The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
The second opinion is that of Baronius (Anno Dni. 34, ch. 58). He thinks that Christ made this prediction before the institution of the Eucharist, as Matthew and Mark have it. Baronius, then, is of opinion that the events took place in the order given by John, namely, that after the washing of the feet, Jesus spoke of His betrayal, that it was then that He gave John the sign of the morsel dipped in the dish, but that, as for Judas having gone out immediately after he had taken the morsel, we are not to take the phrase as meaning without any delay in point of time, but that, driven on by a kind of madness, he did not wait for the lengthy discourse which our Lord made after the Supper. For S. Luke clearly bears witness that Judas stayed with the others until the end of the Communion ; and after this, according to the Jewish ceremonial, it would seem that nothing was left on the table in which the morsel of bread could have been dipped, so, too, it seems impossible to say that this morsel of bread was the Eucharist. But then Judas, after taking the morsel, did go out immediately , nay, that very moment according to the Syriac. He did not, then, wait for the lengthy Communion of the apostles, if that took place after the incident of the morsel.
Hence it is with greater likelihood that other upholders of this view maintain that the morsel given to Judas by Christ was itself the Eucharist ; and he, driven, as it were, to madness by the devil when he had received it unworthily, straightway went forth to carry out the crime he was meditating. Moreover, during and after the institution of the Eucharist Christ reclined at the table, and there, as Luke has it, foretold the treason of Judas. It is, therefore, altogether probable that the table had not yet been removed, but that on it there remained bread and fragments of food out of which Christ could take the bread which He dipped and gave to Judas.
The third opinion, therefore, holding a middle place between the two former, seems to be the more correct — namely, that Christ both foretold His betrayal by Judas before the Eucharist, and repeated the prediction after it ; and this both because He felt the atrocity of the crime, and was, as John here says, disturbed in spirit by it, and again, that He might place his own wickedness before Judas, show him that He knew of it, and deter him from carrying it out, and also to prepare and fortify the minds of the Apostles, that when they should soon after see the actual betrayal and the capture of Jesus they might not be shocked, but might persevere with constancy in His faith. In this way we best reconcile Matthew and
Mark with Luke. This is the expressed view of S. Augustine (De Consensu Evang., bk. iii. ch. 1), of Euthymius, and of Toletus, who say that the order of events was as follows. The Supper of the Paschal Lamb having been finished, and the ordinary Supper begun, Christ, while they were supping, arose and washed the feet of His disciples ; then, reclining once more, He said all these things which John narrates ; being troubled in spirit He speaks of His betrayer, and they all ask, one by one, “ Is it I ? ” Judas receiving the answer, “Thou hast said.”
Next He institutes the Eucharist, and this being done, and the Mystery having been celebrated, He again speaks of His betrayer, as Luke relates, ch. xxii. “Nevertheless,” He says, “behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at table,” &c. Then Peter asks John, “Who is it of whom He speaks?” and John asking Jesus, receives the answer, “ He to whom I shall offer the bread when I have dipped it.” And after this morsel Satan entered into Judas, and he went away ; and when he went away, and the Supper was quite finished, Christ made to His disciples the wonderful discourse shortly after recorded by John.
Ver. 22. — Therefore the disciples began to look at one another , doubting of whom He was speaking, and asking, too, one by one, “ Lord, is it I ? ” For, as Chrysostom says, “ Because He did not speak of His betrayer by name, He brought fear upon all, and, though conscious to themselves of nothing evil, they yet believed Christ more than their own thoughts.” And, as Origen says, “ They, as being men, remembered that the feelings even of enthusiasts are liable to change.”
Ver. 23. — There was then reclining on the bosom of Jesus one of His disciples , whom Jesus loved , namely, John himself. The Apostles, desiring to know by name who was to be the traitor, Peter, more eager and fervent than the rest, hints to John, who is reclining on the bosom of Jesus, to inquire of Jesus, as John here relates, and this is the force of the “then.” John being dearer to Jesus and closer to Him, inasmuch as he was reclining on His bosom, therefore, for this reason, Peter hints to him to inquire of Jesus his beloved the name of the traitor. Moreover, John is said to have reclined on the bosom of Jesus because the ancients used not to sit at table, but reclined by twos or threes on the several couches placed before the tables, so that, leaning on the lower part of the right arm, they lay rather than sat at table ; and so it came to pass that the second person coming next to the first on his left hand would seem as it were to lie upon his bosom.
Whom Jesus loved — not only with the love of human friendship, but also with the love of charity, for the sake of virginity and purity, his modesty and meekness, and the sweet and holy disposition by which he excelled all the others. So say Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact , Euthymius, and St. Jerome in his letter to Heliodorus.
Still it does not follow from this that John was absolutely holier than all the other apostles ; Peter may have been more ardent in charity than he, and therefore holier than John. For sanctity consists chiefly in the love of God, which is its measure. Moreover, that John was reclining on the bosom of Jesus was not only a mark of His love for him at the time, but also a sign of what was to be, “ That he might take from thence,” says Bede, “ that voice unheard through all ages which he was afterwards to send forth to the world.”
Ver. 24. — Simon Peter , therefore, gave him a sign , and said to him , Who is it of whom He speaks? — Hence it is plain that Peter not only gave a sign to John by winking and nodding, as S. Augustine would have it, but also spoke to him quietly, as John here relates. Such is the opinion of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. Peter asks this not as Prince of the Apostles (though Cyril takes this view), nor as though fearing for himself lest he should be the traitor, as Chrysostom thinks, but out of his zeal, that he might avert so enormous a crime and prevent the betrayal of Christ, just as in the garden he wished to prevent His capture by cutting off the right ear of Malchus.
Verses 25, 26. — So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, &c. John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say ; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him.
The bread I have dipped. — Observe that Judas was present at the supper of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist ; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom , Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously ; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear.
Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss.