I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.
All Commentaries on John 13:18 Go To John 13
Cyril of Alexandria
AD 444
The meaning of these words is involved in no slight uncertainty. For while saying that they shall be blessed, who, knowing what is good, are ever zealous to carry it out in action, He straightway adds: I speak not of all. In these words, as I with many others believe, He hints darkly at the traitor; for in no enviable plight is one who is hated of God, and never would one be reckoned among the blessed who had so degraded his soul as to make it capable of such horrible impiety. And this interpretation of the passage before us is the one currently accepted with most men: but there is besides yet another possible meaning. For as Christ was intending to say, according to the perfect and most holy word of Scripture: He that eateth My bread did magnify himself contemptuously, or lifted up his heel against Me, He in some sort explains Himself beforehand, and carefully avoids giving pain to the faithful company of the other disciples, by attaching the force of His reproach to one single individual. For since they were all eating His bread, that is, sharing the same feast and helping to consume the food that He had caused to be provided, therefore He does well in not allowing the minds of the innocent to be crushed by vain fears, and He drives away the bitterness of suspicion by saying: I speak not of you all; for I know whom I have chosen. But, He says, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth My bread lifted up his heel against Me, or, did magnify himself contemptuously, according to the voice of the Psalmist. Something of this kind I imagine the passage to imply. Seeing therefore that a double meaning is delivered to us by these words, let the devout student test for himself the better and truer sense of them: but now let us comment further on the saying, in the endeavour to confirm the faith of simple folk.
For doubts may be felt regarding this passage in two ways. And first, some one will meet us with the objection: "If we believe that Christ was all-knowing, why did He choose Judas; and why did He associate him with the other disciples, if He was not unaware that he would be convicted of treachery and fall a prey to the snares of covetousness?" Furthermore, another will say: "And if, as Christ Himself says, Judas lifted up his heel against his Master on this account, namely, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, surely he himself could not be deemed guilty, as responsible for what had happened, but the blame must rest with the power that caused the Scripture to be fulfilled."
Now it is our duty speedily to give answers in detail to the objections we have mentioned, and to construct by all the arguments in our power the proper defence to be urged against each, for the edification and comfort of those who are not enabled by the resources of their own minds to understand the contents of the Divine Scripture. And first we have this to say, that if we were to be carried away by such criticisms on all the dealings of God, we should never cease to censure our Maker, but should be ever railing against the God Who calls non-existent things into being, and ignorantly depreciating His boundless love to man. For tell me what there is to prevent others also from using, possibly, objections such as this: "Why didst Thou choose Saul and anoint him to be king over Israel, when Thou knewest that he would altogether disregard Thy favour?" And why do I say only this? For the plausible nature of the charge thus laid will extend back to Adam, the leader of our race. Some one of those who are thus minded will perhaps say: "Why didst Thou, the All-knowing, fashion man out of the ground? For Thou wast not ignorant that he would fall and transgress the commandment given to him." On the same principle he would go on to make further clamorous objections on even higher and more important matters: "Why hast Thou created the nature of angels, well knowing, as God, the senseless decadence into apostasy that would befal some of them? For not all of them have kept their own principality." What result therefore would such reasoning lead to? The foreknowledge of God would never have allowed Him to appear as Creator, nor would the rational creation have even passed at all into existence, so that God would have been Sovereign of the irrational and senseless creation only, without anyone to acknowledge Him as being in His nature God. Now I think that those who look into the matter cannot help very clearly perceiving, that the Creator of all things entrusted to the rational among His creatures the guidance of their own purposes; and suffered them to move, at the bidding of impulses regulated by themselves, towards whatsoever object each might individually choose, after discovering by tests the best possible course. Those therefore that have inclined rightly to the side of good, preserve safe their own fair reputation, and remain sharers of the good things that have been allotted to them, and find themselves undisturbed in their tranquillity of mind. But those that are corrupted in their own evil thoughts, and are dragged down to lawlessness as it were by irresistible torrents of passions, endure the penalty that befits their crime; and, justly convicted on the charge of their utter ingratitude, will be subjected to severe and endless retribution. You will find also the nature of the angels to have been created with similar possibilities and limitations. For those that kept their own principality have their abiding-place and station in the midst of all beatitude sure and steadfast: but they who by their proneness to evil have fallen gradually away from their ancient glory, are cast down to hell in chains of darkness, as it is written, and are kept unto the judgment of the great day. In like manner was the first man, that is, Adam, created in the beginning. For he was in Paradise, and amid the highest delights, namely those that are spiritual, and in the presence of the glory of God. And he would have remained in the enjoyment of the good things that were bestowed on his nature at the beginning, if he had not been turned away to apostasy and disobedience, most rashly transgressing the commandment enjoined from above. Thus, too, God anointed Saul to be king: for he was in the beginning a not ignoble character; when however his conduct showed that a change had come over him, God removed him from his honourable rank and regal splendour.
In like manner Christ chose Judas and associated him with the holy disciples, since he was certainly gifted at first with a capacity for discipleship. But when after a while the temptations of Satan succeeded in making him captive to base greediness for gain, when he was conquered by passion and had become by this means a traitor, then he was rejected by God. This therefore was in no way the fault of Him Who called this man to be an Apostle. For it lay in the power of Judas to have saved himself from falling, namely, by making the more excellent choice, and transforming his whole heart and soul so as to become a sincere follower of Christ.
And to the second of the objections we are considering we make this answer. Let no one suppose, as do some ignorant persons, that the oracles delivered by the holy prophets are carried onward to final accomplishment simply in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. For if this is truly the case, there will be nothing to prevent those who have minutely shaped their conduct according to the letter of Scripture, from finding not invalid excuses for sin, or rather from actually making out that they have never erred at all. "For if it needs must have been," one will say, "that the Scriptures should be fulfilled by such and such things, surely those who were the instruments of the fulfilment must be free from all censure." The Divine Scripture therefore in such a case must have appeared especially as a minister of sin, urging men on as it were by force to the deeds spoken of by it, in order that what was uttered in days of old might really come to pass. But, because of this, I think the argument is very full of blasphemy. For who could ever be so utterly void of proper reason as to suppose that the Word of the Holy Ghost should become to any a patron of sin? Therefore we do not believe that the deeds of any were done simply for this reason, namely, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. But the Holy Ghost has spoken in perfect foreknowledge as to what will happen, in order that, when the time comes for the event, we may find in the prediction which describes the event, a pledge to establish our faith, and may thenceforward hold it without hesitation. And as our discussion of this question in another book is very full, it seems now somewhat superfluous to linger any further in lengthy discourses on the matter.
