Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on John 13:18-38

 

Commentary on the Gospel of John 13:18-38 by Joseph Knabenbauer

John 13:18–38

b. He Speaks Concerning the Betrayer (Jn 13:18–30)

Jn 13:18-30. According to Matthew 26:21 and Mark 14:18, Jesus, while dining and before the institution of the Eucharist, introduces a discourse concerning the betrayer, and the disciples ask, "Is it I, Lord?" John teaches that this also happened during the supper, precisely because Christ dips the bread and offers it to Judas. He shows, therefore, that the discourse was begun during the supper, and that Judas departed near the end of the supper after receiving the morsel. It is manifest, therefore, from the narration of Matthew, Mark, and John, that the discourse concerning the betrayer and the questions of the disciples as to who among them was going to do this (Luke 22:23) took place during the supper. Therefore, it cannot be that Luke 22:21 is to be understood in such a way that these things happened not only after the supper but also after the institution of the Eucharist.

How Luke ought to be understood, Rupert [of Deutz] has already seen well: "The words which the Lord spoke concerning His betrayer at the earlier supper, Luke has rearranged so that, narrating the prior Paschal supper and the subsequent consecration of the Lord's body and blood, he might join them together, and only then continue the words which were spoken at the meal." Unless, therefore, you wish to establish something entirely superfluous—namely, that both Christ and the disciples said the same things twice, i.e., during the supper and after an interval of time when the Eucharist was instituted, Christ [saying] Luke 22:22 "Woe," etc., and the disciples asking—indeed, the narration in Luke must be conceived like that of John. John, as elsewhere, so also here supplements the narration of others; he omits those things which are set forth in the others. Thus, what is reported in Matthew 26:22–25, John only hints at in Jn 13:22; the rest (Jn 13:23–30) he narrates alone.

Jn 13:18. Christ, with great sorrow of soul, must except one from that praise [uttered in Jn 13:17]: "I do not speak of all of you," namely, "you are blessed." With what patience He does not yet accuse the betrayer, but covers the matter, hence granting him a place for repentance! "I know whom I have chosen," who they are and what kind they will be, whom I have chosen for the dignity of the apostolate. "But that the Scripture may be fulfilled: 'He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.'" That is: "Although I knew who the future betrayer would be, I chose him also so that the Scripture might be fulfilled," etc. The different rationale of predictions must be attended to. For sins which men are about to commit are predicted for this reason: because they were going to happen. For God foresees and sometimes announces what men are going to do by their free will. Christ, however, did all things for this cause: to fulfill the Father's will; thus He also acted so that those things which were predicted might be fulfilled. Therefore, He chose Judas, although He knew he would be a betrayer, because He knew the Father willed this; He chose because it was written; He chose so that what was signified and predicted might be fulfilled (cf. Toletus). Hence that word "but" consequently enunciates the same regarding Judas's sin, foreseen and predicted, as if you were to say: "But it was necessary for the Scripture to be fulfilled." Others supply after "but": "this happened" (γίνεται τὸ γενόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσοντός με — "It comes to pass that which comes to pass by one of you betraying me"). Or: The words are taken from Psalm 41:10. The psalmist complains of the treachery prepared by him who reclined at table with him. Since the psalm is inscribed to David himself, they commonly explain it concerning the betrayal of Ahitophel (2 Sam 15:12, 31 seq.; 16:20; 17:1 seq.), who, after he acted perfidiously against David, perished by hanging (2 Sam 17:23). Therefore, those words are fulfilled in a typical reason in the Messiah also, who is called David by the prophets. "To lift up the heel" means to strike someone with the heel, to kick someone; it designates an injury inflicted by a familiar friend and table-companion. The LXX in that place have ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ' ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν, whence the Vulgate: "has magnified supplanting against me," i.e., he laid snares, an image taken from him who trips someone running in the stadium, i.e., by interposing the foot he impedes the foot of another so that he falls. Christ manifests, therefore, that He fully foreknew the betrayal and that the Scripture was fulfilled even in these things.

