every part of the host.

But what happens to the accidents of the host? It should be said that they remain without a subject by divine power. And how can this be, since the accidents depend upon the substance? It is replied that God is the principle of being; hence, He can produce an effect separated from its subject and without its principles. Therefore, since it is the principle of substance that keeps the accidents in existence, God can keep them in existence without their principles.

If you ask whether this is true for all the accidents of the host, it is said that all accidents are related to their substance by way of dimensions; hence, they are individuated in some way. Hence, the dimensions of the host are without a subject, but the quality in the dimensions exists as in a subject. Hence, the meaning is: This, meaning what is contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, because the substance, which first underlies these accidents, is changed into Christ’s Body.

Previously, the discussion concerned the institution of a new Sacrament with respect to the Lord’s Body; here, it concerns the institution of the same Sacrament with respect to the Lord’s Blood. Regarding this, the Evangelist does two things:

1. Christ’s actions are related.
2. His words are related, where it is said, Drink you all of this.

Concerning the first part (Christ’s actions), three further actions are related:

1. He took the chalice.
2. He gave thanks.
3. He gave it to His disciples.

Therefore, the Evangelist says, And taking the chalice, etc., by which it is signified that the Sacrament was not instituted to be performed under one species, but under two species.

And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this Sacrament: one is that which is the sacrament only, another is the reality only, and still another is the sacrament and the reality. The sacrament only consists of the species of bread and wine. The reality only is the spiritual effect. The reality and the sacrament is Christ’s Body contained in this Sacrament.

Therefore, if we consider the sacrament only, it is very fitting that the Body be signified by the species of bread, and that the Blood be signified by the species of wine, because they are signified as indicating spiritual refreshment. Refreshment properly consists in food and drink; therefore, etc. Likewise, if the Sacrament is considered as a reality and a sacrament, it is fitting in that this Sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s Passion.

And it cannot signify this better than in this way, as the Blood is signified as poured out and separated from the Body. Likewise, the Sacrament is very fitting when it is considered as the reality only, because blood pertains to the soul—not because the blood is the soul, but because life is preserved by blood. Thus, it is signified that although this Sacrament is for the salvation of the faithful, the Body is offered for the health of the body, but the Blood is offered for the health of the soul.

Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you (Proverbs 9:5), because this refreshment is in the bread and wine. Similarly, another reason is that the entire Christ is contained under the species of the bread. What, therefore, is the necessity for the blood to be by itself?

For this reason, what was said above must be taken in the sense that one thing is directly there by the power of the sacrament, and another thing is there from natural concomitance. Christ’s body is contained under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, but the blood is there by concomitance. But as to the blood, the contrary is true, because Christ’s blood is there directly by the power of the sacrament, but His body is there by concomitance.

Therefore, if the sacrament had been celebrated at the time Christ’s blood was poured out onto the ground, the blood would only have been there, apart from the body. Thus, because certain men did not understand these things, they said that the forms of consecration of the bread and wine are connected. They therefore say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if a priest were to die before he consecrated the wine, both Christ’s body and blood would be in the host.

Likewise, the Evangelist says, Taking the chalice, and he does not say, “Taking the wine”; for that reason, some have said that it should be done with water. But this is excluded, because Christ continues by saying, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, etc. Secondly, it is evident that there was wine mixed with water.

And the reason for this concerns the Sacrament, because it must be celebrated as the Lord instituted it. In hot climates, it is customary that wine is not drunk except with water; therefore, it must not be believed that He prepared the Sacrament with pure wine. It is also fitting regarding what is contained in the chalice, because this Sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s Passion; for from Christ’s side blood and water came out, as it is stated in John 19. Moreover, water and wine are present to signify the effect of the Sacrament, and this happens in two ways, thereby producing in us the effect of Christ’s Passion.

Now the effect of Christ’s Passion is twofold: to wash and to redeem. He redeems us by His Blood: You have redeemed us to God, in your blood (Revelation 5:9). Likewise, He washes away our stains of sin: He washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5). And these things were necessary so that He might wash and redeem us. The washing is signified by the water, and the redemption is signified by wine. Likewise, by water the people are signified: Many waters, many people (Revelation 17:1, 15). And by this Sacrament the people are united to Christ; therefore, this mixture signifies the people being united to Christ.

But what becomes of that water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is converted into wine, because when a little is added, the species of the water is changed, and so all the water is converted into wine. In this way, it pertains to a mystery, because the unity of the Church is contained in this mystery.

Likewise, in that He says, Taking, it is signified that Christ underwent His Passion voluntarily; thus: I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord (Psalms 115:13).

Similarly, He gave thanks. And for what did He give thanks? It was for two things: for a sign and for something signified. He gave thanks for a sign, because He gave thanks for the effect; He gave thanks for something signified, because He gave thanks for His Passion. In doing this, it is signified that we not only should give thanks for good things, but also for bad or adverse things: Giving thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5:18); To them that love God all things work together for good (Romans 8:28).

