ℹ️ This corpus has no verse-level morphological tagging. Lemmas come mainly from word-level tagging of other books in the same language (not from this verse), falling back to dictionary form-matching for the rest. Rare homographs can still be misread; verify against the original and a specialist lexicon where precision matters.
ℹ️ The Chinese and English alongside are this site's own translation, made directly from the original text on this page (not the CUV or the WEB, which follow the Masoretic Text and a different textual tradition).
For indeed the apostles, having once come to the Lord, not accusing themselves as unbelieving, said to him, "Lord, add to us faith"; for indeed in the word "add" it is clearly established that they had faith capable of increase.
If then we have understood these things, understand for me that the additions of confirming things are added to faith after someone has first been confirmed in it; so that the disciples also, in addition to the confirmatory things they already had, took up also this further confirmation: seeing his heel being fulfilled, the prophesied thing establishing that he himself was the one concerning whom these things had been foretold.
And hear "that you may believe" as equivalent in force to "that you may believe and be active in faith," remaining in believing and having no occasion for changing your mind.
For just as the perfect man, having all the virtues, having taken up each one perfect, has wisdom perfect and self-control perfect, and likewise also piety and the rest—so also one might say that, with respect to the virtue of believing, one is perfect in having all faith.
But I say these things as meaning that incomplete wisdom or self-control or piety or the rest of the virtues would not properly be so called, but only by misuse of the term, the advances in each virtue being named by the same name as the perfect virtue.
For thus he is called wise who sins in some respect, so as to need reproof, but does not indeed also hate those who reprove him, but rather loves them, according to which it is written: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you."
And thus also he is called wise who is receptive of other theorems of wisdom and does not yet have the second ones, according to which it is also said, "Give occasion to a wise man, and he will become wiser."
But indeed we have come to these things, showing that it is possible for the one who already believes to learn something, in order that he may believe again, and through the addition of the things learned, to add to his faith.
But if we wish to know who it is that has all faith, let us take, by way of example, summarily, the things that save the believer in the act of believing—say, for instance, that they are a hundred in number—and let us say that the one who accepts the hundred aforementioned things without hesitation, and believes each of them firmly, has all faith; but the one who is lacking in some number of the things that save in believing, or in firmness toward the things believed, falls short of having all faith by as many numbers as he lacks in believing, or by as much as he falls short of the firmness concerning the things believed—whether concerning all or concerning some; so that, for the present, it may be granted that some are able to believe some things firmly, while others believe indeed, but not firmly. Yet it would, admittedly, be granted to be impossible to demonstrate that the one deficient in one respect has no firmness at all, since not all, so to speak, of those who according to scripture are "of little faith," and who have not yet attained firmness toward the things believed, are equally distant from that firmness.
And upon these follows what is meant by "According to your faith be it done to you," and "Your faith has saved you"—that each one meets, in the just judgment of God, a reward proportionate to such and such faith, and salvation—if indeed there is even a difference among those who are saved in this respect—as it is written, "With what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again," extending also to the measures of faith and the measures of the reward from God and of salvation.
Now he who has understood the reasoning of these things will perceive how reasonably it is said to men, as to those unable to judge, "Do not judge, that you may not be judged," and "Do not judge anything before the time, until the Lord comes."
Again, then, since I was saying, by way of example, that there being a hundred things that save in believing, the one who believes the hundred firmly has all faith, while the one who is lacking, variously, either in faith toward some of the hundred, or in firmness toward the things believed, does not have all faith—we shall set forth, for the sake of clarity, the following.
And it is necessary also to believe in the Holy Spirit, and to believe that, being possessed of free will, we are punished for the things in which we sin, and honored for the things in which we do well.
Suppose, then, by way of hypothesis, that someone, seeming to believe in Jesus, should not believe that the God of the Law and the Gospel is one—whose glory the heavens, as having come into being by him, declare, and the firmament proclaims the making of his hands, as being their work—this person would be lacking in the greatest chief point of the faith.
