John 13:11

Joh 13:11. Τὸν παραδίδοντα, who should betray Him) who, like the rest, had received the washing of his feet.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 13:11 . That Judas was meant is at once said in Joh 13:11 . Ἤιδει … ἐστε . Jesus thus shows that He distinguishes between the offence of the rest and the sin of Judas. All that they required was to have the soil of their present evil temper and jealousy removed: they were true in heart, they had been in the bath and had only contracted a slight stain. But Judas had not been in the bath: he had no genuine and habitual loyalty to Christ.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(11) For he knew who should betray him.—Comp. Joh_18:2, and Note on Mat_26:48. This is the first reference to the betrayal during the feast. The words are words of warning, spoken in the love which even then might have redeemed and cleansed the heart, if it had been open to receive it. The feet of Judas were washed by his Master. Had he learnt the lesson of humility and love, he might have conquered the foul spirit of ambition and covetousness which was carrying him to destruction.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. who should betray him] Or, him that was betraying Him. The Greek construction is exactly equivalent to that of ‘He that should come’ (Mat_11:3; Luk_7:19); in both cases it is the present participle with the definite article—‘the betraying one,’ ‘the coming one.’

therefore] Or, for this cause: see on Joh_12:39.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he knew who should betray him,.... That is, Jesus, as Beza's ancient copy, and the Syriac and Persic versions read. This he knew from the beginning; not only from the beginning of his ministry, when he chose his twelve apostles, but from the beginning of time, yea, from everlasting; this being fixed by the determinate counsel of God, which he, as the omniscient God, was privy to: he knew what preparations were making, and how things were then working, in order to bring it about; he knew that Satan had already put it into Judas's heart, and that he had consented to it;

therefore, said he, ye are not all clean: he does not mention his name, though he could have done so, it not being as yet proper to make so full a discovery of him, before the matter was ripe for execution; and also to put all the disciples upon examination of themselves.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

Ver. 11. He knew who should betray him] And yet he vouchsafed to wash his feet. This was stupenda dignatio, a wonderful condescension, an unparalleled patience.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who should betray him - Greek: “He knew him who was about to betray him.”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

By these words the evangelist expounds only what our Saviour meant in the former verse, when he had told them they were not all clean; for though the disciples did not yet know that they had a traitor amongst them, Satan had before this put the design into the heart of Judas, Joh 13:2; and Christ, who knew all hearts, knew what was in the heart of Judas, and he soon after (as we shall hereafter in this chapter read) revealed it; yet at this time he had not revealed it to his disciples: now he begins to discover it, telling them, that though the most of them were clean, justified and sanctified, yet all of them were not so.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. Who should betray him—Who was about to betray him.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he knew who was betraying him; therefore he said, Ye are not all clean. That Christ should have been ignorant of the devices of Judas, or of his true character, is repeatedly denied by all the evangelists. John certainly calls attention to the Lord"s knowledge of the secret of Judas, and justifies thus his Divine prerogative. That Strauss, Hilgenfeld, and others should see here an innuendo against Peter, and the charge against Peter of advocating a kind of Ebionitie daily ablution of the whole body, is willful and uncalled for.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11.] τὸν παραδιδόντα, as ὁ ἐρχόμενος, him that should betray Him, the indefinite characteristic present.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. Jesus warns Peter that he will deny Him (Joh 13:36-38, Mar 14:29f., Mat 26:33f., Luk 22:31f.).

On examination of this table, it will be noticed, first that Jn. and Mk. (whom Mt. follows) never disagree as to the order of the various incidents; the important differences being that Jn. describes the Feet-washing, which Mk. does not mention, and that he omits the Institution of the Eucharist. Jn. also tells that it was to the beloved disciple that Jesus conveyed the hint which might have enabled the company to have identified the traitor (see on 13:26); and he alone mentions expressly that Judas left the room.

The order, however, in which Lk. mentions the several incidents is different. His order Isa 1:10, Isa 1:9, Isa 1:4, Isa 1:5, Isa 1:2, Isa 1:11, omitting 3, 6, 7, 8; the most remarkable feature in his narrative being that he puts the announcement that a traitor was present after the Institution of the Eucharist, thus implying that Judas received the Bread and the Cup along with the rest. The position, also, which he gives to the mysterious saying numbered 10 above, differs from that assigned to it by Mk. and Mt. Lk., in short, follows a different tradition from that of Mk. and Mt. in his narrative of the Eucharist. The longer recension of the words of Institution as given by him (see Introd., p. clxxii) seems to have been derived from Paul; but that cannot be said of the Western version, which may be the original. From whatever source Lk. has derived his narrative of the Last Supper, it has marks of confusion. We are justified, then, in preferring to his order of incidents here that which is given in the two Gospels Mk. and Jn., which probably rest respectively on the reminiscences of Peter and of John the son of Zebedee, both of whom were present at the Supper.

