Judas dips his hand in the dish (Notes)

Saint Mark - Chapter 14

One of you shall betray me...He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. J-J Tissot

[17] Vespere autem facto, venit cum duodecim.
And when evening was come, he cometh with the twelve.

[18] Et discumbentibus eis, et manducantibus, ait Jesus : Amen dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis tradet me, qui manducat mecum.
And when they were at table and eating, Jesus saith: Amen I say to you, one of you that eateth with me shall betray me.

[19] At illi cœperunt contristari, et dicere ei singulatim : Numquid ego?
But they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one by one: Is it I?

[20] Qui ait illis : Unus ex duodecim, qui intingit mecum manum in catino.*
Who saith to them: One of the twelve, who dippeth with me his hand in the dish.

*cătīnus, i, m. (cătīnum, deep vessel for serving up or cooking food, a bowl, dish, pot.

Saint John - Chapter 13

[21] Cum hæc dixisset Jesus, turbatus est spiritu : et protestatus est, et dixit : Amen, amen dico vobis, quia unus ex vobis tradet me.
When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me.

When He had said these things, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified (openly and plainly), saying, Verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray Me. In the Syriac, “These things said Jeschua, and groaned in spirit, and testified and said, Amin, amin, I say to you,” κ.τ.λ. In the Arabic Version “was moved in spirit.” This emotion, then, was an immense grief and indignation at the crime of Judas. Christ was pained in the innermost feelings of His soul, and groaned in spirit for the enormity of this crime as well as for the perdition of Judas. And this sorrow he did not suffer involuntarily, but admitted it of His free will, and took it upon Him at this point of His own accord, as He did at the death of Lazarus. See commentary on ch. 11. ver. 33.

The question arises here, Did this prediction of Christ take place before or after the institution of the Eucharist? John omits all mention of that event, it having been narrated fully by the other Evangelists. Matthew and Mark put the prediction before the institution of the Eucharist in order of time, but Luke puts it after.

There are three probable opinions on this point. 

The first is that of Jansenius and Francis Lucas, who think that Christ predicted the treason of Judas after the Eucharist, as Luke has it, and that Matthew and Mark, in making it come before, anticipate intentionally. The reason for this view is that if Christ had predicted the treason of Judas before the institution of the Eucharist, He would have disturbed the minds of the apostles, moved them to anger, and rendered their dispositions for its reception less collected than would have been fitting. But this is not conclusive. For Christ before the Eucharist foretold His passion and death, and this disturbed the apostles far more: and soon after the Eucharist—as these interpreters themselves admit—He foretold the treason of Judas, and this disturbed them then, so that they did not duly dispose themselves for that recollection which is proper after Communion. Then again this prediction would, before the Eucharist, have had the force of deterring Judas from his crime, as well as producing compunction in the hearts of the apostles and making them all careful to examine each one his own conscience, lest Christ should there find anything to bring to light and complain of, as He did the crime of Judas.

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, 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. 

1. The Supper of the Paschal Lamb having been finished, and 
2. the ordinary Supper begun, 
3. Christ, while they were supping, arose and washed the feet of His disciples; 
4. 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.”
5. Next He institutes the Eucharist, and 
6. this being done, and the Mystery having been celebrated, He again speaks of His betrayer, as Luke relates, ch. 22. “Nevertheless,” He says, “behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at table,” &c. 
7. Then Peter asks John. “Who is it of whom He speaks?” and 
8. John asking Jesus, receives the answer, “He to whom I shall offer the bread when I have dipped it.”
9. And after this morsel 
10. Satan entered into Judas, and he went away; and 
11. when he went away, and 
12. the Supper was quite finished, Christ made to His disciples the wonderful discourse shortly after recorded by John.

[22] Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, hæsitantes de quo diceret.
The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.

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.”

[23] Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis ejus in sinu Jesu, quem diligebat Jesus.
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

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.”

[24] Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dixit ei : Quis est, de quo dicit?
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?

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.

[25] Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Jesu, dicit ei : Domine, quis est?
He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it?

So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, κ.τ.λ. 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.

[26] Respondit Jesus : Ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotæ.
Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

The bread I have dipped.—Observe that Judas was present at the celebration 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.

Mystically this dipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St. Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. 41 might be fulfilled

—“He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me.” 

Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil’s prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus.

Though Matthew puts these words and Christ’s answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine (De Consensu Evang. bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ’s answer, Thou hast said, straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master, is it I? received the answer, Thou hast said, and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation.

[27] Et post buccellam, introivit in eum Satanas. Et dixit ei Jesus : Quod facis, fac citius.
And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.

And after the morsel Satan entered into him, urging and impelling him to avenge this his disgrace,—to betray to the Jews Christ who had betrayed his villainy. Satan, who had before entered into Judas for the plotting of the betrayal, as was said in verse 2, here again entered into him for its accomplishment; both because Judas, being already called by Christ and the apostles a traitor, dared remain among them no longer lest he should be ill-treated by them, and also because the hour proper for the betrayal, and appointed first by Judas, was near at hand—that hour, namely, when he knew that Christ would, after His wont, go out to pray on Mount Olivet, where He could easily be seized. Wherefore there was no need for John to point out Judas to Peter when Christ pointed out the traitor to him, for Judas soon betrayed himself both by his question and by his departure.

So Satan entered into Judas to take complete possession of him, and that with certainty and with a strong hold, so that he brought him soon to the halter. Not that the morsel given him by Christ put the devil into him, for this was a sign of Christ’s love by which He wanted to win the heart of Judas to love Him in return, but that Judas, ungrateful for this love of Christ, took it in bad part, thinking that Christ was giving him the morsel out of hatred and a desire to injure him and make his crime known to the apostles.

Wherefore, bidding farewell to the apostolate of Christ, he went away to the household and the bondage of Satan and of the Jews as a deserter and apostate. So S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and Cyril, who observes that a kindness hurts those who are ungrateful not of itself, but through their fault and ingratitude. S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4) says—“When Satan put himself into the heart of Judas, Christ went away from him, and in that moment when he received the former he lost the latter.”

The devil entered into Judas for three reasons.

1. First, for his ingratitude, says S. Augustine; for Christ having discharged all the offices of love towards him, and he not being moved even by these, was left to be fully possessed by the devil. 
2. Then again, because the devil knew from the words of the Lord and from outward signs that he was stubborn in his evil will, and given over by the Lord, says Chrysostom (Homily 71). 
3. Thirdly, because Judas himself understood that he was now found out, and, as it were, separated from the disciples and from their Master: so he became hardened in evil, and, as if in desperation, gave himself over entirely to the devil; and so it was that he went out, unable to bear the looks of his Lord and of the disciples, or, says Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, fearing lest he should be torn to pieces by them. So Ribera.

Notice here in the case of Judas how a man who deserts Christ is palpably deserted by Christ, and when deserted is attacked by Satan—possessed by him, and, when possessed, hurried into every crime, and then into the abyss. Just as Judas from an apostle became a devil, so Lucifer from the fairest of angels became the darkest of evil spirits,—as the sourest vinegar is made from the sweetest wine, and the heretic—Luther, for instance—nay, the heresiarch, is made from the monk.

And Jesus said to him; What thou doest, do more quickly—more quickly, that is quickly, as the Syriac translates it; the comparative is put for the positive. Christ is not precipitating the treason of Judas, but He permits it. He says as it were: Think not that thy doings are hidden from Me; I know that thou art meditating treason. He did not tell him to commit the crime, says S. Augustine, but He foretold it, not so much in wrathful desire for the destruction of the villain, as in haste for the safety of the faithful. He permitted it, saying, as it were: Do what thou hast begun, finish what thou didst intend; in a thousand ways could I hinder thee, but I will not; rather do I leave thee to thy free will. Do what thou hast planned in thy heart.