Moreover, He gave thanks for the institution of this Sacrament, because He was doing this by divine power; thus, it is said in John 5:30: I cannot of myself do anything. Therefore, He gave thanks to God the Father: I give you thanks that you have heard me (John 11:41). In this, an example is given to us that if Christ, who is equal to the Father, gave thanks, then we ourselves should give thanks.

Likewise, He gave thanks for the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And He was only able to do this by His divinity: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:64).

He continues, And he gave to them, so that they might receive the Sacrament. By this, He signifies that the fruit of His Passion should be ministered by some men to others. Thus, the Apostles can be compared to the offspring of an eagle, concerning whom it is said: As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them (Deuteronomy 32:11). Then He enjoins the use of the Sacrament in three ways:

1. He relates its use.
2. He relates the words of consecration.
3. He foretells His Resurrection.

He says, therefore: Drink you all of this; Drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved (Song of Solomon 5:1). Thus, it is signified that Christians can communicate in the appropriate place and time.

This is my blood, etc. These are the words of consecration. Observe that in these words there is a difference from those that the Church uses. The Church adds: “This is the chalice.” Likewise, where He says, Of the new testament, the Church adds, “Of the new and eternal testament.” Moreover, where He says, Which shall be shed for many, the Church adds, “Which shall be shed for you,” etc. How, therefore, does the Church have this form? It should be said, as Dionysius says, that it was not the intention of the Evangelists to pass on the forms of the sacraments but to guard them as secrets; thus, they only intended to tell the history. From where, then, does the Church have them? She has them from the institution of the Apostles. Thus, Paul said: The rest I will set in order, when I come (1 Corinthians 11:34).

But there is a question: Why does He say, This is my body, or This is my blood? Why does He not say, ‘This is converted into My Body, or into My Blood,’ etc.? The reason is twofold. The first reason is that the forms of the sacraments should signify what they effect. What they effect is that the bread is converted into Christ’s Body and the wine into Christ’s Blood; therefore, the final effect should be signified. Thus, it should be signified that this is His Body; not, however, that this is converted into His Body.

In this form, however, there is something similar to the Old Testament, but also something different. It is similar in that, as it is stated in Exodus 24:8, when Moses read the Law, he sacrificed calves, offered the blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant of the Lord. In this manner, this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. In Hebrews 9 it is said, The high priest alone, once a year: not without blood, which he offereth for his own and the people’s ignorance. He shows, however, the difference in four things.

The differences are as follows:

1. First, there is a difference in that the latter blood is of calves, but this Blood is Christ’s; thus, this Blood is efficacious for remitting sin: For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13).
2. Second, the latter was called the blood of the testament, but this Blood is called the testament itself. A testament may be taken in a broad sense or in a strict sense. It is taken broadly for any covenant made, because it used to be that when any covenant was made, witnesses were summoned. A testament is spoken of in a strict sense when it is read at death, according to what the Apostle says, that a testament is of force upon the death of the testator. The word applies in both ways here, because there was a pact, and it was made with blood—for in ancient times they displayed blood when making an alliance of peace, and so it was called the blood of the covenant. Moreover, in that a testament is said to refer to the dead, in this way, there was a certain pact between God and men in both the Old and New Law, but they were different. The first pact pertained to temporal things, namely, the pact of the Old Testament, as it is evident that God promised them the land of the Amorites; therefore, the testament was old, because men were not renewed but rather made older. The latter testament, however, pertained to heavenly things. Thus, it is said: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17). Therefore, He says: For this is my blood of the new testament, meaning it is dedicated to a new testament, in which we should have confidence: We have a confidence by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:19). Likewise, the term testament befits one made at death, because Christ’s death confirmed the promise.
3. Third, another difference between the Old and New Testament is that this form adds, “Of the new and eternal testament,” which can refer either to the eternal inheritance or to Christ, who is eternal.
4. Fourth, another difference is that in the previously mentioned passage (Exodus 24:8) it is stated: “Which the Lord hath made with you.” Thus, the former testament was limited only to the Jews, but this testament is also for the Gentiles: He shall sprinkle, meaning with His Blood, many nations (Isaiah 52:15). This is For many, and indeed for all, because if its sufficiency is considered, He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But if we consider its effect, it only has its effect on those who are saved, and this is the fault of men. The Church, however, adds, “For you,” meaning the Apostles, because they are the ministers of this Blood, and through them it is spread to the Gentiles. Furthermore, it is said, Unto remission of sins, because the blood of the old testament could not remit sins.

And I say to you. Here their consolation is related, according to Chrysostom. Because He had made mention of the shedding of His Blood, by which His Passion is signified, He therefore comforts them and foretells His glory. Chrysostom expounds the passage in this way: the Lord had foretold His Passion, and therefore He wishes to make them rejoice. I will not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine, meaning of this wine, until that day, etc. He calls this kingdom the kingdom of resurrection. At that time He receives a new kingdom, meaning in a new way. That He will drink with them appears in Acts 10.

But why is it said that He will eat in a new way? It is because He ate in a different manner before His Resurrection than He did after it. Before His Resurrection, He ate out of necessity, but afterwards, He did not eat out of necessity but to show the truth of His Resurrection.