Jn 13:19. But why does He warn His own concerning this matter? He states in verse 19: "From now on (ἀπ' ἄρτι), from this very time, I tell you before it comes to pass, so that when it has come to pass you may believe that I am He" (the Messiah, scil. cf. Jn 8:24; Maldonatus, Corluy, Schegg). Or, as others supply: "He in whom that is fulfilled" (Euthymius, Augustine, Bede) ὁ προφητευθείς Χριστός ("the Christ who was prophesied"). Or: "Lest, therefore, by that betrayal, as if Jesus were captured unexpectedly, they be disturbed, lest they doubt concerning Him on account of a matter so unworthy, and concerning His mission, He predicts these things to them and shows that they are already consigned in the Scriptures. And after it has happened, recalling what Christ said, they are confirmed in their faith by a new document."

Jn 13:20. "Amen, amen, I say to you, he who receives whom I send, receives Me; but he who receives Me, receives Him who sent Me." Honors and benefits conferred on legates redound to Him whose legation they perform (see Matthew 10:40). Christ demonstrates of how great value the benefits conferred on His apostles are to be esteemed; by which promise certainly men are provoked to assist the apostles who are sent by Christ. Therefore, in these words is also contained what care Christ will have for them. But in what way do these words cohere with the antecedents? This is difficult to say, so much so that there are those who deny any connection exists, namely, that those things which in the discourse itself connected these with the antecedents or sequents were omitted by the evangelist (Corluy). Others, however, establish a connection, but in various ways. And Theophylact indeed [says]: "Greatest is the sequence." For Christ brings consolation to His own in two ways: by His example, i.e., by the things He suffered, He did [this] to the betrayer; then by predicting in this place His protection and care for the apostles (similarly Schegg). Others refer these words to Jn 13:16–17 (cf. Rupert, Toletus, Lapide, Baronius): "Although I order you to wash feet among you, know nevertheless that I wish you to be held by all in that place, so that he who receives someone whom I send, receives Me." Since in Jn 13:20 the dignity of the apostles is asserted, others join it to Jn 13:19 so that Christ implies that, notwithstanding the betrayal of one, the apostolic dignity remains intact for the rest (Schegg, Fillion). See on verse 21. Other reasons for connecting have also been devised. That which Cyril proposed would be very apt, unless it seemed more subtle; not wishing, as it seems, to say openly what he said elsewhere: "He who does not honor the Son, neither does he honor the Father," he turned himself to that which was milder, hence leaving the contrary to be thought by the listeners. Which explanation Patrick [Junctions?] considers the best of all: "Just as 'he who receives whom I send, receives Me,' and 'he who receives Me, receives Him who sent Me,' so it is tacitly left to be concluded: 'He who does not receive Me, neither does he receive Him who sent Me, nor does he acknowledge God.'" The crime of Judas, therefore, of what sort it is and how it inflicts injury on God the Father, is indicated. Thus the magnitude of Judas's wickedness is proposed in a milder way. Truly, the things which must be supplied are precisely contrary to those which are said here, nor is it sufficiently clear why Christ began that sentence from the reception of him whom He himself sent. Others connect this to Jn 13:16 thus: "Above it was said: 'An apostle is not greater than he who sent him'; now it is said: 'Neither is he lesser than him'" (Weiss). Or: "Just as above a sharing of tribulations is assigned to them, so here a sharing of the honor due to the Master" (Beelen, Bisping). Or: "They are admonished by that humility which Christ demands from His own, that they will by no means be for contempt, indeed to be considered holding the place of Christ" (Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus, Lapide). Nor have there been lacking those who would say this Jn 13:20 was inserted by interpolation.

Jn 13:21. What He had hinted at already in Jn 13:10, 18–19, He now enunciates in clear words, not without great commotion of soul. "When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit" (cf. Jn 12:27), "and He testified" (ἐμαρτύρησεν), as if He issued a solemn testimony; He testified solemnly "and said: Amen, amen, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." Many things concur for which Christ willed to be moved and shaken in soul. He had said "He who receives Me," etc., whence on the contrary He is seized with horror at the enormity of the crime of betrayal committed by one of the apostles. In this very betrayal He sees the passion and death imminent, from which human affection recoils with fear and trembling. The impending passion and proximate danger troubled Him, and the hand of the betrayer hanging over Him, whose spirit had been foreknown. For such is this that Jesus was troubled in spirit, as also that which He said in Jn 12:27. Just as then His soul was troubled, the hour of passion approaching, so also now, with Judas about to depart and so great a crime of the betrayer approaching (Augustine, similarly Rupert, Thomas, Bonaventure). He shuddered at the crime of the betrayer (Cyril, Fillion). And for Him, who with great sorrow shed tears over the blindness of Jerusalem, it was also lamentable that one of the disciples should so miserably fall and rush into the precipice of eternal death by his own malice, nor be willing to be recalled by any persuasion (Toletus, similarly Thomas, Lapide, Baronius, Schegg). From which commotion of soul it is also understood that Jesus not only said this one thing which John reports, but other things which the Synoptics have handed down. Because these likewise have already written sufficiently concerning the questions of the disciples, he himself only reports generally in verse 22.

Jn 13:22. "Therefore the disciples looked at one another, hesitating" (ἀπορούμενοι), uncertain of whom He spoke. Stupor together with fear invades them (Cyril). Indeed, the conscience of each was known to Himself [Christ], truly because the neighbor's was unknown, so each was certain of himself that they were uncertain, and each in the others and the others in each (Augustine, Bede). But since they know the Savior's word cannot be void, each was also solicitous concerning himself, whence they interrogate just as the Synoptics narrate. When, however, neither by mutual inquiry among themselves (Luke 22:23) nor by questions posed to the Lord (Mark 14:19; cf. Matthew 26:25) was the betrayer discovered, then finally happened what John narrates, because Peter, with whatever fervor he had, desired to know altogether certainly who it was.

Jn 13:23. "Now there was reclining one of His disciples on Jesus' bosom, whom Jesus loved," namely, John himself, who thus narrates concerning himself (cf. Jn 18:15; Jn 21:7, 20). For they were accustomed to recline at table in such a way that, with the upper part of the body reclined on the left elbow, the lower part extended at length, they lay with the head slightly raised. John, therefore, lay on the couch before Jesus, at His right side, leaning on his left elbow, so that he had his head almost before the breast of Jesus. He lay, therefore, "on the bosom" or "in the bosom" of Jesus (cf. Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. ad h.l.; Corluy, Schegg, Schanz, Fillion). That Peter lay at the left side of Jesus some think (Lightfoot l.c., Schegg, Schanz), but then it is not easily seen how he could conveniently nod to John; therefore others place him in the part opposite to John (cf. Edersheim II, p. 494). John was loved by Jesus with greater familiarity; whence also he seems to have obtained this special favor, to occupy such a place near Jesus. "Do you think you have learned little when you hear he reclined, and that he enjoyed such confidence (παρρησίας) with the Master? But if you seek the cause, it proceeded from love; therefore he says: 'whom Jesus loved'" (Chrysostom). That he was loved by Jesus in a special way on account of purity of soul, they affirm commonly (cf. Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupert, Albert, Thomas, Toletus, Lapide, etc.).

That Jesus did not wish to make the betrayer known to all and indicate him was plain enough from those things which the Synoptics narrate as having been done. Peter, however, supremely desired to know the matter, and his impatience of knowing it was plainly congruent with his character otherwise manifested. He hopes, therefore, that through him whom Jesus loved and who reclined near Him in His bosom, the matter could be known.

Jn 13:24. "Therefore Simon Peter motioned to him and said to him." By a sign and nod itself he says: "Who is it about whom He speaks?" Thus, therefore, Peter reclines that he himself cannot interrogate the Lord secretly; that he spoke to John by a nod is expressed more clearly by the reading νεύει Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη etc., as it is also had [in other codices]: "And he nodded to this one to learn from Jesus about whom He had spoken."

