Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 13:1 - 13:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
PART III.—THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION (13-20)
Hitherto the exoteric or public teaching of Jesus has been expounded: in Part I. as addressed to would-be disciples, and in Part II. to Jews, for the most part incredulous. In Part III. we have only the esoteric and private teaching reserved by Jesus for His chosen friends and future ambassadors.
Part III. begins with a carefully constructed editorial introduction (13:1). It is noteworthy that, while vv. 1-3 are full of Johannine phrases, a greater use is made of subordinate and dependent clauses than is customary with Jn., who prefers parataxis in narration.
The Feet-Washing at the Last Supper (vv. 1-11)
13:1. πὸδ τςἑρῆ τῦπσα δ is resumptive, the Passover being that mentioned 12:1. What is now to be narrated took place on the eve of the Passover, i.e. on the evening of Nisan 13.
εδς Attention is specially called in this narrative (vv. 3, 11, 18) to the perfect insight and foresight which Jesus exhibited as to the time and circumstances of the Passion; cf. 18:4, 19:28. He knew that “His hour had come” (cf. 12:23); see on 2:4 for this feature of the Fourth Gospel, that it represents the predestined end as foreseen from the beginning.
For ἦθν(אΘ the rec. has ἐήυε. D has πρν For ἵαin the sense of “when,” see on 12:23.
ἵαμτβ κλ Harris has suggested that this is Passover language; and in one of Bede’s Homilies we find “Pascha transitus interpretatur.”1 But μτβίενis never used elsewhere in the Greek Bible with this suggestion. Its use here of a departure from this life to the unseen world is, indeed, also without Biblical parallels; but cf. 5:24, 1Jn_3:14.
ἐ τῦκσο τύο. See for this phrase the note on 8:23. For κσο generally, see on 1:9.
πὸ τνπτρ. Christ’s departure or ascension is spoken of again as a “going to the Father,” 14:12, 28, 16:10, 28.
τὺ ἰίυ. “His own intimate friends and disciples,” not, as at 1:11, “His own people, the Jews.” Cf. Mar_4:34.
τὺ ἐ τ κσῳ They were “in the world,” as He said 17:11, although in another sense they are distinguished from “the world,” out of which they had been given to Him (17:6, 9). These men He had loved.
εςτλςἠάηε ατύ. To translate these words “He loved them unto the end,” although linguistically defensible, reduces the sentence to a platitude. This verse introduces an incident to which Jn. gives a good deal of space, and which he regards as of high consequence. “Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, … The reader expects that this solemn prelude is to be followed by a statement that Jesus did or said something of special significance. The statement is εςτλςἠάηε ατύ, and it seems to mean, “He exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. in a remarkable manner.
First, as to ἠάηε. If “He continued to love them” were the meaning, we should expect the impf. rather than the aor. tense. The aor. indicates a definite act, rather than a continuing emotion; so ἠάηε in 3:16 is used of the love of God as exhibited in the gift of His Son. Abbott (Diat. 1744) quotes a similar Pauline use in Rom_8:37, Gal_2:20, Eph_5:2, and also Ignatius, Magn. 6. Thus ἠάηε may mean here “He showed His love,” sc. by His action, unprecedented for a master, in washing the feet of His disciples. And so the words κθςἠάηαὑᾶ of v. 34 bear a definite reference to ἠάηε in v. 1 and to the feet-washing which followed.
Secondly, εςτλςis often used as equivalent to “wholly” or “utterly,” as at Jos_3:16, 1Ch_28:9, 1Ch_28:2 Macc. 8:29, 1Th_2:16. Abbott (Diat. 2322c) cites Hermas, Vis. III. x. 5, where ἱαὰεςτλςmeans “joyful exceedingly,” or “joyful to the uttermost.” It can equally well mean “to the end,” e.g. Mat_10:22, where it is said that “he that endures εςτλςshall be saved”; but this rendering does not suit the context here.
Accordingly, we translate v. 1, “Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, exhibited His love for them to the uttermost,” i.e. gave that remarkable manifestation of His love for His disciples which is told in the narrative of the feet-washing that follows.
2. For γνμνυ(א the rec. text, with אΓΘ has γνμνυ which wrongly suggests that the supper was ended.
δίνυγνμνυ “while a supper was going on,” “during supper,” there being no def. art. and no suggestion that this was the supper of the Passover feast, as the Synoptists state.
