Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 13:25
He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
25. lying on Jesus’ breast ] Our version does well in using different words from those used in Joh 13:23, but the distinction used is inadequate. Moreover the same preposition, ‘on,’ is used in both cases; in the Greek the prepositions differ also. In Joh 13:23 we have the permanent posture; here a change, the same verb being used as in Joh 13:12 (see note). The meaning is leaning back on to Jesus’ breast. Comp Joh 21:20, where our translators give a similarly inadequate rendering. “This is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the Fourth Gospel generally, and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus’ life, where the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches of the picture should be blurred in our English Bibles.” Lightfoot, On Revision, p. 73.
Some good MSS. insert ‘thus’ before ‘on to Jesus’ breast’ (comp. Joh 4:6).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He then lying on Jesus breast – This is a different word from the one rendered Joh 13:23 leaning. It means falling back or reclining on the bosom of Jesus. When Peter spake, John laid his head back on the bosom of Jesus, so that he could speak to him privately without being heard by others.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. He then lying on Jesus’ breast] , laying his head against the breast of Christ, in a loving, respectful manner. As the expressions in the text are different here from those in the preceding verse, it shows that John altered his position at table, in order to ask the question which Peter suggested, which he probably did by whispering to our Lord; for, from Joh 13:28, we may learn that the other disciples had not heard what John said; and it is likely that the following words – It is he to whom I shall give the morsel when I have dipped it, were whispered back by Christ to John.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
John accordingly, doth propound the question to Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. He then lyingratherleaning over on Jesus’ bosom.
saithin a whisper,“Lord, who is it?”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He then lying on Jesus’ breast,…. Being on the couch just before Jesus, with his back to him, he bends backwards, and falling on Jesus’ breast, whispers in his ear:
and saith unto him, Lord, who is it? using his interest in Christ, and making thus free with him, in compliance with Peter’s request; and was no doubt desirous himself of knowing who the person was.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He (). “That one” (John).
Leaning back (). Second aorist active participle of , to fall back.
As he was (). “Thus.” It was easily done.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Lying [] . This word is, literally, to fall upon, and is so rendered in almost every instance in the New Testament. In Mr 3:10, it is applied to the multitudes pressing upon Christ. It occurs, however, nowhere else in John, and therefore some of the best authorities read ajnapeswn, leaning back, a verb which John uses several times in the Gospel, as in ver. 12. 44 So Rev. Whichever of the two is read, it points out the distinction, which the A. V. misses by the translation lying, between hn ajnakeimenov (ver. 23), which describes the reclining position of John throughout the meal, and the sudden change of posture pictured by ajnapeswn, leaning back. The distinction is enforced by the different preposition in each case : reclining in [] Jesus ‘ bosom, and leaning back [] . Again, the words bosom and breast represent different words in the Greek; kolpov representing more generally the bend formed by the front part of the reclining person, the lap, and sthqov the breast proper. The verb ajnapiptw, to lean back, always in the New Testament describes a change of position. It is used of a rower bending back for a fresh stroke. Plato, in the well – known passage of the “Phaedrus,” in which the soul is described under the figure of two horses and a charioteer, says that when the charioteer beholds the vision of love he is afraid, and falls backward [] , so that he brings the steeds upon their haunches.
As he was [] . Inserted by the best texts, and not found in the A. V. Reclining as he was, he leaned back. The general attitude of reclining was maintained. Compare Joh 4:6 : “sat thus [] on the well.” According to the original institution, the Passover was to be eaten standing (Exo 12:11). After the Captivity the custom was changed, and the guests reclined. The Rabbis insisted that at least a part of the Paschal meal should be eaten in that position, because it was the manner of slaves to eat standing, and the recumbent position showed that they had been delivered from bondage into freedom.
Breast [] . From isthmi, to cause to stand. Hence, that which stands out. In later writings John was known as oJ ejpisthqiov, the one on the breast, or the bosom friend.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “He then lying on Jesus’ breast,” (anapeson ekeinos houtos epi to stethos tou lesous) “Then that one falling or leaning back upon Jesus’ breast,” nearest to Him, as stated, Joh 13:23, the one writing this narrative, later clarified, Joh 21:20; Joh 21:24.
2) ”Saith unto him, Lord,” (legei auto kurie) “Says directly and intimately to him, Lord,” inquiring in all honesty and disturbed concern.
3) “Who is it?” (tis estin) “Who is it,” or who is the one? Out with it, or just tell me, let me pass the word, or tell me confidentially, for the time being. Our Lord often held back certain information from His own disciples, when He knew they were not able emotionally to hear them, and once told them so, plainly. This was one of those occasions, Joh 16:12.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(25) He then lying on Jesus breast.Several good authorities, including the Vatican and the Cambridge MSS., insert the word thus. He then leaning thus . . . , describes the action just as it took place (comp. Note on Joh. 4:6); but the balance of authority is against the insertion. The action is, however, exactly described in the original, for the words lying and breast are both different from those in Joh. 13:23. The English preserves this difference, but hardly conveys the full meaning. There the beloved disciple is described as reclining towards his Masters bosom. Here he leans upon (or leans back upon, as many good authorities read), the Masters breast, and asks Him the question, Who is it?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 13:25-26 . Graphic representation. Raising himself from the of Jesus to His breast, nearer to His ear, he draws close to Him, and asks (in a whisper).
] I, for my part .
.] which he meanwhile took into His hand.
] shall give away . The morsel is to be thought of as a piece of bread or meat, which Jesus dips into a broth on the table (not into the Charoseth , see on Mat 26:23 , since the meal, according to John, was not the paschal meal).
The closing words of Joh 13:26 contain something of tragic solemnity. [131] By the designation of the traitor, it was not the curiosity of John, but his own love , which Jesus satisfied, and this by means of a token not of apparent , but of real and sorrowful goodwill towards Judas, in whom even now conscience might have been awakened and touched, by means of a token at the same time, such as most naturally suggested itself at table to the Lord as the head of the family, expressive of forbearance towards the traitor. This in answer to Weisse, who psychologically mishandles the entire representation as a fiction derived from Joh 13:18 , and finds the true occurrence only in Mark, whilst Strauss gives the relative preference to Luke (Luk 22:21 ).