Jn 13:25. "Therefore, when he had reclined on the breast of Jesus" (ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖνος οὕτως, scil. ὡς ἀνέκειτο — Euthymius), namely, as was said in Jn 13:23. And that "on the bosom" is declared "upon the breast" (ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος). For since he had interrogated secretly at Peter's urging, it was necessary to say how he reclined so that he could interrogate secretly from the others and receive Jesus's answer secretly. Perhaps here it is said "upon the breast" because he had made the reclining in such a way that his head touched the breast of Jesus, by which he might converse secretly with the others. "He says to Him: Lord, who is it?"

Jn 13:26. "Jesus answered: He it is to whom I, having dipped the bread, shall offer it." The Savior gives no other sign of the matter than that which was once predicted through the voice of the prophet (Psalm 41:10; Cyril). "And when He had dipped the bread" (ψωμίον — a fragment, a morsel), "He dipped it into the dish in which was the charoseth, a certain thick sauce, a condiment, a dip" (see what I said in Commentary on Matthew II, p. 420, note 1d). "He gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot." There are those who think the morsel was of the paschal lamb, and that Jesus, who had already offered a little piece to all, at that moment offered it to Judas, or immediately afterward to others also, so that only John perceived the betrayer to be designated thus (Corluy). Perhaps Peter also noticed this, because not ignorant of the question proposed by John, he could conjecture that Jesus responded by this action. Jesus, however, by this action exhibited a new sign of benevolence to Judas, and again offered him grace and an impulse to repentance. In vain were those terrible threats; in vain Judas knew he was fully perceived by Jesus (Matthew 26:24–25); in vain the benevolence of Jesus and grace were offered. Judas hardened his mind more in evil.

Jn 13:27. "Whence, after the morsel, Satan entered into him." Then he enters into the heart when a man gives himself totally to follow his instinct and in nothing resists him. He entered so that He might possess him more fully and lead him to perpetrating malice, into whom He had before sent [him] so that he might act foolishly (Thomas). For Judas received a sign of benevolence and friendship, but with a brazen forehead he despised all admonitions. Hence, by the just judgment of God, it came to pass that he was permitted totally to the power of Satan, and that [Satan] received fuller power in him, which is signified by this that it is said "Satan entered into him" (Jansenius). This judgment of God, by which God is said to deliver sinners into the desires of their hearts (Romans 1:24), Christ also enunciates "and Jesus said to him: What you do, do quickly." Seeing the uncorrectable malice of Judas and the firm purpose of betrayal, lest he think that He had affected him with benefits out of some fear, as if fearing these things for Himself He wished to draw him back, and not rather consult for him, therefore He says: "What you do, do quickly," i.e., "Execute quickly and speedily what you have already decreed to do; I do not contradict, nor do I obstruct, nor do I fear" (Toletus). By these words He simultaneously objects the crime which he perpetrated in mind and proposes it before his eyes (Baronius). Furthermore, He indicates that without His permission the betrayer can effect nothing, and that those things are true which He had said to the Jews: "I have power to lay down My life" (Chrysostom). Commonly they warn that the imperative "do" is not of one commanding but of one permitting and reproaching. For the imperative is employed even if one wishes to say that he bears something patiently, that he opposes nothing lest something be done (cf. Krüger 54, 4, 2); they call it a permissive imperative (Winer 43, 1). "[Do] more quickly than you seem to wish to do." Judas certainly had proposed, the supper being soon left, to betake himself to the Sanhedrists and, custody having been received, to cooperate in the apprehension of Jesus. Jesus, seeing him plainly hardened in evil, wishes to remove him from the company of others and from His own commerce, and since he himself seemed to delay, He warns him to execute more quickly what he proposed to do, leaving the supper. By these things, therefore, Jesus removes him from the college of apostles, so that he who had already departed in mind might also be separated in body, unfit and unworthy to be present at the subsequent signification of Jesus's love. If you have conceived the words thus, the mode of commanding can have nothing offensive. Those words are said not to Judas but to the devil (Cyril); or to Judas or to the devil (Origen).