τῦδαόο ἤηββηόο κλ “the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas, etc.” So the Synoptists (Mar_14:10, Mat_26:14, Luk_22:3) represent the matter, Judas having made his bargain with the chief priests on a previous day of the same week; Lk. alone (as Jn. does here) ascribing his treachery to the instigation of the devil, εσλε ΣτνςεςἸύα. This is repeated by Jn. at v. 27, when Judas decided on the final and fatal step. Cf. Act_5:3.
The rec. text, with ADΓΘ has a smoother order of words, εςτνκρίνἸύαΣμνςἸκρώο, ἵαατνπρδ, which does not differ in meaning from the better supported εςτνκρίνἵαπρδῖατνἸύα ΣμνςἸκρώη (so א
For πρδδμ, see on 6:64. For Ἰκρώη, see on 6:71. It is applied here to Judas, as there to his father Simon.
3. After εδς AΘadd ὁἸσῦ for the sake of clearness; om. א For ἔωε (א the rec. has δδκνwith ADΓΘ
εδς as in v. 1; but here it signifies that Jesus set Himself to the humble office of washing His disciples’ feet, with full consciousness of the majesty of His Person, and even because of it. He knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that therefore He could evade the Passion which was impending, if He wished. Cf. 3:35 ὁπτρἀαᾷτνυὸ κὶπναδδκνἐ τ χιὶατῦ We cannot distinguish ἐ τ χιὶατῦin that passage from ατ εςτςχῖα in this. So at Dan_1:2 the LXX has πρδκν…εςχῖα ατῦ where Theodotion has ἔωε ἐ χιὶατῦ ἐ and εςare not always to be distinguished.
Jn. says of Jesus that He knew ὅιἀὸθο ἐῆθν So Nicodemus was ready to admit, ἀὸθο ἐήυα δδσαο (3:2); and on the night before the Passion the apostles made the same confession, ἀὸθο ἐῆθς(16:30). Jn. never makes Jesus speak thus of Himself. He does not say ἀὸτῦπτὸ ἐῆθν but always uses either πρ or ἐ in such contexts. Yet, again, the distinction of prepositions cannot be pressed (see on 1:14, 44, 16:28).
κὶπὸ τνθὸ ὑάε, “and is going to God,” the historic present which vividly reproduces the situation. For ὑάεν see on 7:33, 16:7, 10.
There seems to be a reminiscence of this teaching (see also 16:28) in Ignatius, Magn. 7, Ἰσῦ Χιτντνἀʼἑὸ πτὸ πολότ κὶεςἕαὅτ κὶχρσνα See on 1:18.
Introductory Note on the Last Supper
Before we examine Jn.’s narrative of the Last Supper, we set down what we conceive to have been the actual order of events. Although the Synoptists treat the Last Supper as the Paschal Feast, which Jn. pointedly does not do, there can be no doubt that Joh_13 is intended to describe the same supper as that of Mar_14, Mat_26, Luk_22. We cannot harmonise the various narratives precisely, but they have much in common. We place the incidents in order as follows:
1. The supper begins.
2. The disciples dispute about precedence (Luk_22:24f.; not in Mk., Mt., Jn.).
3. Jesus washes the feet of the disciples, by His example rebuking their self-seeking, and bidding them remember that their Master was content to act as their slave (Joh_13:4-10; cf. Joh_13:15, Joh_13:16 and Luk_22:26, Luk_22:27).
4. Jesus announces that a traitor is in their midst (Joh_13:10, Joh_13:11, Joh_13:18, Joh_13:21, Mar_14:18, Mat_26:21, Luk_22:21).
5. The disciples begin to ask which of them was thus designated (Joh_13:22f., Mar_14:19, Mat_26:22, Luk_22:23).
6. Jesus tells John the beloved disciple that the traitor is the one to whom He will give the sop from the dish (Joh_13:25, Joh_13:26; cf. Mar_14:20, Mat_26:23; not in Lk.).
7. Jesus gives the sop to Judas (Joh_13:26), and thus or otherwise conveys to Judas that He knows of his intentions (Mat_26:25). This is not in Mk. or Lk., neither of whom at this point names Judas as the traitor.
8. Judas goes out at once (Joh_13:30; not in Mk., Mt., Lk.).
9. The Eucharist is instituted (Mar_14:22f., Mat_26:26f., Luk_22:19f.; not in Jn., but cf. Joh_6:51-58).
10. Jesus predicts His impending Passion in the words, “I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mar_14:25, Mat_26:29, Luk_22:18; not given thus by Jn., but cf. Joh_13:31-35 and 15:1-13).