[131] To this belongs also the circumstantial after . (see critical notes). Jesus has put the morsel in the broth ( ), and then takes it, etc.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Ver. 25. He then lying on Jesus’ breast ] Ad pectus allapsus, as laying his ear to our Saviour’s mouth, that he might whisper him who it was; a for things were as yet secretly carried, and the traitor not discovered, save to John only, who knew Christ’s soul secrets, and afterward received his revelation.
a In accubitu mos ille ut accumberent uxores in sinu virorum. Lips. ad Tacit. xi.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] , leaning back on the bosom of Jesus.
, as in ref. I understand it, that John, who was before lying close to the bosom ( ) of Jesus, now leaned his head absolutely upon His breast, to ask the question. This escaped the notice of the rest at the table: see on Matt. as above.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 13:25 . That disciple, , when thus appealed to, , “having leant back towards the breast of Jesus” so as to speak more directly to Him and to be heard only by Him. On the difference between and see Origen in Evang. Jo. , ii. 191, Brooke.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Matthew
‘IS IT I?’
Mat 26:22
The genius of many great painters has portrayed the Lord’s Supper, but the reality of it was very different from their imaginings. We have to picture to ourselves some low table, probably a mere tray spread upon the ground, round which our Lord and the twelve reclined, in such a fashion as that the head of each guest came against the bosom of him that reclined above him; the place of honour being at the Lord’s left hand, or higher up the table than Himself, and the second place being at His right, or below Himself.
So there would be no eager gesticulations of disciples starting to their feet when our Lord uttered the sad announcement, ‘One of you shall betray Me!’ but only horror-struck amazement settled down upon the group. These verses, which we have put together, show us three stages in the conversation which followed the sad announcement. The three evangelists give us two of these; John alone omits these two, and only gives us the third.
First, we have their question, born of a glimpse into the possibilities of evil in their hearts, ‘Lord, is it I?’ The form of that question in the original suggests that they expected a negative answer, and might be reproduced in English: ‘Surely it is not I?’ None of them could think that he was the traitor, yet none of them could be sure that he was not. Their Master knew better than they did; and so, from a humble knowledge of what lay in them, coiled and slumbering, but there, they would not meet His words with a contradiction, but with a question. His answer spares the betrayer, and lets the dread work in their consciences for a little longer, for their good. For many hands dipped in the dish together, to moisten their morsels; and to say, ‘He that dippeth with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me,’ was to say nothing more than ‘One of you at the table.’
Then comes the second stage. Judas, reassured that he has escaped detection for the moment, and perhaps doubting whether the Master had anything more than a vague suspicion of treachery, or knew who was the traitor, shapes his lying lips with loathsome audacity into the same question, but yet not quite the same, The others had said, ‘Is it I, Lord?’ he falters when he comes to that name, and dare not say ‘Lord!’ That sticks in his throat. ‘Rabbi!’ is as far as he can get. ‘Is it I, Rabbi?’ Christ’s answer to him, ‘Thou hast said,’ is another instance of patient longsuffering. It was evidently a whisper that did not reach the ears of any of the others, for he leaves the room without suspicion. Our Lord still tries to save him from himself by showing Judas that his purpose is known, and by still concealing his name.
Then comes the third stage, which we owe to John’s Gospel. Here again he is true to his task of supplementing the narrative of the three synoptic Gospels. Remembering what I have said about the attitude of the disciples at the table, we can understand that Peter, if he occupied the principal place at the Lord’s left, was less favourably situated for speaking to Christ than John, who reclined in the second seat at His right, and so he beckoned over the Master’s head to John. The Revised Version gives the force of the original more vividly than the Authorised does: ‘He, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast, saith unto Him, Lord! who is it?’ John, with a natural movement, bends back his head on his Master’s breast, so as to ask and be answered, in a whisper. His question is not, ‘Is it I?’ He that leaned on Christ’s bosom, and was compassed about by Christ’s love, did not need to ask that. The question now is, ‘Who is it?’ Not a question of presumption, nor of curiosity, but of affection; and therefore answered: ‘He it is to whom I shall give the sop, when I have dipped it.’
The morsel dipped in the dish and passed by the host’s hand to a guest, was a token of favour, of unity and confidence. It was one more attempt to save Judas, one more token of all-forgiving patience. No wonder that that last sign of friendship embittered his hatred and sharpened his purpose to an unalterable decision, or, as John says: ‘After the sop, Satan entered into him.’ For then, as ever, the heart which is not melted by Christ’s offered love is hardened by it.
Now, if we take these three stages of this conversation we may learn some valuable lessons from them. I take the first form of the question as an example of that wholesome self-distrust which a glimpse into the slumbering possibilities of evil in our hearts ought to give us all. I take the second on the lips of Judas, as an example of the very opposite of that self-distrust, the fixed determination to do a wrong thing, however clearly we know it to be wrong. And I take the last form of the question, as asked by John, as an illustration of the peaceful confidence which comes from the consciousness of Christ’s love, and of communion with Him. Now a word or two about each of these.
I. First, we have an example of that wholesome self-distrust, which a glimpse into the possibilities of evil that lie slumbering in all our hearts ought to teach every one of us.
And then let me remind you, too, that the same consideration is reinforced by this other fact, that all sin is, if I may so say, gregarious; is apt not only to slip from one form into another, but that any evil is apt to draw another after it. The tangled mass of sin is like one of those great fields of seaweed that you some times come across upon the ocean, all hanging together by a thousand slimy growths; which, if lifted from the wave at any point, drags up yards of it inextricably grown together. No man commits only one kind of transgression. All sins hunt in couples. According to the grim picture of the Old Testament, about another matter, ‘None of them shall want his mate. The wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wild beasts of the islands.’ One sin opens the door for another, ‘and seven other spirits worse than himself’ come and make holiday in the man’s heart.
Again, any evil is possible to us, seeing that all sin is but yielding to tendencies common to us all. The greatest transgressions have resulted from yielding to such tendencies. Cain killed his brother from jealousy; David besmirched his name and his reign by animal passion; Judas betrayed Christ because he was fond of money. Many a man has murdered another one simply because he had a hot temper. And you have got a temper, and you have got the love of money, and you have got animal passions, and you have got that which may stir you up into jealousy. Your neighbour’s house has caught fire and been blown up. Your house, too, is built of wood, and thatched with straw, and you have as much dynamite in your cellars as he had in his. Do not be too sure that you are safe from the danger of explosion.
And, again, remember that this same wholesome self-distrust is needful for us all, because all transgression is yielding to temptations that assail all men. Here are one hundred men in a plague-stricken city; they have all got to draw their water from the same well. If five or six of them died of cholera it would be very foolish of the other ninety-five to say, ‘There is no chance of our being touched.’ We all live in the same atmosphere; and the temptations that have overcome the men that have headed the count of crimes appeal to you. So the lesson is, ‘Be not high-minded, but fear.’
And remember, still further, that the same solemn consideration is enforced upon us by the thought that men will gradually drop down to the level which, before they began the descent, seemed to be impossible to them. ‘Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?’ said Hazael when the crime of murdering his master first floated before him. Yes, but he did it. By degrees he came down to the level to which he thought that he would never sink. First the imagination is inflamed, then the wish begins to draw the soul to the sin, then conscience pulls it back, then the fatal decision is made, and the deed is done. Sometimes all the stages are hurried quickly through, and a man spins downhill as cheerily and fast as a diligence down the Alps. Sometimes, as the coast of a country may sink an inch in a century until long miles of the flat seabeach are under water, and towers and cities are buried beneath the barren waves, so our lives may be gradually lowered, with a motion imperceptible but most real, bringing us down within high-water mark, and at last the tide may wash over what was solid land.
So, dear friends, there is nothing more foolish than for any man to stand, self-confident that any form of evil that has conquered his brother has no temptation for him. It may not have for you, under present circumstances; it may not have for you to-day; but, oh! we have all of us one human heart, and ‘he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.’ ‘Blessed is the man that feareth always.’ Humble self-distrust, consciousness of sleeping sin in my heart that may very quickly be stirred into stinging and striking; rigid self-control over all these possibilities of evil, are duties dictated by the plainest common-sense.
Do not say, ‘I know when to stop.’ Do not say, ‘I can go so far; it will not do me any harm.’ Many a man has said that, and many a man has been ruined by it. Do not say, ‘It is natural to me to have these inclinations and tastes, and there can be no harm in yielding to them.’ It is perfectly natural for a man to stoop down over the edge of a precipice to gather the flowers that are growing in some cranny in the cliff; and it is as natural for him to topple over, and be smashed to a mummy at the bottom. God gave you your dispositions and your whole nature ‘under lock and key,’-keep them so. And when you hear of, or see, great criminals and great crimes, say to yourself, as the good old Puritan divine said, looking at a man going to the scaffold, ‘But for the grace of God there go I!’ And in the contemplation of sins and apostasies, let us each look humbly at our own weakness, and pray Him to keep us from our brother’s evils which may easily become ours.
II. Secondly, we have here an example of precisely the opposite sort, namely, of that fixed determination to do evil which is unshaken by the clearest knowledge that it is evil.
Now most men turn away with horror from even the sins that they are willing to do, when they are put plainly and bluntly before them. As an old mediaeval preacher once said, ‘There is nothing that is weaker than the devil stripped naked.’ By which he meant exactly this-that we have to dress wrong in some fantastic costume or other, so as to hide its native ugliness, in order to tempt men to do it. So we have two sets of names for wrong things, one of which we apply to our brethren’s sins, and the other to the same sins in ourselves. What I do is ‘prudence,’ what you do of the same sort is ‘covetousness’; what I do is ‘sowing my wild oats,’ what you do is ‘immorality’ and ‘dissipation’; what I do is ‘generous living,’ what you do is ‘drunkenness’ and ‘gluttony’; what I do is ‘righteous indignation,’ what you do is ‘passionate anger.’ And so you may go the whole round of evil. Very bad are the men who can look at their deed, described in Its own inherent deformity, and yet say, ‘Yes; that is it, and I am going to do it.’ ‘One of you shall betray Me.’ ‘Yes; I will betray you!’ It must have taken something to look into the Master’s face, and keep the fixed purpose steady.
Now I ask you to think, dear friends, of this, that that obstinate condition of dogged determination to do a wrong thing, knowing it to be a wrong thing, is a condition to which all evil steadily tends. We may not come to it in this world-I do not know that men ever do so wholly; but we are all getting towards it in regard to the special wrong deeds and desires which we cherish and commit. And when a man has once reached the point of saying to evil, ‘Be thou my good,’ then he is a ‘devil’ in the true meaning of the word; and wherever he is, he is in hell! And the one unpardonable sin is the sin of clear recognition that a given thing is contrary to God’s will, and unfaltering determination, notwithstanding, to do it. That is the only sin that cannot be pardoned, ‘either in this world or in the world to come.’
And so, my brother, seeing that such a condition is possible, and that all the paths of evil, however tentative and timorous they may be at first, and however much the sin may be wrapped up with excuses and forms and masks, tend to that condition, let us take that old prayer upon our lips, which befits both those who distrust themselves because of slumbering sins, and those who dread being conquered by manifest iniquity:-’Who can understand his errors? Cleanse Thou me from secret faults. Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins. Let them not have dominion over me.’
III. Now, lastly, we have in the last question an example of the peaceful confidence that comes from communion with Jesus Christ.
It was not John’s love to Christ, but Christ’s to John that made his safety. He did not say: ‘I love Thee so much that I cannot betray Thee.’ For all our feelings and emotions are but variable, and to build confidence upon them is to build a heavy building upon quicksand; the very weight of it drives out the foundations. But he thought to himself-or he felt rather than he thought-that all about him lay the sweet, warm, rich atmosphere of his Master’s love; and to a man who was encompassed by that, treachery was impossible.
Sin has no temptation so long as we actually enjoy the greater sweetness of Christ’s felt love. Would thirty pieces of silver have been a bribe to John? Would anything that could have terrified others have frightened him from his Master’s side whilst he felt His love? Will a handful of imitation jewellery, made out of coloured glass and paste, be any temptation to a man who bears a rich diamond on his finger? And will any of earth’s sweetness be a temptation to a man who lives in the continual consciousness of the great rich love of Christ wrapping him round about? Brethren, not ourselves, not our faith, not our emotion, not our religious experience; nothing that is in us, is any security that we may not be tempted, and yield to the temptation, and deny or betray our Lord. There is only one thing that is a security, and that is that we be folded to the heart, and held by the hand, of that loving Lord. Then-then we may be confident that we shall not fall; for ‘the Lord is able to make us stand.’
