Volume 32 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca

From God through Jesus Christ, being guided, we venture upon the great and living path of the gospel. We are encouraged to know and walk upon it, as if to reach its end. But now indeed we attempt to embark, as it were, on the thirty-second stage, on the things to be said. And may the pillar of the shining cloud, Jesus, be with us, leading us when necessary, and stopping when required, until we thoroughly and with the dictation of the gospel, O holy brother and man of God, Ambrose, may traverse the gospel, not fainting because of the length of the journey or wearying because of our weakness, but forcing ourselves to walk in the footprints of the pillar of truth. Whether he wills to complete our minds' journey through the dictations of the entire writing of John's gospel or not, God himself might know. Only, whether being at home in the body or away from it in order to be at home with the Lord, let us not go outside the gospel, so that we might partake of the works and words bearing the blessings in the paradise of God's delight.

[John 13:2-5] And during supper, the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him. Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, he rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. Then he poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.

In the homilies on the Gospel according to Luke, we compared the parables to one another, and sought to understand what the best means according to the divine scriptures, and what the dinner signifies according to them. And now, therefore, let it be said that the best is the first and before the completion of the spiritual day in this life, the food that is suitable for those who are being initiated; the dinner, however, is the last and provided according to reason for those who have already advanced further. And otherwise one might say that the best is the meaning of the old writings, and the dinner is the hidden mysteries in the New Testament. These things have been said as a preface, examining how Jesus, during supper, rose from the supper, and after pouring water into the basin, he began to wash the disciples' feet.

For I think that those who dine with Jesus and partake of food with him on the day at the end of this life need some kind of purification, not concerning the primary part of the soul's body, if I may so call it, but, as one might say, they need to wash away the last and the lowest parts that necessarily come into contact with the earth. And this purification can first of all happen by no one but Jesus alone, and secondly [also by] his disciples, to whom he said: "You also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you." And the evangelist seems to me in these matters to be arousing our mind to the spiritual understanding of the spatial things, not having retained the bodily sequence concerning the washing, when before the supper and the reclining at the meal, those who needed to wash their feet washed. But in passing over that time, he speaks that Jesus, already reclining at the supper, rose from the dinner, so that, having dined, the teacher and the Lord would begin to wash the disciples' feet. For before the supper they had been washed, and having become wholly clean according to the saying, “Wash yourselves, be clean, remove the evils from your souls from before my eyes,” and the like; but after that washing they needed a second water only for the feet, that is, the lower parts of the body. For it is impossible, I think, that the soul can be fouled in nothing, not even in its last and lower parts, even if one seems to be perfect as among men. Therefore many, even after washing, are filled with the dust of sins up to the head, or a little lower; but those genuinely taught by Jesus, so as even to reach dining together with Him, have need only of the washing of their feet by the Logos. Observing differences in sins and considering what to the exact and strong Logos are sins, but to the many are not even considered sins, you will see which are those things for which the feet need washing by Jesus. And if such are the defilements concerning the feet, what shall we do who have never arrived to supping with Jesus, and who are defiled not only in the feet? Jesus says to Peter, who did not then understand but would know after the mystery of the washing of the feet that are cleansed by Jesus, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” Which you should ask what it means; whether that you have no part at all if I do not wash you with good, or not with Me the teacher and Lord but with lesser than Me, among whom are those who, after washing, have neither dined with Me nor been washed by Me, or have dined but not been washed. But I attenuate due to “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me,” perhaps Jesus neither dines with someone (for He does not need introduction and first teachings), nor does anyone dine with Him, but the one eating with Him only banquets; “For greater than Solomon is here,” about whom it is written, “And the feast of Solomon was this,” which is cited in the third of the Kings. And this I would dare to say as consistent with "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me," that he did not wash the feet of Judas, because the devil had already put it into his heart to betray the teacher and lord, finding him not clothed with the whole armor of God and not having the shield of faith, with which one can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one. For having written "The devil has already put it in," I hear as also the seventh Psalm of scripture teaches about this, the archer and having prepared flaming weapons for those who do not guard their hearts with all vigilance. And the wording of the Psalm is thus: "If you do not turn back, he will sharpen his sword; he has bent his bow and made it ready; he prepared his deadly weapons against the burning arrows he has made. Behold, he labored with iniquity, and conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood." Thus everyone will confess that "Behold, he labored with iniquity, conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood" can be referred to the devil; but it is absurd not to think that these words are equally said for him: “If you do not turn back, he will sharpen his sword; he has bent his bow and made it ready; he prepared his deadly weapons.” For no one else has prepared deadly weapons in his bow with which he has bent back, except the one whose jealousy brought death into the world. Now from these arrows, which the devil prepared for the burning ones, he shot into the heart of Judas, Simon Iscariot, already at the supper, not, however, so as to please him, since the food of this supper and the wine therein could not be in a heart that had received a dart from the devil about to betray his host, as it is not clearly stated who the host was even though it says, "They made him a supper there, and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those reclining with him." But concerning Judas, it is written, "The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, Simon Iscariot to betray him.” And similarly, you might say this about each of those pierced in heart by the devil: the devil has already put it into his heart to commit fornication, or to rob someone, or to embrace idolatry in his exaltation, or other remaining sins which the devil casts into a heart that is not shielded by the shield of faith; with the shield of faith, one can extinguish not one or two but all the flaming arrows of the evil one. As the arrangement of the passion was drawing near, on which Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, wounded by the devil, was about to betray him, while the supper was already taking place, it says, "Knowing, Jesus, that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from the supper." Therefore, the things that were not previously in the hands of Jesus are given by the Father into his hands, and not some but all; which David also seeing in spirit says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." For the enemies of Jesus were part of all those whom he knew, as far as foreknowledge goes, to be given by the Father to Jesus. To understand more clearly what it means that "The Father has given all things into his hands," let us consider, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive." But even though the Father has given all things into his hands, and all shall be made alive in Christ, God's justice is not confused and each is governed according to merit; this is made clear by following "Thus in Christ all shall be made alive" with "Each in his own order." And again you will understand the different orders of those made alive in Christ when it is fulfilled that "The Father has given all things into his hands," with "Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at his coming, then the end," which end will come after Christ's coming when "He will deliver the kingdom to God the Father," having first abolished all rule and all authority and power. These I believe are against which the struggle exists, so no longer there will be rule, authority, or power, and thus there will no longer be a struggle, with all rule and authority and power abolished. I am moved to think that the abolishing of "all rule and all authority and power" is against which the struggle is referenced by Paul saying, "For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet." Then, "The last enemy to be abolished is death." And this agrees with "the Father has given all things into his hands," which the apostle more clearly expounds: "When he says all things are put under him, it is evident that he who put all things under him is excepted." If all things are put under him, it is also clear that "All things are put under him except him who put all things under him"; and the one about whom it is written, "Before the Lord Almighty he shall prostrate himself," will be among those who are subjected to him, defeated in yielding to the word and subjected to the image of God, becoming a footstool for Christ's feet. Thus, seeing the plan progressing toward its good end on account of the "already having put into the heart by the devil that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him," knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands and had given all things into his functioning hands so that everything might be subject to him, or the Father had given everything into his hands, that is, into his actions and noble deeds; for "My Father," he said, "is working until now, and I am working." Because what came out from God came out from God, having been outside God and not having wished previously to come out from the Father, so that what came out might come into the hands through the way and order of Jesus, and might be managed to follow God, following him, on account of those to follow him shall be towards God. Peter indeed had once been told, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you shall follow afterward" (for Peter still had what did not permit him to follow the Word at that time); but you should understand the similar in a just proportion, it being said to each of those to whom the Father had given all things into the Son’s hands; to each of all it will be said, "But you shall follow me afterward." But if they do not follow at the same time, it refers not to the same moment the fitting "afterward" in "But you shall follow afterward" of each of the followers. Understand this also concerning all rulers, whether when he shall put down all rule, all authority, all power, simply "until he put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Knowing then that Jesus, "the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God," and knowing † concerning which we have been moved, as we have related presenting what seemed evident to us in "He had come from God" and in "He was going to God," "he rises from the supper," he says, which we must understand next according to what follows. And see if you can say in these things that it brought him joy in a detached manner to dine with the disciples; in a specific and necessary manner for the disciples, he rises from the supper, and desists from dining for a time until he cleanses the disciples' feet, who could have no part with him unless he washes them. After "He rises from the supper," what then follows we must understand. "He lays aside his garments, and taking a towel, girded himself." And in these we might say to those not wishing to rise from the literal and intellectually perceive the things set before them as nourishment of the soul: for what harm was there in washing the feet of his disciples while he was clothed? But perhaps if we rightly consider the garments of Jesus, which he was wearing while dining and rejoicing with his disciples, we might understand what sort of adornment the Word made flesh is clothed in. This, being comprised of a certain fabric of words woven together with words and sounds woven together with sounds, is laid aside, and being more naked, he becomes as one with a servant's form, which is signified by "He took a towel and girded himself," so that he might not be entirely naked and might, after washing, dry the feet of his disciples with a more familiar fabric. And see how in these matters the great and glorified Word, made flesh, humbles himself to wash the feet of his disciples; "For, it says, he pours water into the basin." Therefore Abraham, when "He looked up and saw, and behold, three men stood before him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of the tent and bowed down to the ground, and said, Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass your servant by," did not himself carry water or promise to wash their feet as strangers who came to him, but said, "Let a little water be fetched, and wash your feet." Nor did Joseph bring water to wash the feet of his eleven brothers, but the man over Joseph's house "brought Simeon out to them, and brought water to wash their feet." But he who said, "I have come not to be served but to serve," and rightly said, "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart," he himself pours water into the basin; for he knew that no one could wash the feet of the disciples so that they might have a share with him, as he himself. As for the water, it seems to me to be such a word that, washing the feet of the disciples, brought them upon the basin set by Jesus for them. Then I inquire why it is not written that "he washed the feet of the disciples," but it is said, "And he began to wash the feet of the disciples." Is this perhaps a common way of expression in the Scriptures, by which it seems not reasonable beforehand, according to the customs of many, to prefix "he began"? Or is it that Jesus then "began to wash the feet of the disciples," but did not cease washing their feet? For later he did wash and complete the washing, since they were defiled according to "You will all be scandalized in me this night," and the saying to Peter, "The cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." For after these sins happened, the defiled feet of the disciples needed washing again, those whom he began to wash when he rose from the supper, and he completed the washing by cleansing them so that they would no longer be defiled. Thus at that time, he began to wipe the feet of his disciples, and completed wiping, when he also completed washing.

