King James Version
John 13
38 verses with commentary
Jesus Washes the Disciples' Feet
Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
View commentary
This verse opens Jesus' Upper Room discourse with a profound statement: knowing 'his hour was come', He loved His own 'unto the end' (Greek 'eis telos', meaning both 'to the uttermost' and 'to the end of time'). This introduces the full extent of Christ's love demonstrated at the cross. The Passover timing is deliberate—Christ, our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), will be sacrificed. 'His own' emphasizes the elect, those given to Him by the Father.
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
View commentary
And supper being ended (καὶ δείπνου γινομένου)—More literally "supper being in progress" or "while supper was happening." This is the Passover meal (or the meal immediately preceding it, depending on Synoptic/Johannine chronology). The context is intimate fellowship before betrayal.
The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot (τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν)—The perfect tense "having put" (βεβληκότος/beblēkotos) indicates Satan had already planted the intention to betray. Luke 22:3 says "Satan entered into Judas," showing satanic agency behind the betrayal. Yet Judas remained morally responsible—Satan exploited Judas's greed and disillusionment but didn't override his will.
To betray him (ἵνα παραδῷ αὐτόν)—The verb paradidōmi (παραδῷ) means to hand over, deliver up, betray. It's used of Judas's betrayal, the Father's giving the Son (Romans 8:32), and Jesus's willing self-surrender (Galatians 2:20). Judas's evil act became part of God's sovereign plan—divine sovereignty and human responsibility mysteriously intertwined.
The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot (τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν)—The perfect tense "having put" (βεβληκότος/beblēkotos) indicates Satan had already planted the intention to betray. Luke 22:3 says "Satan entered into Judas," showing satanic agency behind the betrayal. Yet Judas remained morally responsible—Satan exploited Judas's greed and disillusionment but didn't override his will.
To betray him (ἵνα παραδῷ αὐτόν)—The verb paradidōmi (παραδῷ) means to hand over, deliver up, betray. It's used of Judas's betrayal, the Father's giving the Son (Romans 8:32), and Jesus's willing self-surrender (Galatians 2:20). Judas's evil act became part of God's sovereign plan—divine sovereignty and human responsibility mysteriously intertwined.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
View commentary
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα δέδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας)—The participle "knowing" (εἰδώς/eidōs) indicates Jesus's full consciousness of His authority. The Father had committed "all things" (πάντα/panta)—universal authority—into Christ's hands. This echoes Matthew 28:18: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Jesus acts from a position of absolute sovereignty.
And that he was come from God, and went to God (καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπάγει)—Jesus's full awareness of His divine origin and destination frames the foot-washing. He who came from God's throne stoops to wash dirty feet; He who will return to glory serves as a slave. This is the ultimate statement of divine humility.
The contrast is stunning: Satan fills Judas's heart with betrayal (v.2); the Father fills Jesus's hands with authority. Judas uses proximity to Jesus for evil; Jesus uses divine authority for service. This sets up the foot-washing as the incarnation in miniature—the Lord of glory becoming a servant.
And that he was come from God, and went to God (καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπάγει)—Jesus's full awareness of His divine origin and destination frames the foot-washing. He who came from God's throne stoops to wash dirty feet; He who will return to glory serves as a slave. This is the ultimate statement of divine humility.
The contrast is stunning: Satan fills Judas's heart with betrayal (v.2); the Father fills Jesus's hands with authority. Judas uses proximity to Jesus for evil; Jesus uses divine authority for service. This sets up the foot-washing as the incarnation in miniature—the Lord of glory becoming a servant.
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
View commentary
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments (ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου καὶ τίθησιν τὰ ἱμάτια)—The verb "laid aside" (τίθησιν/tithēsin) is the same word used in John 10:11, 15, 17-18 where Jesus says the Good Shepherd "lays down" (τίθησιν) His life. This isn't coincidence—John is showing the foot-washing as a symbolic anticipation of Calvary. Jesus voluntarily lays aside His garments as He will voluntarily lay down His life.
And took a towel, and girded himself (καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν)—Jesus assumes the posture of a servant. The towel (λέντιον/lention, a Latin loan-word) was the servant's uniform. To "gird" (διέζωσεν/diezōsen) oneself with a towel was to prepare for menial labor. The Lord of glory dresses as a slave.
And took a towel, and girded himself (καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν)—Jesus assumes the posture of a servant. The towel (λέντιον/lention, a Latin loan-word) was the servant's uniform. To "gird" (διέζωσεν/diezōsen) oneself with a towel was to prepare for menial labor. The Lord of glory dresses as a slave.
After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
View commentary
After that he poureth water into a bason (εἶτα βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα)—The simple, practical actions emphasize the incarnation's concreteness. God in flesh performs physical, humble tasks. The water (ὕδωρ/hydōr) anticipates the water and blood flowing from Jesus's pierced side (John 19:34), symbols of spiritual cleansing and life.
And began to wash the disciples' feet (καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν)—The verb "wash" (νίπτειν/niptein) means to wash part of the body (especially hands or feet), distinct from louō (to bathe the whole body). Jesus later uses this distinction (v.10): believers are "bathed" (λελουμένος/leloumenos) in justification but need ongoing foot-washing (νίπτειν) for sanctification—cleansing from daily defilement.
And to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded (καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος)—Jesus not only washes but wipes—complete service, thorough cleansing. The towel He wore becomes the instrument of purification, as His own body would become the means of our cleansing (Ephesians 5:26: "the washing of water by the word").
And began to wash the disciples' feet (καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν)—The verb "wash" (νίπτειν/niptein) means to wash part of the body (especially hands or feet), distinct from louō (to bathe the whole body). Jesus later uses this distinction (v.10): believers are "bathed" (λελουμένος/leloumenos) in justification but need ongoing foot-washing (νίπτειν) for sanctification—cleansing from daily defilement.
And to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded (καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος)—Jesus not only washes but wipes—complete service, thorough cleansing. The towel He wore becomes the instrument of purification, as His own body would become the means of our cleansing (Ephesians 5:26: "the washing of water by the word").
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Peter saith: Gr. he saith
View commentary
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Peter's reaction to Jesus washing his feet reveals the natural human recoil from grace—the pride that resists receiving unmerited service. The phrase Lord, dost thou wash my feet? (Κύριε, σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας/Kyrie, sy mou nipteis tous podas) places emphatic pronouns in stark contrast: Thou (σύ)—the Master, and my (μου)—the servant. The present tense nipteis (wash) suggests Peter interrupted Jesus mid-action, shocked at what was unfolding.
The verb νίπτω (niptō) specifically means to wash a part of the body (usually feet or hands), distinct from λούω (louō), which means to bathe the whole body—a distinction Jesus exploits in verse 10. Footwashing was the task of the lowliest household slave, so degrading that Jewish law forbade requiring it of Hebrew servants (only Gentile slaves). Yet here stands the Lord of Glory, the one Peter confessed as the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), performing the most menial service.
Peter's question contains both reverence ('Lord') and resistance. He grasps the incongruity but not yet the theology. This scene dramatizes the incarnation itself: the Word became flesh and took on the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). The Creator serves His creatures. The Judge cleanses the guilty. Pride says, 'I must serve You'; grace says, 'Let Me serve you.'
The verb νίπτω (niptō) specifically means to wash a part of the body (usually feet or hands), distinct from λούω (louō), which means to bathe the whole body—a distinction Jesus exploits in verse 10. Footwashing was the task of the lowliest household slave, so degrading that Jewish law forbade requiring it of Hebrew servants (only Gentile slaves). Yet here stands the Lord of Glory, the one Peter confessed as the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), performing the most menial service.
Peter's question contains both reverence ('Lord') and resistance. He grasps the incongruity but not yet the theology. This scene dramatizes the incarnation itself: the Word became flesh and took on the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7). The Creator serves His creatures. The Judge cleanses the guilty. Pride says, 'I must serve You'; grace says, 'Let Me serve you.'
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter .
View commentary
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Christ's response to Peter's protest introduces the pedagogical principle that divine actions often precede human understanding. The phrase What I do (ἐγὼ ποιῶ/egō poiō) emphasizes Jesus's sovereignty—I am doing this, regardless of your comprehension. The present tense poiō stresses ongoing action with multiple layers of meaning.
The contrast between now (ἄρτι/arti) and hereafter (μετὰ ταῦτα/meta tauta) structures Christian experience: we walk by faith, not sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Arti indicates the immediate present moment—Peter in his pre-cross confusion cannot grasp what unfolds. Meta tauta (literally 'after these things') points beyond the crucifixion, resurrection, and Pentecost to the Spirit-enlightened understanding that follows.
The verb knowest (οἶδας/oidas) refers to intuitive, perceptive knowledge, while shalt know (γνώσῃ/gnōsē) uses γινώσκω (ginōskō), meaning experiential knowledge gained through relationship. Peter will move from confused observation to participated understanding. This parallels Jesus's earlier words: What I do thou knowest not now applies to the cross itself—disciples flee in confusion, but later understand redemption accomplished.
The contrast between now (ἄρτι/arti) and hereafter (μετὰ ταῦτα/meta tauta) structures Christian experience: we walk by faith, not sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Arti indicates the immediate present moment—Peter in his pre-cross confusion cannot grasp what unfolds. Meta tauta (literally 'after these things') points beyond the crucifixion, resurrection, and Pentecost to the Spirit-enlightened understanding that follows.
The verb knowest (οἶδας/oidas) refers to intuitive, perceptive knowledge, while shalt know (γνώσῃ/gnōsē) uses γινώσκω (ginōskō), meaning experiential knowledge gained through relationship. Peter will move from confused observation to participated understanding. This parallels Jesus's earlier words: What I do thou knowest not now applies to the cross itself—disciples flee in confusion, but later understand redemption accomplished.
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
View commentary
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Peter's emphatic refusal—never (οὐ μὴ...εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα/ou mē...eis ton aiōna)—uses the strongest Greek negation plus 'unto the age,' creating absolute, eternal refusal. Yet Jesus's response is more absolute still: If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me (Ἐὰν μὴ νίψω σε, οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ' ἐμοῦ/Ean mē nipsō se, ouk echeis meros met' emou).
The verb wash (νίψω/nipsō) shifts from present to aorist subjunctive—not ongoing action but a definitive act with permanent consequences. The phrase no part with me (οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ' ἐμοῦ) is covenant language. Meros means portion, share, inheritance—the same term used for Israel's inheritance in the Promised Land (Joshua 19:9). Without Jesus's cleansing, Peter has no share in Christ's kingdom, no inheritance, no fellowship.
This dialogue transcends literal foot-washing to address soteriological necessity. Peter must receive Christ's cleansing or remain eternally separated. Pride that refuses grace is damning pride. We contribute nothing to salvation except the sin requiring it. Christ's work is complete and non-negotiable—we receive it humbly or reject it proudly. Peter's journey from 'never' to 'not my feet only' (v.9) mirrors conversion: from self-sufficient refusal to desperate reception of grace.
The verb wash (νίψω/nipsō) shifts from present to aorist subjunctive—not ongoing action but a definitive act with permanent consequences. The phrase no part with me (οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ' ἐμοῦ) is covenant language. Meros means portion, share, inheritance—the same term used for Israel's inheritance in the Promised Land (Joshua 19:9). Without Jesus's cleansing, Peter has no share in Christ's kingdom, no inheritance, no fellowship.
This dialogue transcends literal foot-washing to address soteriological necessity. Peter must receive Christ's cleansing or remain eternally separated. Pride that refuses grace is damning pride. We contribute nothing to salvation except the sin requiring it. Christ's work is complete and non-negotiable—we receive it humbly or reject it proudly. Peter's journey from 'never' to 'not my feet only' (v.9) mirrors conversion: from self-sufficient refusal to desperate reception of grace.
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
View commentary
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Peter's characteristic impulsiveness swings from absolute refusal (v.8) to maximal request. The emphatic negation not...only (οὐ...μόνον/ou...monon) followed by but also (ἀλλὰ καί/alla kai) intensifies his plea. If cleansing by Christ brings fellowship, Peter wants complete cleansing—my hands and my head (τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν κεφαλήν/tas cheiras kai tēn kephalēn).
Peter's request, though sincere, reveals continuing misunderstanding. He grasps that Christ's cleansing is necessary but thinks more ritual washing brings more spiritual benefit. This reflects a works-oriented mindset: if some is good, more is better; if feet-washing grants fellowship, full-body washing grants greater fellowship. Yet grace doesn't operate on quantitative scales. The sufficiency of Christ's work needs no human addition or intensification.
