Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 13

1. Previously, the Evangelist presented some of the events leading to Christ’s passion and death; in this part, he shows how Christ prepared His disciples before His passion.

   1. He prepared them by His example.

   2. He comforted them with His words: let not your hearts be troubled (John 14:1).

   3. He strengthened them with His prayers: these things Jesus spoke, and lifting his eyes to heaven, he said (John 17:1).

   Regarding the first point, His example, the Evangelist does two things:

   1. He presents the example Christ gave for His disciples to imitate.

   2. He shows the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet ready to follow Him: when Jesus had said these things, he was troubled (John 13:21).

   Regarding the first of these, the presentation of the example, he does three things:

   1. He presents the example itself.

   2. He shows that the example was useful: he came therefore to Simon Peter (John 13:6).

   3. He shows Jesus asking them to imitate it: then after he had washed their feet . . . he said to them (John 13:12).

   Regarding the first of these, the example itself, he does two things:

   1. He describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example.

   2. He describes the action in which He gave the example, and when supper was done.

   Regarding the first of these, the love of Christ, he mentions three things:

   1. The feast about to be celebrated.

   2. The approaching death of Christ.

   3. Christ’s burning love.

2. The approaching feast was the Passover, so he says, now before the festival day of the Pasch.

   Here we should note that some say the word ‘pascha’ comes from the Greek word for passion, and that this feast is called the Pascha because it is when we celebrate the passion of our Lord. In fact, the word ‘pascha’ in Greek means “to suffer.” Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word ‘pesah,’ which means a ‘passage’: it is the pesah, passage, or a passing over, of the Lord (Exodus 12:11). This is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two passings over. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the firstborn of the Egyptians and sparing the firstborn of the Hebrews (Exodus 12:12); the other was the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea. So it was reasonable to call this feast the ‘pascha’.

   We can say that our Passover takes its meaning from both languages, Greek and Hebrew, for the passage of Christ from this world to the Father took place through His passion. He passed about doing good and healing all (Acts 10:38). Again, all of us who follow Christ have our own passage: either through reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, we have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment (Psalms 66:12); or by the desire of our minds aspiring to heavenly things: pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits .

3. This, however, is called the festival day by way of preeminence. The Jews had three great feasts when they gathered in a place chosen by the Lord: the Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed; Pentecost; and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia (Exodus 23:14). But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.

   A problem arises as to why he says here, before the festival day of the Pasch. The feast of the Passover is when the lamb was sacrificed, that is, on the 14th day of the month. So since he says, before the festival day of the Pasch, it seems that this was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. Indeed, the Greeks accept this. They say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing His passion was near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated His own Passover on the day before the Jewish feast.

   Because it is commanded in Exodus 12:18 that from the evening of the 14th day to the 21st day the Hebrews should not have any leavened bread, they further say that the Lord celebrated not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread. This is because it was before the festival day of the Pasch, and the Hebrews did have leavened bread on the 13th day, that is, before the Passover. But the other three Evangelists do not agree with this, for they say the time was the first day of unleavened bread, when the lamb was to be sacrificed (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). It follows from this that our Lord’s supper took place on the very day that the Jews sacrificed the lamb.

4. The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did not report this accurately, and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false in the Gospels, or indeed anywhere in the canonical Scriptures. Therefore, we must say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.

   To clarify this, it should be noted that the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day (Leviticus 23:5). The reason for this was that they counted their days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening; so, they counted their days from one sunset to the next. Thus for them, the Passover began on the evening of the preceding day and ended on the evening of the Passover day itself. We celebrate feasts in the same way; for example, something that takes place on Christmas Eve is said to have happened on Christmas Day. And so the other Evangelists, using this way of speaking, said that the supper took place on the first day of unleavened bread, meaning it took place on the evening before the first full day of the feast.

   But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as the entire daytime that was celebrated, not including the evening before, which was also part of the celebration. Thus he says, before the festival day of the Pasch. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord’s supper took place on the evening of the 14th day.

5. The death of Christ, which was approaching, was His passage from this world by His passion. Regarding this, he says, Jesus knowing that his hour had come. This feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ: all these things happened to them as symbols (1 Corinthians 10:11). So he immediately mentions the reality, that is, the passion of Christ. And as a way of showing that the word ‘pascha’ came from ‘pesah,’ meaning a passage, he mentions Christ’s own passage: that he should pass out of this world to the Father.

6. Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; and third, that it was a source of benefits and exaltation.

   It was foreseen and not accidental, so he says, Jesus knowing. In effect, he is saying, “Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly.” Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him (John 18:4). The opposite is said of us: there is great affliction for man because he is ignorant of things past, and things to come he cannot know in any way (Ecclesiastes 8:7).

7. The passion of Christ was fitting, first, in its timing. Regarding this, he says, that his hour had come, which was the time of the Passover, when His passage would be by the cross: there is a time and opportunity for every business (Ecclesiastes 8:6). This is the hour of which He said, my hour has not yet come (John 2:4). Yet this hour was not a matter of fate, as though governed by the course and arrangement of the stars; it was determined by the disposition and providence of God. I say, therefore, it was determined for the Jewish Passover because it was fitting that the reality should follow the symbol. That is, when the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should also be sacrificed. You know that you were ransomed . . . not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot (1 Peter 1:18–19).

   It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him (John 13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world (John 17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish His passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: it is consummated, followed by, and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

8. The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was so that he should pass out of this world to the Father, by making His human nature a sharer in the glory of the Father: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17). This does not mean that He would pass from one place to another, since God the Father is not contained by any place: do I not fill heaven and earth? (Jeremiah 23:24). Rather, just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by leaving Him, but by assuming an inferior nature like our own, so He is said to have returned to the Father insofar as, even in His human nature, He became a sharer in the Father’s glory. The life he lives he lives to God (Romans 6:10); every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11).

9. When he says, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end, he highlights the intense love of Christ, and this on four points.

   First, His love was primary, according to not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us (1 John 4:10). Regarding this, he says, having loved his own, suggesting that this was in advance of our love. I say He loved us before He created us: for you love all things that exist, and have hatred for none of the things which you have made . He loved us before He called us: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you (Jeremiah 31:3). And He loved us before He redeemed us: greater love than this no man has, that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

10. Second, His love is highlighted as fitting, because he loved them.

    Here we should note that God loves people in various ways, depending on the various ways they belong to Christ. A person can belong to Him in three ways. First, by creation; God loves these by preserving their gifts of nature: he came unto his own, and his own, by creation, received him not (John 1:11). Others are His by dedication, that is, those given to Him by God the Father through faith: yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word (John 17:6); He loves these by preserving their gifts of grace. Finally, some are His by a special devotion: behold, we are your bone and flesh (1 Chronicles 11:1); He loves these by consoling them in a special way.

11. Third, Christ’s love is highlighted because it was needed, since He was having loved his own who were in the world. Those who were already in the glory of the Father are His, because even our ancestors were His insofar as they hoped to be set free by Him: all his holy ones are in his hand (Deuteronomy 33:3). But these did not need such love as much as those who were in the world; so he says, who were in the world—that is, in body, but not in mind.

12. Fourth, His love is highlighted because it was perfect, so he says, he loved them to the end. Now, there are two kinds of ends: the end in intention and the end in execution. The end in intention is that to which our intention is directed; this end ought to be eternal life, according to the verse, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life (Romans 6:22). Again, this end should be Christ: for Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified (Romans 10:4). But these two are really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in His divinity: now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3). From this point of view, he says, he loved them unto the end, in order to lead them to Himself as the end, or to lead them to eternal life, which is the same thing. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you (Jeremiah 31:3).

    The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he loved them unto the end, that is, up to death. Used in this way, it can have three meanings. The first, mentioned by Augustine, is a very human interpretation, meaning that Christ loved His own until He died, but no longer. This meaning is false, for Christ, who was not ended by death, by no means ends His love at death. Another meaning would take the word unto as indicating a cause; then it would mean, he loved them unto the end, that is, His love for them led Him to death: he loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20). A third meaning would be this: although Christ had already shown them many signs of His love, yet to the end, that is, at the time of His death, He showed them signs of a greater love: but I told you not these things from the beginning, because I was with you (John 16:4). He would be saying, in effect: “It was not necessary then to show you how much I loved you, but now that I am leaving it is, so that my love and the memory of me might be impressed more deeply into your hearts.”

13. When he says, when supper was done, he describes the act by which Christ gave His example.

    1. He mentions the time of the action.

    2. He mentions the dignity of the one acting: knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands (John 13:3).

    3. He mentions His humility: he rose from supper (John 13:4).

    He describes the time in two ways:

    • As the time of Christ’s love.

    • By emphasizing the sin of Judas: the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him.

14. Regarding the first point, the time of the action, he says, literally, when supper was done. Note that both permanent things and successive things are said to be “done” or “made.” A permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has reached the perfection of its proper species and form; thus, a house is said to be done or made when it has its proper form. But a successive thing is said to be made or done when it is over or finished; thus, the world is said to have been made when it was completed. However, even things like this can be said to be made or done when they receive their appropriate species.

    So when he says here, literally, when supper was done, he does not mean it was finished and over with, for after Christ washed the disciples’ feet, He returned to His place and gave the morsel to Judas. Rather, when supper was done means that it was prepared and had reached its proper stage, for the group had already begun to eat, and then Christ got up. Thus, Christ washed the disciples’ feet during supper.

    We read about such a supper in Luke: a man once gave a great supper (Luke 14:16). A breakfast and a supper are different. What is given at the beginning of the day is called a breakfast, while what is given at its end is called a supper. Likewise, the spiritual nourishment suitable for beginners is like a breakfast, while the nourishment appropriate for the spiritually advanced is more like a supper.

15. When the Evangelist says, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, he describes the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions this sin for two reasons. First, to better highlight the evil of Judas, who, in spite of so many signs of love and humble service, considered committing such a great sin. The Psalm says: even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me (Psalms 41:9).

    Second, to better show the wonderful love of Christ who, although knowing this, treated him with love and humility by washing his feet: with those who hated peace I was peaceable (Psalms 120:7).

16. But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things sent by evil angels (Psalms 77:49).

    To explain this, we should note that what is in a person’s thought and will is said to be in his heart. So the statement, when the devil having now put into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.

    Understood this way, something can be put into our heart in two ways. First, directly. In this way, only one who has the power to move our will from within can put something into our heart. Only God can do this; consequently, He alone can directly move our will: the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand, that is, in the power, of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will (Proverbs 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an external object perceived as a good, it follows that anyone who brings to mind or suggests that something is good is said to put something into our heart indirectly. This happens by making us perceive something as good, which in turn moves our will.

    This indirect influence happens in two ways. It can happen by an external suggestion, in which case one person can put something into another’s heart. Or it can happen by an internal suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical power, is subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we are awake or asleep, he forms certain images in our imagination which, when perceived, move our will to desire something. And so the devil puts something into our heart, not directly by moving our heart, but indirectly, by suggestion.

17. Next, regarding the dignity of the one acting, he says, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (John 13:3), for the greater you are, the more you must humble yourself . Therefore, the Evangelist, before speaking of Christ’s humility, first discusses His great dignity. He considers this dignity from four perspectives.

    1. First, His dignity is seen in His knowledge, saying, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. For spiritual gifts are such that they are not unrecognized when given: now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God (1 Corinthians 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to Him by God, and the Evangelist mentions this so that Christ’s humility would be more admirable. For sometimes a person of great dignity does not realize it because of his unawareness. If such a person were to do something humble, it would not be regarded as worthy of great praise: if you do not know yourself, O fairest among women (Song of Solomon 1:8). But if someone knows his own dignity and is still inclined to what is humble, his humility should be praised. This is why the Evangelist says, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and still He did not neglect to do what was humble.

    2. Second, we see His dignity in His power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into His power. God gave to Christ as man, in time, what was in the power of the Son from eternity: all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me (Matthew 28:18). He says, the Father had given all things into his hands, for two reasons. First, to show that Christ did not suffer against His will. For if all things were in his hands, that is, in His power, it is clear that His enemies could do nothing to Him against His will. Second, because when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud and does nothing humble, lest it seem to diminish his dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not neglect humble things. And so Christ’s dignity is mentioned here.

    3. Third, we see His dignity in His nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to God: living with God .

    4. Fourth, His dignity is seen in His holiness, because He was going to God, for our holiness lies in our going to God. He mentions this because since Christ is going to God, it is His special role to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and love, and so He offers them an example of humility and love.

After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now commends His humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the disciples.

The Evangelist mentions two things:

1. Christ’s preparation for this humble task.
2. The service itself: after that, he put water into a basin.

Regarding the first point, we should note that in performing this humble task, Christ shows Himself to be a servant: the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

Now, three things are necessary for a good servant.

1. He should be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service, which would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus, servants stand. So the Evangelist says Christ rose from supper: for which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? (Luke 22:27).
2. A servant should not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary for his service. Since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. This is signified in Genesis when Abraham chooses unencumbered men of his house (Genesis 17:23).
3. A good servant is prepared, having at hand everything he needs. We read that Martha was distracted with much serving (Luke 10:40). So our Lord, having taken a towel, girded himself, so He would be ready not just to wash their feet, but to dry them as well.

And since He who had come from God and was going to God is now washing the feet of others, He is treading underfoot the universal tendency to pride.

Regarding its mystical meaning, this action can be referred to two things: the incarnation of Christ and His passion.

If it is referred to His incarnation, it tells us three things about Christ. First, He was willing to help the human race, indicated by the fact that He rose from supper. For God seems to be sitting as long as He allows us to be troubled, but when He rescues us, He seems to rise: Rise up, come to our help (Psalms 43:26). Second, it indicates that He emptied Himself: not that He abandoned His great dignity, but that He hid it by taking on our smallness: truly, you are a God who hides yourself (Isaiah 45:15). This is shown by the fact that He laid aside his garments: he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). Third, the fact that He girded himself with a towel indicates that He took on our mortality: taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7).

If this event is referred to the passion of Christ, then He literally set aside His garments when the soldiers stripped Him: for my vesture they cast lots (John 19:24). He was girded with a towel in the tomb. Also, in His passion He laid aside the garments of our mortality and put on a towel, that is, the splendor of immortality: Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him (Romans 6:9).

When the Evangelist says, then he put water into a basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, he describes Christ’s service and shows His admirable humility in three ways.

1. The kind of service it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of His servants.
2. The number of things He did, for He put water into the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them.
3. The way it was done, for Christ did not do it through others or with their help, but by Himself. The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself .

Regarding the mystical meaning, three things can be gathered from these events. First, the pouring out of Christ’s blood on the earth is indicated by His pouring water into the basin. For the blood of Jesus can be called water because it has the power to cleanse: he washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:4). And so blood and water came out of His side at the same time to show us that His blood washes away sins. Or, water can indicate the passion of Christ, for in Scripture water signifies tribulations: Save me, O God! For the waters—that is, tribulations—have come up to my soul (Psalms 69:1). Therefore, he put water into a basin, that is, He impressed the memory of His passion on the minds of the faithful by their faith and devotion: Remember my affliction and my bitterness, the wormwood and the gall! (Lamentations 3:19).

Second, when he says, and began to wash, it indicates our human imperfection. For even though the apostles were more perfect than others after Christ, they still needed to be washed, since they were unclean to some degree. We can understand by this that no matter how perfect a person may be, he acquires some uncleanness and still needs to become more perfect: Who can say, “I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin”? (Proverbs 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. Others are not only unclean in their feet; they are stained all over.

Those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, in both their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand—that is, who direct their minds and desires toward heavenly things—become unclean only on their feet. For just as a person who is standing must at least touch the earth with his feet, so we, as long as we live this mortal life which needs earthly things to sustain the body, acquire some uncleanness, at least because of our sensuality. Thus our Lord told the disciples to shake the dust from their feet (Luke 9:5). The Evangelist says that Christ began to wash, because the cleansing of our earthly affections begins here and is completed in the future. Then the words of Isaiah will be fulfilled: it will be called the Holy Way (Isaiah 35:8).

Note that, according to Origen, our Lord began to wash the feet of His disciples right before His passion, for if He had washed them a long time before, they would have become dirty again. So He began to wash them a short time before He would wash the apostles with the water of the Holy Spirit, after His passion: before many days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).

In short, when our Lord put water into the basin, this indicated the pouring out of His blood; and when He began to wash the feet of His apostles, this indicated the cleansing of our sins.

Third, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon Himself our punishments, for He not only cleansed us from our stains but also took upon Himself the punishments they deserved. Our own punishments and penance would not be enough unless they were founded on the merits and power of Christ’s passion. This is shown by the fact that He wiped the feet of His disciples with His towel, that is, His body (1 Peter 2:21).

When the Evangelist says, he came therefore to Simon Peter, he shows the example was beneficial by means of an encounter between the Teacher and the disciple. In this encounter, our Lord shows that this example is:

1. both a mystery and necessary, shown when Peter said to him: you will never wash my feet;
2. and appropriate, shown when Simon Peter said to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.

As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the circumstances for Christ’s speaking; second, what Christ said: Jesus answered, and said to him.

The occasion for Christ’s words was Peter's refusal to allow this example of humility; he says, he came therefore to Simon Peter.

There are three explanations for this. According to Origen, our Lord began to wash their feet by beginning with the last. The reason for this was that just as a doctor who must care for a number of sick people begins with those who need it more, so too Christ, when He washed the grimy feet of His disciples, began with the dirtiest, and then came to Peter, who needed it less than the others: beginning with the last, up to the first (Matthew 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this, for Christ began to wash the feet of the disciples, and then follows this with, he came therefore to Simon Peter. It seems from this that Jesus washed the feet of the others first.

If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ. The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything He did. But Peter, more fervent in his love—Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? . . . Yes Lord, you know that I love you (John 21:15)—and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: a true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household . This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks is best.

The second explanation is from Chrysostom. He says that Christ was ready to start with the first of the apostles, but Judas, the betrayer, in his foolishness and pride, pushed ahead of Peter. None of the others would have dared to go ahead of Peter. Thus the Evangelist is speaking of Judas when he says, he began to wash the feet of the disciples, that is, the feet of Judas, who, being proud and foolish, would make no objection or refuse to allow what our Lord did. But when He came to Peter, who revered and loved his Teacher, Peter refused with awe and asked for an explanation. And any of the others would have done the same.

The third explanation is from Augustine. He says the words of the Evangelist do not show that our Lord first washed the feet of the other disciples and then came to Peter. Rather, according to his custom, the Evangelist first mentions the incident and afterward gives the order of events within it, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions the entire incident—that Christ washed the feet of His disciples—and then, if we should ask how this was done, he says that He came first to Simon Peter. And so Peter was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?

These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you—the Son of the living God—wash my feet, I who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you—the Lamb without spot, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light—wash my feet, I who am a sinner? Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8). Lord, do you—the Creator—wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little faith? Peter said these things, struck with awe at the realization of Christ’s dignity, as it is written: I have considered your works, and have feared (Habakkuk 1:3).

Then, Jesus answered, and said to him; we see the words of Christ, which show that this action is a mystery. Christ said to Peter: What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will understand later. This action is both an example and a mystery. It is an example of humility to be practiced: for I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you (John 13:15). And it is a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.

So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, what I am doing you do not understand now, that is, you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but you will understand later, when He explained it to them, saying: Do you know what I have done to you? In another way, what I am doing you do not understand now; that is to say, this is a mystery and something hidden, and it signifies an interior cleansing which only I can accomplish, and which you do not understand now, but you will understand later, when you receive the Holy Spirit: I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:12–13).

Next, when Peter said to him, he shows that this action is necessary. The Evangelist mentions two things:

1. What Peter said which provoked Christ’s answer.
2. What Christ said.

Peter says, you will never wash my feet. He is saying, in effect: “By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord, and my God.” And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and misguided zeal: they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2).

His zeal was misguided for three reasons.

1. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary, for as we read: we do not know how to pray as we ought (Romans 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Corinthians 12:8), yet it was for his benefit.
2. It seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against His plans.
3. It seemed to belittle his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, you will never wash my feet.

Our Lord rebuked him, saying, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me. This statement can refer to two things: to the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified.

If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: but nothing unclean will ever enter it (Revelation 21:27); O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? (Psalms 15:1). And the answer is given: He who walks blamelessly. Therefore, it is as if He was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you will have no share with me.

But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, If I do not wash you, you will have no share with me, was not necessary for salvation if considered in itself. But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was necessary: to obey is better than sacrifice, and so stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Samuel 15:22–23).

Then the Evangelist shows the action was appropriate. First, the words of Peter are given, and then Christ’s answer.

Peter’s words indicate his intense love for Christ. Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not understand now, He had suggested that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no share with me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer, and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he had loved so intensely, that after the ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ’s presence and His holy manner, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed.

Note that there are three things in a person: the head at the top, the feet at the bottom, and the hands in the middle. The same is true for the inner person, the soul. There is the head, which is the higher reason, by which the soul adheres to God: The head of a woman is her husband (1 Corinthians 4:4). The hands are the lower reason, which is concerned with the works of the active life. Finally, the feet are the sensuality.

Now our Lord knew that His disciples were clean as to their head, because they had been united to God by faith and charity, and their hands were clean because their works were holy. But as to their feet, they still retained some affection for earthly things in their sensuality. And so Peter, anxious because of our Lord’s warning, agrees not only to have his feet washed, but also his hands and head, saying, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. It was as if he were saying: “I do not know if my hands and head need washing. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted (1 Corinthians 4:4). So I am ready to wash not only my feet, that is, my lower affections—I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them? (Song of Solomon 5:3)—but also my hands, that is, my works—I will wash my hands among the innocent (Psalms 25:6)—and my head, that is, my higher reason—wash your face (Matthew 6:17).”

Then, the Evangelist gives our Lord’s answer: Jesus said to him. Our Lord does three things:

1. He states a general principle.
2. He applies it to this situation: and you are clean, but not all.
3. The Evangelist explains these words of Christ: for he knew who it was who would betray him.

He says at first, He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean, except for his feet, which touch the earth. We understand from this that the apostles had already been baptized. For He says, he who has bathed, and then adds, and you are clean, that is, because they had been baptized.

Some say they had been baptized only with the baptism of John. But this does not seem to be true, because John’s baptism did not cleanse from guilt within, so they would not have truly “bathed.” And so it should be said, according to Augustine, that they had been baptized with the baptism of Christ.

If you object that Christ did not baptize but only His disciples, as was stated above, I say that He did not baptize the crowds, but only His disciples and those He knew well (John 4:2).

But since baptism cleanses even the stains from the feet, it seems that one who has bathed—that is, is baptized—does not need to wash his feet. I answer that if they had left this world immediately after their baptism, they would have had no need for this washing, for since they would be entirely clean, they would go to God at once. But those who live in this world after their baptism cannot reach such perfection that disordered movements of the sensuality regarding earthly affections never arise. And so it is necessary that they wash their feet either by martyrdom, which is a baptism of blood, or by repentance, which is a baptism of fire, so that they can return to God.

Then when He says, you are clean, but not all of you, our Lord applies this general principle to the situation.

But if they were clean, why did our Lord wash them again? Augustine says their hands and heads were clean, but that their feet needed washing. Chrysostom says that they were not absolutely clean, because they had not yet been cleansed from original sin; for since Christ had not yet suffered, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid. They were clean only in a limited sense, that is, from the errors of the Jews. Origen says that they were clean, but that a further cleansing was needed, for reason should always aspire to better gifts, always strive for the heights of virtue, and glow with the brightness of righteousness: he who is holy, let him be sanctified further (Revelation 22:11). But not all of you, because one of them was dirty both in hands and head.

This is why the Evangelist says, for he knew who was to betray him. He is saying that Christ said, but not all of you, because He knew the uncleanness of Judas the betrayer. In general, there are two things which clean a person: alms and compassion for the poor—give alms and then all things are clean for you (Luke 11:41)—and love for God—her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much (Luke 7:47); love covers all offenses (Proverbs 10:12). But Judas lacked these two things. He lacked compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money bag, he stole the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it into his heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.

1. After our Lord showed that His humble service was necessary, He then urged that it be imitated.

The Evangelist first describes the circumstances of this exhortation, and second, he mentions the exhortation itself: Do you know what I have done to you?

Concerning the circumstances, he does two things:

1. He mentions the sequence of this exhortation.
2. He describes the one giving the exhortation: then after he had washed their feet, and taken his garments.

2. The sequence in this exhortation is that Christ later taught in words what He had first done by His actions. In regard to this, the Evangelist says, then after he had washed their feet and taken his garments, being set down again. As Scripture says, Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1), and he who does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

3. He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing and posture. Regarding his clothing, different attire is suitable for different people depending on their activities: a man’s attire... shows what he is . One sort of clothing is suitable for a servant, and another for a teacher. Because a servant must be ready to serve, he does not have any superfluous clothing; and so Christ, when He wished to serve, rose from supper, laid aside his garments (John 13:4). A teacher, who should be serious and carry great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments.

Regarding his posture, when Christ began to serve, He rose; the text says that Christ rose from supper. But now, about to teach, He reclines; it says, being set down again, he said to them. The reason for this is that teaching should be done in an atmosphere of serenity, and it is by sitting and being quiet that the soul becomes wise and discerning.

4. Three events here can indicate mysteries. When Christ sends the Holy Spirit to His disciples, He will be giving them complete teaching: but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26).

But three things are to take place before the Spirit is sent. First, their sins are to be washed away by His passion: he washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5). In reference to this, the text says, when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by His blood. Second, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before His passion, but He was not mortal as a person, for He was the Son of God; His mortality was due to the human nature He assumed. But after He rose from the dead by the power of His divinity, He took on bodily immortality. In reference to this, the text says He had taken his garments, that is, He arose immortal. It says his garments because He did this by His own power: the life he lives he lives to God, that is, by the power of God (Romans 6:10). We read of these garments: he who conquers will be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life (Revelation 3:5).

Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated after His ascension: if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you (John 16:7). Referring to this, the text says, and being set down again, that is, remaining and sitting at the right hand of the Father: the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into the heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). The text says again, not because as the Son of God He had ever ceased to sit with the Father—for He is in the bosom of the Father from all eternity—but because as man He was raised to the greater goods of the Father: therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name (Philippians 2:9).

And so, before sending the Holy Spirit into them to teach them perfectly, Christ would wash them with the blood He shed, take up His garments by rising, and resume His place by ascending in glory.

5. Next, He gives His exhortation: Know you what I have done to you?

1. He asks a question.
2. He accepts their acknowledgment.
3. He draws a conclusion from this.
4. He confirms this conclusion.

6. Christ questions them when He says, Do you know what I have done to you? This means, “You have seen what I have done, but you do not know why I did it.” He asks them this way to show the greatness of His action and to prompt them to reflect on it. For we should meditate on the works of God because they are profound: How great are your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep (Psalms 92:5). We can barely know the works of God: then I saw all the works of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun (Ecclesiastes 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to think about them: for you O Lord, have made me glad by your work; at the work of your hands I sing for joy (Psalms 92:4). Furthermore, these works are helpful because they lead us to a knowledge of their author: for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator ; the works themselves which I do, give testimony about me, that the Father has sent me (John 5:36).

According to Origen, this statement can be rendered as, Know what I have done to you. In this way, it has an imperative sense, as if Christ were saying, “You ought to understand what I have done to you.” In this interpretation, our Lord said this to rouse their understanding.

7. Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment: You call me Master and Lord.

1. He mentions what they acknowledge.
2. He approves of it: and you say well.

8. As to the first point, we should note that in Corinthians, the Apostle says two things about Christ: He is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). As the power of God, He rules all things, for as Ambrose says, “The word ‘Lord’ is a name of power.” As the wisdom of God, He teaches everyone. Thus the disciples called Him, as noted above, Lord, to whom shall we go? (John 6:69), and Rabbi, eat (John 4:31). And with good reason. For He is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: Know that the Lord is God! (Psalms 100:3). And He is the only Teacher who teaches from within: you have one master, the Christ (Matthew 23:10).

9. When He says, and you say well, He approves their acknowledgment. Here we should note that something spoken can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with the thing it is about; this happens if what is said is true, for if it is false, it does not harmonize with the thing. So it is well said: therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth (Ephesians 4:25). Lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if they seem to lead to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point, He says, and you say well, because what you say is true, for it applies to me: for so I am, Teacher and Lord. I am the Teacher because of the wisdom I teach by my words; I am the Lord because of the power I show in my miracles.

Second, what is spoken can be commendable because it is in harmony with the person speaking. There are some who call Christ Teacher and Lord, but it is not in harmony with themselves, for they do not defer to the teaching and commands of God; such people do not speak rightly. So to those who say, Lord, Lord, open to us, the answer is given, truly, I say to you, I do not know you (Matthew 25:11), because they are not speaking from their hearts, but only with their lips. But the apostles spoke rightly, because it was in agreement with themselves. And so Christ replied, and you say well, that is, you are speaking the truth, for so I am. That is, for you I am the Teacher and the Lord, for you listen to me as Teacher—to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (John 6:69)—and you follow me as Lord: lo, we have left everything and followed you (Matthew 19:27).

10. This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs: Let another praise you, and not your own mouth (Proverbs 27:2). It seems, therefore, that it was not right for our Lord to praise Himself.

Augustine answers this in two ways. First, it is wrong for a person to commend himself because of the danger of becoming proud; if one is inclined to pride, it is dangerous for him to be pleased with himself. When there is no danger of pride, self-praise is not wrong. This danger was not to be feared in Christ, for if one is above everything, then no matter how much He praises Himself, He does not commend Himself too much. In another way, it is praiseworthy for a man to commend himself when it is useful for the faithful, as when the Apostle commends himself (2 Corinthians 11).

For us to know God is very beneficial and necessary in every way, for our entire perfection lies in this. Thus it was a benefit for us that He reveal His greatness to us, for how could we know it if it were not shown to us by the one who knows? It was therefore necessary that Christ commend Himself to us, for as Augustine says, if He did not praise Himself to avoid seeming arrogant, He would be depriving us of wisdom: Wisdom will praise herself .

11. He draws the conclusion when He says, If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. He is arguing here from the lesser to the greater. For it seems a lesser thing that one who is greater should humble himself than one who is not as great. With this in mind, He concludes, if I then, who am greater, because I am your Teacher and Lord, have washed your feet, then you who are not as great, because you are disciples and servants, ought, far more than I, to wash one another’s feet: whoever would be great among you must be your servant... even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:26).

12. It seems that the statement, you ought to wash one another’s feet, is a precept. And one who neglects a precept sins in a serious way.

I reply, according to Augustine, that everyone should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or spiritual way. It is much better, and true beyond argument, that one should do this in a physical way, so that a Christian will not consider it beneath him to do what Christ did. For when a person stoops down to the feet of his neighbor, humility is awakened in his heart, or if already there, it is made stronger. If one cannot do this in a physical way, it should at least be done in one’s heart.

When feet are washed, their stains are washed away. So we wash the feet of our neighbors in a spiritual way when, as far as we can, we wash away their moral stains. This is done in three ways:

1. By forgiving their offenses, as in and if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive (Colossians 3:13).
2. By praying for their sins, according to pray for one another, that you may be healed (James 5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful.
3. The third way belongs to prelates, who ought to wash by forgiving sins by the power of the keys: Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven (John 20:22).

We can also say that by this action our Lord pointed out all the works of mercy. For one who gives bread to the hungry washes his feet, as does one who practices hospitality, and one who clothes the naked, and so on for the other works. Contribute to the needs of the saints (Romans 12:13).

13. He supports His conclusion in four ways, beginning with for I have given you an example:

1. By His intention.
2. By His authority: amen, amen I say to you.
3. By the reward due this action: if you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
4. By the dignity of those whose feet He washed: amen, amen I say to you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me.

14. He said the reason He did this was to give an example; so you also ought to wash one another’s feet, because that was what He intended by this action. For when we are dealing with people's conduct, example has more influence than words. A person chooses and does what seems good to him, and so what one chooses is a better indication of what is good than what one teaches should be chosen. This is why when someone says one thing and does another, what he does has more influence on others than what he has taught. Thus it is especially necessary to give an example by one’s actions.

The example of a mere human being would not be adequate for the entire human race to imitate, both because human reason cannot take everything into account, and it does err in what it does take into account. And so we were given the example of the Son of God, which cannot be in error and is adequate for all situations. Thus Augustine says, “Pride is not healed if it is not healed by the divine humility,” and the same is true of avarice and the other vices.

Note that the Son of God is a fitting and sufficient example for us. For He is the art of the Father, and just as He was the model or pattern for every created thing, so He was the model for our justification: Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps (1 Peter 2:21); my foot has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside (Job 23:11).

15. Then when He says, amen, amen, I say to you, the servant is not greater than his lord, He strengthens His conclusion by His authority. First, He mentions the status of His disciples; second, the work they do.

The status of the disciples is that they are servants: so you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants’ (Luke 17:10). The work they have to do is to be apostles; an apostle is one who is sent: he... chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles (Luke 6:13). So He says: I say that you also ought to wash one another’s feet as I have washed yours, because a servant is not greater than his lord—and this refers to their status—neither is the apostle greater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to us (Hebrews 3:1), and He is equal to the one who sent Him, that is, the Father, it is still true of all others that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him: neither is the apostle greater than he who sent him.

16. This seems to contradict what our Lord said to His disciples: No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing (John 15:15).

I answer that there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, or filial fear, and this produces a good servant: Well done, good and faithful servant (Matthew 25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here (John 13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment, or servile fear. This kind of servant is mentioned in You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me (Matthew 18:32). This is the kind of servant our Lord refers to when He says, No longer do I call you servants (John 15:15).

17. When He says, If you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them, He strengthens His conclusion with a reward.

1. He mentions the reward.
2. He excludes someone from it: I am not speaking of you all.

18. He says, if you know these things, which is like saying, “You say to us what we do not know. Why do you speak to us?” Therefore, I say that, if you know these things, which many do know, you will be blessed if you do them, which is true of few.

He says know and do because we read: blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Luke 11:28); and a good understanding have all those who practice it (Psalms 111:10). On the other hand, whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin (James 4:17).

19. He excludes someone when He says, I am not speaking of you all.

1. He says there is an exception.
2. He gives the reason for the exception: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled.
3. He tells why He said there was an exception: I am telling you now, before it takes place.

Regarding the first point, He does two things:

• He mentions there is an exception.
• He answers an unspoken question.

20. He says there is an exception when He says, I am not speaking of you all. He is saying, in effect: you will be blessed, but not all of you, because I am not speaking of you all when I say you will be blessed. All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24). For there is one of you, that is, Judas, who will not be blessed, and he will not do these things. According to Origen, our Lord did not say you will be blessed without qualification, but added a condition: if you do them. And this is true for all of them, even Judas; for if Judas had done these things, he would have been blessed. So for Origen, Jesus is excluding Judas from His servants, for a servant is not greater than his master. It was like saying: I say you are servants and apostles, but I am not speaking of you all, for Judas, since he was a servant of sin, was not a servant of the divine Word, nor was he an apostle once the devil had entered into his heart.

21. Someone could say: since Christ does not say that all are blessed or His apostles, then some member of His group might perish unexpectedly. Our Lord answers this by saying, I know whom I have chosen. This was like saying: those who have been chosen will not perish, but not all have been chosen. So, the one who will perish will be the one who has not been chosen, that is, Judas: You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16).

22. This seems to conflict with His earlier statement: Did I not choose you, the twelve? (John 6:70). Therefore, since Judas was one of the twelve, it seems that he was chosen.

I answer that one can be chosen in two ways. One is for a present righteousness, and Judas was chosen for this. The other is for final glory, and Judas was not chosen for this.

23. The reason for this exception was so that the Scripture may be fulfilled—not that Scripture forced the event, but that it mentioned an event that would happen: everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44); not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). This Scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. This is another translation of what we have read as: the man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me (Psalms 41:9).

The intimacy Judas had with Christ is shown when we read, he who ate my bread, for Judas, along with the other disciples, ate bread with Christ, even consecrated bread. Furthermore, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when it says, he has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush me. We do crush our enemies under our heel: she will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel (Genesis 3:15). And so one is said to raise his heel against another when he tries to crush him. But Judas will not be able to do this, because I will be exalted by the very thing with which he wants to crush me: and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself (John 12:32).

24. We have an example in this for ourselves: let us not be set back if we happen to suffer evil from those close to us or from the malicious, since we can remember the conduct of Judas who, in spite of having received unlimited goods, returned the contrary to his benefactor. Our Lord chose Judas, whom He knew would become an evil person, so that we could realize that there would be no human society which does not have some evil members: As a lily among brambles, so is my love among the young women (Song of Solomon 2:2). And in one of his letters, Augustine says, “I do not care to assume that my household is better than the group of the apostles.”

We can also understand from this that if a prelate receives someone into the Church, and this person becomes bad, the prelate should not be blamed. Look at Judas! Even though he was chosen by Christ, he turned out to be a traitor. The same thing happened to Philip when he received Simon the magician (Acts 8:13): Will they repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life? (Jeremiah 18:20); a man’s foes will be those of his own household (Matthew 10:36).

25. Then when He says, I am telling you now, He gives the reason why He mentioned there was an exception. It is as if to say, “I have been silent about his malice for a long time, but because the time is near when it will appear publicly,” therefore, I am telling you now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he—who predicts the future and reveals the secrets of the heart, things which are characteristic of God. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? ‘I the Lord search the mind and try the heart’ (Jeremiah 17:9); tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods (Isaiah 41:23). Or, I am who I am (Exodus 3:14).

26. Next, when He says, amen, amen I say to you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me, He confirms His conclusion from the dignity of those whose feet He washed. For their dignity was so great that services performed for them seemed in a way to rebound to God, although according to a certain progression, because things done for the faithful through Christ rebound to God the Father.

First, He shows how those things done for the disciples of Christ flow back or rebound to Christ. Regarding this He says, amen, amen, I say to you. He is saying in effect, “Truly, you ought to wash their feet,” because he who receives whomever I send receives me; that is, I regard as done to me the service given to those whom I send: he who receives you receives me (Matthew 10:40).

Second, He shows how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, and he who receives me receives him who sent me, so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in two ways. In one way, by compressing the two parts into one, the sense is: “He who receives those sent by me also receives the Father.” The second way keeps the parts distinct, and then the meaning is: “He who receives, in a physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, coming into their souls in a spiritual way, as in that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:17), receive Him who sent me, the Father.” Not only will I dwell in him, but the Father will also: we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23).

27. Arius used this text to support his error in the following way: the Lord says that he who receives Him receives the Father; therefore, the relationship between the Father who sends and the Son is the same as that of the Son who sends and the disciples. But Christ who sends is greater than the disciples who are sent; thus, the Father is greater than the Son.

We should answer this, according to Augustine, by saying that there were two natures in Christ: a human and a divine nature. In the first part, He is speaking with reference to His human nature, saying, he who receives whomever I send receives me, as human, for I share one nature with them. In the second part, He speaks in reference to His divinity: and he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I have the same nature as Him.

Alternatively, we could understand he who receives whomever I send, receives me to mean that My authority is in him; and he who receives Me receives the Father, whose authority is in Me. In this way, these words show that Christ is the bridge between God and humankind, as in there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

1. Previously, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate. Here he shows the failure of the disciples who were not yet ready to follow him, a failure which Christ predicted.

   First, we see the failure of the disciple who betrayed him. Second, we see the failure of the disciple who denied him: Simon Peter said to him: Lord, where are you going? (John 13:36).

   Regarding the first, two things are presented:

   • One of the disciples is said to be a betrayer.
   • Second, we see him leave the supper: When he had gone out, Jesus said (John 13:31).

   Concerning the betrayal, two things are done:

   • The betrayal is predicted.
   • Then we see it beginning to be carried out: What you are going to do, do quickly.

   Regarding the prediction, two things are done:

   • The crime of the traitor is foretold.
   • Second, the traitor is identified: The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.

2. Regarding the foretelling, two things are done: first, the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned, and second, the event predicted is mentioned.

   The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. Concerning this, the Evangelist says, When Jesus had said these things, inviting them once again to works of love, he visualized the disciple who was to betray him and he was troubled in spirit.

   Here we should note that to be troubled is to be disturbed. This is shown by an event mentioned before: an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool (John 5:4). The sick man answered him, Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is troubled (John 5:7). Here, for water to be disturbed or troubled is the same thing. We also say the sea is troubled when it is disturbed. And so, to say that a soul is troubled is to say that it is disturbed.

   Now, some acts of the soul do not involve a disturbance in the body; these are the actions of its intellectual powers. But the acts of the sensory appetite do involve some bodily disturbance, and so the affections of the sensory appetite are called passions. Among all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. Pleasure, since it implies a rest in a good that is possessed, has more the character of rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with a future evil, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves a present evil. This is why someone afflicted with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was troubled; that is, he was sad.

3. We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the Stoics, who said that wise people are not troubled this way or by such passions. For although they admit that a wise person may have fear, joy, or desire, such a person is never sad. It is clear that this is false, because Jesus, who is the highest Wisdom, was troubled.

   Note that one can be troubled in two ways. Sometimes it comes from the flesh, meaning that one is troubled because of some apprehension by the senses, but independently of the judgment of reason. Yet sometimes this can remain within the limits of reason and not cloud one’s reason; in this case, Jerome would call it a ‘propassion.’ This can happen in a wise person. At other times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason itself. This is not found in the wise.

   Another kind of disturbance is one that proceeds from reason, where the sensitive appetite is disturbed as a result of reason's judgment and deliberation. This disturbance was in Christ, which is why the Evangelist significantly says, troubled in spirit; that is, there was a disturbance in the sensitive appetite in Christ that came from the judgment of reason. This is why, earlier, he says Christ was deeply moved in spirit and troubled himself (John 11:33). For in Christ, every deliberation of reason also comes forth in the lower, sensitive appetite. This is also why there were no sudden, involuntary motions of sensuality in Christ.

4. Jesus willed to be troubled at this time for two reasons. First, in order to instruct us in the faith. For suffering and death, which human nature naturally shuns, were drawing near to him. When he realized this, he became sad because they were harmful and evil for him. And so he willed, by a judgment of reason, to be troubled even in his soul, to show us that he had a real human nature. This excludes the error of Apollinaris, who said that Christ did not have a soul, but that the Word took its place.

   Second, he did this to aid our own progress. According to Augustine, he saw that the traitor was about to leave and return with the Jews who wanted to capture him. By this action, Judas was severed from the society of the saints and drew down a sentence of death upon himself. Because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. This gives an example to superiors that if they must sometimes pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, according to the verse, Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me—it is oil for my head (Psalms 141:5). For when Jesus decided to reveal the treachery of Judas to the others, he was troubled in spirit and testified, to show he was not ignorant of his betrayal, and said, Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.

5. He is careful to say, one of you, that is, one of those chosen for this holy society, so that we might understand that there would never be a society so holy that it would be without sinners and evil people: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

   He said one of them, not two or several, so it would not seem that he was reproving the whole group rather than the traitor in the group. For we should not think a group is bad because one member is bad, although if several are bad, the group could be considered bad. He said, one of you, that is, one of your number, not one of you in merit or one in spirit: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1 John 2:19). One of you will betray me—the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.

6. Next, the traitor is privately identified: The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.

   • First, the reasons for this identification are mentioned.
   • Second, the traitor is identified: Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.”
   • Third, we see the effect of his identification: Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him.

   There were two reasons for his identification: one was the uncertainty of the disciples, and the other was a question asked by one of the disciples.

   • First, John mentions their uncertainty.
   • Then, he mentions the disciple’s question, at One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side.

7. With regard to the first point, note that the good disciples had a very great love for Christ and their faith was very strong. Because of their love, each one assumed that he would not be the one to deny Christ. Yet because their faith was so strong, they were most certain that what Christ said could not be false. And so, although none of them was conscious of any evil, they nevertheless thought the prediction of Christ was truer and more believable than their own opinion.

   Accordingly, considering that they were human and that their affections could change so much that they could will the opposite of what they willed before, they were more uncertain of themselves than of the truth spoken by Christ. So, the disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12); If I wash myself with snow and cleanse my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into a pit (Job 9:30–31).

8. Next, the disciple’s question is stated: One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side.

   • First, we see the intimacy he had with Christ.
   • Second, what led him to ask: Simon Peter therefore motioned to him.
   • Third, his question: So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?”

9. The disciple’s intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him: One of his disciples... was reclining at table at Jesus' side.

   This was John the Evangelist, who wrote this Gospel. He wrote of himself in the third person to avoid boasting. In this, he followed the custom of others who wrote Sacred Scripture. Moses wrote of himself this way, as if he were someone else: And the LORD spoke to Moses (Leviticus 11:1). So did Matthew: he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth (Matthew 9:9). And Paul did the same: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2).

10. John here mentions three things about himself. First is the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was reclining, that is, resting: then you will delight yourself in the Almighty and lift up your face to God (Job 22:26); he leads me beside still waters (Psalms 23:2). Second, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was reclining at Jesus' side [literally, "in Jesus' bosom"], for the bosom signifies things that are hidden: the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known (John 1:18). Third, he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively, but in a way above others.

    Exactly how Christ loved him more than others will be stated more clearly at the end of this book. For the present, it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons:

    1. Because of his exceptional purity, for he was a virgin when chosen by the Lord and always remained so: He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend (Proverbs 22:11).
    2. Because of the depth of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others, and so he is compared to an eagle: A wise servant has the king's favor (Proverbs 14:35).
    3. Because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: I love those who love me (Proverbs 8:17).

11. Then when he says, Simon Peter therefore motioned to him, John mentions what led him to question Christ.

    But since to motion is to suggest something without speaking, why does he say that Peter both motioned... and said?

    I answer that the word ‘said’ can also mean just to think something within ourselves, as in The fool says in his heart (Psalms 53:1). Even more so, we can say that someone said something when he indicates by some external sign or gesture what he has conceived in his heart. This is the meaning of his saying that Peter motioned... and said; that is, thinking of something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture.

    Or, one could say that he first made a gesture, and then said in words: to ask who it was of whom he spoke, that is, who will betray him.

12. Since everywhere in the Gospels Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? Why does he have another ask the question?

    Chrysostom gives three reasons for this.

    1. Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to wash his feet and had heard, If I do not wash you, you have no share with me (John 13:8). As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now.
    2. Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. And so, because Peter was a few feet away from Christ and would not be the only one to hear his answer, he urged John, who was next to Jesus, to ask him.
    3. The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Peter is instructed by Christ through John because the active life learns about divine things by means of the contemplative life: Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching, but Martha was distracted with much serving (Luke 10:39–40).

13. Then when he says, So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, he mentions the question.

    Note that when Peter was motioning to John to get him to question our Lord, John was reclining near the lap of Jesus. But now when John asks, he is near the breast of Jesus, for the breast is closer to the mouth than the lap is. And so John moved from the lap of Christ to his breast so he could hear his answer more quietly and privately.

    As for the mystical interpretation, we can see from this that the more a person wants to grasp the secrets of divine wisdom, the more he should try to get closer to Christ, according to: Look to him, and be radiant (Psalms 34:5). For the secrets of divine wisdom are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: He tells his friend of it (Job 36:33, Vulgate); a man's spirit is a lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts (Proverbs 20:27, compare to Proverbs 18:17, Vulgate).

14. Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the betrayer, first by words, then by an action.

    He identifies him by words when he says, It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it. This can signify two things, depending on how "bread" is understood. If it is understood to indicate something evil, it signifies the hypocrisy of Judas. For just as dipped bread is stained and has changed in appearance, so also is a pretender, for he thinks one thing in his heart while he simulates something else with his words. And Judas was like this, for on the outside he pretended to love the Teacher, but in his heart he planned to betray him: the wicked speak peace with their neighbors, while evil is in their hearts (Psalms 28:3).