Or again, if someone, believing that the one crucified under Pontius Pilate has come to dwell among us as a certain sacred and salvific being for the world, but not believing that he took his origin from the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but from Joseph and Mary—this person too would lack, with respect to having all faith, the most necessary things.
Again, in turn, if someone should accept his deity, but, stumbling at his humanity, should not believe that anything human had happened concerning him, or that he had taken on subsistence as man—this person too would be lacking no ordinary things with respect to having all faith.
Or if, conversely, someone should accept the human things concerning him, but should set aside the subsistence of the Only-Begotten and Firstborn of all creation, this person too could not say that he has all faith.
And so understand for me in what follows, that we may consider how great a thing it is to have all faith without deficiency and firmly, so powerful that, when it is entirely present in a person's soul, it is able to remove whatever mountains there may be—all people being able to remove the mountain shown by Jesus, and the things shown to them; but if anyone is lacking in respect of all faith, he lacks the power to move mountains.
And I shall also make use of such an example for these matters: just as so many people, having such power, draw the ship down into the sea, but if these should be lacking even one of their fellow-workers, or in someone's strength, the ship would not be drawn down; thus, as it were, it is many who together move it, just as the ship is drawn down; and the one who is still imperfect in this respect lacks as much of the power of removing mountains as he lacks of having all faith.
And see whether all this has not been usefully examined on account of the disciples whose feet Jesus washed, to whom he said—as one who has not examined might suppose, as though they had not yet believed—"From now on I tell you before it comes to pass, that you may believe, when it comes to pass, that I am he"; and at the same time, as the discourse is unfolded, it shows how great a virtue that according to all faith is, and that it is rarely found; and by how much each of us falls short of having all faith, such as would remove mountains.
Yet it is not a thing to be despised, with respect to producing belief, according to what now lies before us, that the prophets foretold the things concerning Jesus, and that, according to their word, the things foretold met with fulfillment in the Savior. "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me."
Now of these, some are men, and others are greater powers. For we shall not err in applying the name "apostle" also to these, concerning whom it is written: "They are all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation."
For if they are called apostles on account of being sent, and all are sent forth to ministry, being ministering spirits, by him who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire, then these too would be apostles of the one who sends them. And indeed each of those sent by someone is an apostle of the one who sent him.
And according to this, one will not err in calling also John an apostle of God, on account of "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John," and Isaiah, on account of "Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?" when he answered saying, "Here am I, send me."
But why do I speak of these things, when even in the Epistle to the Hebrews our so great Savior is called an apostle of the Father? For it is written: "Having, then, a great high priest and apostle, Jesus Christ."
It is possible, then, for someone to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, having been sent forth to one person alone, if by God's providence he ministered the word to one person alone.
And we say these things, that we may again see the superiority of those accounted apostles of Jesus Christ: "They gave," he says, "to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision." Therefore Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles only, and Peter to the whole circumcision.
...he becomes an apostle. But even if he becomes one, let him not be puffed up, remembering, "Moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found faithful"; for it is not altogether the case that, if a thing is sought, the thing sought is found.
These things have been said on account of "He who receives whomever I send"—as many as it is possible to be sent by Jesus, even if they are not such as we are accustomed to name apostles—and because it is possible also for one who is greater than human nature to be sent by Jesus.
He, then, who receives whomever Jesus sends, receives Jesus in the one sent; and he who receives Jesus receives the Father; therefore he who receives whomever Jesus sends receives the Father who sent Jesus.
But the saying can also be of this sort: on the one hand, he who receives whomever I send receives me, and reaches only as far as accepting me; but he who receives me not through some apostle of mine, but comprehending me as one who is ministered neither from men nor through men, but who makes himself known to the souls of those who have prepared themselves for my reception—he receives the Father who sent me, in that not only I, the Christ, am in him, but also the Father.
And from these things it is also possible to understand the contrary case: for the one who receives whomever the son of the evil one sends, that one receives the antichrist; and the one who receives the son of the evil one and accepts the antichrist's word, which pretends to be truth and falsely professes to be righteousness, this one receives the evil one himself.
Here then it is said, 'He who receives whomever I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me,' and 'He who beholds me beholds him who sent me'; but it is not said, 'He who believes in you believes in me,' nor 'He who beholds you beholds me.' For he wishes us, his apostles, to be received, but not indeed to be believed in.
Let us therefore receive those sent to us by the Word, and the Word of God himself; but let us never accept an apostle of antichrist and a false word. Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, 'Amen, amen, I say to you that one of you will betray me.'
Above he said, 'Now my soul is troubled'; but now it is said, 'Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit.' And one might raise such a question about the passage: why is it not said, in a manner analogous to 'Now my soul is troubled,' that 'the spirit of Jesus was troubled,' or, analogous to 'he was troubled in spirit,' that 'my soul is troubled'? I have ventured to raise this question in moderate measure, having observed throughout all scripture the distinction between soul and spirit, and regarding the soul as something intermediate, capable of receiving both virtue and vice, while the spirit of man that is within him is incapable of receiving the worse things; for the finest fruits are said to be fruits of the spirit — not, as someone might suppose, of the Holy Spirit, but of the human spirit.
For in contradistinction to this, the works of the flesh are said to be manifest, all of them being blameworthy, since no work of the flesh is praiseworthy.
For thus it is written in Deuteronomy: 'And Sihon, king of Heshbon, was not willing to let us pass through his territory, because the Lord God hardened his spirit and strengthened his heart, that he might be delivered into your hands, as on this day.'
But now it is proposed to say how the aforementioned words, 'Having said this, Jesus was troubled,' were troubled not in the soul nor by the soul, and not of the spirit either, but by the spirit. So that the observation concerning the spirit may not fail, it must be said that in 'Now my soul is troubled,' the affection of the trouble was an affection of the soul; but in 'Jesus was troubled in spirit,' which is the human element, the affection came about through the governance of the spirit.
For as the holy person lives by the spirit, which takes the lead in the things of life and in every action and prayer and hymn to God, so also whatever he does, he does by the spirit; and even if he suffers, he suffers by the spirit.
But if this is true of the holy one, how much more must this be said of Jesus, the leader of the saints, whose human spirit — since he had assumed a whole man — governed the rest of the human elements within him.
And thus he was troubled in spirit, in order that he might bear witness and say, with the divine, as it were, oath of 'amen,' 'I say to you that one of you will betray me.'
For, I think, since the spirit perceived that which had already been cast by the devil into the heart of Judas of Simon Iscariot, that he might betray the teacher, having been enlightened concerning what was going to happen, he was troubled; and since the trouble arose from the knowledge that was in the spirit, and he who came to be in trouble was Jesus, it is said that he 'was troubled in spirit.'
And perhaps also, according to one interpretation of 'the flesh is weak,' the flesh too was troubled; for this was Jesus, concerning whom it was said by Gabriel to Mary, 'And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall call his name Jesus; this one shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Most High.'
For this too, being spoken and prophesied to the disciples concerning Judas, one of their own number, was, I think, a 'testimony' in name only, homonymous with that which is signified by the term drawn from bearing witness and dying for piety.
For I do not think the same thing is signified by 'he testified' when the word is used in the sense from which the term 'martyr' is formed — a witness of God's own Christ — and now, when it is applied to 'One of you will betray me.'
Furthermore, to the extent I am able, I turn my attention also to 'One of you,' as applied to Judas — wondering whether it perhaps indicates that he had fallen from the apostolic rank, in which he too had been exalted by once having a disposition similar to that of the rest of the apostles.
For thus I have also understood, 'Behold, Adam has become as one of us,' since it is not said there either 'as we' or 'as I,' but, because of the one who fell from blessedness, it is said 'as one of us.' And 'as one' seems to me to accord also with what follows, 'But you shall die as men,' with 'and fall as one of the rulers.' For, since there came to be many rulers, one has fallen, and those who sin fall in a manner similar to, imitating, that one's fall.
For as that one fell while being in a state of divinity, so also those to whom the Word says, 'I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High,' having fallen from blessedness — not being originally men — die as men, and fall as one of the rulers.