Such confidence is but the other side of our self-distrust; is the constant accompaniment of it, must have that self-distrust for its condition and prerequisite, and leads to a yet deeper and more blessed form of that self-distrust. Faith in Him and ‘no confidence in the flesh’ are but the two sides of the same coin, the obverse and the reverse. The seed, planted in the ground, sends a little rootlet down, and a little spikelet up, by the same vital act. And so in our hearts, as it were, the downward rootlet is self-despair, and the upward shoot is faith in Christ. The two emotions go together-the more we distrust ourselves the more we shall rest upon Him, and the more we rest upon Him, and feel that all our strength comes, not from our foot, but from the Rock on which it stands, the more we shall distrust our own ability and our own faithfulness.
Therefore, dear brethren, looking upon all the evil that is around us, and conscious in some measure of the weakness of our own hearts, let us do as a man would do who stands upon the narrow ledge of a cliff, and look sheer down into the depth below, and feels his head begin to reel and turn giddy; let us lay hold of the Guide’s hand, and if we cleave by Him, He will hold up our goings that our footsteps slip not. Nothing else will. No length of obedient service is any guarantee against treachery and rebellion. As John Bunyan saw, there was a backdoor to hell from the gate of the Celestial City. Men have lived for years consistent professing Christians, and have fallen at last. Many a ship has come across half the world, and gone to pieces on the harbour bar. Many an army, victorious in a hundred fights, has been annihilated at last. No depths of religious experience, no heights of religious blessedness, no attainments of past virtue and self-sacrifice, are any guarantees for to-morrow. Trust in nothing and in nobody, least of all in yourselves and your own past. Trust only in Jesus Christ.
‘Now unto Him that is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our Saviour be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever.’ Amen.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
lying = lying back. Not the same word as “leaning” in Joh 13:23. Peter was beyond Judas, and leaning back signed to John behind the Lord.
on. Greek. epi. App-104.
breast. Greek. stethos. Not the same word as “bosom” in Joh 13:23. Occurs only here; Joh 21:20. Luk 18:13; Luk 23:48. Rev 15:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] , leaning back on the bosom of Jesus.
, as in ref. I understand it, that John, who was before lying close to the bosom ( ) of Jesus, now leaned his head absolutely upon His breast, to ask the question. This escaped the notice of the rest at the table: see on Matt. as above.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 13:25. , throwing himself back [not as Engl. Vers. lying on]) This was a new [unprecedented] instance of freedom, such as neither he nor any other disciple used on any other occasion [therefore it is specially referred to, as something extraordinary in]: ch. Joh 21:20. John was lying in the bosom of the Lord: from that position he leaned back with loving familiarity to the breast of Jesus, by that very act hiding his purpose of asking the question: he then asked the question privately. Comp. Joh 13:28, Now no man at the table knew with what intent Jesus spake this unto Judas.-) Many copies formerly added . It is a good gloss [interpolated explanatory note]; comp. ch. Joh 4:6, note.[334]
[334] Jesus at the well, . BCLX add the here, ch. Joh 13:25. But ADabc Vulg. Orig. 4,437c, support Beng. and Rec. Text in omitting it.-E. and T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 13:25
Joh 13:25
He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?-[John complied with the request of Peter and asked, Who is it? All innocent parties were interested in knowing who he was.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
who: Gen 44:4-12, Est 7:5
Reciprocal: Joh 13:23 – leaning
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
A PATTERN OF INTERCESSION
He then lying on Jesus breast saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
Joh 13:25
I. We are brought near to our Lord not for our own sake alone, but for the help of others. (See 2Co 1:6.) We must not be selfish in matters of religion. Meum and tuum are not Christian words; Pater Noster is the Christian prayer. All that we ask, or desire for ourselves, we must desire for others likewise.
II. Nor must we think only of those who happen to be near to us, by natural kinship, or liking. These must be as specimens for all who are in similar circumstances of need, or temptation, etc. We must learn to regard others from our Lords point of view. Like John leaning on our Lords bosom, to love all whom He loves, and to love them with His love. Think of the interests that are dear to Him, and gain a zeal for missions, for the conversion of sinners, for the perfecting of the faithful, for the reunion of Christendom.
III. Thus shall we overcome any feeling of indifference or want of charity towards others. Kneeling in spirit by their side in prayer as fellow-suppliants and fellow-penitents we shall be drawn together.
Bishop A. C. A. Hall.
Illustration
The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, He having fallen upon. It is so translated in eleven out of twelve other places where it occurs in the New Testament. The idea is evidently of one moving and leaning towards another, so as to get closer to him and whisper a question, without being heard or observed. That this is what John did is evident. It is plain that he did not say out aloud, Lord, who is it?
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
5
John then asked Jesus direct whom he meant.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 13:25. He leaning back thus on Jesus breast, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Nothing can be more graphic than the account here given of the movement made by John. He had been reclining on the bosom of Jesus: he now throws back his head upon His breast, looking up into His face that he may ask his question. It is worthy of notice that this little act is fixed on by the beloved disciple in Joh 21:20, to characterize himself: not which also leaned, but which also leaned back on his breast at the supper. Perhaps, too, we may justly infer that the question was neither asked nor answered in undertones, but that all could hear.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 25-27a. He therefore leaning back on Jesus’ breast, says to him, Lord, who is it? 26. Jesus answers him: He it is to whom I shall give a piece of bread when it is dipped.And having dipped the piece, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27a. And, after he had taken the piece, then Satan entered into him.
The received reading (which is found in the Sinaitic, and Alexandrian MSS., etc.), leaning, strictly throwing himself, indicates a sudden movement, in harmony with the liveliness of the feeling which produces it. It is perfectly suitable, provided we do not add , thus, as Tischendorf and Meyer do, which is wholly without meaning. The can only be maintained with the reading : seated at table as he was; it would be an allusion to Joh 13:23 :on the breast of Jesus, so Baumlein.
