2.A Prophecy of the Denial (13:36-38)
JOHN 13
IV. THE FAREWELL DISCOURSES (13:1-17:26)
The public ministry of Jesus is over. John tells us nothing more of any words spoken by Jesus to the crowds. There are a few words to those who arrested him. There are a few to those who examined him. But apart from these the whole of the rest of the Gospel concerns Jesus' final teaching to his own disciples and the events surrounding the Passion. The section on the farewell discourses is noteworthy. There is nothing like it in the Synoptic Gospels. From them we learn that Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples in the upper room and that he instituted the Holy Communion there. Curiously John says nothing about this, and the reason is by no means clear. It will not do, as some suggest, to affirm that he has given us his eucharistic teaching in the sixth chapter, for, as we saw when we were dealing with that chapter, the hypothesis that Jesus was there talking primarily about the eucharist is not firmly based. It is more likely that to John "the inner significance of what happened in that upper room was in danger of being overlaid by materialistic beliefs" (Wright). He is concerned more with meaning than with ceremonial, and therefore gives us teaching that brings out the significance of the rite everywhere practiced by Christians. Lightfoot draws attention to the fact that after 13:2 John "avoids mention of any particular place or time in connexion with the events and instruction of chs. 13 to 17, until 181 is reached." He thinks that John wants his readers to have in mind "not only the original disciples, but all the future members of the Lord's body," and that it may be for this reason that he avoids mentioning the institution of the Lord's Supper, "a narrative describing a unique event." In these chapters John is concerned with principles and significance rather than with specific events. Attempts have been made to locate the point in the Johannine narrative at which the institution took place. This seems impractical John does not mention it, and he is thus not concerned to provide us with clues as to when it took place.
But if the Synoptists tell us of the institution of the Lord's Supper that John omits, John has much more that they omit. Their narrative leaves the way open for us to think of a discourse being delivered, for they speak of a Passover meal and there was usually teaching on this occasion. But it is to John that we owe the priceless teaching that Jesus gave then.1
A. TWO SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS (13:1-30)
Before the sustained instruction begins John narrates two important actions Jesus did. The first, that of washing the disciples' feet, is pregnant with meaning, the meaning of the cross that now loomed before Jesus. The second, that of giving the sop to Judas, taken with Jesus' words to the traitor, set in motion the events leading to the passion.
1. The Feet Washing (13:1-11)
1It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. 2The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples 'feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" 7Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what 1 am doing, but later you will understand." 8"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." 9"Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!" 10Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
In the Synoptic account of the events of this evening we read of a dispute among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. John does not record this, but he tells of an action of Jesus that rebuked their lack of humility more strikingly than any words could have done. Yet we should not take the feet washing, standing as it does at the head of the long section of the Farewell Discourse, as no more than a reaction to the petty-mindedness of the disciples. It is a significant action, setting the tone for all that follows. "It foreshadows the cross itself: the voluntary humility of the Lord cleanses his loved ones and gives to them an example of selfless service which they must follow" (Richardson). All the more is this the case in that it takes place during the meal (v. 2), not on arrival when the feet would normally be washed. This shows that it was an action undertaken deliberately, and not simply the usual act of courtesy.2 It is a parable in action, setting out that great principle of lowly service which brings cleansing and which finds its supreme embodiment in the cross,3 setting out also the necessity for the disciple to take the Lord's way, not his own. It is important that we see this. Many take the story as no more than a lesson in humility, quite overlooking the fact that, in that case, Jesus' dialogue with Peter completely obscures its significance! But those words, spoken in the shadow of the cross, have to do with cleansing, that cleansing without which no one belongs to Christ, that cleansing which is given by the cross alone. As Hunter says, "The deeper meaning then is that there is no place in his fellowship for those who have not been cleansed by his atoning death. The episode dramatically symbolizes the truth enunciated in I John 1:7, 'We are being cleansed from every sin by the blood of Jesus'."4
1 The chapter opens with a mark of time in the characteristic Johan-nine manner, though "just before the Passover Feast" (the expression looks back to 12:1) is perhaps not as precise as most such notes. John thinks of Jesus as in complete command of the situation: He "knew" that his hour had come. The verb "know" recurs (vv. 3, 11, 18; cf. 18:4; 19:28) as John brings out this point. "The time," or more literally "the hour" (see on 2:4), did not take Jesus by surprise. He knew that it was this that had now come,5 and he acted accordingly. The "hour" is not thought of now in terms of glory (as in 12:23), but of leaving the world6 and going to the Father. It marks the decisive end of Jesus' ministry. This leads John to a characteristic emphasis on the love7 Jesus had for his own.8 They were in the world and he had loved them there. Now he showed them "the full extent of his love."9 The whole verse with its emphasis on love may be meant to set the tone for the lengthy section it heads. Until now Jesus has had a ministry to people in general. From this point he concentrates on those he loves intimately.
2 According to the best text John locates the event he is about to describe as taking place "during supper."10 The exact meaning of the second half of the verse is not clear, and again there is textual difficulty. The best text appears to read "the devil had already made up11 his mind that Judas...." It is not unlikely that we should take "his" as meaning "the devil's," which gives us a very graphic expression, though some prefer to understand it as "Judas's." The reading appears to have been altered in subsequent MSS to give unambiguous expression to the idea that the devil put the thought into Judas's mind.12 Whichever reading we accept, it is, of course, part of the truth that at some time the devil did this. But to say he did it as this point appears to be in contradiction of verse 27. Here John is discussing the devil's thoughts rather than those of Judas. For "betray" see on 6:54.13
3 The subject is not expressed, but it must be "Jesus" (as NIV). Again John stresses Jesus' command of the situation. He knew what was taking place (see on 2:24; 4:18). Here we have an unexpected twist. Instead of something like "knowing what Judas would do," we have "knew that the Father had put all things under his power."14 The threshold of Calvary seems an unlikely place for a statement of sovereignty like this. But John does not view the cross as the casual observer might view it. It is the place where a great divine work was wrought out and the divine glory shown forth. So he describes it in terms of the Father's giving all things to the Son (see on 3:35 for the things the Father gives the Son). The reference to the Father is important. He is no idle spectator at the Passion, but he does his will there. John further refers to what is about to take place as a return to God of him who had gone out from God.15 This is the consummation of his mission. Both "from God" and "to God" receive a certain emphasis from their position. John is about to describe an act in which Jesus will take a very lowly place. But he does not lose sight for one moment of the truth that the highest possible place is his by right.
4-5 The present tense, "rises" (NIV changes to the past, "got up"), is vivid: the writer sees the scene taking place before his very eyes. The preparations are detailed: the rising from the table, the putting off of the clothing,16 the taking of a towel,17 the girding of himself,18 and the pouring of water into the basin.19 Then Jesus began20 to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel about his waist.21 Luke tells us that on this occasion the disciples quarreled as to who would be the greatest and that Jesus rebuked them by saying: "I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:24- 27). Jesus' action is a sharp rebuke to their attitude. For the significance of the action cf. 1 Samuel 25:41. Barclay quotes some words of T. R. Glover about certain clever intellectuals: "They thought they were being religious when they were merely being fastidious." There was nothing of this about Jesus.