Jn 13:28–30. How well Judas covered his perversity is evident from the following narration. Verse 28: "Now no one of those dining knew why He said this to him." Therefore, they conceived no suspicion, neither before nor after the announcement of Christ concerning one betrayer, from those words "What you do," etc. Verse 29: "For some thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him: 'Buy those things which are needful for us for the festival day,' or that he should give something to the poor." They could think this the more readily if the following day was not for the Jews the very solemn day; and that it was not for the Jews is clear both from other places and from Jn 18:28. But they could also think this even if the following day were the very day of the Paschal festivity. For festival days did not have such strict observance and cessation from all work as the Sabbath days (see what I said concerning verse 29 in Commentary on Matthew II, p. 407, where this is proved by cited places). Verse 30: "Therefore, when he had received that morsel, he went out immediately. Now it was night." Ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς; therefore, the morsel having been received, he immediately left the supper room. This is to be noted well. For by this thing is solved the question whether Judas received the Eucharist or not. That this morsel was not the Eucharist is evident. Already Augustine notes: "But not then, as some think negligently reading, did Judas receive the body of Christ." But can the institution of the Eucharist be inserted before? There are those who place the institution of the Eucharist after Jn 13:22 and before Jn 13:23 (Augustine, Toletus). Truly, thus the context of the narration is torn apart. The disciples ask concerning the betrayer during the supper and before the institution; Christ pronounced that "Woe" also before the institution; He had likewise said the betrayer was one of the disciples eating with Him. Luke narrates the same things, but as has already been said, it cannot be assumed that the same things were said twice both by the Lord and by the disciples, and therefore the order of Luke's narration must be explained thus, as also in 21:37 it is had: he adds to the thing done, the narrated Paschal and Eucharistic supper, something which supplements the narration, which therefore must be explained from the clear and perspicuous relation of the others. It accedes that it is plainly improbable that Peter, for his fervent character, did not propose his question at that time when all the disciples, greatly excited, were asking among themselves and interrogating the Lord, but deferred it and only after the institution of the Eucharist, when there was no longer speech concerning that matter, moved the question. Certainly, in Jn 13:22 the evangelist hints briefly at that which the Synoptics report more explicitly; in his own way, however, he supplements the same narration of the Synoptics by those things which he narrates in Jn 13:23 seq. Therefore, these things are not to be torn away from that narration and from verse 22. Therefore, the narration of Jn 13:18–30 is one continuous [account] which is closely connected with the antecedents (Jn 13:10–11) and with the washing of the feet, nor can it be torn apart without violence. Those understood this well who, so that they might nevertheless admit Judas to the Eucharist, place the washing of the feet after the Eucharist was instituted (Thomas); others, as Jansenius thinks, hold that all things concerning the betrayal were done after the institution of the Eucharist, which is against the clear narration of Matthew and Mark. Baronius (year 34, n. 58) rightly thinks all things were done after the washing of the feet, before the institution, as Matthew, Mark, and John write; Luke, as by a postposition. But he wishes that "continuously" (εὐθύς) is only to be understood thus: that Judas did not wait for that long discourse after the supper. Truly, besides εὐθύς, one must also attend to that "What you do, do quickly."

Against this sentence, that Judas did not receive the Eucharist, it has been objected that the Fathers teach the contrary by unanimous consent. Which objection is false. For there are Fathers who explicitly state that Judas was not present at the institution, as I have already exposed in Commentary on Matthew II, p. 439; others do not touch upon that question; how therefore can speech be made concerning unanimous consent? See the opinions of others concerning the same sentence in Commentary l.c.

"Having received the morsel, Judas went out immediately. Now it was night." He willed to use the night to execute the counsel of the demon, the prince of darkness. Aptly is night selected for the most atrocious crime, which certainly agrees with that time concerning which Christ said: "This is your hour and the power of darkness" (Luke 22:53). Into the night Judas goes out, separated from Him who is the light of the world, having his mind enveloped in darkness. Merely Origen notes that this time of night is not assigned rashly; it must be said symbolically that there was then a night perceptible to the senses, which was an image of the night made in the soul of Judas. Whence Augustine says: "And he himself who went out was night." Indeed, this brief sentence by which the narration is concluded has something of horror, because the mind of the reader is spontaneously warned concerning the cloudy night by which Judas was surrounded, and concerning that eternal night to which, departing, he was hastening and acquiring for himself.

c. He Begins to Speak Concerning His Departure (Jn 13:31–38)

Jn 13:31. Now Jesus turns all His discourse to this: that He may console, instruct, and confirm the apostles with salutary documents. The evangelist indicates that the very departure of Judas offered Christ the occasion of changing the discourse and treating concerning His glorification (Maldonatus). Therefore he writes in verse 31: "When, therefore, he had gone out, Jesus said: Now is the Son of Man glorified." Now, when Judas has gone out to perfect the betrayal (Origen, Augustine). He calls the impending passion His glorification, because the consummation of glory was situated in the passion which He sustained for the life of the world (Cyril). In the passion itself His glory was manifested by various prodigies; by the passion He came to glory; by the passion He becomes the cause of eternal salvation, and therefore glory and honor are to be pursued by all (Chrysostom, Cyril, Rupert). He says ἐδοξάσθη ("is glorified"); for it must be known that when something begins to be done, it is seen to be as if done (Thomas, Schanz, Corluy). By the betrayal the work of redemption is now as if begun, and Christ speaks just as if a general of an army, having received news of a battle to be fought on that day, rejoicing, should say: "Now I have obtained an immortal name," speaking through the past tense concerning a future thing, to show that He holds victory as certain as if He were already returning triumphing (Maldonatus). He calls this time of betrayal, passion, death, a time of glorification also for this reason: that He may raise up and console the souls of the disciples, that they may know they pass through passion to glory (Chrysostom, Caietanus). And if He Himself is glorified, His disciples also will be sharers of that glory. He says, therefore, that that time is now at hand, of which He spoke in Jn 12:23 (Euthymius), who adds: "If afflictions endured for servants are glory to the Lord, much more are those things which are sustained for the Lord glory to the servants." This glorification of the Son is also the glory of the Father, "and God is glorified in Him" (cf. Jn 11:4; Jn 12:28; Jn 17:4). For Jesus in all things executes the Father's will; in the glory and kingdom of Christ appears the glory of the Father; in the work and death of Christ is manifested the holiness, justice, immense mercy, and charity of God toward the human race (cf. Romans 3:26; Rom 5:8). Then, by this that Christ is honored and His glory is announced to the world by the apostles, the glory of the Father is also acknowledged and adored.

Jn 13:32. But the Father returns the favor to the Son: "If God is glorified in Him," i.e., "since indeed God will also glorify Him in Himself," namely, by assuming Him into the consortium of heavenly glory proper to divinity, as is said in Jn 17:5: "Glorify Me, Father, with Yourself, with the glory which I had before the world was with You" (cf. Corluy). That consortium of glory is expressed in the session at the right hand of majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). That ἐν αὐτῷ ("in Him") seems to be of the same notion as παρὰ σεαυτῷ ("with Yourself") in 17:5. Others explain "by Himself He will glorify Him, not by another" (δι' ἑαυτοῦ οὐ δι' ἑτέρου — Chrysostom). But this glory of Christ which is made by the Father is rather enunciated in the following member: "and immediately He will glorify Him" (εὐθύς — straightway, immediately), i.e., already before He is assumed into that society of heavenly glory, as He was glorified in the very passion and death by various prodigies, the confession of the centurion, His resurrection, etc. Indeed, "immediately He will glorify Him" can be a proem to the institution of the Eucharist, which is conveniently inserted in this place, as Tatian also placed it after this word (cf. Ciasca, Tatiani Evang. Harm. Arabice, Romae 1888, p. 80), whom Baronius also follows. And indeed, in the Eucharist is had the glorification of Jesus in signs, since there He is presented in a manner so stupendous, and His human nature obtains existence in very many places. The discourse which follows, and also that most tender appellation "little children" (τεκνία), best receives that institution itself, which concludes with "Do this in commemoration of Me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).