11. Jesus warns Peter that he will deny Him (Joh_13:36-38, Mar_14:29f., Mat_26:33f., Luk_22:31f.).
On examination of this table, it will be noticed, first that Jn. and Mk. (whom Mt. follows) never disagree as to the order of the various incidents; the important differences being that Jn. describes the Feet-washing, which Mk. does not mention, and that he omits the Institution of the Eucharist. Jn. also tells that it was to the beloved disciple that Jesus conveyed the hint which might have enabled the company to have identified the traitor (see on 13:26); and he alone mentions expressly that Judas left the room.
The order, however, in which Lk. mentions the several incidents is different. His order Isa_1:10, Isa_1:9, Isa_1:4, Isa_1:5, Isa_1:2, Isa_1:11, omitting 3, 6, 7, 8; the most remarkable feature in his narrative being that he puts the announcement that a traitor was present after the Institution of the Eucharist, thus implying that Judas received the Bread and the Cup along with the rest. The position, also, which he gives to the mysterious saying numbered 10 above, differs from that assigned to it by Mk. and Mt. Lk., in short, follows a different tradition from that of Mk. and Mt. in his narrative of the Eucharist. The longer recension of the words of Institution as given by him (see Introd., p. clxxii) seems to have been derived from Paul; but that cannot be said of the Western version, which may be the original. From whatever source Lk. has derived his narrative of the Last Supper, it has marks of confusion. We are justified, then, in preferring to his order of incidents here that which is given in the two Gospels Mk. and Jn., which probably rest respectively on the reminiscences of Peter and of John the son of Zebedee, both of whom were present at the Supper.
At what point in the narrative of Jn. are we to suppose that the Institution of the Eucharist took place? The foregoing comparison with Mk. suggests that we should put it after Judas had left (v. 30), and before the prediction of the Passion as near (vv. 31, 32). That Jn. knew of the Institution of the Eucharist is certain;1 and we have found reason for holding that the words of Institution are reproduced in 6:51b, where see note. We hold that there has been a dislocation of the text after 13:30, and that the original order was c. 15, c. 16, c. 13:31-38, c. 14, c. 17.2 It may be that a paragraph has been lost after 13:30, and it is tempting to conjecture that this paragraph told of the first Eucharist.3 But, if this were not so (and there is no external evidence for it), we must fall back on the conclusion that Jn. has designedly omitted to tell of the Institution of the Eucharist (although he betrays his knowledge of it in c. 6), while his reasons for this omission cannot now be discovered. See on v. 31.
13:4. ἐερτιἐ τῦδίνυ “He rises from the supper,” that is, from the couch on which He had been reclining. This shows that the Feet-washing which follows was not before supper, and so is not to be regarded as the cleansing of the feet which was preparatory to a meal. Where sandals are worn, the feet get dusty and tired, and it was a courtesy of hospitality to arrange that water was available for washing them (Luk_7:44; cf. Gen_18:4, Gen_19:2, Gen_24:32, Gen_43:24, Jdg_19:21, 1Sa_25:41, 1Ti_5:10). But in this case, the supper had not only begun, but was probably ending. In the talk that followed, the disciples began to dispute about their precedence (Luk_22:24), perhaps in reference to the order in which they were placed at the meal; and Jesus, rising from His place, proceeds to give them an object-lesson. “Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth” (Luk_22:27). So, stripping off His outer robe or tallith (ἱάιν and appearing in His tunic only, He girded Himself with a towel, as a slave would do, that He might pour water upon their feet. Wetstein recalls the story of Caligula, who was wont to insult members of the Senate by making them wait at table succinctos linteo (Suetonius, Cal. 26). This story indicates how great an act of condescension the Feet-washing by Christ must have seemed to His disciples to be.
After ἱάι D adds ατῦ
With δέωε, cf. 21:7: Luk_12:37, Luk_17:8 illustrate the “girding” himself for his work which was appropriate to a slave. The towel (linteum) was fastened to the shoulder, so as to leave both hands free.
5.. The word νπή does not occur again in Greek literature,1 Biblical or secular, except in quotations of this passage. It must mean some washing utensil, but “bason” may easily convey a wrong impression. Orientals do not wash, as we do, in a bason which visibly retains the water that has been used; that they would regard as an unclean practice. The Eastern habit is to pour water from a ewer over hands or feet (cf. 2Ki_3:11, where Elisha performs this duty for his master Elijah), the water being caught below in a bason with a strainer, and then passing through the strainer out of sight. The assistance of a servant is necessary, as both the ewer and the bason have to be held. At the Last Supper, the disciples were reclining on the usual divans or couches, their feet being stretched out behind (see Luk_7:38, where the sinful woman was “standing behind” at the feet of Jesus, when she let her tears fall upon them). Jesus first poured (βλε, cf. Mat_9:17) water into the νπή, which was ready in the room for such a purpose (τννπῆα “the ewer”), and then He poured the water over the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel with which He had girded Himself. He did all that was the duty of a slave for his master who was having his feet washed.1
κὶἤξτ κλ The verb ἄχσα does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. [8:9]). He began to wash the disciples’ feet,2 but it is not said in what order, nor is this now possible to determine. Some have thought that the order was that in which they sat at table, and that Judas came first (see on v. 23 below). Or it may have been Peter, for ονin the phrase ἔχτιονπὸ Σμν Πτο (v. 6) is not causative (see on 1:22). ονis a favourite conjunction with Jn., and vv. 5, 6 may be rendered in accordance with his usage, “He began to wash the disciples’ feet …and so He comes to Simon Peter.” We do not know.
After μθτν D, for clearness, adds ατῦ ο μθτίhere are the Twelve, the inner circle (cf. v. 1), not the general body of the disciples (see on 2:2).
ἐμσενis always used in Lk. and Jn. for “wiping” the feet after washing (Luk_7:38, Luk_7:44, Joh_11:2, Joh_12:3).
ᾧᾖ δεωμνς ᾧis, by attraction, for ὅ
6. After Σμν Πτο, the rec. adds κί with אΓΘ but the conjunction is omitted by BDL, and this suits the abrupt style of the narrative. After λγιατ, in like manner, ἐενςis added by rec. text, with אΓΘ to make the sense clear; om. א
κρε Peter does not say “Rabbi,” as in the early days; see on 1:38, and cf. vv. 9, 36.
σ μυνπεςτὺ πδς “Dost Thou wash my feet?” both pronouns being emphatic, and special stress lying on μυ as following another pronoun directly. Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility. There is a pseudo-reverence which is near akin to irreverence.3
7. ὅἐὼ(emphatic) πι σ (emphatic) οκοδςκλ “What I do thou knowest not at this moment (ἄτ; see on 9:19), but thou shalt know presently.” μτ τῦα(see Introd., p. cviii) is equivalent to “afterwards,” and is quite vague as to the length of time that is to elapse.
For the distinction between εδνιand γνσεν see on 1:26; cf. v. 12.
The Feet-washing is explained vv. 12 f. as being a lesson in humility. The disciples had been disputing about precedence (see on v. 4 above), and Jesus reminds them, as He had done before, of the dignity of service and ministry. See on 12:26, where the high place which δαοί occupies in the teaching of Christ is discussed. Here He illustrates, by His action (cf. Luk_22:27), this essential feature of His mission, and He bids His disciples to follow His example (v. 16). As to the possibility of a deeper symbolism, see on v. 10 below.
8. ο μ νψςμυτὺ πδς “Thou shalt assuredly never (εςτναῶα see on 4:14) wash my feet,” μυbeing emphatic because of its position in the sentence (acc. to BCL; but the rec. text, with אΓ, puts it after πδς
The answer of Jesus, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me,” is very severe. “To have part with another,” or to be his partner, is to share in his work, and ultimately in his reward. Thus the unfaithful slave is condemned to have his part (τ μρςατῦ with the hypocrites (Mat_24:51; cf. Psa_50:18). The Levites had no part in the inheritance of Israel, their work being different from that of the other tribes (Deu_10:9, Deu_12:12); Simon Magus had no part in the apostolic endowments of the Spirit, being animated by ideals wholly different from those of the apostles (Act_8:21); a Christian has no part with an unbelieving heathen (2Co_6:15). So to decline the call of ministry, to which every disciple is called, is to have no part with Christ, to be no partner of His, for His work was pre-eminently a work of ministry (see on 12:26). Peter’s refusal to allow his Master to minister to him was really to reject that principle of the dignity of ministry and service which was behind the work of Jesus.
It was not said affirmatively that he whom Jesus washed was thereby recognised as His partner; for the feet of Judas were washed by Him, and He knew Judas for a traitor.
9. For ΣμνΠτο, B has Πτο Σμν by inadvertence: D omits Σμν
Peter does not yet understand what is meant by the strange act of his Master. He now thinks that the “washing” of which Jesus has spoken is for bodily cleansing, or (perhaps) is a symbol of spiritual cleansing; and he cries with his accustomed impulsiveness, “Lord (א om. κρε not my feet only, but also my hands and my head,” thus missing the point of the action of Jesus. It was not a symbol of cleansing, but an illustration of the dignity of service, even menial service; and therefore the washing was of the feet, rather than of the hands or the head.
10. B om. ὁbefore Ἰς ins. אΘ For the rec. order ο χεα ἔε, א have οκἔε χεα.
אomits the words ε μ τὺ πδς possibly, as Abbott (Diat. 2659e) suggests, by homoioteleuton. אsometimes writes ε as ι and Abbott thinks the archetype may have been
οκχχεαι
μτυπδσι
ψσα
However that may be, BC*L retain ε μ τὺ πδς Act_3 having ἤτὺ πδς while E2 has τὺ πδςonly; D expands and gives ο χεα ἔε τνκφλννψσα ε μ τὺ πδςμνν
If the words ε μ τὺ πδςare omitted (א with Origen and some O.L. authorities), the answer of Jesus is clear, “He that has been bathed needs not to wash,” thus indicating that His words and actions have had nothing to do with cleansing, as Peter supposed; the pedilauium was an illustration only of the dignity of ministry. But the variants show that τὺ πδςwas probably in the original text, and that the omission of the words is due either to homoioteleuton or to the difficulty of reconciling ε μ τὺ πδςwith the words ἀλ ἔτνκθρςὅο which follow.
ὁλλυέο κλ λύι is frequently used of bathing the whole body (e.g. Lev_14:9, Lev_16:4, Lev_17:16, Num_19:7, Deu_23:11, Act_9:37). Guests were accustomed to bathe before they went to a feast (Wetstein gives many illustrations of this); when they arrived at the house where they were to have dinner or supper, it was only necessary that their feet should be washed (see on v. 4). There was no need for the head or the hands to be washed. And so Jesus reminds Peter, who has been wrong in thinking that the washing of his feet by his Master was for the purpose of bodily cleansing. The man who has bathed before the meal is κθρςὅο, and Jesus adds, of the disciples who were present, ὑεςκθρίἐτ.
κθρςis often used of external cleanliness, as at Mat_23:26, Mat_27:59, and cf. Heb_10:22 λλυμνιτ σμ ὕαικθρ, where κθρςrefers to the purity of the water to be used in baptism; but in the only other place where it occurs in Jn. (15:3) the word is used of spiritual purity. To this other meaning of κθρςJesus reverts here; then to the words “ye are clean” He adds, “but not all,” Judas being the exception. As far as bodily cleanliness was concerned, no doubt Judas was on a par with the rest; but not in a spiritual sense.
ἀλ οχ πνε. This, according to Jn., is the first hint given by Jesus that one of the Twelve would be a traitor; although Jn. has stated (6:64) that He had known this ἐ ἀχς and repeats the statement here (v. 11).
In this verse a new idea emerges, sc. that of spiritual purity, being suggested by the double meaning of κθρς and we have to inquire if (as some have thought) Jn. sees a deeper symbolism in the feet-washing than the lessons of humility and of the dignity of service. In v. 8 we had, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This, apart from its context, would naturally refer to the spiritual cleansing which is needful before the disciple can be Christ’s partner, and perhaps (see on v. 9) Peter understood it thus. But in the narrative this is not the interpretation of His action furnished by Jesus Himself (vv. 13-16); although it has been thought that Jn. tells the story in terms which imply it.
Yet (1) if the cleansing be the spiritual purification which is the issue of Christ’s atonement, then we have an idea introduced which is foreign to the context and which does not appear again in c. 13. It is worth adding that the conception of Christ washing away sin in His blood is not explicit anywhere in the N.T. (In Rev_1:5 the true reading is λσνι not λύατ, and Rev_7:14 refers to man’s part in redemption, “they washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”)
(2) More plausible is the interpretation which finds in the pedilauium the symbol of baptism. This goes back to Tertullian (de bapt. xii.), but Tertullian is inclined to find a fore-shadowing of baptism in any N.T. phrase which alludes to water. The washing of Christian disciples in the water of baptism is, however, a familiar image in the N.T.; cf. 1Co_6:11, Eph_5:26, Tit_3:5, and Heb_10:22 λλυμνιτ σμ ὕαικθρ.