6 There is no mention of any comment until Jesus came to Peter; apparently there was dead silence. But Peter expostulates. His "you" is emphatic, and in the Greek it is immediately followed by "my," thus placing the two in sharp contrast: "Lord, do you my feet wash?"
7 Jesus' reply puts "I" and "you" in emphatic contrast. Peter is far from having a sympathetic understanding of his Lord. "Later" is an indefinite time note22 Jesus does not say when it will be. But he does prophesy that one day Peter will understand what at the present moment is hidden from him (cf. 2:22; 12:16). In part Jesus may be referring to the explanation that he is about to give (vv. 12ff.). But in view of the later teaching in this section of the Gospel we may fairly infer that the primary reference is to the illumination of the Holy Spirit that was necessary, and that would be given (cf. 14:26; 16:13).
8 Peter's reaction is characteristically vigorous.23 He brushes aside Jesus' suggestion that something is happening the significance of which he does not yet know. To him it is unthinkable that Jesus should ever engage in the menial activity of washing his servant's feet.24 So he says that this will never happen. He will have no part in such goings on. "Peter is humble enough to see the incongruity of Christ's action, yet proud enough to dictate to his Master" (MacGregor). His words evoke the reply that if Jesus does not wash Peter, then Peter has no part with him. "Wash" in the Johannine manner will have a double meaning. In the context it must refer to the washing of the feet. Unless Peter submits to the feet washing he may not eat with Jesus. But Jesus means more. A literal washing of the feet is not necessary before one can be a Christian. The words point us to a washing free from sin that only Christ can give. Apart from this washing no one can be Christ's.
9 Now we have a characteristic Petrine touch. Convinced by Jesus' words, Peter will not do the thing by halves. Hands and head must be washed as well as feet. Peter may not have meant the words to be taken literally, but as a wholehearted renunciation of his previous refusal to be washed at all. But the answer is still the product of self-will. Peter is reluctant to let Jesus do what he wants. He prefers to dictate the terms. There is also a misunderstanding of the meaning of the action.25 It is not a way of cleansing the disciples, but a symbol of that cleansing. It is not the area of skin that is washed that matters but the acceptance of Jesus' lowly service.
10 Jesus gently discourages excess. The imagery is that of a man going to a feast. He will bathe at home. Then when he arrives he need only to wash his feet (soiled by the dusty paths) to sit at table wholly clean. Jesus applies this to the spiritual situation of his followers. "A person who has had a bath" points to the permanent character: he is not simply one who once upon a time was washed, but one who continues in the character of "the washed one."26 Such a person has no need for washing except the washing of the feet, but "his whole body is clean."27 Cf. Grimm-Thayer, "he whose inmost nature has been renovated does not need radical renewal, but only to be cleansed from every several fault into which he may fall through intercourse with the unrenewed world."28 This may be true, though I doubt whether the words actually used will yield all of it. Perhaps the meaning is "Such a cleansing as you indicate is not necessary. Anyone who has lined up with me, has identified with me, has been washed by me, has no need to supplement that washing. That person is wholly cleansed." Some see a reference to Christian baptism.29 But, apart from the fact that this appears to be reading something into the narrative, there is the further point that we have no evidence for thinking that the apostles were baptized (unless with John's baptism). Jesus goes on to affirm that the apostolic band ("you" is plural, showing that he is now looking beyond Peter) are clean in the sense meant, that is, clean from sin (cf. 15:3). He immediately adds, "though not30 every one of you."
11 John brings out the meaning of the last expression by noting once again that Jesus knew his betrayer.31 That was the reason why he said not all were clean. We should not overlook the fact that Jesus does not tell the disciples who the unclean person is. The reader of the Gospel knows, but right until the arrest the disciples know no more than that there is a traitor in their midst.
2. Lowly Service (13:12-20)
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you? " he asked them. 13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16/ tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. 18/ am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me. 'a 19/ am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. 20/ tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me. "
a. 18 Psalm 41:9
Jesus proceeds to bring out the implications of his symbolic action. He shows the importance of observing in daily life the principle that underlay that action.Characteristically the paragraph concludes with a reference to the position of Jesus and to his status as One sent by the Father.
12 Jesus completed his task. Evidently he washed the feet of all including Peter (and Judas too!). Then he resumed his garments and returned to his seat.32 He challenged them to think about the significance of what he had done.33
13-14 He reminds them of the way they addressed him.34 "Teacher," which is equivalent to "Rabbi," was the ordinary respectful way of addressing a religious leader. "Lord" was not nearly so common (though cf. 20:28; Rev. 4:11; see on 4:1). It expresses a very high reverence, perhaps even having overtones of divinity. Jesus proceeds to endorse this way of speaking. He commends the disciples, for these expressions point to his true position. But precisely because of this there are implications.35 His repetition of "Lord and Teacher" (the reversed order may be significant) emphasizes his dignity. This exalted Person has washed their feet.36 They37 ought to wash one another's feet. It is unlikely that this is to be taken as a regulation promulgated in the interests of pedal cleanliness. Though on occasion disciples ought to perform this needful service for one another, the point of what Jesus has said is rather that they should have a readiness to perform the lowliest service for one another. Nothing was more menial than the washing of the feet (cf. the reference to loosing the sandal thong; see the note on 1:27). No act of service should be beneath them.
15 Jesus makes it clear that his action was no casual event. It set them an example38 that they were to follow. Temple aptly remarks: "We would gladly wash the feet of our Divine Lord; but He disconcertingly insists on washing ours, and bids us wash our neighbour's feet."
16 For the solemn "I tell you the truth" see on 1:51. It marks the following statement as important. Jesus reminds his followers of their status as "slaves" and "men sent" (NIV, "servant" and "messenger").39 They are not to stand on their dignity or think too highly of themselves. If their Master and their Sender does lowly actions, then they, the slaves and the sent ones, should not consider menial tasks beneath their dignity. This saying (with variants) is found on four occasions (here, 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40; and cf. Luke 22:37). It was evidently a saying that Jesus loved to repeat.
17 The construction "If you know these things" carries the implication that in fact they did know them,40 and NIV brings this out by replacing "If" with "Now." But it is one thing to know and another to act on that knowledge. The disciples (and we) are reminded of the importance of acting on what is known. The precise meaning to be attached to "these things" is not clear. One would naturally refer it to the previous verse, with its teaching that a servant is not greater than his master, nor an agent than his principal. But one cannot "do" these things. Yet the meaning is not really in doubt. The previous passage sets out principles of conduct, and Christ's followers are to act on them. This is one of only two beatitudes in this Gospel (the other is in 20:29).
18 Once again the tragedy of Judas is brought to the fore. It must have made a big impression on John, for he mentions it so often. Here he records Jesus' explicit denial that his words refer to all of them.41 He knows whom42 he chose. The implication is that the choosing is the decisive thing. Once again we have the divine initiative. And once again there is an appeal to Scripture to clinch the argument43 The passage quoted is from Psalm 41:9.
The eating44 of bread together signifies close fellowship. Most commentators understand "lifted up his heel" as a metaphor derived from the lifting up of a horse's hoof preparatory to kicking, and this is probably correct. We should not, however, overlook the possibility that it is the shaking off of the dust from the feet that is meant (cf. Luke 9:5; 10:11). E. F. F. Bishop shows that the pointing of the foot in anyone's direction is among the Arabs a sign of discourtesy, even animosity.45 The point of the quotation is that Judas's action was unnatural. It represented the betrayal not of an acquaintance but of an intimate friend.
19 "From now"46 (NIV omits "from") seems a little strange; "at" rather than "from" this moment seems indicated. Perhaps the expression is meant to indicate an ongoing movement. The prediction is not separated from the fulfillment.47 And the prediction is given expressly to strengthen the disciples' faith. When it all happens they are to believe48 "that I am" (NIV adds "He"). The expression almost certainly has overtones of deity, as in 8:28 (where see note). The faith that Jesus looks for is one with a full content. We should not miss the tender concern implied in this prediction. The disciples might well have been seriously shocked and their faith shattered had the betrayal taken them completely unawares. They might have thought Jesus' enemies too resourceful for him. The prediction altered all that. It ensured that, on reflection, they would continue to see his mastery of the situation. When he was betrayed into the hands of his enemies it was just what he had foretold. He was not the deceived and helpless victim of unsuspected treachery, but One sent by God to effect the divine purpose going forward calmly and unafraid, to do what God had planned that he should do.
20 Again the solemn introduction (cf. v. 16) as the dignity of Christ's messengers is brought out. To receive the messenger is to receive the Sender49 and to receive the Sender is to receive the Father. The supreme dignity of Christ is in mind, as is the importance of aligning oneself with him. Earlier in this Gospel the thought of Jesus as being sent is common (see on 3:17). Later, as here, there is also the thought that he sends his people (Matt. 10:40 expresses a similar thought, though the language is different; cf. also Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; 10:16). Jesus' followers are people with a mission. These words are to be taken with those in verses 14 and 16. There the disciples are warned not to have too high an opinion of themselves, nor to stand on their dignity. To serve Jesus is to take the way of the cross, and it necessarily leads people into lowly paths. But it is not to be lightly esteemed. It has a high and holy dignity. Those sent by Christ are brought close to God.
3. A Prophecy of the Betrayal (13:21-30)
21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me." 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." 25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it? " 26Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon." 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. " What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.
Immediately after the explanation of the footwashing there comes a prophecy that one of those present will betray Jesus. Jesus has already indicated twice that something was amiss in the apostolic band (vv. 10,18), and the Evangelist has explained that the first of these refers to the betrayal (v. 11). But nothing has been said that makes clear to the disciples what is about to take place. Even now nobody, the traitor excepted, really knows what Jesus is speaking about. The reader of the Gospel knows that Judas is to betray him. The apostles know only that one of them is false in some undefined way.
21 A very human Jesus is described as "troubled in spirit" (see on 11:33). Though John pictures Jesus as in control of the situation he does not let us think of him as unmoved by the events through which he was passing. The words of Jesus are invested with a special solemnity, as we see from the introduction "testified50 and said" (NIV omits this second verb), and from Jesus' opening words, "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51). This is the third time that Jesus has referred to the traitor (vv. 10, 18). Previously, however, the reference has been very general. Now Jesus specifically assures the band of disciples (in the same words as Mark 14:18) that from among them will come a betrayer (for "betray" see on 6:64).
22 The announcement brought consternation. The disciples looked at one another in perplexity.51 It is clear that the news took them completely by surprise. It is interesting that neither here nor elsewhere does anyone express suspicion of Judas. He had covered his duplicity very well.
23 One of the disciples is singled out with the description "whom Jesus loved" (so also 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20). Neither here nor elsewhere is this disciple named, but there seems no reason for doubting that the apostle John is meant (so Bailey, Bernard, Barclay, and others).52 This disciple was reclining in Jesus' bosom.53 The usual arrangement at a formal meal54 was to have a series of couches arranged in a U around the table. The guests reclined with their heads toward the table and their feet stretched out obliquely away from it. They leaned on the left elbow, which meant that the right hand was free to secure food. The host, or the most important person, reclined in the center of the chief couch, a couch for three, placed at the junction of the two arms of the U. The place of honor was to the left of, and thus slightly behind, the principal person. The second place was to his right, and the guest there would have his head on the breast of the host.55 The place of the beloved disciple, was clearly on the principal couch where he could lean back on Jesus' breast.
24 Peter's position is not given. From our knowledge of the apostles we might have thought he would be on Jesus' other side, the place of honor. If this were the case, however, he could just as easily ask the question himself. So he probably was elsewhere. We have no way of knowing how seating would be arranged in the apostolic band. But Peter was somewhere where he could be observed by the beloved disciple and he made signs indicating that he would like to know who it was.56 It seems not unlikely that Judas was in the chief place. From Matthew's account it seems clear that Jesus could speak to him without being overheard by the others (Matt. 26:25). His position as treasurer would give him a certain status in the little group, and thus make the seat of honor not inappropriate. It is also possible that the giving to Judas of this place was part of Jesus' last appeal to the traitor.
25 The verb translated "leaning back" is the ordinary one for reclining at a meal, and it is used, for example, of Jesus resuming his place in verse 12. The aorist probably means a change of position57 (see on v. 12). The disciple leaned back as he was.58 By leaning back in this way he could speak very quietly and still be heard by Jesus.
26 Jesus answers59 that he will point the traitor out by an action. It is implied, though not actually stated, that the words could be heard only by him to whom they were spoken. It is clear that Jesus did not want the group as a whole to know the identity of the traitor. The giving of the "piece of bread" would not do this; indeed, it might be understood as a mark of honor, and thus help to keep his identity secret. John is referring to a small piece of bread or meat60 that the host would dip in the common dish and pass on to one of the diners.61 This he did and gave it to Judas (who must accordingly have been seated fairly close to Jesus). "He takes and gives" (NIV follows a shorter text) is more complicated than need be, perhaps to bring out the solemnity of the action. It may be for the same reason that Judas's full name is given (see on 6:71).
