Church Fathers Commentary John 13

Theophylact of Ohrid: Our Lord, about to depart from this life, shows His great care for His disciples: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.

The Venerable Bede: The Jews had many feasts, but the principal one was the Passover, and therefore it is particularly said, Before the feast of the Passover.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Pascha is not a Greek word, as some think, but Hebrew, though there is a remarkable agreement between the two languages on this point. Because the Greek word for "to suffer" is paschein, "Pascha" has been thought to mean "passion," as if the name were derived from that word. But in Hebrew, Pascha means a passing over, with the feast deriving its name from the passing of God's people over the Red Sea out of Egypt. Everything of which that Passover was a type was now about to take place in reality. Christ was led as a lamb to the slaughter. His blood sprinkled on our doorposts—that is, the sign of the cross marked on our foreheads—delivers us from the dominion of this world, as from Egyptian bondage. And we perform a most beneficial journey or passover when we pass over from the devil to Christ, from this unstable world to His secure kingdom. In this way, the Evangelist seems to interpret the word: When Jesus knew that His hour was come when He should pass over out of this world to the Father. This is the Pascha, this is the passing over.

St. John Chrysostom: He did not know this for the first time then; He had known it long before. By His departure, He means His death. Being so near to leaving His disciples, He shows the more love for them: Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. This means He left nothing undone that one who loves greatly should do. He reserved this for the last, so that their love might be increased by it and to prepare them with such consolation for the trials that were coming. He calls them "His own" in the sense of intimacy. The word was used in another sense at the beginning of the Gospel: His own received Him not. It follows, who were in the world, for those who were His own, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead and not in the world. These, then, His own who were in the world, He loved all along, and at the end, He manifested His love completely: He loved them to the end.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He loved them "to the end," that is, so that they themselves might also pass out of this world, by love, to Him their head. For what is "to the end" but to Christ? For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes (Romans 10:4). But these words may be understood in a human sense, to mean that Christ loved His own up to His death. God forbid that He, who is not ended by death, should end His love by death. Unless, indeed, we understand it this way: He loved His own to the point of death, that is, His love for them led Him to death.

The phrase "and supper having been made" means it was prepared and set on the table before them, not that it was consumed and finished. For it was during supper that He rose and washed His disciples’ feet, and after this, He sat at the table again and gave the piece of bread to the traitor.

The following phrase, The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, refers to a secret suggestion, made not to the ear but to the mind, as the devil's suggestions become part of our own thoughts. Judas, then, had already conceived the intention of betraying his Master through the devil's instigation.

St. John Chrysostom: The Evangelist inserts this as if in astonishment, for our Lord was about to wash the feet of the very person who had resolved to betray Him. It also shows the great wickedness of the traitor, that even sharing the same table, which restrains even the worst of men, did not stop him.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The Evangelist, about to relate such a great example of our Lord’s humility, first reminds us of His lofty nature: knowing that the Father had given all things into His hand, not excluding the traitor.

St. Gregory the Great: He knew that He had even His persecutors in His hand, so that He might convert them from malice to love for Him.

Origen of Alexandria: The Father has given all things into His hands—that is, into His power, for His hands hold all things; or to Him, for His work, as in, My Father works until now, and I work (John 5:17).

St. John Chrysostom: Had given all things into His hand. What is given to Him is the salvation of believers. Do not think of this "giving" in a human way. It signifies His honor and agreement with the Father. For just as the Father has given all things to Him, so has He given all things to the Father, as in, When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).

St. Augustine of Hippo: Knowing too, that He was come from God, and went to God—not that He left God when He came from Him, or that He will leave us when He returns to Him.

Theophylact of Ohrid: The Father having given all things into His hands—that is, having given to Him the salvation of the faithful—He deemed it right to show them all things that pertained to their salvation. He gave them a lesson of humility by washing His disciples’ feet. Though knowing that He was from God and went to God, He thought it in no way diminished His glory to wash His disciples’ feet, thus proving that He did not usurp His greatness. For usurpers do not condescend, for fear of losing what they have obtained illegitimately.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since the Father had given all things into His hands, He washed not His disciples’ hands, but their feet. And since He knew that He came from God and went to God, He performed the work not of God and Lord, but of a man and a servant.

St. John Chrysostom: It was an act worthy of Him Who came from God and went to God to trample on all pride. He rises from supper, and laid aside His garments, and took a towel and girded Himself. After that, He pours water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. See what humility He shows, not only in washing their feet but in other things. For it was not before, but after they had sat down, that He rose. He not only washed them, but laid aside His garments, girded Himself with a towel, and filled a basin. He did not order others to do all this but did it Himself, teaching us that we should be willing and ready to do such things ourselves.

