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).
XXI. But if it will also be necessary to cite another passage from Scripture concerning the naming of 'bosom,' come, let us examine in what manner the Lord said to Moses: 'Put your hand again into your bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom, and drew it out from his bosom, and his hand became leprous, like snow. And he said: 'Put your hand into your bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom, and drew it out from his bosom, and it was restored again to the color of his flesh.
It is indeed difficult to see, and beyond us, of what this sign can be a symbol. But since we too ought not to be idle in seeking, and ought to submit what occurs to judgment for the one who will read it, we shall say that the hand is in many places a symbol of deeds; and the bosom of Moses has two powers: the first, according to the meanings of the letter, making the deed of the doer, as far as concerns the Hebrew tongue, like snow, and also leprous; the second, according to the spiritual law, showing the conduct of life to be pure and restored to the will of the nature of reason.
And observe also that it is added to these words: 'If they do not believe you, nor heed the voice of the first sign, they will believe you because of the voice of the second sign'; for the one who does not believe the interpretation of the letter, because of greatness of mind, believes the spiritual explanation of the Law.
But if someone does not believe these two signs — neither the first, that it makes the deed leprous, nor the second, that it restores it to what is according to nature — for this person the water becomes blood.
For it is written: 'And it shall be, if they do not believe you regarding these two signs, nor heed your voice, you shall take from the water of the river and pour it out upon the dry ground, and the water which you take from the river shall become blood upon the dry ground.'
For it is shown that, for the one who does not believe the two signs, the water taken from the river becomes blood, since, because of unbelief, he is unable to enjoy the drinkable Word.
But let us return, having taken up more digressions than necessary concerning the bosom of Jesus in this place, to the matter at hand, having learned that the one whom Jesus loved was reclining in his bosom by love — for thus we too shall recline in the bosom of Jesus. Simon Peter nods to the beloved disciple, and, not content with the nod, says to him: 'Tell me who it is of whom he speaks.'
Since, then, 'nodding' is taken in Proverbs as a mark of malice — for 'the base person,' it says, 'winks with the eye, signals with the foot, teaches with the nods of his fingers, and with a perverted heart devises evil things,' and 'He who winks with the eyes with deceit gathers up griefs for men' — it must be said that it is not the nodding itself that is base, but winking with the eye — that is, distorting the eye and not looking straight — and nodding with deceit that is blameworthy. But to nod out of eagerness to learn was the work of Peter, and, in accordance with such a nod, to say to his fellow-disciple, as to one who had greater confidence with the teacher: 'Tell me who it is of whom he speaks.'
For perhaps he wished to see the mystery concerning the betrayal, by which Judas betrays Jesus; and in order that Peter might learn this, John, who had before been reclining in the bosom of Jesus, moved further forward and leaned back upon his breast.
And perhaps, had he not leaned back upon the breast but remained reclining only in the bosom, Jesus would not have imparted the word that John, or Peter, longed to learn.
If, then, while reclining, he was first in the bosom of Jesus, but afterward leaned back upon the breast of Jesus, then, by the second posture, at the end of the Gospel, the genuine disciple of Jesus is characterized as being of greater and superior standing.
For it is written: '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 that betrays you?' — for it is not written, 'who was reclining in the bosom of Jesus.'
...he gives it to Judas of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, then Satan entered into that man — Satan not having been able to enter earlier, nor immediately at the very moment when he had already cast into his heart that Judas of Simon Iscariot should betray him.
For it was necessary, I think, through the giving of the morsel, to take back from the unworthy one the better thing which he seemed to have; for from him who does not truly have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him.
Judas, therefore, having been deprived, as unworthy, of the better thing that came from him who had spoken it, made room for the entrance of Satan into him.
For the sake of an example, so that it might be understood how the Lord gave the morsel to Judas, and he then put away the better thing existing in him -- and perhaps this is the peace -- returning from the one who heard it and did not receive it, back to the one who spoke it, according to what is said: "If a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if a son of peace is not there, your peace will return to you," we shall also cite these words thus written from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: "Your abundance for their lack, that their abundance also may become for your lack."
