1‐20. *On the night before (according to the Jewish method of
reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week
of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His
disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate
His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of
Judas.*
21‐30. *He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper‐room.*
31‐39. *He foretells the near approach of His own death and
glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and
predicts the triple denial by Peter.*
With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel
commences. See Introd. IV.
St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before
our Lord’s death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had
been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not
mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39‐44); the cursing of the
barren fig‐tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12‐14); or the cleansing of
the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can
be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic
Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he
records very much that they omit.
1. Ante diem festum paschae, 1. Before the festival day of
sciens Iesus quia venit hora the pasch, Jesus knowing that
eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo his hour was come, that he
ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos should pass out of this world
qui erant in mundo, in finem to the Father: having loved
dilexit eos. his own who were in the world,
he loved them unto the end.
1. *Before the festival day of the pasch.* We are here met by a serious
difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of
the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred
to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the
first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast.
If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation,
come to the conclusion—(_a_) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the
Paschal Supper on the night before He died; and (_b_) that the Jews that
year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us: “And on the first
day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou
that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the
city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near
at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples
did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it
was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples” (Matt. xxvi. 17‐20).
Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12‐17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7‐14) seem to take
for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was
come, for St. Mark says: “Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,
_when they sacrificed the pasch_, the disciples say to him,” &c.; and St.
Luke: “And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which _it was
necessary_ that the pasch should be killed.” St. John, on the other hand,
in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events
of this last night of Christ’s mortal life, speaks of the time as;
“_Before_ the festival day of the pasch.” Moreover, in subsequent
passages(82) of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they
occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem
to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ’s last
supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the
difficulty of reconciling St. John’s account with that of the Synoptic
Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this
question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as
briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us
most probable.
(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our
Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue
from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating
the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the
“first day of the Azymes,” in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day
of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the
Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast. In this
view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John’s account with that
of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to
represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That
being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the
Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with
the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held “before the
festival day of the pasch.”
This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the
face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements
are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles
did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us
that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they
prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat
down with the Twelve.(83) Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat
down, Christ said: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you
before I suffer” (Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the
occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the
Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile
the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did
not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as
we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a
certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the
sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy
Office and its author imprisoned.(84)
(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the
Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night
following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time
for celebrating it.
But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the
Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did
not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from
Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of
Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says: “Now, on the
first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the
Imperf. denoting what was _customary_) the pasch, the disciples say to
Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”
(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke: “And the day of the unleavened bread came,
on which it was _necessary_ (ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed” (Luke
xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last
supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the
Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly
reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for
the Paschal Supper.
(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the
Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a
day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the
same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the
Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of
computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and
has no evidence to support it.
(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,(85) Cornely, &c., hold
that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the
14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th.
Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the
Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a
Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might
not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord
corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the
other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the
Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St.
John’s statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the
night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that
year by the Judeans, and so places it _before_ the feast; they, on the
other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on
the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of
Azymes.(86)
The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it
considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour
were proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt
it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that
time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal
feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and
the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that
the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity.
Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of
Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a
Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben‐Ezra (on Levit.
xxiii. 4) says: “Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in
secundam, quartam, et _sextam_ feriam quandoque incidisse.” Since, then,
the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion
itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.
(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our
Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of
the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St.
Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV.,
Patriz., M’Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance
with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections
against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,(87) can
all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the
passages on which they are founded.
We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night
following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of
counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was
put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal
week.
And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very
commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:
“Before the festival day of the pasch.” If Christ celebrated the Last
Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of
the time of this supper as “before the festival day of the pasch”? To this
difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St.
John means by “day” the natural day, or time of light; and then it is
plain that a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before
the festival _day_ of the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in
the original St. John does not merely say “Before the festal day,” but
“Before the festal period” (πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp., _e.g._, vii. 2, 14,
37).
(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ
προεορτίῳ; “quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi” are the
words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith’s _B. D._, Art.
“Passover.”
(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the
Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become
accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according
to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves,
reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of
the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of
Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.(88)
*Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this
world to the Father.* As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His
death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation.
Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and
misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the
glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His
own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He
now chose to manifest towards them His love _in an extraordinary manner_.
Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated “unto the end,” we
understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the
meaning of the phrase, as equivalent to _excessively_, or _in a surpassing
manner_. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well
in the washing of the Apostles’ feet as in the institution of the Blessed
Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood,
and the loving discourse which followed this supper.
2. Et coena facta, cum 2. And when supper was done
diabolus iam misisset in cor (the devil having now put into
ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis the heart of Judas Iscariot,
Iscariotae: the son of Simon, to betray
him),
2. *And when supper was done.* We have taken for granted that the supper
here mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to
by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as
to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the
denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the
departure to the Garden of Olives.(89)
“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek
reading, which in the Vulgate is translated ‘coena facta’; for the
_present_ participle (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in
many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that,
considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαι
_to be, to come into being_), even the _past_ participle by no means
implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced,
and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this
sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John
xxi. 4: ‘When morning _was come_;’ in Mark vi. 2, ‘_during_ the Sabbath;’
Matt. xxvi. 6, ‘Jesus _being_ now at Bethany,’ and in many other passages”
(Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 19.) The meaning,
then, is that supper was proceeding.
*The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of
Simon, to betray him.* This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but
freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is
here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of
Jesus in washing even the traitor’s feet.
3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei 3. Knowing that the Father had
Pater in manus, et quia a Deo given him all things into his
exivit, et ad Deum vadit. hands, and that he came from
God, and goeth to God.
3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all
things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the
incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension,
He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.
4. Surgit a coena, et ponit 4. He riseth from supper, and
vestimenta sua: et cum layeth aside his garments, and
accepisset linteum, praecinxit having taken a towel, girded
se. himself.
4. *He riseth from supper.* Hence it is clear that the supper had already
begun when the washing of the Apostles’ feet took place. And for the
reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat
down again”) we hold that it was _not over_; so that we adhere to the
traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the
supper.(90) Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the
present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and
this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally
held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal
Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the
Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor
more than twenty. In our Lord’s time those partaking of the supper
reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been
originally. “The rites of the supper were regulated according to the
succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water,
which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest,
who was called the celebrant, the president, or _proclaimer of the
feast_.”(91) (See Dr. Walsh, _Harmony of the Gospel Narratives_, note 16.)
Christ having risen from the supper *layeth aside his garments*. The
pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown
loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid
aside;(92) and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants
were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded
Himself therewith. “Quid mirum,” says St. Augustine, si “praecinxit se
linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?” Note how
the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act
of marvellous condescension.
5. Deinde mittit aquam in 5. After that, he putteth
pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes water into a basin, and began
discipulorum, et extergere to wash the feet of his
linteo quo erat praecinctus. disciples, and to wipe them
with the towel, wherewith he
was girded.
5. *After that, he putteth water into a basin.* In the Greek we have _the_
basin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the
washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing
of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take
it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord
set about washing the disciples’ feet.
6. Venit ergo ad Simonem 6. He cometh therefore to
Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Simon Peter. And Peter said to
Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? him: Lord, dost thou wash my
feet?
6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our
Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose
that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to
Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the
present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first
person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.
“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with
Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter.
In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than
it would be if others had already accepted it” (Westc. in _The Speaker’s
Commentary_).
*Dost thou wash my feet?* The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings
out sharply the contrast of the persons.
7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 7. Jesus answered, and said to
ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis him: What I do, thou knowest
modo, scies autem postea. not now, but thou shalt know
hereafter.
7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master’s condescension, is told that he
shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to
do.
8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non 8. Peter said to him: Thou
lavabis mihi pedes in shalt never wash my feet.
aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Jesus answered him: If I wash
Si non lavero te, non habebis thee not, thou shalt have no
partem mecum. part with me.
8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that
impetuosity which displayed itself on other occasions, Peter declares that
he will never consent to such an act of self‐abasement on the part of his
Lord. Christ at once replies to him: *If I wash thee not, thou shalt have
no part with me.* The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to
Christ’s wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should
be excluded from Christ’s society here and hereafter. Complete surrender
of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.
