Joh_13:1.
Πρὸ
δὲ
τ
.
ἑορτ
.
τ
.
πάσχα
]
πρό
is emphasized by means of the intervening
δέ
. Jesus had arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, on the following day (Joh_12:1; Joh_12:12) had entered Jerusalem, and had then, Joh_12:36, withdrawn Himself into concealment. But yet before the paschal feast began,[122] there followed the closing manifestation of love before His death, which John intends to relate. How long before the feast, our passage does not state; but it is clear from Joh_13:29; Joh_18:28; Joh_19:14; Joh_19:31, that it was not first on the 14th Nisan, as the harmonists have frequently maintained (see, however, on Joh_18:28), but[123]on the 13th Nisan, Thursday evening, at the Supper. On the 14th Nisan, in the evening, the festival commenced with the paschal meal, after Jesus had been crucified on the afternoon of the same day. Such is the view of John; see on Joh_18:28.
εἰδὼς
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] Not, “although He knew” (this is unpsychological, Hengstenberg), but because He knew. He gives expression to that which inwardly drew and impelled Him to display towards His own a further and a last token of love; He knew, indeed, that for Him the hour was come, to pass onward, etc. (
ἵνα
, comp. Joh_12:23). On
ΜΕΤΑΒῇ
, comp. Joh_5:24; 1Jn_3:14.
ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑς
,
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
.] is regarded by interpreters as co-ordinated with
ΕἸΔῺς
,
Κ
.
Τ
.
Λ
., according to the well-known usage, which rests on a logical basis, of the asyndetic connection of several participles (Voigtler, ad Luc. D. M. xii. p. 67 ff.; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 7); so that the meaning would be: As He had (ever) loved His own, so also at the very last He gave them a true proof of love. But opposed to this is the absence of an
ἀεί
, which Nonnus supplies, or of
ἈΠʼ
ἈΡΧῆς
, or
ΠΆΛΑΙ
or the like, along with
ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑς
, whereby a correlation with
ΕἸς
ΤΈΛΟς
would have been established. In addition to this, the clause
ΤΟῪς
ἘΝ
Τῷ
ΚΌΣΜῼ
, not in itself indispensable, but expressive of sorrow, is manifestly added in reference to the preceding
ἘΚ
Οῦ
ΚΌΣΜΟΥ
Τ
., and thereby betrays the connection of
ἈΓΑΠΉΣΑς
…
ΚΌΣΜῼ
with the final clause
ἵνα
μεταβῇ
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. Hence: “in order to pass to the Father, after He should have (not had) loved,” etc. This, “after He should have loved,” etc., is a testimony which His conscience yielded Him with that
εἰδὼς
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.
τυὸς
ἰδίους
] This relationship—the N. T. fulfilment of the old theocratic, Joh_1:11—had its fullest representation in the circle of apostles, so that the apostles were pre-eminently the
ἼΔΙΟΙ
of Jesus.
ΕἸς
ΤΈΛΟς
ἨΓΆΠ
.
ΑὐΤΟΎς
] to be connected with
ΠΡῸ
ΔῈ
Τῆς
ἙΟΡΤ
.
Τ
.
Π
.: at last (
εἰς
τέλος
is emphatic) He loved them, i.e. showed them the last proof of love before His death.[124] How, the
καὶ
δείπνου
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., which immediately follows, expresses, namely, by means of the washing of the feet, hence it cannot be understood of the whole work of love in suffering (Graf).
εἰς
τέλος
denotes at the end, finally, at last. Luk_18:5 (see commentary in loc.); Hdt. iii. 40; Xen. Oec. xvii. 10; Soph. Phil. 407 (and Hermann’s note). So also 1Th_2:16. It may also denote fully, in the highest degree (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 817 Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 616; Grimm on 2Ma_8:29); but this yields here an inappropriate gradation, as though Jesus had now exercised His love to the utmost (in answer to Godet). It was the like love with the preceding
ἀγαπήσας
, only the last proof before departure; for His hour was come.
On
ἠγάπησεν
, of actually manifested love, comp. Joh_13:34; 1Jn_4:10; 1Jn_4:19; Eph_2:4; Eph_5:2; Eph_5:25.
[122] Rightly has Rückert observed, Abendm. p. 26, that by
πρὸ
δὲ
τῆς
ἑορτῆς
the possibility of thinking of a point of time within the Passover, and thus even of the paschal meal, is precluded for the reader who has advanced so far. Incorrectly, Riggenbach, Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Joh. p. 72: there hangs over the present passage “a certain darkness.” Certainly, if we set out from a harmonistic point of view. With such, rather is it entirely irreconcilable.
[123] See also Isenberg, d. Todestag des Herrn, 1868, p. 7 ff.
[124] Ebrard’s inconsiderate objection (on Olshausen, p. 337) against my connection of
εἰς
τέλ
.
ἠγάπ
. with
πρὸ
τ
.
ἑορτῆς
, since
εἰς
τέλ
.
ἠγάπ
. is the last performance of love, will probably be found by him to fall of itself to the ground.
NOTE.
From the present passage—since
πρὸ
τῆς
ἑορτῆς
gives the chronological measure for the following supper, and therewith for the whole history of the passion—already appears the irreconcilable variance in which John stands towards the Synoptics in respect of the day of Jesus’ death. See details on Joh_18:28. Even if
πρὸ
τῆς
ἑορτ
. were to be connected with
εἰδώς
, this statement of time would nevertheless only be historically explicable from the fact that Jesus, conformably to the certainty which entered His mind before the feast—“my hour is come”—did what follows not first at the feast, i.e. after the beginning of the feast on the evening of the 14th Nisan, but just before the feast (i.e. at least on the evening of the 13th Nisan), in the consciousness that now His time was fulfilled, satisfying His love for the last time. Luthardt incorrectly concludes that, if Jesus knew already before the feast, etc., He must have died at the feast. Of such an antithesis the text contains in truth not the slightest indication. Bather, if Jesus knew before the feast, etc., and acted in this consciousness, we are not at liberty to move forward the
δεῖπνον
, and that which is connected therewith, to the feast. The matter lies simply thus: If the supper were that of the 14th Nisan, then John could not say
πρὸ
τῆς
ἐορτῆς
, but only either
πρὸ
τοῦ
δείπνου
τοῦ
πάσχα
(which sense is imported by Hengstenberg); or, on the other hand, like the Synoptics,
τῇ
πρώτῃ
τῶν
ἀζύμων
(Mat_26:17), or
τ
.
πρώτῃ
τῆς
ἑορτῆς
. The 15th Nisan was already
ἡ
ἑπαύριον
τοῦ
πάσχα
(LXX. Num_33:3 :
îÀîÌÈçÃøÇú
äÇôÌÆñç
, comp. Jos_5:11); but the 14th was
ôÌÆñÇç
ìÇéäÉåÈä
, Num_28:16, et at.,
ἡ
ἡμέρα
τοῦ
πάσχα
. Comp. Introd. § 2.