For having understood in these things the exchange of earthly things for spiritual, you will be able to see how he gave a morsel to the one not worthy of bread, so that through the morsel he might take away from him -- as no longer worthy to hear -- also the man of my peace, that is, take away the peace (for let the defiled still be defiled), which having been taken away, the one who watches for opportunities to enter into the soul, and waits for the one giving him a place to enter, entered into Judas.
But observe at the same time that previously Satan had not entered into Judas, but had only cast into his heart that Judas of Simon Iscariot should betray the Teacher; but according to what is now being examined, after the morsel he entered into him.
Therefore let us also take care lest the devil cast into our heart any one whatsoever of his fiery darts; for if he casts it, he then watches also to enter in himself.
One might ask why it is not written, "That is he to whom I will give the morsel," but with the addition of "dip": for it says, "I will dip the morsel and give it."
And having dipped the morsel he takes it and gives it to Judas of Simon Iscariot. In such passages indeed, observe, if you are able, that the pure bread might be said to be undipped and nourishing in itself; but that which was given to Judas -- the morsel -- was not pure bread, nor an undipped morsel, but one dipped so as to be able to strip away from his soul the tincture coming to some degree from the Word, in order that after the morsel Satan might enter into him.
But I would inquire, as akin to this, the passage from the Gospel according to Matthew: "He who dips his hand with me in the dish, this one will betray me," and that from the Gospel according to Mark: "He who is dipping with me into the dish." And that from the Gospel according to Luke too, even if it does not name "having dipped," yet it says:
"However, behold, the hand of this one" -- whether this is truly so might be found by those much wiser than I; but I conjecture that perhaps the impudence of Judas is also manifested in this, that he was not honoring the Teacher by eating with him, nor yielding to him the place of dipping into the dish, as the rest yielded.
Therefore none of the others dipped his hand into the dish with him; but this one, not deigning to dip with them, dipped with him, wishing to have equality with him, though it was necessary for him to yield precedence to him.
Perhaps, then, this same meaning is also connected with: "But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." And I have sometimes, jesting for the exhortation of the young concerning the honor due to elders at a banquet, made use of this saying, so that they would not crowd the hand of the two elders. For this too is written: "Do not crowd together with him in the dish."
Not being unaware that we shall incur from those who hear these things the reputation of an over-curious inquiry, one unable to persuade the hearer, we have ventured to say these things, judging it better to examine everything thoroughly than to pass over anything unexamined of the things written.
Now, Satan having entered into Judas, "Jesus says to him," it says, "What you do, do quickly." But to whom "him" refers is ambiguous, since the Lord could have said "What you do, do quickly" either to Judas himself or to Satan -- summoning the adversary to the contest, or the traitor to minister to the dispensation that was to be for the salvation of the world, which he no longer wished to delay or be slow about, but wished to hasten with all his power, not out of cowardice, as some suppose who have not understood in what manner he said, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," but stripping himself, so to speak, most boldly for the contest.
I also think that the twenty-sixth psalm is prophesied in the person of the Savior concerning the time of the passion, and of the evil one contending against him with his whole army; the Savior, seeing these arming themselves against him and covering themselves with dust, at the time when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together as one against the Lord and against his Christ," says: "The Lord is my light and my savior; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defender of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When evildoers draw near against me to eat my flesh, those who afflict me and my enemies themselves grew weak and fell. If a camp should be arrayed against me, my heart shall not fear; if war should rise up against me, in this I put my trust."
However, what was said by Jesus, whether to Satan or to Judas -- "What you do, do quickly" -- none of those reclining at table knew to what end it was said.
For some thought that, because of the impending feast of Passover, he was saying to the one who had the money-box of the expenses and of what was given for the need of the poor, that this one would provide what was needed for the feast, or that he would give something to the poor from what had been gathered.
For Jesus was not saying this, but seeing both the one who had entered and the one who had received him, and the whole plot against himself, stripping himself for the contest and for excelling on behalf of the salvation of men against the evil one, he said, "What you do, do quickly." "Having then taken the morsel, that one went out immediately; and it was night."
The Savior was saying, "What you do, do quickly," to Judas; and the traitor, in this alone, now obeys the Teacher. For having taken the morsel, he did not delay nor was he slow, but, as it is written, "he went out immediately," to do quickly, according to the command of Jesus, the deed of betrayal.
And truly he went out; for not only in the more simple sense did he go out from the house in which the supper was held, but also in the sense of: "They went out from us." ...
But I think that not even Satan, who had entered into Judas after the morsel, could bear to be in the same place with Jesus; for there is no agreement of Christ with Belial.
Whereas "and having eaten" might be expected to follow "having taken the morsel," and this too customarily follows the taking, just as concerning the bread of blessing it is written that Jesus said to the disciples: "Take, eat."
Did Judas, then, having taken the morsel, not eat it? Come then, even if some of what is about to be said may seem not to agree with what has been said before, let us exercise ourselves on the matters concerning this passage, leaving it to the reader to judge which of the things said ought to be accepted.
"Jesus, having dipped," it says, "the morsel" -- and it is clear that, having left it in the dish, he takes it; for thus you will understand "having then dipped the morsel," so that "to take" would not be superfluous.
Then it is said, "He gives it to Judas of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, then Satan entered into him." After the morsel, then -- perhaps not eaten by Judas -- Satan, having entered into Judas, forestalled the use of the morsel, so that Judas might not benefit from the giving of the morsel by Jesus.
For on the one hand it had a beneficial power for the one who would use it; but he, having once cast a thought into his heart that he should betray the Teacher, fearing lest what had been cast should be dislodged from the one into whom it had been cast through the use of the morsel, anticipated this and, at the very moment Judas took the morsel, entered into him -- at which time also, "What you do, do quickly" having been said, Judas, having taken the morsel, went out immediately.
And thus it might also, not implausibly, be said concerning this passage: just as the one who eats the Lord's bread unworthily, or drinks his cup, eats and drinks unto judgment, the one power in the bread and in the cup, being greater, working the better result in a disposition disposed to receive it as better, but producing judgment in a worse disposition; so the morsel from Jesus was of the same kind as that given also to the rest of the apostles in "Take, eat," but for those unto salvation, and for Judas unto judgment, since after the morsel Satan had entered into him.
Let the bread and the cup be understood, for the simpler believers, according to the more common interpretation concerning the Eucharist; but for those who have learned to hear more deeply, according to the more divine interpretation, and concerning the promise of the nourishing Word of truth; as it is when, in the example given, what underlies it grows, but leads up to health and good condition.
Therefore often a true word, given to a soul that is sick and does not need such food, wears it down further and becomes for it an occasion of worse things.
And thus even to speak true things is dangerous. These things have been said by me on account of the morsel which, having dipped it, he gives to Judas of Simon Iscariot; and we have raised the discussion in both directions, whether one ought to say that he, having taken it, ate it, or that he was prevented by the Satan who had entered into Judas.
And if it is necessary to examine also "and it was night," as not having been thrown in by the evangelist without purpose, it must be said that then, symbolically, the perceptible night was an image of the night that had occurred in the soul of Judas, at the time when the darkness carried upon the face of the deep, that is, Satan, entered into him. For "God called the darkness night"; of which night, Paul says, we are not children, nor of darkness, saying: "Are we not then, brothers, of the night nor of darkness?" and "But let us, being of the day, be sober."
It was not night, then, for those whose feet were being washed by Jesus, but a most radiant day for those being cleansed and having wiped away the filth of their soul in their feet; and especially it was not night for the one reclining in the bosom of Jesus; for Jesus loved him, and by
love he dissolved all darkness. But neither for Peter, confessing "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," the heavenly Father having revealed this to him, was it night; but night was together with him also when denial was present.
And so now, when Judas, having taken the morsel, went out immediately, then for him, going out, it was night; for the man whose name is "the Dayspring" was not present with him, since, by his having gone out, he had abandoned the sun of righteousness. And Judas indeed pursued Jesus, filled with darkness; but the darkness, which he had taken up, did not overtake the light that was being pursued.