Jerome says the following, namely, that the nation of the Jews is signified by a vineyard: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (Isaiah 5:7); I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed (Jeremiah 2:21).

And I say to you, I will not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine, meaning My soul will not rejoice concerning this nation, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. His kingdom signifies the existing Church. He says new, meaning renewed by faith, because when they are converted, then I will rejoice with them, for many were converted and many will be converted.

Remigius expounds this passage as follows: he says that this should be referred to the Paschal ceremonies, meaning I will not again celebrate ceremonies of this kind until the establishment of the Church, when I will rejoice over the renewal of the Church.

Augustine expounds the passage thus: “In that He says new, it is opposed to the old.” Now, this old condition is twofold: there is the old condition of punishment and guilt, and these are derived from Adam, as it is stated in Romans 6. Christ had the old condition of punishment but not the old condition of guilt.

Thus, His single old condition undid our twofold old condition. He says, therefore: I will not drink of the old condition of punishment, until, etc., He would put away that Body and assume a glorified Body at His Resurrection. He promises the Apostles that they also will assume glorified bodies, and He indicates that their bodies will not be of a different nature, because the Body that He will assume will be a Body the same in nature, but different in glory.

After the institution of the new Sacrament has been related, Christ here foretells the future stumbling of the disciples. The Evangelist, first, establishes the place where Christ foretells their stumbling; and second, the prediction of their stumbling is related, where it is said, Then He says to them.

This place is fitting for what preceded and what follows; therefore, the place can be associated with both. He says, therefore: And when they had sung a hymn. By this He gives us an example of two things: first, it was a material supper and meal, after which we should give thanks and praise God: The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the LORD that seek him (Psalms 21:27). Likewise, after this meal, there was a sacramental supper, after which we also should give thanks.

Therefore, after that meal, He sang a hymn. Consequently, the hymn that is said in the Mass after Communion represents that hymn; for that reason, the faithful should wait until the end of Mass to hear this hymn. And this is what is said: Father, glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you (John 17:1).

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. The Mount of Olives signifies abundance, because olives are full of oil; therefore, it signifies spiritual abundance. His bread shall be fat (Genesis 49:20). Thus, it signifies the abundance of grace and heavenly glory to which it leads: The mountain of God is a fat mountain (Psalms 67:16). Oil soothes weary limbs, it lessens sorrow, it provides fuel and brightness to fire. So it will be in that glory, because all labor and every sorrow will be eliminated; all glory will be there.

Likewise, what He says, to the Mount of Olives, is fitting for Christ’s prediction of the future. Oil signifies mercy: for just as it floats above other liquids, so mercy is above the other virtues: His tender mercies are over all his works (Psalms 144:9). Similarly, He is showing the disciples' stumbling on the Mount of Olives, so that His foreseen mercy might be signified: Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholds him with his hand (Psalms 37:24).¹

Then He says, All of you shall be scandalized in me. Here, their stumbling on the Mount of Olives is signified. This is shown in two ways:

1. It is signified in general.
2. It is signified in particular, where it is said, And Peter answering.

Regarding the first point, He does two things:

1. He foretells their stumbling.
2. So that His prediction would not seem accidental, He cites a passage: For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.

From these words, it can be seen that the sin of the disciples was aggravated for many reasons:

1. It is aggravated by its universality: All of you; From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it (Isaiah 1:6).
2. The nature of the sin is mentioned: All of you shall be scandalized in me; We preach Christ crucified: to the Jews a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23). The Jews, because they sought nothing but the weakness of the flesh, took offense.
3. The sin is aggravated by the nearness of the time, because it was after so many warnings and after the reception of the Sacrament. Therefore, they had already forgotten what He had done for them, for which reason they are rightly compared to a man looking at his own face in a mirror: For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholds himself, and goes his way, and straightway forgets what manner of man he was (James 1:23–24).
4. Furthermore, the sin was at night, because those who are drunk, and who sleep, sleep in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:7); so, likewise, those who are scandalized are scandalized at night.

Then He adds the reference from Scripture: For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed. And it is written: Strike the shepherd, namely Christ, and the sheep shall be scattered (Zechariah 13:7).² Now here it is said, I will strike, and it agrees sufficiently, because the prophet desired this to happen, for which reason he said, Strike the shepherd; but Christ is speaking in His own person. The prophet is, first, foretelling Christ’s Passion on that terrible day; second, he is foretelling the stumbling, when he says, I will strike the shepherd.

This shepherd is Christ: I am the good shepherd (John 10:11), and, But you are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls (1 Peter 2:25). And He Himself was struck, because God delivered Him, for He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Romans 8:32); and He did this on account of our sins: For the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isaiah 53:8).

Likewise, He foretells the stumbling and that the sheep will be dispersed. The sheep are the faithful: My sheep hear my voice (John 10:27). And so God allowed them to be dispersed, so that afterwards they might be gathered: He gathers together the outcasts of Israel (Psalms 147:2).³ And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring (John 10:16).

