Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 13:2
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s [son,] to betray him;
2. supper being ended ] There are two readings here, but neither of them means ‘being ended,’ moreover the supper is not ended ( Joh 13:26). The common reading would mean ‘supper having begun,’ and the better reading, ‘when supper was at hand,’ or, ‘when supper was beginning.’ “It was the custom for slaves to wash the feet of the guests before sitting down to meat; and we are tempted to suppose that the symbolical act, which our Evangelist relates here, took the place of this custom.” S. p. 214.
the devil to betray him ] The true reading gives us, The devil having now put it into the heart, that Judas, Simon’s son, Iscariot, should betray Him. Whose heart? Only two answers are possible grammatically; (1) the heart of Judas, (2) the devil’s own heart. The latter is incredible, if only for the reason that S. John himself has shewn that the devil had long been at work with Judas. The meaning is that of the received reading, but more awkwardly expressed. ‘To betray’ is literally S. John’s favourite form ‘in order that he should betray.’ The traitor’s name is given in full for greater solemnity, and in the true text comes last for emphasis. Note the position of Iscariot, confirming the view (see on Joh 6:71) that the word is a local epithet rather than a proper name.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Supper being ended – This translation expresses too much. The original means while they were at supper; and that this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we find them still eating after this. The Arabic and Persic translations give it this meaning. The Latin Vulgate renders it like the English.
The devil – The leader or prince of evil spirits.
Having now put it into the heart – Literally, having cast it into the heart. Compare Eph 6:16; The fiery darts of the wicked. See Act 5:3; Luk 22:3. The meaning of this passage is that Satan inclined the mind of Judas to do this, or he tempted him to betray his Master. We know not precisely how this was done, but we know that it was by means of his avarice. Satan could tempt no one unless there was some inclination of the mind, some natural or depraved propensity that he could make use of. He presents objects in alluring forms fitted to that propensity, and under the influence of a strong or a corrupt inclination the soul yields to sin. In the case of Judas it was the love of money; and it was necessary to present to him only the possibility of obtaining money, and it found him ready for any crime.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. And supper being ended] Rather, , while supper was preparing. To support this new translation of the words, it may be remarked that, from Joh 13:26; Joh 13:30, it appears that the supper was not then ended: nay, it is probable that it was not then begun; because the washing of feet (Joh 13:5) was usually practised by the Jews before they entered upon their meals, as may be gathered from Lu 7:44, and from the reason of the custom. I think that John wrote, not , but , as in BL. Cant. and Origen, which latter reading is approved by several eminent critics, and should be translated as above. By the supper I suppose to be meant, not only the eating of it, but the preparing and dressing of it, and doing all things necessary previously to the eating of it. The devil had, before this time of the supper, put it into Judas’s heart to betray his Master. See Mt 26:14, c. Mr 14:10-11; and Lu 22:3, &c. See also Bishop Pearce, from whose judicious commentary the preceding notes are principally taken.
Calmet observes that John, designing only to supply what was omitted by the other evangelists, passes over all the transactions of the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, before the passion, and at once goes from Monday evening to Thursday evening. It is remarkable that St. John says nothing about the institution of the holy sacrament, which Matthew, Mt 26:26, &c., Mark, Mr 14:22, &c., and Luke, Lu 22:19, &c., describe so particularly. No other reason can be assigned for this than that he found it completely done by the others, and that he only designed to supply their defects.
The devil having now put it into the heart] Judas formed his plot six days before this, on occasion of what happened at the house of Simon the leper: see Mt 26:14. Calmet.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And supper being ended; possibly it were better translated, while they were at supper, or in supper time, Greek, , but the great question is, What supper is here intended? Our most learned Lightfoot is very confident this was not the paschal supper. The most interpreters, ancient and modern, seem to be of another mind. Or it may be rather a common supper, which they ate before the passover: for whereas some think this supper was that in the house of Simon the leper, mentioned Mat 26:6, it seemeth no way probable, no circumstance inclining us to believe any such thing; and the evangelist having told us that it was after that supper that Christ rode into Jerusalem and again went from thence, and hid himself, Joh 12:36, and then reporting this as a thing subsequent to it in this chapter; it seemeth very clear to me, that it could not be the supper in the house of Simon the leper. Concerning the influence of the devil upon Judas, to put it into his heart to betray his Master, see Luk 22:3,4.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. supper being endedrather,”being prepared,” “being served,” or, “goingon”; for that it was not “ended” is plain from Joh13:26.
the devil having nowor,”already.”
put into the heart of Judas .. . to betray himreferring to the agreement he had alreadymade with the chief priests (Lu22:3-6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And supper being ended,…. Or rather “supper being”, or it “being supper time”, for it was not ended; not the paschal supper, nor the Lord’s supper, but the supper in Simon’s house at Bethany, two days before the passover. There is no mention made in this whole chapter of the passover supper, or of any of its rites: the washing of the disciples’ feet was a peculiar action of our Lord’s, and had no manner of regard to any usage among the Jews at such a time; nor was it ever usual with them, at the passover, to wash the feet of those that ate of it; there is not the least trace of any such custom in any of their writings: besides, it is said in so many words, in Joh 13:1, that this was “before the feast of the passover”; and by comparing it with Mt 26:2, it appears to be two days before it; and so much time seems necessary to be allowed, for Judas to do what he did after this supper, in which he was first instigated to it: and that the feast of the passover was yet to come, when this supper was ended, and Judas had taken the sop, and was bid to do quickly what he did, is manifest from the sense the disciples put upon those words of Christ, who thought he ordered him to get the necessaries for the feast, Joh 13:29, which can be understood of no other than the feast of the passover, which was at hand, and for which many things were to be got ready; to which may be added, that Satan’s entering into Judas, and putting it into his heart to betray his master, and his covenanting with the high priests to do it for such a sum, were before the passover supper, as is clear from Lu 22:1. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that Judas could meet that night, after the supper, with the chief priests, captains, and all the council, the great sanhedrim, who could not be together; since by the law of the passover, every head of a family was to be with his respective family: and if this could be supposed, yet there seems to be some time between this agreement, and the execution of it, in which he sought for a proper opportunity, Mt 26:16. Nor can it be thought there was time enough to do all he did, as to covenant with the chief priests, form his scheme for apprehending Christ, and get such a number of men together for that purpose, between the supper, and the time of night in which Christ was betrayed. Besides, certain it is, that Christ and his disciples arose from the place where he ate his supper, and went from thence elsewhere, Joh 14:31, which cannot be understood very well of any other departure than his going from Bethany to Jerusalem, and not of his going from Jerusalem to the garden, which is afterwards spoken of as a distinct thing, Joh 18:1. And to say no more, there is not in this chapter the least hint of the institution of the Lord’s supper, which all the other evangelists make mention of, when they relate the last passover of our Lord. The reader may be more fully satisfied of the truth of this by consulting Dr. Lightfoot on Mt 26:6.