[John 13:6-11] He comes therefore to Simon Peter; Peter says to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you shall know hereafter.” Peter says to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.” Simon Peter says to him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” Jesus says to him, “He who is washed needs only to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would betray him; therefore he said, “You are not all clean.”

We will use Peter's present words in time as an example, if ever there is need, that it is possible for someone, despite a very good intention, to say things due to ignorance that are not at all beneficial to themselves. For if it was beneficial towards having a part with Jesus to have one's feet washed by him, and Peter, not knowing that this was beneficial, first said almost baffled in supplication the “Lord, do you wash my feet?” then the second “You shall never wash my feet,” the things being said were hindering the act which brought him to have the part with the savior. It is clear that even if he spoke this with a good and reverent intention towards the teacher, he was speaking harmfully to himself. Life is filled with such kinds of errors from those who, while believing, propose the better things, but due to ignorance, say or even do things leading to the opposite result. Such as those who say, “Touch not, taste not, handle not” concerning all things meant for human consumption and use, through some doctrine far below the divine teaching of “As a man dies.” What need is there to speak of those tossed and carried about by the waves in heresies, blown around by every wind, according to the sleight of men, proclaiming as salvific things destructive, and as venerating Jesus things false concerning him? Often the scripture has marked Peter such as this, more fervent in promising what seemed to him better; just as in the unexamined and contradictory words concerning Jesus' prophecy about the disciples: “All of you will be offended because of me this night,” and presenting the cause in “For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.” For without examination and contradicting Jesus' prediction, he said, “Though all shall be offended because of you, I will never be offended.” And this, being still rash in his soul at that time, I think became the cause of him sinning beyond the measure of the scandalizing of the others, as he denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Therefore, knowing his former rashness, he was greatly benefited, so as to become most stable and patient; which is shown by Paul saying to him in front of everyone, "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?" and the following things. And he, after that path, kept silent and did not present anything reasonably or most patiently, about which someone would more familiarly discuss in the letter to the Galatians. And in the Acts of the Apostles, his established condition, transformed into the same image, will appear to those who oversee and heed each. And here, then, when Jesus rose from the supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself, and poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded, all indeed offered their feet, observing concurrently in regard to Jesus that such a great one would not wash their feet uselessly, as most would say, wishing to burden the disciples, but accomplishing something useful which they expected to know later, contemplating whether perhaps these things were done as a symbol. But Peter alone, seeing beforehand unfavorably and not attributing any other reasoning to that, revering Jesus, did not offer his feet for washing, but first tried to dissuade him with "Lord, you wash my feet?" After that, when he had to be persuaded by "What I do you do not know now, but you will understand later," he said "You will never wash my feet." Besides, with the other disciples entrusting themselves to Jesus and not contradicting him at all, he, through what he says, even if it seemed healthy to prefer, not only blames Jesus, as if starting to wash their feet without reason, but also his fellow students. For if he thought that he did the proper thing in wanting to prevent, the others not seeing it, he accused them of not doing their proper duty by offering their feet to Jesus; and if he thought logically that it was not right to contradict and he considered it reasonable to be done in Jesus washing the disciples' feet, he would not have contradicted the act. It therefore appears to be absurd not to consider the intention concerning Jesus washing the disciples' feet as reasonable. But if it is necessary to scrutinize the Scripture even in the minutest details, one might ask why Peter, who was counted first among the twelve, perhaps as more esteemed than the others, while Judas, truly the last of all, was cast to the last place by his wicked disposition. When Jesus began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded, he did not begin with Peter. And it must be said on this point that just as a physician, ministering to many sick persons according to medical art, begins treatment with the most urgent and those suffering worse, so he who washes the dirty feet of the disciples begins with those more soiled, and perhaps came to Peter last, as needing the washing of the feet the least of all. Perhaps even the close-to-clean state of his feet contributed to his reaction of seeming to object. Considering what Jesus said, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not every one of you," perhaps this would suggest the meaning that the disciples, already having had their feet washed by Jesus, and thus no longer needing to wash, with even Peter already being clean before Jesus washed his feet. If someone were to ask, regarding this, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean," why Jesus would wash their feet when the disciples needed no washing, it must be said to him, "To everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance." Since the disciples had the quality of being clean, Jesus adds to their cleanliness by washing their feet. He would not wash the feet of those not bathed or not completely clean, but so as to speak of those pure in such a way; for even if one is perfect among the sons of men, without the cleanliness from Jesus, he will not be considered clean. And I expound on this later, after what was previously commanded, maintaining also the order of the thoughts interjected, as first he saw the soiled feet of the disciples needing cleansing from Jesus, now because he washed their feet since they were, as among men, clean but not before God; for without Jesus, no one is clean before God, even if previously thought to have made themselves clean through some care. But to those who already have been made pure as humans, and have washed in the baptism of Jesus, and have had their feet washed by Him, the Holy Spirit and the power from on high can dwell within them. Thus, Peter, not understanding the word of Jesus’ purpose, when he began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded, said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?” speaking doubtfully and imploringly. But Jesus answered and said to him, teaching that this was a mystery, "What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this." What then was Jesus doing by washing the disciples' feet? Was He making them beautiful by washing their feet and wiping them with the towel with which He was girded, as they were about to preach the good news? For when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, then, I think, the prophetic saying about His apostles was fulfilled: "How beautiful are the feet of those who announce the good news." If by washing the disciples' feet He makes them beautiful, what shall we say of the true beauty that comes to those who have been baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit and fire? Then the feet of those who announce the good news become beautiful, so that, being washed, cleansed, and wiped by Christ’s hands, they may be able to tread the holy path and to follow the one who said, "I am the Way." Only he who has had his feet washed by Jesus can tread this living path that leads to the Father, for this path does not permit polluted and still unclean feet. Moses was told to remove the sandals from his feet because the place where he stood was holy ground; and likewise for Joshua, the son of Nun. But for the disciples of Jesus, to tread the living and lively path, it was not enough to be without sandals on the way, as Jesus had commanded His apostles, but it was also necessary for them to have their feet washed by Jesus, who had laid aside His garments. Perhaps this was to cleanse their feet even more thoroughly, or perhaps to take the dirt of their feet into His own body through the towel with which He was girded. For He Himself bears our weaknesses. Notice, then, that when He was about to wash the disciples' feet, He chose no other time than when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, Simon’s son Iscariot, to betray Him, and when the divine plan for humanity was about to unfold. Before this, it was not the right time for Jesus to wash the disciples' feet. For who would have washed off the dirt of their feet accumulated until the time of His passion? And not during the time of His passion either, for there was no other Jesus to wash their feet. But not even after the dispensation; for the hour had already come when the Holy Spirit had visited the disciples, having been made pure and having washed their feet, and were now ready and beautiful to preach the good news in the spirit. Such is the "What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will understand after this." It is a symbol of the washing of your feet by me, to cleanse the bases of your souls, so that they may become beautiful, as you are about to preach the good news and tread the souls of men with clean feet. This mystery you do not understand now, as you are not yet capable of comprehending it, but it will become clearer to you when I have washed your feet; after this, you shall understand it as your understanding is illuminated by the knowledge of something neither insignificant nor brief. As Jesus said these things to Peter, the disciple answered not with a knowledgeable reply but with a response giving rise to an unverified imagination aimed at honoring and revering Jesus. Therefore, since Peter’s response was not advantageous to him, He who appropriately prevents harmful truths with His own goodness did not allow it to become real. For Peter says, "You shall never wash my feet," and he declared, since Jesus decided to wash his feet, that he shall not be washed by Him and not be washed for all eternity. But Jesus, seeing that it was more beneficial for Peter to be proven false in this than to be proven true, indicated the benefit of not letting this utterance be true, saying, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me." Therefore, if Peter would have, after declaring "You shall never wash my feet," and this being true, not have a part with Jesus, but would have a part by not being truthful, driven to a hasty statement, what else was there for him to do but not to be truthful? So that being truthful in this would make him not have a part with Jesus, who showed him to be false in washing his feet. For it is written, "Every man is a liar," and sometimes we will appropriately use this saying for those who rashly and incoherently declare that they will do something not beneficial to them, adhering to a poorly judged statement. For, showing them that they will not have a share with Jesus if they adhere to their rash promise, they will be able to keep good hope if the aforementioned is annulled. We will separate them from persisting in wrongly decided matters, even if at some time through much rashness this happens with an oath. And we will say that just as Peter, when he said, "You shall never wash my feet," was prevented from persisting in the stated confession so that he might have a share with Jesus, so also you, O someone who has sinned, rashly and indiscriminately promising this, would do better to change and act more reasonably rather than persist in the wrongly decided matter. And addressing "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand," and "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me," those who are not willing to adapt this and similar things out of reverence should receive this kind of evangelical examination; or those who are not willing should show how it is reasonable for someone, as they would say, out of reverence for Jesus, to hear from the teacher that he will not have a share with the Son of God as a result of the greatest sin of not wanting to have his feet washed by Him. For the statement "If you commit this fault, you will have no share with me" would have fit if spoken of obvious sins; but "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me" has no reasonable case against one who did not want Peter to wash his physical feet. But when He was washing the feet, the teacher answering his honoring disciple most calmly (something it is not lawful to speak), which is most absurd. Therefore, let us also now give our feet to Jesus rising from the supper, laying aside his garments, taking a towel and girding himself, and pouring water into the basin, and beginning to wash our feet as His disciples, and to dry them with the towel with which He girds Himself for serving us. For if we do not do this, we will not have a share with Him, neither will our feet be lovely, especially when desiring the higher gifts we wish to be among those who preach the good news. But because Peter is rash, hearing "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me," asking in providing his feet to Jesus, he wishes exceedingly beyond the measure of his request, and he provided to be washed by Jesus not only his feet any longer, but now also his hands, which Jesus did not intend to wash, whenever they eat bread, disregarding the saying that "Your disciples do not wash their hands when they eat bread," and besides his hands, his head, which Jesus no longer wished to cover, upon which the image and glory of God already was. For it is enough for us, when we come to the same time as the disciples of Jesus, to provide only the feet to him who washes and wipes them: "For he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is completely clean"; if anyone is not completely clean, he has not bathed. One might ask, if he who has bathed has no need to wash but is clean, and the disciples of Jesus were clean, as if they had bathed, why did Jesus pour water into the basin and begin to wash the disciples' feet? To this, we have partly already said in advance and now will add these things to those. The saying "We need" applies to the necessary things, without which one cannot live, set forth; so that, if in bodily matters man needs not many, but only these, about which Paul says: "But having food and covering, with these we shall be content"; things that contribute to wealth and luxury accrue to the luxurious from abundance, not as necessary and indispensable, but as surplus; so also in divine matters, we need those that lead to life and ensure being in the one who says: "I am the life"; what is beyond these, about which it is said: "Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart," and what is understood concerning the paradise of delight and wealth and glory, in the left hand of wisdom, according to the one who says: "Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand are riches and honor," could be said to be beyond need. And perhaps such is the washing of the feet after bathing by such a great teacher and savior; for the gift of God surpasses need, just as being in the glory of the sun or moon or stars in the holy resurrection of the dead. Therefore, the clean and bathed one has no need to wash; but he is washed, according to the prior offering, since "To everyone who has, more will be given"; and as John says: "Let the one who is clean become cleaner still, and the holy become more holy." The phrase "You are clean" refers to the eleven, to whom it is said "Not all" because of the Iscariot; for he knew the one betraying him, already not clean, first because he did not care for the poor, but because he was a thief and having the money box he used to take what was put in it; and later, "During the supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray him," he did not reject what was put. Therefore, the bathed and clean eleven became still cleaner, having had their feet washed by Jesus; but Judas, already not clean ("Let the filthy still be filthy"), became filthier and unclean when, after the morsel, Satan entered into him.