Origen of Alexandria: Mystically, dinner is the first meal, taken early in the spiritual day and suited for those who have just entered it. Supper is the last meal and is set before those who are more advanced. In another sense, dinner is the understanding of the Old Testament; supper is the understanding of the mysteries hidden in the New. Yet even those who sup with Jesus, who partake of the final meal, need a certain washing—not of the upper parts of their body, that is, the soul, but of its lower parts and extremities, which necessarily cling to the earth. The text says, And began to wash, for He did not finish His washing until later. The feet of the Apostles were defiled at that moment: All of you shall be offended because of Me this night (Matthew 26:31). But afterward, He cleansed them, so that they needed no more cleansing.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He laid aside His garments when, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself. He girded Himself with a towel; He took upon Him the form of a servant. He poured water into a basin, out of which He washed His disciples’ feet. He shed His blood on the earth, with which He washed away the filth of their sins. He wiped them with the towel with which He was girded; with the flesh with which He was clothed, He established the steps of the evangelists. He laid aside His garments to gird Himself with the towel; so that He might take upon Him the form of a servant, He emptied Himself—not by laying aside what He had, but by assuming what He did not have. Before He was crucified, He was stripped of His garments, and when dead, He was wrapped in linen cloths. The whole of His passion is our cleansing.

Origen of Alexandria: As a physician who has many sick people under his care begins with those who need his attention most, so Christ, in washing His disciples’ feet, begins with the most unclean, and so comes at last to Peter, who needed the washing less than any. Then He comes to Simon Peter. Peter resisted being washed, perhaps because his feet were nearly clean, and said to Him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?”

St. Augustine of Hippo: What is the meaning of “you” and “my feet”? It is better to think about this than to speak of it, for fear that one might fail in adequately explaining what could have been rightly conceived.

St. John Chrysostom: Although Peter was the first of the Apostles, it is possible that the traitor insolently placed himself before him, and that this may be the reason our Lord began washing others first, and then came to Peter.

Theophylact of Ohrid: It is plain that our Lord did not wash Peter first, but none of the other disciples would have attempted to be washed before him.

St. John Chrysostom: Someone will ask why none of them stopped Him, except Peter, since this was a sign not of a lack of love, but of reverence. The reason seems to be that He washed the traitor first and came next to Peter, and that the other disciples were restrained by the reply given to Peter. Any of the others would have said what Peter did, had his turn come first.

Origen of Alexandria: Alternatively: All the others held out their feet, certain that someone so great would not wish to wash them without a reason. But Peter, looking only at the act itself and seeing nothing beyond it, refused out of reverence to let his feet be washed. He often appears in Scripture as hasty in putting forth his own ideas of what is right and expedient.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively: We must not suppose that Peter was afraid and refused when the others had willingly and gladly submitted to the washing. Our Lord did not go through the others first and come to the first of the Apostles afterward (for who does not know that the most blessed Peter was the first of all the Apostles?), but began with him. Peter, being the first to whom He came, was afraid, as indeed any of the others would have been.

St. John Chrysostom: That is to say, what a useful lesson of humility this teaches, and how directly this virtue leads to God.

Origen of Alexandria: Alternatively, our Lord implies that this is a mystery. By washing and wiping, He made beautiful the feet of those who were to preach the good news (Isaiah 52:7) and to walk on that way of which He tells them, I am the way. Jesus laid aside His garments that He might make their clean feet still cleaner, or that He might receive the uncleanness of their feet onto His own body by the towel with which He was girded, for He has borne our griefs.

Observe, too, that He chose to wash His disciples’ feet at the very time that the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Him, and the dispensation for mankind was about to take place. Before this, the time had not yet come for washing their feet. Who would have washed their feet in the interval between this and the Passion? During the Passion, there was no other Jesus to do it. And after it, the Holy Ghost came upon them, by which time they should have already had their feet washed.

This mystery, our Lord says to Peter, is too great for you to understand now, but you will know it afterward when you are enlightened.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He did not refuse because our Lord’s act was beyond his understanding, but because he could not bear to see Him bending at his feet. Peter says to Him, “You shall never wash my feet”—that is, “I will never permit it,” for the expression “not for ever” is the same as “never.”

