Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 26:17-25

"Now on the first [day] of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples; and as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord? And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said." — Matthew 26:17-25 (ASV)

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.’