But the reading may easily have arisen from Joh 21:20 and the adverb may have been added to complete this participle, which could only be a repetition of Joh 13:23. In the course of the Paschal meal, the father of the family offered to the guests pieces of bread or meat which he dipped in a broth composed of fruits boiled in wine; these fruits represented the blessings of the Promised Land. And even outside of this special meal it is customary in the East, it seems, for the host to offer the guest whom he wishes to honor a piece of meat (see Westcott). Jesus, connecting Himself with this custom, answers John in this form which was naturally intelligible only to him. As a sign of communion, it was a last appeal to the conscience of Judas. If, in receiving it, his heart had broken, He could still have obtained pardon. This moment was therefore decisive; and it is this that John makes manifest by the , then (Joh 13:27), a word of tragic weight.
The Alexandrian reading adds, after the words: having dipped the morsel, the following: he takes it and, which could only mean: he takes itfrom the dish; a very idle meaning. Until this time, says Hengstenberg, Judas had stifled in himself, in the interest of his passion, the conviction of the divinity of Jesus. Now the ray of divine omniscience which had, in the preceding warnings (Joh 13:10; Joh 13:18) only grazed the surface, penetrates him. Jesus says to him plainly by this sign and by the words which accompany it (Mat 26:25, Thou hast said): Thou art the one who eats my bread and yet betrays me! But He also gives him to understand that he is still of the number of His own. He might therefore return backward. But he would not; and the violent effort which he was obliged to make in order to close his heart against the heavenly powers opened its doors to the diabolical powers. It is even from these last that he must seek the strength to accomplish this final act of resistance. As it is said of David: He strengthened himself in God, so Judas strengthened himself in Satan. The dwelling of Satan in a soul has its degrees, as well as that of the Holy Spirit.
Luke (Luk 22:3) has united the phases which John distinguishes (comp. Joh 13:2). The present moment is that in which the will of Judas was finally confiscated by the power to which he had gradually surrendered himself. Until then he had acted freely and as if by way of experiment; he had played with the enemy. From this moment it will be impossible for him to draw back; it will be the enemy who will play with him. It has been asserted that John ascribes this result to a magical action of the morsel of bread, and that there was here, according to him, a miracle by means of which Jesus demonized the soul of the disciple. If John had wished to express such an idea he would have written, not , after the morsel, but , with the morsel. It is also asked: Who then saw Satan enter into Judas? Perhaps, John himself, we will answer. The terrible conflict which was carried on within him at this moment could not remain unnoticed by the eyes of him who anxiously observed the traitor, and something infernal in the expression of his features bore testimony of the decisive victory which the devil had just gained in his heart. Weiss and Keil are willing to admit here only a pure psychological assurance. But such an assurance has as its basis either some perception or a revelation. Would these interpreters then adopt this second alternative? Keim has judged the conduct of Jesus at this moment with severity, in case John has exactly described it; it would even, up to a certain point, excuse Judas. But Jesus carefully spared the traitor, in making him known to no one but John only.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 25
Saith unto him; privately.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Verses 25, 26.-So when he had reclined upon the breast of Jesus, … John seems to have moved towards Peter, who was making signs to him, and so to have moved away a little from the bosom of Jesus in order to hear what Peter had to say; and having heard, he seems to have reoccupied his former position to ask of Jesus what Peter had suggested to him.
The bread I have dipped.-Observe that Judas was present at the celebration of the Passover, and also of the Eucharist; and received the latter together with the other Apostles, as SS. Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others show. Indeed some have thought that this bread which He had dipped was the Eucharist, but erroneously; for Christ did not consecrate bread which He had dipped, but dry bread, and likewise pure wine and unmixed (with bread). Christ, after the Holy Communion, took from the table a morsel of the bread that remained, dipped it into some little dainty sauce that remained on the table, for it is not fitting that at a banquet dry bread should be given to a guest by the host, and gave it to Judas, that by this sign He might indicate him to John as the traitor. The other apostles did not hear the words of Christ to John about this way of pointing out the traitor, He having spoken quietly to John in his ear.
Moreover, Christ pointed him out by this sign with peculiar fitness, bread which we eat at table being a sign of peace and friendship, so that Christ showed by it, not only who the traitor was, but also the nature and mode of his treachery, for Judas was to betray Him by a similar sign of friendship, a kiss.
Mystically this dipping of the bread denoted the falseness and fraud that was in the soul of Judas, says St. Augustine. Again St. Cyril and Augustine say that Judas was pointed out by Christ by the morsel of bread that the words of Ps. xli. might be fulfilled-“He that eateth bread with me hath lifted his heel against me.” Indeed Chrysostom says that by this very act Christ here upbraided Judas with this, as if He had said, How is it, Judas, that thou, a companion of My table, art not ashamed to betray Me? Judas, then, having received the morsel from Christ, feeling by his own evil conscience, and by this sign, that he was a marked man, persisted shamelessly and obstinately in his intention of betraying Christ. For seeing himself found, out and disgraced, as it were beside himself and infuriated, he went forth at the devil’s prompting to finish his crime, going to the chief priests to ask them for guards who, with him for their leader and guide, should seize Jesus.
Though Matthew puts these words and Christ’s answer before the Eucharist, so that S. Augustine (De Consensu, Evang. bk. iii. ch. 1) thinks that they were spoken before it, yet from the words of Luke and John it is plain that they were spoken after the Eucharist. For it is altogether likely that Judas, when he heard Christ’s answer, Thou hast said, straightway went out embarrassed and indignant. Immediately, then, after receiving the morsel he asked, Master, is it I? received the answer, Thou hast said, and then went out at once, covered with shame and indignation.
Ver. 27.–And after the morsel Satan entered into him, urging and impelling him to avenge this his disgrace,-to betray to the Jews Christ who had betrayed his villainy. Satan, who had before entered into Judas for the plotting of the betrayal, as was said in verse 2, here again entered into him for its accomplishment; both because Judas, being already called by Christ and the apostles a traitor, dared remain among them no longer lest he should be ill-treated by them, and also because the hour proper for the betrayal, and appointed first by Judas, was near at hand-that hour, namely, when he knew that Christ would, after His wont, go out to pray on Mount Olivet, where He could easily be seized. Wherefore there was no need for John to point out Judas to Peter when Christ pointed out the traitor to him, for Judas soon betrayed himself both by his question and by his departure.
