John 13

CHAPTER XIII

THE ATTESTATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD IN ITS CONSUMMATION. CHAPTERS 13–21

The attestation of Jesus by means of his word and his work before the Jewish people as such is finished. The hour for his passion and his exaltation has finally come. Yet John treats this portion of the record in a way all his own. With a fulness altogether exceptional and with great detail he shows us what Jesus did and said on the last evening of his earthly life. After that he recounts the tragedy of the death and the triumph of the resurrection.

I

The Attestation in the Discourses of the Last Evening, Chapters 13–17

This is Thursday evening, the 14th of Nisan; on the dating compare 12:1. Yet the evening when the δεῖπνον took place is really the beginning of the Jewish Friday, since the Jews begin the day at sundown. Jesus died on Friday afternoon the 15th of Nisan, and the Sabbath of his rest in the tomb was the 16th of Nisan. Thus at the opening of our chapter we must recall that the Passover lamb had been killed in the afternoon of the 14th, and that after sundown Jesus and his disciples assembled in the tiled upper room, where all had been made ready, to eat the Passover feast.

1. The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet, 13:1–20

John 13:1

1 Verse one constitutes a sort of heading or brief prolog to the entire section chapters 13–17. Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that his hour was come to pass out of this world to the Father, having loved his own in the world, he loved them to the end. The fact that Jesus loved the disciples “to the end” extends beyond the single act of love now to be recorded and includes all that Jesus did for the disciples until the end finally arrived. We need say but little on the construction which makes an extended period of v. 1–4, etc., and connects the opening phrase, “before the Feast of the Passover,” with the verb “riseth from the supper” in v. 4. It is already decisive to reply that this would make “he loved them to the end” parenthetical, a thought which no reader would find here. More acute is the debate whether the πρό phrase should be connected with the main verb ἠγάπησεν or with the participle ἀγαπήσας.

If the former is done, these two terms for love would have to be taken in different senses: after loving his own before, Jesus now at last before the Passover gave them a signal proof of his love. But if this were the sense, we should expect not “before” but “at” the Passover, and the phrase ought to be placed next to the main verb, and something should be added to show that the main verb differs in meaning from the participle. If the other alternative is chosen, so that we read, “having loved his own before the Feast of the Passover, he loved them to the end,” the objection again holds that then the phrase should appear next to the participle. In addition we obtain the strange intimation that as Jesus now approaches the end he might have desisted from the love he had shown his own so fully and so long before. These constructions are here discussed because they have been advocated by notable authorities.

The phrase belongs where John placed it: “before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew,” etc.; it modifies εἰδώς. However, we ought at once to see that John does not intend to say that now, just before the Passover meal, Jesus attained the knowledge that he was about to leave this world; for in the previous narrative Jesus very often deliberately spoke of his coming end. This πρό phrase reaches back to the very testimony of the Baptist who called Jesus “the Lamb of God.” The sense hinges on the two participles εἰδώς and ἀγαπήσας. Since such participles do not themselves indicate the relation they are intended to express, new alternatives arise. Are they both causal, or both concessive, or is the first concessive and the second causal, or vice versa? Both must express the same relation, otherwise a particle would be inserted to indicate the difference.

Both cannot be causal, because in v. 3 a second εἰδώς follows, repeating and advancing the thought of the first, and this second participle is plainly not causal—we cannot translate: “because he knows that the Father gave all things into his hands, … he arises from the supper,” etc. So we drop the following renderings: “because he knows before the Passover and because he loved,” etc.; “although he knows, etc., yet because he loved”; “because he knows, although he loved,” etc. Both participles are concessive and together with the third in v. 3 indicate three contrasts.

“Although” Jesus knows already before this last Passover that he was about to leave this world, “although” he had loved his own all along (constative aorist), “although” in these last hours of his earthly life he might well have turned his thoughts upon himself, his mind was still upon his disciples, “he loved them to the end” and showed them his love to the very last. See how he prays for them in chapter 17, and how even at the time of his arrest he protects them from arrest. It is thus also that “although he knows that the Father had given all things into his hands” (v. 3), he, nevertheless, stoops to wash the disciples’ feet. By means of these concessive participles John endeavors to impress upon our minds the contrasts which make the last acts of Jesus stand out with love for the disciples—even in these last hours Jesus forgets himself and devotes all his efforts to them.

The second participle is constative, summarizing all that extends over a period of time. The aorist, “that his hour had come” (we are compelled to use the past perfect in English) indicates what had just happened, R. 843. John has repeatedly mentioned this “hour”; note especially 12:23 and 27, and that ὥρα always resembles καιρός, it is not a part of a day but a special period of time. We must cease regarding ἵνα as final and drop such explanations as “that, of course, the hour can have no purpose, but that God is meant.” This conjunction is non-final, here crowding out an infinitive and introducing an appositional clause: the hour “to pass out of this world to the Father.” The verb μεταβῇ means “to make a transition.” Some still regard “out of this world” as meaning out of “this dark, wicked, hostile world.” This connotation is furnished only by the context and not by the expression itself; see the explanation in 12:25. Here “out of this world” simply means: “out of the world to which Jesus was sent to accomplish his mission.” So also “to the Father” means: to him who sent him on this mission to report its completion to him. The thought is not that of a sweet exchange: wicked world for holy heaven with the joy thus implied; but that of return after the successful accomplishment of a task with the joy and satisfaction this entails.

This casts its light on “his own in the world.” The repetition of the article intends to give this phrase equal emphasis with the noun: they are “his own,” truly his own, not like those mentioned in 1:11; and they are “in the world”—their task is not yet finished as that of Jesus is; compare 17:11. To be sure, they have still to contend with sin and temptation, but the thought of Jesus is that he leaves his own behind to work in this world for the spreading of salvation, and that, when the time comes, they as his own servants shall also be with him where he is to share in the Father’s honor (12:26). These men Jesus had loved with the mighty love of intelligence and purpose (ἀγαπᾶν, see 3:16) and in this love had showered upon them all his gifts and blessings, making them truly “his own.” Yet all this is not enough for Jesus and his loving heart; like a mother who loses herself in her own, so Jesus even in these last moments so freighted with concerns of his own, “loved them to the end,” the simple aorist recording only the great fact.

John 13:2

2 And at supper, the devil having already cast into the heart that he should betray him—Judas, Simon’s son, Iscariot, although he knows that the Father did give all things into his hands and that he did come out from God and is about to go back to God, he rises from the supper and lays down his garments and, having taken up a linen cloth, he girded himself.

The array of present tenses and the many details in the narration attract attention and make the scene vivid. The observation that this scene with its minutest features was impressed upon John’s memory because he felt so deeply the guilt of all the disciples in bringing it to pass that Jesus, their own Lord and Master, found it necessary to stoop to this lowest service, is surely correct. None of them volunteered for this work; each declined to stoop beneath the rest. So Jesus himself stepped in and shamed them all.

This “supper” was the Passover meal and not an ordinary supper, eaten on Wednesday evening, the 13th, and not on Thursday evening, the 14th. The very phrase in v. 1, “before the feast of the Passover when Jesus knew,” etc., makes this supper a part of the festival. For if this phrase does not intend to bring us to the Passover supper, it is out of place, and John should have written some indefinite adverb like “already,” “this long while.” See how this supper is distinguished, not merely by the washing of the disciples’ feet but by the farewell discourses. Jesus takes leave of his disciples, Judas goes out to effect the betrayal (v. 30), Jesus proceeds to Gethsemane (18:1, etc.). To say that, if this is the Passover supper, δεῖπνον should have the article is unwarranted, for John does not intend to describe the supper and refers to it only because of what Jesus did and said at this supper. His readers know the accounts of the other evangelists and thus have no trouble with John’s brief reference.

It makes little difference whether we read δείπνουγινομένου (present tense) or γενομένου (aorist), for in either case the genitive absolute would mean only “at supper,” without specifying anything further. In Mark 6:2, for instance, as Zahn points out, the aorist γενομένουσαββάτου means neither “at the beginning of the Sabbath” (Friday evening), nor “the Sabbath being ended,” but simply “on a Sabbath.” The A. V. is wrong when it translates the aorist “supper being ended”; and the R. V. likewise when it accepts the present participle and translates “during supper,” as though this means, “during the progress of the supper.” Not the tense of either of these participles determines the point of time regarding the supper.

The decisive circumstance is the fact that with the Jews the washing of the hands (a mere ceremonial act) and of the feet (a custom of propriety and politeness on entering a house, due to the wearing of sandals) always took place before the meal began and never during its progress or at its end. Quietly Jesus and the disciples had come from Bethany, proceeding at once to the upper room which a friend of Jesus had reserved for them. Since this important meal was to be entirely private, no host or no servant was present to do the honors, untie the sandals and wash the feet. Yet the water in a jug, the basin, and the linen apron, intended to serve also as a towel, were in place. After a brief delay the company proceeded to recline upon the couches in the fashion common at that time for dining. No one had said or done anything about the feet.

The words in v. 4, “he rises from the supper,” read as though Jesus waited until the last moment when Peter and John, who had been ordered to make all things ready and had done so earlier in the day (Mark 14:15, 16; Luke 22:8–13), set the food on the tables. Then at last Jesus proceeded to act. As far as Peter and John are concerned, they probably thought that they had done enough. Certainly, the omission in regard to the feet must have been in the minds of all. Perhaps some expected that Jesus would designate one of their number to play the part of the servant. None of them volunteered.

Washing the feet, of course, had nothing to do with the matter of dining as such; its necessity and its propriety were due to the long walk from Bethany, whether a meal followed or not. It was commanded neither by the law nor by the traditions of the Pharisees; it was only a matter of propriety. As such, however, it was most fitting to be observed by men who came from a distance to partake together of the most sacred feast known to their religion. Whatever the disciples felt, Jesus would not neglect a custom that was just now so eminently in place. Yet not the mere custom as such prevailed on him to observe it at this time but the spirit of his disciples who would not stoop to render each other a service so menial. This spirit made it quite imperative for Jesus to act.

When it is said that he proceeded only on the spur of the moment, we observe that this would be wholly unlike Jesus; his action is thoroughly considered. The assumption that some servant of the house had already attended to the washing before the company reached the upper room, is contradicted by the provisions for the washing placed in readiness right in this room. This assumption also makes the act of Jesus unnecessary, artificial, if not actually theatrical. Some would call the act symbolical; but this is contradicted by Jesus himself in v. 15. His act was an example; it was not staged as a symbol, it was performed as an actual service upon feet that actually needed washing. Not by turning it into a mere symbol can it be fitted into the progress of the supper or placed at the end as being proper there.

In spite of its strong textual attestation the reading; τοῦδιαβόλουἤδηβεβληκότοςεἰςτὴνκαρδίανἵναπαραδοῖαὑτὸνἸούδαςΣίμωνοςἸσκαριώτης is assailed. While it is unusual, this very feature must be regarded as a mark of genuineness according to the textual canon that the more unusual and difficult reading is likely the true one. The objection that βεβληκότοςεἰςτὴνκαρδίαν, without a genitive, must mean that the devil conceived in his own heart that Judas should betray Jesus is unsound, because this sense would require the middle participle, whereas John writes the active participle. It would also require the absence of the article as the classic examples with βάλλεσθαι show. It is thus gratuitous to argue that, since the Scriptures speak of God’s heart, they also speak of the devil’s heart. It is ill-advised to ridicule the reading by stating that it actually says that the devil had the thought of Judas’ treachery in his hand and threw it into his own (the devil’s) heart.

A thought so silly would not appear in so many, among them the most important, codices. What heart is referred to by “the heart” (or as we may translate, “his heart”) the connection makes plain beyond a doubt.

Those who object to the accepted reading fall back on the variant which replaces the nominative ἸούδαςἸσκαριώτης with the genitive ἸούδαἸσκαριώτου and translate as do our versions, “the devil having now (or already) put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” Thus εἰςτὴνκαρδίαν has its genitive although its position so far removed at the very end is still unusual. While the substance of the thought is identical in both readings, the accepted reading, with the nominative at the end, is decidedly preferable. John purposely withholds the traitor’s name until the very last. The ἵνα clause, too, contains no name. So the reader is held in suspense—whose heart is this? who is this that receives into his heart to deliver Jesus, i.e., betray him to his enemies? The final nominative gives the answer: “Judas, Simon’s son, Iscariot.” Whether “Iscariot” is also nominative (“the man of Keriot”) in apposition with “Judas” or genitive in apposition with “of Simon” (“son of Simon, of the man of Keriot”) is an entirely minor point; compare 6:71.

