Charles Ellicott Commentary John 13

Now before the feast of the passover.—Compare to John 12:1; John 12:12; John 12:36, and Excursus F: The Day of the Crucifixion of our Lord.

When Jesus knew that his hour had come . . .—He knew during the course of His earthly work that His hour had not yet come, and again and again declared this. (Compare to Note on John 2:4; John 7:6; John 11:9.) Now He knows with equal certainty that the hour is at hand that He should depart to the Father.

Having loved his own which were in the world . . .—By “his own” are meant here those who by believing in Him had received power to become the sons of God; those who by walking according to the light they had were becoming sons of light.

They are the true members of the family of God. (Compare to Note on John 1:11-12.) The words as used here refer specially to those who had been called by Him, and had left all and followed Him.

He is the head of this family, and He knows that these His “little children” (John 13:33) will be left as orphans (John 14:18). He would depart “out of the world;” they would be left “in the world,” as sheep among wolves, and as sheep without their shepherd.

St. John places these facts in touching contrast. His thoughts are for them and not for Himself. For Him there would be the return to the glory of His Father’s throne, but His mind dwells on the bereavement and sorrow of those He leaves behind, and this moves Him to a special manifestation of His love.

He loved them unto the end—It has been usual to explain these words of the continuance of our Lord’s love—“Having loved His own, He continued to love them until the last moment.” This is, of course, true, but it is a truth so certain and necessary from every conception of our Lord’s character as St. John has portrayed it, that we may doubt whether he would state it in this formal way. And though the phrase rendered “unto the end” sometimes means “finally”—as, e.g., in the New Testament, Luke 18:5, and 1 Thessalonians 2:16 (see Notes)—the sense, “unto the end” is very rare, and the general meaning is, “in the fullest degree,” “up to the limit.” It thus answers exactly to our “extremely.”

What seems not to have been noted is that the whole sentence may be a common Hebrew idiom in Greek dress. It belongs to the simple syntax of a primitive people to express intensity by repetition. The Vale of Sodom was “pits, pits of bitumen” (Genesis 14:10). Esau asked Jacob to feed him with “that red, red, thing” (Genesis 25:30).

The intensity of the verbal idea was expressed in like manner by a simple form of the verb which brought the thought before the mind, and then by the special form which denoted the action.

This is sometimes preserved in the English, as, e.g., in Genesis 20:17—“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed” (I will bless you abundantly, and will multiply your seed exceedingly).

Sometimes it is not.

We have, e.g., in Amos 9:8, “I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord,” where the Hebrew is literally, “Destroying I will not destroy . . .” (Vulgate, conterens non conteram).

In these passages the English exactly follows the Greek—i.e., the Greek in the passage of Genesis repeats the words as the Hebrew does, and in that of Amos, expresses the intensity by an adverbial phrase (εἰς τέλος).

Now that phrase is exactly the same as the one used by St. John here, which is rendered “unto the end.”

St. John was a Jew writing in Greek. May we not naturally expect a Hebrew thought in Greek form?

He thinks of the intensity of our Lord’s love and speaks of it in the simple expressiveness of the old Hebrew phrase, “Loving, he loved them with fullness of love.” (Compare to John 12:13.)

This is not given as an amended rendering, because authority has been sought for it without success; but it is offered, as an explanation, to the reader’s judgment.

The student will find in Schleusner's Lexicon Veteris Testamenti other instances which support this view.

And supper being ended.—The reading here is uncertain, but neither reading justifies our translation. It should probably be, “And it now becoming supper time.” As a matter of fact, the supper was not ended (John 13:12; John 13:26); but they had already reclined, and were, as we say, ready for supper.

The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot.—The better reading is, The devil having now put it into the heart, that Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, should betray Him. But the sense must be that of our version, “The heart of Judas” (the devil having suggested). The alternative interpretation, “the heart of the devil” (the devil having conceived) is opposed to all scriptural analogy. For the fact, compare Notes on Matthew 26:14 and Luke 22:3.

For “Judas Iscariot,” compare Notes on Matthew 10:4; Matthew 26:14. The name is given here in the sad fullness of this mournful record. The fact is recorded here to explain the references to Judas which follow in our Lord’s words (John 13:10; John 13:18; John 13:21; John 13:26–27; John 13:30).

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands . . .—This explains the act of humility that follows. With the full consciousness of His supreme power and divine origin, and of the divine glory to which He was about to return; yes, because He was conscious of all this, He left the disciples an example of the self-denial that is the necessary outcome of love. Subsisting in the form of God, He thought it not a thing to be grasped at to be equal with God, but emptied Himself by taking upon Him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6). (Compare, for the thought of the gift of all things, Notes on 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:22.)

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments.—Compare Notes on Luke 22 and following. We there read of a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. It is placed by St. Luke after the Supper; but our Lord’s words, I am among you as he that serveth, point almost certainly to a connection with this parabolic act.

There had been, we may well think, some self-assertion in acts or omissions, which He by His act rebukes. They may have claimed, each above his brother, the place of honour at the table, or it may be that no one had offered the customary refreshment of water for the feet, before sitting down to eat (Luke 7:44).

We cannot say what was the immediate cause which suggested His act, but if we attempt to realize the whole scene, we must believe that there was in the disciples themselves some such cause. The garment laid aside would be the outer garment, which would impede His action, leaving the tunic, which was the ordinary dress of a servant.

And took a towel, and girded himself.—This was itself a mark of the servant’s position, and was meant to signify His assumption of the servant’s work. The successive minute details of this picture carry with them their own authenticity.

After that he poureth water into a bason.—Better, . . . into the basin. It was the basin in the room, commonly used, and now ready for such purposes. The water was at hand. All suggested then that one of the disciples might have performed this act which the Lord now performs. That it was commonly regarded as an act of reverence from an inferior to a superior is made clear by the Rabbinical passages quoted here by Schottgen and Lightfoot. (Compare to the note on Luke 7:44.)

And began to wash the disciples’ feet.—The exactness of the narrative notes that the act was only begun, and was interrupted by the objection of Peter. This word “began” is frequent in the earlier Gospels, but it is only in this touch of accuracy that St. John uses it.