Therefore also, when he said, as a word of righteousness, "I have sinned, having betrayed innocent blood," having gone away he hanged himself, the Satan within him having led him by the hand as far as the noose, and having hung him upon it -- at that time also the devil laid hold of his soul; for he was not such a one that it could be said of him by the Lord what was said concerning Job to the devil: "But do not touch his soul." When, therefore, Jesus went out, he says: "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and will glorify him immediately."
The beginning of the Son of Man's having been glorified, after the glories manifested in the signs and wonders, and that at the transfiguration, was this: that Judas, together with the Satan who had entered into him, had gone out from the place where Jesus was.
Therefore the Lord said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified." And further, also, "If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to myself" was said by the Savior, signifying by what death he would glorify God; for he glorified God also in dying.
For this reason, when the beginning of the dispensation of Jesus's being about to die was being set in motion, Judas having gone out after the morsel in order to transact business against Jesus, it was said: "Now the Son of Man has been glorified."
Then, since it is not possible for the Christ to be glorified without the Father being glorified together with him, for this reason "And God has been glorified in him" is added to "Now the Son of Man has been glorified."
However, the glory that came through the death on behalf of men was not the glory of the only-begotten Word and Wisdom and Truth, which is not by nature capable of dying, nor of whatever else the more divine things in Jesus are said to be, but of the man, who was also the Son of Man, having become, according to the flesh, of the seed of David.
Therefore above he said: "Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you"; but in the passage now being examined he says: "Now the Son of Man has been glorified."
This one, I think, God also highly exalted, having become obedient unto death, even death of the cross; for the Word who in the beginning was with God, God the Word, did not admit of being highly exalted further.
But the exaltation of the Son of Man, which came to him when he had glorified God by his own death, was this: that he was no longer other than the Word, but the same as him.
For if "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit," so that in this case too, concerning this one and the Spirit, it would no longer be said "they are two," how should we not much rather say that the human nature of Jesus, together with the Word, has become one -- the one who did not consider being equal to God a thing to be seized having been highly exalted, while the Word remains in its own height, or indeed is restored upon the man?
And if, by the death of Jesus glorifying God, it is also true that he, "having stripped off the principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the wood," and "having made peace through the blood of his cross, whether the things on earth or the things in the heavens" ... -- for in all these things the Son of Man was glorified, God also having been glorified in him.
But since one who is glorified is glorified by someone, you will inquire, in the statement "The Son of Man has been glorified," by whom? And likewise also in "God has been glorified in him."
For the sake of the clarity of the sayings, let us attend carefully -- first to what is said, "Now the Son of Man has been glorified"; second, to "And God has been glorified in him"; third, to such a conditional statement as this: "If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself"; and fourth, to "And he will immediately glorify him."
Unless, then, someone should say that this is to be taken up into a combination in the concluding part of the conditional statement, so that the conditional statement begins from "God has been glorified in him," and concludes at "And God will glorify him in himself, and will immediately glorify him" -- we must necessarily attend to the word "glory," which is not situated in the sense of the middling thing among some of the Greeks, according to which they define glory as praise from the many; it is clear that the name lies upon something other than this, from what is thus said in Exodus:
"And the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord. And Moses was not able to enter into the tabernacle of witness, because the cloud overshadowed it, and the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord."
And in the Third Book of Kingdoms this is recorded in this manner: "And it came to pass, when the priests went out from the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the Lord."
"And the priests were not able to stand to minister before the cloud, because the glory of the Lord had filled the house." And concerning the glory of Moses also, such things are said in Exodus:
"And as Moses was coming down from the mountain, the two tablets of the covenant were in Moses's hands; and as he was coming down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the appearance of the skin of his face had been glorified, while he spoke with him. And Aaron and all the sons of Israel saw Moses, and the appearance of the skin of his face had been glorified; and they were afraid to come near him."
This meaning concerning glory is also shown in the Gospel according to Luke, through these words: "And it came to pass, as he was praying, that the appearance of his face became other, and his clothing was altered and became white, flashing like lightning. And behold, two men were speaking with him, who were Moses and Elijah; who, appearing in glory, spoke of his departure, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem."