When the devil first injected the thought of the betrayal into the heart of Judas the perfect participle does not indicate. It occurred some time before this, and the perfect tense signifies that the thought continued as thrown into his heart. The non-final ἵνα clause is the object of the participle: “to deliver him,” i.e., hand him over, betray him. The form παραδοῖ is the aorist subjunctive, also written—δῷ and—δώῃ (Paul’s epistles); for the form of the optative see R. 308. The use of βάλλειν for injecting a thought is usual and does not stress the suddenness. There is no need to expand this casting as though the devil knew this man and was rushing him off his feet.

The perfect tense gives us quite a different picture, namely that Judas harbored the thought for some time, entertained and played with it until he finally acted. If we may say so, perhaps the decree of the Sanhedrin that whoever knew where Jesus was should report it (11:57), was used by Satan for his purpose; this combined with the greed for money of the traitor paved the way. As early as 12:4 the thought of betrayal must have occurred to Judas.

Why does John report this about Judas in connection with the washing of the feet? Certainly not because Jesus intended to give him a final warning, for then the remark would appear in v. 21. Also not because John would say that only the devil could have put such a thought into Judas’ heart, for then the remark should appear in 6:70, 71, or in 12:4–6. Some think that John means to say that the time for Jesus to display his love to the disciples was short because Judas was already betraying him, but Jesus seems in no hurry whatever, and it has been well said that not Judas has Jesus in his power, but Jesus has Judas in his. Others think that John intends to stress the patience of Jesus with the traitor, or the serene peace of Jesus and the majesty of his love, although the traitor is present; but there is nothing in the text that bears such an intimation. These seem like extraneous thoughts.

The connection seems to be that of contrast: although Judas had already planned the betrayal, Jesus stooped to wash the disciples’ feet—Judas among them. Even the machinations of hell cannot interfere with the love which Jesus shows to the very last.

John 13:3

3 This contrast is tremendously intensified by the third participial modifier. John sets the action of Jesus into the boldest possible relief: “although he knows that the Father did give all things into his hands,” etc. The second εἰδώς should not be separated from the first (in v. 1) on the plea that its object is different—certainly the object would not be the same. This second εἰδώς connects with the first by advancing the object of the first. Jesus knows not merely the arrival of the hour for his transfer out of the world to the Father; we are to think of him as being fully conscious of his power in this hour when the devil, Judas, and his enemies seem to be celebrating the triumph of their power, fully conscious also that he of his own will came from God and now of his own will is in the act of going back to God. This loving Jesus is the almighty Jesus, the sovereign eternal Son who descended from God for his supreme mission and now at its close returns as the Son that he is.

This aorist ἔδωκεν is often misunderstood, likewise its object πάντα. A commentary on the latter is πᾶσαἐξουσία in Matt. 28:18, where also ἐδόθη is the verb used: “All power (authority) was given to me in heaven and on earth.” “All things” is without restriction of any kind, and “into his hands” means for him to do with as he wills, it is like “all power or authority” in Matthew. The aorist is historical: “he gave”; but not in the sense “now already,” as if this gift was recently made, or was made as a kind of prolepsis of the coming glorification. Here, in the Matthew passage, and elsewhere, as in 3:35, where the Father gives all things and all power into the hands of Jesus, this invariably refers to the human nature of Jesus (5:27). Omnipotence could be no gift to the divine nature of Jesus. All things were in Jesus’ hands when those hands washed the disciples’ feet.

Yet we see that these hands are still in deepest humiliation—they have almighty power but do not use this power in majesty. Only exceptionally, in performing the miracles, a limited use of this power was made; compare Luke 22:51, healing the severed ear of Malchus. This aorist ἔδωκεν dates back to the Incarnation when the union of the two natures in Jesus took place. Its date is the same as that of the next aorist ἐξῆλθεν, “he came out from God” entering this world. John emphasizes the consciousness of Jesus that all things were in his hands in contrast with the traitorous action of Judas and all the hellish powers that stood back of this action. John intends to say that, although Jesus knew that all things were in his hands in these hours of hastening toward his death, he did not smite the traitor and the foes in league with this son of perdition but followed his course of love, completed his mission, and of himself laid down his life to take it up again (10:11 and 17, 18).

We must connect and read together the two ὅτι clauses as one object of εἰδώς: “that the Father did give all things into his hands, and that he did come out from God and is about to go back to God.” This is the consciousness that animates Jesus as he proceeds to wash the disciples’ feet and throughout these important final hours. His whole course from his going out from God until his return lies before him. This is the course of his humiliation during which he possessed power over all things but used that power only as it furthered his mission. In both verbs, ἐξῆλθε and ὑπάγει, we must note the personal, voluntary action. It was his act that “he came,” it is his act that “he goes.” He himself has spoken thus, 8:14 and 42; compare also 3:13; 6:33, 38, 50, 51, 58; 7:29; 8:23. With this voluntary coming and going we must combine the many statements that the Father “did send” him (ὁπέμψαςμε) and must not say that his being sent excludes “his own initiative and independence in thinking and willing.” His will and his thinking are one with those of the Father. “He did come out from God” declares his deity, his essential oneness with God.

As one who thus came out from God he now goes back to God. The article in πρὸςτὸνΘεόν is resumptive and points to ἀπὸΘεοῦ: he goes back to this very God. It is not by an act of grace on God’s part that Jesus enters heaven; no assumptio deifies or glorifies him. “His absolute exaltation above the most elect among the children of men could not be indicated more distinctly.” Nebe. Yet he who shares omnipotence with God in essential oneness with him now performs an act in which the very opposite of this divine majesty is brought to view, an act in which divine majesty makes itself the most lowly servant—“who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,” Phil. 2:6, 7. Here he took water and washed his disciples’ dusty feet; presently he poured out his own blood to wash their sinful souls.

John 13:4

4 John puts the action of Jesus before us in all its details. Interspersing the historical present tenses with the aorists adds vividness. Already stretched out on the couch ready for the supper to begin, Jesus “rises from the supper (the article is merely anaphoric) and lays down his garments,” τάἱμάτια, the flowing outer robe and the girdle, “and having taken up an apron,” λέντιον, made of linen, “he tied it around him” by means of the attached bands. In other words, Jesus appears clothed quite like the slave or servant to whom the task of washing the feet of guests is assigned. John writes as though the disciples, lying outstretched, watch this action of Jesus, perceive their Master’s intention, and yet—not one of them, not even John himself, jumps up now at least to offer himself for the task.

John 13:5

5 Thereupon, grouping these actions separately, he pours water into the basin, the one placed there for this purpose, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, whose sandals had been removed when they entered, and to wipe them with the apron with which he was bound around. “He began” by taking them in order as they lay stretched out. He knelt on the floor, set the basin down, and while each disciple made his feet project beyond the edge of the couch, washed them clean with his hands and then dried them with the apron. Still none of them, including John, jumped up to take the menial task from his hands. Whatever their thoughts and their feelings at what they beheld were, no one interfered.

John 13:6

6 Accordingly he comes to Simon Peter, who, therefore, was certainly not the first, as some have supposed, although we have no means of knowing how many were washed before Jesus came to him, nor does this make any difference. He says to him, Lord, thou art going to wash my feet? The present tense in the question is conative, expressing an action just beginning. The address, “Lord,” far higher than “Rabbi,” brings out the greatness of Jesus, and the emphatic σύ, “thou,” is in contrast with “my feet,” μου even being next to σύ. The thought that the Lord, that he should be on his knees, washing “my (dirty) feet,” is too much for Peter. Those that were washed before him had voiced no protest.

Peter’s temperament is different, more impetuous than that of most men, by nature he is quicker to speak and to act; his position among the Twelve had developed his natural bent for leadership. This suffices to explain why he makes a protest. Whether the addition of his old name “Simon” intends to convey the thought that on this occasion he is following his old nature and not the new, is doubtful. His protest lays the emphasis on “thou,” and any emphasis on “my” is minor (R. 418), which means that he is not faulting the others whose feet Jesus had already washed—he speaks only for himself.

John 13:7

7 Jesus answered and said to him, the two verbs marking the reply as weighty (see 1:48), What I on my part am doing thou on thine dost not know now, yet thou shalt realize hereafter. The emphasis is on the two pronouns, which are also placed in contrast: “I on my part … thou on thine.” Also οἷδας is the ordinary verb for knowing, while γνώσῃ expresses the knowledge of real understanding. Jesus points out to Peter that his protest rests on ignorance, an ignorance which shall be replaced by full understanding in due time. In a way Jesus excuses Peter and thus treats him mildly. By adding the promise that Peter shall later realize what Jesus is really doing in these last hours of his life, he is asking Peter, and making it easy for him, to submit without misgivings or question. The reply of Jesus is full of love and kindliness.

Jesus accepts Peter’s emphatic “thou,” that he, the divine Lord, is washing the feet of his disciples like the veriest servant. But he draws Peter’s attention to the plain implication that as the Lord he knows what he is doing, which ought to satisfy any proper disciple. The usual interpretation has “what I am doing” refer only to the washing of the feet. But what, then, does Peter as yet not know about this washing? Some say, the lesson Jesus is teaching the disciples by his act. So Jesus would be saying only this, “Just wait a little until I am through, then you shall understand what I am doing”; and presently he again took the couch and explained all.

The inadequacy of this view lies in the fact that from the start Peter could see that Jesus was teaching them a very necessary lesson. And yet, even after the lesson is put into words (v. 12, etc.), this lesson alone could not and did not make them understand properly even this one act of Jesus on this night. Others think that the words “what I am doing” refer to a hidden symbolic significance of the washing, that this physical washing symbolizes a spiritual cleansing. They draw this significance from the very conversation of Jesus with Peter. What, then, becomes of the emphatic “now” and “hereafter” in this first reply of Jesus? If Jesus at once explains everything how can he say μετὰταῦτα, “after these things,” with the plural pronoun in the phrase pointing to a longer interval of time?

But the supposed symbolism does not fit, for the washing of only the feet could not and did not symbolize complete spiritual cleansing.

“What I am doing” refers to all that Jesus did this night and should not be restricted as though Jesus says, “What I am not doing to thee (Peter), or to you (Peter and the rest).” The washing of the feet is, of course, included as being of one piece with all that was done this night. Jesus knows well enough that his disciples are in no position to comprehend what he is doing: he does not chide them for that, he excuses them. Only one thing he wants them to know and to know well, that he himself knows all about what he is doing—this they are to remember when in due time all is completed. Then at last when all is done, Peter, too, and all the rest will fully understand, knowing then that Jesus knew from the very start. This explains μετὰταῦτα, “after these’ things,” i.e., after all of them including the death and the burial of Jesus. The resurrection and the glorification of Jesus will shed a great light on everything.

Especially Pentecost will bring the fullest revelation to them. The infinite love of Jesus actuating him as he now washes the feet of his disciples and in all that follows, they could know only after all was done, including that deepest of all humiliation, the death of shame upon the cross, followed by the divine exaltation. So Jesus now asks them to wait and to trust him as their “Lord” in all that he now does.

John 13:8

8 Strange to say, neither the love of the kindly reply of Jesus checks Peter, nor the promise that in due time he shall know, implying a request for him to wait. Peter says to him, By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever. Note the strong volitive aorist subjunctive with its strongest form of negation οὑμή (R. 933), enhanced by the phrase, “for the eon,” i.e., “ever,” or “forever.” On εἰςτὸναἰῶνα see 8:35, also 14:16. In all eternity, never is Jesus to wash Peter’s feet! It almost seems as though the gentleness of Jesus caused Peter to react with such boldness. Though he had called Jesus “Lord,” he now acts as though he were lord and Jesus subject to his orders.

Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Sometimes this is understood rather superficially as though Jesus says, “Unless I wash thy feet, thou hast no part with me.” If, then, it seems strange that Jesus makes the salvation of Peter depend on his washing Peter’s feet, the remark is added that Peter’s refusal to have his feet washed by Jesus is rank disobedience, and persistence in this disobedience would exclude Peter from salvation. Whoever, even in a minor matter, refuses Jesus obedience “forever” certainly cannot enter heaven with him. Yet the reply of Jesus says nothing about washing the feet of Peter and nothing about disobedience on Peter’s part. “If I wash thee not” is not the same as, “If thou wilt not let me wash thy feet.” Others put this into a stronger form. Peter will not accept the self-humiliation of Jesus. Yet by thus contending for the Lord’s greatness, which he will not have marred, he is really asserting his own greatness over against Jesus, as one who will not learn humility from the example Jesus is now setting him.

Thus by seemingly contending for the greatness of Jesus, Peter is destroying this greatness and is thus separating himself from Jesus. In other words, by his refusal to have Jesus wash his feet, Peter repudiates the Lord as he is and demands a Lord who is otherwise. This has the appearance of a profound interpretation and yet is beside the mark. For the observation is correct: Jesus makes Peter’s having part with him depend, not on anything Peter does, but on something Jesus does for Peter: “unless I wash thee.”

At this point symbolism is again brought in. This washing of feet is only symbolic, we are told, hence also Jesus is now speaking of washing Peter symbolically. Water is said to be a symbol of sanctification through the Holy Spirit, hence washing symbolizes the cleansing and refreshing of the Spirit. Whoever refuses to receive that has no part with Jesus. Back of this view lies the idea that Baptism is but a symbolic use of water, which is contrary to 3:3 and 5. Moreover, this view is not symbolic but allegorical: physical elements and actions are regarded as pictures of spiritual counterparts, and that without warrant in the words of the text. The symbolism is not present, not even in the form of allegory.

Peter objects to having his dusty feet washed by Jesus, whatever the purpose of this washing may be. What a tiny service this is compared with the vastly greater service, Jesus washing Peter entirely and for a far higher purpose! What makes Peter so blind and foolish to resent the tiny service while accepting the far greater service? The one costs only a few minutes’ physical work in washing twelve pairs of dusty feet as required by oriental propriety and politeness; the other costs the entire mission of Jesus including his death and blood, by which alone we are truly washed and cleansed. The one teaches the disciples only a single lesson by means of example (v. 14); the other bestows upon us a part with Jesus in his everlasting kingdom. Or does Peter mean to refuse also this supreme service?

Understand the tenses correctly. The present ἔχεις is not futuristic, it is timeless. While it is addressed to Peter, “Unless I wash thee, thou hast,” etc., the thought is universal and applies to all men alike, “Unless Jesus washes a person, that person has no part with him.” The protasis, ἐάν with the aorist subjunctive, is relative to the apodosis with its present ἔχεις: “unless I first shall wash thee, thou hast,” etc. The aorist indicates only that the act of washing is a single act and says nothing whatever about its date. One washing we all need or we shall not have part with Jesus. Like Peter, we may already have it; future believers obtain it when they are brought to faith.

“Unless I wash” is figurative, and certainly the figure is suggested by the act in which Jesus is now engaged. In 4:10, etc., the figure is drinking; in 6:50 it is eating; in both, the water and the bread (life) is the gift of Jesus; and in other connections other figures are used by Jesus. These are figures not symbols. In the present case the figure is quite transparent, for the washing admits us “to have part with Jesus.” This expression may mean to share in somebody’s fate or possession, or in general to have part in his lot. Here the more general sense is in place. Peter certainly already had a part with Jesus, i.e., was sharing his lot and thus had received this washing (v. 10).

That it means an inward cleansing is quite evident from the relation to Jesus which it produces. Thus, since sin and its guilt separate from Jesus, this is a cleansing which removes the sin and the guilt. Those who think this sense too narrow and emphasize sanctification in holy living in place of it are not in harmony with the aorist νίψω nor with v. 10.

John 13:9

9 Frightened at the thought of having no part in Jesus and still failing to understand what Jesus really is doing, Peter, in accord with the precipitation of his nature, not only gives up his opposition, but goes to the other extreme. Simon Peter says to him, Lord, not only my feet but also my hands and my head, the other exposed members of his body. In his haste Peter does not distinguish between the washing of which Jesus speaks (spiritual) and the washing in which he is engaged (physical, of the dusty feet). His eagerness for any washing that joins him to Jesus prompts his offer of all the bodily members easily reached for the purpose of being washed.

John 13:10

10 It is easy for the Lord to set him right. Jesus says to him, He who has been bathed has no need except to wash his feet but is clean altogether; and you are clean, but not all. Jesus merely extends the figure he used in v. 8 when he said, “unless I wash thee”; he now also adds literal language which places the meaning of the figure beyond doubt. The use of the new verb λούειν is only incidental, for this, too, means only “to wash,” and we use the English “bathe” only to indicate the use of a new synonym. The passive is certainly to be understood in the sense of v. 8, with Jesus as the agent who does the washing or bathing. The perfect tense implies present condition: a person once bathed by Jesus remains thus, in other words, “is clean altogether.” The extension of the figure lies in the addition: “has no need except to wash his feet.” Walking about in sandals, only his feet would become dusty and need ablution.

The middle infinitive νίψασθαι, like ἐβαπτίζοντο in 3:23 and Matt. 3:6, and like other middle forms, really means, in the present connection: “let his feet be washed”; for the oriental custom contemplates a servant as washing the feet of a guest, and in the reality which Jesus has in mind it is again he himself who attends also to this minor service. It would, of course, be out of line to extend this figure still farther and to bring in the need of repeated bathing or washing of the entire body or of the feet as time passes; we must be satisfied with the figure as Jesus employs it and not make inappropriate expansions of our own which would not reflect the reality that Jesus has in mind.

As the body is clean altogether when it is washed and needs only a laving of the feet when we have walked in the dusty road, so we are spiritually clean when Jesus has washed away our sin and guilt; we need only a minor cleansing when we move about in this sinful world with its impure contacts. The question is raised as to the means which Jesus has in mind when he uses this figurative language, first about our general cleansing and then also about the additional cleansing. Some think of Baptism with regard to the former, because the figure is one of washing. In the case of the disciples this would be the sacrament received from the hands of the Baptist. At once a division of opinion arises. Since John tells us only about six of the disciples being baptized by the Baptist, some say that only these six were so baptized and leave open the question whether the other six were baptized, or, if they were baptized, when this occurred and by whom it was performed.

Others believe that all twelve disciples had received John’s baptism. Since Jesus insisted on John’s baptism for himself, it will be impossible to assume that he kept six of his disciples unbaptized. If John himself did not baptize them, then the sacrament must have been administered by their fellow-disciples, 3:22–26; 4:1, 2. This, too, would be John’s baptism; see the exposition of 3:22, etc. A graver division of opinion deals with the nature and the effect of this baptism by John and its extension by Jesus. Some deny, and others assert, that it was a true sacrament and bestowed the forgiveness of sins.

Those who deny rule out this baptism as mediating the complete cleansing of which Jesus here speaks. On this point compare the findings in 3:5.

Those who deny that John’s baptism conferred forgiveness point to 15:3 and make the Word of Jesus the medium for the complete cleansing he has in mind; many of the rest simply add the Word to John’s baptism. The objection that the baptism was not administered by Jesus’ own hand and hence cannot be referred to when Jesus says, “unless I wash thee,” is untenable, since all three Persons of the Godhead operate in and through the Word and the sacrament. Again, when we add the Word to the sacrament, this dare not be done because the latter would be insufficient for this cleansing, a mere preparation for it, the bestowal of only a symbol of cleansing and not of the factual cleansing itself. Jesus names no means on this occasion. The means can be only those which still cleanse the souls of sinners and give them part with Jesus, namely Word and sacrament. Which of the two does the work in any given case when the cleansing first takes place, depends on the case itself.

Any future partial cleansing is accomplished by the same means. While baptism is never to be repeated, and while we know of no baptism other than that of John which was administered to any of the Twelve, its cleansing power is not spent in the hour of its application but goes on through life, is present every moment that the child of God grasps its power and blessing anew. This is also true with regard to the absolution in the Word and the seal of the sacred body and the sacred blood in the Holy Supper.

Jesus drops the figure when he adds, “and (or, also) you are clean,” using an emphatic ὑμεῖς, “you” who are my true disciples. Yet he is compelled to add, “but not all.” The limitation does not lie in the predicate “clean” but in the subject “you.” The negative οὑχί’ “is a bit sharper in tone” than the simple οὑ, R. 1157. Judas is excluded. Not Peter, although his fault in contradicting his Lord was openly apparent at this very moment. This should dispose of the interpretation that the total cleansing of which Jesus speaks includes both the pardon of justification and the holiness of good works. Even the figurative terms which Jesus employed do not permit this mixing of things diverse. The bad works of Peter are like stains upon his feet; his good works are not in the figure, for they are not bestowed upon him by grace but are produced by Peter by means of the grace already in him.

John 13:11

11 “Not all” might include more than one, and just now Peter attracts our adverse attention. To make the meaning of Jesus clear John adds the explanation: For he knew the man betraying him; on this account he said, Not all are you clean. Jesus had this knowledge all along (ᾔδει, durative). Also note the present participle, “the man engaged in betraying him,” not, “him that should betray him” (our versions). His is not a sin that merely stains the feet but a sin that marks him as being entirely unclean. He is not merely overcome by a fault but has completely lost the faith, is a disciple only in pretense.

John repeats the pointed reference of Jesus, for this was a blow at the conscience of Judas, revealing his whole inner condition. With it Jesus conveys the thought to Judas that all his treachery is known; he does this with only two words and in a moment will do it more completely, in order to frighten Judas out of his security and to drive him to repentance. Although Jesus knows that it will all be in vain, he leaves nothing undone, morally and spiritually, to deter the traitor, even as he still urges sinners to the last though they harden themselves in their guilt.

John 13:12

12 With the ominous word “but not all” ringing in the minds of the disciples, nothing more was said until all, even Judas, were washed. When, therefore, he had washed their feet and taken his garments and reclined again, he said to them, Do you realize what I have done to you? “Their feet” and “to you” certainly includes all of them. The movements of Jesus at the conclusion of his act are described in graphic detail, just as were those spoken at the beginning (v. 4, 5). The imprint left on the evangelist’s mind was deep indeed. The aorists in the temporal clause only mark the acts as past, the Greek not caring to mark the relative time as the English does which uses the past perfect, R. 840, etc. The verb ἀναπίπτω is used like ἀνακλίνομαι literally, “when he fell back again” upon the couch.

The question Jesus asks is not merely rhetorical to attract the attention of those who do not have the information now to be imparted to them. The act of Jesus was too plain for that: he, their Lord, making himself their servant, whereas they, his servants, had pridefully avoided the service. They did realize, but Jesus means that the full import of what they had seen him do for them is to be brought to their realization. His action in washing their feet is not a mere rebuke to their pride, it is an example of true love, the love that is ready to render the lowliest kind of service to others. He is not concerned in humbling them but in making them like himself so that they may be truly blessed and happy (v. 17). The negative side of what Jesus had done (the rebuke) needs no statement—this the disciples will feel without further words; the positive side is the one that needs setting forth, so that they will actually do what the act of Jesus has shown them.

John 13:13

13 You call me The Teacher and The Lord, and you say well, for I am. “You” is emphatic, “you as my disciples” who really know me. Others, too, addressed Jesus as Rabbi (teacher) and Lord, but most of these intended these titles only as expressions of respect. Ὁδιδάσκαλος and Ὁκύριος are plainly nominatives and not vocatives, R. 1028 and elsewhere. The matter becomes plain when we note that φωνεῖτέμε means, “you call me when you speak of me,” and not, “you call me when you address me.” In address they, of course, used vocatives, but when they spoke to each other about Jesus they said, “The Teacher,” “The Lord.” When Jesus quotes these nominatives this is far stronger than a quotation of vocatives; for the nominatives allow the use of the article, giving these titles a specific and eminent sense: the Teacher, the Lord κατʼ ἐξοχήν, who ranks far above the many others to whom titles of “teacher” and “lord” are also accorded. In 12:21 the Greeks who wish to see Jesus address Philip as κύριε, intending only respect. The disciples think and speak of Jesus with far higher thought. Jesus commends them for that, for he is, indeed, all that they thus say and mean. “The Teacher” refers to the divine words which he utters, and “The Lord” to the divine power manifested in him.

Nebe is right when he becomes indignant because ὁδιδάσκαλος, for which we generally use “the Master,” has by rationalism been made to mean no more than an eminent human teacher, one of a class similar to him. In both titles as used by the disciples and approved by Jesus lies his deity.

John 13:14

14 Now the deduction: If I, therefore, washed your feet, I, the Lord and the Teacher, you, too, ought to be washing each others’ feet. For an example have I given you, that even as I did do to you, you, too, keep doing. This is the Lord’s own explanation of what he intended with his washing of the disciples’ feet. It is to be “an example,” ὑπόδειγμα (in the same sense as παράδειγμα), which we are constantly to follow (note the durative present tenses: νίπτειν and ποιῇτε, “be washing” and “keep doing”). It is natural that now in the apposition to the emphatic ἐγώ “the Lord” is placed before “the Teacher,” at once bringing out the greatness of Jesus. That, too, is why the apposition is reserved for the very end of the conditional clause and is in a manner made to stand by itself. The example is thus an argumentum a majori ad minus.