Then He foretells the joy of the Resurrection: But after I have risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Although the Father resurrected Him, as it is said elsewhere, Whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death (Acts 2:24), nevertheless, He rose by His own power, because the Father’s power is the Son’s power: For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God (2 Corinthians 13:4).

Similarly, contrary to what He had said, namely, that the sheep shall be dispersed, He says, I will go before you into Galilee. For the sheep follow the shepherd; therefore, the shepherd gathers them by calling them by name, for which reason He says, I will go before you.

Alternatively, this can be referred to what He says, After I have risen again. Because some might suppose that there would be much time until His Resurrection, He said that there would not be much time, because I will go before you into Galilee. His custom was to stay a short time in Judea and to go over quickly into Galilee. Therefore, He wished to say, ‘I will rise again before you can come to Galilee,’ to show that He Himself will appear to them. For that reason, they could be sufficiently assured.

Similarly, what He says, that He will go before, gives security. Because they were suffering persecution in Judea, He says that He will go before them into Galilee to take away their fear.

Chrysostom says that it should not be understood that He first appeared in Galilee. He did appear there, but not at first, for He appeared first in Jerusalem. Why then does He rather say, into Galilee?

Galilee is interpreted to mean ‘a passing.’ Therefore, it signifies that by the resurrection we will pass from mortal life to immortal life; and in this passing, He went before us, because Christ is the firstfruits of them that sleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). Likewise, the passing of the disciples to the Gentiles is signified; and in this, Christ went before them by moving the hearts of the Gentiles.

And Peter answering. Here the prediction of Peter’s stumbling is related. This is done in three parts:

1. The occasion is related.
2. The prediction is related.
3. Peter’s excuse is related.

The second part is where it is said, Jesus said to him, etc.; and the third part is where it is said, Peter says to him, etc.

Here there is a question about the literal sequence, because it seems that Peter said this after they had left the supper-room. However, Luke 22:34–39 seems to say that He said this before they had left, and John 13:36-38 is consistent with this.

Augustine resolves the question by saying that Peter said this three times, and so all accounts are in agreement, etc., because if we consider the narrative, he said this for several reasons. Here, he was motivated by the fact that Christ had foretold their stumbling. The Lord had said, But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail (Luke 22:32), and then Peter said, Lord, I am ready to go with you, both into prison and to death.

But in John, it is said for another reason; for in John 13:33 the Lord said, Where I am going, you cannot come; so I say to you now. Then Peter said, I will lay down my life for you. Thus he spoke three times; therefore, it can be that he spoke twice in the supper-room, but he spoke once outside, as it is said here. It can also be that he was speaking out of fervor and was not considering his own strength.

Nevertheless, he sinned in three ways:

1. He sinned because he did not believe the Lord more than himself, even though it is written, Let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4).
2. He sinned because he preferred himself to the others; hence, he also said, Though all men shall be offended in you, yet will I never be offended.⁴ Thus, he considered himself to be more steadfast than the others, and he fell into what is said: I am not as other men are, etc. (Luke 18:11).
3. He was attributing to himself what he should not, since it is written, Without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

Therefore, because he had spoken arrogantly, God more readily permitted him to fall. And God does this because He hates pride: Behold every one that is proud, and abase him (Job 40:11).⁵

Jesus says to him: Amen I say to you, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. ‘Because you might have thought that I was speaking threateningly, therefore I say to you, Amen, that is to say, I speak to you sincerely, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And Peter’s guilt is aggravated by the proximity of the time, because it happened this night. Likewise, it is aggravated by the multiplicity of his denials, because he did this three times: for just as he had presumed three times, so also he denied Him three times after his presumption; If my heart has been secretly enticed (Job 31:27).

But there is a question concerning these words, Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times; because in Mark 14:30 it is stated: before the cock crows twice. According to Augustine, the question can be resolved by saying that what Mark says is historically correct. And what Matthew says can be explained as follows: a man is said to do something when he intends to do it, as it was said above: Whoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). So Peter was prepared to deny Him three times, or even more times; for what caused his fear sufficed for denying Him three or more times. Therefore, Matthew says that Peter denied Him three times before the cock crew because he was already prepared to deny Him three or more times.

Hence, Matthew said what he was interiorly intending to do; but Mark said what he exteriorly did. Or it can be explained otherwise, as when I say, ‘I will do this within such a time,’ then it is not necessary that it be done within that time, but it suffices that the action will have been started within that time.

Hence, when Matthew said that Peter was going to deny Him three times before the crowing of the cock, it was not necessary that all his denials be completed before the crowing of the cock, but merely begun.

Peter’s excuse follows, where it is said, Peter says to him, etc. Peter excuses himself because he says, Though I should die with you, I will not deny you. And, nevertheless, he was afraid, because at the voice of a servant girl he denied Him. Jerome says that he did not know what he was saying, because only Christ was going to die, as only He was the Redeemer: I have trodden the winepress alone (Isaiah 63:3).

Then he relates an affirmation, namely, of the others in like manner, and all the disciples said that they would not deny Him. Hence, they spoke as Peter did; nevertheless, the others had more reason than Peter for excusing themselves, because the others spoke without Peter’s assertion.