[John 13:12-15] When therefore he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and reclined again, he said to them: Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

It is fitting for those who understand the greatness of Jesus' power and have comprehended what he did by washing the disciples' feet, that he might cleanse also their last and accidental defilements, washing away even those worldly physical impurities, of which their bodies were a symbol, to marvel at the act of washing and would not dare to themselves do such a great thing, thinking themselves too inferior to wash the feet of the inner and hidden man, or of those who embrace the same doctrines of God, unless Jesus by performing this act encouraged them to do so, taking the form of the one dining, when he was about to teach them having dined about the things said. Very persuasively and inviting towards understanding what was done he has spoken the words "Do you understand what I have done to you?" which should either be read questioningly, to show the greatness of what was done, or commandingly, to awaken their minds to comprehend the act and gain knowledge of it. And very instructively together with the persuasive he said "You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." Jesus then washed the disciples' feet, as their teacher, and the feet of the servants, as their Lord. For by teaching, the dust and dirt from earthly matters, reaching only the less significant and lower parts of the disciples, are wiped away, but also by the authority of the ruler, having power over those who still have the spirit of servitude and still accept any pollution, the things polluting the feet are removed. And no one with right mind would say that Jesus, as the door, or as the shepherd, or as the physician, washed the feet of the disciples and servants. But I think that the feet of the disciples, which still haven't received sufficient cleansing, but are still short of the “It is enough for the disciple that he should be as his teacher” require the washing from the teacher. And this is the end which pertains to the teacher’s student, as a teacher, to make the student like himself, so that he no longer needs the teacher, as a teacher, even if he otherwise needs him. For just as the end of the doctor, whom those in poor health need, but those who are healthy do not need a doctor, is to stop the sick from being ill, so that they no longer need him, thus the end of the teacher is to make the student sufficient, in the sense of "It is sufficient for the student to become like his teacher." But regarding the Savior, being a Lord, it is vastly more evident than with other lords, who do not wish their slave to become like their lord. Such indeed is the son of the Father’s goodness and his love; for being Lord, he worked to make the slaves to become like their Lord, when they will no longer have the spirit of slavery again to fear, but will receive the spirit of adoption, in which they cry out, “Abba, Father.” Therefore, before they become like the teacher and the Lord, they need the washing of their feet, as needing the washing like the students, and still having the spirit of slavery unto fear; but when any of them, according to the “It is sufficient for the student to become like his teacher, and the slave like his lord” becomes like their teacher and their lord, then they may imitate the one who washed the feet of the disciples, and wash the feet of the disciples like the teacher, who God has placed in the church after those who have taken the first place in it, apostles and secondly prophets. But if the “You will serve your brother” can apply to the lesser, and “Be the lord of your brother” to the greater like Jacob, it is clear that becoming the slave like the Lord washes the feet of those who serve the teaching given by him, since the “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you speak rightly, for so I am” does not claim to hold anything deeper and beyond what is understood by the many; for not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will hear from Jesus the “You call me ‘Lord’ and you speak rightly.” Thus, those who say on that day “Lord, Lord, did we not eat in your name, and drink in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works?” will not say rightly “Lord.” Therefore, Jesus will say to them, “Depart from me, for I never knew you, workers of iniquity.” Thus, the “Depart from me” will be told rightly to those. And also, the “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” shows that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” would be testified by him as the apostles now are, to whom he said, “You speak rightly, for so I am.” Indeed, their wickedness was no longer sovereign, but the word, and simply the Lord, was the whole living and animate virtue. But also, if "No one can say: Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit," we understand by this what it means to say: "Jesus is Lord"; the one who says "Jesus is Lord" in the Holy Spirit says it well. And if the one who says it well necessarily says it in the Holy Spirit, you seek through the now "And you speak well" jointly examined with "For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Therefore, it is the work of serving the word genuinely to say well: "Jesus is Lord," and for the disciple who corresponds to this, to say well to the Savior, "The teacher"; to whom it would be said "I am," which would not be said by the word to the one who serves sin and is a disciple of lies. Yet even the holy one might need the washing of the feet, since the widow appointed to ecclesiastical honor is examined among other good deeds, and by the "If she has washed the saints' feet"; for I think it ridiculous that one who has all the marks of the holy widow and lacks this alone should not be included in ecclesiastical honor, having often treated servants and handmaids kindly, during the time she had resources, the strangers or those simply in need who sought some charitable work from her. And do not marvel if it leads you to the "If she has washed the feet of the saints," where it is commanded that the older women be employed as elders and good teachers. But see if it is not laborious for anyone learning from Christ, wishing to fulfill the commandment that says: "You also should wash each other's feet," to want to do this as a due work, washing the physical and perceptible feet of the brothers, so that the believers in any condition of life do this, whether those seeming to be in ecclesiastical office, bishops and elders, or in other worldly positions; so that in this way, even the master comes to wash the feet of the believing servant, and the parents for the child; a custom which either does not take place or is extremely rare and among the very simplest and most rustic. But it is necessary to remember also what was said regarding "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me," as well as "Do you know what I have done to you?" For indeed, it is fitting that Jesus has given us an example of washing feet, corresponding to the things said allegorically by the bride in the Song of Songs with "I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them?" Attend also to "So that as I have done to you, you should do also," examining it in connection with "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me." But if someone says concerning these things that even if allegorized, it has still happened literally, it must be said, along with the allegory and the literal word: "If then I, the Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." It must be said to such a person: "Since it has happened literally regarding what was said to Peter, who said, 'You shall never wash my feet,' 'If I do not wash you, you have no part with me'; and we will also literally say to those who, out of piety, do not present their feet to us for washing, 'If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.'" And if it does not persuade you here, consider what you must say regarding the investigation of whether it is necessary to observe the word in every way. For indeed, at some time, it will be appropriate to wash the feet of a certain disciple of Jesus, and for another to offer them to be washed by him, and I myself would admit that it is out of love and goodwill that one should do this and another should present them. But if we shall say that each of those who are not conscious of having done this, and have thus washed the feet of the saints, has not fulfilled a certain owed commandment, the one stating "You ought to wash one another's feet," it is perhaps time to say that nearly everyone is in debt to this commandment.

[John 13:16-18] Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I do not speak of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the scripture will be fulfilled: 'He who eats my bread has lifted his heel against me.'