In the apodosis the emphasis is on “you, too,” and the reason for this καὶὑμεῖς is self-evident: because they are disciples of this great Lord and this great Teacher, they want to be one with him, learn of him, do his will. “You ought” is like the ἐντολή in v. 34 and in 15:12. The obligation resting upon them is moral and spiritual, naturally growing out of their relation to this Lord and Teacher. This, however, does not imply that an equal obligation rests upon Jesus; it is not “as I ought, so you ought,” as I met my obligation, so you should meet yours. The καὶ is to be construed only with ὑμεῖς.

John 13:15

15 This act of Jesus was free and voluntary, chosen by him for the purpose of teaching the disciples. In his love and his wisdom he “has given” (some copies have the aorist “did give”) them an example to follow. Just what this example covers is stated in the appositional ἵνα clause, which, of course, is non-final. This shows that “to be washing each others’ feet” is figurative and means literally, “that you keep doing, even as I did do to you,” καθώς, not ὅ, “in the same manner,” not “the same identical thing.” The example of Jesus is to guide them in what they do for each other; it is not for mere mechanical repetition in washing of feet. This answers the question as to whether Jesus intends to institute a symbolical rite or an actual sacrament, which his disciples are to repeat formally by actually washing each others’ feet. Such rites belong to the Old Testament only, they have disappeared from the New.

The shadows are gone, the substance has come. No sacrament can be intended, for a direct command, “This do,” is absent, to say nothing of a promise of heavenly grace attached to the act. We should have to have both the specific command and the promise besides the water to constitute a sacrament.

But is the example not at least symbolic? Does it not go beyond the ordinary humble service of love in the common contacts of life and include the symbolic feature that we aid each other in removing fault, sins, and stains of guilt? Though it is emphatically asserted, we are compelled to say that anything of this kind is impossible for disciples and is possible only for Jesus. The appeal to v. 10 overlooks the fact that both the passive ὁλελουμένος and the middle νίψαοθαι. think of Jesus as the one who does the bathing and by whom the bathed person lets his feet be washed. No brother can remove a single stain of sin from another brother. The confusion of thought involved in this view of symbolism seems to be due to passages like Gal. 6:1 and the general Christian obligation of rebuke, correction, and admonition.

All this, however, hangs together with the same obligation of teaching, exhorting, comforting, etc. In this work one brother applies the Lord’s Word to another brother according as there is need. We are only mouthpieces of Jesus; any good done belongs to Jesus and the Word. In this work neither Jesus nor we are menial servants of our brethren, rather do we come with divine authority. Any symbolism pertinent to washing of feet is thus excluded by the nature of what is done.

John 13:16

16 Jesus has given the disciples an example, and he intends that they should not merely admire but should actually follow it. He knows what may prevent them from doing so: the feeling that they are just as good as others or even superior to others. Such comparisons he cuts off completely by his own personal example, which substitutes and calls for quite another and far more pertinent comparison. By his example Jesus has placed us where we must drop all other comparisons and compare ourselves only with him. Therefore the solemn declaration with the two “amen” of verity and the assurance of authority, “I say to you” (see 1:51). Amen, amen, I say to you, A slave is not greater than his lord, nor one sent than the one that sent him.

If you know these things, blessed are you if you keep doing them. The statement about the slave and the one sent is, of course, axiomatic. It is the connection which lends peculiar force to the statement as here made. If any disciple of Jesus should ever think himself too great to stoop to menial tasks in serving his fellow-disciples, he can do so only by thinking himself greater than Jesus, his Lord, for this Lord had just stooped so low. And at once another comparison is added, for the Twelve are not to be disciples or believers only but are to hold the highest position and office in the church as the Lord’s own representatives, ἀπόστολοι, “men sent,” apostles commissioned to found the church and to lead it for all time (by their writings). This high office does not lift them to a plane where they are too great for the menial service of love, for they can never be greater than Jesus, their Lord, who sent them.

A far higher commission was his, and yet he had washed their feet.

John 13:17

17 It is all so transparent and self-evident and yet it must be made emphatic; for it is one thing to know and quite another to translate that knowledge into action. To procure that action Jesus does not drive with commands but draws with a promise. The first is a condition of reality: “if you know these things,” for Jesus rightly assumes that they do know them. The Greek uses ταῦτα, a plural, which conceives the object of the knowledge as composed of parts or items; the English cares nothing for this plural view and says simply “this.” Mere knowledge, however, no matter how true and excellent, brings no blessing. The adjective μακάριος is especially significant in this connection, for it denotes the joy and the satisfaction arising from possessing and experiencing the divine favor in the one or the other of its manifestations, C.-K. 711. Whereas he who thinks himself great feels disgraced by a menial task rendered to those beneath him, the true disciple of Jesus regards such a task as a great opportunity and reaps from it the feeling of joy and honor, for the Lord’s favor and commendation rest upon him while engaged in such service. In this sense Jesus says, “blessed are you.”

But, of course, only “if you keep doing them.” Doing is emphatic over against mere knowing. The condition is now one of expectancy, “if you shall be doing them.” Jesus expects it of them, yet it is possible that they may disappoint him—will they? the condition asks. The present subjunctive is durative, “keep doing them” always and on every occasion. The very character of the disciples is thus to keep expressing itself.

John 13:18

18 A division is frequently made at this point, so that v. 18–20 is connected with v. 21–30, as dealing with the traitor. But John plainly indicates a division at v. 21. Not of you all am I speaking is the continuation of v. 17. Jesus harks back to the brief “not all” in v. 10, to which John added his note in v. 11. All that Jesus tells the disciples concerning the example he has given them and the blessedness of following that example applies—sad to say—not to all of them. One of their number has excluded himself.

I for my part know the ones I chose for myself. The pronoun is emphatic—the treachery of Judas’ is still hidden from his fellow-disciples but not from the Lord. This evident contrast is quite sufficient. The attempt to add another, namely the counsel and decision of God regarding Judas, is unwarranted; for this is not in contrast with the knowledge of Jesus but in perfect agreement with what Jesus knows. “I for my part know” should not be referred to the past, “I for my part knew,” i.e., when I chose and elected you Twelve. Whatever Jesus knew regarding Judas as the future traitor when he chose him as one of the Twelve, is not here indicated. Nor are we entitled to have οἶδα mean, “I know now,” as though this knowledge has just come to Jesus.

How long before this time Jesus knows is left unsaid. We know that his knowledge reaches far back (6:70).

We prefer the reading τίνας, “which ones,” “the ones,” to οὕς, “whom.” The clause is an indirect question not a relative clause. Jesus knows not only “whom” he chose, namely these twelve men and none other; but “the ones” he chose, what kind of men they are, each one of them. For the indirect question, turned into the direct, is, “Who are they?” “Who is this man Simon, this man John, this man Judas?” inquiring not merely about externals but about character and inner type of heart. While Jesus here speaks only of his present knowledge, John has already told us how Jesus knew Simon from the very first (1:42), Nathanael likewise (1:47, etc.), in fact, all men with whom he came in contact (2:24, 25). Undoubtedly he thus knew Judas in the same way, not only when he made him one of the Twelve, but from the very start. But this does not mean that Judas was false when Jesus chose him.

Like the others he was a true believer at the time, his defection began later, just when, no one knows. “The one I chose” does not mean that Jesus made a real choice of only eleven; 6:70 is decisive on that point. Therefore also ἐξελεξάμην has nothing to do with predestination, which also is an act that lies far back in eternity. “I chose out for myself” (note the middle voice) means the selection for the apostleship. It should not be reduced to mean only a choice to accompany Jesus as his constant personal following; for these twelve men, who were to be the constant companions of Jesus, were to be trained and qualified as his special witnesses, in order that in due time they might go out as his apostles to evangelize the nations (Matt. 28:19) and to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

Jesus continues: but in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, He that eats the bread with me did lift up his heel against me. Usually the strong adversative ἀλλά is joined to the preceding sentence, and ἀλλὰἵνα is made elliptical as in 9:3 and 15:25. We are asked to read: “I on my part know the ones I chose for myself; but I chose them (or: I chose him; or simply: I chose), in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” then quoting the Scripture referred to. Yet it ought to be evident that no “him” can be drawn out of τίνας (or its variant οὕς); and because all that follows certainly refers only to Judas, we are barred from supplying, “I chose them,” or merely, “I chose,” “I made choice” (for the latter would also include all). It is better to drop the idea of an ellipsis, since no one is able properly to fill the supposed gap. The connection of ἀλλά is with the negative sentence: “Not of you all am I speaking … on the contrary (ἀλλά) … he that eats the bread with me did lift up his heel against me.” Nothing needs to be supplied. In v. 10 Jesus says, “You are clean, but not all.” Now he amplifies this: “Blessed are you … Not of all of you I am speaking … on the contrary … (one of you is excluded) he that eats the bread with me did lift up his heel against me.” The objection that this makes the ἵνα clause parenthetical and thus robs it of emphasis, does not hold, for the very position of this purpose clause insures its emphasis.

The reason why an ellipsis is preferred by some is the conception that Jesus here states why he chose Judas as he did, namely in order to fulfill the prophecy of Ps. 41:9. That, too, is why such emphasis is placed on the purpose clause, “but (I made my choice) in order that,” etc. In other words, Jesus tells his disciples that he knows all about Judas, and that even his election to be one of the Twelve was made by Jesus in order that Judas might betray him. Yet this is not what Jesus says, even when those who think so in the proper way combine prediction in regard to future human actions with fulfillment, not as deterministically compelling but only as foretelling it with infallible foreknowledge. Jesus says: ἵναἡγραφὴπληρωθῇ, meaning that the Scripture in general must be fulfilled regarding himself not the Scripture in regard to Judas. He does not place ἡγραφή directly before the quotation and does not say, “the Scripture, saying”; or, “which says.” Jesus takes only one line from the entire Psalm and even adapts this by substituting for “my bread” the more general “the bread with me,” “in my company,” μετʼ ἐμοῦ (the better reading).

What, therefore, he means to say is that the mistreatment, which the Scriptures in general describe as coming upon the righteous, has now in a signal manner come also upon him. He selects from the entire body of Scripture a striking parallel to his own case. The treachery which the Psalmist suffered is repeated in Jesus’ own case. What at one time happened to David is now again happening to David’s greater Son. This is how the Scripture is now once more fulfilling itself. David’s case is in so many features typical of Jesus’ case.

Both nursed a traitor in their bosoms.

Delitzsch translates Ps. 41:9 literally:

“Even the man of my friendship, in whom I trusted,

Who ate my bread, lifts high his heel against me.”

More literally this is “the man of my peace or well-being,” well rendered “mine own familiar friend” (A. V.). His treacherous act is figuratively pictured: “he lifts up (literally: makes great) his heel against me” in order to crush me completely. Compare the description of the same base act in Ps. 55:12–14. These Psalms, Delitzsch writes, show “the most pronounced historically individual physiognomy.” David is picturing the traitor Ahitophel. This man, who stood so high in the king’s confidence, turned traitor to him, threw in his lot with the rebel Absolom, and evolved a scheme that would indeed have crushed David utterly, 2 Sam. 16:15–17:4.

From Ps. 41 we need only to add that about this time David must have passed through a prolonged illness, enabling Absolom to gain favor with the nation. Ahitophel is the Old Testament prototype of Judas, even to the extent that after his traitorous act he hanged himself, 2 Sam. 17:23. Those who reject the Davidic authorship of these Psalms and prefer some far later unknown author, leave us without even the shadow of historical background in the hazy land of pure imagination. The poet is supposed to be connected with “the Wisdom teacher,” the traitor is some unknown person or merely a creation of poetic fiction. The Psalm itself is charged with voicing “tones of wild fleshly passion” and with offending by appeals to “the poet’s own moral excellence,” R. Kittel.

Strange as it may seem, the Old Testament contains no direct prophecy concerning Judas. Ahitophel, together with David’s references to him in two Psalms, is only a strong type of all traitors and thus a type of Judas. In many ways wickedness—and we may add suffering, joy, rewards, punishments, etc.—repeats itself, often in close parallels. Consider the flood, Sodom, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final judgment. David, betrayed by Ahitophel, is a type of Jesus, betrayed by Judas. In Matt. 2:18 the calamity and the grief at Rama are repeated in the tragedy at Bethlehem.