And observe also Paul, in what connections he takes up the name of glory: for where he says, "But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was being brought to nothing -- how shall not the ministry of the Spirit be even more in glory? For if there is glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed that which has been glorified in this respect has not been glorified, on account of the surpassing glory; for if that which is being brought to nothing was through glory, much more that which remains in glory." And where he says: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit." And again a little later:
"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine forth."
And again a little later: "For God, who said, 'Out of darkness light shall shine,' is he who has shone in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Now, to relate each of these things precisely at present is not required by the exposition of the evangelical text now before us; but, as briefly as possible, so much must be said: insofar as, corporeally speaking, a more divine manifestation came to be in the tabernacle and in the temple when completed, and in the face of Moses, who had conversed with the divine nature; but insofar as, according to the anagogical sense, the things concerning God precisely known, and contemplated by the mind fit for it on account of exceeding purity, would be said to be the glory of God that has appeared -- since the mind, purified and having risen above all material things, comes to make precise the contemplation of God, and in the things it contemplates it is deified.
It must be said that such is the glorification of the face of the one who has beheld God and conversed with him and spent time together in such a vision, so that this is figuratively the glorified face of Moses, his mind having been deified.
And in accordance with this the apostle also said: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image."
... for the excellence in Christ, which he, knowing the Father, glorified concerning him, admitted of no comparison with the things known by Moses and that glorified the face of his soul.
Now that these things have been said by us, according to our ability, briefly, concerning what we set forth, let us return to "Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him."
The Son, then, knowing the Father, by the very fact of knowing him, who is the greatest good -- and, one may say, in the manner of those who attain to the perfect knowledge with which the Son knows the Father -- was glorified.
And if the knowledge concerning all things fills up the magnitude of his glory, since he knows all that is hidden and manifest, and perhaps this is what it is to be Wisdom itself, or, for him who is called the Son of Man, to have been glorified from having been united to Wisdom -- this whole glory, with which the Son of Man was glorified, he was glorified in that the Father bestowed it.
And there being many things that fill up the whole glory of the man, that which is preeminent among all these is God, who, by being known by the Son, is not
... simply glorified, but is glorified in the Son. In respect of which it is indeed both bold and greater than what befits us to give ourselves to the examination of so great a matter; nevertheless it must be ventured, to submit what can be inquired into in this passage.
But I inquire whether it is possible for God to be glorified apart from being glorified in the Son, as we have explained -- that is, whether he is glorified more greatly in himself, when, coming to be in his own vantage point, upon his own knowledge and his own contemplation, being greater than the contemplation in the Son, as one must think concerning such things in the case of God, it must be said that he rejoices with a certain ineffable satisfaction and gladness and joy, being well-pleased with himself and rejoicing.
But I use these names not as properly to be said concerning God, but being at a loss for -- if I may name them thus -- ineffable words, which only he himself, and after him his only-begotten Son, is able to say or think concerning him in a proper manner of speech.
But since we have come to the point concerning God being glorified in Christ, we might, in connection with this, inquire also how he would be glorified in the Holy Spirit, and in all instances in which the glory of the Lord has appeared or will appear.
I think, then, that the Son is the radiance of the whole glory of God himself, according to Paul: "Who, being the radiance of his glory." Nevertheless, from this radiance of the whole glory, partial radiances reach unto the rest of rational creation; for I do not think that anyone else is able to contain the radiance of the whole glory of God, except his Son.
Now then, since the dispensation of the passion of the Son of Man on behalf of all comes to pass not apart from God — wherefore God highly exalted him — "the Son of Man," it says, "was glorified," not alone; for God too was glorified in him, and thus one might explain the matters concerning this passage.
It is written: "No one knew the Son except the Father," and it is said: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
Insofar then as the Son was not known by the world — for "he was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world did not know him" — he had not yet been glorified in the world; and the loss caused by his not being glorified in the world belonged not to him who was not glorified, but to the world that did not glorify him.