Then Jesus came with them to a country place which is called Gethsemane. In this part, the preparation for the Lord’s Passion is related, which is by prayer; and the Evangelist does three things. First, Christ’s intention of praying is related; second, the necessity of praying is related; and third, the difference between the prayer of Christ and of the disciples is related.

The second part is where it is said, And taking Peter, etc.; the third part is where it is said, And going a little further, he fell upon his face.

About the first point, he does two things. First, the place is related; and second, Christ makes known His intention of praying. He says, therefore: Then Jesus came with them to a country place which is called Gethsemane.

The contrary seems to be said in John 18:1, namely, that Jesus went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron. Hence, it should be observed that the country place was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, therefore, the places were the same; and they came there after the supper as if for a walk.

Then He announces His intention of praying and so He said to His disciples: Sit here, while I go over there and pray. Something similar is found in Genesis 22:5: Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship, and come again to you.’

But here Damascene raises a question. Prayer is the ascent to God, but Christ’s intellect was joined to God; why, therefore, did God who was doing this need to do this? Hence, it may be said that He was praying not for His own sake, but for our benefit, and this benefit was twofold: He prayed to give us an example, so that we might have recourse to Him in times of tribulation: In my distress I cried to the LORD (Psalms 120:1). Likewise, it was to show that He is from another Person, and what He possesses is from another Person; hence, He says: The Son can do nothing of himself (John 5:19) and I do nothing of myself (John 8:28). Moreover, it was to exclude an error, because some men said that the Father’s and the Son’s power were not the same: I honor my Father (John 8:49). He, therefore, gives an example of praying, and how one should pray. For the first condition of prayer is that prayer should be humble: which is signified because He went to a valley: The prayer of the humble and the meek has always pleased you .⁶ Likewise, prayer should be devout; hence, He prayed in Gethsemane, namely, in a garden of abundance: My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness (Psalms 63:5).⁷ Similarly, it should be solitary, as it was said above: Enter into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father (Matthew 6:6).

And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, etc. Here, He proclaims the need for His prayer: and the need was His sadness. And first, the Evangelist relates the witnesses of His sadness; second, Christ shows His sadness; and third, Christ repels His sadness. The second part is where it is said, He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad; the third part is where it is said, Stay here and watch with me.

He says, therefore: And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, etc. He took three Apostles with Him. And why did He take these rather than the others? One reason is that these were more firm, and because His weakness caused them all to stumble, for that reason, He wished to show His weakness to these rather than to the others.

Likewise, He had chosen these men to show them His glory; for that reason, as they had seen His glory, so they would see His weakness, so that they might know that neither weakness absorbs glory, nor glory weakness.

The showing of His weakness follows. And first, He shows His weakness by an action; second, He shows it by His words. And according to this, the Evangelist does three things: for first, he says in what respect Christ was sad; second, he says why He was sad; and third, he says how He was sad. In regard to the first point, He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. Here one should beware of two errors: because certain men said that He was sad according to His divinity: and this cannot be, for He was sad because He was passible, but the divinity is not passible. Likewise, the opinion of the Arians, and also of Eunomius, was that there was no soul in Christ, but instead the Word took the place of His soul.

And why was he saying this? It was so that everything that pertained to a defect was referred to the Word, so as to show that He was less than the Father, and this is false. For that reason, He suffered according to that which could suffer, meaning according to His soul.

Then he says to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death, etc. He does not say: ‘I am sad,’ because ‘I’ is indicative of the person, but He was not sad insofar as He is the Word, but according to His soul. Therefore, the error of Arius and Apollinarius is excluded; likewise, the error of Manichaeus is excluded, who asserted that He did not truly suffer. Hence, it is evident, according to what is said here, that He was sad.

But why was He sad? The Saints explain this in various ways. For Hilary and many others said that He was not sad for His own sake, nor on account of His death, but on account of the disciples' stumbling: and He tries to prove this by the fact that He took them with Him. Damascene says that He was sad for His own sake. And why? It is because sadness is within us due to the fact that we lack what we naturally love. The soul naturally wants to be united to the body, and this was in Christ’s soul, because He ate, He drank, and He hungered. Therefore, the separation was against a natural desire: and so to be separated was something sad for Him.

Nevertheless, we can understand that something was in the soul for its own sake and something was in the soul by comparison with something else: just as a bitter drink, considered in itself, is sorrowful; but related to the end of our health, it is a cause of joy.

Just as one thing is the reason in respect to its nature and something else is the reason in another respect: so the death of Christ, considered in itself, was the reason for His sadness; but in that it was related to another reason, as referring to the purpose of His death, in this way He rejoiced. Therefore, the words of Hilary and of Jerome are understood as referring to the purpose of His death.