Thirdly, S. Chrysostom says they are words of reproach. I know that thou art working great evil against Me, from whom thou hast received so many gifts; are these the injuries thou repayest Me for so many kindnesses? But do what thou hast to do. For even though I have made known thy crime, yet have I not done so as fearing it, nor would I wish to hinder it; for if I wished I could do so; but in order to cast before thine eyes thy malice and thy shamelessness, and to reprove thee.

Fourthly, they are the words of a lofty mind that despises all the machinations of Judas. St. Leo (Serm. 7, On the Passion) says. “It is the voice of one who commands not but permits, of one not fearing but prepared, who, holding all time in His power, showed that He allowed no delay to the traitor, and that He so followed out the will of the Father for the redemption of the world, as neither to prompt nor fear the crime that was being matured.”


Fifthly, they are the words of one excluding Judas, as incorrigible, from His family and the fellowship of the apostles. Since thou wilt sever thyself from us, I exclude thee from My table, from My house, My apostolate, and My companionship; get thee gone, then, to thine own Jews and to Satan, to whom thou hast sold thyself. So S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4). Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 17), following Origen, interprets in a novel fashion, taking these things as said by Christ not to Judas but to Satan, who was entering into Judas. He says that, “Just as if a mighty man against whom some one advances with hostile intent, trusting in his own might, doubts not but that his adversary shall fall, and, with loud and threatening noise, speaks: What thou doest do quickly, that thou mayest know the strength of my right hand. Such words we would not call so much the words of one in haste to die, as of one who knew before that his adversary must fall. So our Lord bids the devil run quickly to the things he has made ready, that being conquered and bound he may the sooner relieve the world of his tyranny.” But from what we have said it is clear that this was said to Judas and not to Satan, as the Fathers and interpreters generally hold.

After having removed the sandals, they ate their food reposing on couches, as indicated in the verse of the Gospel quoted above by the Latin word 'discumbentibus.'  This couch was a sort of divan sloping slightly towards the feet and provided with a head-rest at the upper end.  Long cushions were placed on the couches so that those using them could recline comfortably on the left side, leaving the right arm and hand free.  There was generally room enough on each coach for two people, except on the couches at the end of the table or on the inside of the horse-shoe it formed.  The servants in waiting stood in the centre and the couches radiated all round it, each at right angles with the table. This arrangement explains how it was that saint John, placed on the right hand of Jesus, could easily lean his head upon the breast of the Lord and speak to Him in a low voice without being heard, whilst Saint Peter, placed on the left side, had next to him the arm on which Jesus was reclining so that it would be much more difficult for him to communicate with their Master.

As for the place occupied by Judas, that is to a certain extent necessarily determined by the incident itself which is represented in my engraving; four, to be able to dip his hand in the same dish as the Savior, he would have to occupy the seat in the centre of the horse-shoe nearly opposite to Jesus.  In the Gospel account quoted above, it will be noticed how full of melancholy reproach is the insistence with which the Master speaks of the treason about to be committed.  "One of the twelve", He says emphatically, so that no-one may suppose He is speaking of one of the many disciples who were less familiar with His person, and on whom He had not showered so many fatherly benefits.  "One of you that dippeth with me in the dish," he insists; the fact of eating out of one dish being indeed considered amongst the Jews and throughout the whole of the East as a kind of covenant, which, in case of injury inflicted by one of the parties to it on the other, aggravated the heinousness of the offence.  With regard to Judas, the remark had the greater weight inasmuch as he and the Lord had not taken this one meal only together, but he had long been admitted to close and constant intimacy with Jesus.  Another touching detail is that the other eleven, conscious though they were of their own rectitude and of the horror with which the mere thought of betraying their Master inspired them, nevertheless asked in deep humility: "Is it I, Lord?" So profound is their confidence in the supernatural power of Jesus that they are disposed to believe in what He should say even more than in the testimony of their own consciences.  It is remarkable that Jesus, Who knew beforehand which would be the traitor, behaved to Judas to the very end in a manner so full of delicate tact, that he did not feel that he was meant when he heard the simple words: "One of you shall betrayed me."

From The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ by J-J Tissot (1897)

Totus tuus ego sum 

Et omnia mea tua sunt;

Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam