Chapter XIII.

Chapter XIII.1-20.On the night before (according to the Jewish method of reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of Judas.21-30.He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.31-39.He foretells the near approach of His own death and glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and predicts the triple denial by Peter.With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel commences. SeeIntrod. IV.St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before our Lord's death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39-44); the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12-14); or the cleansing of the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he records very much that they omit.1. Ante diem festum paschae, sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos.1. Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.1.Before the festival day of the pasch.We are here met by a serious difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast. If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation, come to the conclusion—(a) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the Paschal Supper on the night[pg 227]before He died; and (b) that the Jews that year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us:“And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples”(Matt. xxvi. 17-20). Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12-17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7-14) seem to take for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was come, for St. Mark says:“Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him,”&c.; and St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on whichit was necessarythat the pasch should be killed.”St. John, on the other hand, in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events of this last night of Christ's mortal life, speaks of the time as;“Beforethe festival day of the pasch.”Moreover, in subsequent passages82of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ's last supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the difficulty of reconciling St. John's account with that of the Synoptic Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us most probable.(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the“first day of the Azymes,”in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast.[pg 228]In this view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John's account with that of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held“before the festival day of the pasch.”This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve.83Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat down, Christ said:“With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer”(Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy Office and its author imprisoned.84(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time for celebrating it.But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says:“Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the Imperf. denoting what wascustomary) the pasch, the disciples say to[pg 229]Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it wasnecessary(ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed”(Luke xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for the Paschal Supper.(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and has no evidence to support it.(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,85Cornely, &c., hold that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the 14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th. Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St. John's statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that year by the Judeans, and so places itbeforethe feast; they, on the other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of Azymes.86The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour were[pg 230]proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity. Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben-Ezra (on Levit. xxiii. 4) says:“Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in secundam, quartam, etsextamferiam quandoque incidisse.”Since, then, the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St. Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV., Patriz., M'Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,87can all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the passages on which they are founded.We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal week.And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:“Before the festival day of the pasch.”If Christ celebrated the Last Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of the time of this supper as“before the festival day of the pasch”? To this difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St. John means by“day”the natural day, or time of light; and then it is plain that[pg 231]a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before the festivaldayof the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in the original St. John does not merely say“Before the festal day,”but“Before the festal period”(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp.,e.g., vii.2,14,37).(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ;“quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi”are the words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith'sB. D., Art.“Passover.”(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves, reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.88Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation. Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He now chose to manifest towards them His lovein an extraordinary manner. Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated“unto the end,”we understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the meaning of the phrase, as equivalent toexcessively, orin a surpassing manner. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well in the washing of the Apostles' feet as in the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood, and the loving discourse which followed this supper.2. Et coena facta, cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotae:2. And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),2.And when supper was done.We have taken for granted that the supper here[pg 232]mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the departure to the Garden of Olives.89“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek reading, which in the Vulgate is translated‘coena facta’; for thepresentparticiple (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that, considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαιto be, to come into being), even thepastparticiple by no means implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced, and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John xxi. 4:‘When morningwas come;’in Mark vi. 2,‘duringthe Sabbath;’Matt. xxvi. 6,‘Jesusbeingnow at Bethany,’and in many other passages”(Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 19.) The meaning, then, is that supper was proceeding.The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of Jesus in washing even the traitor's feet.3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit.3. Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God.3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension, He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.[pg 233]4. Surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset linteum, praecinxit se.4. He riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself.4.He riseth from supper.Hence it is clear that the supper had already begun when the washing of the Apostles' feet took place. And for the reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat down again”) we hold that it wasnot over; so that we adhere to the traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the supper.90Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor more than twenty. In our Lord's time those partaking of the supper reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been originally.“The rites of the supper were regulated according to the succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water, which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest, who was called the celebrant, the president, orproclaimer of the feast.”91(See Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 16.)Christ having risen from the supperlayeth aside his garments. The pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid aside;92and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded Himself therewith.“Quid mirum,”says St. Augustine, si“praecinxit se linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?”Note how the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act of marvellous condescension.[pg 234]5. Deinde mittit aquam in pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus.5. After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel, wherewith he was girded.5.After that, he putteth water into a basin.In the Greek we havethebasin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord set about washing the disciples' feet.6. Venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet?6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter. In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than it would be if others had already accepted it”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary).Dost thou wash my feet?The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings out sharply the contrast of the persons.7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea.7. Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master's condescension, is told that he shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to do.8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum.8. Peter said to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other[pg 235]occasions, Peter declares that he will never consent to such an act of self-abasement on the part of his Lord. Christ at once replies to him:If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to Christ's wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should be excluded from Christ's society here and hereafter. Complete surrender of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ; but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the Apostles that they areclean; and though He qualifies the statement by saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace, and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they were not.9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput.9. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes.10. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.10.Jesus saith to him: He that is washed(ratherbathed),needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. Some ancient authorities omit the words“but”and“his feet,”and the meaning whether in regard to body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking[pg 236]them as genuine, then, let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above onii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this view we accept. For the closing words of the verse:“And you are clean, but not all”when taken together with St. John's explanation in verse 11, leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.The meaning, then, seems[pg 237]to be that one who has bathed spiritually by having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes.11. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua: cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis?12. Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being sat down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you?13. Vos vocatis me, Magister et Domine: et benedicitis: sum etenim.13. You call me Master, and Lord: and you say well, for so I am.14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister: et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes.14. If then I, beingyourLord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet.15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.15. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non est servus maior domino suo: neque apostolus maior est eo qui misit illum.16. Amen, amen, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord: neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.12-16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, andagain reclined, Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity? It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.17. Si haec scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea.17. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual charity.18. Non de omnibus vobis dico: ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut adimpleatur scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.18. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled,He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking occasion from the word“blessed,”which He had used, He proceeds to say that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.I know whom I have[pg 238]chosen.SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some toglory; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not blessed, and never shall be.But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his guilt, see above onxii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10, where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John, the mystical sense of David's words had reference to the betrayal of Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the wordsshall lift(or rather“has lifted,”forlevabitought to belevavit)up his heel against me, are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds it and treats it kindly.19. Amodo dico vobis, priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.19. At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am he.19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit: qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit.20. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by[pg 239]our Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to connect as follows. In verses 15-17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others, at other points in the narrative.21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est, et dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia unus ex vobis tradet me.21. When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit: and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.21.He was troubled in spirit.As we said above onxi. 23, this perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18, and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records it immediately after the same event:“This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the room, as in St. John.“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out, could have retained his place at the supper[pg 240]table, among the Apostles. But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St. Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation toJudas himself, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those expressions, or at least some of them, werealtogether indefinite, so as to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve who was about to betray Him; just as the words,‘Unus vestrumme traditurus est,’of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the‘Unus ex vobistradet me, qui manducat mecum’of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John (xiii. 18),‘Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.’“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify the traitor, at leastin the eyes of his fellow-Apostles.93Thus, then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved disciple is promptly met by the response,‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum panem porrexero;’and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal thus selected by our Lord:‘Et[pg 241]quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae.’”9422. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, haesitantes de quo diceret.22. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.22.The disciples therefore looked(rather,were looking, as in the original and Vulgate)one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. The words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say ofwhomHe spoke, for though the original might mean, ofwhatHe spoke, Peter's question immediately afterwards:“Who is it of whom he speaketh?”(v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted evenwhatHe meant; but that stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of their number was to play the part of traitor.23. Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.23.Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom.Rather:“Now there was reclining at the tablein(ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus' bosom.”Instead of sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord's time, and for some time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm, stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same couch, the centre was the place of honour.One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.This, according to all antiquity, was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again,xix. 26; xxi.7,20. Comp. alsoxx. 2.24. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, de quo dicit?24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?24. The best-supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the Vulgate:“Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell who it is of[pg 242]whom he speaketh.”According to this reading, St. John was not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less probable reading, St. John is askedto inquire(πυθέσθαι) who the traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter's character, that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is possible that Christ's threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less confident than usual.25. Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei: Domine quis est!25. He therefore leaning on the breast of Jesus saith to him: Lord, who is it?25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was, he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.He therefore leaning on.The best-supported Greek reading would be rendered thus:He leaning back, as he was, on&c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπί).From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master's breast. Thus“as he was,”i.e., without changing his position at table, by merely leaning back, he was not only close to thebosomof Jesus, but was on His breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted to such familiarity with his Divine Master.26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae.26. Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,the sonof Simon.26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper, following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.27. Et post buccellam, introivit in eim Satanas. Et dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, fac citius.27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.27. After the morsel had been given to Judas,“Satan[pg 243]entered into him;”that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John, became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference to the crime contemplated.And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly, again intimating that He knew the traitor's thoughts, and at the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime: but, taking for granted the traitor's fixed determination“That which thou dost,”i.e., hast determined to do, they show Christ's readiness and eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.28. Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei.28. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord, still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly upon the disclosure of the traitor.29. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Judas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret.29. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.29.For some thought ... for the festival day. This conjecture of the Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of Nisan. They argue—(a) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (b) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan[pg 244]the Feast would already have begun, and the Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy necessaries in preparation for the Feast.But to (a) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. To (b) we answer that though the festival time had begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that was still to come.To the poor.From this conjecture, and from xii. 5, we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving alms to the poor.30. Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox.30. He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left the supper-room. The Evangelist adds:And it was night, no doubt in order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into which he went forth.“Erat autem nox,”says St. Aug.,“Et ipse qui exivit erat nox.”Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that anyone had departed, they proceed:“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My body”(Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed. Nay, St. Luke's version of our Lord's words clearly implies that Judas was present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed[pg 245]Eucharist with the treachery ofone who was present.“This is the chalice, the New Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you.But yetbehold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the chalice:“And they all drank of it”(xiv. 23).It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B. Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this“Cum plerisque modernis”(Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, records the disclosure of the traitorbeforethe institution of the Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of Judas, andonly on the last occasiondefinitely disclosed who the traitor was.(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this, He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests free now.We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church, that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained priest.31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis: et Deus clarificatus est in eo.31. When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.31. With this verse our Lord's last discourses begin. They are divided into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31-xiv. 31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first portion the leading ideas are that He[pg 246]and the Apostles are to be separated because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they shall be united.When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.The departure of Judas marked the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His acceptance of the issue of the traitor's work.Now is the son of man glorified.Judas had finally decided to betray Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past:“is ... glorified.”For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.And God is glorified in him.God's rigorous justice and boundless love for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v. 8, 9.32. Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit eum.32. If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.32. Many authorities omit the words:“If God be glorified in him.”In himself.The meaning seems to be:withHimself, as in xvii. 5:“And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.”Immediately, we refer to the time of the crucifixion.33. Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo.33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me, and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go, you cannot come: so I say to you now.33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles, and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He had before declared to His enemies (vii.33,34), He now declares to His dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both cases the same, Christ's purpose in making it was very different. To the Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while in the present case the[pg 247]motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or seven) times in St. John's First Epistle. The diminutive form is expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were still immature.Little children you shall seek me, &c. See above onvii. 34. The declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The words:“and shall not find me”(vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:“where I am”the present text has:“whither I go.”As we have said, the leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18, 23), hence He now omits the words:“and shall not find me;”though in the sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words were true even in reference to the Apostles.34. Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem.34. A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been commanded before. The words:As I have loved you, imply that we should love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive, as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this we are incapable.35. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.35. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ's perfect disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian tells us that the Pagans used to say:“See how these Christians love one another”!...“and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea.36. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow hereafter.36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ's words, (verse 33), which signified that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks:Lord, whither[pg 248]goest thou?Christ's reply means that He was going to His Father, whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.Thou shalt follow hereafter.These words implied Peter's final perseverance and salvation.37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te ponam.37. Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ's reply, and thinking that He meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.38. Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter's boastful confidence, and declaring that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.We believe that our Lordtwiceon this night predicted the denials by Peter: once in the supper-room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St. Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 30-34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26-30). By the latter Evangelists the prophecy of Peter's denial is distinctly placed on the way to Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter's denials.While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St. Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more minutely, and represents our Lord as saying:“Before the cock crowtwice, thou shalt deny me thrice”(Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the same prediction; for thesecondcrowing of the cock, before which, according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as“thecockcrowing.”That the cockcrowing in our Lord's time was regarded as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels.[pg 249]Thus, in St. Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says:“Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight,or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning).”Thus, then, although the cock crew after Peter'sfirstdenial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the word was used, as it is in our Lord's prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock was the one intended. Hence, thesecondcrowing of the cock referred to by St. Mark wasthecock-crowing mentioned by the other three Evangelists.Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at the Last Supper.(1) There was the Paschal Supper.(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet, accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).(3) The ordinary supper, during which(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21ff.; and Mark xiv. 18ff.).(5) The Eucharistic Supper.(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest, occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the charge of treachery.(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of the traitor, who quits the supper room.[pg 250]

Chapter XIII.1-20.On the night before (according to the Jewish method of reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of Judas.21-30.He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.31-39.He foretells the near approach of His own death and glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and predicts the triple denial by Peter.With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel commences. SeeIntrod. IV.St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before our Lord's death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39-44); the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12-14); or the cleansing of the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he records very much that they omit.1. Ante diem festum paschae, sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos.1. Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.1.Before the festival day of the pasch.We are here met by a serious difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast. If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation, come to the conclusion—(a) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the Paschal Supper on the night[pg 227]before He died; and (b) that the Jews that year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us:“And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples”(Matt. xxvi. 17-20). Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12-17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7-14) seem to take for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was come, for St. Mark says:“Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him,”&c.; and St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on whichit was necessarythat the pasch should be killed.”St. John, on the other hand, in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events of this last night of Christ's mortal life, speaks of the time as;“Beforethe festival day of the pasch.”Moreover, in subsequent passages82of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ's last supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the difficulty of reconciling St. John's account with that of the Synoptic Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us most probable.(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the“first day of the Azymes,”in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast.[pg 228]In this view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John's account with that of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held“before the festival day of the pasch.”This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve.83Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat down, Christ said:“With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer”(Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy Office and its author imprisoned.84(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time for celebrating it.But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says:“Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the Imperf. denoting what wascustomary) the pasch, the disciples say to[pg 229]Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it wasnecessary(ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed”(Luke xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for the Paschal Supper.(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and has no evidence to support it.(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,85Cornely, &c., hold that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the 14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th. Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St. John's statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that year by the Judeans, and so places itbeforethe feast; they, on the other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of Azymes.86The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour were[pg 230]proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity. Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben-Ezra (on Levit. xxiii. 4) says:“Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in secundam, quartam, etsextamferiam quandoque incidisse.”Since, then, the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St. Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV., Patriz., M'Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,87can all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the passages on which they are founded.We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal week.And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:“Before the festival day of the pasch.”If Christ celebrated the Last Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of the time of this supper as“before the festival day of the pasch”? To this difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St. John means by“day”the natural day, or time of light; and then it is plain that[pg 231]a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before the festivaldayof the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in the original St. John does not merely say“Before the festal day,”but“Before the festal period”(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp.,e.g., vii.2,14,37).(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ;“quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi”are the words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith'sB. D., Art.“Passover.”(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves, reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.88Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation. Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He now chose to manifest towards them His lovein an extraordinary manner. Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated“unto the end,”we understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the meaning of the phrase, as equivalent toexcessively, orin a surpassing manner. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well in the washing of the Apostles' feet as in the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood, and the loving discourse which followed this supper.2. Et coena facta, cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotae:2. And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),2.And when supper was done.We have taken for granted that the supper here[pg 232]mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the departure to the Garden of Olives.89“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek reading, which in the Vulgate is translated‘coena facta’; for thepresentparticiple (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that, considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαιto be, to come into being), even thepastparticiple by no means implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced, and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John xxi. 4:‘When morningwas come;’in Mark vi. 2,‘duringthe Sabbath;’Matt. xxvi. 6,‘Jesusbeingnow at Bethany,’and in many other passages”(Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 19.) The meaning, then, is that supper was proceeding.The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of Jesus in washing even the traitor's feet.3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit.3. Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God.3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension, He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.[pg 233]4. Surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset linteum, praecinxit se.4. He riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself.4.He riseth from supper.Hence it is clear that the supper had already begun when the washing of the Apostles' feet took place. And for the reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat down again”) we hold that it wasnot over; so that we adhere to the traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the supper.90Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor more than twenty. In our Lord's time those partaking of the supper reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been originally.“The rites of the supper were regulated according to the succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water, which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest, who was called the celebrant, the president, orproclaimer of the feast.”91(See Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 16.)Christ having risen from the supperlayeth aside his garments. The pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid aside;92and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded Himself therewith.“Quid mirum,”says St. Augustine, si“praecinxit se linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?”Note how the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act of marvellous condescension.[pg 234]5. Deinde mittit aquam in pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus.5. After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel, wherewith he was girded.5.After that, he putteth water into a basin.In the Greek we havethebasin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord set about washing the disciples' feet.6. Venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet?6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter. In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than it would be if others had already accepted it”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary).Dost thou wash my feet?The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings out sharply the contrast of the persons.7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea.7. Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master's condescension, is told that he shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to do.8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum.8. Peter said to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other[pg 235]occasions, Peter declares that he will never consent to such an act of self-abasement on the part of his Lord. Christ at once replies to him:If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to Christ's wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should be excluded from Christ's society here and hereafter. Complete surrender of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ; but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the Apostles that they areclean; and though He qualifies the statement by saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace, and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they were not.9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput.9. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes.10. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.10.Jesus saith to him: He that is washed(ratherbathed),needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. Some ancient authorities omit the words“but”and“his feet,”and the meaning whether in regard to body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking[pg 236]them as genuine, then, let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above onii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this view we accept. For the closing words of the verse:“And you are clean, but not all”when taken together with St. John's explanation in verse 11, leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.The meaning, then, seems[pg 237]to be that one who has bathed spiritually by having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes.11. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua: cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis?12. Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being sat down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you?13. Vos vocatis me, Magister et Domine: et benedicitis: sum etenim.13. You call me Master, and Lord: and you say well, for so I am.14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister: et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes.14. If then I, beingyourLord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet.15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.15. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non est servus maior domino suo: neque apostolus maior est eo qui misit illum.16. Amen, amen, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord: neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.12-16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, andagain reclined, Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity? It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.17. Si haec scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea.17. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual charity.18. Non de omnibus vobis dico: ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut adimpleatur scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.18. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled,He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking occasion from the word“blessed,”which He had used, He proceeds to say that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.I know whom I have[pg 238]chosen.SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some toglory; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not blessed, and never shall be.But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his guilt, see above onxii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10, where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John, the mystical sense of David's words had reference to the betrayal of Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the wordsshall lift(or rather“has lifted,”forlevabitought to belevavit)up his heel against me, are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds it and treats it kindly.19. Amodo dico vobis, priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.19. At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am he.19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit: qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit.20. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by[pg 239]our Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to connect as follows. In verses 15-17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others, at other points in the narrative.21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est, et dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia unus ex vobis tradet me.21. When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit: and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.21.He was troubled in spirit.As we said above onxi. 23, this perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18, and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records it immediately after the same event:“This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the room, as in St. John.“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out, could have retained his place at the supper[pg 240]table, among the Apostles. But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St. Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation toJudas himself, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those expressions, or at least some of them, werealtogether indefinite, so as to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve who was about to betray Him; just as the words,‘Unus vestrumme traditurus est,’of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the‘Unus ex vobistradet me, qui manducat mecum’of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John (xiii. 18),‘Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.’“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify the traitor, at leastin the eyes of his fellow-Apostles.93Thus, then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved disciple is promptly met by the response,‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum panem porrexero;’and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal thus selected by our Lord:‘Et[pg 241]quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae.’”9422. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, haesitantes de quo diceret.22. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.22.The disciples therefore looked(rather,were looking, as in the original and Vulgate)one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. The words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say ofwhomHe spoke, for though the original might mean, ofwhatHe spoke, Peter's question immediately afterwards:“Who is it of whom he speaketh?”(v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted evenwhatHe meant; but that stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of their number was to play the part of traitor.23. Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.23.Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom.Rather:“Now there was reclining at the tablein(ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus' bosom.”Instead of sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord's time, and for some time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm, stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same couch, the centre was the place of honour.One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.This, according to all antiquity, was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again,xix. 26; xxi.7,20. Comp. alsoxx. 2.24. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, de quo dicit?24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?24. The best-supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the Vulgate:“Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell who it is of[pg 242]whom he speaketh.”According to this reading, St. John was not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less probable reading, St. John is askedto inquire(πυθέσθαι) who the traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter's character, that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is possible that Christ's threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less confident than usual.25. Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei: Domine quis est!25. He therefore leaning on the breast of Jesus saith to him: Lord, who is it?25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was, he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.He therefore leaning on.The best-supported Greek reading would be rendered thus:He leaning back, as he was, on&c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπί).From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master's breast. Thus“as he was,”i.e., without changing his position at table, by merely leaning back, he was not only close to thebosomof Jesus, but was on His breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted to such familiarity with his Divine Master.26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae.26. Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,the sonof Simon.26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper, following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.27. Et post buccellam, introivit in eim Satanas. Et dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, fac citius.27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.27. After the morsel had been given to Judas,“Satan[pg 243]entered into him;”that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John, became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference to the crime contemplated.And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly, again intimating that He knew the traitor's thoughts, and at the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime: but, taking for granted the traitor's fixed determination“That which thou dost,”i.e., hast determined to do, they show Christ's readiness and eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.28. Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei.28. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord, still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly upon the disclosure of the traitor.29. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Judas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret.29. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.29.For some thought ... for the festival day. This conjecture of the Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of Nisan. They argue—(a) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (b) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan[pg 244]the Feast would already have begun, and the Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy necessaries in preparation for the Feast.But to (a) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. To (b) we answer that though the festival time had begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that was still to come.To the poor.From this conjecture, and from xii. 5, we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving alms to the poor.30. Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox.30. He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left the supper-room. The Evangelist adds:And it was night, no doubt in order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into which he went forth.“Erat autem nox,”says St. Aug.,“Et ipse qui exivit erat nox.”Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that anyone had departed, they proceed:“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My body”(Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed. Nay, St. Luke's version of our Lord's words clearly implies that Judas was present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed[pg 245]Eucharist with the treachery ofone who was present.“This is the chalice, the New Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you.But yetbehold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the chalice:“And they all drank of it”(xiv. 23).It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B. Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this“Cum plerisque modernis”(Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, records the disclosure of the traitorbeforethe institution of the Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of Judas, andonly on the last occasiondefinitely disclosed who the traitor was.(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this, He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests free now.We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church, that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained priest.31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis: et Deus clarificatus est in eo.31. When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.31. With this verse our Lord's last discourses begin. They are divided into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31-xiv. 31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first portion the leading ideas are that He[pg 246]and the Apostles are to be separated because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they shall be united.When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.The departure of Judas marked the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His acceptance of the issue of the traitor's work.Now is the son of man glorified.Judas had finally decided to betray Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past:“is ... glorified.”For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.And God is glorified in him.God's rigorous justice and boundless love for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v. 8, 9.32. Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit eum.32. If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.32. Many authorities omit the words:“If God be glorified in him.”In himself.The meaning seems to be:withHimself, as in xvii. 5:“And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.”Immediately, we refer to the time of the crucifixion.33. Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo.33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me, and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go, you cannot come: so I say to you now.33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles, and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He had before declared to His enemies (vii.33,34), He now declares to His dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both cases the same, Christ's purpose in making it was very different. To the Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while in the present case the[pg 247]motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or seven) times in St. John's First Epistle. The diminutive form is expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were still immature.Little children you shall seek me, &c. See above onvii. 34. The declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The words:“and shall not find me”(vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:“where I am”the present text has:“whither I go.”As we have said, the leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18, 23), hence He now omits the words:“and shall not find me;”though in the sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words were true even in reference to the Apostles.34. Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem.34. A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been commanded before. The words:As I have loved you, imply that we should love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive, as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this we are incapable.35. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.35. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ's perfect disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian tells us that the Pagans used to say:“See how these Christians love one another”!...“and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea.36. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow hereafter.36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ's words, (verse 33), which signified that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks:Lord, whither[pg 248]goest thou?Christ's reply means that He was going to His Father, whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.Thou shalt follow hereafter.These words implied Peter's final perseverance and salvation.37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te ponam.37. Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ's reply, and thinking that He meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.38. Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter's boastful confidence, and declaring that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.We believe that our Lordtwiceon this night predicted the denials by Peter: once in the supper-room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St. Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 30-34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26-30). By the latter Evangelists the prophecy of Peter's denial is distinctly placed on the way to Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter's denials.While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St. Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more minutely, and represents our Lord as saying:“Before the cock crowtwice, thou shalt deny me thrice”(Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the same prediction; for thesecondcrowing of the cock, before which, according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as“thecockcrowing.”That the cockcrowing in our Lord's time was regarded as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels.[pg 249]Thus, in St. Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says:“Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight,or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning).”Thus, then, although the cock crew after Peter'sfirstdenial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the word was used, as it is in our Lord's prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock was the one intended. Hence, thesecondcrowing of the cock referred to by St. Mark wasthecock-crowing mentioned by the other three Evangelists.Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at the Last Supper.(1) There was the Paschal Supper.(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet, accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).(3) The ordinary supper, during which(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21ff.; and Mark xiv. 18ff.).(5) The Eucharistic Supper.(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest, occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the charge of treachery.(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of the traitor, who quits the supper room.[pg 250]