27 Satan (mentioned by name here only in this Gospel) now entered Judas. John is under no delusion as to the magnitude of the issues involved or the real source of Judas's inspiration. It was Satan who entered him and inspired his actions. John sees this as the critical moment. If the giving of the sop was a mark of favor or the like,62 it would be in the nature of a final appeal to Judas. But Judas did not respond. He gave himself the more fully to Satan's leading. "Therefore" (which NIV omits) indicates that Jesus realized how it was. He accordingly urged Judas to do what he had to do speedily.63 But his words are general and their real import remained hidden from the eleven.
28 John makes this latter point clear. Of those who reclined at the table none knew the reason for Jesus' words. This seems to imply that the beloved disciple did not grasp the significance of the sop at the time. It will also explain why he did not denounce the traitor to the others. There is nothing in the narrative to show that Jesus meant that betrayal was imminent. From all that has been said so far it may well have been far in the future. John as well as the rest thought that Judas's departure was concerned with other things. There seemed to be no reason for taking immediate action. We should also remember that the Synoptists inform us that when Jesus predicted the betray al the disciples asked, "Surely not I, Lord?" They had no thought at the time of a deliberate act of treachery; they were thinking of an involuntary betrayal. It should also be borne in mind that they were still ignorant of Christ's purpose in going to the cross. We are so used to reading the Gospels with this purpose in mind that we do not always stop to reflect that on the other side of Calvary it must have seemed incredible that Jesus should urge Judas to do his work of betrayal more quickly. Any understanding of his words other than this must have seemed preferable.
29 John gives us two interpretations that the disciples placed on the words. This was not necessary for his narrative, but perhaps he wants the reader to see that the disciples had no idea of what was going on and in this matter they were in sharp contrast with their Master. Judas was the treasurer of the little band and thus would be expected to buy anything that was necessary for the feast or to give alms. The former expression may indicate that the Passover still lay ahead, though the words might mean the seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Michaels catches the note of irony in the reference to giving to the poor: "The disciples who thought Judas was collecting for the poor could hardly have been more mistaken."
30 This verse tells us two things. Judas went out immediately after he had received the bread. And it was night. Both details point to an eyewitness. "Night" is surely more than a time note (at Passover there was a full moon). In view of the teaching of this Gospel as a whole it will point us to the strife between light and darkness and indicate that it was night, black night in the soul of Judas (cf. 11:10). He had cut himself off from the light of the world and accordingly shut himself up to night.
B. THE DISCIPLES' QUESTIONS (13:31-14:31)
It was not until Judas had left them that the discourse proper began. This teaching is for committed followers of Jesus only. The first section is interrupted by a series of questions from the disciples, not always the kind of question we might have anticipated. Jesus uses the questions as a means of bringing out further teaching. He answers the questions, but he usually goes beyond them.
1. The New Commandment (13:31-35)
31 When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. 321 f God is glorified in him,a then God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once. 33My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where 1 am going, you cannot come. 34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another. "
a. 32 Many early manuscripts do not have If God be glorified in him.
There is a good deal of discussion among commentators as to whether the discourse that follows should be thought of as coming from Jesus or as the reflections of the author. While few would be prepared to say that nothing in these chapters comes from the narrator, yet the words of Wright should be heeded: "every reader must feel that here he is in touch with the mind of our Lord. Here One is speaking, greater than the Evangelist. If these be the words of the Evangelist, he cannot be less than another Jesus." If Jesus is not speaking to us in these passages we must despair of finding his words anywhere.
A further topic that arouses controversy is whether we have here the original order of the chapters. The end of chapter 14 contemplates an immediate departure, but there are three more chapters before the little band is said to be elsewhere. Many urge, accordingly, that chapters 15 and 16 should be transferred to a position in the middle of 13:31. This helps us over some difficulties but introduces others (17:1 does not really follow well on 14:31; the reference to the "new" commandment in 13:34 does not sound as though it were originally spoken after 15:12, and there are other difficulties). An old view is that the departure did take place at the end of chapter 14 and that the following chapters are words spoken as the little group walked to Gethsemane. This is not impossible, though it cannot be proved. Another suggestion is that 13:31-14:31 and 15-17 give us alternative versions of the same discourse. Both are Johannine in style, so it is necessary to hold that the original author wrote both. Then either he was removed from the scene before he could decide which to use and someone else put both in, or he could not bring himself to drop either. Even the great names that support such views cannot make them plausible.
Such suggestions rest on the basic premise that these chapters do not conform to our canons of tidy and logical arrangement. But why should they? The writer did not think like a modern man, and it is too much to ask him to arrange his material according to our tastes. He does not do it elsewhere ("dislocations" are found by some critic or other in practically every part of this Gospel), and we ought not to look for it here. There is no MS evidence for any of the suggested rearrangements, nor any support in ancient writers. It is by far the best course to take the writing as it stands, recognizing that the writer was not concerned to arrange his work in accordance with our tastes.
It is significant that Jesus begins with instruction about love. The new thing that Christianity brought into the world was that "you must love one another" just as Jesus loved. It is also important that the themes of "going" and "coming" are prominent throughout the discourse. Dodd points out that in the section 13:31-14:31 "the longest passage without direct reference to going and coming is no more than five verses. This dialogue in fact is occupied with the interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ."64 It is the death and resurrection that really show us what love is.
31 The further time note indicates John's interest in the order of events. The departure of the traitor was a significant happening, for it meant that the little company was now purged of its evil element. It meant also that the betrayal was under way, and therefore that the great saving act to be consummated at Calvary was fairly launched. In these changed circumstances Jesus immediately65. Begins his teaching. "Now" points to present circumstances. Now that the betrayal is under way the glorification of the Son has begun. Indeed, this saying regards it as already completed.66 For "the Son of Man" (used here for the last time in this Gospel) see Additional Note C, pp. 150-52. There are some characteristic Johannine ideas here. The glorification of Christ is connected with what appears to human understanding as the very opposite of glory. Jesus is looking to the cross as he speaks of glory. Origen employs the striking expression "humble glory" to express this idea.67 And the glory of the Father is bound up with the glory of the Son. The two are one in the purpose of saving sinners. The glory of Christ as he stoops to save us is the glory of the Father whose will he is doing. The cross reveals the heart of God as well as that of Christ.
32 The text in the opening part of this verse is uncertain. Most MSS read "If God is glorified in him"68 at the beginning of the verse, but the words are omitted by an important group of MSS, possibly by homoioteleuton69 or because their retention makes an exceedingly complicated sentence. Even without these words the sentence is not straightforward. If they are retained, the conditional construction implies that the condition has been fulfilled.70 No doubt is being thrown on God's being glorified in Christ. Rather, Jesus is uttering three certainties. The first is that God is glorified in him (i.e., in his passion; see on v. 31). The second is that God will glorify Jesus in himself71 (i.e., in heaven; cf. 17:5). The resurrection will follow the crucifixion, and this will be the Father's seal on the work of the Son. Since the Father is glorified in the Son, the Father will certainly vindicate the Son and glorify him. The future tense points beyond the passion to the eternal glory of the Father that the Son will share. "As God is glorified in the Messianic work of the Son, so the Son shall be glorified in the eternal blessedness of the Father" (Plummer). The third is that God will do this without delay. Jesus is looking into the immediate future, not discussing a remote prospect.
