Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 13:2 - 13:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_13:2-5. And (et quidem) this εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς He fulfilled at the supper by the washing of the feet.
δείπνου γινομ .] Note the present standing in relation to the present ἐγείρεται , Joh_13:4 (see critical notes). Whilst it is becoming supper-time, i.e. whilst supper-time is on the point of being kept. They had already reclined for the purpose, Joh_13:4; Joh_13:12. According to the Recepta, γενομ ., the meal was not yet over (Luther and several others, including Klee and Hofmann, p. 207, who explains as though μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον were expressed), but already in progress,—supper had begun. This itself was, according to Joh_13:1, not the paschal supper, but (hence also without the article[125]) an ordinary evening meal on the 13th Nisan (in opposition to the synoptical account) in Jerusalem (not in Bethany, see on Joh_14:31), the last repast of Jesus before His death, at which He founded the Lord’s Supper (Joh_13:21 ff., Joh_13:38, Joh_18:1). The institution of the Supper is not mentioned by John,—not as though he were unacquainted with it (Strauss), or had perceived no ecclesiastical rite at all involved in it (Scholten), but because it was universally known (1 Corinthians 11), and the practice itself was in daily use (Act_2:46). Accordingly, not repeating the account of this, because known to all, he rather selected from the abundance of that last night what he found, over and above, to be most in harmony with his peculiar object, the making known the δόξα of the ΛΌΓΟς in the flesh,—in the washing of the feet ΧΆΡΙς , in the discourses ΧΆΡΙς and ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ . According to Schenkel, John desired by his silence to preclude the notions of a magical effect resulting from the Lord’s Supper, and the later controversies concerning it. As though such a purpose would not have required the very opposite procedure, viz. distinct instruction! Baur’s assumption, p. 264, is, that the evangelist has dated back the importance of the Supper to the second Passover, chap. 6, because he did not wish to allow the last meal of Jesus to pass for the same as that in the Synoptics, namely, as a paschal meal. Comp. also Scholten, p. 289 ff. But for this purpose such an inversion of the synoptical material would not have been at all necessary. He could have mentioned the institution of the Supper at the last meal in such a way that this would nevertheless not have been a paschal meal.
τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη , κ . τ . λ .] cannot serve merely as a prelude to the subsequent and more frequent mention of the relation of Jesus to the traitor (Joh_13:10; Joh_13:18; Joh_13:21; Joh_13:26-27; Joh_13:30), as Godet maintains, which would be only a formal purpose, and one not in correspondence with the tragically solemn emphasis. Again, it is not even intended to make us sensible of the forbearance of Jesus, who Himself washed the feet of Judas[126] (Euth. Zigabenus, comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, and several others), nor generally, as it were, the mere nearness ( ἤδη ) in point of time of the last destiny, which He yet employed in such a work of love (this, indeed, was already contained in εἰδὼς , κ . τ . λ .), but—to what the ἬΔΗ points—the undisturbed dear elevation of this His might of love over the outbreak, already so near, of the tragic devilish treachery, which could not even now, immediately before its occurrence, confuse His mind. According to the reading Ἰούδας Σιμ . Ἰσκαριώτης (see the critical notes), we must explain: the devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up, so that the καρδία is not that of Judas (Luthardt, Baeumlein), as in the Recepta, but that of the devil (comp. Vulgate); as also in the classics βάλλειν or ΒΆΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ ΕἸς ΝΟῦΝ , ΕἸς ΘΥΜΌΝ , ἘΝ ΦΡΕΣΊΝ , very frequently denotes in animum inducere, statuere, deliberare. See Wetstein in loc.; Kypke, II. p. 399; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 294. The more current this mode of speech was, the less can we be surprised in an anthropomorphic representation of the devil at the mention of his heart (in answer to Lücke, Godet, and others), in which he has his ἐπιθυμίας (Joh_8:44), ΜΕΘΟΔΕΊΑς (Eph_6:11), ΝΟΉΜΑΤΑ (2Co_2:11), etc. As the heart of God may be spoken of (Act_13:22), so also the heart of the devil.