Jn 13:33. He proposes His departure, of which He had made mention in the institution of the Eucharist, more clearly to them afterward. "Little children" (τεκνία), a bland address full of love, by which He strives to soften the bitter news to the disciples, and at the same time wishes to testify the most tender affection of His soul toward them. "Yet a little while I am with you." The time until the captivity, passion, death is very brief. Concerning this "little while" most rightly understand the majority (cf. Theodoret, M., Rupert, Albert, Thomas, Caietanus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Corluy, Schanz). Augustine well notes: "Lest, however, this sense seem to anyone to abhor from the truth, let him attend to His words in another evangelist also, where after the resurrection He says: 'These things I spoke to you when I was still with you'" (Luke 24:44). Whence "to be with the apostles" is said concerning His continuous association with them, such as He no longer had after the resurrection. After His departure, the disciples will opt for His presence with great desire. "You will seek Me, and as I said to the Jews: 'Where I am going, you cannot come,' so to you I say now" (cf. Jn 7:34). What He before said to the Jews, this now, or "now" (ἄρτι), He says to the disciples (Jansenius, Maldonatus, Schanz). Thus, from the opposition to the Jews, to whom He had before said, it will have to be joined, although not a few thus: "Now you cannot come, this I say" (Theodoret M., Augustine, Bede, Thomas, Caietanus, Lapide). Jesus goes to the Father; He warns that He had already said this to the Jews, that they may recall that it was already predicted by Him: "I go to Him who sent Me" (Jn 7:34). Therefore, He does not arbitrate that His death is brought about by the will of adversaries. To the Jews He had said "and you will not find Me"; this He does not say to the disciples. Therefore, He simultaneously indicates that His help and assistance and consolation will not be lacking to them in the tribulations which the very voice "You will seek Me" and that comparison "as I said to the Jews" sufficiently implies are going to occur to them. They cannot come, certainly now, immediately they cannot. For neither was the time yet for the disciples, their ministry not yet consummated, to pass to the supernal mansions. For that migration was reserved for a congruous time (Cyril). To which reason, drawn from divine ordination and their apostolic office, Jansenius thinks another can also be added: because on account of imperfection they are not yet apt for the kingdom of God or for death to be endured for His glory. Since, therefore, they must remain in mortal life, He teaches them the form of life (Jansenius, Toletus), and at the same time assigns how they ought to render themselves fit for the kingdom of God (Rupert, Thomas), and gives them paternal monitions in the manner of one departing.

Jn 13:34. "A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another." The former ἵνα ("that") declares the commandment itself and introduces its argument; καθώς ("as") expounds the norm and example of this commandment; the latter ἵνα ("that") indicates what Christ also intended by this His love. They ask why Jesus says this commandment is "new," since the commandment of loving one's neighbor was already given in the Law (Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 5:43). Various reasons are assigned. Frequently they see the newness in the added norm: "as I have loved you." By which mode added, He shows His love has something greater and more excellent than that old love toward neighbors. Therefore, the sense of these words must be investigated, and it must be sought how Christ loved us; for then, what novelty and difference there is in that which is now given as a commandment, we shall easily recount (Cyril). And they find this novelty in the example of Christ in this: that Christ orders us to love others more than ourselves, so that we may be ready to lay down life itself for them (Cyril, Theodoret M., Ammon, Rupert, Euthymius). Or: "That we love, conferring benefits, bound by no debt, because Christ did not pay a debt by our preceding merits, but He Himself began to love us" (Chrysostom). Certainly, that "as" can be conceived in various ways. Thomas finds three things: Christ loved us gratuitously, efficaciously (the proof of love is the exhibition of the work), rightly (i.e., we ought to love in another that which is God's, just as Christ loved us inasmuch as we are similar to Him by the grace of adoption). Augustine says love is described as distinct from all worldly love. For Christ loved God in us; Christian love is designated (Corluy). Others, however, think the commandment is called new because this commandment, antiquated by the morals of men and imperfectly observed by the Jews, the new Master Christ renewed and taught by His example (Jansenius). Or: "Because Jesus had not expressed this commandment up to this point, whence now I add this new commandment besides all others" (Toletus). Or: "A commandment anew I give to you that you love" (Maldonatus).