33 "My children" is a diminutive expressing affection.72 Jesus knows that this teaching is difficult, but he wants his hearers to be sure of his tender concern for them. He proceeds to unfold a little more of the meaning of the preceding words. He will be with them only for a little while73 longer, and then, as he has already said to the Jews (i.e., Jewish leaders opposed to Jesus), they will look for him and will not be able to follow him (7:33-34; 8:21). He does not add, as he did to the Jews on the first occasion, "you will not find me," and this may be significant. The words puzzled the Jews when they were spoken to them and they puzzle the disciples now (v. 36). This saying is noteworthy in that it occurs in exactly the same words in 8:21 and 22 (where see note). It is the only saying I have found in this Gospel that is repeated exactly in three occurrences (see on 3:5 for John's habit of introducing slight variations). Obviously John attached significance to it. It is possibly also another example of this Evangelist's habit of using expressions to which more than one meaning might be attached, for the words might refer to Jesus' death or to his ascension. If both meanings are in mind, then Jesus is affirming that the disciples as they are go with him neither to death nor to the glory beyond.
34 "A new commandment" (cf. 1 John 2:8) is in an emphatic position in the Greek. It is important. This is the one place in this Gospel where Jesus uses the term "new."74 The content of the commandment is given very simply: "Love one another." Jesus is not speaking here of love to all people but of love within the community of believers (it "is presented as the marching order for the newly gathering messianic community," Carson). Love itself is not a new commandment, but an old one (Lev. 19:18). The new thing appears to be the mutual affection that Christians have for one another on account of Christ's great love for them.75 A community has been created76 on the basis of Jesus' work for us, and there is a new relationship within that community. "It was 'new,' because the love of Christ's friends for Christ's sake was a new thing in the world" (Dods). Jesus himself has set the example.77 He calls on them now to follow in his steps. He is not asking them to do any more than he himself has done.78
35 This is to be the distinguishing mark of Christ's followers. All people will know that they are Jesus' disciples if, and only if, they love one another (cf. 1 John 3:23; 4:7-8, 11-12, 19ff., etc.).79
2. A Prophecy of the Denial (13:36-38)
36Simon Peter asked him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replied, "Where 1 am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later." 37 Peter asked, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!"
All the Gospels tell us that Jesus prophesied Peter's threefold denial (Matt. 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34). Clearly it made a profound impression on the early church.
36 The full name "Simon Peter" is used as this apostle ignores the words about love and reverts to the subject of Jesus' departure. He speaks respectfully ("Lord"; for this term see on 4:1), and inquires where the Master is going. Jesus' reply retains the element of mystery.80 He repeats his earlier statement, though in the singular, making it personal to Peter: "Where I am going, you cannot follow now."81 But to this he adds a further point: "You will follow later."
37 Peter appears astounded and his pride in his discipleship is hurt. Still using the respectful "Lord" in his address,82 he goes on to inquire why he cannot follow. He affirms his readiness to lay down his life for83 Jesus. The words Peter uses are almost exactly the same as those used of the Good Shepherd (10:11). John may well be indulging here in some more of his irony.
Peter affirms his readiness to die for Jesus. The exact opposite is true and that in two ways. In the first place Peter was not really ready, as the sequel would show. And in the second Jesus was about to lay down his life for Peter.
38 Jesus' reply84 queries his follower's confident assumption. Peter's readiness to die for Jesus is not quite what he thinks it is. His use of the sword in the garden shows that he was ready in certain circumstances to face death boldly. There was truth as well as error in his words. But he was not ready to stand for Jesus when all seemed lost. That demanded a different brand of courage and devotion. Now comes Jesus' prediction of the denial (for Jesus' knowledge see on 4:18). It is introduced with the solemn "I tell you the truth" (see on 1:51). This is no casual remark. It is a solemn pronouncement made in full awareness of its gravity. Jesus assured Peter that a cock would not crow85 until he has three times denied86 him (see 18:27 for the fulfillment). The prediction must have come as a shock to Peter. It evidently quite subdued him, and this may be the reason he remained silent throughout the rest of the time in the upper room, though the others apparently spoke freely. We do not hear of him again until 18:10.
———————————————
1. T. F. Glasson points out that Deuteronomy is the farewell discourse of Moses, and that in these chapters there are many allusions to Deuteronomy (Moses in the Fourth Gospel [London, 1963], pp. 74-78). This is another of the ways in which John sees Moses as helpful for an understanding of the significance of Jesus and what he taught.
2. Hoskyns protests against views that stress the sacraments, or that reduce the action to a lesson in humility. John "is not preoccupied with two sacraments, as Loisy seems to be; he is preoccupied with the Jesus of History, with His life, death, and resurrection ... the washing of the disciples' feet rests upon and interprets the death of the Lord, and is not a detached action containing in itself a merely ethical lesson." Cf. also the important treatment of the incident by J. A. T. Robinson in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann (Leiden, 1962), pp. 144ff. For a notice of the variety of interpretations of this passage see A. Corell, Consummation Est (London, 1958), pp. 69ff.
3. Literal foot washing has been practiced from time to time in the Christian church. For a good account both of the practice and its significance see Hoskyns, Detached Note 7 (pp. 443-46). See also the article "Feet washing" in ERE. Calvin's comment should be heeded by all who take the practice as one to be perpetuated: "Every year they hold a theatrical feet-washing, and when they have discharged this empty and bare ceremony they think they have done their duty finely and are then free to despise their brethren. But more, when they have washed twelve men's feet they cruelly torture all Christ's members and thus spit in the face of Christ Himself, This ceremonial comedy is nothing but a shameful mockery of Christ. At any rate, Christ does not enjoin an annual ceremony here, but tells us to be ready all through our life to wash the feet of our brethren." This is a strong warning against externality. More than an action is required. It is a spirit, an attitude toward others.
4. Hunter adds, "Many people today would like to be Christians but see no need of the cross. They are ready to admire Jesus' life and to praise the sublimity of his moral teaching, but they cannot bring themselves to believe that Christ died for their sins, and that without that death they would be lost in sin. This, as Brunner has said, is one of the prime 'scandals' of Christianity for modern man — and the very heart of the apostolic Gospel."
5. The aorist ήλθεν signifies "came"; it points to the moment of arrival. Moulton sees in it probably "one of the most ancient uses of the aorist... expressing what has just happened" (Μ, I, p. 135).
6. "World" (κόσμος) is a very important concept in John (see Additional Note B, pp. 111-13). In the whole Gospel it occurs 78 times, and 40 of these are in the account of what went on in the upper room. The "world" is of great importance for an understanding of this section of the Gospel. Jesus is preparing his disciples for a mission to "the world."