Origen of Alexandria: This is an example of how a man may say something with a good intention, and yet, out of ignorance, to his own harm. Peter, ignorant of our Lord’s deep meaning, at first says mildly, as if in doubt, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” and then, “You shall never wash my feet,” which was, in reality, to cut himself off from having a part with Jesus. Consequently, he not only blames our Lord for washing the disciples’ feet, but also his fellow disciples for allowing their feet to be washed. Since Peter did not see what was for his own good, our Lord did not allow his wish to be fulfilled. Jesus answered and said to him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: When He says, “If I do not wash you,” it was only his feet that He was going to wash. This is just as we might say, “You are treading on me,” when it is only our foot that is being trodden on.

Origen of Alexandria: Let those who refuse to allegorize this and similar passages explain how it is probable that the one who said, “You shall never wash my feet,” out of reverence for Jesus would have had no part with the Son of God, as if not having his feet washed was a deadly sin. Therefore, it is our feet—that is, the affections of our soul—that are to be given to Jesus to be washed, so that our feet may be beautiful, especially if we aspire to higher gifts and wish to be numbered among those who preach the good news.

St. John Chrysostom: He does not say why He performs this act of washing, but only threatens him. For Peter was not persuaded by the first answer. After hearing, “You will understand afterward,” he did not say, “Then teach me, so that I may submit.” But when he was threatened with separation from Christ, he submitted.

Origen of Alexandria: We may use this saying against those who make hasty and unwise resolutions. By showing them that if they adhere to these vows, they will have no part with Jesus, we can free them from such commitments, even if they have bound themselves by an oath.

St. Augustine of Hippo: But Peter, agitated by fear and love, dreaded being denied by Christ more than seeing Him at his feet. Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!”

Origen of Alexandria: Jesus was unwilling to wash hands and disregarded what was said of Him in this respect: “Your disciples do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:2). And He did not wish the head to be submerged, in which the image and glory of the Father was apparent. It was enough for Him that the feet were given to Him to wash. Jesus answered and said, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet; he is completely clean. And you are clean, but not all of you.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: A person is clean all over, except for the feet. The whole of a person is washed in baptism, including the feet; but in living in the world afterward, we tread upon the earth. Those human affections, then, without which we cannot live in this world, are like our feet, which connect us with human affairs. This is why “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8). But if we confess our sins, He who washed the disciples’ feet forgives our sins, even down to our feet, with which we interact with the world.

Origen of Alexandria: It was impossible for the lowest parts and extremities of a soul to escape defilement, even in someone as perfect as a human can be. Many, even after baptism, are covered up to their heads with the dust of wickedness, but the true disciples of Christ only need their feet washed.

St. Augustine of Hippo: From what is said here, we understand that Peter had already been baptized. Indeed, the fact that Christ baptized through His disciples shows that His disciples must have been baptized, either with John’s baptism or, more probably, with Christ’s. He baptized by means of baptized servants, for He who had the humility to wash feet did not refuse the ministry of baptizing.

Regarding the phrase, “And you are clean, but not all of you,” the Evangelist immediately explains what this means: For He knew who was to betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.”

Origen of Alexandria: The phrase “You are clean” refers to the eleven, while “but not all of you” refers to Judas. He was unclean, first, because he did not care for the poor but was a thief, and second, because the devil had put it into his heart to betray Christ. Christ washes their feet after they are clean, showing that grace goes beyond necessity, according to the text, “Let the one who is holy continue to be holy.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively, the disciples, having been washed, only needed to have their feet washed because as long as a person lives in this world, he comes into contact with the earth through his human affections, which are, so to speak, his feet.

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, when He calls them clean, you must not suppose that they were delivered from sin before the Victim was offered. He means cleanness in respect of knowledge, for they were now delivered from Jewish error.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Our Lord, mindful of His promise to Peter that he would know the meaning of His act—you will know afterward—now begins to teach him. So after He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and had sat down again, He said to them, Do you know what I have done to you?

Origen of Alexandria: The question, “Do you know,” is either interrogative, to show the greatness of the act, or imperative, to rouse their minds.

Alcuin of York: Mystically, when at our redemption we were changed by the shedding of His blood, He took up His garments again by rising from the grave on the third day. Clothed in the same body, now immortal, He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, from where He will come to judge the world.

St. John Chrysostom: He speaks now not to Peter alone, but to all: You call Me Master and Lord. He accepts their judgment, and to prevent the words from being attributed merely to their favor, He adds, And you say well, for so I am.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It is commanded in the Proverbs, Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth. For it is dangerous for a person to praise himself, as he must beware of pride. But He who is above all things, however He praises Himself, does not extol Himself too highly. Nor can God be called arrogant, for our knowing Him is no gain to Him, but to us. Nor can anyone know Him unless He who knows reveals Himself. Therefore, if He did not praise Himself in order to avoid arrogance, He would be denying us wisdom.

But why should the Truth fear arrogance? No one could object to His calling Himself Master, even if He were only a man, since teachers in various fields call themselves so without presumption. Yet what free person can bear another human having the title of 'lord'? But when God speaks, His height cannot be over-exalted, and the truth cannot lie. It is for us to submit to that height and obey that truth.

Therefore, you speak well when you call Me Master and Lord, for so I am; but if I were not what you say, you would be speaking wrongly.

Origen of Alexandria: They do not say "Lord" well to whom it will be said, Depart from Me, you who work iniquity. But the Apostles say "Master and Lord" well, for wickedness did not have dominion over them, but the Word of God did.

St. John Chrysostom: He shows us the greater, so that we may do the lesser. For He was the Lord, but we, if we do this, do it for our fellow servants. For He says, I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.

The Venerable Bede: Our Lord first did a thing and then taught it, as it is said, Jesus began both to do and to teach (Acts 1:1).

St. Augustine of Hippo: This, blessed Peter, is what you did not know; this is what you were told you would know afterward.

Origen of Alexandria: But it is not necessary for one who wishes to follow all the commandments of Jesus to perform the literal act of washing feet. This is merely a matter of custom, and that custom has now been generally discontinued.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This act is still done literally by many when they receive one another in hospitality. For it is unquestionably better that it should be done with the hands, and that the Christian should not disdain to do what Christ did. For when the body is bent at the feet of a brother, the feeling of humility arises in the heart or, if it is already there, is strengthened.

But besides this moral meaning, is not a brother also able to cleanse another brother from the pollution of sin? Let us confess our faults to one another, forgive one another’s faults, and pray for one another’s faults. In this way, we will wash one another’s feet.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, consider it this way: This spiritual washing of the feet is done primarily by Jesus Himself, and secondarily by His disciples, since He said to them, You ought to wash one another’s feet. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples as their Master, and of His servants as their Lord. But the object of a master is to make his disciples like himself. Our Savior, beyond all other masters and lords, wished His disciples to be like their Master and Lord, not having the spirit of bondage, but the spirit of adoption, whereby they cry, Abba, Father (Romans 8:19).

So then, before they become masters and lords, they need the washing of the feet, being as yet insufficient disciples and partaking of the spirit of bondage. But when they have attained the state of master and lord, they are then able to imitate their Master and wash the disciples’ feet through their doctrine.

St. John Chrysostom: He continues to urge them to wash one another’s feet: Verily, verily, I say to you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. It is as if to say, "If I do it, how much more should you."

Theophylact of Ohrid: This was a necessary admonition for the Apostles, some of whom were about to rise to higher degrees of eminence and others to lower ones. So that none might exalt himself over another, He changes the hearts of all.

The Venerable Bede: To know what is good and not to do it leads not to happiness but to condemnation, as James said, To him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17). Therefore, our Lord adds, If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.

St. John Chrysostom: For all know, but not all do. He then rebukes the traitor, not openly, but covertly: I speak not of you all.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It is as if to say, "There is one among you who will not be blessed, for he does not do these things." He continues, I know whom I have chosen. Whom has He chosen, but those who will be happy by doing His commandments? Judas, therefore, was not chosen for this. But if so, why does He say in another place, Have not I chosen you twelve? It is because Judas was chosen for the purpose for which he was necessary, but not for the happiness of which He says, Happy are you if you do them.

Origen of Alexandria: Or consider this: The phrase I speak not of you all does not refer to Happy are you if you do them. For of Judas, or any other person, it may be said, "Happy is he if he does them." The words refer to the sentence above: The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. For Judas, being a servant of sin, was not a servant of the Divine Word, nor was he an Apostle once the devil had entered into him. Our Lord knew those who were His and did not know those who were not His, and therefore says not, "I know all who are present," but, I know whom I have chosen—that is, I know My Elect.

St. John Chrysostom: Then, so that He might not sadden them all, He adds, But that the Scripture must be fulfilled, He that eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me. This showed that He knew who the traitor was—an intimation that surely would have checked him, if anything could. He does not say, "shall betray Me," but, "has lifted up his heel against Me," alluding to his deceit and secret plotting.