The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice
of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was
annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ;
but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of
wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was
already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the
Apostles that they are _clean_; and though He qualifies the statement by
saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in
reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace,
and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain
grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they
were not.
9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: 9. Simon Peter saith to him:
Domine, non tantum pedes meos, Lord, not only my feet, but
sed et manus, et caput. also my hands and my head.
10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus 10. Jesus saith to him: He
est, non indiget nisi ut pedes that is washed, needeth not
lavet, sed est mundus totus. but to wash his feet, but is
Et vos mundi estis, sed non clean wholly. And you are
omnes. clean, but not all.
10. *Jesus saith to him: He that is washed* (rather _bathed_), *needeth
not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly*. Some ancient authorities
omit the words “but” and “his feet,” and the meaning whether in regard to
body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has
no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more
probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason
why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking them as genuine, then,
let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak
only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who
had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above
on ii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the
common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a
spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this
view we accept. For the closing words of the verse: “And you are clean,
but not all” when taken together with St. John’s explanation in verse 11,
leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore
we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was
about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a
symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a
fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such
preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were
already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense
required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which
was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly
implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal
sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.
The meaning, then, seems to be that one who has bathed spiritually by
having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting
preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that
was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.
11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset 11. For he knew who he was
qui traderet eum: propterea that would betray him;
dixit: Non estis mundi omnes. therefore he said: You are not
all clean.
12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes 12. Then after he had washed
eorum, et accepit vestimenta their feet, and taken his
sua: cum recubuisset iterum, garments, being sat down
dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim again, he said to them: Know
vobis? you what I have done to you?
13. Vos vocatis me, Magister 13. You call me Master, and
et Domine: et benedicitis: sum Lord: and you say well, for so
etenim. I am.
14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes 14. If then I, being _your_
vestros, Dominus et Magister: Lord and Master, have washed
et vos debetis alter alterius your feet; you also ought to
lavare pedes. wash one another’s feet.
15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, 15. For I have given you an
ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, example, that as I have done
ita et vos faciatis. to you, so you do also.
16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non 16. Amen, amen, I say to you:
est servus maior domino suo: The servant is not greater
neque apostolus maior est eo than his lord: neither is the
qui misit illum. apostle greater than he that
sent him.
12‐16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, and _again reclined_,
Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had
done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash
their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and
perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity?
It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility
and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble
offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath
them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had
stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.
17. Si haec scitis, beati 17. If you know these things,
eritis si feceritis ea. you shall be blessed if you do
them.
17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they
continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual
charity.
18. Non de omnibus vobis dico: 18. I speak not of you all: I
ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut know whom I have chosen: but
adimpleatur scriptura: Qui that the scripture may be
manducat mecum panem, levabit fulfilled, _He that eateth
contra me calcaneum suum. bread with me, shall lift up
his heel against me_.
18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that
promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking
occasion from the word “blessed,” which He had used, He proceeds to say
that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.
*I know whom I have ** chosen.* SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to
speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some to
_glory_; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not
intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in
other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of
predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with
Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of
the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the
twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not
blessed, and never shall be. *But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.*
The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still
I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled
which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the
treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his
guilt, see above on xii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10,
where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had
treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of
Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John,
the mystical sense of David’s words had reference to the betrayal of
Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the words *shall lift* (or rather “has
lifted,” for _levabit_ ought to be _levavit_) *up his heel against me*,
are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the
ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds
it and treats it kindly.
19. Amodo dico vobis, 19. At present I tell you,
priusquam fiat: ut cum factum before it come to pass: that
fuerit, credatis quia ego sum. when it shall come to pass,
you may believe that I am he.
19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one
of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember
that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.
20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui 20. Amen, amen, I say to you,
accipit si quem misero, me he that receiveth whomsoever I
accipit: qui autem me accipit, send, receiveth me: and he
accipit eum qui me misit. that receiveth me, receiveth
him that sent me.
20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and
that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by our
Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to
connect as follows. In verses 15‐17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to
share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to
speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells
them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.
Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately
after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others,
at other points in the narrative.
21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, 21. When Jesus had said these
turbatus est spiritu: et things, he was troubled in
protestatus est, et dixit: spirit: and he testified, and
Amen, amen dico vobis: quia said: Amen, amen, I say to
unus ex vobis tradet me. you, one of you shall betray
me.
21. *He was troubled in spirit.* As we said above on xi. 23, this
perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the
traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less
fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it
extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times
during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18,
and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the
institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records
it immediately after the same event: “This is the chalice, the New
Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke xxii. 20,
21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of
the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at
first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded
to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best
reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring
Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same
subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then
before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and
Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and
finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the
room, as in St. John.
“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in
question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems
generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the
traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out,
could have retained his place at the supper table, among the Apostles.
But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by
St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St.
Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”
“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation to _Judas
himself_, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or
shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped
himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who
sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those
expressions, or at least some of them, were _altogether indefinite_, so as
to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve
who was about to betray Him; just as the words, ‘_Unus vestrum_ me
traditurus est,’ of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the ‘_Unus ex vobis_ tradet
me, qui manducat mecum’ of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of
the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John
(xiii. 18), ‘_Qui manducat mecum panem_, levabit contra me calcaneum
suum.’
“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the
expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify
the traitor, at least _in the eyes of his fellow‐Apostles_.(93) Thus,
then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken
by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”
“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially
different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,
‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’ is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of
St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved
disciple is promptly met by the response, ‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum
panem porrexero;’ and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal
thus selected by our Lord: ‘Et quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis
Iscariotae.’ ”(94)
22. Aspiciebant ergo ad 22. The disciples therefore
invicem discipuli, haesitantes looked one upon another,
de quo diceret. doubting of whom he spoke.
22. *The disciples therefore looked* (rather, _were looking_, as in the
original and Vulgate) *one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke*. The
words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no
one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say
of _whom_ He spoke, for though the original might mean, of _what_ He
spoke, Peter’s question immediately afterwards: “Who is it of whom he
speaketh?” (v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them
was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the
betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted even _what_ He meant; but that
stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of
their number was to play the part of traitor.
23. Erat ergo recumbens unus 23. Now there was leaning on
ex discipulis eius in sinu Jesus’ bosom one of his
Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus. disciples whom Jesus loved.
23. *Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom.* Rather: “Now there was
reclining at the table _in_ (ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus’ bosom.” Instead of
sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord’s time, and for some
time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm,
stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the
table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of
the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in
reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same
couch, the centre was the place of honour.
*One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.* This, according to all antiquity,
was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first
time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position
he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again, xix. 26; xxi. 7, 20.
Comp. also xx. 2.
24. Innuit ergo huic Simon 24. Simon Peter therefore
Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, beckoned to him, and said to
de quo dicit? him: Who is it of whom he
speaketh?
24. The best‐supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the
Vulgate: “Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell
who it is of whom he speaketh.” According to this reading, St. John was
not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for
granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the
beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less
probable reading, St. John is asked _to inquire_ (πυθέσθαι) who the
traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter’s character,
that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is
possible that Christ’s threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less
confident than usual.
25. Itaque cum recubuisset 25. He therefore leaning on
ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit the breast of Jesus saith to
ei: Domine quis est! him: Lord, who is it?
25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was,
he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.
*He therefore leaning on.* The best‐supported Greek reading would be
rendered thus: _He leaning back, as he was, on_ &c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος
οὕτως ἐπί).
From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther
back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master’s breast. Thus “as he
was,” _i.e._, without changing his position at table, by merely leaning
back, he was not only close to the _bosom_ of Jesus, but was on His
breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the
privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted
to such familiarity with his Divine Master.
26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est 26. Jesus answered: He it is
cui ego intinctum panem to whom I shall reach bread
porrexero. Et cum intinxisset dipped. And when he had dipped
panem, dedit Iudae Simonis the bread, he gave it to Judas
Iscariotae. Iscariot, _the son_ of Simon.