Chapter XIII.1-20.On the night before (according to the Jewish method of reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of Judas.21-30.He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.31-39.He foretells the near approach of His own death and glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and predicts the triple denial by Peter.With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel commences. SeeIntrod. IV.St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before our Lord's death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39-44); the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12-14); or the cleansing of the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he records very much that they omit.1. Ante diem festum paschae, sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos.1. Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.1.Before the festival day of the pasch.We are here met by a serious difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast. If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation, come to the conclusion—(a) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the Paschal Supper on the night[pg 227]before He died; and (b) that the Jews that year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us:“And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples”(Matt. xxvi. 17-20). Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12-17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7-14) seem to take for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was come, for St. Mark says:“Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him,”&c.; and St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on whichit was necessarythat the pasch should be killed.”St. John, on the other hand, in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events of this last night of Christ's mortal life, speaks of the time as;“Beforethe festival day of the pasch.”Moreover, in subsequent passages82of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ's last supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the difficulty of reconciling St. John's account with that of the Synoptic Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us most probable.(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the“first day of the Azymes,”in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast.[pg 228]In this view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John's account with that of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held“before the festival day of the pasch.”This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve.83Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat down, Christ said:“With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer”(Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy Office and its author imprisoned.84(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time for celebrating it.But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says:“Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the Imperf. denoting what wascustomary) the pasch, the disciples say to[pg 229]Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it wasnecessary(ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed”(Luke xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for the Paschal Supper.(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and has no evidence to support it.(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,85Cornely, &c., hold that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the 14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th. Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St. John's statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that year by the Judeans, and so places itbeforethe feast; they, on the other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of Azymes.86The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour were[pg 230]proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity. Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben-Ezra (on Levit. xxiii. 4) says:“Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in secundam, quartam, etsextamferiam quandoque incidisse.”Since, then, the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St. Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV., Patriz., M'Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,87can all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the passages on which they are founded.We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal week.And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:“Before the festival day of the pasch.”If Christ celebrated the Last Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of the time of this supper as“before the festival day of the pasch”? To this difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St. John means by“day”the natural day, or time of light; and then it is plain that[pg 231]a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before the festivaldayof the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in the original St. John does not merely say“Before the festal day,”but“Before the festal period”(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp.,e.g., vii.2,14,37).(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ;“quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi”are the words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith'sB. D., Art.“Passover.”(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves, reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.88Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation. Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He now chose to manifest towards them His lovein an extraordinary manner. Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated“unto the end,”we understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the meaning of the phrase, as equivalent toexcessively, orin a surpassing manner. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well in the washing of the Apostles' feet as in the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood, and the loving discourse which followed this supper.2. Et coena facta, cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Simonis Iscariotae:2. And when supper was done (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him),2.And when supper was done.We have taken for granted that the supper here[pg 232]mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the departure to the Garden of Olives.89“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek reading, which in the Vulgate is translated‘coena facta’; for thepresentparticiple (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that, considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαιto be, to come into being), even thepastparticiple by no means implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced, and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John xxi. 4:‘When morningwas come;’in Mark vi. 2,‘duringthe Sabbath;’Matt. xxvi. 6,‘Jesusbeingnow at Bethany,’and in many other passages”(Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 19.) The meaning, then, is that supper was proceeding.The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of Jesus in washing even the traitor's feet.3. Sciens quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit.3. Knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God.3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension, He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.[pg 233]4. Surgit a coena, et ponit vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset linteum, praecinxit se.4. He riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and having taken a towel, girded himself.4.He riseth from supper.Hence it is clear that the supper had already begun when the washing of the Apostles' feet took place. And for the reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat down again”) we hold that it wasnot over; so that we adhere to the traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the supper.90Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor more than twenty. In our Lord's time those partaking of the supper reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been originally.“The rites of the supper were regulated according to the succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water, which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest, who was called the celebrant, the president, orproclaimer of the feast.”91(See Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 16.)Christ having risen from the supperlayeth aside his garments. The pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid aside;92and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded Himself therewith.“Quid mirum,”says St. Augustine, si“praecinxit se linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?”Note how the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act of marvellous condescension.[pg 234]5. Deinde mittit aquam in pelvim, et coepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo quo erat praecinctus.5. After that, he putteth water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel, wherewith he was girded.5.After that, he putteth water into a basin.In the Greek we havethebasin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord set about washing the disciples' feet.6. Venit ergo ad Simonem Petrum. Et dicet ei Petrus: Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes?6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter. And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou wash my feet?6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter. In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than it would be if others had already accepted it”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary).Dost thou wash my feet?The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings out sharply the contrast of the persons.7. Respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea.7. Jesus answered, and said to him: What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master's condescension, is told that he shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to do.8. Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit ei Iesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum.8. Peter said to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other[pg 235]occasions, Peter declares that he will never consent to such an act of self-abasement on the part of his Lord. Christ at once replies to him:If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to Christ's wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should be excluded from Christ's society here and hereafter. Complete surrender of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ; but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the Apostles that they areclean; and though He qualifies the statement by saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace, and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they were not.9. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput.9. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.10. Dicit ei Iesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes.10. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all.10.Jesus saith to him: He that is washed(ratherbathed),needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. Some ancient authorities omit the words“but”and“his feet,”and the meaning whether in regard to body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking[pg 236]them as genuine, then, let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above onii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this view we accept. For the closing words of the verse:“And you are clean, but not all”when taken together with St. John's explanation in verse 11, leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.The meaning, then, seems[pg 237]to be that one who has bathed spiritually by having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.11. Sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes.11. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean.12. Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua: cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis?12. Then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, being sat down again, he said to them: Know you what I have done to you?13. Vos vocatis me, Magister et Domine: et benedicitis: sum etenim.13. You call me Master, and Lord: and you say well, for so I am.14. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister: et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes.14. If then I, beingyourLord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet.15. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.15. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.16. Amen, amen dico vobis: Non est servus maior domino suo: neque apostolus maior est eo qui misit illum.16. Amen, amen, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord: neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him.12-16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, andagain reclined, Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity? It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.17. Si haec scitis, beati eritis si feceritis ea.17. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual charity.18. Non de omnibus vobis dico: ego scio quos elegerim: sed ut adimpleatur scriptura: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.18. I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled,He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking occasion from the word“blessed,”which He had used, He proceeds to say that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.I know whom I have[pg 238]chosen.SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some toglory; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not blessed, and never shall be.But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his guilt, see above onxii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10, where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John, the mystical sense of David's words had reference to the betrayal of Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the wordsshall lift(or rather“has lifted,”forlevabitought to belevavit)up his heel against me, are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds it and treats it kindly.19. Amodo dico vobis, priusquam fiat: ut cum factum fuerit, credatis quia ego sum.19. At present I tell you, before it come to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe that I am he.19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.20. Amen, amen dico vobis: qui accipit si quem misero, me accipit: qui autem me accipit, accipit eum qui me misit.20. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by[pg 239]our Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to connect as follows. In verses 15-17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others, at other points in the narrative.21. Cum haec dixisset Iesus, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est, et dixit: Amen, amen dico vobis: quia unus ex vobis tradet me.21. When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit: and he testified, and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you shall betray me.21.He was troubled in spirit.As we said above onxi. 23, this perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18, and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records it immediately after the same event:“This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the room, as in St. John.“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out, could have retained his place at the supper[pg 240]table, among the Apostles. But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St. Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation toJudas himself, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those expressions, or at least some of them, werealtogether indefinite, so as to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve who was about to betray Him; just as the words,‘Unus vestrumme traditurus est,’of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the‘Unus ex vobistradet me, qui manducat mecum’of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John (xiii. 18),‘Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.’“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify the traitor, at leastin the eyes of his fellow-Apostles.93Thus, then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved disciple is promptly met by the response,‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum panem porrexero;’and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal thus selected by our Lord:‘Et[pg 241]quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae.’”9422. Aspiciebant ergo ad invicem discipuli, haesitantes de quo diceret.22. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke.22.The disciples therefore looked(rather,were looking, as in the original and Vulgate)one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. The words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say ofwhomHe spoke, for though the original might mean, ofwhatHe spoke, Peter's question immediately afterwards:“Who is it of whom he speaketh?”(v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted evenwhatHe meant; but that stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of their number was to play the part of traitor.23. Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus.23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.23.Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom.Rather:“Now there was reclining at the tablein(ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus' bosom.”Instead of sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord's time, and for some time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm, stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same couch, the centre was the place of honour.One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.This, according to all antiquity, was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again,xix. 26; xxi.7,20. Comp. alsoxx. 2.24. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus, et dixit ei: Quis est, de quo dicit?24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?24. The best-supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the Vulgate:“Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell who it is of[pg 242]whom he speaketh.”According to this reading, St. John was not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less probable reading, St. John is askedto inquire(πυθέσθαι) who the traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter's character, that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is possible that Christ's threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less confident than usual.25. Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Iesu, dicit ei: Domine quis est!25. He therefore leaning on the breast of Jesus saith to him: Lord, who is it?25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was, he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.He therefore leaning on.The best-supported Greek reading would be rendered thus:He leaning back, as he was, on&c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπί).From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master's breast. Thus“as he was,”i.e., without changing his position at table, by merely leaning back, he was not only close to thebosomof Jesus, but was on His breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted to such familiarity with his Divine Master.26. Respondit Iesus: Ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero. Et cum intinxisset panem, dedit Iudae Simonis Iscariotae.26. Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,the sonof Simon.26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper, following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.27. Et post buccellam, introivit in eim Satanas. Et dixit ei Iesus; Quod facis, fac citius.27. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.27. After the morsel had been given to Judas,“Satan[pg 243]entered into him;”that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John, became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference to the crime contemplated.And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly, again intimating that He knew the traitor's thoughts, and at the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime: but, taking for granted the traitor's fixed determination“That which thou dost,”i.e., hast determined to do, they show Christ's readiness and eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.28. Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei.28. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him.28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord, still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly upon the disclosure of the traitor.29. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Judas, quod dixisset ei Iesus: Eme ea quae opus sunt nobis ad diem festum: aut egenis ut aliquid daret.29. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.29.For some thought ... for the festival day. This conjecture of the Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of Nisan. They argue—(a) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (b) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan[pg 244]the Feast would already have begun, and the Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy necessaries in preparation for the Feast.But to (a) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. To (b) we answer that though the festival time had begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that was still to come.To the poor.From this conjecture, and from xii. 5, we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving alms to the poor.30. Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exivit continuo. Erat autem nox.30. He therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night.30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left the supper-room. The Evangelist adds:And it was night, no doubt in order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into which he went forth.“Erat autem nox,”says St. Aug.,“Et ipse qui exivit erat nox.”Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that anyone had departed, they proceed:“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My body”(Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed. Nay, St. Luke's version of our Lord's words clearly implies that Judas was present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed[pg 245]Eucharist with the treachery ofone who was present.“This is the chalice, the New Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you.But yetbehold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the chalice:“And they all drank of it”(xiv. 23).It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B. Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this“Cum plerisque modernis”(Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, records the disclosure of the traitorbeforethe institution of the Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of Judas, andonly on the last occasiondefinitely disclosed who the traitor was.(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this, He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests free now.We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church, that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained priest.31. Cum ergo exisset, dixit Iesus: Nunc clarificatus est Filius hominis: et Deus clarificatus est in eo.31. When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said: Now is the son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.31. With this verse our Lord's last discourses begin. They are divided into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31-xiv. 31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first portion the leading ideas are that He[pg 246]and the Apostles are to be separated because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they shall be united.When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.The departure of Judas marked the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His acceptance of the issue of the traitor's work.Now is the son of man glorified.Judas had finally decided to betray Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past:“is ... glorified.”For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.And God is glorified in him.God's rigorous justice and boundless love for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v. 8, 9.32. Si Deus clarificatus est in eo, et Deus clarificabit eum in semetipso: et continuo clarificabit eum.32. If God be glorified in him, God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.32. Many authorities omit the words:“If God be glorified in him.”In himself.The meaning seems to be:withHimself, as in xvii. 5:“And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.”Immediately, we refer to the time of the crucifixion.33. Filioli, adhuc modicum vobiscum sum quaeretis me: et sicut dixi Iudaeis: Quo ego vado, vos non potestis venire: et vobis dico modo.33. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me, and as I said to the Jews: Whither I go, you cannot come: so I say to you now.33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles, and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He had before declared to His enemies (vii.33,34), He now declares to His dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both cases the same, Christ's purpose in making it was very different. To the Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while in the present case the[pg 247]motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or seven) times in St. John's First Epistle. The diminutive form is expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were still immature.Little children you shall seek me, &c. See above onvii. 34. The declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The words:“and shall not find me”(vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:“where I am”the present text has:“whither I go.”As we have said, the leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18, 23), hence He now omits the words:“and shall not find me;”though in the sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words were true even in reference to the Apostles.34. Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem.34. A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been commanded before. The words:As I have loved you, imply that we should love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive, as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this we are incapable.35. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.35. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ's perfect disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian tells us that the Pagans used to say:“See how these Christians love one another”!...“and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).36. Dicit et Simon Petrus: Domine, quo vadis? Respondit Iesus: Quo ego vado, non potes me modo sequi: sequeris autem postea.36. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow hereafter.36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ's words, (verse 33), which signified that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks:Lord, whither[pg 248]goest thou?Christ's reply means that He was going to His Father, whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.Thou shalt follow hereafter.These words implied Peter's final perseverance and salvation.37. Dicit ei Petrus: Quare non possum te sequi modo? animam meam pro te ponam.37. Peter saith to him: Why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee.37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ's reply, and thinking that He meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.38. Respondit ei Iesus: Animam tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus, donec ter me neges.38. Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice.38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter's boastful confidence, and declaring that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.We believe that our Lordtwiceon this night predicted the denials by Peter: once in the supper-room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St. Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 30-34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26-30). By the latter Evangelists the prophecy of Peter's denial is distinctly placed on the way to Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter's denials.While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St. Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more minutely, and represents our Lord as saying:“Before the cock crowtwice, thou shalt deny me thrice”(Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the same prediction; for thesecondcrowing of the cock, before which, according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as“thecockcrowing.”That the cockcrowing in our Lord's time was regarded as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels.[pg 249]Thus, in St. Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says:“Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight,or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning).”Thus, then, although the cock crew after Peter'sfirstdenial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the word was used, as it is in our Lord's prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock was the one intended. Hence, thesecondcrowing of the cock referred to by St. Mark wasthecock-crowing mentioned by the other three Evangelists.Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at the Last Supper.(1) There was the Paschal Supper.(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet, accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).(3) The ordinary supper, during which(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21ff.; and Mark xiv. 18ff.).(5) The Eucharistic Supper.(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest, occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the charge of treachery.(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of the traitor, who quits the supper room.