The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him; the person Satan influenced and acted upon, for his purpose, was Judas iscariot, Simon’s son: whether this was Simon the Pharisee, or Simon the leper, in whose house Christ and his disciples were, or who he was, is not certain: was there any reason to think it might be Simon the tanner that was the father of Judas, or that either he or his father were tanners, I would venture to add one conjecture more to what has been made on Mt 10:4, concerning Judas’s surname, Iscariot, as that it may come from “Iscortia”, which signifies a tanner’s coat: for so it is said in the q Talmud,
“what is , “Iscortia?” says Rabba bar Chanah, it is , “a tanner’s coat”:”
a sort of a leathern garment, as the gloss says, which tanners put over their clothes. However, this man was an apostle of Christ’s whom Satan tempted to betray him; so that we see that the highest office, and greatest gifts, cannot secure men from the temptations of Satan: the manner in which he tempted him was, he “put”, or “cast [it] into his heart”; it was a dart, and a fiery one, he threw into him, into his very heart; which shows the access Satan has into, and the influence he has upon the minds of men: his end in this temptation was to work upon him “to betray” Christ, his Lord and master, who had chosen him to be an apostle of his, and had invested him with this high office, into the hands of his enemies, in order to be put to death. This was an affair determined by God, known by Christ, and which he foretold to his disciples; yet all this did not in the least excuse the malice of Satan, and the wickedness of Judas: it was an action devilish indeed, and which, one would think, could never have entered into his heart, had not the devil put it there; and this was at supper time, whilst they were at table together, that this thought was darted into his mind; which is mentioned to show, that no place and company can preserve persons from the evil suggestions of the devil, and to aggravate the sin of Judas, who when, and while he was eating bread with Christ, first thought of, and determined to lift up his heel against him: moreover, it was when the ointment was poured on the head of Christ, and whilst Judas was fretting at it, that Satan took the opportunity of his choler and wrath, to stir him up to so vile an action. This account is prefaced to Christ’s washing the feet of his disciples, to show the great composure of mind Christ was in, though he knew what was doing; and his wonderful condescension in washing the feet of so vile a creature, into whose heart Satan had already put it to betray him; and also his care of, and love to the rest of the disciples, when Satan had got possession of one of them.
q T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 55. 2. Vid. Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Celim. c. 16. sect. 4. & Oholot, c. 8. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
During supper ( ). Correct text, present middle participle of (not , second aorist middle participle, “being ended”) genitive absolute. Verse 4 shows plainly that the meal was still going on.
The devil having already put ( ). Another genitive absolute without a connective (asyndeton), perfect active participle of , to cast, to put. Luke (Lu 22:3) says that Satan entered Judas when he offered to betray Jesus. Hence John’s “already” () is pertinent. John repeats his statement in verse 27. In Joh 6:70 Jesus a year ago had seen that Judas was a devil.
To betray him ( ). Cf. Ac 5:3. Purpose clause with and second aorist active subjunctive of (form in – as in Mr 14:10 rather than the usual – in Lu 22:4). Satan had an open door by now into the heart of Judas.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Supper being ended [ ] . The most approved reading is ginomenou, the present participle, denoting while a supper was in progress. Hence Rev., rightly, during supper. The A. V. is wrong, even if the reading of the Received Text be retained; for in ver. 12 Jesus reclined again, and in ver. 26, the supper is still in progress. It should be, supper having begun, or having been served. 42 It is important to note the absence of the definite article : a supper, as distinguished from the feast, which also is designated by a different word.
Having now put [ ] . Rev., better, already. Put, is literally, thrown or cast.
Into the heart of Judas. Meyer, strangely, refers the heart, not to Judas, but to the Devil himself; rendering, the Devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up. Godet does not speak too strongly when he says that “this meaning is insufferable.” 43
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And supper being ended,” (kai deipnou ginomenou) “And during supper,” or being then in progress, having commenced. This supper is still the supper in the home of Simon the Leper, in Bethany, before the Passover two days, as begun, Joh 12:1-50, Mat 26:2; Mar 14:1-3, No account of the Passover or the Lord’s supper appears to have been given by John, where no breaking of bread, giving of thanks, or the cup and drink in remembrance of Him is mentioned by John.
2) “The devil having now put into the heart,” (tou diabolou ede beblekotos eis ten kardian) “The de l having already fixed in the heart,” put or set in the affections, the devil himself, not a mere demon under his jurisdiction, Rev 20:10. The devil had thrust the covetous idea of betrayal for a bribe into the heart or affection of Judas, though he himself chose to pursue the deed, for greed, Eph 6:16.
3) “Of Judas Iscariot,” (Ioudas) “Of Judas,” who was also known as the son of Iscariot, the one then harboring betrayal, in resolute form, in his heart, Luk 22:3-6.
4) “Simon’s son, to betray him.” (Simonos Iskariotes) “The son of Simon of Iscariot,” (hina paradoi auton) “In order that he might betray him,” or deliver Him over, in treachery, to His enemies, for crucifixion, a thing he chose to do when incited by the treacherous idea, as foreknown by our Lord, Joh 6:70-71.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. After supper. (39) We shall afterwards take into consideration, at the proper place, the whole of Christ’s design in washing the feet of his disciples, and the advantage to be derived from this narrative. Let us now attend to the connection of the words. The Evangelist says that this was done, while Judas already resolved to betray Christ, not only to show the wonderful patience of Christ, who could endure to wash the feet of such a wicked and detestable traitor; but also that he purposely selected the time when he was near death, for performing what may be regarded as the last act of his life.
The devil having already put it into the heart of Judas. When the Evangelist says that Judas had been impelled by the devil to form the design of betraying Christ, this tends to show the enormity of the crime; for it was dreadful and most atrocious wickedness, in which the efficacy of Satan was openly displayed. There is no wickedness, indeed, that is perpetrated by men, to which Satan does not excite them, but the more hideous and execrable any crime is, the more ought we to view in it the rage of the devil, who drives about, in all possible directions, (40) men who have been forsaken by God. But though the lust of men is kindled into a fiercer flame by Satan’s fan, still it does not cease to be a furnace; it contains the flame kindled within itself, it receives with avidity the agitation of the fan, so that no excuse is left for wicked men.
(39) “ Et apres avoir souppe.” — “And after having supped.”
(40) “ Sursum ac deorsum.” — “Up and down.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) And supper being ended.The reading here is uncertain, but neither reading justifies our translation. It should probably be, And it now becoming supper time. As a matter of fact, the supper was not ended (Joh. 13:12; Joh. 13:26); but they had already reclined, and were, as we say, ready for supper.
The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot.The better reading is, The devil having now put it into the heart, that Judas Iscariot, Simons son, should betray Him. But the sense must be that of our version, The heart of Judas (the devil having suggested). The alternative interpretation, the heart of the devil (the devil having conceived) is opposed to all scriptural analogy. For the fact, comp. Notes on Mat. 26:14, and Luk. 22:3.
For Judas Iscariot, comp. Notes on Mat. 10:4; Mat. 26:14. The name is given here in the sad fulness of this mournful record. The fact is recorded hero to explain the references to Judas which follow in our Lords words (Joh. 13:10; Joh. 13:18; Joh. 13:21; Joh. 13:26-27; Joh. 13:30).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Supper being ended It is plain from 25-28 that the supper was not ended. The present phrase, as the best scholars now agree, should be rendered the supper having arrived, or being in process. It appears from Luke’s account, that as they took their reclining couches at the table, a strife arose for precedency; and by this is explained the ablution of the apostles’ feet by Jesus now performed; namely, as an acted reproof of their emulation, and a lesson of humility and peace.