Peter's response also shows genuine love for Christ. Once convinced that Jesus's washing brings 'part with me,' Peter desires maximum communion. His error isn't in wanting closeness with Christ but in thinking human enthusiasm or religious excess achieves it. This anticipates later misunderstandings about salvation by grace through faith—legalists add requirements, enthusiasts add experiences, but the gospel says Christ's work alone suffices.
Peter's request, though sincere, reveals continuing misunderstanding. He grasps that Christ's cleansing is necessary but thinks more ritual washing brings more spiritual benefit. This reflects a works-oriented mindset: if some is good, more is better; if feet-washing grants fellowship, full-body washing grants greater fellowship. Yet grace doesn't operate on quantitative scales. The sufficiency of Christ's work needs no human addition or intensification.
Peter's response also shows genuine love for Christ. Once convinced that Jesus's washing brings 'part with me,' Peter desires maximum communion. His error isn't in wanting closeness with Christ but in thinking human enthusiasm or religious excess achieves it. This anticipates later misunderstandings about salvation by grace through faith—legalists add requirements, enthusiasts add experiences, but the gospel says Christ's work alone suffices.
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
View commentary
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. Jesus corrects Peter's misunderstanding with crucial theological distinction. He that is washed (ὁ λελουμένος/ho leloumenos) uses the perfect passive participle of λούω (louō)—to bathe the whole body—indicating completed action with ongoing results. This person needeth not (οὐ χρείαν ἔχει/ou chreian echei) further bathing, only to wash his feet (νίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας/nipsasthai tous podas), using νίπτω (niptō), the verb for partial washing.
The distinction maps onto Christian soteriology with precision. The complete bath (λούω) represents justification—the once-for-all cleansing from sin's guilt through Christ's blood (Titus 3:5, 'washing of regeneration'). The foot-washing (νίπτω) represents ongoing sanctification—daily cleansing from sin's defilement through confession and Spirit-empowered growth (1 John 1:9, 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us'). Believers are definitively cleansed (clean every whit—καθαρός ἐστιν ὅλος/katharos estin holos), yet require continual cleansing from worldly contamination.
The phrase ye are clean, but not all (ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ πάντες/hymeis katharoi este, all' ouchi pantes) introduces the sobering reality of Judas's presence. Among the Twelve, eleven had experienced regeneration's bath; one remained spiritually filthy despite outward proximity to Christ. External religious participation doesn't guarantee internal transformation.
The distinction maps onto Christian soteriology with precision. The complete bath (λούω) represents justification—the once-for-all cleansing from sin's guilt through Christ's blood (Titus 3:5, 'washing of regeneration'). The foot-washing (νίπτω) represents ongoing sanctification—daily cleansing from sin's defilement through confession and Spirit-empowered growth (1 John 1:9, 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us'). Believers are definitively cleansed (clean every whit—καθαρός ἐστιν ὅλος/katharos estin holos), yet require continual cleansing from worldly contamination.
The phrase ye are clean, but not all (ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ πάντες/hymeis katharoi este, all' ouchi pantes) introduces the sobering reality of Judas's presence. Among the Twelve, eleven had experienced regeneration's bath; one remained spiritually filthy despite outward proximity to Christ. External religious participation doesn't guarantee internal transformation.
For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
View commentary
For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. This verse explains Jesus's cryptic statement in verse 10. The phrase he knew (ᾔδει γάρ/ēdei gar) uses the pluperfect form of οἶδα (oida), indicating comprehensive, settled knowledge existing before the moment—Jesus had always known. The participle who should betray him (τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν/ton paradidonata auton) uses present tense, suggesting ongoing treachery—Judas's betrayal wasn't sudden impulse but developing conspiracy.
The verb παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi)—to hand over, betray, deliver up—appears repeatedly in the Passion narrative. Judas paradidōmi Jesus to the authorities (John 18:2), who paradidōmi Him to Pilate (John 18:30), who paradidōmi Him to crucifixion (John 19:16). Yet providentially, the Father paradidōmi the Son for our redemption (Romans 8:32). Human treachery serves divine purposes.
Jesus's foreknowledge of betrayal intensifies the scene's pathos. He washes the feet of His betrayer. He serves the one plotting His death. This displays both divine omniscience and incomprehensible love—while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Judas receives the same intimate service as the faithful Eleven, demonstrating that Christ's love extends even to those who reject Him. Yet love spurned becomes judgment. Judas's presence at the foot-washing but exclusion from spiritual cleansing illustrates the tragedy of resisting grace.
The verb παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi)—to hand over, betray, deliver up—appears repeatedly in the Passion narrative. Judas paradidōmi Jesus to the authorities (John 18:2), who paradidōmi Him to Pilate (John 18:30), who paradidōmi Him to crucifixion (John 19:16). Yet providentially, the Father paradidōmi the Son for our redemption (Romans 8:32). Human treachery serves divine purposes.
Jesus's foreknowledge of betrayal intensifies the scene's pathos. He washes the feet of His betrayer. He serves the one plotting His death. This displays both divine omniscience and incomprehensible love—while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Judas receives the same intimate service as the faithful Eleven, demonstrating that Christ's love extends even to those who reject Him. Yet love spurned becomes judgment. Judas's presence at the foot-washing but exclusion from spiritual cleansing illustrates the tragedy of resisting grace.
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
View commentary
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Having completed the foot-washing, Jesus resumes His position as teacher (ἀνέπεσεν πάλιν/anepesen palin—reclined again at table) to explain the acted parable. The question Know ye what I have done? (Γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν;/Ginōskete ti pepoiēka hymin?) uses present tense γινώσκω (ginōskō)—do you understand, perceive, grasp the significance?—with perfect tense πεποίηκα (pepoiēka), emphasizing completed action with abiding results.
Jesus distinguishes between witnessing an action and comprehending its meaning. The disciples saw Him wash feet; the question is whether they understood the theological, Christological, and ethical implications. This pedagogical method—symbolic action followed by explanation—appears throughout Jesus's ministry (cleansing the temple, cursing the fig tree, instituting the Lord's Supper). Physical actions convey spiritual realities.
The phrase what I have done to you (τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν) positions disciples as recipients, not spectators. Jesus didn't perform a demonstration for them to observe but an act toward them requiring response. The foot-washing wasn't abstract theology but personal service with direct application. Verses 13-17 will unpack the meaning: Jesus is Lord and Teacher, yet serves; therefore disciples must serve one another. But the deeper meaning connects to verses 8-10: cleansing through Christ brings fellowship, foreshadowing His atoning death that washes away sin.
Jesus distinguishes between witnessing an action and comprehending its meaning. The disciples saw Him wash feet; the question is whether they understood the theological, Christological, and ethical implications. This pedagogical method—symbolic action followed by explanation—appears throughout Jesus's ministry (cleansing the temple, cursing the fig tree, instituting the Lord's Supper). Physical actions convey spiritual realities.
The phrase what I have done to you (τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν) positions disciples as recipients, not spectators. Jesus didn't perform a demonstration for them to observe but an act toward them requiring response. The foot-washing wasn't abstract theology but personal service with direct application. Verses 13-17 will unpack the meaning: Jesus is Lord and Teacher, yet serves; therefore disciples must serve one another. But the deeper meaning connects to verses 8-10: cleansing through Christ brings fellowship, foreshadowing His atoning death that washes away sin.
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
View commentary
Ye call me Master and Lord (διδάσκαλος καὶ κύριος, didaskalos kai kyrios)—Jesus affirms the disciples' correct recognition of His dual authority. Didaskalos (Teacher) denotes His role as authoritative instructor; kyrios (Lord) declares His sovereign divine authority. And ye say well; for so I am—Jesus unequivocally validates their confession. Unlike false humility, Christ confirms His lordship even while modeling servanthood.
This declaration follows the foot-washing (vv. 4-12), creating stunning paradox: the One worthy of worship performs slaves' work. Jesus establishes that true authority manifests in humble service, not domination. His claim "so I am" (εἰμί, eimi) echoes the divine name (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), affirming deity while kneeling as servant.
This declaration follows the foot-washing (vv. 4-12), creating stunning paradox: the One worthy of worship performs slaves' work. Jesus establishes that true authority manifests in humble service, not domination. His claim "so I am" (εἰμί, eimi) echoes the divine name (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), affirming deity while kneeling as servant.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
View commentary
If I then, your Lord and Master—Jesus grounds His command in His established authority from v. 13. The conditional "if" (εἰ, ei) assumes the reality: since I (the Lord) have done this, you must also. Have washed your feet (ἔνιψα, enipsa)—aorist tense emphasizes the completed historical act. Ye also ought (ὀφείλετε, opheilete)—not optional suggestion but moral obligation derived from Christ's example.
To wash one another's feet—Jesus commands mutual service, not hierarchical patterns. The reciprocal pronoun allēlōn (one another) mandates horizontal servanthood within the Christian community. This is not merely literal foot-washing (though some traditions practice it) but Christ-like humility in all relationships. The logic is unassailable: if the Master serves, how much more should fellow-servants serve each other?
To wash one another's feet—Jesus commands mutual service, not hierarchical patterns. The reciprocal pronoun allēlōn (one another) mandates horizontal servanthood within the Christian community. This is not merely literal foot-washing (though some traditions practice it) but Christ-like humility in all relationships. The logic is unassailable: if the Master serves, how much more should fellow-servants serve each other?
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
View commentary
For I have given you an example (ὑπόδειγμα, hypodeigma)—not merely illustration but pattern to be followed. Jesus explicitly states His purpose: modeling replicable behavior. The perfect tense "have given" indicates lasting effect—this example stands as permanent template for Christian conduct.
That ye should do as I have done to you (καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα, kathōs egō epoiēsa)—the comparative "as" demands conformity to Christ's standard. This is imitatio Christi, imitation of Christ, as ethical foundation. Jesus doesn't merely teach servanthood abstractly; He embodies it, then commands: "do likewise." The pronoun emphasis ("I" have done) underscores that Christ's own action validates the command. This principle extends beyond foot-washing to all Christian ethics—believers must pattern their lives after Christ's self-giving love demonstrated supremely at the cross.
That ye should do as I have done to you (καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα, kathōs egō epoiēsa)—the comparative "as" demands conformity to Christ's standard. This is imitatio Christi, imitation of Christ, as ethical foundation. Jesus doesn't merely teach servanthood abstractly; He embodies it, then commands: "do likewise." The pronoun emphasis ("I" have done) underscores that Christ's own action validates the command. This principle extends beyond foot-washing to all Christian ethics—believers must pattern their lives after Christ's self-giving love demonstrated supremely at the cross.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
View commentary
Verily, verily (ἀμὴν ἀμήν, amēn amēn)—Jesus' signature formula marking solemn, authoritative pronouncement. The doubled "amen" appears 25 times in John, always introducing crucial teaching. The servant is not greater than his lord (δοῦλος, doulos; κύριος, kyrios)—a proverbial truth Jesus applies to justify the foot-washing command. If the Master serves, the slave cannot claim exemption from service.
Neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him (ἀπόστολος, apostolos; πέμψας, pempsas)—the second clause uses apostolic terminology. "He that is sent" translates the root of apostolos (apostle). Since Jesus Himself is the sent One (the ultimate Apostle, Hebrews 3:1), His followers who are also sent cannot claim superiority to their sender. This principle governs all Christian ministry: representatives cannot exceed their representative capacity. Jesus used this same saying in Matthew 10:24 regarding persecution—disciples should expect treatment no better than their Master received.
Neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him (ἀπόστολος, apostolos; πέμψας, pempsas)—the second clause uses apostolic terminology. "He that is sent" translates the root of apostolos (apostle). Since Jesus Himself is the sent One (the ultimate Apostle, Hebrews 3:1), His followers who are also sent cannot claim superiority to their sender. This principle governs all Christian ministry: representatives cannot exceed their representative capacity. Jesus used this same saying in Matthew 10:24 regarding persecution—disciples should expect treatment no better than their Master received.
If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
View commentary
If ye know these things (εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, ei tauta oidate)—Jesus assumes they possess the knowledge from His teaching and example. The condition is reality: "since you know." But knowledge alone doesn't constitute blessedness. Happy are ye if ye do them (μακάριοι, makarioi; ποιῆτε, poiēte)—makarios is the beatitude word (Matthew 5:3-11), denoting deep spiritual blessedness, not superficial happiness.
The sharp contrast is knowledge versus obedience. Blessedness comes not from knowing Christ's teaching but from doing it (James 1:22-25). The Greek present tense "if ye do" (ongoing action) requires sustained obedience, not one-time compliance. This captures Jesus' consistent emphasis: "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). Knowing that Christ washed feet doesn't bless; washing others' feet in Christ-like humility brings blessing. Jesus establishes Christianity as orthopraxis (right practice), not merely orthodoxy (right belief).
The sharp contrast is knowledge versus obedience. Blessedness comes not from knowing Christ's teaching but from doing it (James 1:22-25). The Greek present tense "if ye do" (ongoing action) requires sustained obedience, not one-time compliance. This captures Jesus' consistent emphasis: "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). Knowing that Christ washed feet doesn't bless; washing others' feet in Christ-like humility brings blessing. Jesus establishes Christianity as orthopraxis (right practice), not merely orthodoxy (right belief).
One of You Will Betray Me
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
View commentary
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Jesus speaks these words during the Last Supper, distinguishing between the faithful eleven and Judas Iscariot. The Greek verb for "know" (oida, οἶδα) indicates comprehensive, intimate knowledge—not merely intellectual awareness but deep personal understanding. "Whom I have chosen" (exelexamen, ἐξελεξάμην) uses the aorist tense, pointing to a specific past decision, Jesus's sovereign selection of the twelve disciples.
Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9, where David laments betrayal by a close friend: "mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." The phrase "lifted up his heel" depicts treacherous attack, like a horse kicking backward to injure. Sharing bread established covenant relationship in ancient culture, making betrayal by a table companion especially heinous. Jesus applies David's experience typologically to Judas's coming betrayal, demonstrating Scripture's prophetic fulfillment in Messiah's sufferings.
Theologically, this verse addresses the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Jesus sovereignly chose Judas knowing he would betray Him (John 6:70), yet Judas remained morally responsible for his actions. God's foreknowledge and prophetic Scripture don't negate human agency. The verse also reveals Jesus's omniscience—He knows hearts thoroughly (John 2:25). Despite this knowledge, Jesus shared intimate fellowship with Judas, demonstrating divine patience and giving opportunity for repentance. The fulfillment of Scripture in specific details of Jesus's life validates His messianic identity and God's sovereign orchestration of redemption through human choices, even evil ones.
Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9, where David laments betrayal by a close friend: "mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." The phrase "lifted up his heel" depicts treacherous attack, like a horse kicking backward to injure. Sharing bread established covenant relationship in ancient culture, making betrayal by a table companion especially heinous. Jesus applies David's experience typologically to Judas's coming betrayal, demonstrating Scripture's prophetic fulfillment in Messiah's sufferings.
Theologically, this verse addresses the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Jesus sovereignly chose Judas knowing he would betray Him (John 6:70), yet Judas remained morally responsible for his actions. God's foreknowledge and prophetic Scripture don't negate human agency. The verse also reveals Jesus's omniscience—He knows hearts thoroughly (John 2:25). Despite this knowledge, Jesus shared intimate fellowship with Judas, demonstrating divine patience and giving opportunity for repentance. The fulfillment of Scripture in specific details of Jesus's life validates His messianic identity and God's sovereign orchestration of redemption through human choices, even evil ones.
Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Now: or, From henceforth
View commentary
Now I tell you before it come (ἀπ' ἄρτι, ap' arti; πρὶν γενέσθαι, prin genesthai)—Jesus prophesies Judas' betrayal (v. 21) before its occurrence. Predictive prophecy authenticates His deity. That, when it is come to pass, ye may believe (πιστεύητε, pisteuēte)—fulfilled prophecy strengthens faith. The purpose clause reveals Jesus' pastoral care: He forewarns to prevent the disciples' faith from collapsing when betrayal occurs.
That I am he (ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, hoti egō eimi)—the KJV adds "he," but Greek simply reads "that I AM." This is the divine name from Exodus 3:14 that Jesus repeatedly claims (John 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5-6). Fulfilled prophecy proves Jesus is Yahweh incarnate. The betrayal won't negate His deity but confirm it—He foreknew and permitted it as part of redemptive plan. This echoes Isaiah 41:23, 44:6-8 where Yahweh's ability to predict the future proves His deity against false gods.
That I am he (ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, hoti egō eimi)—the KJV adds "he," but Greek simply reads "that I AM." This is the divine name from Exodus 3:14 that Jesus repeatedly claims (John 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5-6). Fulfilled prophecy proves Jesus is Yahweh incarnate. The betrayal won't negate His deity but confirm it—He foreknew and permitted it as part of redemptive plan. This echoes Isaiah 41:23, 44:6-8 where Yahweh's ability to predict the future proves His deity against false gods.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
View commentary
Verily, verily introduces weighty truth. He that receiveth whomsoever I send (λαμβάνων, lambanōn; πέμπω, pempō)—receiving Christ's sent messengers equals receiving Christ. "Send" (pempō) is apostolic terminology; Jesus sends His apostles with His authority. Receiveth me—accepting Christ's representatives means accepting Christ Himself. This grants apostolic authority but also apostolic accountability.
And he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me—the chain extends to the Father. Receiving apostles → receiving Christ → receiving the Father. This establishes representational theology: the sent one carries the sender's authority. Jesus is the Father's sent One (John 3:17, 5:36); apostles are Jesus' sent ones (John 17:18, 20:21). Rejecting apostolic testimony means rejecting Christ and the Father. This grounds biblical authority—Scripture written by apostles carries Christ's own authority. The principle also warns Christ's messengers: misrepresenting Him means grave accountability.
And he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me—the chain extends to the Father. Receiving apostles → receiving Christ → receiving the Father. This establishes representational theology: the sent one carries the sender's authority. Jesus is the Father's sent One (John 3:17, 5:36); apostles are Jesus' sent ones (John 17:18, 20:21). Rejecting apostolic testimony means rejecting Christ and the Father. This grounds biblical authority—Scripture written by apostles carries Christ's own authority. The principle also warns Christ's messengers: misrepresenting Him means grave accountability.
When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
View commentary
When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit (ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι, etarachthē tō pneumati)—Jesus experiences deep emotional distress. The passive verb suggests both external circumstances and internal wrestling. This is genuine humanity; the Word made flesh feels anguish at impending betrayal. Earlier Jesus was "troubled in spirit" at Lazarus' tomb (11:33); here betrayal by an intimate friend causes spiritual turmoil.
And testified (ἐμαρτύρησεν,emarturēsen)—solemn witness. Verily, verily marks authoritative pronouncement. One of you shall betray me (παραδώσει με, paradōsei me)—"betray" literally means "hand over." Jesus knows which disciple will deliver Him to death yet has broken bread with him. The phrase "one of you" emphasizes proximity and intimacy—not an outsider but an insider commits treachery. This fulfills Psalm 41:9, "mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."