Likewise, it is asked how sadness occurred in Christ. Therefore, it should be observed that sometimes sadness occurs as a passion, sometimes it occurs as a propassion. Sadness occurs as a passion when something is suffered and one is changed: but when something is suffered and one does not change, then one has a propassion. But sometimes passions of this kind are in us, such that reason is changed, and then the passions are complete: however, when reason is not changed, then it is a propassion. But in Christ His reason was never changed; for that reason, there was a propassion in Christ, and not a passion. Hence, the Evangelist significantly says: He began to grow sorrowful. Likewise, Augustine says that we have sadness as something contracted.

Christ, however, had sadness as something assumed: for that is contracted, which is had by being born through origin; but Christ assumed our nature as He willed. Therefore, there was no need to take on passibility such as sadness, but He took it on by His will. Similarly, it should be observed what Damascene says, namely, that in us the movement of the passions forestalls reason, because sometimes there is passion in us, and other times there is propassion. In Christ, however, there was nothing except propassion, and it never was in Christ that a movement would arise in the lower powers of the soul, for on the contrary, the lower powers were completely subject to reason: and when He wished, He permitted the lower powers to act according to what was natural to them.

Therefore, another Evangelist said that He troubled Himself, because these movements could not have occurred except to the degree that He wished.

Then he says to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. Note what He says, even unto death, by which I will satisfy for this stumbling and for others. Or, according to another exposition: ‘You should not suppose that my passibility is bound to last forever; because as long as my body will be passible, and this is even unto death, my soul is sorrowful, but then it will be glorified.’

Then He excludes the other disciples: Stay here and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell on his face, praying and saying. Above, the Evangelist mentioned the cause of Christ’s sadness; here, however, he treats of the order of Christ’s prayer. And because He prayed three times, for that reason, this part is divided into three parts according to His three prayers. And about the first, he does two things. First, he relates the prayer of the one praying; and second, he relates how Christ rebukes the failing of the disciples, where it is said, And he comes to his disciples, etc.

And in the first prayer, he relates the condition of the one praying; and second, he relates the tenor of the prayer. Now, His threefold condition is commended, because first, the Evangelist notes His earnestness; second, he notes His humility; and third, he notes His devotion. He notes His solicitude, because he says, going a little further; because He even separated Himself from those He had chosen: But you, when you pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret (Matthew 6:6).

But observe that He did not go very far but a short distance, to indicate that He is not far from those calling upon Him: The LORD is near to all them that call upon him (Psalms 145:18). Likewise, He went a little further so that His disciples might see Him praying, and they might have an example: for that reason, also His humility follows: And he fell on his face; hence, He shows an example of humility. And first, He did this on account of humility in general, because humility is necessary for prayer: The prayer of him that humbles himself shall pierce the clouds .⁸ Similarly, He did this for the humility of one individual, namely Peter, because he had said: Though I should die with you, I will not deny you. Therefore, the Lord fell, to signify that one should not rely upon one’s own strength: Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29).

Moreover, the condition of piety or devotion is signified, when He says, My Father; for it is necessary for one praying that he pray with devotion. Hence, it is said, My Father, because He is uniquely the Son; we, however, are sons by adoption: I ascend to my Father and to your Father (John 20:17); it is as though He is My Father in one way and yours in another.

Afterwards, he adds the tenor of His prayer: If it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. This prayer can be expounded in three ways; and in whatever way that it is expounded two things should be considered. First, you should consider it generally in relation to every prayer, because, according to Damascene, prayer is the ascent of the mind to God: hence, prayer relates to the mind, or relates to the higher reason; and, nevertheless, prayer is constituted below God, yet above human nature, or prayer is under the divine will.

Therefore, what should be understood? He prayed in such a way since His higher reason descended to these things, inasmuch as it was fitting; nevertheless, He willed that His will would always be subject to the Divine Reason. This is noted when it is said, Nevertheless, not as I will but as you will; because His higher reason follows the will of nature, yet not simply, meaning, provided the will of nature does not conflict with the higher reason.

Hence, He wishes to say: ‘I will that what I want be fulfilled if it does not conflict with Your justice, but on the contrary, I will that Your justice be fulfilled.’ And in this, He gives an example how we should order our affections, because we should order them in this manner, so that they should not be discordant with the Divine rule.

Hence, it is not a grave matter that someone shrinks from what is onerous, provided he orders his will to the divine will. Likewise, it can be expounded, according to Chrysostom and Origen, such that, by the chalice, Christ’s Passion is signified, concerning which it is said: I will take the cup of salvation, etc. (Psalms 116:13).⁹ It is evident that Christ had a man’s natural will; now this is what shrinks from death. Therefore, to show that He is a man, He asks that the chalice pass from Him. Therefore, He said: If it be possible, let this chalice pass from me, meaning His Passion, but it is as though He said: ‘I do not speak absolutely, but if it be possible.’ And because someone might suppose that He doubted whether it were possible for God, for that reason, He shows that it is possible, because He also said all things are possible to you (Mark 14:36).