St. Augustine of Hippo: The phrase "has lifted up his heel against Me" means "shall tread upon Me." This refers to the traitor Judas.

St. John Chrysostom: He that eats bread with Me—that is, he who was fed by Me, who partook of My table. Therefore, if we are ever injured by our servants or those under us, we need not be offended. Judas had received infinite benefits, and yet this is how he repaid his Benefactor.

St. Augustine of Hippo: They who were chosen ate the Lord; he ate the bread of the Lord in order to injure the Lord. They ate life; he ate damnation, for he that eats unworthily, eats damnation to himself (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Origen of Alexandria: The phrase that you may believe is not said as if the Apostles did not believe already. It is equivalent to saying, "Act according to your belief and persevere in it, seeking no occasion to fall away." For besides the evidence the disciples had already seen, they now had the evidence of fulfilled prophecy.

St. John Chrysostom: As the disciples were about to go out and suffer many things, He consoles them by promising His own assistance and that of others. He promises His own help when He says, Happy are you if you do them, and the help of others in what follows: Verily, verily, I say to you, He that receives whomsoever I send, receives Me; and he that receives Me receives Him that sent Me.

Origen of Alexandria: For he who receives the one whom Jesus sends, receives Jesus who is represented by him; and he who receives Jesus, receives the Father. Therefore, he who receives the one whom Jesus sends also receives the Father who sent Jesus. The words may have this meaning as well: He who receives the one I send has attained to receiving Me. But he who receives Me, not through any Apostle but by My own entrance into his soul, receives the Father, so that not only I abide in him, but the Father also.

St. Augustine of Hippo: When the Arians hear this passage, they immediately appeal to the gradations in their system, arguing that the Son is as distant from the Father as an Apostle is from the Lord. But our Lord has left us no room for doubt on this matter, for He said, I and My Father are one.

But how are we to understand our Lord's words, He that receives Me, receives Him that sent Me? If we take them to mean that the Father and the Son are of one nature, it would seem to follow from His other words, He that receives whomsoever I send, receives Me, that the Son and an Apostle are also of one nature.

Could the meaning be: "He that receives whomever I send, receives Me" (that is, Me as man), but "He that receives Me" (that is, Me as God), "receives Him that sent Me"? No, it is not this unity of nature that is being expressed here, but rather the authority of the Sender as represented by the one who is sent. In Peter, hear Christ, the Master of the disciple; in the Son, hear the Father, the Begotten of the Only-Begotten.

St. John Chrysostom: After His twofold promise of assistance to the Apostles in their future labors, our Lord remembered that the traitor was cut off from both promises, and He was troubled at the thought. When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: This thought did not occur to Him for the first time then; rather, He was now about to make the traitor known and single him out from the rest, and for this reason He was troubled in spirit. The traitor, too, was now about to go out and carry out his purpose. He was troubled at the thought of His Passion being so near, and at the dangers His faithful followers would face from the traitor, which were now imminent.

Our Lord also chose to be troubled to show that false brethren cannot be cut off—even in the most urgent necessity—without troubling the Church. He was troubled not in the flesh but in spirit. For on the occasion of scandals like this, the spirit is troubled not out of weakness, but out of love, for fear that in separating the tares, some of the wheat might also be uprooted with them.

Whether He was troubled by pity for the perishing Judas or by the nearness of His own death, this trouble came not from weakness of mind, but from His own power. He was not troubled because something compelled Him; rather, as was said before, He troubled Himself. And in being troubled, He consoles the weak members of His body, the Church, so that they may not think themselves rejected if they, too, are troubled at the approach of death.

Origen of Alexandria: His being troubled in spirit was the human part of Him, suffering under the intensity of the spiritual. For if every saint lives, acts, and suffers in the spirit, how much more is this true of Jesus, the Rewarder of Saints.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Away, then, with the arguments of the Stoics, who deny that emotional turmoil can affect a wise man; for just as they mistake vanity for truth, they mistake insensibility for a healthy state of mind. It is good for the Christian's mind to be disturbed—not by misery, but by pity. He said, “One of you,” meaning one in number but not in merit, one in appearance but not in virtue.

St. John Chrysostom: Because He did not mention the traitor by name, they all began to be afraid: Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spoke. They were not conscious of any evil in themselves, yet they trusted Christ's words more than their own thoughts.

St. Augustine of Hippo: They had a devoted love for their Master, yet their human weakness still made them doubt one another.

Origen of Alexandria: They also remembered that, as men who were not yet spiritually mature, their minds were liable to change and to form desires completely opposite to what they had previously held.

St. John Chrysostom: While all were trembling, not even excepting Peter, their leader, John, as the beloved disciple, was lying on Jesus’ breast. He then, lying on Jesus’ breast, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”

St. Augustine of Hippo: This is John, whose Gospel this is, as he himself later declares. It is the custom of the sacred writers, when they come to anything relating to themselves, to write about themselves as if they were writing about someone else. For if the event itself is related correctly, what does truth lose if the writer omits any self-praise?

St. John Chrysostom: If you want to know the reason for this intimacy, it is love: “the one whom Jesus loved.” Others were loved, but he was loved more than anyone else.

Origen of Alexandria: I think this has a special meaning: namely, that John was admitted to a knowledge of the deeper mysteries of the Word.

St. John Chrysostom: “The one whom Jesus loved.” John says this to show his own innocence and also to explain why Peter beckoned to him, since he was not Peter's superior: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it was of whom He spoke. Peter had just been reproved and, therefore, checking the usual intensity of his love, he did not speak himself but had John speak for him. He always appears in Scripture as zealous and as an intimate friend of John.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Notice also his manner of speaking, which was not by word but by a gesture. He “beckoned and spoke”—that is, he spoke by beckoning. If even thoughts can “speak,” as when it is said, “They spoke among themselves,” how much more can gestures, which are a kind of outward expression of our thoughts.

Origen of Alexandria: Alternatively, at first he beckoned, and then, not content with just a gesture, he also spoke: “Who is it of whom He speaks?”

St. Augustine of Hippo: To lie “on Jesus’ breast” is the same as to lie “in Jesus’ bosom.” Or perhaps he first lay in Jesus’ bosom and then moved higher to lie on His breast, as if our Lord would not have told him what Peter wanted to know if he had only remained in His bosom. His lying on Jesus’ breast, therefore, expresses that greater and more abundant grace that made him Jesus’ special disciple.

The Venerable Bede: That he lay in the bosom and upon the breast was not only an evidence of present love but also a sign of the future: namely, of those new and mysterious doctrines that he was later commissioned to reveal to the world.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For what else does the bosom signify but a secret? Here is the hollow of the chest, the secret chamber of wisdom.

St. John Chrysostom: But even then, our Lord did not expose the traitor by name. Jesus answered, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.” This way of identifying him should have been enough to turn him from his purpose. Even if sharing the same table did not shame him, sharing the same bread might have. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This is not, as some careless readers think, the moment when Judas alone received Christ's body. For our Lord had already distributed the sacraments of His body and blood to all of them while Judas was still there, as Luke relates. It was after this that He dipped the bread, as John relates, and gave it to the traitor. The dipping of the bread perhaps signifies the deep stain of his sin, for some dyes, once applied by dipping, cannot be washed out again.

If, however, this dipping signified something good, he was all the more ungrateful for it and deserved the damnation that followed. And after the sop, Satan entered into him.

Origen of Alexandria: Notice that at first, Satan did not enter into Judas but only put the thought into his heart to betray his Master. But after the bread, he entered into him. Therefore, let us be careful that Satan does not thrust any of his flaming darts into our hearts, for if he does, he will then watch for an opportunity to gain entrance himself.

St. John Chrysostom: As long as he was one of the twelve, the devil did not dare to force an entrance into him. But when he was identified and expelled, the devil easily leaped into him.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, Satan entered into him to have more complete possession of him. He was already in him when he agreed with the Jews to betray our Lord for a sum of money, according to Luke: “Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot... and he went his way, and communed with the chief priests” (Luke 22:3-4). He came to the supper in this state. But after the bread, the devil entered not to tempt him as if he were an independent agent, but to possess him as his own.

Origen of Alexandria: It was fitting that, through the ceremony of the bread, the good that Judas thought he possessed should be taken from him. Deprived of this, he was left exposed to Satan's entrance.

St. Augustine of Hippo: But some will ask, “Was his being given over to the devil the result of receiving the bread from Christ?” To them we answer that from this they may learn the danger of receiving a good thing in the wrong way. If the one who does not discern—that is, distinguish—the Lord's body from other food is rebuked, how much more is the one condemned who, pretending to be a friend, comes to the Lord's table as an enemy?

Origen of Alexandria: This may have been said either to Judas or to Satan. It could have been to provoke the enemy to combat, or to urge the traitor to do his part in bringing about the divine plan that would save the world—a plan which He did not wish to be delayed any longer, but to be fulfilled as soon as possible.

St. Augustine of Hippo: He did not, however, command the act but foretold it—not from a desire for the destruction of the treacherous one, but to hasten the salvation of the faithful.

St. John Chrysostom: The words, “That which you do, do quickly,” are not a command or a recommendation, but a rebuke, also meant to show that He was not going to stand in the way of His betrayal. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spoke this unto him. It is difficult to see how the disciples did not understand Him, since they had asked, “Who is it?” and He had replied, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop.” Perhaps He spoke too quietly to be heard, and John was lying on His breast when he asked the question for this very reason: so that the traitor would not be revealed.

For if Christ had made him known, Peter might have killed him. So it was that no one at the table knew what our Lord meant. But why did John not know? Because he could not imagine how a disciple could fall into such wickedness; he was so far from such evil himself that he did not suspect it in others. What they thought He meant is told in the following words: For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, “Buy those things that we have need of against the feast”; or, “that he should give something to the poor.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: Our Lord, then, had a money bag in which He kept the offerings of the faithful to provide for the needs of His followers and the poor. Here we see the first institution of church property. Our Lord shows that His command not to worry about tomorrow does not mean that the saints should never save money, but that they should not neglect the service of God for its sake or allow the fear of poverty to tempt them into injustice.

St. John Chrysostom: None of the disciples contributed this money; rather, it is hinted that it came from certain women who, it is said, ministered to Him from their own resources. But why did He, who forbade carrying a wallet, staff, or money, carry a bag for the relief of the poor? It was to show you that even the very poor—those who are crucified to this world—ought to attend to this duty. He did many things to instruct us in our responsibilities.

Origen of Alexandria: Our Lord then said to Judas, “That which you do, do quickly,” and for once, the traitor obeyed his Master. For after receiving the bread, he immediately set out on his task: He then having received the sop went immediately out. And indeed, he went out not only from the house but from Jesus altogether. It would seem that Satan, after entering Judas, could not bear to be in the same place as Jesus, for there is no agreement between Jesus and Satan.

It is also worth asking why, after he received the bread, the text does not add that he ate it. Why did Judas not eat the bread after he received it? Perhaps it is because as soon as he received it, the devil—who had already put it into his heart to betray Christ and was afraid that eating the bread might drive out his influence—entered into him fully, so that Judas went out immediately, before he could eat.

It may be helpful to remark that just as he who eats our Lord's bread and drinks His cup unworthily eats and drinks to his own damnation, so the bread that Jesus gave was eaten by the others to their salvation, but was received by Judas to his damnation, since after it the devil entered into him.

St. John Chrysostom: The text continues, “And it was night,” to show the recklessness of Judas, who persisted in his plan despite the late hour.

Origen of Alexandria: The time of night corresponded to the night that had overtaken the soul of Judas.

St. Gregory the Great: The time of day signifies the end of the action. Judas went out into the night to carry out his treachery, for which he was never to be pardoned.

Origen of Alexandria: After the glory of His miracles and His transfiguration, the next glorifying of the Son of Man began when Judas went out with Satan, who had entered into him. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.” For it is not the eternal, only-begotten Word, but the glory of the Man born of the seed of David, which is meant here.

At His death, in which He glorified God, Christ, having spoiled principalities and powers, made a show of them, openly triumphing over them (Colossians 2:15). And again, He made peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things to Himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (Colossians 1:20). Thus the Son of Man was glorified, and God was glorified in Him, for Christ cannot be glorified unless the Father is glorified with Him.

But whoever is glorified is glorified by someone. By whom, then, is the Son of Man glorified? He tells you: If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.

St. John Chrysostom: That is, by Himself, not by any other. “And shall straightway glorify Him” means not at some distant time, but immediately; while He is still on the very cross, His glory will appear. For the sun was darkened, the rocks were split, and many bodies of those who slept arose. In this way, He restores the drooping spirits of His disciples and persuades them to rejoice instead of grieving.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, consider it this way: the unclean one went out, while the clean remained with their Cleanser. This is how it will be when the tares are separated from the wheat: The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43). Our Lord, foreseeing this, spoke when Judas went out, as if the tares were now separated and He was left alone with the wheat—the holy Apostles. He said, Now is the Son of man glorified, as if to say, “Behold what will take place at My glorification, where none of the wicked will be present and none of the righteous will perish.”

He does not say, “Now is the glorification of the Son of Man signified,” but rather, Now is the Son of man glorified. This is similar to how Scripture does not say “that rock signified Christ,” but rather, That Rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4). Scripture often speaks of the signs as if they were the things they signify.