The devil unto the heart of Judas The Evangelist intimates by this parenthesis, that while Jesus is dispensing his lessons of love, Satan is instigating Judas’ plans of treason.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And during the supper, the Devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.’
‘And during the supper.’ John will, from this point, deliberately play down the fact that it is the Passover meal, even to the extent that he does not describe the instituting of the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). That this is deliberate is clear. He was well aware that the early church was very familiar with the facts of that Supper. He thus wanted to concentrate on the fact of Jesus’ preparation of His disciples for their witness to the world. He wanted the time to be seen as the time when Jesus revealed inner truths about the future, something of which the early church was less aware. But all are aware of the shadow that lies behind it.
The Lord’s Supper was well established by this time and constantly celebrated. Through it the truth about His sacrificial death constantly came out. The history of it would have been imbedded in the minds of all Christians. So, as always through his Gospel, John wants rather to bring out spiritual truths rather than physical enactments. He is concerned to stress the spiritual benefits arising from His death. This event clearly occurred late on in the Supper, probably after the Passover meal had been eaten. Certainly Judas would not have left unless the meal was over. (The alternative reading ‘after supper’ is equally strongly attested).
‘ The Devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him’. (Compare Luk 22:3) To ‘have a devil’ was constantly used in various mouths to signify the Devil’s influence in men’s speech and behaviour (Mat 11:18; Luk 7:33; Joh 7:20; Joh 8:40; Joh 8:49; Joh 8:52; Joh 10:20-21), and Jesus had earlier said of Judas (incognito) that he ‘was a devil’ i.e. was submissive to the Devil’s control (Joh 6:70). Thus here the idea of the Devil’s control over Judas continues.
The idea of a supernatural lord of evil (the Devil, Satan, the Evil One) was widespread among the Jews, and it was he who, according to Jesus, had put Him to the test at the commencement of His ministry ( ‘the Devil’ and ‘Satan’ Mat 4:1-11; ‘Satan’ Mar 1:13; ‘the Devil’ and ‘Satan’ Luk 4:1-13), whilst Jesus Himself testified to the power of ‘Satan’ when He pointed out that He had come to break his power (Mat 12:24-29; Mar 3:22-27; Luk 11:15-22 – ‘Satan’ in all cases). Compare also how in Mat 13:39 the weeds were the sons of the Evil One, and the one who sowed them was the Devil.
In Mat 13:19 ‘the Evil One’ snatched away the seed sown by the sower, while in Mark it was ‘Satan’ (Mar 4:15). When Peter tried to deny the need for the Messiah to suffer Jesus addressed him as ‘Satan’, i.e. as being used as Satan’s tool (Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33). So the working of a powerful supernatural lord of evil was widely acknowledged, and confirmed by Jesus Himself, seen often as working through his minions, described as ‘evil spirits, devils, or demons’ (e.g. Luk 13:11 with 16). Scripture elsewhere depicts Satan as presenting himself as ‘an angel of light’ (2Co 11:14) and there is nowhere any idea of horns or forked tails. Such ideas are false and dangerous as belittling the idea. Thus Satan, the Devil, was at work throughout Jesus’ ministry and was now seeking to have Him destroyed.
However, it should be noted that what now happens does indicate that Satan did not understand what God was doing, and was, without realising it, conniving in his own destruction. There is something ironic about his haste to get Jesus to the cross which would turn out to be the cause of his own defeat. So it is clear that while he was aware of Who Jesus really was, he was not aware of the means that He would use to save men. While he must have been aware of what Jesus had taught he clearly could not conceive of such divine self-giving. It was totally outside his understanding and beyond his comprehension. Thus he was prompting Judas to betray Jesus to the authorities, thinking thereby to foil His purpose, only for it in the end to be revealed as bringing about God’s purposes. We must not think of Satan as all-knowing, or as omnipresent, although he does have many agents.
‘Judas Iscariot’ – Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was the weak link among the Apostles (Joh 6:70-71). But we must remember that Judas, at least to begin with, was his own master, and that Jesus gave him every chance to think again. What he did was of his own choosing. In the end, however, money turned out to be more important to him than his belief in Jesus, and this should be a grim warning to us all. There may also have been in Judas’ mind the thought that he could spur Jesus into Messianic action, but the fact that he took money for his betrayal is against such an idea. Any Messiah would hardly be expected to look well on someone who had taken money in such a fashion, and who had done it in order to betray Him.
Later he genuinely regretted his action. The paying back of the money to the Temple treasury, where it would then be held separately to be repaid to the contractee, and if not claimed would be used for public works, was a recognised means of cancelling a contract when the other party refused to accept the money back (Mat 27:5), and it is quite possible that at that stage he could have repented and been forgiven. But his remorse was such that instead he took his own life.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 13:2. And supper being ended, &c. And being at supper. See Joh 13:4; Joh 13:26. Byour version an English reader would be led to apprehend, that the paschal supper was over, before the subsequent act of condescension was performed by our Saviour; and that the clause in the parenthesis is referred to the devil’s tempting Judas during its celebration. But the translation above given is perfectly agreeable to the original, and to the context; and as it was the custom with the Jews to wash themselves before they began to eat, it is on every account right to interpret the expression in that sense. And, with regard to the words in the parenthesis, the participle , rendered having put, is of the perfect tense, and denotes an action done at some past time; and the particle , rendered now, often signifies already, or before: so that what Christ says here concerning Judas, may refer to what had passed between him and the chief priests, after the reproof given him at the supper in Bethany; and therefore when John says afterwards, Joh 13:27 that, after the supper, Satan entered into Judas, the meaning must be, that he was then again incited by the devil to execute the treachery which he had before resolved upon, by a like instigation ofthe same evil spirit: see Joh 13:27.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 13:2-5 . And ( et quidem ) this He fulfilled at the supper by the washing of the feet.
.] Note the present standing in relation to the present , Joh 13:4 (see critical notes). Whilst it is becoming supper-time , i.e. whilst supper-time is on the point of being kept . They had already reclined for the purpose, Joh 13:4 ; Joh 13:12 . According to the Recepta , ., the meal was not yet over (Luther and several others, including Klee and Hofmann, p. 207, who explains as though were expressed), but already in progress, supper had begun . This itself was, according to Joh 13:1 , not the paschal supper , but (hence also without the article [125] ) an ordinary evening meal on the 13th Nisan (in opposition to the synoptical account) in Jerusalem (not in Bethany, see on Joh 14:31 ), the last repast of Jesus before His death, at which He founded the Lord’s Supper (Joh 13:21 ff., Joh 13:38 , Joh 18:1 ). The institution of the Supper is not mentioned by John, not as though he were unacquainted with it (Strauss), or had perceived no ecclesiastical rite at all involved in it (Scholten), but because it was universally known (1Co 11 ), and the practice itself was in daily use (Act 2:46 ). Accordingly, not repeating the account of this, because known to all, he rather selected from the abundance of that last night what he found, over and above, to be most in harmony with his peculiar object, the making known the of the in the flesh, in the washing of the feet , in the discourses and . According to Schenkel, John desired by his silence to preclude the notions of a magical effect resulting from the Lord’s Supper, and the later controversies concerning it. As though such a purpose would not have required the very opposite procedure, viz. distinct instruction! Baur’s assumption, p. 264, is, that the evangelist has dated back the importance of the Supper to the second Passover, chap. 6, because he did not wish to allow the last meal of Jesus to pass for the same as that in the Synoptics, namely, as a paschal meal. Comp. also Scholten, p. 289 ff. But for this purpose such an inversion of the synoptical material would not have been at all necessary. He could have mentioned the institution of the Supper at the last meal in such a way that this would nevertheless not have been a paschal meal.