7. Dodd draws attention to an interesting change in the Johannine vocabulary from this point on. The earlier part of the Gospel is marked by the use of words like life (ζωή, ζήν, ζωοποιεϊν) and light (φως, φωτίζειν; σκότος, σκοτία). In chapters 1-12 the words of the former group occur 50 times and the latter 32 times, whereas in chs. 13-17 the "life" words are found but 6 times and the "light" words not at all. By contrast άγάπη, άγαπαν are found 6 times in chs. 1-12 and 31 times in 13-17 (IFG, p. 398). Clearly love takes on a new prominence in the Farewell Discourses.
8. Moulton notes that ό Ιδιος without a noun expressed is used in the papyri "as a term of endearment to near relations" (Μ, I, p. 90). He cites only the singular, but the plural here has a similar warm content. In 15:19 we have the parallel thought that the world loves its own.
9. είς τέλος (this noun is found only here in this Gospel) is ambiguous, meaning both "unto the end" (KJV) and "to the utmost." It is likely that we have here a typical Johannine double meaning, with both meanings intended. If we say that the aorist, ήγάπησεν, is more consistent with love shown in a single act than with the continuance of love (imperfect), we may also say that boundless love is more significant than love till the end of Jesus' life (which was very close).
10. γινομένου is read by K*BLW etc. and γενομένου by p66 
° AD Θ fl fl3 etc. The former clearly means "during supper," the latter probably "after supper" (as KJV; Field, however, accepts it and takes it to mean, "a supper was holden"); perhaps it could mean "supper having been served." An action like the footwashing would seem more likely after a meal than as an interruption during the course of a meal, which might explain γενομέμου. The reverse alteration is more difficult to understand. That the incident took place before the end of the meal is plain from verse 26. For δεΐπνον see on 12:2.
11. βάλλω is normally used in the New Testament with more of a sense of moving something physical. BAGD, however, cites classical parallels for the idea of putting something into the heart or mind. For τίθημι in a similar construction cf. Luke 21:14.
12. The latter reading requires the genitive 'Ιούδα, which is read by A D Θ fl, but the nominative 'Ιούδας is to be preferred with p66 Β etc.
13. The verb is παραδοΐ, which Howard describes as "An obviously vernacular form. . . . Though a late form of the opt. coincides with it, there is not the slightest syntactical reason for doubt that in NT is it always subj." (Μ, II, p. 211).
14. In 3:35 the Father gave all things έν Tfj χειρι αύτοϋ. Here the expression is αύτω είς τάς χείρας. Again we see John's habit of introducing small variants without great difference of meaning.
15. This is one of two places in this Gospel where έξέρχομαι is followed by άπό, the other being 16:30. The construction occurs fairly often in Luke, somewhat less so in Matthew, and once only in Mark. John prefers to use έx. See on 1:44 for John's use of άπό and έx. The thought is repeated in 16:27-28, another example of John's habit of making minor alterations in repetitions, though without appreciable difference of meaning. For υπάγω see on 7:33.
16. Though the word is plural, τά Ιμάτια, it is possible that a single garment is meant. But it seems more likely that we should take the plural seriously. Elsewhere John uses the singular for one outer garment in 19:2, 5 and the plural for all the garments in 19:23, 24. If Ιμάτια here has the same meaning as in the latter passages, then Jesus stripped to a loin cloth, just like a slave, τίθησιν, "puts aside," is the verb used of Jesus' laying down his life in 10:17-18.
17. λέντιον (only in this passage in the New Testament and not attested in earlier writings) is a loanword from the Latin linteum. It denotes a long towel, so that Jesus could gird himself with it and still use the free end to dry the disciples' feet. Cf. 1 Pet. 5:5.
18. John changes to the aorist διέζωσεν after a succession of presents, but the reason is not apparent. He is the only New Testament writer to use this verb (13:4,5; 21:7).
19. It is not certain what the rare word νιπτήρ means. We are not helped by the fact that it does not appear to occur before this passage. Washing would not be in a basin as with us, but water would be poured over the feet from one vessel and presumably caught in another, and it is not clear which was the νιπτήρ. Rieu renders "jug," but most translators, "basin." In view of the compound ποδονιπτήρ (which p66 actually uses here) it is perhaps more likely to refer to the basin, for it is difficult to see the relevance of the compound to an ewer. This is the only New Testament use of the term. The cognate verb νίπτω, "to wash," used here, is employed by John in 13 of its 17 New Testament occurrences.
20. The verb is often used in the Synoptic Gospels practically as an auxiliary (a Semitic use). But in this, the only place where it occurs in John (though cf. 8:9), it means "began." The order in which Jesus washed the feet is not given. Chrysostom thinks that the Greek indicates that he washed someone else (namely, "the traitor") before coming to Peter (70.2; p. 258).
21. Temple comments: "We rather shrink from this revelation. We are ready, perhaps, to be humble before God; but we do not want Him to be humble in His dealings with us. We should like Him, who has the right, to glory in His goodness and greatness; then we, as we pass from His presence, may be entitled to pride ourselves on such achievements as distinguish us above other men . . . man's humility does not begin with the giving of service; it begins with the readiness to receive it. For there can be much pride and condescension in our giving of service."
22. μετά ταϋτα. The plural probably points to all the events associated with the Passion.
23. He uses the emphatic double negative ού μή (except on the lips of Jesus only in 11:56; 20:25 elsewhere in this Gospel), and backs it up with είς τόν αιώνα.
24. It is sometimes pointed out that this task was so menial that a Hebrew slave was not required to perform it, though a Gentile slave might be. This is so, but the point must not be overstressed. After all, a wife was obliged to wash her husband's feet, and children those of their father (SBk, II, p. 557). For Christian practice cf. 1 Tim. 5:10.
25. Newbigin points out that to try to add to what Jesus has done "would be comparable to supposing that one could increase the efficacy of a U-turn by turning 360° instead of 180°. One would not have enhanced but negated the usefulness of the action.,.. Nothing can be added to what Jesus has done on the cross, and nothing can be added to baptism."
26. Such appears to be the force of the perfect ό λελουμένος. The verb properly applies to the bathing of the whole body as against νίψασθαι, which is rather the washing of a part.
27. There is a shorter reading that omits ει μή τοϋς πόδας. This is supported chiefly by vg Tert Or. It gives the sense "He that is bathed does not need to wash." But the strong preponderance for the longer reading should probably be respected (as Metzger's committee hold). All the more is this the case in view of the difficulty of giving a satisfactory meaning to "bathed" in the context if the shorter reading be accepted (Haenchen asks, "What then is the point of the footwashing?"). Further, the shorter reading contradicts verse 8. It is interesting that Hoskyns, Barrett, and other modern commentators decide for the shorter reading, whereas Phillips, Rieu, NTV, GNB, and most modem translations accept the longer text (REB opts for the shorter reading).