Ἰούδας Σίμ . Ἰσκαρ .] The full name, and at the close contains a shuddering emphasis.
The participial clause, further, is not to be placed in a parenthesis; it is co-ordinated with ΔΕΊΠΝΟΥ ΓΙΝΟΜ .
ΕἸΔῺς , Κ . Τ . Λ .] Although He knew ( ὅμως εἰς ἄκραν συγκατεβη ταπείνωσιν , Euth. Zigabenus). The consciousness of His divine elevation rested, while on this threshold of death, in the fact that now, being on the point of entering, by stepping over this threshold, upon His glorification, the Messianic fulness of power, which had formerly been bestowed upon Him on the occasion of His mission (Mat_11:27), which extended over all things, and was limited by nothing, was given into His hands for complete exercise (comp. on Joh_17:2, Mat_28:18); and that God; as He was the source of His coming (comp. on Joh_8:42), so is the goal of His present departure.
On πάντα δέδωκεν αὐτῶ comp. 1Co_15:25; Eph_2:22; Php_2:9-11, et. al.
Joh_13:4. ἐγείρεται , κ . τ . λ .] Note how the whole representation regards things as present; to the historic present correspond the present and perfect participles γινομ ., βεβληκ ., εἰδώς , Joh_13:2-3. On ΤΊΘ . ΤᾺ ἹΜΆΤ . comp. Plut. Alc. 8.
The washing of the feet was wont to take place before the beginning of the meal, by the ministry of slaves (see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 50; Stuck, Antt. conviv. p. 217); it was not, however, always observed; see on Luk_7:44. Hence we cannot argue, from the omission of it up to this point at this meal (for the guests had already reclined at table), either against (Wichelhaus) or in favour of (Lange: the host was bound to eat with his family) the supposition that the meal was the Passover meal.
Any peculiar cause for the extraordinary procedure of Jesus is not intimated by John; and to drag in such from the dispute among the disciples about rank, mentioned in Luk_22:24 ff. (so, following the older commentators, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Godet, with various representations of the scenic associations; also Baur, who, however, regards the narrative only as the exposition, given in a historical form, of Mat_20:26-27, and Luk_22:26-28, after Strauss had maintained it to be a mythical rendering of a synoptical discourse on humility), is arbitrary in itself, since John, fully as he introduces his narrative in Joh_13:1-2, gives not the slightest indication of the above, while it is appropriate neither to the position nor to the validity of the account of Luke (see on Luk_22:24). The symbolical act of departing love must, especially since Jesus had already reclined at table, have been the outcome of the moment, arising from His own urgent consideration of that which was needful for the disciples and for His work. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 542.
διέζωσεν ἑαυτ .] setting forth the personal performance more than the means (comp. Joh_21:18). He is, in truth, entirely a servant, πάντα μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας αὐτουργήσας (Euth. Zigabenus).
ΒΆΛΛΕΙ ὝΔΩΡ ] He pours water. Comp. Planudius in Bachmann, Anal. 2. p. 90, 18.
εἰς Τ . ΝΙΠΤ .] into the wash basin standing by. “Nihil ministerii omittit,” Grotius.
ἬΡΞΑΤΟ ] for the act commenced was interrupted when Peter’s turn came, and not till after Joh_13:10 was it continued and finished. John employs the ἤρξατο , so common in the other evangelists, here only in this minute description.
ᾯ ] with which (Hom. Il. x. 77, Od. xviii. 66; Athen. x. p. 443 B), or instead of ὅ , by attraction (Rev_1:13; Rev_15:6), as in Joh_17:5; Joh_17:11.
[125] Certainly it is often indifferent whether the article stands with δεῖπνον or not, but here it must have stood, had it been intended to indicate that solemn meal of the 14th Nisan, the venerable meal of the feast. In Joh_21:20 the article had to be expressed, because it points backwards. This in answer to Tholuck. Hofmann, Lange, and Paul also get over too readily the want of the article; and even Graf imports the meaning, which is incompatible with the absence of the article: “After the principal part of the supper, the eating of the paschal lamb, was over.”
[126] Otherwise special prominence must have been given in what follows to the washing of his feet.