Jn 13:35. He wishes this to be a symbol and sign by which His own are distinguished from the rest. "In this will all know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." It is placed, as Thomas says, the reason for fulfilling this commandment. "Whoever is numbered in the militia of the king ought to bear his insignia. But the insignia of Christ are the insignia of charity. Therefore, whoever wishes to be numbered in the militia of Christ ought to be marked with the character of charity." They received many gifts, the apostles; they wrought miracles. All these are not signs of the discipleship of Christ, since graces freely given can be common to the good and the bad. Therefore, He wishes His own to be distinct by charity. Christ seeks this because this is especially the indication of saints and the argument; for it indicates all holiness; by this especially we all obtain salvation. "Thus all will praise you when they see you imitate My love." By this symbol Christians were known; the multitude of believers was "one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32). The gentiles marveled at this charity, as Tertullian testifies: "See," they say, "how they love one another" (they themselves mutually hate), "and how they are ready to die for one another" (they themselves are readier to kill one another) (Apol. 39). Charity indeed is the fullness of the Law (Romans 13:10). "God is charity" (1 John 4:8). In Christ appeared the charity of God and grace (Romans 5:8; Titus 3:4). Whence those who are of God and of Christ ought to be distinguished by this charity, as Minucius Felix writes: "They love mutually almost before they know" (Oct. 9). "Dilection is a certain great and excellent thing."

Jn 13:36–38. Since, therefore, the most fervent Peter (ὁ θερμότατος Πέτρος) had heard the Lord saying "Where I am going," etc., he is no longer restrained, and not so much by a desire of learning as of following Him, he asks Christ. Verse 36: "Simon Peter says to Him: Lord, where are You going?" Jesus answered: "Where I am going, you cannot follow Me now." For by divine disposition Peter ought to perform the office of the apostolate, and this finally being completed and divine ordination fulfilled, "but you shall follow afterward." He denies the following for the present, but grants a certain promise for the future. Others repeat the cause why he cannot follow now from his imperfect faith: "Why do you hasten, Peter? The Rock has not yet solidified you with His Spirit. Do not exalt yourself by presuming" (Augustine, similarly Cyril, Ammon, Rupert, Albert, Thomas). Better others repeat the cause from the office which was to be performed by him (Apolinarius in cat., Schegg, Schanz), and others from both reasons: both from the office which was to be fulfilled before, and from his powers still weak, not yet strengthened by the received Spirit (Jansenius, Toletus, Maldonatus, Lapide). But afterward to follow does not seem to satisfy Peter; he considers that he cannot now, as if a defect of strength and fidelity were objected to him.

Jn 13:37. "Whence Peter says to Him: Lord, why cannot I follow You now?" He has not yet learned to acquiesce in the word of the Lord, although concerning that matter he had been reproved by Christ in the washing of the feet, "and I will lay down my life for You." He wishes to prove from abundance that he is able. "I am ready to die for You. What danger, therefore, could separate me from You? Because not even the fear of death will retard me."

Jn 13:38. Christ beats back his excessive confidence. "Jesus answered him: Will you lay down your life for Me? How far you are from such strength of soul! Amen, amen, I say to you: the rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times," i.e., "You will deny Me three times before the cockcrow," which is the fourth and last part of the night, so called by the Fathers. Therefore, before the end of this very night, already that strength which you boast has most miserably left you. "Behold how quickly you will appear to yourself as you are, you who speak great things and do not know yourself as little! You who promise Me your death will three times deny your life! You who now think yourself able to die for Me—first live for yourself! For by fearing the death of your flesh, you will give death to your soul. For as great a life as it is to confess Christ, so great a death is it to deny Christ" (Augustine).

CONTINUE