And I think that this saying is also spoken in an exclamatory sense, with this meaning: 'The one who will betray me is not a stranger among my disciples, nor even one of the many ordinary disciples, but one of the apostles honored by me in my choosing.'
But to betray him was the deed of one who had seen and understood him; for knowing him to be a teacher of such great and so many teachings, which he had heard privately together with the apostles, and knowing him to be Lord, in betraying him, he betrayed the greatness of him which he knew — since no one would have done this without having beheld some measure of his greatness.
For he betrayed the great one, not according to that in which he is great, since he did not see him according to that in which he is great; but he, having also learned how great he was, and having become a hearer of the greatness of the wisdom and word and grace in him, and having betrayed him, betrayed the whole of that greatness which he had perceived.
For this reason it would have been better for him if he had not been born — whether this is understood as the birth of regeneration, as one might understand more deeply, or also the more commonly understood birth. Concerning which, the one wishing to free himself from difficulties, and having sought that what is expedient must be expedient to one who exists, and having supposed that it could not have been expedient to him who did not exist, having descended to the second explanation, will rather accept that one. 'The disciples looked at one another, at a loss as to whom he spoke.'
XIX. If the wickedness of Judas had been evident to Jesus' disciples, then, even had it become known only when the Savior said, 'One of you will betray me,' it would have been known who was going to betray the teacher. But as it is, the disciples look at one another, at a loss as to whom he speaks.
For indeed Judas, perhaps by reason of former more decent qualities, put the apostles to shame with regard to suspecting nothing base about him; but perhaps also, though the devil had already cast into his heart that Judas of Simon Iscariot should betray him, he was not given over to wickedness entirely; for since a remnant of good purpose still existed in him, when he saw that Jesus had been condemned, at the time when they bound him, led him away, and delivered him to Pilate the governor, he, having repented, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, 'I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.' And when they said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself,' Judas, the lover of money, threw down the pieces of silver, went away and hanged himself, not even waiting to see the outcome of the judgment concerning Jesus before Pilate.
And thus there came about for him neither a pure repentance from sin, nor an unmixed wickedness devoid of anything better. For if he had repented purely, then, like the thief who said, 'Remember me, Jesus, when you come into your kingdom,' he would have come to the Savior and done what pertained to him, so as to make atonement for the betrayal that had already taken place.
But if he had entirely driven out the notion of the good from his own soul, he would not have repented upon seeing that Jesus had been condemned; rather, he would even have added words of accusation against him, kindred to his betrayal.
Moreover, had he, as a lover of money, been enjoying what he had received — the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one who was priced — he would neither have resolved to reject the silver, nor would he have returned it to the chief priests and elders, nor would he have made confession before those very men, accusing himself while praising his teacher, in saying, 'I have sinned in betraying righteous blood.'
But also, no one else caused him to hang himself except the one who had cast into his heart the impulse that he should betray the Savior; and indeed, in both respects, he gave place to the devil.
I have worked this out to the best of my ability, on the one hand demonstrating to those who suppose that he had by nature become incapable of receiving salvation that he was not such a person, and at the same time explaining that the disciples, upon hearing the Lord's word, reasonably looked at one another, at a loss as to whom he spoke.
It suffices also to cite a prophetic saying from the fortieth Psalm, which demonstrates that, being holy, he later fell away; for it is written: 'For even the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.'
But also, 'If the one who hated me had spoken great things against me, I would have hidden myself from him,' demonstrates that he had once loved Jesus, having even attained to being of one soul with him, since it is written: 'But you, O man of like soul, and my leader, and my acquaintance.'
And you might find countless other passages from which you would understand that the disciples reasonably looked at one another, at a loss as to whom he spoke.
But Luke recorded that, when the Savior said, 'But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me on the table; and the Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined for him, but woe to that man through whom he is betrayed,' the disciples began to discuss among themselves who then it might be among them who was about to do this; for they discussed it, being at a loss as to whom he spoke.
'Is it I?' and another, 'Is it I?' For, being human, I think, they remembered that the purpose of those still making progress is changeable, and capable of willing the contrary of what it had previously proposed.