26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped
in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then
the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This
there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper,
following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.
27. Et post buccellam, 27. And after the morsel,
introivit in eim Satanas. Et Satan entered into him. And
dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, Jesus said to him: That which
fac citius. thou dost, do quickly.
27. After the morsel had been given to Judas, “Satan entered into him;”
that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John,
became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally
understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but
as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference
to the crime contemplated. *And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost,
do quickly*, again intimating that He knew the traitor’s thoughts, and at
the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our
Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime:
but, taking for granted the traitor’s fixed determination “That which thou
dost,” _i.e._, hast determined to do, they show Christ’s readiness and
eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.
28. Hoc autem nemo scivit 28. Now no man at the table
discumbentium ad quid dixerit knew to what purpose he said
ei. this unto him.
28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told
Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at
least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord,
still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly
upon the disclosure of the traitor.
29. Quidam enim putabant, quia 29. For some thought, because
loculos habebat Judas, quod Judas had the purse, that
dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae Jesus had said to him: Buy
opus sunt nobis ad diem those things which we have
festum: aut egenis ut aliquid need of for the festival day:
daret. or that he should give
something to the poor.
29. *For some thought ... for the festival day*. This conjecture of the
Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned
by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if
the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of
Nisan. They argue—(_a_) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would
not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would
not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (_b_) that on the
night of the 14th of Nisan the Feast would already have begun, and the
Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy
necessaries in preparation for the Feast.
But to (_a_) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was
not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not
forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day
before the Sabbath. To (_b_) we answer that though the festival time had
begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the
festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from
conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that
was still to come. *To the poor.* From this conjecture, and from xii. 5,
we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving
alms to the poor.
30. Cum ergo accepisset ille 30. He therefore having
buccellam, exivit continuo. received the morsel, went out
Erat autem nox. immediately. And it was night.
30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left
the supper‐room. The Evangelist adds: *And it was night*, no doubt in
order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the
contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into
which he went forth. “Erat autem nox,” says St. Aug., “Et ipse qui exivit
erat nox.”
Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire
whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of
Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed
Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority
of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely
probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus
sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any
indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that
anyone had departed, they proceed: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus
took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said:
Take ye, and eat; this is My body” (Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and
St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before
their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as
it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed.
Nay, St. Luke’s version of our Lord’s words clearly implies that Judas was
present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our
Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed Eucharist
with the treachery of _one who was present_. “This is the chalice, the New
Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you. _But yet_ behold, the
hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table” (Luke xxii. 20,
21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after
the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the
chalice: “And they all drank of it” (xiv. 23).
It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed
Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold
the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B.
Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this
“Cum plerisque modernis” (Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal
arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper,
records the disclosure of the traitor _before_ the institution of the
Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when
he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the
Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that
Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of
Judas, and _only on the last occasion_ definitely disclosed who the
traitor was.
(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a
sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily
have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to
the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this,
He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests
free now.
We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for
departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church,
that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained
priest.
31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit 31. When he therefore was gone
Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est out, Jesus said: Now is the
Filius hominis: et Deus son of man glorified, and God
clarificatus est in eo. is glorified in him.
31. With this verse our Lord’s last discourses begin. They are divided
into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the
first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31‐xiv.
31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the
way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first
portion the leading ideas are that He and the Apostles are to be separated
because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that
notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they
shall be united.
*When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.* The departure of Judas marked
the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with
words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His
acceptance of the issue of the traitor’s work.
*Now is the son of man glorified.* Judas had finally decided to betray
Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His
death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past: “is
... glorified.” For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His
death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and
sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.
*And God is glorified in him.* God’s rigorous justice and boundless love
for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and
hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v.
8, 9.
32. Si Deus clarificatus est 32. If God be glorified in
in eo, et Deus clarificabit him, God also will glorify him
eum in semetipso: et continuo in himself: and immediately
clarificabit eum. will he glorify him.