Holtzmann suggested1 that Jn. in this passage is giving an account of the institution of Baptism as a Christian rite, and that he gives it here instead of narrating, as the Synoptists do, the institution of the Eucharist, because he wishes to call attention to the high dignity of baptism. “In doing so, he at the same time very plainly offers the suggestion that washing the feet should be allowed to take the place of complete immersion.” The last sentence is not only an anachronism, for baptism by affusion rather than by immersion is, so far as we know, a concession much later than the latest date that can be assigned to the Fourth Gospel;1 but no baptismal rite has ever been known which substituted the pouring water on the feet for pouring it on the head or the body. The pedilauium, indeed, is prescribed in some early Gallican “Ordines Baptismi” and also in the baptismal offices of the Celtic Church. But it was no part of the actual baptism; it was a supplementary ceremony, intended to illustrate for the new Christian what manner of life his should be—humble and ministerial, as was his Master’s.
If there be any allusion to baptism here, it must lurk in the word λλυέο, “bathed,” and this is specially contrasted with the “washing” (νπεν of the feet. The esoteric meaning of v. 10 would then be that, as baptism cannot be repeated, the baptized person needs but to have regard to the removal of the occasional defilements of sin with which he is troubled. Even this seems over subtle.
The simplest explanation is that provided in vv. 13-16; the sudden turn of the argument in v. 11 being due to the ambiguity of the word κθρς which suggests the introduction of the saving clause “but not all.”
11. The saying “but not all” was not understood by the disciples, who did not suspect Judas. After the Passion, it would have needed no explanation; but Jn., in explaining what it meant, is reproducing the situation as it presented itself to an eye-witness.
ᾔε γρτνπρδδναατν “for He knew the man that was delivering Him up,” the pres. part. indicating that the movement of treachery had already begun (see on v. 2). Jn. is always careful to bring out the insight of Jesus in regard to men’s characters and motives (see on 2:25). This explanatory comment is characteristic of his manner of writing (see on 2:21).
δὰτῦοεπνὅικλ “wherefore He said, etc.” ὅι(om. אΓΘ but ins. BCLW) is recitantis, introducing the words actually spoken.
οχ πνε …Cf. v. 18 ο πρ πνω ὑῶ (and Mat_7:21) for this Greek order of words.
The Spiritual Meaning of the Feet-Washing (vv. 12-20)
12. ὅε…ατν “When then He had washed their feet,” ατνindicating that He ministered to them all.
κὶἔαε τ ἱάι ατῦ “and had taken His garments,” i.e. had resumed the tallith which He had taken off (v. 4).
κὶἀέεε πλν “and had reclined (or, as we should say, sat down) again.” He resumed His place at the table, which He had left when ἐερτιἐ τῦδίνυ(v. 4).
For κὶἀέεε, C3DΘhave ἀαεώ.
επνατῖ Γνσεετ ππίκ ὑῖ; γνσεεmay be either imperative (as at Jos_23:13, Dan_3:15, Joh_15:18) or interrogative, as it has usually been understood. Abbott (Diat. 2243) prefers to take γνσεεas imperative here, the Lord bidding the disciples to recognise, and mark the meaning of, His ministry to them. The words go back to γώῃμτ τῦαof v. 7, in any case. They introduce the interpretation of the strange action of Jesus in washing the disciples’ feet.
For γνσεν see on 1:48.
13. ὑεςφνῖέμ κλ “You address me as Teacher and Lord.” φνῖ (see on 1:48) is the word regularly used by Jn. for calling a person by his name or title.
For the titles Rabbi (δδσαε and Mari (κρε by which the disciples were accustomed to address Jesus, see on 1:38 above. ὁδδοαο, ὅκρο, are called by the grammarians titular nominatives.
κὶκλςλγτ, ερ γρ “and you say well, for so I am.” Cf. with εμ γρthe κίἐμνof 1Jn_3:1. Christ affirms His own dignity, even while stooping to what the disciples counted a menial office. He will not permit them to be in any doubt about this.
14. ε ονἐώκλ “If then, I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, a fortiori, you ought to wash the feet of one another.” By this example were the dignity and the duty of mutual δαοί recommended (see on 12:26) to Christian disciples.
The precept was not taken by the Church to be the initiation of a sacramental rite; the pedilauium was never counted as a sacrament, although the custom grew up by the fourth century, in certain parts of the Western Church, of washing the feet of the poor on the Thursday before Easter. In England, the sovereign, or in his stead the Lord High Almoner, used to do this with ceremony until 1731; and in Rome the Pope still presides at the pedilauium. The pious widows described in 1Ti_5:10 “washed the saints’ feet,” but only as an incident of their hospitable ministrations.