Besides this, it seems to me necessary to interpret the washing of feet in this manner: for the statement, 'If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them,' pertains to the washing of feet. To understand how the disciples' feet are soiled after they have bathed, and in what way they are washed, as the word intends, and to do as Jesus wishes, is truly the work of the blessed. For it would not be fitting to use the term “blessed” lightly, or to say that a servant washing the feet of his master is blessed by this deed alone, and thus a flatterer or hypocrite; for what we do in washing the feet of the disciples is something great and truly blessed, as it is having Jesus within oneself. This must be known, that similar words are placed alongside: in Matthew, 'The disciple is not above the teacher, nor the servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master;' and in Luke, 'A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.' Next, it is required to consider the statement 'I do not speak of all of you' to what it refers. Some will say it refers to 'Blessed are you if you do them;' for Judas was not blessed. But I do not think this is the correct interpretation. The statement 'Blessed are you if you do them' is true of Judas and anyone else, no matter how wicked, for if they act rightly, they are blessed. Just as I might say to a profligate person, even if he will not listen to what is said or act prudently: 'Blessed are you if you act prudently;' and to someone who despises wisdom, even if he remains in his choice: 'Blessed are you if you embrace wisdom and instruction.' Therefore, the statement 'I do not speak of all of you' perhaps refers to 'A servant is not greater than his master.' For since "Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin," and Judas committed sin, as the devil had cast into his heart to betray the Savior, Judas was a slave of sin. And being a slave of sin, he was not a servant of the word of God. Thus, he was no longer an apostle of Jesus; for he belonged already to the devil, who had cast into his heart to betray the Savior. Therefore, the Savior, denying him as His servant and apostle, said after "A servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him," "I am not speaking of all of you." After this, let us examine "I know whom I have chosen," which in simpler terms means, I know who each of those I have chosen is; so I also know who Judas is and he does not escape me, as the devil had already cast into his heart things against me. And the meaning is confirmed by certain usages of the scripture about the "I know" and similar expressions; such as "I knew". The Savior says somewhere to those who will say, "We ate and drank in your name, and cast out demons," "I never knew you" and "I do not know where you come from"; if this is understood simply, we might think it contrary to the dignity of the Savior. But perhaps, as "The Lord knows those who are His", those who are not His, He has not known, and about some, He says, "I never knew you," thus He might also say about Judas, if indeed he was never known; but if he fell after being among His own, it might be said to him, "I do not know where you come from". And now, as the devil had already cast into his heart things against Jesus, Jesus did not know him. Thus, He did not say, "Now I know all who are present," but "I know whom I have chosen," as if saying "My elect". Therefore, the "I know whom I have chosen" does not apply to all who are present and what ensues by one of you betraying me, to fulfill the scripture that says, "He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me". The quoted saying is paraphrased from the fortieth Psalm, thus stated: "And even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has magnified against me his heel". Therefore the Savior says that this statement was made concerning Judas and Himself. In which you will ask, how was Judas a man of peace and the Savior had trusted him. It is shown through these things, I think, that he had genuinely once believed; for He would not have sent him, never having been a son of peace, along with the other apostles and said to him also: for it is written that He said to the twelve, “Say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon Him; but if not, it will return to you.” And although the devil had put so many things into his heart against the Savior, even shortly before he is testified to have been a thief. I do not think that he was trusted with the money box from the beginning being a thief; thus, being worthy to be trusted if he, although foreknown to fall, was trusted. And such a man of peace he was, that Jesus had once held good hopes in him, as a good apostle; for He says, “Upon whom I hoped.” And I think that he partook of the most secret words along with the apostles, having received them from Jesus, concerning which He said, “He who eats my bread.” And the phrase “He has lifted his heel against me” is translated to “He has raised his heel against me,” with the same meaning. And if it is necessary to explain the phrase “He has raised his heel against me,” we will say that this is said of one who strikes with the heel; and Judas was such a one, trampling the Son of God. And he was eating bread with Jesus, when Jesus took the piece of bread, dipped it, and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And Judas raised his heel against the teacher when, after the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. And if the phrase “The iniquity of my heel will surround me” can also be understood with “He has raised his heel against me” referring to Judas, being in the portion of Jesus, having been His property and an apostle, and being called a heel because of his final actions, he himself will examine it together.

[John 13:19] From now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he.

This phrase refers to what was previously said, "I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me'; for this will happen so that the scripture concerning him who lifts his heel against me—who eats my bread with me—may be fulfilled. From now on I tell you, and I tell you before it happens, so that when the foretold prophecy in the scripture is fulfilled, you may believe that I am he about whom these prophecies were made—about the one who eats bread with him and lifts his heel against him." One might ask how Jesus could say to his disciples, whose feet he washed, that they had not yet believed that he himself was the Christ with the words, "From now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he," referring to the prophesied Christ. And see if we can, without accusing such great disciples of Jesus as not yet believing, also hold the intention of the speaker to save: "So that you may believe when it happens that I am he." The one who receives visions of wisdom sometimes, upon previous matters through which he is already wise, perceives further things upon which he was not previously wise, and becomes wiser. It is also said, "For hearing these things, the wise will become wiser." Just as if someone were saying to a wise person certain things and adding, "These will make you wise;" we would not certainly understand this to mean making the unwise wise, but rather making the wise wiser, progressing towards perfection. Understand, then, that the believer can become more faithful. For the apostles, approaching the Lord not accusing themselves of disbelief, said to him, "Lord, increase our faith." For in the word "increase" it is clearly indicated that they had faith capable of receiving addition. If we understand this, then understand that the additions of those who believed after previously believing add to faith; thus the disciples, who had faith, also received this seeing of the scripture being fulfilled—"He who eats my bread has lifted his heel against me"—indicating that he about whom this was prophesied was he. And listen to the "So that you may believe" as being equivalent to "So that by believing you may act," remaining steadfast in faith and having no pretext for being moved away. And if indeed faith was not great in magnitude or numerous in quantity, Paul would not have said, "Even if I have all faith." For just as he who is perfect and possesses all virtues, having acquired each perfectly, has perfect wisdom and perfect prudence, and likewise piety and the rest, thus one might speak of having all faith as being perfect in the virtue of believing. But I say these things because incomplete wisdom or prudence or piety or the rest of the virtues would not properly be called perfect, but only in a figurative sense, and those advancing in each virtue are named in likeness to the perfect. For thus someone is called wise who errs in some respect as needing correction, yet not hating those who correct but rather loving them, as it is written: "Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." Thus also a wise man is said, who being receptive to other insights of wisdom and not yet having even the second insights, as it is also said: "Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser." But we have come this far, showing that it is possible for one who already believes to learn something more, so that he may believe again, and by the addition of teachings to add to faith. And if we wish to know who has all faith, let us take by example those things in believing that save the believer, let’s say being numbered at one hundred, and let us say that the one who accepts without hesitation the aforementioned one hundred and firmly believes in each of them has all faith; but the one who falls short in some number of those saving beliefs, or in the certainty concerning what is believed, falls short of having all faith by the number he lacks belief or by as much as he falls short in certainty about the beliefs, whether in all or in some: so that for the present it is given for some to be able to believe something firmly, and for others to believe but not firmly. Nevertheless, it is commonly agreed that it is impossible to prove that he who is deficient in one thing has certainty in nothing, because not everyone has the same degree of falling short in certainty about what is believed, so that we may call as the Scripture names them, the little-faith ones who have not yet grasped certainty about the things believed. To these things is added due to "According to your faith be it done to you" and due to "Your faith has saved you", each will receive a reward according to the just judgment of God, proportionate to such faith and salvation. For if there is any difference among those being saved, as in "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you" applies both to the measures of faith and to the measures of reward and salvation from God. The one who understands this reasoning will perceive how it is reasonably said to men, as they are not able to judge: "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" and "Do not judge anything before the time until the Lord comes". Again, since I spoke by way of example, of a hundred being saved in the faith, some may indeed believe completely with the faith of the hundred, but some may be deficient in their faith towards some of the hundred or in their certainty towards what is believed, and thus do not have the whole faith. Let me set forth for clarity such examples. "First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and arranged everything, making all things from non-being into being". One must also believe that Lord Jesus Christ, in all truths concerning Him in His divinity and humanity. One must also believe in the Holy Spirit, and that being free agents, we are punished for what we sin, and honored for what we do right. So if someone seems to believe in Jesus but does not believe that the God of the law and the Gospel is one, whose glory the heavens declare as being made by Him, and the firmament proclaims His handiwork, he would lack the chief article of faith. Or again, if someone believing that He who was crucified under Pontius Pilate was a sacred and saving thing for the world, but does not accept that He was born from the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but from Joseph and Mary, this one too would lack the essentials of full faith. Again, if someone accepts His divinity but, stumbling at His humanity, does not believe that He took on anything human or a human nature, he would lack full faith not in trivial matters. Or if someone conversely accepts the human aspects about Him, but denies the substance of the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, he also would not be able to claim to have the whole faith. And thus follow me in understanding, so that we may see how great it is to hold the entire faith unfailingly and firmly, being so powerful when it is entirely within a person's soul, that they can move mountains, whatever mountains there may be. For all people are capable of moving the mountain demonstrated by Jesus, and those shown to him; but if anyone lacks the entire faith, they lack the power to move mountains. And I shall use a similar example for this: just as those with such power, first of all, drag a ship into the sea, but if they lack even one helper or some strength, the ship would not be dragged; thus many as if it were so are moving the mountains with the complete faith; they lack the power to move the mountains to the extent that they lack complete faith. And observe if not everything has been usefully examined for the sake of the disciples whose feet Jesus washed, to whom he said, just as one might assume without having examined, as not yet believing what he said, "From now I tell you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he"; at the same time the explanation shows how great the virtue is according to complete faith, and that it is rarely found; and to what extent each of us lacks having complete faith, so as to move mountains. Yet it is not easily considered for doing or believing, according to the present matters, that the prophets foretold the things concerning Jesus, and according to their word, they were fulfilled in the Savior regarding what was foretold.