And testified (ἐμαρτύρησεν,emarturēsen)—solemn witness. Verily, verily marks authoritative pronouncement. One of you shall betray me (παραδώσει με, paradōsei me)—"betray" literally means "hand over." Jesus knows which disciple will deliver Him to death yet has broken bread with him. The phrase "one of you" emphasizes proximity and intimacy—not an outsider but an insider commits treachery. This fulfills Psalm 41:9, "mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."
Then the disciples looked one on another , doubting of whom he spake.
View commentary
Then the disciples looked one on another (ἔβλεπον εἰς ἀλλήλους, blepōn eis allēlous)—the imperfect tense suggests they kept looking, scanning faces. Each wonders if he might be the traitor. Doubting of whom he spake (ἀπορούμενοι, aporoumenoi)—complete perplexity and confusion. The word suggests being at a loss, unable to determine the answer. No one suspects Judas specifically.
This reveals two realities: First, Judas had concealed his betrayal so perfectly that the closest companions didn't suspect him. His hypocrisy was seamless. Second, the disciples knew their own hearts enough to wonder if they might betray Christ. Self-knowledge produces healthy uncertainty—"Lord, is it I?" (Matthew 26:22). The disciples' confusion contrasts with Jesus' certainty. He knows all things (John 2:24-25, 21:17); they know nothing. This moment creates dramatic tension—all remain in suspense except Jesus and Judas.
This reveals two realities: First, Judas had concealed his betrayal so perfectly that the closest companions didn't suspect him. His hypocrisy was seamless. Second, the disciples knew their own hearts enough to wonder if they might betray Christ. Self-knowledge produces healthy uncertainty—"Lord, is it I?" (Matthew 26:22). The disciples' confusion contrasts with Jesus' certainty. He knows all things (John 2:24-25, 21:17); they know nothing. This moment creates dramatic tension—all remain in suspense except Jesus and Judas.
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
View commentary
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom (ἀνακείμενος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, anakeimenos en tō kolpō)—the posture of reclining at table, common in Greco-Roman dining. Guests reclined on left elbow, leaving right hand free for eating. The one "in the bosom" reclined with head near Jesus' chest—position of intimacy and honor. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved—John's characteristic self-reference (also 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20). He never names himself, identifying instead by Christ's love for him.
This beloved disciple is John himself (church tradition unanimous). His self-description emphasizes not his love for Jesus but Jesus' love for him—hallmark of true spirituality. John defines himself by Christ's affection, not personal achievement. The phrase echoes 1:18, where the Son is "in the bosom of the Father"—John enjoys with Jesus the intimacy Jesus enjoys with the Father. This proximity positions John to ask Jesus about the betrayer.
This beloved disciple is John himself (church tradition unanimous). His self-description emphasizes not his love for Jesus but Jesus' love for him—hallmark of true spirituality. John defines himself by Christ's affection, not personal achievement. The phrase echoes 1:18, where the Son is "in the bosom of the Father"—John enjoys with Jesus the intimacy Jesus enjoys with the Father. This proximity positions John to ask Jesus about the betrayer.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
View commentary
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him (νεύει, neuei)—Peter gestures, likely not wanting to interrupt the meal or speak over Jesus. Peter's characteristic boldness appears even here; he wants to know immediately who will betray Christ. That he should ask who it should be—Peter delegates the question to John, who has proximity to Jesus. This reveals the disciples' social dynamics and John's privileged position.
Peter's use of John as intermediary shows practical wisdom (John is closer) and perhaps tact (avoiding public confrontation). Yet it also reveals Peter's urgent need to know. Later Peter will claim greater loyalty than all others (Mark 14:29); here he wants the traitor identified. The scene demonstrates the disciples' corporate concern—they want the betrayer exposed. Peter and John work together, foreshadowing their later partnership in Acts (Acts 3-4, 8:14).
Peter's use of John as intermediary shows practical wisdom (John is closer) and perhaps tact (avoiding public confrontation). Yet it also reveals Peter's urgent need to know. Later Peter will claim greater loyalty than all others (Mark 14:29); here he wants the traitor identified. The scene demonstrates the disciples' corporate concern—they want the betrayer exposed. Peter and John work together, foreshadowing their later partnership in Acts (Acts 3-4, 8:14).
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
View commentary
He then lying on Jesus' breast (ἐπιπεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος, epipesōn epi to stēthos)—John leans back onto Jesus' chest, the position enabling quiet conversation. The intimacy is profound; John's head rests where he can hear Jesus' heartbeat. This physical closeness pictures spiritual intimacy available to all believers through the Spirit. Saith unto him, Lord, who is it?—direct, simple question. John asks what Peter wanted to know.
John's courage to ask stems from relationship security. He knows Jesus loves him (v. 23), so he boldly inquires. The question is whispered privately—Jesus doesn't yet publicly expose Judas. This gentle handling of the betrayer demonstrates Jesus' mercy even toward those who will destroy Him. Jesus could have shouted the accusation; instead He answers John quietly and gives Judas a final opportunity (v. 26) before the betrayer chooses his own path.
John's courage to ask stems from relationship security. He knows Jesus loves him (v. 23), so he boldly inquires. The question is whispered privately—Jesus doesn't yet publicly expose Judas. This gentle handling of the betrayer demonstrates Jesus' mercy even toward those who will destroy Him. Jesus could have shouted the accusation; instead He answers John quietly and gives Judas a final opportunity (v. 26) before the betrayer chooses his own path.
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. sop: or, morsel
View commentary
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop (ψωμίον, psōmion)—a morsel of bread dipped in sauce, wine, or bitter herbs, typically a gesture of honor at a Passover meal. By identifying the betrayer through this act, Jesus demonstrates both sovereign knowledge and one final offer of fellowship to Judas. The psōmion was culturally significant: the host would dip bread and give it to a favored guest.
Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon (Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης)—John's full identification underscores the specificity and certainty of Jesus's knowledge. Despite receiving this honored morsel, Judas remains unmoved. This moment crystallizes the mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility: Jesus knows, yet Judas chooses.
Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon (Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης)—John's full identification underscores the specificity and certainty of Jesus's knowledge. Despite receiving this honored morsel, Judas remains unmoved. This moment crystallizes the mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility: Jesus knows, yet Judas chooses.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
View commentary
After the sop Satan entered into him (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ Σατανᾶς, eisēlthen eis ekeinon ho Satanas)—not mere external temptation but demonic possession. John 13:2 says Satan had already "put into" Judas's heart to betray Jesus; now Satan personally indwells him. This progression shows how entertaining sin opens the door to Satan's dominion. The aorist tense marks a definitive moment of satanic control.
That thou doest, do quickly (ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον)—Jesus sovereignly commands the timing of His own betrayal. Not passivity but active submission to the Father's will. He is not victim but victor, orchestrating even evil toward redemptive purposes (Acts 2:23). The imperative mood shows Christ's authority even over His betrayer.
That thou doest, do quickly (ὃ ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον)—Jesus sovereignly commands the timing of His own betrayal. Not passivity but active submission to the Father's will. He is not victim but victor, orchestrating even evil toward redemptive purposes (Acts 2:23). The imperative mood shows Christ's authority even over His betrayer.
Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
View commentary
No man at the table knew for what intent he spake this (οὐδεὶς ἔγνω... πρὸς τί εἶπεν, oudeis egnō... pros ti eipen)—the verb ginōskō (to know, perceive) emphasizes their complete incomprehension. Even John, the beloved disciple who had just leaned on Jesus's breast (v.23), misses the significance. This reveals how Jesus shielded Judas's reputation to the very end, allowing him privacy for potential repentance.
The disciples' ignorance also demonstrates that Judas's external discipleship appeared genuine. His hypocrisy was so practiced that those who lived with him for three years detected nothing. This warns against mere external religion without heart transformation.
The disciples' ignorance also demonstrates that Judas's external discipleship appeared genuine. His hypocrisy was so practiced that those who lived with him for three years detected nothing. This warns against mere external religion without heart transformation.
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.
View commentary
Because Judas had the bag (τὸ γλωσσόκομον, to glōssokomon)—originally a case for storing mouthpieces of wind instruments, here a money box or purse. Judas was the group's treasurer, handling finances for Jesus's itinerant ministry. John 12:6 reveals he was a thief who pilfered from this fund, making his betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15) particularly sordid—selling Christ for money while already stealing from Him.
Buy those things that we have need of... or give something to the poor—the disciples' speculation shows Jesus's consistent pattern of caring for the poor (Galatians 2:10). Even on the night of His arrest, they assumed He might send Judas on a mercy mission. This reveals Christ's habitual generosity and the disciples' blindness to impending betrayal.
Buy those things that we have need of... or give something to the poor—the disciples' speculation shows Jesus's consistent pattern of caring for the poor (Galatians 2:10). Even on the night of His arrest, they assumed He might send Judas on a mercy mission. This reveals Christ's habitual generosity and the disciples' blindness to impending betrayal.
He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
View commentary
He then having received the sop went immediately out (ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς, exēlthen euthys)—the adverb euthys (immediately, at once) appears 51 times in the Gospels, always denoting urgency. Judas's instant departure after receiving Satan shows how demonic possession drives toward destruction. He exits the light of Christ's presence into literal and spiritual darkness.
And it was night (ἦν δὲ νύξ, ēn de nyx)—John's stark, four-word sentence carries profound symbolism. Literally, Passover meals occurred after sunset. Spiritually, Judas departed the Light of the World (John 8:12) into the dominion of darkness (Luke 22:53, Colossians 1:13). Night represents ignorance, evil, and separation from God (John 9:4, Romans 13:12). Judas chose darkness.
And it was night (ἦν δὲ νύξ, ēn de nyx)—John's stark, four-word sentence carries profound symbolism. Literally, Passover meals occurred after sunset. Spiritually, Judas departed the Light of the World (John 8:12) into the dominion of darkness (Luke 22:53, Colossians 1:13). Night represents ignorance, evil, and separation from God (John 9:4, Romans 13:12). Judas chose darkness.
A New Commandment
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
View commentary
Now is the Son of man glorified (νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, nyn edoxasthē ho huios tou anthrōpou)—the aorist passive verb edoxasthē (was glorified) treats Christ's coming suffering as already accomplished. In John's theology, the cross is not humiliation but glorification (John 12:23-24). The betrayal sets in motion the Passion that reveals God's glory: holy justice satisfied, infinite love displayed, Satan defeated.
God is glorified in him—the Father's glory and the Son's glory are inseparable. Christ's perfect obedience unto death (Philippians 2:8) glorifies the Father by vindicating His righteousness and demonstrating His love (Romans 3:25-26). The cross is the theater of divine glory.
God is glorified in him—the Father's glory and the Son's glory are inseparable. Christ's perfect obedience unto death (Philippians 2:8) glorifies the Father by vindicating His righteousness and demonstrating His love (Romans 3:25-26). The cross is the theater of divine glory.
If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
View commentary
If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself (εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ)—the conditional 'if' assumes reality ('since God is glorified'). The future tense doxasei (shall glorify) points to the resurrection and ascension. In himself (ἐν ἑαυτῷ, en heautō) means God will glorify Christ not through external circumstances but by elevating Him to God's own glory, sharing the divine throne (Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:3).
And shall straightway glorify him (εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν)—euthys (immediately, straightway) again. The cross leads directly to resurrection (three days) and ascension (forty days). No delay between humiliation and exaltation. Jesus's glorification was certain and imminent.
And shall straightway glorify him (εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν)—euthys (immediately, straightway) again. The cross leads directly to resurrection (three days) and ascension (forty days). No delay between humiliation and exaltation. Jesus's glorification was certain and imminent.
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
View commentary
Little children (Τεκνία, teknia)—a tender diminutive used only here in the Gospels (but 7x in 1 John), expressing deep affection and paternal care. Jesus's tone shifts from confronting Judas to tenderly preparing His remaining disciples for separation. This term conveys both intimacy and the disciples' spiritual immaturity—they are children who need comfort.
Yet a little while I am with you (ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι)—Jesus has 18 hours before crucifixion, 40 days until ascension. The phrase recalls John 7:33, where Jesus told hostile Jews the same thing. Now He tells beloved disciples, Whither I go, ye cannot come—they cannot yet follow Him to the cross (v.36) or heaven. His death is a solitary work; atonement cannot be shared.