Nevertheless, not as I will but as you will, that is to say, if it is befitting to Your justice, I will this; therefore, He says: Not as I will. Hence, He mentions two wills: He mentions one which He has from the Father insofar as He is God, for He had one will which He possesses with the Father (and in these words, the error of many men is confounded); likewise, He had another will insofar as He is a man. And He was submitting this will in all things to the Father; in this He is giving us an example, that we should submit our will to God’s will: I came down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38). According to Jerome, He was not asking simply; but He was asking that this chalice would pass, because He saw that He would suffer from the Jews. Therefore, He wanted that this chalice would pass, meaning that He might redeem the world in such a way that it would not be the Jews’ sin: The fall of the Jews is the salvation of the Gentiles (Romans 11:11, paraphrased).¹⁰ Hilary, however, speaks thus: The Lord does not ask not to die, but He asks that the chalice pass to other men; it is as though He were to say: ‘I will take the chalice with confidence. I ask that My disciples will take it without hesitation.’ But why does He say, If it be possible? It is because it would seem unnatural that they would accept death without sorrow. Hence, He means to say: ‘I would want them not to suffer, if it were possible; but let it happen as You will,’ meaning according to Your ordination.

And he comes to his disciples. Here He rebukes a fault of the disciples. And first, the fault is related; second, the rebuke is related; third, the admonition is related; and fourth, the reason for the admonition is related. When He had prayed, He comes to his disciples and finds them asleep. He states the literal reason, namely, part of the night had already passed and, for that reason, they were sleepy. Likewise, there was another reason, for they were sad men, and sleep easily creeps up upon such persons: A sorrowful spirit dries up the bones (Proverbs 17:22). Similarly, it is signified that when Christ was going up to His Passion for us, many were sleeping, as it was said above, They all slumbered and slept (Matthew 25:5).

And he says to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me? But why does He speak to Peter rather than to the others? The reason is that Peter had boasted of himself, more than the others, that he would help Him in His necessities: for that reason, it was already a presage of his fall that would occur. Could you not watch one hour with me? And what is the reason why He later said this to them all? It was because all had promised with Peter; hence, it was said above: And in like manner said all the disciples.

Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. In this part, the admonition is added. ‘You trust in yourselves; but you should take refuge in the assistance of prayer: hence, pray that you enter not into temptation.’ Hence, in the general prayer He teaches us to ask this: And lead us not into temptation (Matthew 6:13). And He begins with vigilance as the preparation: Before prayer prepare your soul , meaning prudence is necessary: Be therefore wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak; it is as though He were to say: ‘What you promise, from its promptness is the spirit; yet, nevertheless, prayer is not necessary because of the spirit, but because of the flesh, which is weak; for that reason, vigilance is necessary.’ It is similar to what the Apostle says: The body indeed is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness (Romans 8:10).

But it should be observed that of all things the flesh is the weakest, but not all men have a prompt spirit: in wicked men, in fact, as the flesh is weak, so also is the spirit. On the other hand, in good men, because they have a prompt spirit, for that reason, at the Resurrection the spirit will render the flesh prompt. Or there can be a twofold weakness. One weakness is evil which inclines to sin, according to what the Apostle says: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing (Romans 7:18). The other weakness is good, in that the flesh is weak through promptness, according to that which is said: Tell my beloved that I languish with love (Song of Solomon 5:8). And, for this reason, a man should watch, as Origen says, just like he who has a great treasure watches carefully to guard it.

Again the second time, he went and prayed. Here He prays a second time. According to Chrysostom, He prays a second time to more surely demonstrate His human nature: hence: And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God (Genesis 41:32). Now, that which He says: If this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, your will be done, can be explained in three ways. First, it can be explained as follows. Above, He had asked conditionally; here, however, because it was certified that it could not be that He would not drink it, therefore, He asks that His will be done. It is as though He would say: ‘If it cannot be that I shall not pass over into the glory of immortality’ (because His mortality was not contracted but assumed: for that reason, whether He suffer or not, He was to pass over into the glory of immortality). But the chalice could not pass from Him nor from His members; hence, if He would not drink, it would not pass from His members. He wishes, therefore, to say: ‘If it cannot pass from Me and from My members, your will be done’; To do your will, O my God, I have desired it (Psalms 40:8).¹¹ Second, Jerome explains it thus: ‘If it cannot be that the truth can pass to the Gentiles, unless the Jews sin exceedingly, your will be done: for their sin has become the salvation of the Gentiles.’ Hilary explains it thus: ‘If it cannot be that other saints drink the chalice of My Passion except by My example, your will be done’; because other saints have taken an example from Christ’s Passion. Therefore, He wishes to say: ‘If this chalice cannot pass from Me to My disciples, unless I will drink it, so that they might be made stronger for drinking it, your will be done.’

Afterwards, the second sleeping of the disciples is related: And he came again and found them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy, with sleep, meaning on account of sleep and on account of sadness: My eye is consumed with grief (Psalms 31:9).¹²

And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time. Here, the Evangelist treats of the third prayer: and he does two things. First, he relates the order of the prayer; and second, he relates Christ’s concession of sleep, where it is said, Then he comes to his disciples, etc.

He says: And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word. But what does it signify that He prayed three times? He prayed three times to free us from past, present, and future evils. Likewise, He did this to teach us to direct our prayer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; hence, in the prayers of the Church, it is always said: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.” Similarly, He did this to free Peter, by His threefold prayer, from his triple denial: I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail (Luke 22:32). Moreover, He prayed three times against three fears.