32. Many authorities omit the words: “If God be glorified in him.” *In
himself.* The meaning seems to be: _with_ Himself, as in xvii. 5: “And now
glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.” *Immediately*, we refer to the
time of the crucifixion.
33. Filioli, adhuc modicum 33. Little children, yet a
vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et little while I am with you.
sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego You shall seek me, and as I
vado, vos non potestis venire: said to the Jews: Whither I
et vobis dico modo. go, you cannot come: so I say
to you now.
33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles,
and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At
present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He
had before declared to His enemies (vii. 33, 34), He now declares to His
dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both
cases the same, Christ’s purpose in making it was very different. To the
Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good
use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while
in the present case the motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles
by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of
consolation.
The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or
seven) times in St. John’s First Epistle. The diminutive form is
expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were
still immature.
*Little children you shall seek me*, &c. See above on vii. 34. The
declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The
words: “and shall not find me” (vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:
“where I am” the present text has: “whither I go.” As we have said, the
leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was
to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18,
23), hence He now omits the words: “and shall not find me;” though in the
sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words
were true even in reference to the Apostles.
34. Mandatum novum do vobis: 34. A new commandment I give
ut diligatis invicem, sicut unto you: That you love one
dilexi vos, ut et vos another, as I have loved you,
diligatis invicem. that you also love one
another.
34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the
neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled
on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been
commanded before. The words: *As I have loved you*, imply that we should
love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive,
as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this
we are incapable.
35. In hoc cognoscent omnes 35. By this shall all men know
quia discipuli mei estis, si that you are my disciples, if
dilectionem habueritis ad you have love one for another.
invicem.
35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ’s perfect
disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian
tells us that the Pagans used to say: “See how these Christians love one
another”!... “and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).
36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: 36. Simon Peter saith to him:
Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Lord whither goest thou? Jesus
Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes answered: Whither I go, thou
me modo sequi: sequeris autem canst not follow me now, but
postea. thou shalt follow hereafter.
36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ’s words, (verse 33), which signified
that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks: *Lord, whither
** goest thou?* Christ’s reply means that He was going to His Father,
whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.
*Thou shalt follow hereafter.* These words implied Peter’s final
perseverance and salvation.
37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non 37. Peter saith to him: Why
possum te sequi modo? animam cannot I follow thee now? I
meam pro te ponam. will lay down my life for
thee.
37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ’s reply, and thinking that He
meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for
Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.
38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam 38. Jesus answered him: Wilt
tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen thou lay down thy life for me?
dico tibi: non cantabit Amen, amen, I say to thee, the
gallus, donec ter me neges. cock shall not crow, till thou
deny me thrice.
38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter’s boastful confidence, and declaring
that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that
before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.
We believe that our Lord _twice_ on this night predicted the denials by
Peter: once in the supper‐room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St.
Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St.
Matt. (xxvi. 30‐34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26‐30). By the latter Evangelists
the prophecy of Peter’s denial is distinctly placed on the way to
Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of
the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from
Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and
this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter’s denials.
While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the
three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St.
Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more
minutely, and represents our Lord as saying: “Before the cock crow
_twice_, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no
contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the
same prediction; for the _second_ crowing of the cock, before which,
according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which
is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as
“_the_ cockcrowing.” That the cockcrowing in our Lord’s time was regarded
as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four
watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels. Thus, in St.
Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says: “Watch ye therefore (for you know not when
the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight, _or at the
cockcrowing_, or in the morning).” Thus, then, although the cock crew
after Peter’s _first_ denial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still
the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the
word was used, as it is in our Lord’s prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and
John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock
was the one intended. Hence, the _second_ crowing of the cock referred to
by St. Mark was _the_ cock‐crowing mentioned by the other three
Evangelists.
Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to
repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at
the Last Supper.
(1) There was the Paschal Supper.
(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the
ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet,
accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).
(3) The ordinary supper, during which
(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21 _ff._; and Mark xiv.
18 _ff._).
(5) The Eucharistic Supper.
(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).
(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest,
occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the
charge of treachery.
(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of
the traitor, who quits the supper room.