So Satan entered into Judas to take complete possession of him, and that with certainty and with a strong hold, so that he brought him soon to the halter. Not that the morsel given him by Christ put the devil into him, for this was a sign of Christ’s love by which He wanted to win the heart of Judas to love Him in return, but that Judas, ungrateful for this love of Christ, took it in bad part, thinking that Christ was giving him the morsel out of hatred and a desire to injure him and make his crime known to the apostles.
Wherefore, bidding farewell to the apostolate of Christ, he went away to the household and the bondage of Satan and of the Jews as a deserter and apostate. So S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and Cyril, who observes that a kindness hurts those who are ungrateful not of itself, but through their fault and ingratitude. S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4) says-“When Satan put himself into the heart of Judas, Christ went away from him, and in that moment when he received the former he lost the latter.”
The devil entered into Judas for three reasons. First, for his ingratitude, says S. Augustine; for Christ having discharged all the offices of love towards him, and he not being moved even by these, was left to be fully possessed by the devil. Then again, because the devil knew from the words of the Lord and from outward signs that he was stubborn in his evil will, and given over by the Lord, says Chrysostom (Homily 71). Thirdly, because Judas himself understood that he was now found out, and, as it were, separated from the disciples and from their Master; so he became hardened in evil, and, as if in desperation, gave himself over entirely to the devil; and so it was that he went out, unable to bear the looks of his Lord and of the disciples, or, says Euthymius, following S. Chrysostom, fearing lest he should be torn to pieces by them. So Ribera.
Notice here in the case of Judas how a man who deserts Christ is palpably deserted by Christ, and when deserted is attacked by Satan-possessed by him, and, when possessed, hurried into every crime, and then into the abyss. Just as Judas from an apostle became a devil, so Lucifer from the fairest of angels became the darkest of evil spirits,-as the sourest vinegar is made from the sweetest wine, and the heretic-Luther, for instance-nay, the heresiarch, is made from the monk.
And Jesus said to him: What thou doest, do more quickly-more quickly, that is quickly, as the Syriac translates it; the comparative is put for the positive. Christ is not precipitating the treason of Judas, but He permits it. He says as it were: Think not that thy doings are hidden from Me; I know that thou art meditating treason. He did not tell him to commit the crime, says S. Augustine, but He foretold it, not so much in wrathful desire for the destruction of the villain, as in haste for the safety of the faithful. He permitted it, saying, as it were: Do what thou hast begun, finish what thou didst intend; in a thousand ways could I hinder thee, but I will not; rather do I leave thee to thy free will. Do what thou hast planned in thy heart.
Thirdly, S. Chrysostom says they are words of reproach. I know that thou art working great evil against Me, from whom thou hast received so many gifts; are these the injuries thou repayest Me for so many kindnesses? But do what thou hast to do. For even though I have made known thy crime, yet have I not done so as fearing it, nor would I wish to hinder it; for if I wished I could do so; but in order to cast before thine eyes thy malice and thy shamelessness, and to reprove thee.
Fourthly, they are the words of a lofty mind that despises all the machinations of Judas. St. Leo (Serm. 1, On the Passion) says, “It is the voice of one who commands not but permits, of one not fearing but prepared, who, holding all time in His power, showed that He allowed no delay to the traitor, and that He so followed out the will of the Father for the redemption of the world, as neither to prompt nor fear the crime that was being matured.”
Fifthly, they are the words of one excluding Judas, as incorrigible, from His family and the fellowship of the apostles. Since thou wilt sever thyself from us, I exclude thee from My table, from My house, My apostolate, and My companionship; get thee gone, then, to thine own Jews and to Satan, to whom thou hast sold thyself. So S. Ambrose (De Cain et Abel, bk. ii. ch. 4). Cyril (bk. ix. ch. 17), following Origen, interprets in a novel fashion, taking these things as said by Christ not to Judas but to Satan, who was entering into Judas. He says that, “Just as if a mighty man against whom some one advances with hostile intent, trusting in his own might, doubts not but that his adversary shall fall, and, with loud and threatening noise, speaks: What thou doest do quickly, that thou mayest know the strength of my right hand. Such words we would not call so much the words of one in haste to die, as of one who knew before that his adversary must fall. So our Lord bids the devil run quickly to the things he has made ready, that being conquered and bound he may the sooner relieve the world of his tyranny.” But from what we have said it is clear that this was said to Judas and not to Satan, as the Fathers and interpreters generally hold.
Ver. 28.-But of this, none of those at table knew why He said it, … For though they knew from the words of Christ that Judas was to be His betrayer, yet they did not know that he would betray Him that very night; and therefore they did not understand that Christ, when He said, What thou doest, do quickly, was speaking of His betrayal, but interpreted it with reference to the purchase of things needful for the celebration of the Passover, Judas being the steward of Christ and the apostles.
Ver. 30.-When, therefore, he had received the morsel, he straightway went out. Both because he then became possessed by the devil, and also because Christ by the foregoing words had expelled him from His household. The word “therefore” refers to both these reasons. S. Augustine remarks that, the unclean one going forth, all they that were clean remained with Him that cleanseth them, like the wheat when the tares have been separated from it. S. Cyril observes that the devil impelled Judas to go forth immediately to betray Christ, lest, by the virtue of the Eucharist which, though unworthily received, was pricking his conscience, he might repent and think better of his crime. Origen adds further, that the teaching of Christ was so efficacious as to move His betrayer afterwards to say: I have sinned in betraying the innocent blood, nay, even to such sorrow, that unable to tolerate life he hanged himself, “showing” he says, “how great was the power of the teaching of Jesus even in a sinner, a thief, and a traitor, seeing that he even could not altogether set at nought the things he had learnt from Jesus.” Hence we may gather that it is good to bring about delays in the way of those who are suffering a strong temptation from the devil to commit some sin forthwith; for through this very delay, the matter being more maturely considered, the vileness, the evil results, and penalties of the sin come to be seen, and deter the man from its commission; and at last the heat of the temptation abates and slackens by reason of the mere delay.