[John 13:20] Amen, amen I say to you, whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

Jesus sends not only saints, but also saints and angels; and he sends those who are called apostles because they are sent by him. Now, of these, some are humans, and others are greater powers. For we will not err in calling them apostles, concerning whom it is written: "All are ministering spirits, sent for service on behalf of those about to inherit salvation." For if apostles are sent, all are sent for ministry by the one who makes "his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." Being ministering spirits, they too would be apostles of the one sending them. And each of those being sent by someone, is an apostle of the one sending them. Therefore, it is also said in the higher statement, after "A servant is not greater than his master, nor an apostle greater than the one who sent him." In this regard, one does not err in calling even John an apostle of God because "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John," and even Isaiah for "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" when he answered saying, "Here I am, send me." What am I saying concerning these, when even in the Epistle to the Hebrews, our great savior is called an apostle of the Father? For it is written: "Having then a great high priest and apostle Jesus Christ." And now then, whoever the savior sends to minister for the salvation of some, the one being sent is an apostle of Jesus Christ. But the apostle, just as he is an apostle of the one sending, is only an apostle to certain ones to whom he is sent. Paul, considering this, used to say: "Even if I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." It is possible, therefore, for someone to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, sent to only one person, if he has ministered the word by the providence of God to that one person. And we say these things to again point out the superiority of those who were accounted apostles of Jesus Christ: "For," he says, "they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision." Therefore, Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles only, and Peter to the entire circumcision. If any one of us is deemed worthy to become an apostle to one or a few, as the apostle declared, let him become an apostle. And if he becomes one, let him not be lifted up, remembering "Moreover, it is required in stewards that one be found faithful"; for not necessarily because a thing is sought, it is found. These things are said because of "He who receives whomever I send"; for as many as can be sent by Jesus, even if not, those whom we are accustomed to call apostles, if they are such, and since it is also possible for one who is superior to human nature to be sent by Jesus. Therefore, the one who receives whom Jesus sends, receives Jesus who was sent; and he who receives Jesus receives the Father; thus, he who receives whom Jesus sends receives the Father who sent Jesus. And this word can also be understood in this way: The one who receives whomever I send receives me, and he reaches unto receiving me; but the one who receives me not through some apostle of mine, but comes directly to me not ministered by men nor through men, but revealed to the souls of those prepared for my reception, receives the Father who sent me, as not only I, the Christ, may be in him but also the Father. From these things also we may understand what is contrary to it: For the one who receives whomever the son of the evil one sends, receives the antichrist; and he who receives the son of the evil one and accepts the word of the antichrist, pretending to be truth and falsely professing to be righteousness, receives the evil one himself. Therefore, let us be careful, so that as good bankers we may examine the true servant and reject the false one. Here indeed, "He who receives whoever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me," and "He who sees me, sees him who sent me"; but neither is it said, "He who believes in you, believes in me," nor "He who sees you, sees me." For he desires us to receive his apostles, but not to believe in them. Therefore, let us receive those sent to us by the word and the very word of God; but let us never receive an apostle of the antichrist and a false word.

[John 13:21] Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified and said, "Truly, truly I say to you that one of you will betray me."

Earlier He had said, "Now my soul is troubled"; but now it is said, "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit." And I seek such things in the place: why in any way was it not said, corresponding to "Now my soul is troubled," that "the spirit of Jesus was troubled," or corresponding to "He was troubled in spirit" that "Now my soul is troubled"? And I ventured to ask these things moderately, having observed throughout all Scripture the difference between soul and spirit, and seeing that the soul is something intermediate and capable of virtue and vice, but the spirit of man in him is incapable of the worse things; for the best fruits are said to be of the spirit, not as one might suppose, of the Holy Spirit, but of the human spirit. For in contrast to this, the works of the flesh are said to be evident, all of which are blameworthy, since not a single work of the flesh is praiseworthy. But once even to this point I found the spirit of the wicked to be said to be hardened by the Lord God. For it is written thus in Deuteronomy: "And Sihon king of Heshbon would not allow us to pass through him, because the Lord your God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hands, as is the case this day." But these matters would be more fittingly examined in those concerning Deuteronomy. Now, however, it is intended to say how the previously mentioned "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled" is not concerning the soul nor the soul, nor yet spirit, but "in spirit." Therefore, so that the observation concerning the spirit does not escape, it must be said that in "Now my soul is troubled," the trouble was a passion of the soul, but in "Jesus was troubled in spirit," which is the human, the passion was coming upon the dominance of the spirit. For just as the holy man lives by the Spirit, which comes before all things in life, every action, every prayer, and every hymn to God, so too does everything he does, he does by the Spirit. But even if he suffers, he suffers by the Spirit. And if this is true of a holy man, how much more should these things be said about Jesus, the leader of the saints, whose human spirit, in being fully human, moved and shook the rest of his human parts within him? Therefore, "he was troubled in spirit" so that he might bear witness and say with a kind of divine oath of "Amen" that "One of you will betray me." For the Spirit, I think, seeing that what had already been cast into the heart of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, by the devil, to betray the teacher, became troubled, enlightened by what was about to happen. And since the disturbance was due to the knowledge in the Spirit, that also happened in the disturbance, it is said, "Jesus was troubled in spirit." Perhaps also according to one interpretation "The flesh is weak" and the flesh was troubled. But this was Jesus, about whom Gabriel spoke to Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and called Son of the Most High." Note also in what way the examination of "One of you will betray me" is referred to as a testimony. For this prophecy concerning Judas, one of them, was a testimony like, I think, the one about bearing witness and dying for godliness. For I do not think the same things are signified in the "He bore witness," when the word is disclosed, from which the term "martyr" is formed of God and His Christ, and now when referring to "One of you will betray me". Still, to the best of my ability, I apply myself also to the phrase "One of you," referring to Judas, in case it means what is from the apostolic order, in which he too exalted himself at one time, having a disposition similar to the remaining apostles, but fell away. For thus I heard also the phrase "Behold, Adam has become like one of us," since it is not said there "like us" or "like me," but because one fell from blessedness, "like one of us"; the phrase "like one" also seems to align with the phrase "You shall die like men," and "And like one of the princes you shall fall." For since many princes were made, one fell, imitating whose fall the sinners fall. For as he, possessing deity, fell, thus also those to whom the word says "I said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Highest," having fallen from blessedness, not being men before, die as men and fall like one of the princes. I also think it is wondrously spoken with such a thought: the one betraying me is not a stranger from my disciples, but neither is he one of the many disciples, but one of those apostles honored by me in selection. Many, indeed, condemning Jesus, say, "Crucify, crucify him" and "Remove such a one from the earth." But to betray him was a deed of one who had seen and understood him; for knowing him as a teacher of such and so many lessons, which he had heard privately with the apostles, and knowing him as the Lord, surrendering him, what greatness he knew, he surrendered, which no one having not observed his greatness would have done. For he surrendered the great one, not as he is great, since he did not see as he is great; but he who also learned how great he was and became a listener of the greatness of the wisdom and word and grace in him and betrayed him, surrendered him entirely as he saw greatness. Therefore, it would have been better for him if he had not been born, whether one hears this as the generation of regeneration, as someone might more deeply understand it, or even as the more commonly understood generation; concerning which the one wanting to be rid of things for himself, and having sought out that for which he would be benefited, knowing for whom it is beneficial, also suspecting that it would not have benefited him if he had not existed, descending into the second narrative, will accept that one more.

[John 13:22] The disciples were looking at one another, unsure of whom he was speaking about.

If the evil of Judas had been obvious to Jesus' disciples, it would have been known when the Savior said, "One of you will betray me," who it was that would betray the teacher. But now the disciples were looking at one another, unsure of whom he was speaking about. For indeed, perhaps Judas had previously appeared righteous to the apostles so as to prevent them from suspecting anything evil about him; perhaps also, though, the devil had already entered into his heart, that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, would betray him, yet he was not entirely wicked; for with a remnant of a good intention remaining in him, seeing that he was condemned, when "they bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor," "he repented and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood'; but they said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the silver pieces in the temple, the avaricious Judas went and hanged himself," not even waiting to see the end of the judgment concerning Jesus before Pilate. His repentance was neither pure of sin nor was his wickedness entirely turned to something better. For if he had repented purely, then like the thief who said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom," he would have approached the Savior to do what was necessary to appease Him for the betrayal he had committed. But if entirely he had driven out the notion of good from his own soul, neither would he have regretted seeing that Jesus was condemned; but he would have also added words accusing Him related to the betrayal; but also enjoying as a lover of money the thirty pieces of silver he received, "the price of the esteemed one," he neither would have resolved to reject the silver nor turned them over to the chief priests and elders, nor would he have confessed over those very ones, accusing himself and praising the teacher by saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." Moreover, no one but himself could have brought about the hanging of himself, having cast into his heart the act of betraying the savior; and he provided a place for the devil on both sides. These things I have elaborated to the best of my ability, both showing to those who think him by nature unfit for salvation that he was not such, and narrating that the disciples reasonably looked at each other, being at a loss regarding whom He spoke. It suffices to also present the prophetic word from the fortieth Psalm, showing that though he was holy, he fell away, for it is written: "And indeed the man of my peace, in whom I hoped, who eats my bread, has lifted his heel against me." But also the statement "If an enemy had reviled me, I could have endured it" referring to him indicates that he was not an enemy from the beginning. But also the statement "If he who hates me had spoken greatly against me, I would have hidden from him" shows that he once loved Jesus, having even reached the point of being of one mind with Him, for it is written: "But you, a man of like soul, my guide, and my acquaintance." You could find countless other such things from which you would understand that it was reasonable for the disciples to look at each other, puzzled about whom He spoke. And Luke records that the savior said: "But behold, the hand of the one betraying me is with me on the table." The Son of Man indeed goes as it is determined for him, but woe to that man through whom he is betrayed. The disciples began to question among themselves who it might be among them who was going to do this. For they were discussing and wondering about whom he was speaking. But according to Luke, it does not appear that each was suspecting himself. However, according to Matthew and Mark, this is depicted. For Matthew says: "And being very sorrowful, they began to say to him, each one, 'Is it I, Lord?'" And Mark says: "They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one by one, 'Is it I?' and another, 'Is it I?'" For they remembered, I suppose, being human, that the inclination of those still advancing is variable and subject to wanting the opposite of what was previously intended. Perhaps also, having learned what our struggle is against, they were cautious because of the uncertainty in humans, lest being overcome they might also accept the betrayal of the teacher. For Peter too had the intention when he emphatically said, "Even if all are offended because of you, I will never be offended," not to deny Jesus; but being overcome by the spirit of cowardice, he denied him three times before the rooster crowed. From such words, indeed, we are taught: "Let the one who stands be careful not to fall," and "Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth." Perhaps also the saying "The disciples were looking at one another" along with the simpler meaning, signifies something like this, that each, as much as human nature allows, was looking into the intention of the other, wondering if a soul capable of doing such things and being so disposed towards the truthful teacher, who has testified by saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me," could so much deviate and forget the teacher's lessons, as to reach the point of betraying him. For the saying about the disciples "wondering whom he spoke of" is indeed emphatic; for they were not able to easily grasp about whom it had been said, but were perplexed about this and found nothing clear to understand or say.