John 13:19

19 It is Jesus who in advance reveals the traitorous act of Judas to the disciples. From now on I state it to you before it occurs, in order that you may believe, when it shall occur, that I am he. Hitherto Jesus had referred to the traitor in a less open way, “from now on,” ἀπʼ ἄρτι, this reticence will cease. It must cease. The eleven are not to think, when the tragedy occurs, that Jesus was deceived by Judas, that he was a helpless victim of the traitor and of the Jews. They are not to draw any adverse conclusions from the traitor’s seeming success, questioning the deity of Jesus, his divine power and knowledge.

Jesus puts the eleven into a position where they can do the reverse. It is Jesus who allows Judas to succeed, who knows his every move, who has power at any moment to frustrate his entire traitorous plan. Jesus is really addressing only the eleven when he says, “in order that you may believe.” Judas must feel this. The very way in which Jesus speaks intends to strike Judas—he is not deceiving his Lord in the least, he is wholly at the mercy of Jesus. Yet Jesus does not name Judas outright as the traitor, does not charge him with his crime, does not smite him with invective. He speaks with great sadness, as if to touch and to melt the traitor’s heart; by using the line from the Psalm he makes the lament of David regarding Ahitophel his own and pictures the utter baseness of Judas—having lifted up his heel against the very King with whom he pretends to eat as a friend, right here at the sacred Passover feast.

Jesus would, if possible, melt the traitor’s heart ere it is forever too late.

The object of λέγω is the line from the Psalm just quoted. This line is also the subject of τοῦγενέσθαι and of ὅτανγένηται. These two aorists refer to the actual occurrence of the act that one who eats with Jesus as his friend and disciple lifts his heel to crush him. The aorist ἐπῆρεν in v. 18 refers to the completed act of Ahitophel; “before it occurs” and “when it shall occur” indicate that the corresponding act of Judas is not yet fully completed. We need not translate γένηται “shall have been completed,” as though the eleven are to believe only after the traitorous act is a matter of the distant past; their faith ought to begin at once after the act has been done. It is quite immaterial whether we read the aorist πιστεύσητε or the present πιστεύητε (the readings vary), for the sense is practically the same.

What the eleven are to believe is expressed by on ὅτιἐγώεἰμι, “that I am,” leaving the predicate to be supplied. Many think that this predicate should be, “that I am the Messiah.” Some revert to the Old Testament and make the predicate “the absolute personality on whom all depends,” i.e., the person who is really God himself. But in 8:24 and 28, as in other instances where Jesus uses this expression minus the predicate, it is the context alone which fills the gap. Here it must be, “that I am the one who tells you this in advance in order that you may believe.” And this is quite enough.

John 13:20

20 The connection at this point is not difficult. Not for one moment are the eleven to think that because Judas has turned traitor their own commission has ceased or is made doubtful. With the most solemn assurance they are to know that their commission as apostles remains in force and that the promise (Matt. 10:40) regarding their reception among men stands as originally given. While Judas eliminates himself, as Jesus knew that he would, Judas is unable to alter the status of the rest in any manner. Amen, amen, I say to you (1:51), He that receives anyone I may send, me he receives; and he who receives me receives him that did send me. This assurance is intended for the eleven, for they are the ones who are now deeply concerned. To be sure, Jesus here assures also those who may receive his apostles, in fact, the wording points directly to them, although none of these are now present.

The statement is entirely general; it includes every person sent by Jesus and every person receiving one thus sent. It thus extends to all future ages and includes every true witness of Jesus and preacher of the gospel and his reception as such by every true believer. In this respect the present statement reaches farther than Matt. 10:40. The two present participles are qualitative and timeless, merely describing the person as one who receives. Yet we must read these participles together with what belongs to them, “he that receives if I shall send anyone,” and “he that receives me,” for only thus are the predicates true. The conditional clause of expectancy, ἄντιναπέμψω, is used in the place of a simple object.

Jesus will, indeed, send out the eleven and others, and he uses the same verb to designate his act of sending as he used to express the Father’s act of sending him. The great thing in this assurance is the identification of the one thus sent with Jesus himself who sends him and with the great Sender of Jesus. Jesus and his Sender are one with every messenger whom Jesus sends out, so much so that receiving the messenger is equal to receiving Jesus and the Sender of Jesus. Let Judas do what he will, the mighty work of Jesus and his Sender remains unaffected. This wonderful indentification is, of course, mediated by the Word, preached and taught by those whom Jesus sends. The moment this Word is laid aside and something else is put in its place the sending by Jesus ceases, as well as the reception of Jesus and of his Sender.

No negative is added because it is obvious that he who does not receive the messenger Jesus sends, by that refusal fails also to receive Jesus, his grace and salvation, and the Father who sent Jesus.

The interpretation which joins v. 20 to v. 13–17 has much against it. Jesus is not speaking of needy persons whom he will send that we may wash their feet, i.e., render them menial service. Jesus never sends needy persons, for we always have them with us, 12:8. With v. 18, etc., the discourse passes on to the new subject, the defection of Judas.

2. The Traitor Exposed, 21–30

John 13:21

21 Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit and testified and said, Amen, amen, I say to you that one of you shall betray me. “Having said these things” undoubtedly marks an interval. The washing of the feet and the discourse connected with it (v. 1–20) occurred before the Passover actually began (see on v. 2). Matt. 26:21: ἐσθιόντωναὑτῶν, “while engaged in eating,” (likewise Mark 14:18) makes certain that the exposure of Judas occurred during the actual eating of the meal. Luke 22:21–23 disregards the exact order of time. When considering the interval marked by John, we must remember that the feast followed a fixed formal order: 1) The first cup with a blessing for the wine and the sacred day. 2) The bitter herbs to recall the bitter life in Egypt. 3) The unleavened bread, the chasoret, the roasted lamb, and the meat of the chagiga (other sacrificial meat). 4) The housefather dips some of the bitter herbs into the chasoret with a benediction for the fruit of the earth, then eats, and the rest follow. 5) The second cup is mixed (wine with water), a son asks, and the father explains the entire feast. 6) The first part of the hallel is sung, Ps. 113 and 114, and with a prayer of praise the second cup is drunk. 7) The father washes his hands, takes two cakes of bread, breaks one and lays it on the unbroken one, blesses the bread out of the earth, wraps a broken piece with herbs, dips it in the chasoret, eats it and a piece of the chagiga and a piece of the lamb. 8) Now all join in eating. 9) The festival meal was concluded when the father ate the last piece of the lamb, which was to be at least the size of an olive, after which no one ate. He washed his hands, and with a benediction the third cup was drunk. 10) The second part of the hallel, Ps. 115–118; the fourth cup, and sometimes a fifth; the conclusion of the hallel, Ps. 120–137. This is the description of the rabbis.

“While engaged in eating” (Matthew and Mark) thus places the exposure of the traitor at point eight, when the general eating was about concluded. Here we place Matt. 26:21–24; Mark 14:18–21; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21, 22. Then follows John 13:23–27a; and after a little Matt. 26:25, the traitor’s own question, “Rabbi, is it I?” and the answer of Jesus, “Thou hast said,” which all heard. Now follows John 13:27b–30 and the departure of Judas. The Passover now reached its last formal stage; but instead of closing in the ordinary manner, the final act at this Passover was the Institution of the Lord’s Supper. This also is the answer to the question whether or not Judas received the Lord’s Supper.

If Jesus had made the exposure in connection with the washing of the feet, Judas would have been compelled to leave before the Passover began. We see from the accounts of all the evangelists how Jesus prolongs the ordeal of the exposure, increasing the pressure upon Judas’ conscience more and more, until Judas at last practically exposes himself. First it is “one of you”; next, after the anxious questions of the eleven, the one dipping into the same dish with Jesus (like Ahitophel); then the word of woe regarding the traitor. All is in vain. John alone adds the incident of the sop by which Judas could see that Jesus pointed him out to John and to Peter. With brazen boldness Judas now challenges Jesus’ infallible knowledge, “Certainly it is not I, Rabbi?” addressing him here as in Gethsemane only as “rabbi.” Not until this time, when it is impossible to reach the heart fully given over to Satan, is the veil withdrawn, and all the others hear the reply, “Thou thyself didst say it.”

Just before the Passover was to be concluded, when at last the sad moment had arrived for exposing Judas, “Jesus was troubled in the spirit,” ἐταράχθη, a strong verb and passive because something took severely ahold of Jesus and shook his spirit. His inner disturbance must have appeared in his countenance, his tone of voice, and his entire bearing. The dative τῷπνεύματι can refer only to the seat of the disturbance; it cannot denote the Holy Spirit as the agent working the disturbance. Augustine simply wonders why he who was so calm and collected when hitherto he referred to the traitor should now all at once be so deeply agitated. What puzzles Augustine others have no difficulty in solving. The entire context points to Judas as the cause of Jesus’ severe inward disturbance, for now the sad moment had come to take the final step with regard to this traitor among the Twelve, the tragic moment when he would give himself wholly to Satan and his Satanic work.

He who might have been one of those sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28) is now about to become tenfold the child of hell and to win a name that is beyond all other names execrable among men to the end of time. The very thing that at one time shook David so deeply in Ps. 41:9 is now to receive its most highly intensified counterpart.

Instead of writing merely “and said,” John uses two verbs, both finite, hence both of equal weight, “he testified and said.” We are to understand beyond a doubt that the declaration now made by Jesus is more than a surmise on his part, more than a secret report that someone has brought to him. Jesus “testified” as a witness who speaks from direct, firsthand, personal knowledge, of the fact. The thing Jesus utters is too tremendous to be uttered in any other way. The gravity of the statement is marked by the preamble, “Amen, amen” (verity), “I say to you” (authority), as explained in 1:51. Brief, but the more terrible because of the brevity, is the announcement itself, “that one of you shall betray me.” It is categorical and direct, like a sudden blow in the face, not indefinite as heretofore. The chief point is the verb: it states literally and exactly what this traitor will do.

We might prefer to translate “will betray,” regarding the future as volitive; for it is the determination of Judas that is had in mind. This statement from the lips of Jesus must have exploded like a bomb in the quiet circle of the disciples. Now in a flash they perceive why Jesus is so agitated. The very thought was a shock full of horror. It is noteworthy that all the evangelists use the identical verb παραδίδωμι to designate the act of Judas, “to betray,” literally, “to hand over,” but in the sense of “to deliver up” to prison or judgment, M.-M. 483 with illustrations from the papyri. “Will betray me” needs no addition, for it can have only one meaning: into the hands of the Jewish authorities who had plotted for so long to lay violent and murderous hands on Jesus. Even the dullest of the eleven knew what such a betrayal meant.

And this act, Jesus says, “one of you” will commit. This one word from his lips, no more—then silence, a silence that grew more tense and stifling with every moment. There was the word in their minds and stared at them. They literally shrank and cowered under its force.

John 13:22

22 Briefly, yet eloquently, John describes the immediate effect. The disciples were looking at each other, being at a loss concerning which one he was speaking. The imperfect ἔβλεπον pictures what happened as the tense moments slipped by and at the same time points to what finally occurred. The present participle ἀπορούμενοι indicates action simultaneous with that of the main verb and describes the thoughts of the disciples as they were looking at each other. Note that περὶτίνοςλέγει, an indirect question (not the same as περὶοὗ), states the question in the mind of each disciple: “Of which one is he speaking?” “Who is it?” John says no more, for he knows that his readers have the accounts of the other evangelists. At first the eleven look at each other, each one, feeling himself guiltless, scrutinizing the faces of the others in turn in order to detect some evidence of guilt.

They also looked at Judas but saw nothing telltale there. Then each was seized by a sudden secret dread of himself. Though none of the eleven had harbored such a thought, the positive statement of Jesus made each one shrink with misgiving. Before that infallible positiveness the feeling of innocence wavered. Thus, as two of the evangelists report, one after the other began to ask, μήτιἐγώεἰμι, Κύριε, “Surely, it is not I, Lord?” Luke 22:23 says that they began to dispute among themselves who this one could be. The incident of the sop is reported by John alone, who, however, omits any reference to the words about the Son of man going as it is written of him and about the woe pronounced upon the traitor (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21).

One cannot help but pause here and wonder how all this affected Judas. His heart must have been adamant to endure it all and not to break down in utter repentance and in abject confession.