28. Sub καθαρός.
29. Corell even discerns a reference to "the Sacrament of Penance" (Consummatum Est, p. 72)!
30. ούχί is the strong negative. Abbott points out that in this Gospel the construc-tion ού . . . πας in the sense "not any" does not occur, but that three times in this passage we have it in the sense "not all," namely verses 10, 11, and 18 (2262-63). οΰχί is most commonly used in this Gospel in questions, so that the use here is noteworthy. Abbott finds no parallel (2265 [i]).
31. For παραδίδωμι see on 6:64. The present here may possibly signify "him that was betraying me." For Jesus' knowledge see on 2:24.
32. άνέπεσεν. Plummer points out that this verb (in the New Testament confined to the Gospels) "always implies a change of position."
33. γινώσκετε is usually taken as interrogative, but it might well be imperative: "Understand what I have done" (so Rieu).
34. The nominative ό διδάσκαλος και ό κύριος is equivalent to a vocative. BDF reminds us that "Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, therefore addressed in the 3rd person.. .. The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ό θεός, ό πατήρ etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article" (147 [3]).
35. ούν is used with full meaning.
36. έγώ (see on 1:20) puts emphasis on the subject and stresses Christ's place, which is further brought out with ό κύριος καί ό διδάσκαλος. The insertion of these words without any connecting word poses a problem. Does Jesus mean "If I washed your feet although I am your Lord and Teacher" or "because I am your Lord and Teacher"? Most interpreters take it in the former sense, but the latter is not at all impossible. It would stem from the idea, so plain in this Gospel, that true greatness is seen in lowly service.
37. και ύμεϊς puts emphasis on the apostles. They too must act in the spirit so challengingly demonstrated by their Lord.
38. υπόδειγμα is a word rejected by the Atticists, who preferred παράδειγμα (which is not found in the New Testament). It may refer to an example to be avoided (Heb. 4:11), but more usually to one to follow, καθώς . . . ϰαί shows how closely they are to follow the example given. At the same time we should notice that this is not identical with "as I have done." It is the spirit and not the action that is to be imitated.
39. The use of απόστολος for "one sent" and πέμψαντος for the "one sending" is an illustration of the impossibility of seeing a distinction between άποστέλλω and μέμπω in this Gospel. See further on 3:17. This is the one place in John where the term απόστολος is found.
40. εί with the indicative. It is interesting that the further protasis, έ&ν ποιήτε αύτά, though connected with the same apodosis, puts the condition with less certainty. Jesus implies that the disciples do know these things, but he leaves it an open question whether they act on their knowledge.
41. For the construction ού . . . πάς see on verse 10.
42. τίνας may mean "what kind of men," as in Barclay's translation: "I know the kind of men whom I have chosen" (so also Rieu and others).
43. For the ellipsis of a principal verb before ίνα see on 1:8. Phillips sees imperatival ίνα with "But let this Scripture be fulfilled" (Goodspeed is similar). It seems better, however, to supply some such words as "this is," as NIV, "this is to fulfill the scripture."
44. For the verb τρώγω see on 6:54. It is not found in LXX of Ps. 41:9. The end of the quotation also differs from LXX, and it seems clear that John has made his own translation from the Hebrew.
45. ExT, LXX (1958-59), pp. 331-33.
46. άπ' άρτι. A number of translators take it to mean "from now onwards" and understand λέγω in a future sense (Phillips, Goodspeed, Weymouth, and others). This does seem to be stretching the Greek a little, and it seems better to understand the expression as "now" (Barrett, Rieu, NIV, NRSV, GNB, etc.). BDF cites A. Fridrichsen as supporting the meaning "exactly, certainly," and Debrunner "definitely" (12 [3]). For Debrunner see Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XI (1947), p. 47.
47. The articular infinitive (πρό τοϋ γενέσθαι) is to be noted, for the construction is rare in this Gospel. See on 1:48.
48. The present subjunctive πιστεύητε may be meant to indicate a continuing faith (though we should add that the aorist is read by many MSS).
49. έμέ is emphatic, both from its form and its position.
50. μαρτυρέω is most commonly used in this Gospel with reference to the witness borne to Jesus (see on 1:7). Its use here marks the following statement as a solemn affinnation, one not lightly made.
51. άπορούμενοι is middle in form (as usually in the New Testament), but active in meaning, though the active also occurs (e.g., Mark 6:20). The verb suggests perplexity, being at a loss, rather than doubt.
52. It has been suggested that the beloved disciple is to be identified with Lazarus on the grounds that this Evangelist specifically tells us that Jesus loved that man (11:3, 5, 36). This is an attractive hypothesis, but it is not easy to fit Lazarus into all the evidence. Nothing in the Gospels leads us to think that Lazarus had entered into the mind of Jesus as fully as the beloved disciple had. Moreover, Mark 14:17 appears to mean that it was the Twelve who were with Jesus at the Last Supper, and this rules Lazarus out. No explanation other than that John the son of Zebedee is meant appears to give a satisfactory explanation of the omission of all reference to that apostle from this Gospel. From the Synoptists it is plain that he was a prominent member of the apostolic band. It is intelligible that he should omit all reference to himself from his Gospel, but why should anyone else do this? The evidence indicates that he was close to Peter (e.g., 13:24; 20:2; 21:7; cf. 18:15; Acts 3). Tradition unanimously supports John. No other name is suggested in antiquity. See further the Introduction, pp. 5ff.; SFG, pp. 246ff.
53. έν τω κόλπω τοϋ Ίησοϋ. In the only other place where John uses κόλπος it refers to the Son's being in the bosom of the Father (1:18, where see note). It may be that this passage is meant to evoke memories of that one, and that we are to regard the expression as hinting at the tender regard Jesus had for this disciple. But it is going too far to say, "the specially favoured disciple is represented as standing in the same relation to Christ as Christ to the Father" (Barrett).
54. For the conduct of a meal at this period see SBk, IV, 2, pp. 611-39. At other meals Jews might sit or recline, but on special occasions like Passover reclining was mandatory.
55. "The senior takes his place first, the second next above him, and then the third one below him" (Ber. 46b; Soncino edn., p. 283). Brown cites F. Prat for the information that the second place was on Jesus' left, so that the Beloved Disciple was in the third place on Jesus' right, in which place he could lean back with his head on Jesus' chest. So Haenchen, "The actual place of honor was the left hand position," and Carson, "the place of highest honour was at the left hand of the host, not the right."
56. As is usual in this Gospel we have the direct form (rather than an indirect question): "Say 'Who is it... ?י " The majority of MSS do read πυθέσθαι τις αν εΐη, but most agree that this is unlikely to be correct. The direct question has the support of א Β lat, and it is most unlikely that an original indirect question would be altered to this form. The reverse procedure is much more likely.