Yet a little while I am with you (ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι)—Jesus has 18 hours before crucifixion, 40 days until ascension. The phrase recalls John 7:33, where Jesus told hostile Jews the same thing. Now He tells beloved disciples, Whither I go, ye cannot come—they cannot yet follow Him to the cross (v.36) or heaven. His death is a solitary work; atonement cannot be shared.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
View commentary
Jesus issues 'a new commandment' (entolen kainen), though the command to love is ancient (Leviticus 19:18). The newness lies in the standard: 'as I have loved you' (kathos egapesa hymas). The aorist tense egapesa points to His completed act of love - supremely the Cross. The command is 'that ye love one another' (hina agapate allelous), using agapao, the verb of self-giving, sacrificial love. Jesus establishes His own love as the measure and model for Christian community. This transcends general neighbor-love by specifying the quality and extent - the self-sacrificial love Christ demonstrated. The repetition 'that ye also love one another' emphasizes both the importance and the mutuality required. Christian community is to be distinguished by love patterned after Christ's self-giving. This is not mere affection but costly commitment to others' good.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another .
View commentary
Jesus declares 'By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples' (en touto gnosontai pantes hoti emoi mathetai este) - the identifying mark of genuine discipleship follows: 'if ye have love one to another' (ean agapen echete en allelois). The conditional ean (if) with present subjunctive echete indicates an ongoing condition, not a one-time demonstration. The phrase 'love one to another' (agapen en allelois) emphasizes mutual, reciprocal love within the Christian community. Jesus establishes that Christian identity is authenticated not primarily by doctrine, rituals, or moral purity, but by observable love among believers. This love serves as epistemic criterion - it provides evidence to watching world that disciples genuinely belong to Christ. The verse creates accountability: claims to follow Christ must be validated by loving relationships. Love becomes the apologetic that commends Christianity to skeptics.
Jesus Foretells Peter's Denial
Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
View commentary
Lord, whither goest thou? (Κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις; Kyrie, pou hypageis)—Peter's question interrupts Jesus's teaching, characteristically impulsive. The present tense hypageis (you are going) shows Peter fixated on physical departure, missing the spiritual reality. He wants destination details, not understanding Jesus goes to the cross and then glory.
Thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards (οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι, ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον)—the verb akoloutheō (to follow) means both literal accompaniment and discipleship. Peter cannot yet follow to the cross (he will deny Christ thrice within hours, v.38) or to heaven. Afterwards (ὕστερον) prophesies Peter's eventual martyrdom (John 21:18-19). Peter would indeed follow Jesus in crucifixion—tradition says upside down, feeling unworthy to die like his Lord.
Thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards (οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι, ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον)—the verb akoloutheō (to follow) means both literal accompaniment and discipleship. Peter cannot yet follow to the cross (he will deny Christ thrice within hours, v.38) or to heaven. Afterwards (ὕστερον) prophesies Peter's eventual martyrdom (John 21:18-19). Peter would indeed follow Jesus in crucifixion—tradition says upside down, feeling unworthy to die like his Lord.
Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
View commentary
Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Peter's passionate declaration reveals both sincere devotion and tragic self-confidence. The Greek verb akoloutheo (ἀκολουθέω, "follow") carries deep meaning in John's Gospel—not merely physical accompaniment but complete discipleship and willingness to share Christ's destiny. Jesus had just predicted Peter's denial (John 13:36), but Peter protests with emphatic determination.
The phrase "lay down my life" uses tithemi ten psychen (τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν), the same expression Jesus used of His own sacrifice (John 10:11, 15, 17-18). Peter genuinely believes he possesses the strength to die for Christ, unaware that within hours he will deny knowing Jesus three times (John 18:15-27). This reveals the universal human tendency to overestimate our spiritual strength and underestimate temptation's power.
Jesus' response (John 13:38) predicts the rooster's crow, which occurred exactly as foretold. Yet this failure became transformative. After the resurrection, Jesus restored Peter beside another charcoal fire (John 21:15-19), commissioning him to shepherd His flock. Peter's later martyrdom (tradition says crucified upside down) fulfilled his pledge, but only after Pentecost's empowerment. This passage teaches that genuine discipleship requires not self-confidence but Spirit-wrought transformation and dependence on Christ's strength.
The phrase "lay down my life" uses tithemi ten psychen (τίθημι τὴν ψυχήν), the same expression Jesus used of His own sacrifice (John 10:11, 15, 17-18). Peter genuinely believes he possesses the strength to die for Christ, unaware that within hours he will deny knowing Jesus three times (John 18:15-27). This reveals the universal human tendency to overestimate our spiritual strength and underestimate temptation's power.
Jesus' response (John 13:38) predicts the rooster's crow, which occurred exactly as foretold. Yet this failure became transformative. After the resurrection, Jesus restored Peter beside another charcoal fire (John 21:15-19), commissioning him to shepherd His flock. Peter's later martyrdom (tradition says crucified upside down) fulfilled his pledge, but only after Pentecost's empowerment. This passage teaches that genuine discipleship requires not self-confidence but Spirit-wrought transformation and dependence on Christ's strength.
Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
View commentary
Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? (ἀποκρίνεται Ἰησοῦς· Τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις, apokrinetai Iēsous· Tēn psychēn sou hyper emou thēseis)—Jesus questions Peter's confident self-assessment (13:37). The verb θήσεις (thēseis, 'will you lay down') echoes Jesus's own statement about laying down His life (John 10:11, 15). Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ ἕως οὗ ἀρνήσῃ με τρίς, amēn amēn legō soi, ou mē alektōr phōnēsē heōs hou arnēsē me tris)—The double ἀμὴν (amēn, 'verily') emphasizes certainty. Peter will deny (ἀρνήσῃ, arnēsē, 'deny, disown') Jesus τρίς (tris, 'three times') before dawn.
This prophecy reveals Jesus's omniscience and Peter's overconfidence. Peter genuinely intended loyalty but didn't know his own weakness. Jesus's prediction isn't cruel but preparatory—knowing Peter will fail yet be restored teaches that discipleship depends on Christ's keeping power, not human strength. Peter's restoration (John 21:15-19) would prove grace triumphs over failure.
This prophecy reveals Jesus's omniscience and Peter's overconfidence. Peter genuinely intended loyalty but didn't know his own weakness. Jesus's prediction isn't cruel but preparatory—knowing Peter will fail yet be restored teaches that discipleship depends on Christ's keeping power, not human strength. Peter's restoration (John 21:15-19) would prove grace triumphs over failure.