1-20.On the night before (according to the Jewish method of reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of Judas.21-30.He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.31-39.He foretells the near approach of His own death and glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and predicts the triple denial by Peter.

1-20.On the night before (according to the Jewish method of reckoning their days, on the first night of) the great festal week of the Pasch, Jesus celebrates the Paschal Supper with His disciples in Jerusalem, washes their feet, exhorts them to imitate His example of humility and charity, and hints at the sin of Judas.

21-30.He reveals the traitor, who then leaves the supper-room.

31-39.He foretells the near approach of His own death and glorification; gives the new commandment of Christian charity, and predicts the triple denial by Peter.

With this chapter the second part of the narrative of our Gospel commences. SeeIntrod. IV.

St. John now passes on to the history of the events of the night before our Lord's death, omitting a number of incidents of Holy Week, which had been already recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists. Thus, he does not mention the weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 39-44); the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18, 19, Mark xi. 12-14); or the cleansing of the temple (Matt. xxi. 12, 14; Mark xi. 15; Luke xix. 45, 46). There can be little doubt that it was his intention to supplement the Synoptic Gospels, for not only does he omit many things that they record, but he records very much that they omit.

1.Before the festival day of the pasch.We are here met by a serious difficulty when we compare with these words of St. John the accounts of the Synoptic Evangelists; for, while they represent the supper, referred to by St. John in verse 2, as having taken place on the evening of the first day of Azymes, St. John here seems to place it prior to that Feast. If we had only the Synoptic Gospels, we should, without any hesitation, come to the conclusion—(a) that our Lord and His Apostles ate the Paschal Supper on the night[pg 227]before He died; and (b) that the Jews that year eat it on the same night. For St. Matthew tells us:“And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: The Master saith, my time is near at hand; with thee I make the pasch with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch. But when it was evening he sat down with his twelve disciples”(Matt. xxvi. 17-20). Similarly, St. Mark (xiv. 12-17) and St. Luke (xxii. 7-14) seem to take for granted that the ordinary time for celebrating the Paschal Supper was come, for St. Mark says:“Now on the first day of the unleavened bread,when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him,”&c.; and St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on whichit was necessarythat the pasch should be killed.”St. John, on the other hand, in the verse before us, in which he introduces his account of the events of this last night of Christ's mortal life, speaks of the time as;“Beforethe festival day of the pasch.”Moreover, in subsequent passages82of our Gospel, to which we shall direct attention as they occur, St. John uses language which, at first sight, at least, would seem to show that the Jews did not eat the Pasch on the night of Christ's last supper, but on the following night, after He was crucified. Hence the difficulty of reconciling St. John's account with that of the Synoptic Evangelists. A vast amount of learning has been expended upon this question, and a great deal has been written upon it. We shall indicate as briefly as possible the different opinions, and state what seems to us most probable.

(1) Some, as St. Clement of Alexandria, Calmet, &c., have held that our Lord did not eat the Pasch at all in the last year of His life. They argue from texts in St. John, which prove, they say, that the time for eating the Pasch had not come until after Christ was put to death. They take the“first day of the Azymes,”in the Synoptic Gospels, to mean the 13th day of Nisan; and hold that it, and not the 14th, was so called because the Jews removed all leaven from their houses a day before the Feast.[pg 228]In this view they have no difficulty in reconciling St. John's account with that of the other Evangelists; for the Synoptic Evangelists are then made to represent the Last Supper as having taken place on the 13th of Nisan. That being so, it is at once concluded that there cannot be question of the Paschal Supper, but of an ordinary supper, and St. John, in agreement with the Synoptists, states that the supper in question was held“before the festival day of the pasch.”

This opinion, however, we regard as wholly improbable and untenable in the face of the statements of the Synoptic Evangelists, for these statements are such as to leave no reasonable doubt that our Lord and His Apostles did eat the Paschal Supper the night before He died. Thus, they tell us that the disciples were sent by our Lord to prepare the Pasch, that they prepared it, and that when the time for eating it was come, Christ sat down with the Twelve.83Moreover, St. Luke tells us that after they sat down, Christ said:“With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you before I suffer”(Luke xxii. 15)—words which clearly imply that on the occasion of that last supper the Pasch was eaten by Christ and the Apostles. Hence the opinion we are now considering, which would reconcile the Evangelists by holding that our Lord, on the night before He died, did not partake of the Paschal Supper, but only of an ordinary supper, is, as we have already said, wholly improbable; and, indeed, the book of a certain Florentine named Vecchietti, published at the close of the sixteenth century, and maintaining this view, was condemned by the Holy Office and its author imprisoned.84

(2) Others, especially among the Greeks, admit that our Lord did eat the Paschal Supper on this occasion, but hold that He did so on the night following the 13th of Nisan, thus anticipating by a day the ordinary time for celebrating it.

But this view, too, seems to us very improbable; for the language of the Synoptic Evangelists appears to us to prove conclusively that our Lord did not anticipate the legal time for eating the Pasch, which, as we know from Exod. xii. 6, 8, and from tradition, was the night following the 14th of Nisan. Thus St. Mark, in the passage already quoted, says:“Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed (ἔθυον, the Imperf. denoting what wascustomary) the pasch, the disciples say to[pg 229]Him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?”(Mark xiv. 12). And St. Luke:“And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it wasnecessary(ἔδει) that the pasch should be killed”(Luke xxii. 7). These texts, we believe, prove that our Lord celebrated His last supper on the night following the 14th of Nisan, the night on which the Jews were bound by their Law to eat the Pasch. Hence we unhesitatingly reject any view which supposes Him to have anticipated the legal time for the Paschal Supper.

(3) Others, as Harduin, Bisping, &c., hold that the 13th of Nisan with the Judeans was the 14th with the Galileans, who therefore kept the Pasch a day earlier than the Judeans; and that our Lord, being a Galilean, did the same. This opinion, too, would enable us to readily reconcile the Evangelists; but unfortunately the assumption as to a difference of computation between the Judeans and Galileans is a mere conjecture, and has no evidence to support it.

(4) Others, as Petav., Mald., Kuin., Coleridge,85Cornely, &c., hold that our Lord and the Apostles eat the Paschal Supper on the night of the 14th of Nisan, while the Jews that year eat it on the night of the 15th. Maldonatus holds that it was customary with the Jews from the time of the Babylonian captivity, whenever the first day of the Pasch fell on a Friday, to transfer it to Saturday, in order that two solemn feasts might not occur on successive days. According to this view, our Lord corresponded with the requirements of the Jewish Law; the Jews, on the other hand, followed the custom which had been introduced after the Babylonian captivity. In this view, too, it is easy to reconcile St. John's statement with those of the other Evangelists. He speaks of the night of the Last Supper, in reference to the feast as celebrated that year by the Judeans, and so places itbeforethe feast; they, on the other hand, speak of it in reference to the strict Law, and place it on the first day of Azymes, or rather on the night following the first day of Azymes.86

The great names of many who have held this opinion, lend to it considerable probability, and if the custom which is alleged in its favour were[pg 230]proved to have existed in the time of Christ, we would at once adopt it. But it is seriously disputed whether such a custom did exist at that time. It is true, indeed, that among the modern Jews, when the Paschal feast should begin on Friday, they always defer it till the Sabbath; and the Talmud is referred to by Comely (vol. iii., § 73, 1) as saying that the same has been the Jewish practice ever since the Babylonian captivity. Others, however, contend that the custom is not as old as the time of Christ, and that in His time the first day of the Pasch was kept on a Friday whenever it happened to fall on that day. Aben-Ezra (on Levit. xxiii. 4) says:“Tam ex Mischna quam ex Talmude probatur Pascha in secundam, quartam, etsextamferiam quandoque incidisse.”Since, then, the hypothesis on which this opinion rests seems doubtful, the opinion itself appears to us less satisfactory than that which follows.