On the other hand, when we are following after good and virtuous intentions, as, for instance, a resolution to enter the Priesthood or the Religious State, there is need of haste, lest our relatives, our companions, or the devil, by interposing delays, succeed in frittering away the whole scheme. Hear what S. Chrysostom says (Hom. 57), “While this love is burning in thee, betake thee straightway to the angels themselves and inflame it yet more exceedingly. Say not, I will first speak to my relations, and set my affairs in order; for such delay is the beginning of torpor. The disciple would bury his father, and Christ suffered him not. Why so? Because the devil is eager and watchful to creep into the soul, and if he can seize but a brief delay brings thee to lukewarmness.”
S. Anselm and S. Bernard speak in the same sense.
And it was night. John adds this, first, for the sake of historical completeness, to mark the time when Christ was betrayed and seized by the Jews; secondly,-to indicate the haste of the devil, who drove on Judas late at night to go and look for the guards who were perhaps asleep; and, thirdly, says S. Chrysostom (Hom. 71), “that we may appreciate the rashness of Judas whom the unreasonableness of the hour did not restrain.”
Symbolically, the Gloss says that the night-time is in keeping with the mystery, for he that went out was a son of darkness and did the works of darkness. The night indicates the darkness of mind in which Judas was, says S. Ambrose (De Cain, bk. ii. ch. 4), also the impenitence and condemnation to the darkness of hell, to which Judas was on his way. S. Gregory (“Morals,” ii. 2), “By the nature of the time the end of the action is expressed, and Judas, who was never to come back to pardon, is recorded to have gone forth by night. . . . For this cause it is said to the wicked rich man: This night shall thy soul be required of thee. His soul which is being carried away into darkness, is mentioned as being required of him not by day but by night.”
Ver. 31.-When, therefore, he had gone forth, Jesus said, Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him-“is glorified,” equivalent to “is soon to be glorified,” the perfect put for the immediate future; Judas is now gone forth to betray Me, therefore is my cross and death nigh at hand, and so far is it from bringing ignominy on Me that, on the contrary, by it I am to be supremely glorified. For in it shall I be recognised as not only man and the Son of man, but also the Son of God and God; for the Divinity that lieth veiled in My humanity shall be recognised by the darkening of the sun, the cleaving asunder of rocks, the opening of sepulchres, the rising up of the dead, and the quaking of all the earth,-all these things shall show forth that God suffereth and dieth upon the cross. And again by its effects, for by the cross will I subjugate to Myself the whole world, all the devils, and sin, death and hell, as the God and Lord of all things. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others. And here, note that by these signs God and the Godhead of Christ not only glorified the humanity of Christ but Itself also; for in them was made manifest the infinite goodness, power, wisdom, majesty, and glory of Christ’s Godhead.
Ver. 32.-If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall glorify Him straightway. If, that is because-because Christ, made obedient unto the death of the cross, hath by this His obedience, reverence, and sacrifice, glorified God the Father, therefore shall God the Father in turn glorify the Son in Himself, by demonstrating and making manifest the Divinity that is hidden in Him. And this straightway-quickly, for on the third day He shall raise Him up revived, and glorious in His death; on the fortieth day He shall cause Him to ascend in triumph into Heaven; and on the fiftieth to send down His Holy Spirit upon the apostles. By all these things He made known to the world that Jesus is not only man but God, and the Son of God. So Cyril and Chrysostom. Origen, in his 6th Homily, says that the glorification of Christ was twofold,-the former in His death, by which He was glorified in the lowliness of His mortality; and the latter in His resurrection, by which He was glorified in the sublimity of His immortality.
Secondly, S. Hilary (De Trinitate, bk. v.), and Toletus following him, think that God is said to be glorified in Christ, because He showed His own Divinity in His death and resurrection; proving Himself God and the Son of God by raising Himself from death, ascending into heaven by His own power, and thence sending down the Holy Spirit and working many wonders through the apostles. This interpretation is called for by the expressions-in Him, in Himself. The Godhead was veiled in Christ until His death, but it then shone out and thrust itself forth, showing Christ to be not only man, but also the Son of God, inasmuch as He raised Himself from death by virtue of His own Divinity. Origen says, “The Son is as Paul says, the brightness of the Divine glory, from whence come its splendours upon every rational creature; for only the Son is capable of comprehending all the brightness of the Divine glory.” The words “in Himself” may be referred, first, to “the Son of Man.” God glorified the Man Christ, by showing that He, as man, had God indwelling in Him, and the Godhead of the Word; and secondly, to “God”-God showing that the Man Christ subsists in the Divine Person of the Word, that is, in God.
Ver. 33.–My little children. Notice the tenderness of Christ’s feeling of love towards His apostles and the faithful. He says not “my sons,” but “my little children,” showing in our regard the heart, as it were, of a mother towards her newly born infants. Again, little children, because the apostles were as yet little in the faith and love of Christ, for they received its fulness and, as it were, their manhood from the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. Symbolically Cyril says that all the Saints are little ones in relation to Christ.
Yet a little (a little time) I am with you-because an hour hence I shall be betrayed by Judas and given up to the Jews. Christ is here taking His last farewell of His own. Farewell, He says, My well-beloved children, for I am going away from you to death, and after that I shall not converse with you as we have been wont, but shall return to heaven.
Ye shall seek Me, and, as I said to the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come. I by My death return to heaven; you, 0 apostles, bereft of My presence, shall seek Me in the tribulations and persecutions that await you, and shall wish that I were with you that you might consult Me in your doubts and receive comfort and consolation from Me in your troubles; but whither I go you cannot come, both because you cannot by your own strength-with your own feet and your own natural powers-follow Me when I ascend into heaven, and you have not yet the supernatural strength of grace. For you are not yet strong enough to be able to accompany Me to the Cross and the martyr’s death,-not yet so perfect in grace, strength, and love as to be fit for and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Lastly, you cannot come there yet, because My Heavenly Father has determined to send you after My death to preach the gospel throughout the world, and bring all nations to My faith and salvation.
As I said to the Jews. This, says Chrysostom, He adds to show that it is nothing new or fresh, but foreseen and predicted long before, and decreed by the Father. Moreover, it was to reveal to them that they should suffer persecution and death at the hands of the Jews as He was ill-used and slain. Thirdly, to indicate that they, like the Jews, were to suffer many tribulations and, at length, death, though for a different reason and a different end. For the Jews, cut off by reason of their crimes, went into hell, but the Apostles, slain for the sake of the Gospel, took flight to heaven.