For there is fear of a threefold concupiscence: of curiosity, of pride, and of the flesh. And these three concupiscences are mentioned in 1 John 2:16: For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. A threefold fear corresponds to this triple concupiscence, namely: the fear of pain corresponds to the concupiscence of the flesh; the fear of poverty corresponds to the concupiscence of the eyes; and the fear of shame and ignominy corresponds to the concupiscence of pride. And Christ suffered these things, not because He needed to do so, but for our sake.

Then he comes to his disciples and said to them. And first, He is indulgent to their sleeping; and second He wakes them, where it is said, Rise: let us go. First, He gives His allowance of their sleep; and second, He assigns the reason for waking them, where it is said, Behold the hour is at hand: and the Son of man shall be betrayed.

Christ found them sleeping the first time and He rebuked them; He found them sleeping the second time, and He was silent; and the third time He found them sleeping, He permitted them to sleep. What is the reason? The literal reason is that to prelates is given a model of correction; because when a prelate comes to someone, and he finds him sleeping, he does not know if it happens to him due to negligence or due to weakness.

And he can be indulgent. Likewise, it is because, after His Resurrection, He found the disciples sleeping, and he reproved them: O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe (Luke 24:25). Likewise, He visited them after the receiving of the Holy Spirit, because they were still weak; because they were still observing the ceremonies of the Law, as it was said concerning Peter (Galatians 2). But He will lastly visit at His Coming, and He will leave them in a holy and peaceful sleep: In peace I will both lay me down and sleep (Psalms 4:8).¹³ According to Augustine, He allowed them to sleep, and above He forbade them to sleep: but there is one kind of sleep here; and there is another kind above. For there is a sleep of weariness; and concerning this, He speaks above; and this sleep should be rebuked. Here, however, the sleep is the sleep of rest; and this kind of sleep is permitted. Moreover, there is a sleep due to troubling; and this sleep is forbidden. Concerning this sleep it is said: Awake you that sleep, and arise from the dead (Ephesians 5:14). For sometimes there is a sleep on account of the rest of the body, yet nevertheless the soul watches. I sleep, but my heart wakes (Song of Solomon 5:2). Similarly, because they were about to labor, for that reason, it was fitting that they rest. Then He assigns the reason: Behold the hour is at hand. He did not have to do this by some necessity, but by the divine ordination: They sought therefore to apprehend him: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come (John 7:30). But this hour had come: Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father (John 13:1). But some might say: If the hour is by divine ordination, then they did not sin in killing Him. Therefore, when He relates this sin, He says: the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners, meaning they do not do this such that it is by the divine ordination, but from the fulfilling of their own will. I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies (Jeremiah 12:7). Then the Evangelist relates the waking up. And first, he relates it; and second, he relates the need for waking them, where it is said, Behold he is at hand that will betray me. By the fact, however, that Christ says, Rise, He shows His promptness; hence, in John 18, it is said that He met them. And why did He do this? Behold he is at hand that will betray me. He knew that he was near, not because He saw him with the eyes of His body, but rather He saw him with His spirit itself, namely, with the eye of His divinity.

But why did He say to them, Rise, since He had given them permission to sleep? Augustine solves this question, saying that He had said this rebuking them; it is as though He were to say: ‘Sleep as much as you like: Behold the hour is at hand, etc.’ And Augustine says that this explanation suffices, unless a better one comes along; for that reason, he says otherwise that these disciples slept a little, and when they had slept, He said: Rise: let us go.

¹ The author cites Psalm 36:24. The wording is closer to Psalm 37:24 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

² The author cites Zechariah 13:6. The wording "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered" is found in Zechariah 13:7 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

³ The author cites Psalm 146:2. The wording is closer to Psalm 147:2 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

⁴ The author's quote "Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized" has been modernized. Compare to Matthew 26:33 (KJV): "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended."

⁵ The author cites Job 40:6. The quote "And beholding every arrogant man, he humbles him" is closer to Job 40:11-12 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original, and the quote modernized from the author's version.

⁶ The author cites Judith 9:15 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Judith 9:11 in some English versions. The reference is preserved as in the original.

⁷ The author cites Psalm 62:6 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Psalm 63:5 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

⁸ The author cites Ecclesiasticus 35:21 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 35:17 in some English versions. The reference is preserved as in the original.

⁹ The author cites Psalm 115:13 (Vulgate, second part of Ps 116 in KJV). This corresponds to Psalm 116:13 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

¹⁰Romans 11:11 (KJV): "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." The author's "The offense of the Jews is the salvation of the Gentiles" is a summary/paraphrase.

¹¹ The author cites Psalm 39:9 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Psalm 40:8 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

¹² The author cites Psalm 30:10 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Psalm 31:9 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.

¹³ The author cites Psalm 4:9 (Vulgate). This corresponds to Psalm 4:8 in KJV/modern English Bibles. The reference is preserved as in the original.