(5) Lastly, there is the old, and always the most common opinion, that our Lord did eat the Pasch at His last supper; that He eat it on the night of the 14th of Nisan; and that the Jews eat it on that same night. So St. Jer., St. Aug., St. Anselm, Suarez, Tolet., A Lap., Benedict XIV., Patriz., M'Carthy, Corluy, Didon. This opinion is certainly in accordance with the obvious meaning of the Synoptic Evangelists; and the objections against it, which are chiefly drawn from the Gospel of St. John,87can all be answered satisfactorily, as we shall show when discussing the passages on which they are founded.

We hold, then, that Christ and the Jews eat the Pasch on the night following the 14th of Nisan, when, according to the Jewish method of counting their days, the 15th had already commenced; and that Christ was put to death on the 15th, the first and most solemn day of the Paschal week.

And now, returning to the text of St. John, we are confronted at the very commencement of this chapter by an objection to our view, in the words:“Before the festival day of the pasch.”If Christ celebrated the Last Supper on the night after the 14th of Nisan, how does St. John speak of the time of this supper as“before the festival day of the pasch”? To this difficulty various answers have been given. (1) Some have replied that St. John means by“day”the natural day, or time of light; and then it is plain that[pg 231]a supper celebrated on the night following the 14th was before the festivaldayof the 15th. This explanation is unsatisfactory, for in the original St. John does not merely say“Before the festal day,”but“Before the festal period”(πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς; comp.,e.g., vii.2,14,37).

(2) Others say that the words πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς are equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ;“quod ita praecedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi”are the words of Bochart, with whom Stier agrees. See Smith'sB. D., Art.“Passover.”

(3) Others prefer to believe that as St. John wrote sixty years after the Last Supper, after he had spent many years in Asia Minor, and become accustomed to Greek habits of thought and expression, he speaks according to the Greek method of reckoning the day. The Greeks, like ourselves, reckoned their days from midnight to midnight; and St. John, speaking of the supper as taking place before the midnight that followed the 14th of Nisan, might well refer it to a time previous to the festival.88

Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father.As God, Jesus knew from all eternity the hour of His death; as man, he knew it from the first moment of the Incarnation. Knowing, then, that He was about to pass out of this vale of sorrow and misery, and by His death, resurrection, and ascension, go to share in the glory of the Father, having throughout His life loved His Apostles (His own), whom He was now leaving behind Him to struggle with the world, so He now chose to manifest towards them His lovein an extraordinary manner. Εἰς τέλος which in our Rhemish Version is translated“unto the end,”we understand, with the Greek fathers, who ought to be the best judges of the meaning of the phrase, as equivalent toexcessively, orin a surpassing manner. This excessive love Jesus manifested on this last night, as well in the washing of the Apostles' feet as in the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, the elevation of the Apostles to the dignity of the priesthood, and the loving discourse which followed this supper.

2.And when supper was done.We have taken for granted that the supper here[pg 232]mentioned by St. John is identical with the last supper referred to by the Synoptic Evangelists, for there is no room for reasonable doubt as to their identity. On both occasions the traitor is revealed, and the denial by Peter foretold, and on both the supper is followed by the departure to the Garden of Olives.89

“There are good grounds for questioning the correctness of the Greek reading, which in the Vulgate is translated‘coena facta’; for thepresentparticiple (γινομένου) and not the past (γενομένου) is found in many MSS. of the highest authority. Finally, it is obvious that, considering the special signification of the Greek verb employed (γίνομαιto be, to come into being), even thepastparticiple by no means implies that the supper was then over, but merely that it had commenced, and was then going on. The same participle is used unquestionably in this sense in many passages of the New Testament; as, for instance, in John xxi. 4:‘When morningwas come;’in Mark vi. 2,‘duringthe Sabbath;’Matt. xxvi. 6,‘Jesusbeingnow at Bethany,’and in many other passages”(Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 19.) The meaning, then, is that supper was proceeding.

The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.This inhuman treachery was suggested by Satan, but freely consented to by the wretched Apostle. The treachery of Judas is here mentioned to throw into relief the loving mercy and condescension of Jesus in washing even the traitor's feet.

3. While fully conscious of His dignity, of His supreme dominion over all things, and of the fact that He had come out from the bosom of God in the incarnation, and would return thither by His resurrection and ascension, He yet makes Himself as it were the servant of His Apostles.

4.He riseth from supper.Hence it is clear that the supper had already begun when the washing of the Apostles' feet took place. And for the reasons given above on verse 2, as also because of verse 12 (“being sat down again”) we hold that it wasnot over; so that we adhere to the traditional view that the washing of the feet took place during the supper.90Commentators generally hold that the Paschal Supper on the present occasion was followed by the ordinary supper or evening meal, and this again by what we may call the Eucharistic Supper. It is generally held that the washing of the feet took place immediately after the Paschal Supper, or during the ordinary, and before the Eucharistic Supper. At the Paschal Supper the company at the table might not be less than ten nor more than twenty. In our Lord's time those partaking of the supper reclined on couches, this being the usage then, as standing had been originally.“The rites of the supper were regulated according to the succession of four, sometimes five, cups of red wine mixed with water, which were placed before the head of the house or the most eminent guest, who was called the celebrant, the president, orproclaimer of the feast.”91(See Dr. Walsh,Harmony of the Gospel Narratives, note 16.)

Christ having risen from the supperlayeth aside his garments. The pallium or cloak, a square or oblong piece of cloth, which was thrown loosely around the body outside the tunic, was probably what was laid aside;92and thus Jesus made Himself more like a servant, for servants were not accustomed to wear the cloak. Then He took a towel, and girded Himself therewith.“Quid mirum,”says St. Augustine, si“praecinxit se linteo qui formam servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut homo?”Note how the Evangelist narrates every little circumstance connected with this act of marvellous condescension.

5.After that, he putteth water into a basin.In the Greek we havethebasin (τὸν νιπτῆρα), probably denoting a vessel ordinarily used for the washing of feet, or that had been provided for the ceremony of the washing of hands, which was portion of the ritual of the Paschal Supper. We take it that the fourth and fifth verses describe in a general way how our Lord set about washing the disciples' feet.

6. Here the Evangelist goes on to state in detail what happened when our Lord presented Himself first of all before Peter. Thus we need not suppose that our Lord had washed the feet of any other disciple before He came to Peter. St. Peter almost always stands first among the Apostles, and on the present occasion, the remonstrance would naturally come from the first person at whose feet our Lord presented Himself.

“There is nothing to support the old notion that the action began with Judas. It is more natural to suppose that the Lord began with St. Peter. In that case his refusal to accept the services is more intelligible than it would be if others had already accepted it”(Westc. inThe Speaker's Commentary).

Dost thou wash my feet?The position of the pronouns in the Greek brings out sharply the contrast of the persons.

7. Peter, bewildered by His Divine Master's condescension, is told that he shall afterwards learn the moral significance of what Jesus was about to do.

8. Strong in faith, and mindful of the dignity of his Master, with that impetuosity which displayed itself on other[pg 235]occasions, Peter declares that he will never consent to such an act of self-abasement on the part of his Lord. Christ at once replies to him:If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.The meaning is, that if Peter refused obedience to Christ's wish, now distinctly made known to him in these words, he should be excluded from Christ's society here and hereafter. Complete surrender of his will to Christ was a necessary condition of discipleship.

The washing of the feet here referred to is not a sacrament; the practice of the Church makes this clear. Besides, it cannot be shown that grace was annexed to it. No doubt, without it Peter was to have no part with Christ; but this, we hold, would be the effect of disobedience, not the result of wanting anything which the washing could bestow. In reality, Peter was already in the state of grace, for in the tenth verse Jesus tells the Apostles that they areclean; and though He qualifies the statement by saying that all are not clean, yet St. John explains this qualification in reference to Judas only. Hence Peter was already in the state of grace, and there is nothing in the text or context to show that he was to obtain grace if his feet were washed, but only that he was to lose it if they were not.

10.Jesus saith to him: He that is washed(ratherbathed),needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. Some ancient authorities omit the words“but”and“his feet,”and the meaning whether in regard to body or soul is then clear and simple, namely, that he who has bathed has no need to wash, but is already clean. However, the words are much more probably genuine; and the difficulty they create is doubtless the reason why they are wanting in some authorities. Taking[pg 236]them as genuine, then, let us try to explain the verse. Some have understood our Lord to speak only of a corporal washing, as if He merely meant that the Apostles who had bathed, or at least washed their hands before this Supper (see above onii. 6), now needed nothing except to have their feet washed. But the common opinion of commentators understands our Lord to speak of a spiritual washing, of which the washing of the feet was a symbol, and this view we accept. For the closing words of the verse:“And you are clean, but not all”when taken together with St. John's explanation in verse 11, leave no doubt that our Lord speaks of spiritual cleanness, and therefore we may fairly conclude that He speaks also of a spiritual washing. He was about to wash their feet literally, but He intended that ceremony as a symbol of the higher cleansing process required of them and others as a fitting preparation before receiving the Blessed Eucharist. Such preparation was not absolutely necessary in their case, for they were already clean from mortal sin, but it was fitting and in some sense required, in order that they might remove the dust of venial sin, which was daily clinging to them in their contact with the world. It is clearly implied that if they had not been clean, that is to say, free from mortal sin, a more thorough cleansing would have necessary.

The meaning, then, seems[pg 237]to be that one who has bathed spiritually by having his soul cleansed from mortal sin, needs afterwards, as a fitting preparation for the Blessed Eucharist, merely that limited cleansing that was symbolized by the washing of only the feet.

12-16. Having concluded the washing of the feet, andagain reclined, Jesus points out to the Apostles the moral significance of what He had done. If He, whom they rightly called Lord and Master condescended to wash their feet, how much more ought they to wash the feet of one another, and perform towards one another similar acts of humility and mutual charity? It was that they might reflect in their own lives this spirit of humility and charity that He had set them the example; and though such humble offices of charity might at first sight seem unworthy of them, or beneath them, yet a servant is not greater than his master; and whither Christ had stooped they too should be prepared to stoop.

