Church Fathers Commentary John 13:21-30

"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in the spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. The disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. There was at the table reclining in Jesus` bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith unto him, Tell [us] who it is of whom he speaketh. He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus` breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night." — John 13:21-30 (ASV)

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.