And perhaps also, having learned against what our struggle is, they were wary, because of the uncertainty in human life, lest, being overcome, they too should accept even the betrayal concerning the teacher.
For indeed Peter had this resolve when he said, affirming strongly, 'Even if all shall be scandalized in you, I will not be scandalized' — resolving not to deny Jesus; but, being overcome by the spirit of cowardice, before the cock crowed he denied him three times.
From such words indeed we are taught: 'Let him who stands take heed lest he fall,' and 'Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what the coming day will bring forth.' And perhaps also 'The disciples looked at one another,' besides its more simply understood meaning, indicates also something of this sort: that each of them, as far as human nature allows, looked into the purpose of the other, wondering whether it were possible that a soul which had done such things, and had been so disposed toward the truthful teacher — one who had truly borne witness in saying, 'Amen, amen, I say to you that one of you will betray me' — could be turned aside to such a degree and so forget the teacher's instructions as even to arrive at his betrayal.
For the phrase concerning the disciples, 'at a loss as to whom he speaks,' is emphatic; for they were not readily able to grasp of whom the foregoing had been spoken, but were still trying to find out. 'One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining in Jesus' bosom. Someone then nods to this one to ask who it is of whom he speaks. So he, leaning back on Jesus' breast, says to him: Lord, who is it? Jesus therefore answers: It is he for whom I shall dip the morsel. Having then dipped the morsel, he takes it and gives it to Judas of Simon Iscariot; and after the morsel, then Satan entered into that man. Jesus therefore says to him: What you are doing, do quickly. But none of those reclining understood why he said this to him; for some supposed, since Judas held the money-box, that Jesus was saying to him: Buy what we need for the feast, or, that he should give something to the poor.'
XX. The one reclining in the bosom of Jesus is one of the disciples — John; for at the end of the Gospel it is written how Peter, having turned, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned back at the supper upon his breast and said, 'Lord, who is it who betrays you?' Peter, then, seeing him, says to Jesus, 'Lord, and what of this man?' Jesus says to him, 'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me.' So this report went out among the brethren, that this disciple was not to die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but...
'If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?' And that this disciple, who wrote the Gospel, is John, is clear from what follows, which reads thus: 'This is the disciple who both testifies concerning these things and who wrote these things.'
Observe, then, in both passages of the Gospel, in what manner Peter, as being more confident toward him and closely attached to him — in the one place he nods to him and says, 'Tell me who it is,' concerning whom Jesus speaks as the one who will betray him; in the other place, beyond the rest, he says to Jesus concerning him, 'Lord, and what of this man?' — wishing to learn also the end concerning John, just as he had come to know the things concerning himself, 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 indeed the words which Jesus spoke are spirit and not letter, being wholly life and in no way death, and the disciple whom he loved, imitating him, records spirit and life, then we must hear the words 'One of his disciples was reclining in the bosom of Jesus' with the honor befitting — the honor which the Son of God should give, and which the one beloved by him should receive.
And I think that, even if it was symbolically that John was then reclining in the bosom of Jesus the teacher, having been judged worthy of the love that comes from the teacher, this symbolic act shows that John, reclining with the Word and resting in the more mystical things, was reclining in the bosom of the Word — analogous to the fact that he himself is in the bosom of the Father, as that one explained.
None but God — he who is in the bosom of the Father — is such, according to what 'the Only-begotten...' has interpreted. But we also hear, in a more lowly sense, of 'And it came to pass that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham'; we shall understand something similar concerning the bosom of Abraham as well. And if this is indeed so … we shall be able … to offer a defense against the perplexity raised out of ignorance of Scripture by one who wished to set aside the narrative about the rich man and the poor man. For, he says, 'if Lazarus was reclining in Abraham's bosom, then before this man departed this life, another would have had to be in Abraham's bosom, and before that one, yet another.'
'But also,' he says, 'when another righteous person departs, the poor man will have to rise up to make room' — for the one raising this difficulty did not perceive that it is possible for countless persons to rest together in the bosom of Abraham at once, sharing in the things revealed to him.