John 13:23

23 There was one of his disciples reclining at table next to the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved. While the aorist of εἶναι is not in use, and ἦν often does duty for it, here, as in many similar instances, the imperfect seems quite in place. The participle ἀνακείμενος is merely a predicate. Jesus and John lay on the same broad couch, stretched out side by side, each resting on his left side and elbow, and John in front of Jesus, so that in leaning back to speak to Jesus John’s head would fall upon Jesus’ breast, ἐντῷκόλπῳ, “in his bosom,” which we venture to render “next to his bosom.” We must know about this position at table in order to understand what follows.

This position at table, which seems to have been the one regularly accorded to John, is significant as regards John’s personal relation to Jesus. John, Peter, and James were distinguished by Jesus on various occasions (at the raising of Jairus’ daughter, as witnesses of the Transfiguration, and as the nearest witnesses of the agony in Gethsemane) and thus formed an inner circle among the Twelve. But in this inner circle one stood nearer to Jesus than the other two, and this one was John. No wonder that of the Twelve John alone stood under the cross. Thus John reclined next to Jesus, we must assume, by the arrangement of Jesus himself. The fact has always been noted that John never mentions his own name in the Gospel he composed, nor the name of any of his family, not even that of Mary, Jesus’ mother, who, it thus seems, was related to John’s mother, Salome.

Undoubtedly this is a mark of John’s deep humility. Thus, when John records an incident in which he is compelled to refer to himself if he is to record it at all, he uses the description, “whom Jesus loved,” with the imperfect ἠγάπα, “was loving” continuously. It is best to assume that neither Jesus nor John himself first used this designation, but that others who saw this close attachment, as here at table and afterward under the cross where Jesus entrusted his own mother to John, so spoke of this beloved disciple.

Jesus loved all his disciples (13:1) with the highest form of love, expressed in ἀγαπᾶν, the love that fully understands and is moved by the highest purpose toward the loved person; compare on the verb 3:16. And yet there are great differences in this ἀγάπη, as when God loves the world, and when Jesus loves his own. God’s love understands all about the sin and the guilt of the world and has the wondrous purpose to atone for it all and to save the world; yet as regards “his own” (13:1) who believe in Jesus and are already clean (13:10), this love understands their needs while in the world and has the highest purpose to care for them as his own and to bestow on them his highest blessings. It is the same ἀγάπη, and yet the objects toward which it is directed cause a great difference in its manifestation. So it is with regard to John and the other disciples. Among the Twelve this youngest apostle—about twenty-two years old at this time—understood the mind of his Master best.

The hearts of all were near to Jesus, yet John’s was nearest. The Lord’s Word and spirit penetrated John’s soul more completely than the souls of the rest. It is not a matter of the fountain of love in Jesus, which is always full to overflowing, but a matter of the vessel for receiving love on the part of the individual disciple. Some vessels grow larger than others under the training of Jesus and thus are able to contain more. John’s greater capacity must have been a joy to Jesus.

“Whom Jesus loved” is used like a fixed designation, for the name “Jesus” occurs immediately before its use here and yet is repeated in the designation; compare 20:2; 21:7 and 20. In 19:26 “Jesus” could not well be added. In 20:2 the verb is changed to ἐφίλει, “for whom Jesus had affection.” Probably both verbs were used by those who thus spoke of John, the latter adding to the understanding and the purpose contained in ἀγαπᾶν the tender personal affection. It would be a work of supererogation to prove that “whom Jesus loved” refers to the apostle St. John. All four Gospels make certain that at this Passover only the Twelve are present with Jesus.

Among the twelve, three form the inner circle. Among the three Peter is excluded, for he speaks to the unnamed apostle. James is excluded by 19:26 and 21:7 and 20. John alone is left. Much more may be added, but why waste the effort since no critic has ventured to suggest who this apostle could be if he assumed that it was not John? But John’s motive for designating himself thus has been assailed.

He is charged with trying to make himself the greatest of the Twelve, in particular with placing himself above Peter. This charge is unjustifiable. Zahn scores it as an evidence of “a thoroughly perverted taste,” for the humblest person in the world may say, if it is true, that one far greater than he has shown him love, even as the most godly man may praise the love of God for showing him special benefits. Martha and Mary did not boast regarding Lazarus when they called him, “he whom thou lovest,” 11:3. Only if John had written, “Jesus whom I love” (21:15), some critic might find fault, and then only if he could show that John’s love was less than that of his fellow-apostles.

John 13:24

24 Simon Peter, therefore, beckons to this one and says to him, Tell me who it is concerning whom he is speaking. The present tenses used here and in the next two verses make the narration vivid. Everything shows that John here relates something in which he had a part. We must discard the textus receptus which reads: “he beckons to him to learn who it might be,” etc. The beckoning shows that most probably Peter reclined on a couch with only one other person between him and John. If Peter had been next to John, he would only have leaned his head back on John’s breast, as John does when he now speaks to Jesus.

If Peter was farther removed from John, Peter’s word to John would have been heard also by Jesus. Peter’s beckoning begs John to lean forward toward him. When John does this, Peter whispers to him and asks John to tell of whom Jesus is speaking. Evidently, Peter assumes that Jesus had told John, and that thus John already knew. This is incidental evidence, stronger because it is incidental, of the intimacy existing between Jesus and John, as this was recognized and accepted by the other disciples. The aorist εἰπέ indicates the single act of telling. “Tell,” of course, means, “tell me,” not, “tell me, or tell us”; and εἰπέ is not the same as ἐρώτα, “ask.” Peter, however, credits John with possessing more knowledge that he has.

John 13:25

25 Himself anxious to know and spurred by Peter’s request, John turns to Jesus in all simplicity. Here we have an instance which shows how near the mind of John was to that of Jesus: Jesus is entirely willing to indicate to John who the traitor is. He thus, having leaned back on the breast of Jesus, says to him, Lord, who is it? We must note that οὕτως is not the same as οὗν, “then” (A. V.), nor “as he was” (R. V.), with his position being as indicated in v. 23; nor ohne weitere Umstaende. The word means “thus,” prompted by Peter’s whisper. “Having leaned back on the breast of Jesus” is clear from v. 23. It also intimates that the question of John is whispered to Jesus, so that only Peter knew why John leaned back.

It is Peter who takes the initiative, John who plays second to Peter’s first. It is Peter, not John, who thinks of thus quickly and quietly getting the coveted information. It is Peter who thinks of utilizing John because of his advantageous position; that thought did not occur to any other disciple. Initiative, natural leadership, masterful efficiency are high talents and therefore prized in the church. And yet the masterful Peter was not the disciple “whom Jesus loved” in the way in which he loved John. The mother of Jesus had no leadership worth mentioning in the sacred record; Martha was more of a leader than Mary—and yet the two Marys rank higher in the kingdom than many prominent women with the gift of leadership. Even Paul stands so high, not because he was so masterly, but because of the intimate nearness of his mind and his heart to Jesus.

The title “Lord” is intended in the sense in which the disciples generally used it, which also Jesus commends in v. 13: “Lord” in the supreme sense, namely divine Lord. “Who is it?” merely asks in all simplicity and no more. It assumes that Jesus intends to tell, that he has made his announcement with that intention. It assumes, too, that Jesus will not be offended at the question, though he may give his answer, as he often does, in his own superior way. The question does not mean, “Tell me at least.” It does not contemplate securing secret information intended for John alone, for John asks at Peter’s instigation, thus it is to be for both of them. Peter, too, is watching to find out who it is.

John 13:26

26 Jesus, therefore, answers, He it is for whom I shall dip the sop and give it to him. When, therefore, he had dipped the sop he takes and gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Jesus, we see, has other considerations besides satisfying the desire of John and of Peter at this stage of the exposure. Throughout he is making the strongest effort to show Judas the enormity of his contemplated crime, to break his hard heart in repentance, and thus to save his miserable soul. He has not yet exhausted this effort and therefore refrains from making a public announcement.

The whispered question of John, Jesus thus answers in the same quiet way—a mark of his special love for John. The tenses are dramatic presents. Jesus could have answered John by simply saying, “Judas!” He uses a different way, though one that is just as positive, one that again vividly recalls Ps. 41 and David’s experience with the traitor Ahitophel. At the same time, instead of Jesus’ branding Judas by name, he lets Judas brand himself by his own act—if he is, indeed, determined to do so. For even this giving of the sop is so designed as to afford Judas an opportunity to decline. The traitor could not help but observe Peter’s whisper to John, followed by John’s whisper to Jesus and the offer of the sop by Jesus to him—Judas.

Since all were keen to know whom Jesus had in mind, this was decidedly plain. Why does Judas not now break down inwardly? Why does he not decline the sop, turn and go out, and, like Peter after his denial, weep bitterly? For the same reason that when he printed the traitor’s kiss on Jesus’ cheek and was met by Jesus’ word, “Fellow, wherefore art thou come?” he did not break even then. The secret of human obduracy, its last and final cause, is a mystery of the human will, a reason of unreason, a contradiction of all true reason, a devilishness which takes hold of a man and in the very sight of damnation plunges him to his doom. Three knew with full certainty: Jesus—John—Judas; the Lord—the disciple beloved—the traitor.

The fourth, Peter, knew by inference.

It was not the question of John that caused Jesus to select the method of his answer. Note the article in τὸψωμίον, “the sop,” the one Jesus already held in his hand. Before John asked, Jesus had already begun to prepare the sop. And we may fairly conclude that if John had not asked, Jesus would of his own accord have spoken some word to John that quietly designated the traitor. This “sop” is best understood as being bread not some meat of the lamb. Likewise, “dip” refers not to the wine which was passed around in a cup at various times of the feast, even also as we have no record of dipping anything into the cup.

Jesus dipped the sop into the vessel filled with bitter herbs or salad, prepared with vinegar and salt as prescribed by the law, or into the dish which the Jews later added to indicate the fruits of the promised land, called chasoret, prepared with vinegar and water together with figs, nuts, dates, and other fruit, and forming a thick mass. Perhaps already at this time only one dish was used; we know that later at least the bitter herbs and the chasoret were combined. For the head of the Passover company thus to offer bread to one or to the other at table may or may not have been a regular custom. Usually the former is assumed, though without further evidence. We may just as well assume the latter. At least this is true, that in the present connection the act of Jesus is highly significant.

He is not content with the fact that Judas, like the rest, dines at the same table with him and thus resembles Ahitophel; he makes the parallel much closer by offering Judas this sop with his own hand. And Judas actually takes it from Jesus’ hand. We should like to know just where Judas reclined, whether he took the sop directly from Jesus, or whether it was passed to him at Jesus’ direction; it is impossible to determine these points.

Both ἐκεῖνος and ἐγώ are emphatic: “he for whom I myself shall dip,” etc. The reading with two finite verbs “shall dip” and “shall give” has the strongest attestation and lends equal weight to both actions. We must likewise note the use of two verbs in “he takes and gives,” which makes the action graver and presents it exactly as John and Peter beheld it. The eyes of Judas, too, must have been riveted upon the hand of Jesus, at the same time glancing at his face and his eyes. What did Judas read in those eyes and in the extended hand? Could he not behold the deep pain, the burning love, the mighty warning?

He beheld it all—and was adamant against it all. “He gives it to Judas”—and Judas takes it. Here again John writes the traitor’s full name: “Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.” “Iscariot,” the man of Keriot, is to be construed with Simon as in 6:71; while in 13:2 “Iscariot” is construed with Judas: John—Judas: in the one we see what the love of Jesus is able to make of a man; in the other what the power of Satan is able to do to a man.

John 13:27

27 And after the sop, then entered into him Satan. Post not cum; not with or by means of the morsel but after Judas’ deliberate act of taking the morsel. By that act Judas himself opened the door of his heart to Satan, and thus Satan entered in. And this is Satan himself not one of his spirits. In the entire war upon Jesus (beginning with the temptation in the wilderness) the head of the hellish kingdom operates in person. Luke 22:3 reports that Satan entered Judas’ heart to betray Jesus.

That was the beginning. John states that after the sop Satan entered Judas’ heart. That was the conclusion. This, of course, is not a case of bodily possession but one that is far worse; we may call it complete spiritual possession. Just as there are degrees of receiving the Holy Spirit, so there are degrees of letting Satan rule the heart. At first Satan suggested the thought of betrayal to Judas.

Judas acts on this. Perhaps he thought that he could keep the matter in hand and could drop the plan if he should after all so desire. But when the sinner yields to the extent of playing with a sin, he often ends by becoming the helpless plaything in the hands of the sin and of Satan who is behind the sin. In the Greek “Satan” is placed emphatically at the end.

The question is asked, “How did Luke and how did John know so positively when Satan made these entrances?” The answer that they saw it in the countenance of Judas is unsatisfactory, for this could not apply to Luke. The other answer, that Luke and John arrived at “a psychological certainty” is too vague and subjective. Both Luke (22:4) and John have the immediate acts of Judas as grounds for their assertions and also the guidance of the Spirit in what they say about Judas.

At this point we insert Matt. 26:25. The traitor’s identity, withheld for so long by Jesus and only a moment previously revealed to John and to Peter, is now finally disclosed to all. John’s additions to the records of the synoptists are intended to give us a more complete picture of the way in which Jesus revealed the traitor.

Jesus, therefore, says to him, What thou art doing, do more quickly. The present is inchoative: “what thou art occupied with,” i.e., “what thou hast begun,” R. 880. The aorist imperative is certainly not permissive: “thou mayest do,” but peremptory, “do!” or “finish doing!” The adverb τάχιον is comparative and does not mean “quickly” (our versions) but “more quickly,” which “may mean more quickly than Judas would have done but for the exposure. Note that this is a conversation, and Judas would understand,” R. 664.

Why this peculiar command? It conveys to Judas the thought that Jesus knows not only that he is the traitor but also how far his plan had at that moment advanced. Judas had covenanted to hand Jesus over to the authorities but had not yet fixed the exact time and the place for the delivery. He was now on the alert, looking for the favorable opportunity. The word of Jesus intimates to Judas that he knows just what Judas had begun and what he still had to do. More than this: Judas thought that Jesus was in his hand; Jesus tells him that the reverse is true.

It is Jesus who orders Judas about this business, to carry it out when Jesus wants it done and not when Judas may feel like doing it. The situation is like that of the Jews and their plot to destroy Jesus, but not at the feast (Matt. 26:5), while Jesus declares that he will be crucified at the feast (Matt. 26:2). When men are determined to do evil, a higher hand controls their deeds for ends that are utterly beyond them. This word of Jesus also dismisses Judas, v. 30.

When Judas leaves the upper room, branded before the eleven as the traitor, he determines to hand Jesus over this very night. This is not obedience to the last word of Jesus, which, of course, Judas fully understood, but obedience to Satan who now completely controlled his heart. We may say that rage filled the traitor’s heart when he left the room, blind rage at finding himself exposed. Does Jesus know of the contract with the rulers; does he think, because he knows, that he can frustrate the plot against him? Judas will show him: this very night the deed shall be done! So he obeyed Jesus without wanting to obey him; and so he obeyed Satan because he wanted to obey him. Did Jesus say, “Do it more quickly”? He would surprise him with his quickness.

John 13:28

28 John wrote many years after the event had occurred, and his readers, who know the fact from the accounts of the other evangelists, may think that the eleven, like Judas himself, at the time understood what the order to Judas really meant. A parenthetical statement wards off this misunderstanding and tells us just what the eleven thought when Judas left. Now this no one knew of those reclining at table for what purpose he said it to him. “No one” includes also Peter and John; “some” in v. 29 seems not to include John but only a few who ventured to express opinions. The verb means “did not realize.” This ignorance need not surprise us. Who of them dreamed that the betrayal might take place in a few hours? If Jesus knew the traitor, would he not, when the betrayal finally took place, nullify the base act?

Who of them could at that moment imagine that Jesus actually ordered Judas to proceed forthwith with his deed? In πρός we have aim or end (R. 626), and πρὸςτί means “for what purpose” (R. 739).

John 13:29

29 No one knew, but some guessed. For some were thinking, since Judas had the box, that Jesus said to him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast, or to give something to the poor. “For” means that these guesses show that no one knew. And the guess of the critics is no better when they say that what “some” here thought is proof positive that this supper was not the Jewish Passover, did not take place on the evening of the 14th of Nisan (Thursday, counted by the Jews as beginning Friday, the 15th) but on the evening of the 13th, thus placing John in contradiction with the synoptists. They think that “for the feast” means for the Passover meal. They suppose that during the night of the Passover meal nothing could be bought because of the night itself and of the sacredness of the feast. Exactly the reverse is true.

On the night following the 13th all activity ceased, and no beggars would be about. But on the night following the 14th and ushering in the 15th there was a great deal of activity. Then everywhere in the city companies of ten to twenty ate the Passover and at the latest hours went home or to their lodgings. The night was treated as though it were daytime. All beggars were about. At midnight the Temple gates were opened, for crowds came thus early to get the sacrifice of chagiga (chag, “feast”), which was killed on the 15th immediately after the morning sacrifice at nine o’clock.

Traders were busy on every hand. “For the feast” means for the entire Seven days of the celebration, which required much more than was needed for the Passover meal alone. Nicodemus had no trouble in buying myrrh and aloes (19:39) on Friday, linen was secured, and the women obtained the spices they expected to use on Sunday.

On γλωσσόκομον see 12:6. “Some were thinking”—which afterward proved wrong—that earlier their treasurer Judas had received directions from Jesus as to necessary purchases, and that Jesus was reminding him of these orders. Others thought that the reminder referred to alms for beggars. Note the change from the direct to the indirect discourse with non-final ἵνα introducing an object clause after λέγει (the present retained in the Greek, whereas we change to “said”).

John 13:30

30 After, therefore, receiving the sop, he immediately went out. And it was night. John recurs to the significant act of taking the sop. That act constitutes the final decision of the traitor. Jesus does not order him to leave, but he feels dismissed and is only too ready to escape from the hated company. “Immediately,” εὑθύς, shuts out any delay, however brief. This adverb forbids our placing the Institution of the Lord’s Supper prior to the departure of Judas. It is ineffectual to object that Judas could not leave before the formal close of the Passover. Judas left. The Passover was practically ended, and, moreover, this is an exceptional situation in every way.

The simple ending of the narrative: “And it was night,” is certainly not merely a statement of time, for we know that this was a “supper” and that its ceremonial features extended it into the night. Nothing of a symbolical or allegorical nature is intended. Yet to have our attention called to the fact that it was night when Judas left Jesus and the disciples, grips us with a frightful, tragic feeling. The child of Satan leaves Jesus and goes out into the night to accomplish a deed fit only for the blackest night.

John does not make even a reference to the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, yet most of the interpreters try to find some place in his narrative into which to fit this great act. All that can safely be said is that the Institution cannot be placed prior to v. 30. John omits an account of the Lord’s Supper for the simple reason that the four records already in the hands of the church are sufficient; a fifth record was not needed, since John could only repeat what the others had recorded and could not supplement by adding anything new.

3. Jesus Glorified and the New Commandment for the Disciples, 31–35

John 13:31

31 When, therefore, he had gone out, Jesus says, Now the Son of man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. And God will glorify him in himself and immediately will he glorify him. The temporal clause, as well as the connective οὗν, connect these words of Jesus most closely with the departure of the traitor on his Satanic errand. The contrast is tremendous: Judas goes out into the night, Jesus sees himself and God glorified by what Judas does. The painful scene with regard to Judas is replaced by a blessed scene in which Jesus shows the eleven all the glory for himself and God and the love that should fill them as it fills him. The words sound as though a great weight has been taken off the heart of Jesus, as though he once more breathes freely again. The aorist ἐξῆλθεν, “did go out” is best translated with the past perfect in English, “had gone out.”

Jesus speaks of himself in the third person and uses his Messianic title “the Son of man” (see 1:51), he who is man and yet more than man. This title expresses in one term his being sent by the Father, his Incarnation, and his redemptive work. As this Son of man he now has been and immediately will be glorified. The two aorists ἐδοξάσθη are narrowed down by the adverb “now” and express what has just now occurred, R. 843. The English equivalent is the present perfect, “now has been glorified.” In this instance the passives imply no agent, for the context supplies the sense: has been glorified by what has just occurred, namely the action of the traitor going out to bring on the passion of Jesus. The thought is so paradoxical, viewing Judas’ act and what it means for Jesus in his redemptive work as a glorification of Jesus, that many seek to modify it.

They conceive of glorification and glory as being connected only with the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Jesus, and not with his passion. Hence they call these aorists proleptic; R. 847 thinks that they are explained by the two following futures δοξάσει. Against this stands the emphatic νῦν, and it would be strange to repeat one verb four times in two decisively different tenses for one and the same thought, namely coming glory. Others leave the aorists as they stand but have them include the entire past ministry of Jesus. But this again disregards the “now,” and the dramatic moment of the departure of Judas, emphasized in the “when” clause, shuts out a reference covering more than three years of work.

It is true enough that God glorified Jesus during his ministry, see, for instance, 1:32–34 and 12:28. But why hesitate to include what Jesus says after Judas leaves, that right now he has been glorified? Jesus’ death is now assured, his actual redemptive work is now ushered in, the final decisive act has now begun. Viewing it thus, it is glorious indeed, for his passion and death and long-fixed resolve to endure it all are the most perfect part of his obedience to the Father, which sheds unmeasured honor upon the Son who rendered it, a sweet-smelling savor to God, fairer that any sacrifice or offering ever brought to God. In all heaven and earth there is no act so worthy of praise and honor as this act of Jesus’. Jesus is right, “Now has the Son of man been glorified.”

“And God has been glorified in him,” ἐναὑτῷ, in union with Jesus not merely “through him,” which would have to be διʼ αὑτοῦ. Always the glorification of Jesus is the glorification of God; for he sent this Savior, it was at his bidding that he now faced the cross, it was God’s love, truth, and righteousness that Jesus by now entering into his passion made to shine forth for all the world. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” and to all eternity men and angels will sing his praise and glorify his name.

John 13:32

32 The note of glory in the passive verbs “has been glorified” is vastly increased by the two active verbs “will glorify,” the subject of which is God. Jesus is literally ringing the glory bells as he enters his passion. These futures must be volitive, “will glorify,” expressing God’s will and determination, and not merely futuristic, “shall glorify,” stating only a future fact. “God will glorify him in himself” (God), for, whether we read ἐναὑτῷ or ἐνἑαυτῷ, the pronoun refers to God, and the phrase matches the one used in v. 31. As God is glorified in Jesus, so Jesus is glorified in God. This is more than mutual or reciprocal glorification, as when I sing your praise, and you sing mine. These are also not two separate glorifications, although the aorist speaks of the one as having just begun, and the future of the other as just about to begin.

The two constitute a unit. When God is glorified “in Jesus,” and Jesus is glorified “in God,” back of the two phrases lies the unity of the Father and the Son, “thou Father in me, and I in thee,” 17:21; also 10:30.

Beyond question, these two (hence emphatic) future tenses refer to the descent into hell, the resurrection, ascension, and heavenly reign, usually summarized as Christ’s exaltation. Phil. 2:9–11; John 17:4, 5. Then the emphatic εὑθύς, over against the equally emphatic νῦν in v. 31, would mark the close proximity of the glories, the one shining in the deepest humiliation of Jesus (“obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”), the other in his exaltation (“hath highly exalted him”). With this we may be satisfied—everything is obvious. Yet “immediately” may also be taken to start from the present hour to which the preceding “now” leads up, so that God “will glorify” Jesus also in his passion and death, for these are Jesus’ sacrifice to God, God accepts them as such and thus glorifies Jesus even on the cross (recall the signs at the time of Jesus’ death). In this connection consider Luke 9:31: while Jesus was gloriously transfigured he spoke with Moses and Elijah “of the decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” In v. 31 the verbs and the subjects are placed chiastically, laying all the emphasis on the verbs; in v. 32 the emphasis is on ὁΘεός and εὑθύς.

John 13:33

33 The glorification of Jesus entails the removal of his visible presence from the eleven. As he reveals the glorification to them in the present hour for their assurance and comfort in view of what has begun, so he fortifies them by telling of the impending separation. Little children, yet for a little I am with you. You shall seek me, and as I said to the Jews, Where I am going you on your part cannot come, also to you I say it now. From what this hour means to himself and to God Jesus turns to what it means for the eleven. The diminutive τεκνία occurs only here in the Gospels.

It is a term of the most affectionate endearment yet connotes the immaturity of those that are so dear. They are still only “little children,” not yet the men they are to become. A yearning heart utters the word and adds the thought as to how short its stay is with them, how soon they will be left alone, μικρόν, “a little while,” actually only a few hours.