[John 13:23-29] One of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on Jesus' bosom. Simon Peter therefore gestured to him and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He speaks." Leaning back on Jesus' breast, he said to Him, "Lord, who is it?" Jesus then answered, "It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it." And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly." But no one at the table knew for what reason He said this to him. For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor.

The one reclining on Jesus' bosom, one of the disciples whom Jesus loved, appears to be John, the writer of the Gospel; for at the end of the Gospel it is written how "Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, 'Lord, who is the one who betrays You?'" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" It is clear that this disciple who wrote the Gospel is John from what is brought forward, stating, "This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things." Note in both places of the Gospel how Peter, trusting and leaning more on himself, where "He gestured to him and said, 'Tell us who it is of whom He speaks,'" and when he saw him following, as concerned more about him than the rest said to Jesus about him, "But Lord, what about this man?" wanting to learn about John's end similarly to having known about his own, that when he grows old he will stretch out his hands, and another will gird him and carry him where he does not wish. If what Jesus spoke are words that are spirit and not letter, they are life through and through and in no way death. And the disciple whom He loved, imitating Him, writes spirit and life. To hear "One of His disciples was lying close to the breast of Jesus" is worthy of the honor that should be given to the Son of God and received by the one loved by Him. And I think that even if symbolically, at that time John was lying on the breast of Jesus, being deemed worthy of this privilege due to the exceptional love shown to him by the teacher, this symbolically indicates that John, lying on the Word and resting in the most mystical things, was lying in the bosom of the Word, which corresponds to him being also in the bosom of the Father, according to "The only begotten deity, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known." If we do not hear more humbly also the "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom," we shall understand something similar about the bosom of Abraham. If this were so, we would resolve the perplexity regarding the scripture as mentioned by the one who wished to cancel the story about the rich man and the poor man. For if Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom, then another before leaving this life would have been in Abraham's bosom, and before him another. But also, when another righteous person departs, the poor man will rise up; one who questions this matter fails to see that it is possible for countless people to rest simultaneously in Abraham's bosom, sharing in the revelations given to him. If we need to provide another scriptural passage on the topic of the bosom, let's examine how the Lord said to Moses, "Again put your hand into your bosom." And he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. And He said, "Put your hand back into your bosom." And he put his hand back into his bosom, and when he took it out, it was restored like the rest of his flesh." It is difficult even for us to see what might be the symbol of this sign. But since we must not stop seeking and should deliver what occurs to us as suitable for judgment to the reader, we will say that the hand is often a symbol of actions; the bosom of Moses has two powers, the former according to the apparent meanings of the letter, making the action of the doer like snow as far as the Hebrew speech goes, possibly even leprous; the latter according to the spiritual law, showing the way of life clean and being restored to the intention of the nature of the Word. And keep in mind that it is added to these, "If they do not believe you or listen to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the second sign," for the one who did not believe in the interpretation of the letter, through pride, believes in the spiritual narration of the law. And if someone does not believe the two signs, the first that makes the action leprous, and the second that restores it to its natural state, for this person the water becomes blood. For it is written, "And if they do not believe you with these two signs or listen to your voice, you shall take water from the river and pour it on the dry land, and the water which you take from the river will become blood on the dry land." And notice that in this sign it does not say "they will believe you" or they will not believe. For it is shown that to the one who does not believe the two signs, the water taken from the river becomes blood, not able to taste the word because of disbelief. But let us return, having gone further than necessary into the bosom of Jesus, and knowing that the one whom Jesus loved was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, let us do all things to be approved by his exceptional love; for thus we too shall recline in the bosom of Jesus. Peter signals to the beloved disciple, and not being content with the signal, he says to him, "Tell who it is about whom he speaks." Since signaling is interpreted maliciously in the Proverbs; for the wicked "winks with his eye, signals with his feet, teaches with his fingers, with a perverse heart he devises evil," and "He who winks with his eyes maliciously gathers bitterness for men," it must be said that wickedness is not in signaling but in winking with the eye, that is, in squinting and not looking straight, and malicious signaling is blameworthy; but signaling eagerly was Peter's task, and accordingly, saying to his companion, as having more confidence with the teacher, "Tell who it is about whom he speaks." For he perhaps wished to see the mystery about the betrayal that Judas delivers Jesus, which to learn Peter, John, reclining in the bosom of Jesus, leaned back and lay on the chest. And perhaps, if he had not reclined on the breast, but had remained in the bosom, John or Peter would not have handed over the word that he desired to learn. Even though reclining, therefore, he was previously in the bosom of Jesus, later he reclined on the breast of Jesus, by the latter in the latter part of the gospel is characterized as the genuine and distinguished disciple of Jesus. For it is written that "Turning around, Peter sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on his breast at the supper and said, 'Lord, who is it that will betray you?'" For it does not say, "who was reclining in the bosom of Jesus." What the Lord answered, let us consider. "He," he says, "is to whom I will give the morsel after I have dipped it." So Jesus said this, and having dipped the morsel, he takes it and gives it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, then Satan entered into him, being unable to enter before, nor immediately upon his having put it into the heart that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, should betray him. For it was necessary, I think, through the giving of the morsel to take it away from the unworthy, to have the better thing that he seemed to have; for from the one who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him. Therefore Judas, being deprived as unworthy of the better thing he received, gave place for Satan to enter into him. And as an example, so that it may be understood how the Lord gave the morsel to Judas, and then he cast off the better thing that was in him, and perhaps peace, retreating from the one who heard and did not accept it to the one who spoke, according to what is said, "If a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you." Additionally, we relate these words from the second epistle to the Corinthians: "Your abundance for their need, that their abundance may also supply your need." For considering the exchange of earthly things for spiritual, you will be able to see how he gave the morsel to the unworthy of bread, that through the morsel he might take away from him, as unworthy to hear still; "For the man of my peace," peace ("let the filthy be filthy still"), when taken away from him, the observer of times for the entrance into the soul, and the one giving him place to enter, Satan entered into Judas. And also observe that previously Satan did not enter into Judas, but merely cast into his heart "that Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, should betray the teacher"; but now under review, after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Therefore, let us also be on guard, lest the devil ever cast any of his fiery darts into our hearts; for if he casts, he then watches for an opportunity to enter himself. But one might ask why it is not written: "He to whom I shall give the morsel," but rather with the addition of "I dip": "I shall dip the morsel and give it." And "after dipping the morsel, he took it and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot." In such contexts, notice if you can assert that the sincere bread is undipped and nourishing in itself; but what is given to Judas was neither bread nor an undipped morsel, but one dipped in what could detach from his soul the dye that had come upon it through reason, so that after the morsel Satan might enter into him. As for myself, I would seek something akin to this from what is written in Matthew: "He who has dipped his hand with me in the dish, he will betray me," and from Mark: "The one dipping with me in the dish," and from Luke, even though it does not name the "dipping," it does say: "But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." The true word about this might be found among those much wiser than I am; but I conjecture that Judas' shamelessness may be displayed even in this, for not honoring the teacher in dining nor allowing him the dipping in the dish, as the rest allowed. Thus, none of them dipped their hands in the dish with him; but he, not deeming it worthy to dip with them, dipped with him, wanting to have equality with him, ought to have yielded to his superiority. So perhaps this also pertains to the saying, "But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." And at one time, jesting to encourage young men about the reverence due to elders at a feast, he used the phrase, so that they would not crush the hand of the [two] elders. For it is also written, "Do not crush with him 'in the dish'." However, they did not ignore the reputation of a meticulous investigation which cannot persuade the listener and receive a defense from those who hear these things. We dared these, considering it better to test everything than to pass by any of the written things untested. When, however, Satan entered Judas, Jesus said to him, "What you are doing, do quickly." To whom "to him" is ambiguous, since it can mean either to Judas himself or to Satan: "What you are doing, do quickly," prompting the adversary to the struggle, or urging the traitor to a service that was to bring about the world's salvation, which should not delay or procrastinate, but hasten as much as possible. Jesus did not fear, as some of those who did not understand the way He said, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," but courageously undressed for the struggle, so to speak. And I think that the twenty-sixth Psalm is prophesied from the perspective of the Savior at the time of passion, and the evil one fought against Him with all his forces. Seeing them armed against Him and scattering when "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ," He says, "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked come against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and my foes, they stumbled and fell. Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war rise against me, in this I will be confident." However, the saying "What you are doing, do quickly," whether spoken to Satan or to Judas by Jesus, none of those reclining knew for what purpose it was said. For some thought, because the Passover feast was imminent, that He told the one who had the money box of the expenses and the giving to the necessities of the poor that he would buy what was needed for the feast, or that he would give something from the collected money to the poor. But Jesus was not saying this, but seeing both the one who entered and the one who received him, and all the plot against Him, stripping for the struggle and to excel for the salvation of men against the evil one, He said, "What you are doing, do quickly."