17. In this verse, He promises them happiness here and hereafter, if they continue to fulfil towards one another such offices of humility and mutual charity.

18. Christ does not here qualify the promise made in verse 17, for that promise was conditional, and as such is universally true. But taking occasion from the word“blessed,”which He had used, He proceeds to say that not all of them are, or shall be, blessed.

I know whom I have[pg 238]chosen.SS. Aug. and Bede understand Christ to speak of the choice or election by which He had predestined some toglory; and as Judas was not predestined, therefore Christ had not intended to speak of blessedness in connection with him. But since, in other parts of Scripture, Christ never attributes the act of predestinating to Himself, but only to the Father, hence we prefer, with Tol., Mald., A Lap., to understand here not of election to glory, but of the call to the Apostleship; and the sense is: I know what sort are the twelve whom I have chosen to be Apostles, and that one of them is not blessed, and never shall be.But that the Scripture may be fulfilled.The sense is: but though I know and knew how unworthy one of you is, still I called him to the Apostleship, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which foretold his ingratitude and guilt. That the prediction of the treachery of Judas did not deprive him of his liberty, nor extenuate his guilt, see above onxii. 38. The Scripture quoted is from Psalm xl. 10, where David complains of the ingratitude of some person whom he had treated as his familiar friend. David and his false friend were types of Christ and Judas; and, as we learn from the present passage of St. John, the mystical sense of David's words had reference to the betrayal of Christ by Judas. In the quotation, the wordsshall lift(or rather“has lifted,”forlevabitought to belevavit)up his heel against me, are to be taken metaphorically. The meaning probably is that the ingratitude of Judas is like that of the beast which kicks him who feeds it and treats it kindly.

19. Christ tells them that He now makes known to them the treachery of one of them, in order that when it shall have come to pass, they may remember that He had foreknowledge of it, and may believe Him to be God.

20. Some hold that this verse has no connection with the context here; and that the words of Christ with which it was connected are omitted by[pg 239]our Evangelist. Others connect in various ways. With Beelen, we prefer to connect as follows. In verses 15-17, Christ had exhorted the Apostles to share in His humiliations; then, in verses 18 and 19 he digressed, to speak of the treachery of Judas; and now after the digression He tells them, for their consolation, that they shall be sharers in His honour.

Some harmonists place the institution of the Blessed Eucharist immediately after the words recorded in verse 20; others, after verse 22; and others, at other points in the narrative.

21.He was troubled in spirit.As we said above onxi. 23, this perturbation of soul was freely permitted by Christ. The disclosure of the traitor had been begun earlier in the night. It is recorded more or less fully by the four Evangelists, but in such a manner as to render it extremely probable that Christ returned to the subject several times during the night. St. Matthew (xxvi. 21, and foll.) and St. Mark (xiv. 18, and following) record the allusion to the traitor, immediately before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist. St. Luke, on the other hand, records it immediately after the same event:“This is the chalice, the New Testament, in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). St. John does not refer, at least explicitly, to the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; but in his narrative the treachery of Judas is at first insinuated during the washing of the feet (verse 10); again alluded to in verse 18; and, finally, clearly foretold in verse 26. We can best reconcile all the Evangelists by holding that, in the hope of deterring Judas from his awful purpose, our Lord returned several times to the same subject: first, during the washing of the feet, as in St. John; then before the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, as in SS. Matthew and Mark; then, immediately after the institution, as in St. Luke; and finally, when the dipped bread was handed to the traitor, and he left the room, as in St. John.

“No doubt it would be difficult to admit this supposition if the words in question (the words of the Synoptic Evangelists) contained, as seems generally to be taken for granted, a distinct identification of the traitor. For it could hardly be supposed that Judas, if thus pointed out, could have retained his place at the supper[pg 240]table, among the Apostles. But, in reality, there is no reason to regard the expressions recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark—and the same may be said of that recorded by St. Luke—as thus distinctly identifying the one who was to betray our Lord.”

“We may, indeed, regard them as conveying an intimation toJudas himself, if, as may be supposed, at the time they were uttered, or shortly before it, his hand had been upon the table, or if he had helped himself to some meat from the same dish as our Lord, and those others who sat in immediate proximity to Him. Or we may even suppose that those expressions, or at least some of them, werealtogether indefinite, so as to convey only the sad intelligence that it was one of His chosen Twelve who was about to betray Him; just as the words,‘Unus vestrumme traditurus est,’of St. Matthew (xxvi. 21), or the‘Unus ex vobistradet me, qui manducat mecum’of St. Mark (xiv. 18), or the prophetic words of the Psalmist (Ps. xl. 10) quoted by our Lord, as recorded by St. John (xiii. 18),‘Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me calcaneum suum.’

“But there appears no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the expressions hitherto quoted was calculated, or was intended, to identify the traitor, at leastin the eyes of his fellow-Apostles.93Thus, then, there is no difficulty in supposing that they may have been spoken by our Lord at even an early period of the supper.”

“The incident recorded by St. John (xiii. 21, 30) is of an essentially different character. There our Lord, after announcing in general terms,‘Unus ex vobis tradet me,’is appealed to by St. John, at the instance of St. Peter, to declare who the traitor may be. The request of the beloved disciple is promptly met by the response,‘Ille est, cui ego intinctum panem porrexero;’and the traitor is immediately pointed out by the signal thus selected by our Lord:‘Et[pg 241]quum intinxisset panem, dedit Judae Simonis Iscariotae.’”94

22.The disciples therefore looked(rather,were looking, as in the original and Vulgate)one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. The words vividly recall the actual scene. Strange as the prediction was, no one doubted its fulfilment; they merely doubted of whom He spoke. We say ofwhomHe spoke, for though the original might mean, ofwhatHe spoke, Peter's question immediately afterwards:“Who is it of whom he speaketh?”(v. 24), shows that their doubt regarded merely which of them was to betray Him. Earlier in the night, when He first referred to the betrayal, they may perhaps have doubted evenwhatHe meant; but that stage was now passed, and the only doubt remaining was as to which of their number was to play the part of traitor.

23.Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom.Rather:“Now there was reclining at the tablein(ἀνακείμενος ... ἐν) Jesus' bosom.”Instead of sitting at table, as we do now, the Jews of our Lord's time, and for some time before and after, reclined. The guests lay resting on their left arm, stretched obliquely, their feet being behind them, instead of under the table, as with us. In this way a guest was reclining close to the bosom of the guest behind him, and such was the position that St. John occupied in reference to Christ on this occasion. When three reclined on the same couch, the centre was the place of honour.

One of his disciples whom Jesus loved.This, according to all antiquity, was our Evangelist himself. The title, which occurs here for the first time, is perhaps suggested by the recollection of the privileged position he occupied at the Last Supper. It occurs again,xix. 26; xxi.7,20. Comp. alsoxx. 2.

24. The best-supported Greek reading agrees substantially with the Vulgate:“Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell who it is of[pg 242]whom he speaketh.”According to this reading, St. John was not asked to inquire of Jesus who the traitor was, but St. Peter takes for granted that St. John had already learned from Jesus, and simply asks the beloved disciple to make it known to them all. In the other and less probable reading, St. John is askedto inquire(πυθέσθαι) who the traitor is. It might seem more in accordance with St. Peter's character, that he should directly ask our Lord to point out the traitor, but it is possible that Christ's threat, recorded in verse 8, may have made him less confident than usual.

25. If St. Peter supposed that St. John already knew who the traitor was, he was mistaken, as we see by this verse.

He therefore leaning on.The best-supported Greek reading would be rendered thus:He leaning back, as he was, on&c. (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως ἐπί).

From his reclining position, St. John had merely to lean a little farther back in order to rest his head on His Divine Master's breast. Thus“as he was,”i.e., without changing his position at table, by merely leaning back, he was not only close to thebosomof Jesus, but was on His breast, and could whisper his question. All the fathers speak of the privilege conferred upon St. John on this occasion in his being admitted to such familiarity with his Divine Master.

26. If we suppose the bread which was handed to Judas to have been dipped in the Charoseth (חרוסת) a kind of sauce used at the Paschal Supper, then the meats of the Paschal Supper must have been still upon the table. This there is no difficulty in admitting, even if the ordinary supper, following upon the Paschal Supper, had already been partaken of.

27. After the morsel had been given to Judas,“Satan[pg 243]entered into him;”that is to say, Judas now revealed as a traitor, at least to St. John, became still more confirmed in his evil purpose. The words are generally understood not as implying corporal possession of Judas by the devil, but as signifying that the devil now gained full control over him in reference to the crime contemplated.And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly, again intimating that He knew the traitor's thoughts, and at the same time manifesting His own readiness to suffer. These words of our Lord do not contain a command or permission to Judas to commit the crime: but, taking for granted the traitor's fixed determination“That which thou dost,”i.e., hast determined to do, they show Christ's readiness and eagerness to begin to drink of the chalice that awaited Him.

28. The disciples, even St. John, knew not to what purpose Christ had told Judas to do quickly what he was determined to do. Though St. John, at least, had learned immediately before that Judas was to betray our Lord, still he probably did not expect that the betrayal would follow so rapidly upon the disclosure of the traitor.

29.For some thought ... for the festival day. This conjecture of the Apostles is adduced by some writers as a proof that the supper mentioned by St. John in this thirteenth chapter is not the Paschal Supper; or, if the Paschal Supper, that it was not celebrated on the night of the 14th of Nisan. They argue—(a) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan it would not have been lawful to buy or sell; and, therefore, the Apostles would not have conjectured as on this occasion they did; and (b) that on the night of the 14th of Nisan[pg 244]the Feast would already have begun, and the Apostles would not have conjectured that Judas was about to buy necessaries in preparation for the Feast.