Jesus refers to what he told the Jews some months ago (7:34), that he would leave and that they would vainly seek him. What he told the Jews now applies also to the eleven (καθώς … καί), namely in two points: vain seeking and inability to go where Jesus will be. Yet mark the significant omission in the reference to the Jews—they would die in their sins (8:21) but not these “little children” of Jesus. They shall only seek him as one whose visible and familiar presence is suddenly gone, seek him with deep longing and great grief, and Jesus implies that the seeking will be vain. The old, familiar association as little children with a father will be ended forever. Since the subjects are so opposite, Jews and these “little children,” the kinds of seeking correspond to the subjects.

So also with regard to the place where Jesus will soon be in a few hours: “you on your part (emphatic ὑμεῖς) are not able to come” there. For the Jews this meant that because of their unbelief they could never come there; but for the eleven it means only what presently Jesus tells Peter, “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow afterward,” v. 36. There is, therefore, no thought of a contradiction with 12:26; 14:3; 17:24. Moreover, the death of Jesus is one in which he cannot possibly have associates, it will be wholly sacrificial, Isa. 63:3. So while Jesus goes, his little children must remain behind.

John 13:34

34 But when his visible presence is taken from them, they will still have each other, and thus ought to be the more closely attached to each other, loving each other just as Jesus loved them while he was still in their midst. Thus we may connect the new statement. A new precept I give to you, that you keep loving each other just as I loved you, that you, too, keep loving each other. By ἐντολή Jesus means a precept, a behest, einen Auftrag, not a legal command after the order of Moses; see 14:15. It is “new,” καινή, as regards the old legal requirements, not νέα, as never having existed before. Many features of this newness have been pointed out, differentiating the precept of Jesus from the old law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which reaches out to all men, even to our enemies.

But it is best to abide by the newness which Jesus himself points out: that you keep loving each other “just as I loved you.” Jesus makes all things new. The newness Jesus has in mind is not strange and startling to the disciples, it has a familiar and a pleasant mien. Jesus has brought a new love into the world, a love that is not only faultless and perfect as love but one that is intelligently bent on salvation for the one loved. Only the disciples know from Jesus what this love is, only they have enjoyed the experience of his love; hence this precept is for them alone—it would be useless to give it to the world. So also this love is to be for “each other” in the circle of the disciples. It cannot be otherwise, because the tie that binds the disciples of Jesus is a thing apart and cannot include others.

Just as Jesus loves his “little children,” and there is an intimate exchange of love between him and them, so it is with regard to the exchange of love between these “little children” themselves.

On the verb ἀγαπᾶν see 3:16, and compare 13:1. As Jesus loves all men, so, of course, should his disciples also. Yet here the circle is narrower, restricted to the intelligent and purposeful manifestations of love made possible by the same faith and the same love in the hearts of those concerned. The two ἵνα clauses are non-final and in apposition to ἐντολήν, stating what the order or precept is. The repetition in the second clause is emphatic: Jesus lingers on the precept as though he loved to see this love in action. The subjunctives are present to express continuous loving; but with regard to the model set by Jesus the aorist is in place, summing up all the love he has shown them in his contact with them hitherto.

John 13:35

35 Herein shall all know that you are disciples to me, if you have love among each other. Once more Jesus dwells on this love and its continuation. Where it exists, it is bound to show itself, and, although it is never ostentatious, those around us will see and thus “know” or realize its presence. It is bound to affect them, if possible also to draw them into this circle of love. Minucius Felix declared with regard to the Christians, “They love each other even without being acquainted with each other.” And the scoffer Julian, “Their master has implanted the belief in them that they are all brethren.” In his commentary on John’s Epistles Jerome tells us that when John was asked by the brethren why he constantly said, “Little children, love one another,” he replied, “Because this is the precept of the Lord, and if only this is done it is enough.” “Wherever the beginning of the new life from God is found in man, this love in its beginnings is also found. It is not nature which brings this about.

Even the very best orthodoxy cannot now take the place of this essential feature (compare 1 John 3:14). They who are born of God bear a mystery within them, which unites them most intimately in one body, a mystery which no one knows but they themselves. But the power of this mystery appears unto the stranger. It is not a kind of fraternal union, with prideful and hostile exclusion of those who are without. For love widens the heart to love even these with a love that believes all things and hopes all things.” Roffhack.

Among the unacceptable interpretations we may note the following: a new commandment inasmuch as it is one which embraces in a unit all New Testament requirements as distinguished from the many diverse requirements of the Old Testament; new, because illustrious; the ultimate mandate, i.e., testament; the youngest commandment; one never growing old, always remaining new; a renewed commandment; one renewing the old man in us; an unexpected commandment; one containing a new life principle (in itself correct, yet here not stated); the new testament of Christ, i.e., the Lord’s Supper. Over against these the text is sufficient: “as I did love you,” as based on this love, flowing from it, and thus new, indeed, new as growing out of faith in Christ.

“If you have love among each other” invites a test, and ἐάν with the subjunctive expects this test to be met. Still false disciples will appear, even the world will discover that they are false by their lack of love. The question is not wholly shut out: “Have I this love which Jesus enjoined upon his disciples the night in which he was betrayed?” How many Christians show malice, spite, hatred, coldness, enmity to each other? Where there is no love, there can be no discipleship. The world also loves its own and has established many fraternal organizations. Since they are not built on the love of Christ by faith, they cannot grow and bring to flower that love which is rooted in faith and grows in no other soil. The love of Christians cannot reach perfection as long as the flesh dwells in us, but more and more as the flesh is overcome, this love unfolds until it reaches its full glory when we attain the glory of Christ above.

4. Peter Warned, 36–38

John 13:36

36 Some hold that three warnings were given to Peter, one recorded by John, one by Luke, and one by Matthew and Mark. Others combine all four accounts and think of only one warning. The reason for thinking of only one warning is theoretical: Peter, once warned, would be silenced, would not disregard that warning, and would thus not again speak and prompt a second warning. Hence the records of both Luke and John are rearranged: Luke 22:39, then v. 31–34; John 18:1, 2, and then 13:36–38 (with nothing said about 14:31, the last sentence). In addition John 13:37 is divided, and between Peter’s question and his promise Matt. 26:31 and Mark 14:27, 28 are inserted. This rearrangement is too radical to be justified on theoretical grounds.

Not only this, the theoretical ground is untenable; for Peter did not disregard only the first warning (recorded by Luke and by John) but also the second (recorded by Matthew and by Mark), he tried to follow Jesus in spite of all warning he received. In connection with the washing of the feet he yielded; not so now: he refuses to be warned. In the face of this fact we are unable to revise John’s record (to say nothing of Luke’s) and to transfer 13:36–38 across 14:31 and 18:1, 2 and to place John’s record of the warning at this point. Peter received two warnings, the first in the upper room shortly after Judas left, the second on the way to Gethsemane, and he disregarded both of them.

The moment two warnings are noted, another difficulty disappears. In John it is the statement of Jesus, “Where I am going you on your part cannot come” (v. 33), which calls forth two questions on the part of Peter; whereas in Matthew and in Mark it is the statement of Jesus that this night all of the disciples shall be offended in him, which calls forth no questions but the positive assertion that, whatever the rest may do, Peter will not be offended. Mark 14:31 adds that Peter “talked more exceedingly,” ἐκπερισσῶςἐλάλει, on this occasion, and both Matthew and Mark add that (carried away, we may assume, by Peter’s vehemence) all the rest spoke as Peter did.

Simon Peter says to him, Lord, where art thou going? The weave of John’s record is too close for us to remove this section and to place it elsewhere, for Peter refers directly to v. 33. He, of course, heard what Jesus said about the new precept, but he is not satisfied to give up the presence of his Lord and to pour out his love on his fellow-disciples. Thus also he is not merely asking for more information in regard to the Lord’s destination, in order the better to understand the impending separation; he is determined that there shall not be such a separation but that he will cling to Jesus in spite of Jesus’ word. This, of course, also shows that Peter has no proper conception of this departure of Jesus. Yet we must not overlook the love that lies back of Peter’s question.

He wants to know more about where Jesus is going because he is determined to go with him; his love cannot endure the thought of separation; whatever love for others Jesus asks of him, one and one alone is the object of Peter’s love. Often enough Jesus had spoken of going to his Father, yet now that the hour for his going has arrived, and now that Peter is determined to go along, he wants to know more, he feels that he has too little information for the great purpose of his accompanying Jesus to the proposed destination.

Jesus understands Peter perfectly and words his answer accordingly. Jesus answered, Where I am going thou canst not follow me now, yet thou shalt follow me afterward. On ὅπου in the sense of “whither” see R. 298. No need to answer regarding the destination about which Peter inquires, something more vital prevents his going along. He cannot now follow Jesus. In v. 33 this impossibility is due to the place to which Jesus is going, here it is due to something else.

In the debate as to whether the reason is subjective or objective, or possibly both, it is best to discard the subjective idea, namely that Peter is not as yet spiritually strong enough to be crucified with Jesus. For Jesus does not intend to say that, if he had the strength, he might, indeed, now follow him. The reason is objective, Peter’s hour for following Jesus is not “now” but will arrive in due time “afterward.” Nor does this mean that he shall follow as soon as he acquires the necessary subjective strength; it means that Peter is to serve his Lord in the office of apostleship, and when his work here is done, then in God’s good hour he shall, indeed, follow Jesus—follow him by the death of martyrdom by crucifixion. Compare Luke 22:32b. Yes, Peter is to have the greatest possible opportunity for showing his love to his Lord.

John 13:37

37 This should have satisfied Peter, but again (v. 8) his own zeal and determination rise against his Master’s word. Peter says to him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? My life for thee will I lay down. The question is not intended as the expression of a desire that the real reason be stated to him but as an assertion that there is no reason such as Jesus implies: “What in the world is to prevent me from following thee now?” He thinks only of his subjective readiness and declares that this is altogether complete to the point of laying down his life in behalf of Jesus; ὑπέρ is general, implying any reason that might require his death. No doubt, Peter is rash and does not know how weak he is. Worst of all, he is not listening to Jesus’ word and pretends to know better.

Yet his heart burns with love and devotion to Jesus. “Of such stuff martyrs are made when the fulness of the spirit is added.” Hengstenberg. Some texts have the aorist infinitive ἀκολουθῆσαι in both verses (referring to the single act of following); others, the present ἀκολουθεῖν in Peter’s question, “be following thee,” i.e., constantly.

John 13:38

38 Now Jesus is compelled to reveal even Peter’s subjective weakness. Jesus answers, Thy life for me wilt thou lay down? Amen, amen, I say to thee (1:51), The cock shall not crow till thou shalt deny me thrice. Jesus places into striking contrast what Peter promises to do and what he actually will do. He will give his own grand words the lie by doing the exactly opposite of what he says. Instead of laying down his life, he will save it and save it by denying Jesus, not once, not even only twice, but thrice, in three acts, not by implication or silence, but by the loudest declarations with the tongue with which he now speaks in public, before many witnesses. The verb ἀρνέομαι means “to say no” and thus “to disown.” Peter will completely disavow Jesus as though he never had the least to do with him.

And this he will do this very night before the day dawns. The reference to the crowing of the cock is not to a casual crowing of some one cock at night. Two crowings were distinguished, one occurring near midnight; the other, just before dawn. They helped to divide the night into the midnight or the silent period, the period before dawn and the period after dawn. Pliny calls the fourth watch secundum gallicinium. Mark 14:30, in the second warning to Peter, refers to both crowings: “before the cock crow twice,” meaning before the day dawns.

John, like Matthew and like Luke, refers only to the one crowing, that preceding the dawn. Yet the reference of Jesus is not merely a designation of time; he refers to the actual crowing which marks the time. The word of Jesus is spoken with a special purpose in mind for Peter. It has in mind more than to foretell how soon he will deny, it intends to aid in bringing Peter to repentance. Peter will actually hear the crowing when it begins; that will bring Jesus’ word to his mind, and this together with the look from Jesus’ eyes (Luke 22:61) will cause the penitent tears to flow. The effort to discredit the record of the evangelists by asserting that chickens were not kept in Jerusalem, and that thus no cocks crowed within the range of Peter’s ears, has been met by ample evidence to the contrary.

Luke, like John, records this first warning to Peter, which took place in the upper room. After Peter’s question in v. 37a we may place Luke 22:31, 32. John 37b is parallel with Luke 22:33, likewise John v. 38 with Luke 22:34. Or, we may place after v. 38a what Luke has in v. 31–34, making the last verse parallel with John’s v. 38b; compare John Bugenhagen’s The Sufferings and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ, generally called “The Passion History” and used extensively during Lent.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.