    If bread is taken to signify something good, then this action stresses the malice of Judas. When bread is dipped, it tastes better. So Christ gave Judas dipped bread to show that although Judas had received many good things from Christ, he betrayed him in spite of them: But it is you, a man, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to take sweet counsel together (Psalms 55:13–14).

15. He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Some say that this bread was the consecrated body of Christ. But, according to Augustine, this is not so. For it is clear from the other Evangelists that our Lord gave his body to the disciples while he was having supper. Thus it is evident that Judas received the body of Christ at the same time as the other disciples, that is, during the supper. During the course of this meal, Jesus rose and washed the feet of the disciples and returned to his place. It was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.

16. He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him.

    Here we might ask how Satan enters into a person.

    I answer that there are two ways of understanding Satan’s entering into a person. He could enter a person’s body, as in the case of those who are physically tormented by a demon. In this way, the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that the devil enters a person’s mind, so that the devil would essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter a person in this way. The rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions, so nothing can be in it except that which gives it existence, which is there by its own power. Now where the power of God is, there also is his essence, for in God essence and power are the same. So it is clear that God is in the soul essentially.

    Yet the devil can enter the human mind in the sense that a person who has been seduced by him follows him in doing evil; this is an effect of the devil’s malice, which someone has embraced.

17. It was said above: the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him (John 13:2). But now he says, Satan entered into him.

    So there seems to be a difference between ‘put into’ and ‘enter into.’ I say that this was not said to indicate a difference, but to note a growth in evil. The devil is said to ‘put’ something evil into a person’s heart when the person yields to him and assents to the evil, but with some fear as to whether he ought to do it or not. But he ‘enters into’ a person’s heart when one totally gives himself to following his suggestions and offers no resistance at all. Thus Satan first put the plan to betray Christ into Judas, and then he entered into him to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.

18. One might ask why Luke says that Satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel (Luke 22:3). This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him.

    I answer that in the first case, Satan entered into him to plan the betrayal, but now he entered into him to accomplish and complete it.

19. Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, since after that Satan would enter into him?

    I say, no. Judas himself was evil and used a good thing in an evil way. In a similar way, when someone unworthily receives the Eucharist, which is good and even the best of things, he receives it in an evil way and it turns out to be evil for him, because he eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Corinthians 11:29).

1. We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted.

   First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and second, how it was done: he therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately.

   John does three things regarding the first point: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; second, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear; and third, he states how the apostles understood them.

2. Our Lord’s words were: what you do, do quickly. This is not a command or advice, since sin cannot be commanded or advised, because the command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes (Psalms 19:8). It is, rather, a permission.

   As we have seen, the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and he had already made arrangements with the chief priests. Yet he could not carry this out unless Christ himself gave permission, because no one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18); he was offered because it was his own will (Isaiah 53:7).

   These words also reprimand the evil act of betrayal and imply that while Christ was conferring benefits on him, Judas was planning his death: but now I rebuke you, and lay the charge before you (Psalms 50:21).

   As Augustine says, they are also the words of one who eagerly desires to carry out the work of our redemption. Still, Christ was not commanding the crime, but predicting it. He was not so much seeking the ruin of the one who betrayed him as he was hurrying to become the salvation of believers: I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished! (Luke 12:50).

3. What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, now no one at the table knew for what purpose he said this to him. We can understand from this that the words of Christ are so profound and so above human understanding that we can understand no more of them than what he reveals: it is the glory of God to conceal the word (Proverbs 25:2).

4. A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I will give this bread when I have dipped it (John 13:26), and then he gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull not to have understood what he had just said.

   I answer that our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this was that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.

5. Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no one at the table knew for what purpose he said this to him?

   I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Now John was extremely good and would never consider becoming a betrayer. Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime.

6. Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought, because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus had said to him.

   Here we should note that the Lord God of heaven, who feeds all living things, had a money bag, not to own the things of earth, but to save the offerings of believers and so provide for his own necessities and the needs of others. This money bag was in the care of Judas.

   As Augustine says, this teaches us that the Church can have and reserve money for its immediate needs.

   It also teaches us that the Church’s money should be used for only two things. First, for what pertains to divine worship; for we read, buy those things which we have need of for the feast, that is, what we can use to worship God on the festival day: bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house (Malachi 3:10). Second, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.

7. One might argue against this that Matthew says, do not be anxious about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34). Augustine answered this and said that our Lord did not command the saints not to keep the money or other goods of one day for the next. Rather, he said, do not be anxious about tomorrow. This means that we should not be preaching or doing other religious services in order to provide a future for ourselves; nor should we omit acting in a virtuous way because of fear of the future. Thus it is clear that when our Lord said do not be anxious about tomorrow, he was forbidding two things. First, we are not to do good to secure our future; second, we are not to omit doing good because we fear a future poverty.

   Chrysostom explains this clearly when he says: do not be anxious about tomorrow, that is, do not anticipate today the cares of the next day; the troubles of today are enough.

8. Some might also wonder why our Lord had a money bag, since he told his disciples, carry no money bag, no bag, no sandals (Luke 10:4). In what way, therefore, could he himself have a money bag?

   According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a money bag to provide for those in need and to teach us that no matter how poor and crucified to the world we may be, we should be concerned for the poor, according to he has distributed freely, he has given to the poor (Psalms 112:9). Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on the way, he was referring to individual preachers and apostles, who should carry nothing when they went to preach. But it did not refer to the entire group which would need something for themselves and for the poor.

9. Next, John shows that what was predicted came about: he therefore having received the morsel, went out immediately.

   First, he mentions the action which was done; second, the time when it was done.

10. What was done was done quickly, because having received the morsel, he immediately went out.

    Note that, as Origen says, the Evangelist does not say that Judas ate the morsel, but that he received it. This can be understood in two ways. First, it could be that Judas was so troubled about obeying the Teacher that when he received the morsel, he did not eat it, but perhaps left it on the table and without delay went out to complete his betrayal. The reason for this could be that the devil did not allow Judas to eat the bread. For the devil, who had already entered into the heart of Judas, feared that if Judas ate the bread, the devil would have to leave, since he could not be in the same place as Jesus: what accord has Christ with Belial? (2 Corinthians 6:15); you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (1 Corinthians 10:21).

    Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, having received the morsel, not only in his hand, but even eating it, he immediately went out. He thus made use of a good thing in a bad way. This is exactly what someone does who unworthily eats the bread of the Lord, or drinks from his chalice: he eats and drinks to his own damage and adds to his sin. So the bread Jesus gave to Judas became a source of harm: for after the bread entered into him so did Satan.

11. The time is described as one of darkness: and it was night. He mentions this for two reasons. First, to emphasize the malice of Judas. It had grown in his heart to such a degree that even the inconvenience of the hour did not cause him to wait until the morning: the murderer rises in the dark... and in the night he is as a thief (Job 24:14).

    In the second place, he wants to show his state of mind. It was night, because the mind of Judas the traitor was dark, without divine light. If a man walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if he walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him (John 11:9–10).