ὀελτ. The verb occurs again in Jn. at 19:17, 1Jn_2:6, 1Jn_3:16, 1Jn_4:11.
15. ὑόεγαis not found again in Jn., and is applied nowhere else in the N.T. to the example of Christ. It is used of the noble example of Eleazar’s death at 2 Macc. 6:28. Cf. Heb_4:11, Heb_8:5, Heb_9:23, Jam_5:10, 2Pe_2:6.
The rec. ἔωα(BCDWΘ is perhaps to be preferred to δδκ of א fam. 13.
ἵακθςἐώκλ “that as I have done to you, so you should do”: a practical illustration having been provided of the meaning of the precept, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart” (Mat_11:29). For the constr. κθς…κί cf. vv. 33, 34.
16. ἀὴ ἀή κλ as usual, introduces an aphorism of special significance. See on 1:51.
οκἔτνδῦο μίω τῦκρο ατῦ Luk_6:40 has οκἐτνμθτςὑὲ τνδδσαο; and Mat_10:24 combines the Johannine and Lucan forms of the saying. It is, of course, beyond question that the servant is not greater than his master (cf. Luk_22:27); but it is stated here to reinforce the lesson of the true dignity of service, which Jesus has been teaching by His example. If He may stoop to minister, without losing dignity, a fortiori may His disciples do so. The saying is repeated 15:20, where a different lesson is drawn from it.
οδ ἀότλςκλ “nor is he that is sent greater than Him that sent him.” ἀότλςis not found again in Jn., and is here used in its etymological sense of a “messenger,” as at 1Ki_14:6, 2Co_8:23, Php_2:25. The Synoptists tell that Jesus gave the title ἀότλιto the Twelve (Luk_6:13), and they occasionally apply it to them. But Jn. always uses the older descriptions “the Twelve,” or “the Disciples.” It is possible that Jn. discovers a special allusion to the Twelve in the words “he that is sent is not greater than Him that sent him,” and that the word ἀότλςis specially significant here of their mission; but this is not certain. See on 2:2.
17. ε τῦαοδτ κλ “If ye know these things,” sc. if you thoroughly understand and appreciate what I have been saying to you (for the force of οδτ, see on 1:26). Judas had not reached to this point.
μκρο ἐτ κλ “blessed are ye, if ye do them.” The dignity of δαοί is an easy lesson to understand, but is hard to put into practice (cf. Luk_11:28). Yet it is he who does this, who humbles himself like a child, who is great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat_18:4). μκρο is used only once again by Jn., at 20:29, where he quotes other words of Jesus, μκρο ο μ ἰότςκὶπσεσνε. This latter saying is the Benediction of Faith; that in 13:17 is the Benediction of Ministry. Both are blessed, not only ελγτςthat is, lauded by men, but μκρο, as God is μκρο (1Ti_1:11, 1Ti_6:15).
18. ο πρ πνω ὑῶ λγ. So He had said before (v. 10). The treachery of Judas (who had no share in the benediction of v. 17) did not come upon Jesus unawares (see on 6:64).
τνς(א is to be preferred to the rec. ος(ADWΘ before ἐεεάη: “I know the kind of men whom I chose,” sc. when selecting the Twelve out of a larger company of disciples. See 6:70, where the same word ἐεεάη is used; and cf. 15:16, 19.
ἀλ ἵαἡγαὴπηωῇκλ may be a note added by the evangelist after his manner,1 but possibly he intends to place the phrase and the quotation in the mouth of Jesus Himself (cf. 17:12). If this be so, the sentence is elliptical, and we must understand the meaning to be: “I know whom I chose, but none the less this treachery will come, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (cf. 9:3, 15:25 for a like ellipse). The treachery of Judas was foreordained in the eternal counsels of God; he was destined to deliver up Jesus to the Jews (see 6:71, 12:4).
The quotation is from the Hebrew (not the LXX) of Psa_41:9: “he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” To eat bread at the table of a superior was to offer a pledge of loyalty (2Sa_9:7, 14, 1Ki_18:19, 2Ki_25:29); and to betray one with whom bread had been eaten, one’s “messmate,” was a gross breach of the traditions of hospitality. “To lift up the heel” against any one is to offer him brutal violence. The Synoptists do not quote this Psalm in connexion with the treachery of Judas; but Jn. is especially prone to find fulfilment of prophecy in the incidents of the Passion.1
The LXX of this passage is: ὁἐθω ἄτυ μυἐεάυε ἐʼἐὲπενσό. It is noteworthy that Jn. does not say ὁἐθω, but ὁτώω, a less usual word which he employs four times (6:54, 56, 57, 58) for the “feeding” on Christ in the Eucharist (see note on 6:54). Here he almost goes out of his way to use it of the “eating” at the Last Supper.