[John 13:30] So after receiving the morsel, he went out immediately; and it was night.

The Savior said to Judas, "What you do, do quickly," and the traitor obeyed his teacher for the first time in this alone. For having received the morsel, he did not delay nor linger, but as it is written, "He went out immediately", to quickly accomplish the deed of betrayal according to the command of Jesus. And indeed "he went out": not only did he go out of the house where the supper was taking place, but he completely left Jesus, corresponding to "They went out from us." I think that even Satan, who entered into Judas after the morsel, could not bear to be in the same place with Jesus; for there is no concord of Christ with Belial. If, however, we do not scrupulously investigate why the phrase "And he ate" is not added to "having received the morsel", you will discern it yourself. For where it is intended, the text adds also the eating to the receiving; as it is written concerning the bread of blessing, Jesus said to the disciples, "Take, eat." So, did Judas not eat the morsel when he took it? Therefore, if something seems not to agree with what has been previously said, let us analyze the passage, and let the reader judge which interpretation to accept. "Having dipped the morsel," says Jesus, and it is clear that he left it in the dish and took it again; for thus you should understand the phrase "having dipped the morsel" so as not to confuse it with taking. Then it is said, "He gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, Satan then entered into him." "After the morsel" then, perhaps not eaten by Judas, Satan who entered into Judas beforehand prevented the use of the morsel, so that Judas would not benefit from the giving of the bread by Jesus. For it had beneficial power for the one who used it; but he who had once resolved in his heart to betray the teacher, fearing that the resolved might fall apart through the use of the bread, Satan anticipated and entered into Judas along with his receiving the morsel, when it was said, "What you do, do quickly", and having taken the morsel, Judas immediately went out. And thus it might not be unlikely to say in that place: just as the one who eats the bread of the Lord or drinks His cup unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, because of the singular greater power found in the bread and in the cup, which when conditioned to a better disposition produces good, but when taken with a worse disposition, creates judgment; so the bread from Jesus was identical to that given to the other apostles in the phrase "Take, eat," but for them it was for salvation, while for Judas it was for judgment, as Satan entered into him after the bread. Let the bread and the cup be understood by the simpler ones according to the common interpretation concerning the Eucharist, but by those who have learned to listen more deeply according to the more divine promise concerning the food of truth; as if, by way of example, one might say that physical food, when received with a fever present, increases it, but leads to health and well-being when received healthily. Therefore, often a true word given to a sick soul not in need of such food distresses it and becomes an occasion for worse; and thus it is dangerous to speak the truth. These things I have said about the bread which, after dipping, He "gave to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot," and we have touched upon the matter regarding both possibilities, whether he took it and then ate it, or was interrupted by Satan entering into Judas. But if it is necessary to investigate the phrase "It was night" as not having been cast carelessly by the evangelist, it must be said that at that time it was literally night, symbolizing the night that occurred in the soul of Judas, when the darkness descending upon the abyss, Satan, entered into him. For God called the darkness "night," of this night Paul says, we are not children of the night nor of the darkness, saying, "We are not of the night nor of the darkness;" but "Let us who are of the day be sober." Therefore, it was not night for those whose feet were being washed by Jesus, but the clearest of days for those being cleansed and rid of the filth on the feet of their soul. And moreover, it was not night for the one reclining in the bosom of Jesus, for Jesus loved him and dispelled all darkness with his love. Nor was it night for Peter, who confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," which had been revealed to him by the heavenly Father. But while denying, it was night for him. And now, when Judas took the bread and went out immediately, at that moment it was night for him. For the man called Dawn was no longer with him, having left the sun of righteousness in his departure. And Judas pursued Jesus, filled with darkness, but the darkness and the one who took it up could not grasp the light pursued. Therefore, even when he said, as a word of righteousness, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood," and then went and hanged himself, Satan in him had guided him to the noose and hung him on it, and then grasped his soul, unlike with Job as the Lord said to Satan, "But do not touch his soul."

[John 13:31-32] When Jesus had gone out, he said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and immediately glorify him."

The beginning of the glorification of the Son of Man after the glories through signs and wonders and the glory at the Transfiguration is Judas leaving, with Satan having entered into him, from the place where Jesus was. Therefore, the Lord said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified." And also the saying, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself," was said by the Savior, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God; for he also glorified God in his dying. Therefore, when the beginning of the economy of the eventual death of Jesus was being set in motion, Judas having gone out after receiving the morsel to make plans against Jesus, it was said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified." Then, as it is impossible for Christ to be glorified without the Father also being glorified in him, it is added to "Now is the Son of Man glorified" the phrase "and God is glorified in him." However, the glory due to the death for mankind is not that of the only-begotten Word, wisdom, and truth, and the other divine aspects attributed to Jesus, but that of the man who was also the Son of Man, descended from the seed of David according to the flesh. Thus, he previously said, "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth," and in the examination he says, "Now is the Son of Man glorified." This one, I believe, was also highly exalted by God, being obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for the Word, in the beginning with God, the God-Word, did not accept being highly exalted. The exaltation of the Son of Man, accomplished by him glorifying God in his own death, was this: no longer to be distinct from the Word but to be the same as it. For if "The one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" so that in this case neither could it be said "They are two," how could we not rather say that the human nature of Jesus became one with the Logos, with the exaltation of the one who did not consider "being equal to God" a thing to be grasped, remaining in his own exaltation or even being restored to the Logos, when again he was with God, being God and man at once? And if by the death of Jesus, glorifying God, both "He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in the cross," and "He made peace through the blood of his cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven," for in all these things was the Son of Man glorified, and God was glorified in him. Since the one who is glorified is glorified by someone, you will ask in "The Son of Man was glorified" by whom? Similarly, you will ask in "God was glorified in him" by whom? For the sake of the clarity of these words, let us first consider the saying "Now the Son of Man was glorified"; second, "And God was glorified in him"; third, what is joined to this, "If God was glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself"; fourth, "And immediately glorify him." Unless someone wishes to take this phrase to refer to the context of the concluding part of the clause, so that the clause begins with "God was glorified in him" and ends with "And God will glorify him in himself, and immediately glorify him," we must necessarily consider the name of glory, not as it lies in the middle premise of the Greeks, according to which they define glory as the praise from many, evidently it lies on a different premise from this, from the one spoken in Exodus; "And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud overshadowed it and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." And in the third book of Kings, it is written in this way, "And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the Lord." "And the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house." And concerning the glory of Moses in Exodus, it is said thus: "As Moses descended from the mountain, and the two tablets of the covenant were in Moses' hands; as he descended from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had spoken with Him. And Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, and the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him." This concerning the glory is also indicated in the Gospel according to Luke through the following: "And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, who were Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." And Paul also, see to whom he attributes the name of glory; for where he says, "But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look at Moses' face because of the glory of his face, which was fading, how much more will the ministry of the Spirit be in glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the surpassing glory. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory." And again, "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." And a little further on: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." And again after a little: "For God, who said, 'Light will shine out of darkness,' is the one who shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ." Now the present narrative of the evangelical word does not demand a detailed explanation of each of these things; however, it must be said briefly: Insofar as a more divine manifestation happened in the tent and in the temple and in the face of Moses, who conversed with the divine nature; and insofar as, by means of an understanding that is especially pure, the things about God that are known accurately and seen in the understanding that is suitable to consider by the extraordinary purity, this might be called the glory of God seen. Since the mind purified and ascended above all material things, in order to understand the vision of God, is deified in what it beholds. It must be said that such is the face that has glorified, which has seen God and conversed with Him and spent time with such a sight, that this is metaphorically the glorified face of Moses, whose mind was deified by Him. On this account, the Apostle also said, "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image." And just as the light of the night fades away when the sun has risen, so too the glory in the presence of Moses is overshadowed by that in Christ. For the distinction between the transcendent glory in Christ, knowing the Father, glorified Him concerning Himself, compared to that known by Moses and glorifying the countenance of his soul, did not hold the comparison. Therefore, the glory in Moses was said to be abolished by the surpassing glory in Christ. Having said these things of ours briefly to the extent that we set forth, let us return to the "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him." Knowing then the Father through the Son, by the very act of knowing Him, which is the greatest good and leads to the perfect knowledge, the Son was glorified. I also think that in knowing Himself—which also itself falls not far from the former case—He was glorified from knowing Himself. If indeed the knowledge of all things completes the magnitude of His glory, revealing both hidden and visible things, we might inquire whether this could be the essence of wisdom, or in what way the Son of Man might be said to be glorified from being united with wisdom. And all this glory with which the Son of Man was glorified, being a gift from the Father, He was glorified. Among the many things completing all of the glory of man, God is the most preeminent of all, who, in being known by the Son, is not only simply glorified but is glorified in the Son. Therefore, it is indeed daring and greater than our capacity to undertake the examination of a discourse of such magnitude; yet, nevertheless, one must dare to attempt what is possible to investigate in this place. I seek to determine whether it is possible for God to be glorified other than through being glorified in the Son, as we have indicated, more magnificently glorified in Himself, when He is in His own highest regard, through His own knowledge and His own contemplation, which is greater than the contemplation in the Son, as one must conceive such things concerning God, to say that He delights in some unspeakable satisfaction and joy and gladness, delighting in Himself and rejoicing. I use these terms not as they could be properly spoken of God but being at a loss for words, if I may so call them, for the ineffable expressions, which He alone can say or think about Himself, and, after Him, His only-begotten Son can say or think properly about Him. Since we have reached the point of glorifying God in Christ, we may appropriately inquire how He might be glorified also in the Holy Spirit and in all those where the glory of the Lord has been seen or will be seen. I think, therefore, that the entire glory of God radiates from the Son, according to Paul who said, "He being the radiance of the glory", yet from this radiance partial rays of the entire glory may reach the remaining rational creation; for I do not think that anyone can encompass the full radiance of the entire glory of God except His Son. Thus now, the economy of the suffering of the Son of Man for all is not without God, "for which reason God greatly exalted Him." "The Son of Man was glorified," it says, "not alone"; and "God was glorified in Him," and thus one might recount the things according to the place. It is written, "No one knows the Son except the Father," and it was said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Therefore, as much as the Son was not known to the world ("He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him"), He was not yet glorified in the world, and the loss of not glorifying Him in the world was not of the one not glorified but of the world not glorifying Him. But when the Heavenly Father revealed the knowledge of Jesus to those who were revealed to them from the world, then the Son of Man was glorified among those who knew him, and through the glory by which he was glorified among those who knew him, he granted glory to those who knew him; for those who, with unveiled faces, contemplating the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image. Notice from where "from glory" he says, and to where "to glory"; from the glory of the one being glorified, to the glory of those glorifying. Therefore, when he came to the dispensation, from which he was about to rise on the world and be glorified by being known among those who glorified him, he said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified" and also "No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"; the Son was about to reveal the Father through the dispensation, for this reason: "And God is glorified in him." Or you may consider the statement "And God is glorified in him" together with "He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me"; for the Father who begot him is seen in the word, being God and the image of the invisible God, able to be directly perceived in the image of the invisible God, and to the primary model of the image, the Father. Additionally, thus the words in this passage may be taken more clearly; just as the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of some, so through the saints, whose good works are plainly seen before men, the name of the Father who is in the heavens is glorified. Then in whom was he so glorified as in Jesus, since he committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth, nor did he know sin? Therefore, the Son, being such, was glorified, and God was glorified in him. If God was glorified in him, the Father reciprocates to him the greater thing for which the Son of Man has done; for it is greater for the one glorifying God than for the lesser one, according to "The Father who sent me is greater than I am," the Son of Man being glorified in God, the lesser in the greater. And indeed the glory exceeds much in the Son when the Father glorifies him, than in the Father when the Father was glorified in the Son. And it was fitting that the greater one, repaying the glory that the Son glorified him with, would grant to the Son to glorify him in himself, so that the Son may be glorified in God. Then since it was about to happen shortly (I mean the glorification of the Son in God), for this reason, he adds "And immediately he will glorify him." We do not ignore that these things are far less than what this examined place can hold, revealing of God, and his word dwelling in to make known the glory of God, and to whom the Father bestows the grace to be known the entire glory of God. Therefore, being far shorter and much less worthy than the merit of these matters, we confess our thanks to God for the things spoken, which are much greater than our worth.

[John 13:33] Little children, I am with you a little while longer; you will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, 'Where I am going, you cannot come,' so now I say to you.

Gathering from the Gospels the sayings of our Savior, spoken as if by a father to his children, take courage in saying that the Savior is the father of some; for to the paralytic he says, 'Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven,' and to the woman with the hemorrhage, 'Daughter, your faith has saved you,' and now to the disciples he says, 'Little children,' implying, I think, something affectionate and also teaching the still immature state of the apostles' souls at that time. But if anyone should ask, 'Was the paralytic, hearing "child," more complete than those to whom the word says "little children?"' he will hear that if anyone is a little child, he is certainly a child; therefore, it does not preclude the paralytic, called 'child,' from being also a little child; hence, it is not necessary that the one called 'child,' the paralytic, be more complete than those to whom the word said 'little children.' But one should know that just as among men a child cannot later become a brother of one who once was a child, so it is impossible for one to change from being a child of Jesus to becoming his brother. Therefore, those to whom he said ‘little children’ after the resurrection of the Savior, as if changed from the resurrection of Jesus, become brothers to the one who formerly said ‘little children.’ Thus, it is written, 'Go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ And perhaps just as it is possible to change from being a slave of Jesus—they were slaves before being little children, evident from 'You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am' and from 'A slave is not greater than his master,’ which was written before ‘Little children, I am with you a little while longer,’—you may understand whether a slave first becomes a disciple, then a little child, then a brother of Christ and a son of God. Disciples in this case should be considered those who, by their presence, partake in the comprehension of the word, learning the wisdom of God from such a teacher. The expression 'I am with you a little while longer,’ in its simplest understanding, means that he would soon no longer be with the disciples; first, he was arrested by the cohort and the tribune and the Jewish servants, who bound him and led him to Annas first; after this he was handed over to Pilate and subsequently condemned to the crucifixion; then he spent three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. But regarding the deeper searches, perhaps after the "little while", he was no longer with them; not because he wasn't present with them in the flesh and because his soul had descended into Hades (for on this account he was not prevented from being with his disciples, the one who said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them" and "Behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age"), but since the saying, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered'", had been fulfilled, he was no longer with them, who is present with those worthy only. To this one might bring up, "In your midst stands one whom you do not know," saying that he was also with those not recognizing him. But see if it is not the same to be with someone, which is given as a promise to those worthy, as it is to be standing and unrecognized in the midst of those who do not know him. For in the promise he says, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," and "Behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age"; but not like this is the one who says, "In your midst stands one whom you do not know." And in the passage now under consideration, the one who says, "Behold, I am with you," says also, "Yet a little while I am with you." The one saying, "Yet a little while I am with you," would not have said to Judas, present to the senses and now having the devil cast into his heart to betray the Savior, "I am with you" (for he was no longer with him), nor when he dipped the bread and gave it to him, but when after the bread Satan entered into him, much more was Christ not with Judas, who distanced himself from the Savior; "For what accord has Christ with Belial?" And even though the father Jesus was still to be with the little children for a little while, it must be known that after that little while, even if he was not with them, they would still be seeking Jesus, just as Peter, after his denial, wept bitterly, I think, seeking Jesus. Now then, the phrase "A little while longer I am with you" has been spoken, and shortly after: "A little while, he says, and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me," when the disciples were saying, "What is this he says, 'a little while'? We do not know what he means." Jesus, knowing they wanted to ask him, said to them, "Are you inquiring among yourselves about what I said, 'A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me'? Truly, truly, I say to you that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy." For that "little while" in which they did not see him, they sought Jesus; therefore, they wept and lamented, their sorrow turning into joy when the saying was fulfilled, "And again a little while and you will see me." In the matters of examination, if one does not see him in a little while, whether he will see him thereafter, he will surely see him soon, understanding the saying, "And again a little while and you will see me." Seeking Jesus is seeking the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Righteousness, and the Truth, and the Power of God, all of which are Christ. Some seek him having seen signs, and having received bread from him and eaten, the reason for seeking him being that they were nourished by the Word; "You seek me, he says, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled." Then, since he had previously said to the Jews, "I go away and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin; where I go you cannot come," referring to that preceding statement, he says, "And as I said to the Jews, 'Where I go you cannot come,' so now I say to you." For as he said this to them, so too to you; but I say this to you not for a longer time. Thus, I hear the saying, "And I say to you now," which is not the same as "And I say to you" without the addition of "now." For the Jews, whom he foresaw would die in their own sin, could not come where Jesus was going for a short time; but the disciples, after whom he would no longer be with them for a little while, because of the things previously spoken, could not follow the Word departing to his own arrangements. And if it had not been prefaced with "Where I am going, you cannot come," the phrase "As I said to the Jews" might have seemed simpler, referring to the departure of the soul of Jesus from life; but now both the Jews were about to die, and Jesus, having died, was about to descend into Hades. How is it that where Jesus was going, they could not go? But someone might say, since he was also going to be in the paradise of God, where those who were dying in their sins were not going to be, but the disciples of Jesus then indeed could not be there, later for this reason it was said to those dying in their sins, the Jews, "Where I am going, you cannot come," but to the disciples, "Where I am going, you cannot come now." For the following statement is of this kind: "As I said to the Jews, so I say to you now: Where I am going, you cannot come now." And yet this passage carries no small difficulty because of "The Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." For how will he be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, who at the same time of his departure was to be in the paradise of God, according to "Today you will be with me in the paradise of God"? Thus what was said troubled some because it seemed contradictory, so much so that they dared to suspect the addition to the gospel by certain schemers of the very phrase "Today you will be with me in the paradise of God." But we say more simply that perhaps before going into the so-called heart of the earth, he restored the one who said to him, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom," into the paradise of God. And more profoundly, we say that the "today" in Scripture often extends over the entire present age, just as in "This word has been spread among the Jews to this day," and "He is the father of the Moabites to this day," and "Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." The promise is made to him on this day, to the one worthy of being remembered in the kingdom of God, that he would be made to be with him in the kingdom of God in the present age before the future. But this is said in passing as a parenthesis to the aforementioned matter.

To the disciples, wishing to follow Jesus, not as the simpler ones might assume, physically, but as it is indicated, "Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy to be my disciple," the Lord now says, "Where I go, you cannot come now." For if they wished to follow the word and confess him without being scandalized by him, but they could not yet do this, "for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified," and "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."

The word goes on its own ways, and the one who follows it does so, but the one who is not prepared cannot follow, in order to walk earnestly in its footsteps, the word leading to its own Father those who do all things so that they may be able to follow it and do follow it, until they say to Christ, "My soul clings to you." Having now taken a sufficient account of the thirty-two chapters of the exegesis of the Gospel of John, we shall here conclude the discourse.