But to (a) we reply that the buying and selling of articles of food was not forbidden during the Pasch (Exod. xii. 16), and certainly was not forbidden on a festival that fell, as in this case, on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. To (b) we answer that though the festival time had begun, yet it lasted seven days; and the fact that a few hours of the festal period had already elapsed would not prevent the Apostles from conjecturing that Judas might be making provision for the long period that was still to come.To the poor.From this conjecture, and from xii. 5, we may conclude that our Lord and the Apostles were in the habit of giving alms to the poor.

30. When Judas found himself revealed as the traitor, he immediately left the supper-room. The Evangelist adds:And it was night, no doubt in order to give completeness to the history, but possibly also to mark the contrast of the light Judas left behind him with the outer darkness into which he went forth.“Erat autem nox,”says St. Aug.,“Et ipse qui exivit erat nox.”

Let us here pause for a moment in the narrative of St. John to inquire whether the Blessed Eucharist was instituted before the departure of Judas; whether, therefore, he sacrilegiously received the Blessed Eucharist and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. The great majority of the fathers answer in the affirmative. This view seems to us extremely probable. For the Synoptic Evangelists all take care to tell us that Jesus sat down with the Twelve; and then a few verses afterwards, without any indication of a change in the company, without the slightest hint that anyone had departed, they proceed:“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My body”(Matt. xxvi. 26). Compare St. Mark and St. Luke. Hence, although they must have had the treachery of Judas before their minds while writing, yet they say not a word about his departure, as it might naturally be expected they would, if he had actually departed. Nay, St. Luke's version of our Lord's words clearly implies that Judas was present at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; for in St. Luke our Lord seems to contrast His own love in instituting the Blessed[pg 245]Eucharist with the treachery ofone who was present.“This is the chalice, the New Testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you.But yetbehold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table”(Luke xxii. 20, 21). Therefore, according to St. Luke, Judas was still at the table after the institution; and St. Mark states that all present drank of the chalice:“And they all drank of it”(xiv. 23).

It seems to us, then, much more probable that Judas received the Blessed Eucharist, and was ordained priest at the Last Supper. Many, however, hold the opposite view; among others, St. Hilary, Innocent III., Salmeron, B. Lamy, Corluy, Langen, and Cornely. The latter says that he agrees in this“Cum plerisque modernis”(Corn., iii., p. 298, note). Their principal arguments are: (1) That St. Matthew, who was present at the Last Supper, records the disclosure of the traitorbeforethe institution of the Eucharist, while we know from St. John (verse 30) that Judas departed when he was disclosed: therefore he departed before the institution of the Eucharist. But this argument loses its force, if we hold as above, that Christ referred on several occasions during the night to the treachery of Judas, andonly on the last occasiondefinitely disclosed who the traitor was.

(2) They say, that surely our Lord did not allow Judas to make a sacrilegious Communion and receive Holy Orders, when He could so easily have prevented it. But we may reply that Christ referred several times to the betrayal, in order to recall Judas to a better sense; failing in this, He left him free, just as He leaves unworthy communicants or bad priests free now.

We believe, then, that modern commentators have no solid reason for departing from what was undeniably the common view in the early Church, that Judas at the Last Supper did receive Holy Communion and was ordained priest.

31. With this verse our Lord's last discourses begin. They are divided into two portions by the change of place at the close of chapter xiv., the first portion containing what was spoken in the Supper Room (xiii. 31-xiv. 31); the second, what was spoken just outside the Supper Room or along the way to Gethsemane or at some point on the way (xv., xvi.). In the first portion the leading ideas are that He[pg 246]and the Apostles are to be separated because He is about to ascend to the glory of the Father; still, that notwithstanding the separation, they shall not be orphans, but He and they shall be united.

When he therefore was gone out Jesus said.The departure of Judas marked the beginning of the end, and Jesus at once turned to the eleven with words that prove His knowledge of what was about to happen, and His acceptance of the issue of the traitor's work.

Now is the son of man glorified.Judas had finally decided to betray Him, and He Himself had fully accepted what was to follow, so that His death, now so certain and so near, might be spoken of as already past:“is ... glorified.”For their consolation and encouragement He refers to His death as a glorification, as indeed it was, being a triumph over Satan and sin, and the prelude to victory over death itself.

And God is glorified in him.God's rigorous justice and boundless love for men were manifested by His sending His Divine Son to die for them, and hence God was glorified in the death of Christ. See Rom. iii. 25, 26; v. 8, 9.

32. Many authorities omit the words:“If God be glorified in him.”In himself.The meaning seems to be:withHimself, as in xvii. 5:“And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself.”Immediately, we refer to the time of the crucifixion.

33. The glorification of Christ implied His departure from the Apostles, and the time was now come for making known to them the separation. At present they, any more than His enemies, could not follow Him, and what He had before declared to His enemies (vii.33,34), He now declares to His dearest friends. Yet, though the substance of the declaration is in both cases the same, Christ's purpose in making it was very different. To the Jews it was made in the hope that they would thus be urged to make good use of the time that still remained to them before the separation, while in the present case the[pg 247]motive seems rather to be to forearm the Apostles by forewarning them and putting before them various motives of consolation.

The term (τεκνία) occurs only here in the Gospels, but is found six (or seven) times in St. John's First Epistle. The diminutive form is expressive of tender affection, and perhaps of anxiety for those who were still immature.

Little children you shall seek me, &c. See above onvii. 34. The declaration is somewhat different in form on this second occasion. The words:“and shall not find me”(vii. 34) are omitted, and instead of:“where I am”the present text has:“whither I go.”As we have said, the leading idea in both cases is of separation, but since that separation was to be followed in the case of the Apostles by spiritual union (xiv. 18, 23), hence He now omits the words:“and shall not find me;”though in the sense of not finding Him any longer visibly present among them, the words were true even in reference to the Apostles.

34. Christ calls this commandment a new one, because though love of the neighbour had been commanded in the Law (Lev. xix. 18), yet love modelled on the love of Christ as its exemplar, Christian love, had never been commanded before. The words:As I have loved you, imply that we should love our neighbour with the same kind of love, and from the same motive, as Christ loves us; but not, of course, in the same measure, for of this we are incapable.

35. This mutual love was to be a distinctive mark of Christ's perfect disciples. And so, in fact, it was in the early Church, for Tertullian tells us that the Pagans used to say:“See how these Christians love one another”!...“and how they are ready to die for one another”! (Apol. 39).

36. St. Peter, all absorbed in Christ's words, (verse 33), which signified that he was to be separated from his Divine Master, asks:Lord, whither[pg 248]goest thou?Christ's reply means that He was going to His Father, whither Peter should one day follow, though he could not follow then.Thou shalt follow hereafter.These words implied Peter's final perseverance and salvation.

37. St. Peter, not understanding Christ's reply, and thinking that He meant to go to some place of danger, testifies his readiness to die for Christ, and hence, he implies, to follow Him anywhere.

38. Christ replies, rebuking Peter's boastful confidence, and declaring that so far was Peter from being ready at that time to die for Him, that before cockcrow he would deny Him thrice.

We believe that our Lordtwiceon this night predicted the denials by Peter: once in the supper-room, as recorded by St. John here, and by St. Luke (xxii. 34), and again on the way to Gethsemane, as recorded by St. Matt. (xxvi. 30-34), and St. Mark (xiv. 26-30). By the latter Evangelists the prophecy of Peter's denial is distinctly placed on the way to Gethsemane, and connected with the prophecy of the general desertion of the Apostles. This latter prophecy, it may well be, called forth from Peter a second expression of his fearless attachment to his Master, and this was followed in turn by a second reference to Peter's denials.

While the other three Evangelists represent our Lord as saying that the three denials by Peter should take place before the cock would crow, St. Mark, who was a disciple of St. Peter, records the prediction more minutely, and represents our Lord as saying:“Before the cock crowtwice, thou shalt deny me thrice”(Mark xiv. 30). There is, however, no contradiction between St. Mark and the others, even if all refer to the same prediction; for thesecondcrowing of the cock, before which, according to St. Mark, the three denials were to take place, is that which is meant by the other Evangelists, and which was universally known as“thecockcrowing.”That the cockcrowing in our Lord's time was regarded as so distinct a note of time as to have given its name to one of the four watches of the night, we have clear evidence in the Gospels.[pg 249]Thus, in St. Mark (xiii. 35), our Lord says:“Watch ye therefore (for you know not when the lord of the house cometh; at even, or at midnight,or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning).”Thus, then, although the cock crew after Peter'sfirstdenial, as St. Mark records (Mark xiv. 68), still the time generally known as cockcrow—about 3 a.m.—was that meant when the word was used, as it is in our Lord's prediction in SS. Matt., Luke, and John, without any special indication that the first crowing of the cock was the one intended. Hence, thesecondcrowing of the cock referred to by St. Mark wasthecock-crowing mentioned by the other three Evangelists.

Before quitting this chapter, it may be well, for clearness sake, to repeat here what we consider to be the most probable order of events at the Last Supper.

(1) There was the Paschal Supper.

(2) During the Paschal Supper, or at its close (but certainly before the ordinary supper was over: see above on verse 2), the washing of the feet, accompanied by the first allusion to the traitor (John xiii. 10).

(3) The ordinary supper, during which

(4) Another reference to the traitor (Matt. xxvi. 21ff.; and Mark xiv. 18ff.).

(5) The Eucharistic Supper.

(6) A third reference to the traitor (Luke xxii. 21).

(7) The strife among the Apostles as to which of them was the greatest, occasioned, perhaps, by the anxiety of each to shift from himself the charge of treachery.

(8) The question of St. John (John xiii. 25), and the final disclosure of the traitor, who quits the supper room.

Back to IndexNext