At what point in the narrative of Jn. are we to suppose that the Institution of the Eucharist took place? The foregoing comparison with Mk. suggests that we should put it after Judas had left (v. 30), and before the prediction of the Passion as near (vv. 31, 32). That Jn. knew of the Institution of the Eucharist is certain;1 and we have found reason for holding that the words of Institution are reproduced in 6:51b, where see note. We hold that there has been a dislocation of the text after 13:30, and that the original order was c. 15, c. 16, c. 13:31-38, c. 14, c. 17.2 It may be that a paragraph has been lost after 13:30, and it is tempting to conjecture that this paragraph told of the first Eucharist.3 But, if this were not so (and there is no external evidence for it), we must fall back on the conclusion that Jn. has designedly omitted to tell of the Institution of the Eucharist (although he betrays his knowledge of it in c. 6), while his reasons for this omission cannot now be discovered. See on v. 31.

13:4. ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου, “He rises from the supper,” that is, from the couch on which He had been reclining. This shows that the Feet-washing which follows was not before supper, and so is not to be regarded as the cleansing of the feet which was preparatory to a meal. Where sandals are worn, the feet get dusty and tired, and it was a courtesy of hospitality to arrange that water was available for washing them (Luk 7:44; cf. Gen 18:4, Gen 19:2, Gen 24:32, Gen 43:24, Jdg 19:21, 1Sa 25:41, 1Ti 5:10). But in this case, the supper had not only begun, but was probably ending. In the talk that followed, the disciples began to dispute about their precedence (Luk 22:24), perhaps in reference to the order in which they were placed at the meal; and Jesus, rising from His place, proceeds to give them an object-lesson. “Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth” (Luk 22:27). So, stripping off His outer robe or tallith (ἱμάτιον) and appearing in His tunic only, He girded Himself with a towel, as a slave would do, that He might pour water upon their feet. Wetstein recalls the story of Caligula, who was wont to insult members of the Senate by making them wait at table succinctos linteo (Suetonius, Cal. 26). This story indicates how great an act of condescension the Feet-washing by Christ must have seemed to His disciples to be.

After ἱμάτια D adds αὐτοῦ.

With διέζωσεν, cf. 21:7: Luk 12:37, Luk 17:8 illustrate the “girding” himself for his work which was appropriate to a slave. The towel (linteum) was fastened to the shoulder, so as to leave both hands free.

5.. The word νιπτήρ does not occur again in Greek literature,1 Biblical or secular, except in quotations of this passage. It must mean some washing utensil, but “bason” may easily convey a wrong impression. Orientals do not wash, as we do, in a bason which visibly retains the water that has been used; that they would regard as an unclean practice. The Eastern habit is to pour water from a ewer over hands or feet (cf. 2Ki 3:11, where Elisha performs this duty for his master Elijah), the water being caught below in a bason with a strainer, and then passing through the strainer out of sight. The assistance of a servant is necessary, as both the ewer and the bason have to be held. At the Last Supper, the disciples were reclining on the usual divans or couches, their feet being stretched out behind (see Luk 7:38, where the sinful woman was “standing behind” at the feet of Jesus, when she let her tears fall upon them). Jesus first poured (βάλλει, cf. Mat 9:17) water into the νιπτήρ, which was ready in the room for such a purpose (τὸν νιπτῆρα, “the ewer”), and then He poured the water over the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel with which He had girded Himself. He did all that was the duty of a slave for his master who was having his feet washed.1

καὶ ἤρξατο κτλ. The verb ἄρχεσθαι does not occur again in Jn. (but cf. [8:9]). He began to wash the disciples’ feet,2 but it is not said in what order, nor is this now possible to determine. Some have thought that the order was that in which they sat at table, and that Judas came first (see on v. 23 below). Or it may have been Peter, for οὖν in the phrase ἔρχεται οὖν πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον (v. 6) is not causative (see on 1:22). οὖν is a favourite conjunction with Jn., and vv. 5, 6 may be rendered in accordance with his usage, “He began to wash the disciples’ feet … and so He comes to Simon Peter.” We do not know.

After μαθητῶν, D, for clearness, adds αὐτοῦ. οἱ μαθηταί here are the Twelve, the inner circle (cf. v. 1), not the general body of the disciples (see on 2:2).

ἐκμάσσειν is always used in Lk. and Jn. for “wiping” the feet after washing (Luk 7:38, Luk 7:44, Joh 11:2, Joh 12:3).

ᾧ ᾖν διεζωσμένος. ᾧ is, by attraction, for ὅ.

11. The saying “but not all” was not understood by the disciples, who did not suspect Judas. After the Passion, it would have needed no explanation; but Jn., in explaining what it meant, is reproducing the situation as it presented itself to an eye-witness.

ᾔδει γὰρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν, “for He knew the man that was delivering Him up,” the pres. part. indicating that the movement of treachery had already begun (see on v. 2). Jn. is always careful to bring out the insight of Jesus in regard to men’s characters and motives (see on 2:25). This explanatory comment is characteristic of his manner of writing (see on 2:21).

διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν ὅτι κτλ., “wherefore He said, etc.” ὅτι (om. אAΓΔΘ, but ins. BCLW) is recitantis, introducing the words actually spoken.

οὐχὶ πάντες … Cf. v. 18 οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν (and Mat 7:21) for this Greek order of words.

The Spiritual Meaning of the Feet-Washing (vv. 12-20)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who should betray [τον παραδιδοντα] . Literally, him that is betraying. So in Mt 26:2, the present tense is used, is being betrayed [παραδιδοται] . See on Mt 4:12, and compare prodothv, betrayer, Luk 6:16; Act 7:52; 2Ti 3:4.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.