57. Robinson speaks of "the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by άναπεσών"; he sees this "further enforced in the original by a change in both the prepositions and the nouns, from έν to έπί, and from κόλπος to στήθος. S. John was reclining on the bosom of his Master, and he suddenly threw back his head upon His breast to ask a question" (Priority, p. 161).
58. On οΰτως Abbott remarks, "The meaning probably is, that the beloved disciple, instead of turning round to speak to Jesus (which would have attracted attention) merely , leaned back a little, keeping the same attitude)' " (1917).
59. For the rare άποκρίνεται see on 12:23.
60. Lagrange thinks that in this case it was meat: "The bread being at the disposal of each of them, one would rather offer a portion of meat." The term ψωμίον is used four times in this narrative and nowhere else in the New Testament.
61. For the significance of the redundant αύτω see on 1:27.
62. Most commentators agree that the giving of a morsel in this fashion was a gracious compliment from the host to one of the guests. This may indeed be the case, but no evidence from antiquity appears to be cited (John Lightfoot says that it "was a very unusual thing to dip a sop [buccellam] and reach it to any one" (HHT, p. 378). Hendriksen denies this significance and sees it as "a warning for Judas," But he does not explain how Judas was to know that it was a warning, nor does he say of what Judas was being warned.
63. τάχιον is comparative in form and strictly means "more quickly." John uses both ταχέως (11:31) and ταχύ (11:29), while in the only other place where he employs τάχιον (20:4) it is a true comparative. It seems probable that we should take the word in its proper sense. John may want us to think of Judas as not originally intending to consummate the betrayal that night. Jesus made him do it "more quickly" than he wished. It is Jesus, not Judas, who determines the time of the passion. It is, of course, possible to take the comparative as equivalent to a superlative and understand it in an elative sense, "very quickly" or the like (cf. Rieu, "The quicker you act the better"). Cf. Luke 12:50 for the state of mind behind the saying.
64. IFG, p. 403.
65. Moulton sees here another example of the aorist used to express what has just happened (see on v. 1).
66. The aorist έδοξάσθη contemplates the glorification as a completed whole. It also lends a note of certainty to the saying. Nothing can prevent the complete accomplishment of this glorification. For δοξάζω see on 7:39.
67. Cited by M. F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge, 1960), p. 82.
68. The words are read by 2 A C2 ΘΨ fl3 lat sa etc. But they are omitted by
important MSS like p66 * Β C* D W fl it syrs.
69. Note the repeated έν αύτω .. . έν αύτω. It is countered that, apart from εi, the insertion could be explained by dittography. But the εί remains as a stumblingblock to any theory of accidental addition.
70. εί with the indicative.
71. Reading έν αύτω or έν έαυτω, as most agree. It is also possible to read έν αύτω and understand it to refer to Christ, that is God will glorify him in his own human person: "God will also give him glory of his own" (Rieu). But this is less likely.
72. The Greek means "Little children." τεκνίον is found here only in the Gospels. It appears as a variant reading in Gal. 4:19 and elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 John, where it occurs 7 times. It is thus a Johannine word, and one not used excessively. Since John has used τέκνον on three occasions the diminutive should be seen as significant. Jesus is speaking with tenderness, like a father to his little children. The word incidentally is always plural in the New Testament.
73. This is the first example of μικρόν used substantively in this Gospel, but it recurs in the following chapters (14:19; 16:16 his, 17 bis, 18, 19 bis). The thought of a short interval sounded throughout the final discourse. The expression χρόνον μικρόν is found in 7:33; 12:35.
74. καινός is used also of the tomb (19:41). Perhaps we should notice also that the risen Lord once uses the comparative of νέος (21:18). Turner sees the present passage as an example of the predicative use of the adjective, with the meaning, "I give you it anew" (Μ, III, p. 225). This, however, scarcely seems justified.
75. Cf. Plummer, "The commandment to love was not new, for 'thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself' (Lev. xix. 18) was part of the Mosaic Law. But the motive is new; to love our neighbour because Christ has loved us. We have only to read the 'most excellent way' of love set forth in 1 Cor. xiii., and compare it with the measured benevolence of the Pentateuch, to see how new the commandment had become by having this motive added."
76. The men of Qumran were very fierce toward outsiders, but they had a high regard for love within the brotherhood (see, i.e., 1QS 1:10; v. 26). John cannot parallel their hatred for outsiders but the love within the fellowship forms another point of contact.
77. It may be significant that in speaking of his own love Jesus uses the aorist tense ήγάπησα, but on both occasions when he speaks of the disciples loving one another, the present αγαπάτε (cf. also v. 35; 15:12). His love was strikingly set forth in the cross; they are to keep on loving.
78. Note the significance of καθώς . . . και ΰμεϊς. The second ϊνα will not depend on the first, but rather be coordinate with it, so that the second clause reaffirms and amplifies the first. It is in accordance with John's method that there are slight differences between the two ways the thought is expressed in this verse, and that 15:12 differs from both (see on 3:5). It is also quite Johannine in that the saying here is ambiguous (Christ's love may be the measure or the ground of ours) and that both meanings are probably intended.
79. Turner points out that έν means "in," not "to," and sees no reason why the Greek here "should not be construed, 'if you have love among one another' " (Grammatical Insights, p. 121). Tertullian tells us that in his time the heathen commented on the Christians:"See, they say, how they love one another . . . how they are ready even to die for one another" (Apol. 39; ANF, III, p. 46). Chrysostom, however, complains that in his day Christians show all too little love: "even now, there is nothing else that causes the heathen to stumble, except that there is no love.... Their own doctrines they have long condemned, and in like manner they admire ours, but they are hindered by our mode of life" (72.5; pp. 266, 267). Such words are not irrelevant in our own day. Beasley-Murray remarks, "The attractive power of communities of love is no less evident in our age, where such communities are increasingly uncommon" (p. 264). For άγάπη in John see on 5:42.
80. "Why does not Jesus give a straight answer to that simple question? Because the answer is the whole revelation which can only be given 'afterward' when the work of Jesus is complete" (Newbigin).
81. It may be significant that this time the personal pronouns are omitted. In verse έγώ and ΰμεΐς put Jesus and the disciples in strong contrast. When Jesus repeats the words to Peter, this contrast is not stressed. Instead we find νϋν inserted. The emphasis appears to be on present circumstances.
82. According to the usual text. Κύριε is omitted by a few important MSS such as 565 33 * vg syrs, and it may possibly have crept in by scribes imitating verse 36.
83. For ύπέρ see on 6:51.
84. For the rare άποκρίνεται see on 12:23.
85. There is some evidence that the cock was held to crow at a set time (cf. Mark 13:35 for cock-crow as fixing one of the four watches of the night). NBD says that "in many countries the domestic cock was regarded as an alarm clock" (p. 156). However, in this place it seems that an actual crowing is meant, as the words recording the fulfillment note.
86. The subjunctive after έως ού indicates that the time is indefinite.