For μυafter τώω, אΓΘgive μτ ἐο, but μυis nearer the Hebrew and is better supported (BCL). The Coptic Q has the conflate rendering, “eats my bread with me.”
19. ἀʼἄτ λγ ὑῖ κλ “From now I tell you,” etc. For ἀʼἄτ, cf. 14:7, Rev_14:13, Mat_23:29, Mat_23:26:29, 64; the phrase does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.
The startling announcement that one of the Twelve would betray Him was not made explicitly by Jesus before, but it is now distinctly stated, so that when the Betrayal took place they might not be scandalised and perplexed (cf. 16:1).
ἵαπσεστ ὅα γντικλ “in order that ye may believe, when it comes to pass, that I am He.” ἐώεμ in this sentence is used absolutely, no predicate being expressed or suggested by the context. It is an instance (see Introd., P. cxx.; and cf. 8:58) of the employment of the phrase as the equivalent of אניהּ, I (am) He, which is the prophetic self-designation of Yahweh in the O.T. And the whole passage λγ ὑῖ πὸτῦγνσα, ἴαπσεστ ὅα γντιὅιἐώεμ, recalls prophetic words which speak of the foretelling of the future as the prerogative of Yahweh. “Before it came to pass I showed it to thee” (Isa_48:5) may be compared with Isa_41:26, where the implied answer to the question, “Who hath declared it from the beginning that we may know?” is evidently “None but God.” Cf. also Eze_24:24, …ὅα ἐθ τῦα κὶἐινσσεδόιἐὼκρο.
Jesus assumes to Himself this prerogative 3 times in Jn.: here, where He announces that He will be betrayed by one of His disciples; in 16:4, where, having forewarned His disciples of future persecution, he says τῦαλλλκ ὑῖ ἵαὅα ἔθ ἡὥαατνμηοεηεατν ὅιἐὼεπνὑῖ, and again in 14:29, where, having spoken of the Coming of the Paraclete, He adds ννερκ ὑῖ πὶ γνσα, ἵαὅα γντιπσεστ. A similar phrase occurs in Mat_24:25, where He has been speaking of the false Christs that would appear: ἰο ποίηαὑῖ See on 2:22.
πσεστ (as at 14:29) is read by אΓΘ πσεηε(cf. 17:21), by BC. Cf. Abbott, Diat. 2526 f.
Origen (in loc.) takes ἐώεμ as meaning “I am He, of whom it was written, He that eateth my bread, etc.” (v. 18); but this would be a strange ellipse, although the meaning would be suitable to the context.
20. ἀὴ ἀή κλ See on 1:51.
Jesus has reminded the apostles that their dignity is not greater than His (v. 16); but lest they should make any mistake, He now reminds them that their dignity is, none the less, very great. The man who receives those whom He has sent, receives Him; and he who receives Jesus receives God who sent Him. The latter part of this aphorism has been stated already in other words (12:44, where see note). It is a Synoptic saying, and its form here is very like Mar_9:37 and Mat_10:40 ὁδχμνςὑᾶ ἐὲδχτι κὶὁἐὲδχμνςδχτιτνἀοτίατ μ (cf. Luk_9:48). Jn. substituted for δχσα the verb λμάεν(cf. 1:12), and for ἀοτλενthe verb πμεν(see on 3:17), after his manner.1 It is a general principle that the reverence paid to an ambassador is reckoned as reverence to his sovereign; and so it was claimed by the Great Ambassador, both in respect of His own relation to the Father, and of the relation of His apostles to Himself.
Jesus Foretells His Betrayal, the Others Not Recognising that Judas is Designated by Being Handed a Sop: Judas Leaves the Room (vv. 21-31)
21. ACDW read ὁἸσῦ, but om. ὁא See on 1:29.
ἐαάθ τ πεμτ. See note on 11:33, and cf. 12:27, τρσενbeing used in both cases of the troubled spirit of Jesus (in 14:1, 27 it is said of the disciples). Jn., who lays such stress on the consciousness which Jesus had of His oneness with God (cf. 5:19), is no less emphatic