The glorification of the Son of Man is the glorification of God in Him, as He adds, And God is glorified in Him. He proceeds to explain this: If God is glorified in Him—for He came not to do His own will, but the will of the One who sent Him—God shall also glorify Him in Himself, so that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will also be endowed with eternity. And shall straightway glorify Him. With these words, He predicts His own resurrection, which was to follow immediately, not at the end of the world like ours.

Therefore, when He says, Now is the Son of man glorified, the “now” refers not to His approaching Passion, but to the resurrection that would immediately follow it. It is as if that which was so very soon to happen had already taken place.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: The phrase God is glorified in Him refers to the glory of the body. This glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself. This means that He who reigns in the glory arising from God's glory immediately passes over into God's own glory, leaving the economy of His manhood to abide wholly in God.

Nor is He silent about the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This refers to the glory of His resurrection, which was to follow His passion immediately. He speaks of it as present because Judas had now gone out to betray Him. In contrast, the statement that God would glorify Him in Himself is reserved for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection, but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the economy of His subjection.

The meaning of the first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not in doubt: it is the glory of the flesh that is meant, not that of the Word. But what does the next phrase mean: And God is glorified in Him? The Son of Man is not a different Person from the Son of God, for the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). How is God glorified in this Son of Man, who is the Son of God? The next clause helps us: If God is glorified in Him, God also will glorify Him in Himself.

A man is not glorified in himself. On the other hand, God, who is glorified in a man, does not cease to be God just because He receives glory. So the words God is glorified in Him can mean either that Christ (as God) is glorified in the flesh, or that God the Father is glorified in Christ the Son. If "God" refers to Christ, then it is Christ who is glorified in the flesh. If it refers to the Father, then it is the mystery of their unity: the Father is glorified in the Son.

Again, God glorifies in Himself the God who was glorified in the Son of Man. This overthrows the impious doctrine that Christ is not truly God in the reality of His nature. For how can that which God glorifies in Himself be outside of Himself? He whom the Father glorifies must be confessed to be in His glory, and He who is glorified in the Father's glory must be understood to share the same state as the Father.

Origen of Alexandria: Or, consider this: the word “glory” is used here in a different sense from the one some pagans attach to it, who defined glory as the collective praise of many people. It is evident that glory in that sense is different from what is mentioned in Exodus, where it says that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34), and that the face of Moses was glorified. The glory mentioned there is something visible—a divine appearance in the temple and on Moses’ face. But in a higher, more spiritual sense, we are glorified when, with the eye of the understanding, we penetrate the things of God.

For when the mind ascends above material things and spiritually sees God, it is deified. The visible glory on the face of Moses is a figure of this spiritual glory, for it was his mind that was deified by communion with God. But there is no comparison between the excellent glory of Christ and the knowledge of Moses, by which the face of his soul was glorified. For the whole of the Father’s glory shines upon the Son, who is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His Person (Hebrews 1:3).

Indeed, from the light of this whole glory, particular glories go forth throughout all rational creation, though no one can comprehend the whole of the divine glory except the Son. The Son was glorified only to the extent that He was known to the world, and as yet, He was not fully known. But afterward, the Father spread the knowledge of Him over the whole world, and then the Son of Man was glorified in those who knew Him. He has made all who know Him partakers of this glory, as the Apostle said: We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). That is, from His glory, we receive glory.

Therefore, as He was approaching that divine plan by which He was to become known to the world and be glorified in the glory of those who glorified Him, He says, Now is the Son of man glorified. And because no man knows the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him (Matthew 11:27), and the Son was about to reveal the Father through this divine plan, He said for this reason, And God is glorified in Him.

Or compare this with the text that follows: He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. The Father who begot the Word is seen in the Word, who is God and the image of the invisible God. But the words may be taken in a broader sense. For just as the name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles because of some, so through the saints, whose good deeds are seen and acknowledged by the world, the name of the Father in heaven is magnified. But in whom was He so glorified as in Jesus, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth? The Son being such, He is glorified, and God is glorified in Him.

And if God is glorified in Him, the Father returns to Him more than He gave. For the glory of the Son of Man, when the Father glorifies Him, far exceeds the Father’s glory when He is glorified in the Son, as it is fitting that the greater should return the greater glory. And since this—namely, the glorifying of the Son of Man—was just about to be accomplished, our Lord adds, And will straightway glorify Him.