, . . .] cannot serve merely as a prelude to the subsequent and more frequent mention of the relation of Jesus to the traitor (Joh 13:10 ; Joh 13:18 ; Joh 13:21 ; Joh 13:26-27 ; Joh 13:30 ), as Godet maintains, which would be only a formal purpose, and one not in correspondence with the tragically solemn emphasis. Again, it is not even intended to make us sensible of the forbearance of Jesus, who Himself washed the feet of Judas [126] (Euth. Zigabenus, comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, and several others), nor generally, as it were, the mere nearness ( ) in point of time of the last destiny, which He yet employed in such a work of love (this, indeed, was already contained in , . . .), but to what the points the undisturbed dear elevation of this His might of love over the outbreak, already so near , of the tragic devilish treachery, which could not even now , immediately before its occurrence, confuse His mind. According to the reading . (see the critical notes), we must explain: the devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up , so that the is not that of Judas (Luthardt, Baeumlein), as in the Recepta , but that of the devil (comp. Vulgate); as also in the classics or , , , very frequently denotes in animum inducere, statuere, deliberare . See Wetstein in loc .; Kypke, II. p. 399; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 294. The more current this mode of speech was, the less can we be surprised in an anthropomorphic representation of the devil at the mention of his heart (in answer to Lcke, Godet, and others), in which he has his (Joh 8:44 ), (Eph 6:11 ), (2Co 2:11 ), etc. As the heart of God may be spoken of (Act 13:22 ), so also the heart of the devil .
. .] The full name, and at the close contains a shuddering emphasis.
The participial clause, further, is not to be placed in a parenthesis; it is co-ordinated with .
, . . . ] Although He knew ( , Euth. Zigabenus). The consciousness of His divine elevation rested, while on this threshold of death, in the fact that now, being on the point of entering, by stepping over this threshold, upon His glorification, the Messianic fulness of power , which had formerly been bestowed upon Him on the occasion of His mission (Mat 11:27 ), which extended over all things, and was limited by nothing, was given into His hands for complete exercise (comp. on Joh 17:2 , Mat 28:18 ); and that God; as He was the source of His coming (comp. on Joh 8:42 ), so is the goal of His present departure.
On comp. 1Co 15:25 ; Eph 2:22 ; Phi 2:9-11 , et. al .
Joh 13:4 . , . . .] Note how the whole representation regards things as present; to the historic present correspond the present and perfect participles ., ., , Joh 13:2-3 . On . . comp. Plut. Alc . 8.
The washing of the feet was wont to take place before the beginning of the meal, by the ministry of slaves (see Dougt. Anal . II. p. 50; Stuck, Antt. conviv . p. 217); it was not, however, always observed; see on Luk 7:44 . Hence we cannot argue, from the omission of it up to this point at this meal (for the guests had already reclined at table), either against (Wichelhaus) or in favour of (Lange: the host was bound to eat with his family ) the supposition that the meal was the Passover meal.
Any peculiar cause for the extraordinary procedure of Jesus is not intimated by John; and to drag in such from the dispute among the disciples about rank, mentioned in Luk 22:24 ff. (so, following the older commentators, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Godet, with various representations of the scenic associations; also Baur, who, however, regards the narrative only as the exposition, given in a historical form, of Mat 20:26-27 , and Luk 22:26-28 , after Strauss had maintained it to be a mythical rendering of a synoptical discourse on humility), is arbitrary in itself, since John, fully as he introduces his narrative in Joh 13:1-2 , gives not the slightest indication of the above, while it is appropriate neither to the position nor to the validity of the account of Luke (see on Luk 22:24 ). The symbolical act of departing love must, especially since Jesus had already reclined at table, have been the outcome of the moment, arising from His own urgent consideration of that which was needful for the disciples and for His work. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 542.
.] setting forth the personal performance more than the means (comp. Joh 21:18 ). He is, in truth, entirely a servant , (Euth. Zigabenus).
] He pours water . Comp. Planudius in Bachmann, Anal . 2. p. 90, 18.
. .] into the wash basin standing by. “Nihil ministerii omittit,” Grotius.
] for the act commenced was interrupted when Peter’s turn came, and not till after Joh 13:10 was it continued and finished. John employs the , so common in the other evangelists, here only in this minute description.
] with which (Hom. Il . x. 77, Od . xviii. 66; Athen. x. p. 443 B), or instead of , by attraction (Rev 1:13 ; Rev 15:6 ), as in Joh 17:5 ; Joh 17:11 .
[125] Certainly it is often indifferent whether the article stands with or not, but here it must have stood, had it been intended to indicate that solemn meal of the 14th Nisan, the venerable meal of the feast . In Joh 21:20 the article had to be expressed, because it points backwards . This in answer to Tholuck. Hofmann, Lange, and Paul also get over too readily the want of the article; and even Graf imports the meaning, which is incompatible with the absence of the article: “After the principal part of the supper, the eating of the paschal lamb, was over.”
[126] Otherwise special prominence must have been given in what follows to the washing of his feet.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s s on, to betray him; (3) Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God: (4) He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. (5) After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. (6) Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter said unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? (7) Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. (8) Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. (9) Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. (10) Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. (11) For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. (12) So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? (13) Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. (14) If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet: ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. (15) For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. (16) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. (17) If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
The supper here spoken of could not be what we call the Lord’s Supper, which Jesus instituted in the place of the Passover; for this supper is said to have been before the feast of the Passover (Joh 13:1 ). See Luk 22:14-22 . And moreover this was an ordinary supper: most probably the same as we read of Mat 26:6Mat 26:6 , which Simon the Leper made for Jesus. Whereas the Lord’s Supper was after the Passover. Mat 26:20-26 . See Luk 22:7-13 .
But I would more particularly beg the Reader’s notice to what is related in this Chapter, of our Lord’s washing his disciples’ feet. And I desire his attention the rather, because John is the only one of the four Evangelists, whom the Holy Ghost was pleased to appoint, to make this record. The circumstances indeed in it are so very singular, and the humbleness of our Lord in the act so striking: a service which was never performed by any but the very lowest of the servants in a family; that I confess I am inclined to think, there was somewhat of no small importance veiled under it. I am far from supposing, that I can throw any new light upon the subject: nevertheless, in a work of this kind, it would be wrong to pass it by unnoticed. May God the Holy Ghost be our Teacher!
And here let us first observe how the subject is introduced. Jesus, knowing that all things were given into his hands. So that in the very moment when he knew himself, as God-Man-Mediator, to be the Lord, Proprietor, and Governor of heaven and earth; Jesus did that which the lowest of the sons of men, and such as are slaves, only perform. Let the impression which such a view of Christ’s unbounded condescension ought to have upon the mind, be first considered by us; and then let us go on to another observation, which ariseth out of what the Evangelist hath said.
Secondly. It is added, that Jesus knew he was come from God, and went to God. With these thoughts before him, the Lord performs an act of service upon each of his disciples present; as if under the conviction, that now only could such an outward demonstration of his regard for them be given, because he was about to return to his Father, and for a while, they would see him no more. Joh 16:10 .
Thirdly. The act itself of washing his disciples’ feet, hath somewhat very striking in it. The manner in which the Lord set about it. The deliberate and personal way in which he did it to all: and the confinement of the thing itself to their feet only: these are certainly special, and particular characters, in which there is much signification. Some have supposed, that in this act of humiliation, of the Lord Jesus laying aside his garments, and putting on the towel of the menial servant; may be viewed, a beautiful representation of the Son of God laying aside his glory which he had with the Father before all worlds, and taking upon him the form of a servant, when he came to wash his people from their sins in his blood. And some have thought, that the washing of his disciples’ feet, and not their hands, was in reference to the Apostles as preachers of the Gospel; and that in this sense, the ceremony had an allusion to that scripture of the Prophet, when he saith: how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings. Isa 52:7 . But I confess, that in my apprehension, whatever the act itself of washing the feet implied, (for I do not presume to decide,) it was not intended by our Lord to be limited to his Apostles, as preachers of the word; but the whole Church, of which they were then the representatives, were included in it. For the Lord’s answer to Peter, who modestly declined this service of Christ’s, plainly proved, that it was of general importance to the whole Church: If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Fourthly. Another remarkable circumstance in this transaction, and which is highly in proof of its importance, is, that the Lord insisted upon it, as hath been just observed in answer to Peter’s objection; while we are expressly told by the same Evangelist, that in respect to baptism, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. Joh 4:2 . So that the Lord laid no stress upon his own baptizing of his disciples, yea, that he baptized none, and yet here the Lord layeth the greatest importance upon the washing himself his disciples feet, declaring that if he washed them not, they had no part with him. And which words of Christ, and probably spoken in a firm and decided manner, carried such conviction with them to the heart of Peter, that he cried out in great earnestness of desire for the Lord to do it; Lord! (saith he) not my feet only, but also my hands, and my head.
And, lastly, to mention no more. What can be more marvellous and astonishing, than to observe in this transaction, that Judas, as is most evidently the case, partook in this washing by Christ, in common with the other Apostles. This is as striking a particularity as either of the former. I have said that this was most evidently the case, for had Judas being passed over, and not washed, no sooner had Jesus finished the service, and had sat down again, when we are told, that he immediately declared that one of them should betray him. Now had Judas not been washed with the rest, it would have been known by this omission which it was that would do this deed. Whereas we find the declaration of Jesus threw the whole into a consternation, and called forth the anxious question, one by one, Lord! is it I?
Let no child of God, however, be hurt, that Judas partook in this common act of washing the feet. For whatever grand points were intended from it by our Lord, the thing itself, like ordinances of all kinds, had no saving efficacy in it. The ministration of it most probably had some very blessed design in view, in reference to the Lord’s own people. But to others it had none, but like the rain or dew of heaven, which falls upon the rocks and sands, and produceth nothing. There could be no more efficacy in the Lord’s washing Judas’s feet, than in his administering to him the Lord’s Supper; and all the other ordinances he had in common with the Apostles. These are all outward things; and however sweet and refreshing they are made to the Lord’s people, from the Lord’s blessing upon them, it is that blessing which becomes the sole cause of usefulness, in their being accompanied with an inward grace. What the Apostle saith of the ministration of the Gospel, may be said in relation to everything connected with the Gospel. We are (saith he) unto God a sweet savor of Christ , in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one, we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other, the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? 2Co 2:15-16 .
And I take occasion from hence (and with such an awful character in view as Judas, who partook of those means of grace, but to his greater condemnation,) to remark, that it should seem our dear Lord intended from it to teach his people how to draw improvements to their comfort, rather than at any time to be discouraged at the unavoidable minglings with the ungodly, whether in ordinances, or elsewhere in the present world. Jests knew that Judas was a devil, when he chose him to be an Apostle. Joh 6:70 . Notwithstanding this, the Lord permitted him to exercise all the outward acts of the Apostleship, until the measure of his iniquity was full, in betraying his master. But to shew his Church that this man, and every other man in like circumstances with him, had no part nor lot in the matter of salvation; Jesus declared, as soon as he had finished the washing, that though they (meaning his faithful ones) were clean, yet not all said Jesus, For, added the Evangelist, he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, ye are not all clean. And, surely, from hence the Church is taught, never to feel concern when at any time the christless and despisers of the pure truths of God, mingle with the Lord’s people at his house, or his table. For as the presence of Judas had no effect to injure the Apostles in those hallowed seasons with their Lord, so neither can devils, or bad men, hinder the blessed manifestations which the Lord makes to his own, when handing to them their portions in secret, and causing them to eat of the hidden manna. Rev 2:1 . And it is blessed, yea, very blessed, both in ordinances and providences, to call to mind that the Lord Jesus himself purposely chose one among twelve men only, which attended his person, that was a devil, to be of the number, when the Lord’s tried ones are compelled to sojourn in Mesech, and to dwell in the tents of Kedar. Psa 120:5 ; Job 1:6 .
I have largely trespassed in entering into those several particulars as they struck my mind, respecting this wonderful act of Christ’s washing his disciples feet. I again repeat that I do not speak decidedly upon what might or might not be the Lord’s design in an act so very gracious. But there are two very sweet improvements, which, according to my apprehension of the subject, arise from it; and before we close our review of it, I would beg the Reader’s indulgence to bring before him.
The first is, What a most endearing portrait hath God the Holy Ghost given to the Church, by the pencil of the Evangelist, of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ? Can the imagination conceive anything equally lovely, as in thus beholding the Son of God in our nature, washing the feet of poor fishermen? And what tends to give yet more the highest coloring of grace and mercy to the picture, it is drawn at that moment of all others, when Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into his hands! Reader! ponder it well. What a lesson is here taught to mortify the pride of human nature! While the great ones of the earth carry themselves so proudly, and will hardly condescend to behold the poor of the people, the King of heaven stoops to the lowest humiliation, and washeth his disciples’ feet. Now I pray the Reader never to lose sight of this unequalled condescension of Christ. Shall you, or shall I, or shall any poor sinner, in the view of such clemency, evermore draw conclusions, as if it was beneath the dignity of the Son of God to regard his people, when we behold such a palpable proof of that regard, in an act so humbling? Did Jesus wash their feet, and will he not wash my soul? Did Jesus unasked, yea, when Peter refused him, persist to do such an act of grace, and will he turn a deaf ear to your or my earnest petitions? Can any child of God, in the contemplation of such love in the Lord, say, I am too low, too abject, too unworthy for Jesus to notice? Speak, ye humble souls! ye, who like those faithful Apostles, have tasted that the Lord is gracious, do you say, for you can tell, whether Christ’s exaltation and glory do not become the very grounds of your hope, that because he is exalted he will condescend, and because he is all glorious, he will be all merciful? Yea, say, doth not the Lord appear in your view the more blessed, when he appears the more condescending, and the more he stoops to look on you, doth he not appear the higher to your eyes. Precious Lord, in humbleness, as well as greatness, thou must have the pre-eminence! Col 1:18 .
The other improvement suggested to us from this blessed Scripture, is, in my view, equally endearing with the former, namely, how Jesus, by this act of washing his disciples’ feet before his departure, intended to convince them, that the tendencies of his love to them would be the same after that he was gone. He knew (the Evangelist saith,) that he was come from God, and went to God; and under these impressions, he taketh the towel, and the water, and immediately begins to wash his disciples’ feet. So that with his mind full of the glory to which he was then going, returning to his Father, and to all his redeemed gone before, yet he doth this to leave a palpable testimony behind him, that neither time nor place could alter his regard for them. But his last act upon earth, when in familiarity he was sitting down with them, should not be more expressive of affection than he would carry with him in all his remembrance of them in heaven. And as he could not do such an act then, when returned to glory, he did it now, as his last upon earth, that they might always have it in remembrance concerning him when he was gone, until he came again to take them home to himself, that where he was they should be also. Joh 14:3 . Dearest Lord Jesus! may my soul have these things always in remembrance! And it will not be long before that He who washed his disciples feet will bring home his whole Church washed from all her sins in his blood, and become a glorious Church, sanctified and cleansed, and made holy, and without blemish before him, in love! Eph 5:25-26
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son , to betray him;
Ver. 2. The devil having now put ] He is likely at one end of every temptation to sin; as the hand of Joab was in the tale of the woman of Tekoah. He rubs the firebrand of evil concupiscence, and makes it send out sparkles.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. . . ] Not as E. V. ‘ supper being ended ,’ for ( Joh 13:12 ) He reclined again , and in Joh 13:26 , the supper is still going on: but, supper having begun, or having been served see . . Mat 26:6 , ‘When Jesus had arrived at B.;’ and , ‘when it had become morning,’ ch. Joh 21:4 . Cf. also , Mar 6:2 .
. . ] The construction of the text, according to the true reading, is involved and difficult. But its meaning will be immediately perceived, if we render , suggested, proposed, viz. to the mind of Judas. The devil having by this time suggested (to Judas) that Judas Iscariot the son of Simon (i.e. that he ) should betray Him. The interpretation of . . ., “ having conceived in his (the devil’s) mind ” (Meyer), is wholly unworthy of a scholar, and simply absurd. Judas had before this covenanted with the Sanhedrim to betray Him, Mat 26:14 and [174] , which must here be meant by the devil having put it into his heart: the thorough self-abandonment to Satan which led to the actual deed, being designated Joh 13:27 .
[174] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
Luke ( Luk 22:3 ) expresses the steps of his treasonable purpose otherwise, meaning the same. The fact is here stated, to enhance the love which Jesus shewed in the following action.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
supper. The last supper recorded. See App-157.
being ended. In view of Joh 13:26, Alford’s translation, “supper having been served, “is preferable to Authorized Version and Revised Version renderings. It means “supper being laid”. Washing would naturally precede the meal Compare Luk 7:44.
the devil. See notes on Mat 4:1-11. Luk 4:1-18, and App-19and App-116.
now = already.
into. Greek. eis. App-104.
Judas. See Joh 6:71.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2. . .] Not as E. V. supper being ended, for (Joh 13:12) He reclined again, and in Joh 13:26, the supper is still going on:-but, supper having begun, or having been served-see . . Mat 26:6, When Jesus had arrived at B.;-and , when it had become morning, ch. Joh 21:4. Cf. also , Mar 6:2.
. .] The construction of the text, according to the true reading, is involved and difficult. But its meaning will be immediately perceived, if we render , suggested,-proposed, viz. to the mind of Judas. The devil having by this time suggested (to Judas) that Judas Iscariot the son of Simon (i.e. that he) should betray Him. The interpretation of . . ., having conceived in his (the devils) mind (Meyer), is wholly unworthy of a scholar, and simply absurd. Judas had before this covenanted with the Sanhedrim to betray Him, Mat 26:14 and [174], which must here be meant by the devil having put it into his heart:-the thorough self-abandonment to Satan which led to the actual deed, being designated Joh 13:27.
[174] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
Luke (Luk 22:3) expresses the steps of his treasonable purpose otherwise,-meaning the same. The fact is here stated, to enhance the love which Jesus shewed in the following action.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 13:2. , supper) Indefinitely. That was the day before the Passover supper.-, when it was being made [but Engl. Vers., supper being ended]) Therefore the washing of feet was about the beginning of supper. Comp. the words, He riseth from, Joh 13:4, and lying down again [after He was set down again], Joh 13:12. Also the general custom of the Jews is in accordance with this view.-, now) Chrysost. th. Arab. Lat, in some MSS., Pers. and Sy[331]. versions, omit the particle; but it ought to be retained. The , then, Joh 13:27, answers to it.[332]-, when he had [having] put into) There is great force in this. The words [Th. ] and are conjugates.-, the heart) The purpose of Judas was as yet hidden.-, of Judas) Precaution was taken by the washing of feet, that the impurity of Judas should not infect the hearts of the rest. Comp. Joh 13:11, He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.-, Iscariot) This is the surname, not of Simon, but of Judas; ch. Joh 6:71, Joh 14:22, Judas-not Iscariot.
[331] yr the Peschito Syriac Version: second cent.: publ. and corrected by Cureton, from MS. of fifth cent.
[332] Orig. 2,120; 4,212; 409; 425, omits ; also ac. But ABDbd Vulg. and Orig. elsewhere retain .-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 13:2
Joh 13:2
And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simons son, to betray him,-This is Thursday evening as is generally believed. On the day previous, Judas had bargained with the chief priests and elders to betray him. It was to be done in the absence of the crowds without strife or confusion. The Common Version reads: After supper; the Revised, During supper. A better rendering than either is the Bible Union Version, which renders it, Supper being served, ready to be eaten. It was after it was served, ready to be eaten, knowing all things about to occur, after they had seated themselves at the table, Jesus arose and washed the feet of his disciples. [The fact that the devil put into Judas heart to betray Jesus does not exculpate or excuse Judas. It is true that Satan may cast darts of temptation into the heart, but we need not allow them to rankle. We are not responsible for the evil thought suggested by the devil, but we are responsible for harboring it and acting upon it.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
devil diabolos. (See Scofield “Rev 20:10”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
supper: Joh 13:4, Joh 13:26
the devil: Joh 13:27, Joh 6:70, Luk 22:3, Luk 22:31, Act 5:3, Eph 2:3
put: Ezr 7:27, Neh 2:12, 2Co 8:16, Jam 1:13-17, Rev 17:17
Reciprocal: 2Ki 5:20 – Gehazi 2Ki 5:25 – stood before 1Ch 21:1 – Satan Psa 55:21 – war Psa 109:6 – and let Psa 139:3 – and art acquainted Ecc 7:1 – precious Eze 38:10 – that at Zec 11:12 – give Mat 10:4 – and Mat 12:44 – he findeth Mat 24:48 – say Mat 26:2 – betrayed Mat 26:14 – one Mat 27:3 – Judas Mar 3:19 – Judas Mar 14:10 – Judas Mar 14:41 – the Son Luk 11:39 – but Luk 16:10 – he that is unjust Joh 12:4 – Judas Iscariot Joh 13:21 – one Joh 18:3 – Judas 2Co 2:11 – General Eph 2:2 – the spirit 2Ti 2:26 – at Rev 2:10 – the devil
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
This chapter corresponds with Luk 22:1-23 in most respects. There are some items of that last night given in Luke’s account that John does not give, and vice versa. The most significant difference being at the point when Jesus instituted his own supper. Not that any disagreement exists, but the items are more detailed in some accounts than in the others, and I shall comment on that when we come to verse 23. Until then the comments will be made on the verses in their order. Being ended is translated “taking place” by the Englishman’s Greek New Testament. That is correct, for the passover supper was far from being ended when Jesus did the things that are recorded now. The devil having put. This was done when Judas saw what he called the “waste” of the precious ointment. (See the comments at Mat 26:14.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son; to betray him;
[And supper being ended.] I acknowledge the aorist, and yet do not believe the supper was now ended. We have the very same word in the story of the same supper, Mat 26:6; and Jesus being in Bethany; which in St. Mark is and being in Bethany; Mar 14:3; so that supper being ended is no more than ‘being’ supper.
Let us join the full story together. While Jesus was at supper in the house of Simon the leper two days before the Passover, a woman comes and pours very precious ointment upon his head. When some murmured at the profuseness of the expense, he defends the woman and the action by an apology: and having finished his apology, he rises immediately from the table, as it were, in the very midst of supper, and girds himself to wash his disciples’ feet: so that while they are grumbling at the anointing of his head, he does not disdain to wash their feet.
The reason of this extraordinary action of his we may in some measure spell out from those little prefaces the evangelist uses before he tells the story.
I. “When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world; etc.” [There is an expression not unlike this in Bemidbar Rabba; “Abraham said, ‘I am flesh and blood, tomorrow I shall go out of this world.'”]
It had a little rubbed up the memory of his departure out of this world, that the woman had as it were anointed him for his funeral: and therefore he riseth immediately from the table, that he might give them some farewell token of his humility and charity, and leave them an example for the practice of these virtues one amongst another.
II. “The devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him,” it was but seasonable for him to shew his disciples that he would strengthen and vindicate them against the wolf who had now stolen, I will not say a sheep; but a goat; and that out of his own flock. It must not pass unobserved, that ‘his disciples’ murmured at the lavish use of the ointment, Mat 26:8; as if the murmuring humour was crept in amongst others also as well as Judas; which perhaps moved Christ the more earnestly to meet the beginnings of that distemper by this action.
III. “Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,” Joh 13:3, he gave the traitor over to Satan, and confirms the rest to himself: signifying, by the external washing, that his should be secured from the devil by the washing of Christ. Whosoever shall attempt the determination, whether he washed the feet of Judas or not, let him see how he will free himself of this dilemma:
If he washed Judas’ feet, why had not he his part in Christ, as well as the rest of his disciples? For supposing that true, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me,” why should not this be so too, “If I do wash thee, thou hast a part with me?”
If he did not wash Judas with the rest, but left him out, how could the rest be ignorant who was the unclean person? Joh 13:10, which they were altogether ignorant of.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 13:2. And a supper being begun, the devil having already put it into his heart that Judas Iscariot, Simons son, should betray him. It is important to notice the exact parallelism of this verse to the preceding, both in the note of time, and in the circumstances of the scene.
(1) The chronological notice, a supper being begun. It was during the course of the supper, not after it was ended, that the events to be spoken of took place. That this supper was not the feast properly so called appears from the name a supper, not the feast, from Joh 13:29, where the feast is not yet or only just begun, and from the absence of the article, which could hardly have been wanting had the word supper taken up again the feast of Joh 13:1. It was the preliminary meal at the close of which the feast was celebrated.
(2) The circumstances of the other side of the scene, three in number. First, the devil, who had already plotted the destruction of Jesus, and had fixed on Judas as the instrument. Second, Judas Iscariot, the victim of the devils wiles. Third, the feelings of the devils heart,treachery, hatred, at the point of intensity when what had been long determined on shall be fulfilled. The three particulars are in the sharpest contrast with those in Joh 13:1,the devil with Jesus, Judas with His own, treachery with love. Darkness is over against light, earth over against heaven, the lie over against the truth; and between these Jesus takes His way. What has been said ought to remove the objection felt by many to the translation which we have given of this verse. None will deny that it is the correct translation of the best established Greek text, but it is thought to be impossible to speak of the heart of Satan. The expression, it will be seen, springs from the Evangelists mode of thought, as he seeks a contrast to the heart of Jesus (comp. the marginal rendering of Job 1:8; Job 2:3 : Hast thou set thy heart on?).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 13:2. And supper being ended Or, as should rather be translated, supper, or supper-time, being come, or, while they were at supper, as Dr. Campbell renders it. Thus, Joh 21:4, , when morning was come. Act 12:18; Act 16:35, , when day was come; and Act 21:40, , when silence was made: in all which places, and in many more, which might easily be collected from the Greek writers, it would be absurd to translate the word, ended. When , says Dr. Campbell, is joined with , , , or with any term denoting a precise portion of time, it invariably signifies that the period denoted by the noun is begun, not ended. Of this he produces several incontrovertible examples. That this was the passover-supper, may be proved by four arguments: 1st, In Johns history of this supper we are told, when Jesus had washed the disciples feet he sat down again at table, and explained the meaning of the action, Joh 13:12; and then declared that one of them should betray him, Joh 13:18-21. This occasioned the beloved disciple first, and after him the other disciples, to inquire which of them should do the horrid deed, Joh 13:23. But, by the consent of all the evangelists, that declaration and inquiry were first made while they were eating the last passover. 2d, At this supper, mentioned by John, Jesus declared that Peter should deny him, Joh 13:38; and the words of his declaration are not, The cock shall not crow the next, the third, or the fourth day, but, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice: therefore the declaration must have been made on the night of the denial; and consequently the supper, at which it was made, must have been the paschal-supper, for all the evangelists agree that Peter denied his Master the night in which that supper was celebrated. 3d, The connection in which Johns supper stands with the subsequent facts mentioned by him shows plainly that it was the paschal-supper. For the discourse, (John 14,) being intended to give the disciples consolation, was delivered by Christ immediately after he had foretold Peters denial, and the cowardice of the rest. Having ended that discourse, Jesus went out of the house, (Joh 14:31,) and delivered the allegorical sermon, (John 15.,) which, from the subject of it, seems to have been preached in a place where there were many vines growing, probably on the mount of Olives, whither, as the other evangelists inform us, he retired after the paschal-supper. Immediately after the allegorical sermon, he spake that which is contained in the 16th and 17th chapters, and then went with his disciples over the brook Cedron, into the garden of Gethsemane, where he was apprehended. From this series of facts it appears, that the supper was the paschal-supper, because, between it and Jesuss crucifixion, there is not the least chasm in Johns history, where the passover can be brought in. 4th, We are told, (chap. Joh 13:27-30,) that after Jesus had ordered Judas to do quickly what he was about to do, he went out; upon which Jesus mentioned the near prospect he had of being glorified, to intimate that he knew Judas was gone out to betray him. From this time forth there is nothing said of Judas by John till he appeared with the armed band. Nevertheless, by the accounts of the other evangelists, Judas was present at the institution of the sacrament of the supper, after the passover. Wherefore the passover being celebrated before Judas went out, the supper mentioned by John must have been that solemnity. Macknight. The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him By this version the English reader would be led to apprehend, that it was at this paschal-supper that the devil first tempted Judas to betray Christ: but the original expression may be properly rendered, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas, &c., for the participle is of the perfect tense, and denotes an action done at some time past, and the particle , rendered now, often signifies already, or before: so that what Christ says here concerning Judas, may refer to what had passed between him and the chief priests, after the reproof given him in the supper at Bethany. And therefore when John says afterward, (Joh 13:27,) that after the sop was given him, Satan entered into Judas, the meaning must be, that he was then again incited by the devil to execute the treachery which he had before resolved upon, by a like instigation of the same evil spirit.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 2, 3. And a supper having taken place, when the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, 3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came from God and went to God. And first, the temporal determination: a supper having taken place.
The Alexandrian reading , taking place, seems to me inadmissible. This expression could scarcely refer to anything but the Paschal supper: While this supper took place Jesus rises. But for this it would be necessary that the article , the, should be wanting, that is to say, that the substantive should have been sufficiently determined by what precedes, which is not the case since the first words of Joh 13:1 : before the feast of the Passover are rather suited to set aside the idea of the Paschal feast than to give rise to it. The present or imperfect, taking place, appears to me to be an adaptation, by the copyists, of this participle to the present , he rises, of Joh 13:4. It was not understood that the descriptive present rises might perfectly accord with the past tense of the participle: (a) supper having taken place, Jesus rises. It does not appear to me possible that this supper can be the Israelite Paschal supper.
The word , designating that solemn supper, must necessarily have been marked by the article. The second determination is expressed in the two Alexandrian and Byzantine texts in two quite different forms; the Byzantine: the devil having already put into the heart of Judas that he should betray him. The Alexandrian: the devil having already put into the heart that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, should betray him. Into whose heart? That of the devil, Meyer and Reuss answer. They take the Greek phrase: to put into the heart, in the sense of: to conceive the design of. But this sense is not tolerable. And where in Scripture is the devil’s heart spoken of? Then, one does not put a thought into one’s own heart. And why not say (of himself)?
Finally, since when does the devil dispose of men in such a way that it is enough for him to decide to make one of them a traitor, in order that this one should indeed become a traitor. It must therefore be explained: put into the heart of Judas (Baumlein, Luthardt, Weiss); but this term: into the heart, could not be thus used absolutely and without any complement fitted to define it. This reading is therefore inadmissible. It is probably due to a correction resting on the false idea that the fact expressed by the received reading would constitute an anticipation of that which is to be related afterwards in Joh 13:27; but wrongly; for at the moment when the supper took place, the treachery was really consummated in the heart of Judas; still more, according to the Synoptics, everything was already agreed upon between him and the Sanhedrim. The Byzantine reading simply says: the devil having already put into the heart of Judas…that he should betray him.
The design of this indication is not to set forth the long-suffering and benevolence of Jesus (Chrysostom, Calvin, Luthardt), or the perfect clearness of mind with which He goes to meet His fate (Meyer); nor again to indicate that time was pressing (Lucke). John wishes to give grounds for the different allusions which Jesus is about to make to the presence of the traitor throughout the whole course of the following scene (comp. Joh 13:10; Joh 13:18; Joh 13:21; Joh 13:26) and especially to explain the conduct and the severe word of Jesus in Joh 13:27. The Alexandrian reading , instead of (T. R.), is explained in two ways by the grammarians: either as a contraction of the optative (see in Kuhner, Ausfuhrl, Gramm. a multitude of examples taken from Plato and other authors), or as a contraction of the subjunctive , from (for ); so Baumlein, after Buttmann. As the first determination: a feast having taken place, answers to the first of Joh 13:1 (before the feast), so the reflection (the devil having put …) answers to that of Joh 13:1 : having loved his own. The blackest hatred forms the counterpart to the most tender love.
The picture of the external and moral situation is completed by a third indication which helps us to penetrate into the inner feeling of Jesus and unveils to us the true meaning of the act of humiliation which is about to follow: Jesus knowing that … This knowing is by no means the resumption of that of Joh 13:1; for it has a quite different content. It is not the sorrowful feeling of the approaching separation: it is the consciousness of His greatness which inspires in Him the act of humiliation which He is going to accomplish. Here, more frequently even than in Joh 13:1, the commentators interpret in the sense of: Although knowing; although feeling Himself so great, He humbled Himself. This is, according to our view, to misconceive, even more seriously than in Joh 13:1, the evangelist’s thought, as well as that of Jesus Himself. It is not in spite of His divine greatness, it is because of this very greatness, that Jesus humbles Himself, as He is going to do. Feeling Himself the greatest, He understands that it belongs to Him to give the model of real greatness, by humbling Himself to the lowest part; for greatness in the Messianic kingdom which He comes to inaugurate on the earth, consists in voluntary humiliation. This kind of greatness, still unknown here on earth, His own must at this moment behold in Him, to the end that His Church may never recognize any other. It is therefore inasmuch as He is Lord, and not although He is Lord, that He is going to discharge the office of a slave. Moreover, it is Jesus Himself who expresses this idea (Joh 13:13-14): You call me Master and Lord…If then, and it is from these words that it is derived. Hence we understand the accumulation of clauses which recall to mind the features of the supreme greatness of Jesus: 1. His sovereign position: everything is put into His hands;
2. His divine origin: He comes from God; 3. His divine destiny: He returns to God (the repetition of the word God is to be remarked). It is in the consciousness of what He is, that He does what no other has ever done. The example becomes thus for His own decisive, irresistible: the servant cannot remain with proud bearing when the Master humbles Himself before him.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
The supper (Gr. deipnon) in view was the evening meal (Joh 13:30). It was a Passover meal. Jesus evidently washed the disciples’ feet just after the meal had been served (Joh 13:4; Joh 13:26). The fact that Jesus washed Judas’ feet after Judas had determined to betray Him shows the greatness of His love (Joh 13:1). John’s reference to Satan’s role in Judas’ decision heightens the point even further.