And I say to you now-both in order to protect and arm you against all the tribulations that threaten you, and also that you may know at this time that you cannot yet follow Me, but that you shall follow Me when perfected in strength and merits, and following Me dying in your own death, you shall earn by faith in Me the laurel of Martyrdom in the kingdom of Heaven. Hence Christ, clearly explaining to Peter, says at ver. 36; Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter.
Ver. 34.-A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another. Why new? Various reasons are given. S. Augustine says, because the faithful, by love put off the old man and put on the new. “New,” says Jansenius, “that is renewed by Christ, having grown out of date in the minds of men.” Maldonatus says that “new” means excellent, surpassing. As in Rev. vii., the virgins are said to sing “a new song,” that is a remarkable one.
But I say that the command of love is called new, because it is the chief characteristic of the New Testament, and specially commended by the words and example of Christ; just as, on the other hand, the command of fear was the old command and the chief one among the Jews. The new law is that of love, as the old was of fear.
Secondly, because Christ here taught us this precept of love more explicitly, and more forcibly than it had been taught before; and for this cause He sent forth the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that we might fulfil this new commandment of love with a new spirit of love.
Thirdly, and more appropriately to the actual circumstances, new in respect of the new object and cause of love. For when Christ the Head of the Church was incarnate, there was brought about a peculiar community and union among the members of the Church, both among themselves and with Christ their Head, now made of like nature with themselves. A union both through the human nature assumed by Christ, and by the grace whose influence He, as Head, brought to bear upon us as members, and chiefly by that Sacrament of the Eucharist here instituted by Him. And this union is the foundation of that especial and more intimate love between Christ and Christians, and of that greater obligation to love one another. For by this union we are closely bound not only to the humanity of Christ, but also to His Godhead and to the Blessed Trinity, and by and through it to one another.
This sense is implied by Christ when He adds: that you love one another, as I have loved you-because I have loved you in a new and especial manner, taking upon Me your flesh and giving it to you by means of the Eucharist which I have just instituted as the food of your soul, that in this Sacrament I might unite you all to Me, and to one another in Me; for this cause I likewise demand of you, 0 Christians, that you love one another with a new and peculiar love, not merely as man loves man, because of their common nature, but as a Christian ought to love one who is united to himself in Christ, a fellow-member of the same Church of Christ and participator of the same Eucharist. For Toletus rightly observes that this command is given not to all men, but only to Christians.
As I have loved you, that ye love one another; that as I, when I was in the form of God, for love of you took the form of a slave to teach you, save you, and make you blessed, so you too descend to any humiliation or hardship whatsoever in order to help one another. This is what John says in his first Epistle, iii 16-“In this have we known the love of God, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
The words, “as I have loved you,” are but taken as relating to those which follow-“that ye love one another.” Toletus, and others, place a colon before the former. The former part of the verse gives the substance of the precept, the latter signifies the mode of its proper execution. Moreover, this latter part supplies a sharp incentive to this mutual love, as if to say: The love of Christ to you, 0 Christians, should stir you up to love one another. For those whom Christ so loved you also, His followers, must love. And again Christ in His love asks that you love one another.
Ver. 35.-In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love towards one another. My school is the discipline of love. If, then, you desire to follow Me as your Teacher, to be My disciples, and to be recognised as such by all men, love one another. This privilege is granted, therefore, only to charity. For it is not miracles that constitute us disciples of Christ, nor intellect, nor eloquence, nor strength, nor anything else but only love, says S. Chrysostom. For He is the Master, Leader, Prince, and Chief of love. Hence Paul says, Rom 13:8, “He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law.” Such were the early Christians of whom Luke, Act 4:32, says, “And the multitude of them that believed had one heart and one soul, and had all things in common.”
Simon Peter says to Him: Lord, whither goest Thou? Peter, says Chrysostom, asked this not for information, but that he might follow Christ, whom he loved supremely. But Cyril says that he was presuming too far; for he thought that he could follow Christ through all, and he could not yet. Wherefore Christ repressed him, adding, “Thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt hereafter.” At Rome, before the gate of S. Sebastian, there is a spot where stands a chapel, and there Christ appeared to S. Peter, who, at the entreaty of the Christians, was fleeing from the Mamertine Prison. And when Peter then asked Him, Lord, whither goest Thou? He answered, “I go to Rome, to be once more crucified.” So S. Peter, understanding that Christ was speaking of him, went back to his prison at Rome, and was soon after crucified by Nero. And for this reason that chapel is called to this day the “Domine quo vadis?”
Jesus saith to him: Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now. Because thou hast not yet received the Holy Ghost, by whose strength thou mayest overcome death, says Cyril. For Christ must needs go first and conquer death. Thou hast not now that constancy of soul and strength to die for Me; but the Holy Ghost will come upon thee, and then shalt thou be able. Moreover, Christ had destined Peter to be Head of the apostles, Prince and Ruler of the Church after Himself, and Founder of the Roman Pontificate.
But thou shalt follow Me hereafter, on the cross, and, by the cross, to heaven. The love and zeal of Peter at this time merited for him the privilege of being the first to follow Christ on the cross.
Ver. 37.–Peter says to Him, Why can I not follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thee. Peter says this with his wonted fervour and zeal, but a zeal not according to knowledge. For, suspecting that Christ was going to death, as He had foretold, he offers himself as a comrade to share all dangers with Him. I am ready with Thee to take every chance of danger; I offer myself to Thee as a companion for all that may befall; with Thee and for Thee I will gladly welcome death. The affectionate feeling of Peter for Christ, though without effect, is worthy of praise; he had not yet received the wings of love from the Holy Ghost to fly to so lofty a cross.
Ver. 38.-Jesus answered him: Layest thou thy life down for Me? Verily I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow before thou deny Me thrice. Christ humbles Peter, who trusts too much in himself, and suffers him to fall, that he may learn to confide not in his own strength but in the grace of Christ. Wherefore Christ repeatedly made this prediction to Peter. Hear S. Chrysostom (Hom. 72), “Thou shalt know by experience that thy love is nothing without Divine grace. And hence it appears that Jesus permitted this fall for his benefit.”