John 13:8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet!"
In this posting, we are going to bounce back and forth from John to Peter, from Peter to John, seeing them both through the eyes of Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel. There Thomas meditates on their relationship to Christ, and Christ's relationship to them. Feel free to add your own responses to Aquinas', just as I do , in italics, with mine. See what the reading tells you about Peter and John, about Aquinas, and about you and me.
Peter
1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ.The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with love... and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household." [Sirach 6:11] This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks best. He thinks his friendship gives him a right to speak up!
1758 Peter says, You shall never wash my feet! He is saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God! And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal...His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary...it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument...Peter thinks he knows better than everybody else, even Christ! Sure, I can identify with that!
1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. as well as an intense thick head. Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, He doesn't listen, or he listens to the words, but doesn't let their meaning sink in and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when Our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he loved so intensely, that after the Ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed. Nah, Clement is stretching too far to reach that conclusion. Maybe after Pentecost Peter would have felt that way, but not after the Ascension.
John
1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him...Secondly he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel...Thirdly he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively but in a way above the others...I bet some of the other guys were jealous, even envious, of John's relationship. Oddly, Peter isn't.
For the present it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons. First, because of the cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chose by he Lord, and always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as a friend." Secondly because of the depths of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle...Thirdly because of the great intensity of his love for Christ:"I love those who love me"( Prv 8:17)
Peter
1805 Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him John mentions what led him to question Christ. ...
1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels, Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? It does seem out of character. All of a sudden he is being discreet? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to was his feet...As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. After getting slapped down, he figured he should keep his mouth shut. Another reason is that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. I doubt it. Peter wouldn't give a damn about who heard what. Peter's just smart enough to recognize John's special relationship to Christ and figures he can take advantage of it. Wonder if he realizes that Christ knows what he is doing? The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Yes! Bingo! Beautiful! John is mysticism, contemplative knowledge through co-natural love. Peter is action, a working knowledge that lives out the knowing in active doing. This fits in perfect with Von Speyr's vision of Peter and John, Peter representing hierarchy and John representing love.
1817 A question arises here. Since Our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, and then gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull yeah, huhuhuhuh, ya think?! not to have understood what he just said. I answer that Our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.
1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say: no one at the table knew why he said this to him? Yes.., true...everyone else there would have heard. Maybe Christ whispered this to him, or said it sotto voce, so no one else could hear? Jesus tells at least John what is happening, but why tell even him? Why not say it is none of his business? I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Geez, Aquinas must be pretty good and without evil to think that way. I would never have come up with that conclusion. Now John was extremely good and never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime. Hah! I would have started suspecting everybody, maybe even accusing them, to divert attention away from myself.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Thomas Aquinas
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John 13.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment