John 13

Commentary from 37 fathers

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.

Πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐλήλυθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς.

[Заⷱ҇ 44] Пре́жде же пра́здника па́схи, вѣ́дый і҆и҃съ, ꙗ҆́кѡ прїи́де є҆мꙋ̀ ча́съ, да пре́йдетъ ѿ мі́ра сегѡ̀ ко ѻ҆ц҃ꙋ̀, возлю́бль своѧ̑ сꙋ́щыѧ въ мі́рѣ, до конца̀ возлюбѝ и҆̀хъ.

Tertullian †220

If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, He shrank back from being made a king, He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power.
On Idolatry

If at once, of every article of furniture and each household vessel, you name some god of the world as the originator, well, I must recognise Christ, both as He reclines on a couch, and when He presents a basin for the feet of His disciples, and when He pours water into it from a ewer, and when He is girt about with a linen towel -a garment specially sacred to Osiris.
De Corona

Now, in what way these things were said to Him, the evangelist and beloved disciple John knew better than Praxeas; and therefore he adds concerning i his own meaning: "Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God, and was going to God." Praxeas, however, would have it that it was the Father who proceeded forth from Himself, and had returned to Himself; so that what the devil put into the heart of Judas was the betrayal, not of the Son, but of the Father Himself.
Against Praxeas

How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His own sempiternal water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor (child); recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to His disciples. Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!
On Baptism

Origen of Alexandria †253

Surely this statement does not refer to the idea of a change of place with respect to the Father and the Son toward the one who loves Jesus’ word, nor can it be understood in a spatial sense. Rather, the Word of God, by condescending to us and by being humbled, as it were, in regard to his own worth, when he is present with human beings, is said to change places from this world to the Father. The result is that we also see him in his perfection, returning from the emptying with which he emptied himself alongside us, to his own fullness.
On Prayer 23.2

John Chrysostom †407

"Before the feast of the Passover," it saith, "Jesus knowing that His hour was come." Not then "knowing," but (it means) that He did what He did having "known" long ago. "That He should depart." Magnificently the Evangelist calleth His death, "departure." "Having loved His own, He loved them unto the end." Seest thou how when about to leave them He showeth greater love? For the, "having loved, He loved them unto the end," showeth that he omitted nothing of the things which it was likely that one who earnestly loved would do. Why, then did He not this from the beginning? He worketh the greatest things last, so as to render more intense their attachment, and to lay up for them beforehand much comfort, against the terrible things that were about to fall on them. St. John calls them "His own," in respect of personal attachment, since he calls others also "His own," in respect of the work of creation; as when he saith, "His own received Him not." But what meaneth, "which were in the world"? Because the dead also were "His own," Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the men of that sort, but they were not in the world. Seest thou that He is the God both of the Old and New (Testament)? But what meaneth, "He loved them unto the end"? It stands for, "He continued loving them unceasingly," and this the Evangelist mentions as a sure proof of great affection. Elsewhere indeed He spake of another (proof), the laying down life for His friends; but that had not yet come to pass. And wherefore did He this thing "now"? Because it was far more wonderful at a time when He appeared more glorious in the sight of all men. Besides, He left them no small consolation now that He was about to depart, for since they were going to be greatly grieved, He by these means introduceth also comfort to the grief.
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

From here the Evangelist passes to the story of the passion. Here also, insofar as is possible, he is careful in saying nothing that has already been related by the other [Evangelists], unless the course of the narrative obliges him [to do so], and it is impossible to construct an accurate order of events without reporting part of the facts already related by his colleagues. When he reports those things done and said by our Lord to his disciples, which we do not find to be mentioned by the others in their books, he wants to show that our Savior did not undergo his passion outside his knowledge and expectation but by his free will. Only when he wanted to did he taste death.… In the same way here, by writing, “Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father,” he means that he knew exactly the time of his passion and everything that would happen to him.
Commentary on John 6.13.1

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lv) Pascha is not a Greek word, as some think, but Hebrew: though there is remarkable agreement of the two languages in it. The Greek word to suffer being πασχεῖν, pascha has been thought to mean passion, as being derived from the above word. But in Hebrew, pascha is a passing over; the feast deriving its name from the passing of the people of God over the Red Sea into Egypt. All was now to take place in reality, of which that passover was the type. Christ was led as a lamb to the slaughter; whose blood sprinkled upon our door-posts, i. e. whose sign of the cross marked on our foreheads, delivers us from the dominion of this world, as from Egyptian bondage. And we perform a most wholesome journey or pass-over, when we pass over from the devil to Christ, from this unstable world to His sure kingdom. In this way the Evangelist seems to interpret the word: When Jesus knew that His hour was come when He should pass over out of this world unto the Father. This is the pascha, this the passing over.
(Tr. lv. 2) He loved them unto the end, i. e. that they themselves too might pass out of this world, by love, unto Him their head. For what is unto the end, but unto Christ? (Rom. 10:4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But these words may be understood after a human sort, to mean that Christ loved His own up to His death. But God forbid that He should end His love by death, who is not ended by death: except indeed we understand it thus: He loved His own unto death: i. e. His love for them led Him to death.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

The Lord's Supper, as set forth in John, must, with His assistance, be unfolded in a becoming number of Lectures, and explained with all the ability He is pleased to grant us. "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 who were in the world, He loved them unto the end." Pascha (passover) is not, as some think, a Greek noun, but a Hebrew: and yet there occurs in this noun a very suitable kind of accordance in the two languages. For inasmuch as the Greek word signifies to suffer, therefore pascha has been supposed to mean suffering, as if the noun derived its name from His passion: but in its own language, that is, in Hebrew, pascha means passover; because the pascha was then celebrated for the first time by God's people, when, in their flight from Egypt, they passed over the Red Sea. And now that prophetic emblem is fulfilled in truth, when Christ is led as a sheep to the slaughter, that by His blood sprinkled on our doorposts, that is, by the sign of His cross marked on our foreheads, we may be delivered from the perdition awaiting this world, as Israel from the bondage and destruction of the Egyptians; and a most salutary transit we make when we pass over from the devil to Christ, and from this unstable world to His well-established kingdom. And therefore surely do we pass over to the ever-abiding God, that we may not pass away with this passing world.
"When Jesus knew," then, "that His hour was come that He should pass out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them unto the end." In order, doubtless, that they also, through that love of His, might pass from this world where they now were, to their Head who had passed hence before them. For what mean these words, "to the end," but just to Christ? "For Christ is the end of the law," says the apostle, "for righteousness to every one that believeth." The end that consummates, not that consumes; the end whereto we attain, not wherein we perish.
Tractates on John 55

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The meaning contained in the words before us seems to most men somewhat obscure and not very capable of exact explanation, nor indeed to possess (as any one might suppose) any simple signification. For what can be the reason why the inspired Evangelist at this point notifies to us particularly, and (so to speak) as a necessary sequence of things, that: Before the feast of the passover, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, Christ acted as He did? And again, what is the meaning of: Having loved His own that were in the world, He loved them unto the end? Allowing therefore that the uncertainty involved in this passage is by no means slight, I suppose it to imply something of this sort, namely, that the Saviour, before enduring His suffering for our salvation, although aware (says the Evangelist) that the time of His translation to heaven was now close even at the doors, gave a proof of the absolute perfection of His love for His own that were in this world. And if there is any necessity for conceiving a wider meaning for the passage, I will only repeat once more what I was saying just now. To Christ our Saviour peculiarly belong as His own possessions all things made by Him, all intellectual and reasonable creatures, the powers above, and thrones, and principalities, and all things akin to these, in so far as regards the fact of their having been made [by Him]; and again, to Him peculiarly belong also the rational beings on earth, inasmuch as He is Lord of all, even though some refuse to adore Him as Creator. He loved therefore His own that were in the world. For not of angels doth He take hold, according to the voice of Paul; nor was it for the sake of the angelic nature, that, being in the form of God the Father, He counted it not a prize to he on an equality with God: but rather for the sake of us who are in the world, He the Lord of all has emptied Himself and assumed the form of a servant, called thereto by His love for us. Having therefore loved His own which were in this world, He loved them unto the end, although indeed before the feast, even before the passover, He knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father. For it would have been the manner of one who loved them, but not unto the end, to have become man, and then to have been unwilling to meet danger for the life of all; but He did love unto the end, not shrinking from suffering even this, although knowing beforehand that He would so suffer. For the Saviour's suffering was not by Him unforeseen. While therefore, says the Evangelist, He might have escaped the rude insolence of the Jews and the unholiness of those who were meditating His Crucifixion, He gave a proof of the absolute perfection of His love towards His own which were in the world; for He did not shrink in the least from being offered up for the life of all mankind. For that herein especially we may see the most perfect measure of love, I will bring forward our Lord Jesus Christ Himself as witness, in saying to His holy disciples: This is My commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. And for another reason the holy Evangelists always set themselves purposely to show that our Lord Jesus the Christ foreknew the time of His suffering, namely, lest any of those who are wont to be heterodox should disparage His Divine glory by saying that Christ was overpowered through weakness on His part, and that it was against His will that He fell into the snares of the Jews and endured that death which was so very aweful. Therefore the language of the holy men is in accordance with the Divine system and profitable for our instruction.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

The Evangelist says that the Savior, before enduring his suffering for our salvation, was aware that the time of his translation to heaven was now close, “even at the doors,” and he gave a proof of the absolute perfection of his love for his own that were in this world.… All things made by Christ our Savior, all intellectual and reasonable creatures, the powers above, and thrones, and principalities and all things related to these, inasmuch as they have all been made [by him], belong to Christ our Savior as his own possessions. Furthermore, all the rational beings on earth particularly belong to him, inasmuch as he is Lord of all, even though some refuse to adore him as Creator. Therefore he loved his own that were in the world. “It is not with angels that he is concerned” according to the voice of Paul … but rather for the sake of us who are in the world, he the Lord of all has emptied himself and assumed the form of a servant, called to this by his love for us.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Leo the Great †461

The very feast that by us is named Pascha among the Hebrews is called Phase, that is, Passover, as the Evangelist attests, saying, “Before the feast of Pascha, Jesus, knowing that his hour was come when he should pass out of this world unto the Father.” But what kind of nature was it that he passed out of unless it was ours, since the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father inseparably? But because the Word and the Flesh is one person, the assumed is not separated from the assuming nature, and the honor of being promoted is spoken of as accruing to him that promotes. This is what the apostle says in a passage we have already quoted, “Wherefore also God exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name.” Here, the exaltation of his assumed manhood is no doubt spoken of so that he (in whose sufferings the Godhead remains indivisible) is similarly coeternal in the glory of the Godhead. And to share in this unspeakable gift, the Lord himself was preparing a blessed “passing over” for his faithful ones, when on the very threshold of his passion he interceded not only for his apostles and disciples but also for the whole church, saying, “But not for these only I pray, but for those also who shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one, as you also, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us.”
Sermon 72.6

Bede †735

He loved them so much that by that very love he would end his bodily life for a time and soon pass from death to life, from this world to the Father. "Greater love has no one than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends." And so, each passing over—the one under the Law and the other under the gospel—was consecrated with blood, the former with the paschal lamb, the latter with "Christ, our Passover, who was sacrificed for us." The latter had his blood poured out on the cross, the former had its blood sprinkled in the manner of a cross in the middle of the lintel and the middle of the door posts.
Homilies on the Gospels 2.5

Bede (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †735

The Jews had many feasts, but the principal one was the passover; and therefore it is particularly said, Before the feast of the passover.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord even before all ages knew the hour of His death, and when it arrived, He performs a deed full of great love for mankind and condescension, showing great love for the disciples. For, intending to leave them, He displays the strongest love toward them. The words "having loved them, He loved them to the end" mean that He omitted nothing that one who loves deeply ought to do. Therefore, as a culmination of all things, He does this as well: He washes the feet of the disciples, so as to fully show His love for them and to leave them great consolation amid the afflictions that would befall them — consolation in the thought that He who loved them to the point of even washing their feet would not abandon them in their afflictions either. He calls the death of Christ a "departure" because of His ascension after the resurrection. So, since He was about to depart from this world, He shows love toward His own, and He calls the disciples His own by reason of their closeness. To God all people are His own by right of His creation, which is why it is said: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not" (John 1:11). But the saints are His own because they are close to Him, just as here He called the disciples His own. He added "who are in the world" because there are others who are His own as well, for example, Abraham and the patriarchs; but they are not in this world, because they have departed from here. These His own, who are in the world, He loved to the end, that is, He showed perfect love toward them.
Commentary on John

Theophylact of Ohrid (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †1107

Our Lord being about to depart out of this life, shows His great care for His disciples: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Above, the Evangelist set forth some of the events leading to Christ's passion and death; in this part he shows how Christ prepared his disciples before his passion. First, we see how he formed them by his example; secondly, how he comforted them with his words (c 14); thirdly, how he strengthened them by the help of his prayers (c 17). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he presents the example Christ gave for his disciples to imitate; and secondly we see the weakness of the disciples, who were not yet ready to follow him (v 21). Concerning the first he does three things: first, he sets forth the example; secondly, he shows that the example was useful (v 6); thirdly, we see Jesus asking them to imitate it (v 12). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he describes the love of Christ, who is giving the example; secondly, the action in which he gave the example (v 2). Concerning the first he mentions three things: first, the feast about to be celebrated; secondly, the approaching death of Christ; thirdly, Christ's burning love.
The feast at hand was the Passover; so he says, Now before the feast of the Passover. 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 then that we celebrate the passion of our Lord. As a matter of fact, the word pascha in Greek does mean "to suffer." Yet the primary origin of this word is from the Hebrew word, pesah, which means a "passage," as in Exodus (12:11): "It is the pesah," passage, or a passing over, "of the Lord." This is the meaning the Evangelist gives it here because of two passings. The first was the passing of the angel striking down the first-born of the Egyptians and sparing the first-born of the Hebrews (Ex 12:12); and 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 by reform and martyrdom, according to the saying, "We have passed through fire and water and you have brought us to a place of refreshment" (Ps 66:12); or by the desire of our mind aspiring to heavenly things: "Pass over to me all you who desire me and be filled with my fruits" (Sir 24:19).
As we read in Exodus (23:14), the Jews had three great feasts, when they gathered together in a place chosen by the Lord: The Pesah, when the lamb was sacrificed, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, that is, the Skenopegia. But the greatest feast was that of the Passover.
A problem arises as to why he says here, before the feast of the Passover, for 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 feast of the Passover, it seems that this was taking place on the 13th day, the day before the 14th. And indeed, the Greeks accept this, and say that our Lord suffered on the 14th, when the Jews were supposed to celebrate the Passover, and that our Lord, knowing that his passion was near, anticipated the celebration of the Passover and celebrated his own Passover on the day before the Passover feast of the Jews. And 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, because 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 (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7). It follows from this that our Lord's supper took place on the very day that the Jews sacrificed the lamb.
The Greeks respond to this that the other Evangelists did not report this truly; and so John, who wrote the last of the Gospels, corrected them. But it is heresy to say that there is anything false not only in the Gospels but anywhere in the canonical scriptures. Consequently, we have to say that all the Evangelists state the same thing and do not disagree.
To elucidate this it should be noted that, as is stated in Leviticus (23:5), the feasts of the Jews began on the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this was that they reckoned 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 day of the Passover. We celebrate feasts in the same way; so something that takes place with us on the vigil of Christmas is said to have happened on Christmas. 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 of Unleavened Bread. But here, John the Evangelist regards the Passover as that entire daytime which was celebrated, but not as the evening before, which was also celebrated. Thus he says, before the feast of the Passover. Consequently, it is clear that our Lord's supper took place on the 14th day in the evening.
The death of Christ, which was approaching, was his passage from this world by his passion. And as to this he says, Jesus knew that his hour had come: for this feast was a symbol of the passion of Christ, "All these things happened to them as symbols" (1 Cor 10:11). So he at once 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 his passage, to depart, pass, out of this world to the Father.
Here the Evangelist mentions three things about the passion of Christ: first, that it was foreseen; secondly, that it was fitting; thirdly, it was a source of benefits and exaltation.
It was foreseen and not fortuitous; so he says, Jesus knew. He is saying in effect; Jesus suffered knowingly and willingly, not unexpectedly and unwillingly. "Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him" (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" (Eccl 8:7).
The passion of Christ was fitting, first as to its time; and as to 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" (Eccl 8:6). This is the hour of which he said, "My hour has not yet come" (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 to this Jewish feast that the reality follow the symbol, that is, that when the lamb, which was a symbol of Christ, was sacrificed, Christ, who was truly the Lamb of God, should be immolated. "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 Pet 1:18-19).
It was also fitting to the situation, for Christ was now glorified: "Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified" (13:31). He had already revealed the Father to the world: "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world" (17:6). What remained, therefore, was to accomplish his passion and the work of human redemption, about which we read: "It is finished," followed by, "and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit" (19:30).
The passion of Christ was a source of benefits and glory, not of defeat, because it was in order that he could depart out of this world to the Father, by making his human nature a partaker in the glory of the Father: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (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? (Jer 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" (Rom 6:10); "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11).
Then when he says, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end, he commends the intense love of Christ; and this on four points.
First, because his love was first, according to "Not that we have loved God, but that he has first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). And as to this he says, having loved his own, trying to suggest that this was in advance of our love. I say he loved us before he created us: "For thou lovest all things that exist, and have loathing for none of the things which thou hast made" (Wis 11:24). He loved us before he called us: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore, I have drawn you, taking pity on you" (Jer 31:3). And he loved us before he redeemed us: "Greater love has not man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13).
Secondly, his love is commended as fitting, because he loved his own. Here we should note that God loves persons in various ways, depending on the various ways they are Christ's. Now, one can be his in three ways. First, by creation; and God loves these by conserving their goods of nature: "He came to his own home, and his own people," by creation, "received him not" (1:11). Others are his by donation, that is, those given to him by God the Father through faith: "Thine they were, and thou gave them to me, and they have kept thy word" (17:6); and he loves these by preserving their goods of grace. Finally, some are his by a special devotion: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh" (1 Chron 11:1); he loves these by consoling them in a special way.
Thirdly, Christ's love is commended because it was needed, since he loved his own who were in the world. Those who were already in the glory of the Father are his, because even our fathers of long time past were his insofar as they hoped to be set free by him: "All his holy ones are in his hand" (Deut 33:3). But these do not need such love as this 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.
Fourthly, his love is commended because it was perfect, so he says, he loved them to the end. Now there are two kind of ends: the end in the intention, and the end in execution. The end in intention is that to which our intention is directed; and this end ought to be eternal life, according to, "The return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Rom 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" (Rom 10:4). But these two are really one end, because eternal life is nothing other than enjoying Christ in his divinity: "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (17:3). From this point of view he says, he loved them to the end, in order to lead them to himself, 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" (Jer 31:3).
The end in execution is the terminus or outcome of a thing; so in this sense, death can be called an end. Thus he could say, he loved them to 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 way, and means that Christ loved his own until he died, but then 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 "to" as indicating a cause; and then it would mean, he loved them to the end, that is, his love for them led him to death: "He loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 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: "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you" (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.
Commentary on John

And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

καὶ δείπνου γενομένου, τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ἰούδα Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδῷ,

И҆ ве́чери бы́вшей, дїа́волꙋ ᲂу҆жѐ вложи́вшꙋ въ се́рдце і҆ꙋ́дѣ сі́мѡновꙋ і҆скарїѡ́тскомꙋ, да є҆го̀ преда́стъ,

Origen of Alexandria †253

It seems to me that the Evangelist has not preserved the literal sequence concerning the washing in these words that he might raise our understanding to the spiritual sense of the things in the passage, since those who need to wash their feet wash them before supper and before they recline to eat. The Evangelist, however, passed over that proper time for washing in his account, and now, after he has reclined to eat, Jesus arises from supper, that the teacher and Lord might begin to wash the disciples’ feet after they have eaten.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.11

I would also venture to say, as consistent with the statement, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me,” that he did not wash Judas’s feet, [because] the devil had already put into his heart to betray the teacher and Lord, since the devil found him not clothed in the full armor of God and not having the shield of faith with which one can quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. [The devil] is an archer [who] prepares fiery darts for those who do not keep their heart with all watchfulness. … In the case of Judas, therefore, it has been written, “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” Consistently with this you might say of each of those wounded in the heart by the devil, the devil having already put it in the heart of so-and-so that he should commit fornication, and of so-and-so that he should commit fraud, and of so-and-so that, mad for fame, he should submit to the idolatry of those who seem to have rank, and so in the case of the other sins that the devil puts into that heart that is not armed with the shield of faith, by which shield of faith one can quench not one, or two, but all the fiery darts of the wicked one.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.19-20, 24

Ambrose of Milan †397

Judas was sleeping: finally, he did not hear the words of Christ. Judas was sleeping, and indeed the sleep of riches, seeking a reward for his betrayal. The devil saw him sleeping, and oppressed by the heavy sleep of greed: he entered into his heart, wounded the horse, threw off the rider, whom he separated from Christ.
On the Blessings of the Patriarchs, Chapter 7.33

John Chrysostom †407

"And supper being ended, the devil having now put it into the heart of Judas to betray Him."
This the Evangelist hath said amazed, showing that Jesus washed the man who had already chosen to betray Him. This also proves his great wickedness, that not even the having shared the salt restrained him, (a thing which is most able to restrain wickedness;) not the fact that even up to the last day, his Master continued to bear with him.
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lv. 2) And supper having been made, i. e. having been got ready, and laid on the table before them; not having been consumed and finished: for it was during supper that He rose, and washed His disciples' feet; as after this He sat at table again, and gave the sop to the traitor. What follows: The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him, refers to a secret suggestion, not made to the ear, but to the mind; the suggestions of the devil being part of our own thoughts. Judas then had already conceived, through diabolical instigation, the intention of betraying his Master.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"And the supper having taken place, and the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him, [Jesus] knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He has come from God, and is going to God; He riseth from supper, and layeth aside His garments; and took a towel, and girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded." We are not to understand by the supper having taken place, as if it were already finished and over; for it was still going on when the Lord rose and washed His disciples' feet. For He afterwards sat down again, and gave the morsel [sop] to His betrayer, implying certainly that the supper was not yet over, or, in other words, that there was still bread on the table.
But when he says, "The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him;" if one inquires, what was put into Judas' heart, it was doubtless this, "to betray Him." Such a putting [into the heart] is a spiritual suggestion: and entereth not by the ear, but through the thoughts; and thereby not in a way that is corporal, but spiritual. For what we call spiritual is not always to be understood in a commendatory way.
Tractates on John 55

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Evangelist, marveling that Christ washed the feet even of the one who had resolved to betray Him, says: "When the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas." Thus to the very end He cared about the correction of the betrayer. And the words "during supper" are not placed without purpose, but to show the inhumanity of Judas, since even participation in the supper did not change him.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, during supper, he describes the act by which Christ gave his example. First, he mentions the time of the action; secondly, the dignity of the one acting (v 3); thirdly, his humility (v 4). He describes the time in two ways: in one way, as the time of Christ's love; in another way, by emphasizing the sin of Judas.
In regard to the first, he says, literally, "when supper was done." Here we should note that both things that are permanent and things that are successive are said to be done or made. A permanent thing is said to be done or made when it has come to the perfection of its proper species and form; thus a house is said to be done or made when it has proper form. But in something which is successive, it is said to be made or done when it is over or is finished; thus the world is said to have been made when it was completed. But 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 feet of the disciples, he returned to his place and gave the morsel to Judas. "When supper was done" rather means that it was prepared and now brought to his own species: for the group had already begun to eat, and then Christ got up. Thus Christ washed the feet of the disciples during supper.
We read about such a supper in Luke (14:16), "A man once gave a great supper." A breakfast and 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 supper. Likewise, that spiritual nourishment suitable for those beginning is called breakfast, while that nourishment appropriate for the advanced is more like a supper.
Then when the Evangelist says, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, he depicts the time by emphasizing the sin of the traitor. He mentions his sin for two reasons. First, the better to bring out the evil of Judas, who in spite of so many tokens of love and humble service, considered committing such a great sin: the Psalm (41:9) says: "Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me." And secondly, the better to 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" (Ps 120:7).
But can the devil put anything into our hearts? It seems he can, for a Psalm speaks of things "sent by evil angels" (Ps 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 had already put it into the heart of Judas, should be understood to refer to his will.
Understanding it the above way, there are two ways something can be put into our heart. First, directly; and 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," in the power, "of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prv 21:10). But because the will is also moved by an external object, something apprehended 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, by making us apprehend something as good, which in turn moves our will. This happens in two ways. By an external suggestion, and then one person can put something into another's heart; or by an interior suggestion, which is the way the devil puts something into our heart. For our imagination, since it is a physical reality, is subject to the power of the devil when God allows it. So, whether we be awake or asleep, he forms in it certain images which, when apprehended, 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.
Commentary on John

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πάντα δέδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας, καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθε καὶ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὑπάγει,

вѣ́дый і҆и҃съ, ꙗ҆́кѡ всѧ̑ дадѐ є҆мꙋ̀ ѻ҆ц҃ъ въ рꙋ́цѣ, и҆ ꙗ҆́кѡ ѿ бг҃а и҆зы́де и҆ къ бг҃ꙋ грѧде́тъ:

Origen of Alexandria †253

The things, therefore, that were not formerly in Jesus’ hands are given into his hands by the Father. And it is not some things and not others that are given into his hands, but all things. David, too, seeing in the Spirit, says in relation to this, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” For Jesus’ enemies were also a part of the “all things” that Jesus knew, so far as it was in the power of foreknowledge, to be given to him by the Father.… The Father has given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. For his hands hold all things. Or, the Father [has given all things] “to him,” for his work. “My Father works still, and I work also.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.26-27, 34

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxiv. 3) The Father hath given all things into His hands; i. e. into His power; for His hands hold all thingsb: or to Him, for His work; My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:17)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom †407

"Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God."
Here the Evangelist saith, even wondering, that one so great, so very great, who came from God and went to Him, who ruleth over all, did this thing, and disdained not even so to undertake such an action. And by the "giving over," methinks St. John means the salvation of the faithful. For when He saith, "All things are given over to Me of My Father," He speaketh of this kind of giving over; as also in another place He saith, "Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me"; and again, "No man can come unto Me except the Father draw him"; and, "Except it be given him from heaven." The Evangelist then either means this, or that Christ would be nothing lessened by this action, since He came from God, and went to God, and possessed all things. But when thou hearest of "giving over," understand it in no human sense, for it showeth how He honoreth the Father, and His unanimity with Him. For as the Father giveth over to Him, so He to the Father. And this Paul declares, saying, "When He shall have given over the kingdom to God, even the Father." But St. John hath said it here in a more human sense, showing His great care for them, and declaring His unutterable love, that He now cared for them as for His own; teaching them the mother of all good, even humblemindedness, which He said was both the beginning and the end of virtue. And not without a reason is added the, "He came from God and went to God": but that we may learn that He did what was worthy of One who came thence and went thither, trampling down all pride.
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lv. 6) The Evangelist being about to relate so great an instance of our Lord's humility, reminds us first of His lofty nature: knowing that the Father had given all things into His hand, not excepting the traitor.
(Tr. lv. 5) Knowing too, that He was come from God, and went to God; not that He left God when He came, or will leave us when He returns.
(Tr. lv. 6) Since the Father had given all things into His hands, He washed not His disciples' hands indeed, but their feet; and since He knew that He came from God, and went to God, He performed the work not of God and Lord, but of a man and servant.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"[Jesus] knowing that the Father has given all things into His hands." And therefore also the traitor himself: for if He had him not in His hands, He certainly could not use him as He wished. Accordingly, the traitor had been already betrayed to Him whom he sought to betray; and he carried out his evil purpose in betraying Him in such a way, that good he knew not of was the issue in regard to Him who was betrayed. For the Lord knew what He was doing for His friends, and patiently made use of His enemies: and thus had the Father given all things into His hands, both the evil for present use, and the good for the final issue. "Knowing also that He has come from God, and is going to God:" neither quitting God when He came from Him, nor us when He returned.
Tractates on John 55

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The Saviour strives to eradicate utterly from our thoughts the vice of pride, as the basest of all human failings, and worthy of universal and utter abomination. For He knows that nothing so commonly injures the soul of man as this most loathsome and detestible passion, to which even the Lord of all Himself stands in just opposition, after the manner of an open foe; for the Lord resisteth the proud, according to the voice of Solomon. The holy disciples therefore especially stood in need of a sober and submissive temper, and of a mind that reckoned empty honour as no high ambition. For they possessed in no slight degree the germs of this sad infirmity, and would have easily glided down into subjection to it, if they had not received great help. For it is always against those who occupy an illustrious position that the malignant monster vainglory directs its attacks. Think then, what position can be more brilliant than that of the holy Apostles? or what more attractive of attention than their friendship with God? A man who is of little account in life would not be likely to experience this passion: for it always avoids one who possesses nothing that others can envy and nothing that is inaccessible to those whose lot is of no consequence in the world; for how could such a one possibly exhibit vainglory on any subject whatever? But pride is a feeling dear to a man when he is in an enviable position, and when for this reason he thinks himself better than his neighbour; foolishly supposing that he differs very greatly from the rest of mankind, as having achieved some special and surpassing degree of excellence, or as having followed a path of policy unfamiliar to and untrodden by the rest of the world. Since therefore it has come to be regularly characteristic of all who hold brilliant positions to be liable to attacks of the infirmity of pride, it was surely needful for the holy Apostles to find in Christ a Pattern of a modest temper; so that, having the Lord of all as their model and standard, they themselves also might mould their own hearts according to the Divine will. In no other way therefore (as it seems) could He rid them from the infirmity, except by teaching them clearly that each one should regard himself as inferior in honour to the rest, even so far as to feel bound to undertake the part of a servant, without shrinking from discharging even the lowest of menial offices; [and this He taught them] by both washing the feet of the brethren and girding on a towel in order to perform the act. For consider what utterly menial behaviour it is, I mean according to the world's way of thinking and outward practice. Therefore Christ has become a Pattern of a modest and unassuming temper to all living men, for we must not suppose the teaching was meant for the disciples alone. Accordingly the inspired Paul also, taking Christ as a standard, exhorts to this end, saying: Let each one of you have this mind in himself, which was also in Christ Jesus. And again: In lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself. For in a lowly temper there is established a settled habit of love and of yielding to the will of others. Moreover, in order to highly exalt the significance of what was done, and to prevent us from supposing that Christ's action was a commonplace one, the inspired Evangelist again cannot help being astounded at the thought of the glory and the power that were in Christ, and His supremacy over all; as he shows by saying: Knowing that the Father had committed all things into His hands. For although, he says, Christ was not ignorant that He possessed authority over all, and that He came forth from God, that is, was begotten of the Essence of God the Father, and goeth unto God, that is, returns again to the heavens, there sitting as we know by the side of His own Father; yet so excessive was the humiliation He underwent that He even girded Himself with a towel and washed the feet of His disciples. As therefore we have in this act of Christ a very excellent pattern of affectionate care, and a most conspicuous standard for our love for each other to imitate, let us be modest in mind, beloved, and let us consider that, whatever may be our own goodness, our brethren have attained to greater excellences than those to be found in ourselves. For that we may both think and be willing to think in this way, is the wish of Him Who is our great Pattern.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Gregory the Dialogist (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †604

He knew that He had even His persecutors in His hand that He might convert them from malice to love of Him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †1107

3–5
The Father having given up all things into His hands, i. e. having given up to Him the salvation of the faithful, He deemed it right to show them all things that pertained to their salvation; and gave them a lesson of humility, by washing His disciples' feet. Though knowing that He was from God, and went to God, He thought it in no way took from His glory, to wash His disciples' feet; thus proving that He did not usurp His greatness. For usurpers do not condescend, for fear of losing what they have irregularly got.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands," that is, had entrusted to Him the salvation of the faithful, and it was now necessary to show them everything pertaining to salvation, among other things, also to wash the feet of the disciples, for by this humility is established as law… And in another way: knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands and that He came forth from God and was going to God, His glory would not be diminished if He washed the feet of the disciples. For He did not seize glory, so as to fear its loss, and therefore refuse to undertake any humble deed. Such a feeling is experienced by those who do not possess true nobility. Since they have seized glory for themselves, they do not wish even to stoop, lest they lose what does not belong to them and what they have seized. But He was King of all and Son of God. For this is what the words "came forth from God" mean, that is, from the essence of the Father, and again "was going to God." Therefore His glory, when He is so exalted and so great, would not be diminished if He washed the feet of the disciples. Note, I ask you, that if humility is the deed of one who comes forth from God and goes to God, then pride is evidently the deed of one who comes forth from demons and goes to demons. When you hear that "the Father delivered all things to Him," do not think that this reveals the powerlessness of the Son, but rather equal honor and unity of mind with the Father. For if from the statement that the Father delivered all things to Him, the Son appears to you as powerless, then you should also consider the Father powerless. For to Him as well, as the apostle says (1 Cor. 15:24), the Son "will deliver the kingdom." But this is not the case; rather, "delivering" signifies, so to speak, unity of mind, cooperation, and the good pleasure of the Father.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then (v 3) he considers the dignity of the one acting, for "The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself" (Sir 3:18). So the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, treats first of his very great dignity because of his knowledge, saying, Jesus, 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 Cor 2:12). Thus, Christ knew what had been given to him by God; and the Evangelist mentions this so Christ's humility would be more admirable. For sometimes it happens that a person is of great dignity, yet because of his simplicity he does not realize it. 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 1:8). But if someone does know his own dignity, and still his affections are inclined to what is humble, his humility should be praised. And this is why the Evangelist says, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands; and he still did not neglect to do what was humble.
Secondly, we see his dignity as to his power, because the Father had given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. God gave, in time, to Christ as man, what was in the power of the Son from eternity: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me" (Mt 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. Secondly, because when a person of little importance is honored, he easily becomes proud; nor does he do anything humble, lest it seem to lessen his dignity. But when one of great dignity is honored, he does not neglect the humble things. And so Christ's dignity is mentioned here.
Thirdly, we see his dignity because of his nobility, when he says, that he had come from God and was going to God: "living with God" as Wisdom (8:3) says. Fourthly, his dignity because of 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 special to him to lead others to God. This is done especially by humility and love; and so he offers them an example of humility and love.
Commentary on John

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου καὶ τίθησι τὰ ἱμάτια, καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν.

воста̀ ѿ ве́чери и҆ положѝ ри̑зы, и҆ прїе́мь ле́нтїонъ, препоѧ́сасѧ:

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

4–5
(t. xxxii. 2.) Mystically, dinner is the first meal, taken early in the spiritual day, and adapted to those who have just entered upon this day. Supper is the last meal, and is set before those who are farther advanced. According to another sense, dinner is the understanding of the Old Testament, the supper the understanding the mysteries hid in the New. Yet even they who sup with Jesus, who partake of the final meal, need a certain washing, not indeed of the top parts of their body, i. e. the soul, but its lower parts and extremities, which cleave necessarily to earth. (c. 4.). It is, And began to wash; for He did not finish His washing till afterwards. The feet of the Apostles were defiled now: All of ye shall be offended because of Me this night. (Matt. 26:31) But afterwards He cleansed them, so that they needed no more cleansing.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria †253

In bringing to mind the spiritual meaning of the passage, the Evangelist here seems to me not to have observed the literal sequence of the washing. Normally, it is before supper and before sitting down to supper that those who need to wash their feet wash them. But passing over that time in his account, he says that Jesus, having already sat down for supper, arose from supper so that the Teacher and Lord may begin to wash the feet of the disciples after they had supper. For before the supper, they had been washed and were altogether clean. But after that washing they needed a second water for just their feet, that is, the lowest parts of the body.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.11-12

Apostolic Constitutions †380

For so did He really, and not in word only, fulfil the prediction of, "serving many faithfully." For "when He had taken a towel, He girded Himself. Afterward He puts water into a bason; and as we were sitting at meat, He came and washed the feet of us all, and wiped them with the towel." By doing this He demonstrated to us His kindness and brotherly affection, that so we also might do the same to one another. If, therefore, our Lord and Master so humbled Himself, how can you, the labourers of the truth, and administrators of piety, be ashamed to do the same to such of the brethren as are weak and infirm?
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 3

John Chrysostom †407

4–5
"And having risen from supper, and laid aside His garments."
Observe how not by the washing only, but in another way also He exhibiteth humility. For it was not before reclining, but after they had all sat down, then He arose. In the next place, He doth not merely wash them, but doth so, putting off His garments. And He did not even stop here, but girded Himself with a towel. Nor was He satisfied with this, but Himself filled (the basin), and did not bid another fill it; He did all these things Himself, showing by all that we must do such things, when we are engaged in well doing, not merely for form's sake, but with all zeal. Now He seemeth to me to have washed the feet of the traitor first from its saying, "He began to wash the disciples' feet."
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Theophilus of Alexandria †412

What is more contrary to expectation than this, what more awe-inspiring? He who is clothed with light as with a garment is girded with a towel. He who held the waters in the clouds48 and sealed the abyss with his fearsome name is bound about by a belt. He who gathers the waters of the sea like a wineskin pours water in a bowl. He who covers his upper chambers with waters, with water washed the feet of the disciples. He who measured heaven with his hand’s span and holds the earth in his grasp, with his undefiled palms wiped off the feet of servants. He for whom “every knee bends, of those in heaven, and on earth and under the earth” bowed his neck to attendant servants. The angels saw and recoiled; heaven beheld and shuddered; creation observed and trembled.
Sermon on the Mystical Supper

Severian of Gabala †425

The whole visible world proclaims the goodness of God, but nothing proclaims it so clearly as his coming among us, by which he whose state was divine assumed the condition of a slave. This was not a lowering of his dignity, but rather a manifestation of his love for us. The awesome mystery that takes place today brings us to the consequence of his action. For what is it that takes place today? The Savior washes the feet of his disciples.… Although he took upon himself everything pertaining to our condition as slaves, he took a slave’s position in a way specially suited to our own arrangements when he rose from the table.He who feeds everything beneath the heavens was reclining among the apostles, the master among slaves, the fountain of wisdom among the ignorant, the Word among those untrained in the use of words, the source of wisdom among the unlettered. He who nourishes all was reclining and eating with his disciples. He who sustains the whole world was himself receiving sustenance. Moreover, he was not satisfied with the great favor he showed his servants by sharing a meal with them. Peter, Matthew and Philip, men of the earth, reclined with him, while Michael, Gabriel and the whole army of angels stood by. Oh, the wonder of it! The angels stood by in dread, while the disciples reclined with him with the utmost familiarity! And even this marvel did not content him. “He rose from the table,” as Scripture says. He who is “clothed in light as in a robe” was clad in a cloak. He who wraps the heavens in clouds wrapped round himself a towel. He who pours the water into the rivers and pools tipped some water into a basin. And he before whom every knee bends in heaven and on earth and under the earth knelt to wash the feet of his disciples.
Homily on the Washing of the Feet

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

4–5
(Tr. lv. 7) He laid aside His garments, when, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself; He girded Himself with a towel, took upon Him the form of a servant; He poured water into a bason, out of which He washed His disciples' feet. He shed His blood on the earth, with which He washed away the filth of their sins; He wiped them with the towel wherewith He was girded; with the flesh wherewith He was clothed, He established the steps of the Evangelists; He laid aside His garments, to gird Himself with the towel; that He might take upon Him the form of a servant, He emptied Himself, not laying aside indeed what He had, but assuming what He had not. Before He was crucified, He was stripped of His garments, and when dead was wound up in linen clothes: the whole of His passion is our cleansing.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

4–5
But why should we wonder that He rose from supper, and laid aside His garments, who, being in the form of God, made Himself of no reputation? And why should we wonder, if He girded Himself with a towel, who took upon Him the form of a servant, and was found in the likeness of a man? Why wonder, if He poured water into a basin wherewith to wash His disciples' feet, who poured His blood upon the earth to wash away the filth of their sins? Why wonder, if with the towel wherewith He was girded He wiped the feet He had washed, who with the very flesh that clothed Him laid a firm pathway for the footsteps of His evangelists? In order, indeed, to gird Himself with the towel, He laid aside the garments He wore; but when He emptied Himself [of His divine glory] in order to assume the form of a servant, He laid not down what He had, but assumed that which He had not before.
Tractates on John 55

Bede †735

He rose from the table and put aside his [outer] garments when, ceasing the fuller sharing of his life in time with human beings, he put aside on the cross the bodily members that he had assumed. He took up a linen towel with which he girded himself, when, after having taken up for us the mandate of suffering that he had received from his Father, he covered his body with the torment of his passion. A linen towel, which is woven by the endless labor of twisting [flax], is usually taken to signify the pain of suffering. When our Lord had laid aside his [outer] garments, he girded himself with a linen towel to signify that he was putting aside the clothing of the body that he had put on, [and that he was doing this] not without the distress of sorrow but with the prolonged anguish of the cross.
Homilies on the Gospels 2.5

Thomas Aquinas †1274

After showing the dignity of Christ, the Evangelist now commends his humility, which Christ showed by washing the feet of the disciples. First, the Evangelist mentions Christ's preparation for this humble task; secondly, the service itself (v 5).
In regard to the first, we should note that in performing this humble task, Christ shows himself a servant: "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28). Now three things are necessary for a good servant. First, he should be careful to notice anything that might be lacking in his service; and this would be hampered if he were sitting or lying down. Thus servants stand. So he says, Christ rose from supper: "For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves" (Lk 22:27). Secondly, a servant should not be encumbered, so he can do everything necessary to his service. And since too much clothing is such a hindrance, our Lord laid aside his garments. Thirdly, a good servant is prepared, having at hand everything which he needs. In Luke (10:40) we read that Martha "was distracted with much serving." So our Lord girded himself with a towel, 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 under foot the universal tendency to pride.
As to 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 down as long as he allows us to be troubled; but when he rescues us from it, he seems to rise, as the Psalm (43:26) says: "Rise up, come to our help." Secondly, it indicates that he emptied himself: not that he abandoned his great dignity, but he hid it by taking on our smallness: "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself" (Is 45:15). This is shown by the fact that he laid aside his garments: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7). Thirdly, 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" (Phil 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 clothing they cast lots" (19:23). And he was girded with a towel in the tomb. And 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" (Rom 6:9).
Commentary on John

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.

εἶτα βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα, καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος.

пото́мъ влїѧ̀ во́дꙋ во ᲂу҆мыва́льницꙋ и҆ нача́тъ ᲂу҆мыва́ти но́ги ᲂу҆чн҃кѡ́мъ и҆ ѡ҆тира́ти ле́нтїемъ, и҆́мже бѣ̀ препоѧ́санъ.

Irenaeus †202

Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion," when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands. For this is the end of the human race inheriting God; that as in the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage, by being made subject to death; so at last, by means of the New Man, all who from the beginning [were His] disciples, having been cleansed and washed from things pertaining to death, should come to the life of God. For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean.
Against Heresies Book 4.22.1

Now in the last days, when the fullness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word himself did by himself “wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion” when he washed the disciples’ feet with his own hands. For this is the end [result] of the human race inheriting God. In the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage by being made subject to death. And so now, at last, by means of the new man, all who from the beginning were his disciples—having been cleansed and washed from whatever pertains to death—come to life with God. For he who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body and rendered it clean. For this reason, too, he administered food to them while reclining, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were those to whom he came to impart life.
Against Heresies 4.22.1

Clement of Alexandria †215

This was, then, what the anointed feet prophesied-the treason of Judas, when the Lord went to His passion. And the Saviour Himself washing the feet of the disciples, and despatching them to do good deeds, pointed out their pilgrimage for the benefit of the nations, making them beforehand fair and pure by His power. Then the ointment breathed on them its fragrance, and the work of sweet savour reaching to all was proclaimed; for the passion of the Lord has filled us with sweet fragrance, and the Hebrews with guilt.
The Instructor Book 2

Origen of Alexandria †253

Why do you suppose it was not written, “He washed the disciples’ feet” instead of “And he began to wash the disciples’ feet”? For is it the custom of the Scriptures to prefix “he began” without a reason, as in the usage of the majority? Or did Jesus then “begin to wash the disciples’ feet” and not stop when he had washed their feet at that time? For later he washed them and completed the washing, since they were defiled, according to the saying, “You will all be made to stumble because of me this night,” and what was said to Peter, “The rooster will not crow until you deny me three times.” For when these sins occurred, the defiled feet of the disciples were again in need of washing, which he had begun to wash when he rose from supper, [but] he completed the washing when he cleansed them that they might no longer be defiled.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.51-54

Gregory of Nazianzus †390

It is good for the [feet and hands] to be consecrated … so that they are not swift to shed blood or to run to evil, but that they are prompt to run to the gospel and the prize of the high calling and to receive Christ who washes and cleanses them.
On Holy Baptism, Oration 40.39

Ambrose of Milan †397

Let us come now to the Gospel of God. I find the Lord stripping Himself of His garments, and girding Himself with a towel, pouring water into a basin, and washing the disciples' feet. That heavenly dew was this water, this was foretold, namely, that the Lord Jesus Christ would wash the feet of His disciples in that heavenly dew. And now let the feet of our minds be stretched out. The Lord Jesus wills also to wash our feet, for He says, not to Peter alone, but to each of the faithful: "If I wash not thy feet thou wilt have no part with Me."
There is also a certain water which we put into the basin of our soul, water from the fleece and from the Book of Judges; water, too, from the Book of Psalms. It is the water of the message from heaven. Let, then, this water, O Lord Jesus, come into my soul, into my flesh, that through the moisture of this rain the valleys of our minds and the fields of our hearts may grow green. May the drops from Thee come upon me, shedding forth grace and immortality. Wash the steps of my mind that I may not sin again. Wash the heel of my soul, that I may be able to efface the curse, that I feel not the serpent's bite on the foot of my soul, but, as Thou Thyself hast bidden those who follow Thee, may tread on serpents and scorpions with uninjured foot. Thou hast redeemed the world, redeem the soul of a single sinner.
On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Prologue 12, 16

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

Humility is the principle of all virtues: it removes any contrast, division or dissension from human beings and plants into them peace and charity. And through charity it grows and increases.
Commentary on John 6.13.3-5

Romanos the Melodist †555

The sea washes the brick, The Abyss washes the clay And it does not destroy its composition, But keeps its substance intact And wipes clean its character. Notice the immensity of the maker, And yet see what sort of disposition he has for his creatures; They have reclined and he has stood, They are fed and he serves, They are washed and he wipes them clean; And the feet molded of clay are not cast by his hands into the fire. Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us, You who bear with all and receive all.… May sleep take me to death, If I allow you, the Immortal, To bend down before me, a mortal. The enemy would laugh at me, If you deal in this way with me. Is it not enough that I am considered as yours? Is it not more than enough that I am considered by you And called the first of your friends? But are you to wash my feet, vessels of clay, You, the Potter of the universe? And my perishable legs and feet You, O Redeemer, desire to wash them? Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us, You who bear with all and receive all.
Kontakion on Judas 33.8, 10

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Note also the supreme degree of humility. For He does not wash before supper, but when all have reclined at table, He alone rises while the others rest. He lays aside His garments, teaching us to make ourselves unhindered and light for service. He girds Himself with a towel, doing everything Himself—both the washing and the drying. He pours in the water, doing this Himself as well, and not commanding another to do it. All this is an example and a law for us of how we ought to serve, namely: with all diligence, doing everything ourselves and not making use of the service of others.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when the Evangelist says, Then he poured water into a basin, he describes Christ's service, and shows his admirable humility in three ways. First, as to what kind of service it was, for it was very lowly, since the Lord of majesty stooped down to wash the feet of his servants. Secondly, as to the number of things he did, for he put water into the basin, washed their feet, and then dried them. Thirdly, as to 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" (Sir 3:18).
As for 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" (Rev 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" (Ps 69:1). Therefore, he poured 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!" (Lam 3:19).
Secondly, when he says, and began to wash, it indicates our human imperfection. For after Christ, the apostles were more perfect than others, and yet even they 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'?" (Prv 20:9). However, only the feet of such persons are unclean. But others are not only unclean in their feet, they are stained all over. For those who lie down in earthly uncleanness are defiled all over; thus, those who cling entirely to the love of earthly things, both in their affections and their senses, are entirely unclean. But those who stand, that is, tend to heavenly things in mind and desire, 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 (Lk 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 (35:8) will be fulfilled: "It shall be called the Holy Way."
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 shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Act 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.
Thirdly, we have indicated the fact that Christ took upon himself our punishments; for he not only cleansed us from our stains, but took upon himself the punishments they deserved. For 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 Pet 2:21).
Commentary on John

Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

ἔρχεται οὖν πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἐκεῖνος· Κύριε, σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας;

Прїи́де же къ сі́мѡнꙋ петрꙋ̀, и҆ глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀ то́й: гдⷭ҇и, ты́ ли моѝ ᲂу҆мы́еши но́зѣ;

Ambrose of Milan †397

[Peter] did not notice the mystery, and so he refused the ministry because he believed that the humility of the servant was being overtaxed if he patiently permitted the ministry of the Lord.
On the Mysteries 6.31

You ascended from the fountain, what followed? You heard the reading. The high priest, though the presbyters also do it, nevertheless the beginning of the ministry is from the high priest. The high priest, I say, washed your feet. What is this mystery? You surely heard that when the Lord had washed the feet of the other disciples, he came to Peter and Peter said to him: "Do you wash my feet?" (John 13:8). Is this, you the Lord washing the feet of a servant? Do you, the immaculate one, wash my feet? Do you, the creator of the heavens, wash my feet?
We do not ignore that the Roman Church does not have this custom, whose type we follow in all things and its form: however, it does not have this custom of washing feet. See therefore, perhaps on account of the multitude, it declined. Nevertheless, there are those who say and attempt to excuse, because this is not to be done in a mystery, not in baptism, not in regeneration: but as if the feet of a guest were to be washed. Humility is one thing, sanctification is another. Finally, listen because it is a mystery and sanctification: Unless I wash your feet, you will not have a share with me (John XIII, 8). I say this for a reason, not because I am reproaching others, but to commend my own duties. In all things, I desire to follow the Roman Church, but we humans also have our own judgement; therefore, when something is more rightly observed elsewhere, we also observe it more rightly.
On the Sacraments, Book 3, Chapter 1.4-5

John Chrysostom †407

"Then cometh He to Simon Peter and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?"
"With those hands," he saith, "with which Thou hast opened eyes, and cleansed lepers, and raised the dead?" For this (question) is very emphatic; wherefore He needed not to have said any more than the, "Thou"; for even of itself this would have sufficed to convey the whole. Some one might reasonably enquire, how none of the others forbade Him, but Peter only, which was a mark of no slight love and reverence. What then is the cause? He seemeth to me to have washed the traitor first, then to have come to Peter, and that the others were afterwards instructed from his case. That He washed some one other before him is clear from its saying, "But when He came to Peter." Yet the Evangelist is not a vehement accuser, for the "began," is the expression of one implying this. And even if Peter were the first, yet it is probable that the traitor, being a forward person, had reclined even before the chief. For by another circumstance also his forwardness is shown, when He dippeth with his Master in the dish, and being convicted, feels no compunction; while Peter being rebuked but once on a former occasion, and for words which he spake from loving affection, was so abashed, that being even distressed and trembling, he begged another to ask a question. But Judas, though continually convicted, felt not.
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Severian of Gabala †425

The Lord of all creation washed his disciples’ feet! This was not an affront to his dignity but a demonstration of his boundless love for us. Yet however great his love was, Peter was well aware of his majesty. Always impetuous and quick to profess his faith, he was quick also to recognize the truth. The other disciples had let the Lord wash their feet, not with indifference but with fear and trembling. They dared not oppose the Master. Out of reverence, however, Peter would not permit it. He said, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet? You shall never wash my feet!”Peter was adamant. He had the right feelings, but not understanding the full meaning of the incarnation, he first refused in a spirit of faith and afterward gratefully obeyed. This is how religious people ought to behave. They should not be obdurate in their decisions but should surrender to the will of God. For although Peter reasoned in human fashion, he changed his mind out of love for God.
Homily on the Washing of the Feet

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lvi. 1) What is the meaning of Thou and my feet? It is better to think than speak of this; lest one should fail in explaining adequately what might have been rightly conceived.
Or thus: We must not suppose that Peter was afraid and refused, when the others had willingly and gladly submitted to the washing. Our Lord did not go through the others first, and to the first of the Apostles afterwards; (for who is ignorant that the most blessed Peter was the first of all the Apostles?) but began with him: and Peter being the first to whom He came, was afraid; as indeed any of the others would have been.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

When the Lord was washing the disciples' feet, "He cometh to Simon Peter; and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?" For who would not be filled with fear at having his feet washed by the Son of God? Although, therefore, it was a piece of the greatest audacity for the servant to contradict his Lord, the creature his God; yet Peter preferred doing this to the suffering of his feet to be washed by his Lord and God. Nor ought we to think that Peter was one amongst others who so expressed their fear and refusal, seeing that others before him had suffered it to be done to themselves with cheerfulness and equanimity. For it is easier so to understand the words of the Gospel, because that, after saying, "He began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded," it is then added, "Then cometh He to Simon Peter," as if He had already washed the feet of some, and after them had now come to the first of them all. For who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles? But we are not so to understand it, that it was after some others that He came to him; but that He began with him. When, therefore, He began to wash the disciples' feet, He came to him with whom He began, namely, to Peter; and then Peter took fright at what any one of them might have been frightened, and said, "Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?" What is implied in this "Thou"? and what in "my"? These are subjects for thought rather than for speech; lest perchance any adequate conception the soul may have formed of such words may fail of explanation in the utterance.
Tractates on John 56

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The fiery and impulsive character of Peter, always far more eager than the other disciples to display devotion, can be observed, one might almost say, throughout all the records that are written of him. And so it happens that on this occasion also, following the bent of his peculiar character and usual tone of mind, he thrusts aside the lesson of extreme humility and love, the record of which has been preserved in this passage,----remembering on the one hand who he is himself by nature, and on the other hand Who He is that is bringing the bason to him, and shrinking not from fulfilling the duty of a menial servant. For he is dismayed not a little at the action, which is in a manner hard of acceptance to faith, even though it happened to be seen by many eyes. For who is there who would not have shuddered at learning that He Who with the Father is Lord of all had shown His devotion to the service of His own disciples to be so intensely compassionate, that the very thing that seems to be the work of the lowest grade among servants, He willingly and of deliberate intention performed, to furnish a pattern and type of modesty in temper? Therefore the inspired disciple is dismayed and distressed at the circumstance, and makes the refusal as a natural result of his accustomed and habitual devotion. Moreover, not yet understanding the cause of the action, he supposes that the Lord is doing it with no special motive, and thinking only of the refreshment of their bodies; for that is the sole object of washing the feet, and not a little does it relieve their condition after walking. On this account he insists even very earnestly, saying: Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? For surely, he says, surely this ought to be done by us who are by nature in the condition of "servants," not by Thee, the "Lord" of all. Christ however defers for a hile the explanation of the event; yet, to make him account its cause more weighty, He tells Peter that he should understand what the action meant hereafter, meaning of course at the time when He should give a fuller explanation of it.
And this point again, taken in connection with the others, will profit us not a little. For notice how, when the occasion calls for action, He defers His discourse; and again, when the occasion calls for discourse, He postpones action: for He was ever wont to assign all things to their fit and proper seasons. When therefore Peter made a sign of dissent, and plainly asserted that Christ should never wash his feet, the Saviour at once lays clearly before him the loss he would suffer in consequence, saying as follows:
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †1107

It is plain that our Lord did not wash Peter first, but none other of the disciples would have attempted to be washed before him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord washes the feet of Peter not first, although he held primacy among the disciples, but perhaps the betrayer, being bold and shameless, reclined above Peter, and the Lord washed his feet. How is this evident? From what follows. "He began," it says, "to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them, then comes to Simon Peter." From this it is evident that the Lord did not wash Peter first. For if the Lord had not washed someone before Peter, the evangelist would not have said "comes to Simon Peter." Of the other disciples, no one would have dared to receive the washing before Peter, but the betrayer could have had the audacity to do so. For if the Lord had begun to wash any of the other disciples, that one, whoever he might be, would not have allowed the Lord to do so and would have said the same thing as Peter: "Lord, do You wash my feet?" But this objection did not follow. Therefore, of the other disciples, the Lord washed the betrayer first, and then Peter. And the rest, instructed by Peter's example, naturally did not object, but accepted such a great honor rendered to them by the Lord. Consider also what power the words of the apostle Peter have. Will You wash my feet with those hands by which You cleansed lepers, raised the dead, opened the eyes of the blind? Will You, Who did this and more than this, wash me, a servant and an unlearned man; and not my hands, not some other more honorable member, but my feet, the last member of all, considered especially dirty and dishonorable?
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when the Evangelist says, he came 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 both a mystery and necessary (v 8); and secondly, that it is appropriate (v 9). As to the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, he mentions the circumstances for Christ's speaking; secondly, what Christ said (v 7).
The occasion for Christ's words was the refusal of Peter to allow this example of humility; he says, he came to Simon Peter, and Peter said to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? 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 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" (Mt 20:8). The Evangelist seems to indicate this: for Christ began to wash the disciples' feet, and then he follows this with, he came 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 aflame with love - "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?...Yes Lord; you know that I love you" (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" (Sir 6:11). 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 by 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 disciples' feet, that is, the feet of Judas, who, as 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 by 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 after that gives the order of events within in, just as he did in Chapter 6. So he first mentions the entire incident, that is, 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 he was the first to refuse, saying, Lord, do you wash my feet?
These words have great depth. He says, Lord, do you, who are the Son of the living God, wash my feet, who am Simon, the son of Jonah? Lord, do you, the Lamb without spot, the mirror without stain, and the brightness of eternal light, do you wash my feet, who am a sinner? "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Lk 5:8). Lord, do you, who are the Creator, wash my feet, I who am a creature and of little faith? Peter said these things struck by awe at the realization of the dignity of Christ, as in "I have considered your works, and have feared" (Hab 1:3).
Commentary on John

Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, σὺ οὐκ οἶδας ἄρτι, γνώσῃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα.

Ѿвѣща̀ і҆и҃съ и҆ речѐ є҆мꙋ̀: є҆́же а҆́зъ творю̀, ты̀ не вѣ́си нн҃ѣ, ᲂу҆разꙋмѣ́еши же по си́хъ.

Origen of Alexandria †253

[Our Lord teaches] that this act was a mystery. But what was it that Jesus was doing when he washed the disciples’ feet? Was he, by washing their feet and drying them with the towel with which he had girded himself, making them beautiful, since they were about to preach the good news?…Now the feet of those proclaiming good news became beautiful, so that, when they were washed and cleansed and dried by Jesus’ hands, they might be able to walk on the holy way and travel over him who said, “I am the way.” For he alone, and everyone who has had his feet washed by Jesus, travels over this way, which is living and which brings one to the Father. This way admits no feet that are defiled and not yet clean. Moses therefore had to loose the sandals from his feet since the place to which he had come, on which he stood, was holy ground. And the same was true of Joshua the son of Nun. … For me to wash your feet [Jesus says] is symbolic of the bases of your souls being purified, that they may be beautiful, since you are to preach the good news and to approach the souls of people with your feet clean. But you do not now know this mystery, inasmuch as you do not yet have knowledge of it. Such knowledge will more appropriately be present in you when I have washed your feet, and after this you will know, when you understand this mystery and are enlightened.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.76-77, 80-82, 87-88

John Chrysostom †407

7–8
"He saith unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shall know here after."
That is "thou shall know how great is the gain from this, the profit of the lesson, and how it is able to guide us into all humblemindedness." What then doth Peter? He still hinders Him, and saith, "Thou shall never wash my feet." "What doest thou, Peter? Rememberest thou not those former words? Saidst thou not, 'Be merciful to Thyself,' and heardest thou not in return, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan'? Art thou not even so sobered, but art thou yet vehement?" "Yea," he saith, "for what is being done is a great matter, and full of amazement." Since then he did this from exceeding love, Christ in turn subdueth him by the same; and as there He effected this by sharply rebuking him, and saying, "Thou art an offense unto Me," so here also by saying, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me."
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

But "Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." And not even yet, terrified as he was by the sublimity of the Lord's action, does he allow it to be done, while ignorant of its purpose; but is unwilling to see, unable to endure, that Christ should thus humble Himself to his very feet.
Tractates on John 56

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Inasmuch therefore as He had come to what manifestly and obviously is the central point of the incident before us, He says: "If thou shouldst refuse to receive this strange and novel lesson of humility, thou wouldst find no part or lot with Me." And since oftentimes our Lord Jesus the Christ, taking small matters as the suggestive occasions of His discourses, makes His exposition of general application; and, drawing out to a wide range the lessons arising out of a single event or the words spoken solely with regard to some individual circumstance, introduces into the discussion of the matters in hand a rich abundance of profitable illustrations: we shall suppose that in this also He meant to say that unless through His grace a man washes away from himself the defilement of sin and error, he will have no share in the life that proceeds from Him, and will remain without a taste of the kingdom of heaven. For the uncleansed may not enter the mansions above, but only they who have their conscience cleansed by love to Christ, and have been sanctified in the Spirit by Holy Baptism
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Desert Fathers †500

A brother asked a hermit, ‘Abba, look here, I ask my elders questions, and they talk to me for the good of my soul, and I remember nothing they say. Is it any use asking questions when I gain nothing by it? I am deeply sinful.’ There were two empty vessels nearby. The hermit said, ‘Take one of those vessels and put oil in it, rinse it, pour out the oil, and bring the vessel back.’ He did so. He said, ‘Do it again.’ He did so. After he had done it several times, the hermit said, ‘Now, take both vessels and see which is the cleaner.’ He answered, ‘The one into which I put oil.’ The hermit said, ‘It’s the same for the one who asks questions. Although you remember nothing that you have heard, your soul will be cleaner than that of someone who never even asks questions.’
The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

What does the Lord say? He says: "What I am doing, you do not know now; My deed contains within it a profound humility, which I am also teaching you. Yet afterward, when you will cast out demons in My name, when you see My ascension into heaven, when through the Holy Spirit you learn that I sit at the right hand of the Father, then you will understand that He who humbled Himself to the point of washing your feet is the very same One who gives you such power over demons and who ascended and was glorified with the Father, having been in no way diminished by His humility. Therefore, you too must implant within yourself humility, which does not diminish but rather exalts."
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then (v 7), 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 know now, but afterward you will understand. 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 as I have done to you" (v 15) And it is a mystery because it signifies an interior cleansing: "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet" (v 10).
So what Christ said can be understood in two ways. In one way, What I am doing you do not know now, that is, you do not now understand that what I am doing is an example; but afterward you will understand, when he explained it to them saying: "Do you know what I have done to you?" (v 12). In another way, What I am doing you do not know 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 afterward you will understand, when you receive the Holy Spirit: "I have yet 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" (16:12).
Commentary on John

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

λέγει αὐτῷ Πέτρος· οὐ μὴ νίψῃς τοὺς πόδας μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐὰν μὴ νίψω σε, οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ’ ἐμοῦ.

Глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀ пе́тръ: не ᲂу҆мы́еши нѡ́гꙋ моє́ю во вѣ́ки. Ѿвѣща̀ є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: а҆́ще не ᲂу҆мы́ю тебѐ, не и҆́маши ча́сти со мно́ю.

Tertullian †220

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly "that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea." It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.
On Baptism

Origen of Alexandria †253

When the other disciples entrusted themselves to Jesus and offered no resistance, [Peter], by what he says (although he seemed well intentioned) not only accuses Jesus of beginning to wash the disciples’ feet without a reason but also accuses his companions. For if he acted properly (which he thought he did) when he wanted to hinder Jesus, but the other disciples did not see the propriety in his actions, then he accused those who presented their feet to Jesus, contrary to what was proper at least in his mind. And if he thought that one must not resist what is reasonable and supposed that what happened when the disciples’ feet were washed by Jesus was reasonable, he would not have resisted what happened. He appears, therefore, to have assumed rashly that Jesus’ desire to wash the disciples’ feet was not reasonable.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.66-68

Since Peter’s answer was disadvantageous for him, Jesus, who in a manner appropriate to his own goodness prevents those things from becoming true that would prove harmful to the one who speaks them, does not permit Peter’s answer to become true.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.90

John Chrysostom †407

8–9
What then saith that hot and burning one? "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head."
Vehement in deprecation, he becometh yet more vehement in acquiescence; but both from love. For why said He not wherefore He did this, instead of adding a threat? Because Peter would not have been persuaded. For had He said, "Suffer it, for by this I persuade you to be humbleminded," Peter would have promised it ten thousand times, in order that his Master might not do this thing. But now what saith He? He speaketh of that which Peter most feared and dreaded, the being separated from Him; for it is he who continually asks, "Whither goest Thou?" Wherefore also he said, "I will give even my life for Thee." And if, after hearing, "What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter," he still persisted, much more would he have done so had he learnt (the meaning of the action). Therefore said He, "but thou shalt know hereafter," as being aware, that should he learn it immediately he would still resist. And Peter said not, "Tell me, that I may suffer Thee," but (which was much more vehement) he did not even endure to learn, but withstands Him, saying, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." But as soon as He threatened, he straightway relaxed his tone. But what meaneth, "Thou shalt know after this"? "After this?" When? "When in My Name thou shall have cast out devils; when thou shalt have seen Me taken up into Heaven, when thou shalt have learnt from the Spirit that I sit on His right hand, then shall thou understand what is being done now."
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Theophilus of Alexandria †412

When he heard these words, Peter the leader [of the Twelve] was at a loss as to his answer, saying, “Alas, O Lord, I am thwarted in every direction. Presumption is a burden, but refusal is harmful. To say no deserves punishment, but assent is most difficult for me. Nonetheless, let the command of God and not the opposition of the servant prevail, the Wisdom of God and not the excuse of the servant.”
Sermon on the Mystical Supper

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lvi. 2) He did not refuse, because our Lord's act was above his understanding, but he could not bear to see Him bending at his feet: Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt not wash my feel for ever; i. e. I will never suffer it: not for ever is the same as never.
(Tr. lvi. 2) If I wash thee not, He says, though it was only his feet that He was going to wash, just as we say, Thou treadest on me; though it is only our foot that is trodden on.
(Tr. lvi. 2) But he, agitated by fear and love, dreaded more the being denied Christ, than the seeing Him at His feet: Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." That his fears might not be foolish, but salutary, that his refusal might not be obstinate, but converted into compliance, "Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me." He does not say, If I wash not thy feet, but "If I wash thee not," although all He was proceeding to do was to wash his feet. For why else did He thus speak, save that, in washing the feet, He washes a man? Certainly, were any one asked whether the hands formed part of a man, he would at once reply that they did; and this, although one's hands are not one's self any more than one's feet. Just so, when we speak of any one as treading upon us, the only part of him that actually touches us is his foot, and yet we say, You tread upon me, and not, Your feet tread upon me. But when the Lord says, "If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me," what else did He hold out, so to speak, to our hopes, but the words, "In my kingdom shalt thou have no part with me"?
But when Peter heard Him say, "Thou shalt have no part with me," he was terrified lest he should be denied, not only the washing of his feet, but every part in Christ. And let him now, while distressed with such a fear, endure the application of his Lord's hands, not only to his feet, but even to his head.
Tractates on John 56

Bede †735

Here it is clearly pointed out that this washing of the feet implies the spiritual purification of body and soul without which we cannot arrive at fellowship with Christ.
Homilies on the Gospels 2.5

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Peter deeply respects his Teacher, and therefore stands in awe of Him and does not accept service from Him. Although on another occasion Peter received a rebuke from the Lord (Matt. 16:22–23), and to avoid that rebuke he should have now accepted the washing from the Lord. Nevertheless, since the deed now being performed by Christ is very important, Peter resists, and does not consider that the Lord might perhaps reprove him again even more severely, as one who is disobedient. What then does Christ say? He does not say to Peter, "I am teaching you humility, and for this reason I wash your feet." For Peter would have said to Him, even with an oath, that I will have humility even without the washing of feet. What then does the Lord say to him? That which, according to the Lord's knowledge, could especially touch Peter's heart — that is what He sets before him, as a kind of threat. "If," He says, "I do not wash you, you have no part with Me." Since Peter more than all the other disciples desired to be together with Christ, which is why he also asked Him where He was going, and out of love promised to lay down his life for Him (John 13:36–37), the Lord shakes his soul with this threat. "If," He says, "I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; secondly, we see what Christ said.
Peter says, You shall 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 disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom 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 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You shall never wash my feet.
Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, you have not part in 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 shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm (15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you have no part in 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 have no part in me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. 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 Sam 15:22-23).
Commentary on John

Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος· Κύριε, μὴ τοὺς πόδας μου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τὴν κεφαλήν.

Глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀ сі́мѡнъ пе́тръ: гдⷭ҇и, не но́зѣ моѝ то́кмѡ, но и҆ рꙋ́цѣ и҆ главꙋ̀.

Tertullian †220

For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one; (saying to Peter, who was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, "He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time; " which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized; ) even here we have a conspicuous proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John's baptism.
On Baptism

Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end-so that even that saying of the Lord touching the "one bath" does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us-still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer.
On Baptism

Augustine of Hippo †430

For when terrified at the thought of losing part in Christ, "Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Since, then, Thou threatenest me with the loss of a part in Thee, unless I submit to the washing of my feet, deprive me not of such a blessing, and give me not only my feet to be washed, but my hands and my head. But "Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." Here the question naturally arises, how, if a man is washed and clean every whit, he has any necessity to have his feet washed.
Tractates on John 56

Cyril of Alexandria †444

He who lately exhibited to us so strongly his opposition to what Christ was doing, and who expressly refused to allow the washing of his feet, now offers not them only, but also hands and head as well. For if, says he, my refusal to assent to Thy wish and Thy deliberate purpose, in the matter of washing my feet, is to be followed by my falling away from my fellowship with Thee, and by my being excluded from the blessings for which I hope; then I will offer Thee my other members also, rather than incur so very frightful a loss. Certainly therefore pious devotion was the motive of the former refusal: it was the behaviour of one who feared to submit to the action because there seemed to be something about it which he could not bring himself to tolerate, and not at all the conduct of one who set himself in opposition to his master's injunctions. For bearing in mind, as I said, both the dignity of the Saviour and the utter unworthiness of his own nature, he at first refused; but on learning the jeopardy in which he had thus put himself, immediately he hastens to change his will so as to conform to the good pleasure of his Master.
But look again closely, and accept what was done as a pattern for our profit. For in spite of having said: Thou shalt never wash my feet, he in a moment changes from his purpose thus expressed, not allowing it to be the uppermost thought in his mind that he ought to appear truthful in the eyes of men by adhering to his own words, but rather [influenced by the warning] that he would find a greater and more grievous loss to be the necessary consequence of holding to what he had said. Therefore every one ought to guard against using rash and hasty words, and no one ought in a spirit of violent energy to hastily urge a course of action, which on account of its very recklessness may be afterwards bitterly regretted. But if anything should ever happen to be said by any one in such a way that by persistence in adhering to it something of great value and importance would suffer harm, let the speaker in such a case learn from the words before us that it is very much better for him not to preserve consistency, and not to vainly carry out an intention merely because he has once given expression to it, but rather to use all his efforts to do what will really be profitable to him. For every one, I imagine, will allow that it is safer to incur an indictment for inconsistency in our words, than to suffer a loss of indispensable blessings. And let swearing be altogether absent from our conversation; for words are often spoken on the spur of the moment and without deliberate intention, and our plans are necessarily liable to occasional change and chance. For surely it may be called a worthy and in very truth an enviable possession, to have a discreet tongue, that very rarely lapses into unbefitting language. And since even the Divine Scripture itself has shown to us that the matter is one for violent and tedious struggling----for, as it is written, the tongue can no man tame,----let us keep the utterance of our words free from oaths. For then, if circumstances compel us to refrain from carrying out something we have said, the blame will be less, and our error will be liable to a less severe indictment. And readily will pardon be granted, I think, even by God Himself, for the thoughtless levity of language that is ever besetting us: for who can understand his errors? according to that which is written. Else surely man would utterly perish from the face of the earth, since most easily does language fall away into mistakes of all kinds; for it is a work of the greatest difficulty to keep our tongue under due restraint.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Peter, having heard such a fearful threat, was as firm in his resistance as he was equally, and even more, strong in expressing his agreement; for he offers even his head for washing. In both cases he is guided by love: he resists the washing because he greatly honors the Lord; he agrees because he does not wish to be separated from Him. And I ask you: when you see that someone strongly insists on his own way out of foolishness and promises with an oath "I will not do such-and-such," then out of respect for the oath persists in what he did not consider well, and because of this suffers harm in soul or body, then make fitting use of the example of the apostle Peter, who insisted on his own way, but when he saw that his insistence could separate him from Christ, he abandoned it.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

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 know now, he had intimated 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 part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord, not my feet only, 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.
We may 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, that is, for 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 Cor 4:4), that is, the higher reason. 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 my feet only but also my hands and my head. It was like saying: I do not know if my hands and feet need washing - "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4) - and so I am ready to wash not my feet only, that is, my lower affections - "I had bathed my feet, how could I soil them?" (Song 5:3) - but also my hands, that is, my works - "I will wash my hands among the innocent" (Ps 26:6) - and my head, that is, my higher reason - "Wash your face" (Mt 6:17).
Commentary on John

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.

λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὁ λελουμένος οὐ χρείαν ἔχει ἢ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀλλ’ ἔστι καθαρὸς ὅλος· καὶ ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ πάντες.

Гл҃а є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: и҆змове́нный не тре́бꙋетъ, то́кмѡ но́зѣ ᲂу҆мы́ти, є҆́сть бо ве́сь чи́стъ: и҆ вы̀ чи́сти є҆стѐ, но не всѝ.

Tertullian †220

We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already.
On Repentance

But the Jewish Israel bathes daily, because he is daily being defiled: and, for fear that defilement should be practised among us also, therefore was the definition touching the one bathing made.
On Baptism

Ambrose of Milan †397

The Lord responded to him, because he said hand and head: The one who has washed does not need to wash again, except to wash only the feet (Ibid., 10). Why is this? Because in baptism all sin is washed away. Therefore, sin is removed: but because Adam was deceived by the devil (Gen. III, 6), and poison was poured upon his feet, you wash the feet; so that in the part where the serpent laid its ambush, a greater assistance of sanctification may be added, so that it cannot deceive you thereafter. Therefore, wash your feet, so that you may wash away the poison of the serpent. It also leads to humility, so that we may not be ashamed in the mystery of that which we scorn in service.
On the Sacraments, Book 3, Chapter 1.7

John Chrysostom †407

10–11
"He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who should betray Him."
"And if they are clean, why washeth He their feet?" That we may learn to be modest. On which account He came not to any other part of the body, but to that which is considered more dishonorable than the rest. But what is, "He that is washed"? It is instead of, "he that is clean." Were they then clean, who had not yet been delivered from their sins, nor deemed worthy of the Spirit, since sin still had the mastery, the handwriting of the curse still remaining, the victim not having yet been offered? How then calleth He them "clean"? That thou mayest not deem them clean, as delivered from their sins, He addeth, Behold, "ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you." That is, "In this way ye are so far clean; ye have received the light, ye have been freed from Jewish error. For the Prophet also saith, 'Wash you, make you clean, put away the wickedness from your souls'; so that such a one is washed and is clean." Since then these men had cast away all wickedness from their souls, and had companied with Him with a pure mind, therefore He saith according to the word of the Prophet, "he that is washed is clean already." For in that place also It meaneth not the "washing" of water, practiced by the Jews; but the cleansing of the conscience.
Homily on the Gospel of John 70

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

Simon did not want his teacher to wash his feet. The purpose of our Lord’s action was … to teach you that you should deeply love and eagerly help one another. Peter did not know that that was the purpose of his action. So again our Lord said to him who was still resisting, “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.” Since from these words Peter believed that this washing of the feet was in place of baptism, and that from it he would have obtained his share with the Lord and therefore might say that he was entirely washed—if this was the present situation, the Lord corrected his ignorance by saying, “One who has bathed does not need to wash, except for the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, but not all of you.” Then the Evangelist by explaining the words of our Lord added, “For he knew who was to betray him. For this reason he said, ‘Not all of you are clean.’ ” By speaking to Simon our Lord means to say: “This is not the baptism for the remission of sins. You have already received it once and do not need it twice, because you were made clean by the first you received. Now it is necessary that only your feet are washed, and soon you will know the purpose of this act.” Certainly the disciples received the baptism of remission from John, in which the teaching of our Lord confirmed them even more by exhorting them to virtue. And then the descended Spirit perfected them when it later came on them.
Commentary on John 6.13.6-13

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lvi. 4) Clean all except the feet. The whole of a man is washed in baptism, not excepting his feet; but living in the world afterwards, we tread upon the earth. Those human affections then, without which we cannot live in this world, are, as it were, our feet, which connect us with human things, so that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. (1 John 1:8) But if we confess our sins, He who washed the disciples' feet, forgives us our sins even down to our feet, wherewith we hold our converse with earth.
(Ad. Seleuc. Ep. c. viii.) From what is here said, we understand that Peter was already baptized. Indeed that He baptized by His disciples, shows that His disciples must have been baptized, either with John's baptism, or, which is more probable, Christ's. He baptized by means of baptized servants; for He did not refuse the ministry of baptizing, Who had the humility to wash feet.
(Tr. lvi. 4) Or, the disciples when washed had only to have their feet washed; because while man lives in this world, he contracts himself with earth, by means of his human affections, which are as it were his feet.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." Some one perhaps may be aroused at this, and say: Nay, but if he is every whit clean, what need has He even to wash his feet? But the Lord knew what He was saying, even though our weakness reach not into His secret purposes. Nevertheless, so far as He is pleased to instruct and teach us out of His law, up to the little measure of my apprehension, I would also, with His help, make some answer bearing on the depths of this question: and, first of all, I shall have no difficulty in showing that there is no self-contradiction in the manner of expression. For who may not say, as here, with the greatest propriety, He is all clean, except his feet?—although he would speak with greater elegance were he to say, He is all clean, save his feet; which is equivalent in meaning. Thus, then, doth the Lord say, "He needeth not save to wash his feet, but is all clean." All, that is, except, or save his feet, which he still needs to wash.
But what is this? what does it mean? and what is there in it we need to examine? The Lord says, The Truth declares that even he who has been washed has need still to wash his feet. What, my brethren, what think you of it, save that in holy baptism a man has all of him washed, not all save his feet, but every whit; and yet, while thereafter living in this human state, he cannot fail to tread on the ground with his feet. And thus our human feelings themselves, which are inseparable from our mortal life on earth, are like feet wherewith we are brought into sensible contact with human affairs; and are so in such a way, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And every day, therefore, is He who intercedeth for us, washing our feet: and that we, too, have daily need to be washing our feet, that is, ordering aright the path of our spiritual footsteps, we acknowledge even in the Lord's prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors." For "if," as it is written, "we confess our sins," then verily is He, who washed His disciples' feet, "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," that is, even to our feet wherewith we walk on the earth.
Tractates on John 56

But the topic on which we were speaking, and which led to our entering on this inquiry, was our Lord's washing His disciples' feet, after the disciples themselves had already been washed, and needed not, save to wash their feet. And we there saw it to be understood that a man is indeed wholly washed in baptism; but while thereafter he liveth in this present world, and with the feet of his human passions treadeth on this earth, that is, in his life-intercourse with others, he contracts enough to call forth the prayer, "Forgive us our debts." And thus from these also is he cleansed by Him who washed His disciples' feet, and ceaseth not to make intercession for us.
Tractates on John 57

Cyril of Alexandria †444

He draws His illustration from a common incident of ordinary human life, and opportunely contrives the rebuke to the traitor, teaching the man both to repent of his purpose and to change himself to a better mind. For even if Christ's reproaches do not yet convict him of his meditated treachery, yet the saying must carry with it a stern significance. For in testifying to the perfect cleanness of some [but not all] of the disciples, He thereby makes the one who was not clean feel an uneasy suspicion, and points out the presence of a polluted one. For Christ graciously commends the cleanness of His other disciples, as shown by their willing joy in attending on Him continually, the hardship they underwent in following Him, their firmness in faith, and their fulness of love towards Him. On Judas, however, the reproach of his insatiable covetousness and the feebleness of his affection for our Lord Jesus the Christ are branding the ineffaceable stain, and steeping him in the pollution, of his incomparably hideous treachery. When therefore Christ says: Now ye are clean, but not all, though the language is obscure, yet it conveys a profitable rebuke to the traitor. For although He did not speak plainly, as we have just said, still in each man's heart conscience was sitting in judgment, pricking the sinner to the heart, and bringing home to the guilty one the force of the words according to their necessary meaning.
And notice how fully the conduct of Christ is expressive of a certain set purpose and of God-befitting forbearance. For if He had said plainly who it was that would betray Him, He would have made the other disciples to be at enmity with the traitor. Judas might thence perhaps have suffered some fatal mischief, and have undergone a premature penalty at the hands of one who was spurred on by pious zeal to prevent the murder of his Master by previously putting to death His would-be betrayer. Therefore, by merely giving an obscure hint, and then leaving the conviction to gnaw its way to the conscience, He proved incontestably the greatness of His inherent forbearance. For although He well, knew that Judas had no kindly feeling or wise consideration for His Master, but that he was full of the poison of devilish bitterness and even then devising the means whereby he might effect the betrayal, He honoured him in the same measure as the rest, and washed even his feet also, continually exhibiting the marks of His own love, and not letting loose His anger till He had tried every kind of remonstrance. For thou mayest perceive how this special characteristic also is peculiar to the Divine Nature. For although God knows what is about to happen, He brings His punishment prematurely on no man: but rather, after bearing with the guilty for the utmost length of needful time, when He sees them in no way profiting thereby, but rather remaining in their self-chosen evil ways, then at length He punishes them; showing it to be the actual result of their perverse folly, and not really an effect of His own counsel or of His will. For instance, Ezekiel on this account says: As I live, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of him that dieth, but rather that he should turn from his evil way and live. Therefore with long-suffering and forbearance our Lord Jesus the Christ still treats the traitor just as He does His other disciples, although the devil had already put into his heart to betray Him, (for this also the Evangelist was constrained to point out at the outset of the narrative;) and washes his feet, thus making his impious conduct absolutely inexcusable, so that his apostasy might be seen to be the fruit of the wickedness which was in him.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Bede †735

Jesus is giving clear notice that this washing of the feet indicates pardoning of sins, and not only that which is given once in baptism but in addition that by which the daily guilty actions of the faithful that everyone lives with in this life are cleansed by his daily grace. Our feet, by which we move about [and] touch the ground—and for this reason we cannot keep them free from contact with dirt, as we can the rest of our bodies—signify the necessity of our living on earth, by which we who are idle and negligent are daily affected to a great extent. Even outstanding people who live the highest kind of life are distracted from the heavenly contemplation that they love so much, so that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” …The person who has been cleansed in the baptismal font and has received pardon for all his sins has no need to be cleansed again. Moreover, he cannot be cleansed again in the same way. He finds it necessary only to have the daily defilements of his worldly life wiped away by the daily forgiveness of his Redeemer. His whole body, together with its actions, is clean, with the exception merely of those things that cling to the mind because of the necessities of temporal cares. For their daily polluting and cleansing we say daily in prayer, “And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.”
Homilies on the Gospels 2.5

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Many ask: why did the Lord say to the apostles "you are clean," when they had not yet been freed from sins, had not received the Spirit, since sin still reigned, the curse still retained its force, for the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world had not yet been slain, our Redeemer from the curse had not yet been hung upon the tree? In what sense, then, were the apostles clean? One may say that although they had not been completely freed from sins, they were "clean through the word which" the Lord "had spoken" to them (John 15:3), clean at least in the sense that they had already received the Light, had already been freed from Jewish error. For hear how Isaiah teaches us to wash: "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the wickedness from your souls" (Isa. 1:16). Therefore the Lord rightly calls His disciples washed and clean, for they abided with Christ in all innocence and simplicity. By the supper, some understood the knowledge of the mystery of Christ at the end of the ages, which Jesus teaches His disciples; for this reason He also washes their feet, not because they are dirty, but in order to prepare them for the preaching of the Gospel, according to the saying of Isaiah: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach peace!" (Isa. 52:7). "So," He says, "you, as far as you yourselves are concerned, are clean, but you must be sent for the cleansing of others as well, which is what the washing of your feet signifies." Thus, the washing gives us the idea not of the cleansing of the apostles from sins, for they, by the Lord's own testimony, are clean, but serves as a sign that they are being sent to preach, so that the purity granted to them through the teaching of the Master they might pass on to others as well. Therefore Peter also says, "Wash not only my feet, but also my head"; that is, not only send me to preach, but also cleanse my head through martyrdom. Notice, if you will, how this is accomplished even now. For the supper takes place even now, when at the Divine sacred rite the Divine Body and His Blood are set forth. What deed, then, is required of each one of us? Listen. All of us who have believed in Christ have within ourselves the word of God and the evangelical preaching, for we have all received Christ into our hearts; but at this Divine supper we must raise up this word and remove from it the garments that conceal it. Such garments are love of money, vainglory, envy, and each of the other passions which, pressing upon the word of God that is within us, burden it. Therefore, when the word rises up, one must set aside the passions so that it, having become light, may cleanse us through repentance. For the word, having risen and laid aside every weight and worldly care, will wash our thoughts, which learn from it and follow after it, and will wash our feet as well, that is, our practical movements and our actions. But if anyone needs another cleansing, desiring improvement in teaching and contemplation, let him say to the Lord: "Lord, wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head, that is, cleanse not only my actions, but also my hands, so that I may guide others and undertake what is good, and my head, so that in the contemplative and theological regard I may have a conception of divine matters that is pure and irreproachable." Thus, through confession we can be washed so as to partake worthily of the supper, and not eat and drink "judgment upon ourselves" (1 Cor. 11:29).
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then (v 10), the Evangelist gives our Lord's answer. First, our Lord states a general principle; secondly, he applies it to this situation; and thirdly, the Evangelist explains these words of Christ.
He says at first, he who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over, 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 then they would not have bathed, because the baptism of John did not cleanse within from guilt. 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 (4:2), I say that he did not baptize the crowds, but only his disciples and those he knew well.
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 movement of the sensuality in regard to 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 - but they were clean 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" (Rev 22:11). But not all of you, because one of them was dirty both in hands and head.
Commentary on John

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

ᾔδει γὰρ τὸν παραδιδόντα αὐτόν· διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν· οὐχὶ πάντες καθαροί ἐστε.

Вѣ́дѧше бо предаю́щаго є҆го̀: сегѡ̀ ра́ди речѐ, ꙗ҆́кѡ не всѝ чи́сти є҆стѐ.

Origen of Alexandria †253

The eleven who had bathed and were clean became even cleaner when they had their feet washed by Jesus. But Judas who was already unclean, for it says, “He who is filthy, let him be filthy still,” became filthier and unclean when Satan entered him after the morsel.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.110

Ephrem the Syrian †373

In his gentleness our Lord humbled his wise hands by washing the feet of his betrayer, who expressed his gratitude for the cleansing with the nails of the cross.
Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 18.22

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lviii. 1) And ye are clean, but not all: what this means the Evangelist immediately explains: For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"And ye are clean, but not all." What this means the evangelist has explained by adding, "For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean." What can be clearer than this clear light? Let us, therefore, make haste; the reader is quickened by the very clarity of Scripture: our delight is to run with the words. "For He knew who should betray Him." Accordingly, while Judas was being washed, but not cleansed, the Lord's foreknowledge proceeded without any error to the exposure of His betrayer, whom He had not ceased to bear with: for up to this time, even when his feet were being washed, He was bearing with, not deserting him.
Tractates on John 58

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Jesus clearly knew that Judas felt no kindness or wise consideration for his master. He also knew that Judas was full of devilishly bitter poison, and even while [his feet were being washed by Jesus] he was devising the means to betray him. Nevertheless, Jesus honored him just as much as the rest of the disciples and washed his feet as well, continually exhibiting his own unique love. Jesus did not express his anger, in fact, until he had tried every kind of objection. Note how this special quality is distinctive of the divine nature. Although God knows what is about to happen, he brings his punishment prematurely on no one. Rather, after bearing with the guilty for as long as is possible or necessary, when he sees them in no way profiting from the delay but instead remaining in their self-chosen evil ways, then he finally punishes them, showing it to be actually the result of their perverse folly and not really an effect of his own counsel or will.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord, having received the occasion, exposes the betrayer, that he has an impure mind, is in need of washing from wickedness and a change of his intention. "You," He says, "having been washed, do not need yet another washing, but one among you is unclean and is in need of washing."
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

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" (Lk 11:41) - and love for God - "her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47); "love covers all offenses" (Prv 10:12). But Judas lacks these two things. He lacked compassion because he was a thief and, holding the money, he stole the alms of the poor. He also lacked love for Christ, because the devil had already put it into this heart to betray Christ to the chief priests to be crucified.
Commentary on John

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?

ὅτε οὖν ἔνιψε τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν καὶ ἔλαβε τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἀναπεσὼν πάλιν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν;

[Заⷱ҇ 45] Є҆гда́ же ᲂу҆мы̀ но́ги и҆́хъ, прїѧ́тъ ри̑зы своѧ̑, возле́гъ па́ки, речѐ и҆̀мъ: вѣ́сте ли, что̀ сотвори́хъ ва́мъ;

Origen of Alexandria †253

12–13
Jesus washed the feet of the disciples insofar as he was their teacher, and the feet of the servants insofar as he was their Lord. For the dust from the earth and from worldly things is cleared away by teaching, since it reaches nothing else than the extremities and lower parts of the disciples. But those things that defile the feet are also removed by the lordship of the ruler, since he has authority over those who still receive common defilement because they still have the spirit of bondage.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.115-16

12–13
And this is the goal of the teacher, as teacher, for the disciple. He wants to make the disciple like himself, so that he may no longer need the teacher, as teacher, although he will need him in other respects.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.118

John Chrysostom †407

12–13
Now when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and sat down, He said, "Know ye what I have done unto you?" He no longer addresseth Himself to Peter only, but to them all.
"Ye call Me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for so I am."
"Ye call Me." He taketh to Him their judgment, and then that the words may not be thought to be words of their kindness, He addeth, "for so I am." By introducing a saying of theirs, He maketh it not offensive, and by confirming it Himself when introduced from them, unsuspected. "For so I am," He saith. Seest thou how when He converseth with the disciples, He speaketh revealing more what belongeth unto Himself?
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

Augustine of Hippo †430

12–13
"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?" Now it is that the blessed Peter gets that promise fulfilled: for he had been put off when, in the midst of his trembling and asserting, "Thou shalt never wash my feet," he received the answer, "What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter." Here, then, is that very hereafter; it is now time to tell what was a little ago deferred. Accordingly, the Lord, mindful of His foregoing promise to make him understand an act of His so unexpected, so wonderful, so frightening, and, but for His own still more terrifying rejoinder, impossible to be permitted, that the Master not only of themselves, but of angels, and the Lord not only of them, but of all things, should wash the feet of His own disciples and servants: having then promised to let him know the meaning of so important an act, when He said, "Thou shalt know afterwards," begins now to show them what it was that He did.
"Ye call me," He says, "Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." "Ye say well," for ye only say the truth; I am indeed what ye say. There is a precept laid on man: "Let not thine own mouth praise thee, but the mouth of thy neighbor." For self-pleasing is a perilous thing for one who has to be on his guard against falling into pride. But He who is over all things, however much He commend Himself, cannot exalt Himself above His actual dignity: for God cannot be rightly termed arrogant. For it is to our advantage to know Him, not to His; nor can any one know Him, unless that self-knowing One make Himself known. If He, then, by abstaining from self-commendation, wish, as it were, to avoid arrogance, He will deny us the power of knowing Him. And no one surely would blame Him for calling Himself Master, even though believing Him to be nothing more than a man; seeing He only makes profession of what even men themselves in the various arts profess to such an extent, without any charge of arrogance, that they are termed professors. But to call Himself also the Lord of His disciples,—of men who, in an earthly sense, were themselves also free-born,—who would tolerate it in a man? But it is God that speaks. Here no elation is possible to loftiness so great, no lie to the truth: the profit is ours to be the subjects of such loftiness, the servants of the truth. That He calls Himself Lord is no imperfection on His side, but a benefit on ours. The words of a certain profane author are commended, when he says, "All arrogance is hateful, and specially disagreeable is that of talent and eloquence;" and yet, when the same person was speaking of his own eloquence, he said, "I would call it perfect, were I to pronounce judgment; nor, in truth, would I greatly fear the charge of arrogance." If, then, that most eloquent man had in truth no fear of being charged with arrogance, how can the truth itself have such a fear? Let Him call Himself Lord who is the Lord, let Him say what is true who is the Truth; so that I may not fail to learn that which is profitable, by His being silent about that which is. The most blessed Paul—certainly not himself the only-begotten Son of God, but the servant and apostle of that Son; not the Truth, but a partaker of the truth—declares with freedom and consistency, "And though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I say the truth." For it would not be in himself, but in the truth, which is superior to himself, that he was glorying both humbly and truly: for it is he also who has given the charge, that he that glorieth should glory in the Lord. Could thus the lover of wisdom have no fear of being chargeable with foolishness, though he desired to glory, and would wisdom itself, in its glorying, have any fear of such a charge? He had no fear of arrogance who said, "My soul shall make her boast in the Lord;" and could the power of the Lord have any such fear in commending itself, in which His servant's soul is making her boast? "Ye call me," He says, "Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." Therefore ye say well, that I am so: for if I were not what ye say, ye would be wrong to say so, even with the purpose of praising me. How, then, could the Truth deny what the disciples of the Truth affirm? How could that which was said by the learners be denied by the very Truth that gave them their learning? How can the fountain deny what the drinker asserts? how can the light hide what the beholder declares?
Tractates on John 58

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lviii. 2) Our Lord, mindful of His promise to Peter that he should know the meaning of His act, Thou shalt know hereafter, now begins to teach him: So after He had washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and was sat down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

He now clearly explains the object of what He has done, and says that this example of incomparable humility had been set forth for the sake of the benefit therefrom derived for us: and in making His reproof of pride unanswerable, He is constrained to put forward the conspicuous example of His Own Person. For in such an act anyone may behold the incomparable greatness of His humiliation. When anything is in itself considered most ignoble, or held to be quite undignified, in what manner could it possibly suffer degradation or pass to a stage of lower esteem? For anyone may see that in such a thing, if in nothing else, there is an original and natural baseness. But when we have been observing an object pre-eminent for its high position, our wonder is excited if we see it suddenly humiliated: for it has descended to a sphere not its own. Therefore it was that our Lord Jesus the Christ felt constrained, in giving the lesson of humility to His disciples, or rather through them to all that dwell on the earth, not merely to say: "As I washed your feet, so also ought ye to do," but rather to bring into conspicuous prominence His peculiar claim to their obedience; and, while setting forth to their minds the glory that was His by natural right, by His action to put to shame the vain-glorious. For He says: Ye yourselves style Me Lord, and Master; and ye say well, for so I am. And observe how in the midst of His discourse He showed His watchful care for the edification of those who believe, and was not unaware of the evil-speaking of the unholy heretics. For after saying to His own disciples: Ye style Me Lord, and Master; then, lest any should suppose that He is not by nature Lord or Master, but that He holds the title simply as a mark of honour from those who shall be devoted to Him, He has emphatically added, to dispel such suggestions, the words: And ye say well, for so I am. For Christ does not hold the title Lord as an empty name of honour, like we do ourselves when, although we remain by nature mere servants, we are decorated by favour of others with titles that surpass our nature and merit: but He is in His nature "Lord," possessing authority over the universe as God; concerning Whom it is said somewhere by the voice of the Psalmist: For all things serve Thee. And He is by nature "Master" [or "Teacher"] also, for all wisdom cometh from the Lord, and by Him cometh all understanding. For inasmuch as He is wisdom He makes all intelligent beings wise, and in every rational creature both in heaven and in earth He implants the intelligence that is fitting for it. For just as, being Himself in His nature Life, He vivifies all things capable of receiving life; so also, since He is Himself the wisdom of the Father, He bestows on all the gifts of wisdom, namely, knowledge and perception of all good things. By nature therefore the Son is Lord and Master of all things. "Since therefore," [He seems to say,] "I, Who am such as this and so mighty in glory, have shown you that I shrink not from condescending to this ill-befitting humiliation, even to have washed your feet, how will ye any longer refuse to do the like for one another?" And hereby He teaches them not to be ever scornfully declaiming against the honour bestowed on others, but each one to think his fellow-servant to excel himself and in every possible respect to be superior. And very excellent this teaching is: for I do not think anyone can show us anything to match a temper that is ever averse to arrogance; and nothing so severs brethren and friends as the unbridled passion for miserable and petty dignities. For somehow we are always grasping after what is greater, and the empty honours of life are ever persuading our easily-yielding minds to vault up towards a more brilliant station. In order therefore that we may save ourselves from this disease, and obtain final relief from so loathsome a passion,----for the passion for vain-glory is a mere fraud, and nothing less,----let us engrave on our inmost hearts the memory of Christ the King of all men washing His disciples' feet, to teach us also to wash one another's feet. For by this means every tendency to arrogance will be kept in restraint, and every form of worldly vain-glory will depart from among us. For if He Who is by nature Lord acts the part of a servant, how shall one that is a servant refuse to undergo any of those things that are altogether proper for his condition, without suffering in consequence the worst possible penalty?
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Bede (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †735

Our Lord first did a thing, then taught it: as it is said, Jesus began both to do and to teach. (Acts 1:1)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Alcuin of York (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †804

Mystically, when at our redemption we were changed by the shedding of His blood, He took again His garments, rising from the grave the third day, and clothed in the same body now immortal, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the world.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †1107

12–17
This was a necessary admonition to the Apostles, some of whom were about to rise higher, others to lower degrees of eminence. That none might exult over another, He changes the hearts of all.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord now directs His speech no longer to Peter alone, but to all, and sets forth the reason for such humility on His part. The reason is that the disciples must imitate Him in this. Perhaps it is about the present time that the Lord speaks when He says to Peter "you will understand after this," that is: "Peter, you will understand after I take My garment and recline, and begin to teach you and say: 'Do you know what I have done to you?'"
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

After our Lord showed that his humble service was necessary, he then urges that it be imitated. First, the Evangelist describes the circumstances of this exhortation; secondly, he mentions the exhortation itself (v 12b). Concerning the first he does two things: first, he mentions the sequence in this exhortation; secondly, he describes the one giving the exhortation (v 12a).
The sequence found in this exhortation is that Christ later taught in words what he had first done by his actions. In regard to this he says, When he had washed their feet: "Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1): "He who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 5:19).
He describes the one giving the exhortation by his clothing and posture. As to his clothing, different clothing is suitable to different people depending on the different activities appropriate to each: "A man's attire...shows what he is" (Sir 19:30). One sort of attire is suitable for a servant, and another for a teacher. Now 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." And a teacher, who should be serious and of great authority, ought also to be suitably dressed. Thus our Lord, when beginning to teach, had taken his garments.
As to his posture: when Christ began to serve he rose; he says that Christ "rose from supper." But now, about to teach, he reclines; he says, he resumed his place 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.
Three events here are able to indicate mysteries. When Christ sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples he will be giving them complete teaching: "But the Counselor, 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" (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" (Rev 1:5). In reference to this he says, when he had washed their feet, that is, completely cleansed them by his blood. Secondly, there is the resurrection of Christ. Christ had a mortal body before his passion, but he was not mortal because he was, as a person, 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. And in reference to this he says, he had taken his garments, that is, he arose immortal. He 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 (Rom 6:10). We read of these garments: "He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life" (Rev 3:5). Also, before the Spirit is sent, Christ is to be seated next to the Father after his ascension: "If I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you" (16:7). And referring to this he says, and resumed his place 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" (Mk 16:19). He 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" (Phil 2:9).
And so, before sending into them the Holy Spirit, who would perfectly teach them, Christ would wash them with the blood he shed; take up his garments by rising; and resume his place by ascending in glory.
Next (v 12b), he gives his exhortation. First, he asks a question; secondly, he accepts their acknowledgement; thirdly, he draws a conclusion from this; fourthly, he confirms this conclusion.
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. And he asks them in this way in order 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 thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep" (Ps 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" (Eccl 8:17). Yet it is still a delight to think about them: "For thou O Lord, hast made me glad by thy work; at the work of thy hands I sing for joy" (Ps 92:4). Further, 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" (Wis 13:5); "These very works which I am doing, bear me witness" (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.
Commentary on John

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με, ὁ Διδάσκαλος καὶ ὁ Κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε· εἰμὶ γάρ.

Вы̀ глаша́ете мѧ̀ ᲂу҆чт҃лѧ и҆ гдⷭ҇а, и҆ до́брѣ глаго́лете: є҆́смь бо.

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lviii. 3) It is enjoined in the Proverbs, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. (Prov. 27:2.) For it is dangerous for one to praise himself, who has to beware of pride. But He who is above all things, howsoever He praise Himself, extolleth not Himself too highly. Nor can God be called arrogant: for that we should know Him is no gain to Him, but to us. Nor can any one know Him, unless He who knows, shows Himself. So that if to avoid arrogance He did not praise Himself, He would be denying us wisdom. But why should the Truth fear arrogance? To His calling Himself Master, no one could object, even were He man only, since professors in different arts call themselves so without presumption. But what free man can bear the title of lord in a man? Yet when God speaks, height cannot exalt itself, truth cannot lie; it is for us to submit to that height, to obey that truth. Wherefore ye say well in that ye call Me Master and Lord, for so I am; but if I were not what ye say, ye would say ill.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Christ does not hold the title Lord as an empty name of honor like we do when we are decorated by the favor of others with titles that surpass our nature and merit, even though we remain mere servants by nature. Rather, Jesus is Lord by nature, possessing authority over the universe as God, as it is said somewhere by the psalmist, "all things are your servants." Also, he is Master [or Teacher] by nature, for "all wisdom comes from the Lord," and all understanding comes by him. For inasmuch as he is wisdom he makes all intelligent beings wise, and in every rational creature, both in heaven and on earth, he implants the intelligence that is appropriate for it.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 9

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Our Lord accepts their acknowledgment, You call me Teacher and Lord. He mentions what they acknowledge; and then he approves of it.
As to the first, we should note that in 1 Corinthians (1:24), the Apostle says two things about Christ: he is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 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 Lord - "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (6:68) - and Teacher - "Rabbi, eat" (4:31). And with good reason. For he is the Lord, who alone creates and restores: "Know that the Lord is God!" (Ps 100:3). And he is the only Teacher who teaches from within: "You have one master, the Christ" (Mt 23:10).
When he says, and you are right, he approves their acknowledgement. Here we should note that something which is spoken can be commendable for two reasons. First, because what is said is in harmony with the thing about which it is said; and 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" (Eph 4:25). For lies must be avoided to such an extent that even if it seems that they lead to the glory of God, they should not be spoken. In reference to this point he says, and you are right; 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.
Secondly, 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; and 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" (Mt 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 are right, 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" (6:6) - and you follow me as Lord - "Lo, we have left everything and followed you" (Mt 19:27).
This seems to conflict with the statement in Proverbs (27:2): "Let another praise you, and not your own mouth." 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: because 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.
Augustine also says that sometimes it is good that a person commends himself, as when this is beneficial to others. The Apostle commended himself this way to the Corinthians (2 Cor 11). Now 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. Thus it was necessary that Christ commend himself to us, for as Augustine says, if he did not praise himself in order to avoid seeming arrogant, he would be depriving us of wisdom: "Wisdom will praise herself" (Sir 24:1).
Commentary on John

If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Διδάσκαλος, καὶ ὑμεῖς ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας.

А҆́ще ᲂу҆̀бо а҆́зъ ᲂу҆мы́хъ ва́ши но́зѣ, гдⷭ҇ь и҆ ᲂу҆чт҃ль, и҆ вы̀ до́лжни є҆стѐ дрꙋ́гъ дрꙋ́гꙋ ᲂу҆мыва́ти но́зѣ:

Origen of Alexandria †253

But consider if it is not also difficult for anyone who is a disciple of Christ who wishes to fulfill the command that says, “You also ought to wash one another’s feet,” since he is obliged to desire to perform the work of washing his brothers’ feet, which are physical and perceptible to the senses. Consequently, the faithful [are obliged] to do this in whatever station of life they happen to be, whether bishops and presbyters who seem to be in ecclesiastical prominence, or even those in other positions of honor in the world. This means that the master comes to wash the feet of the believing servant, and parents wash the feet of their son. This custom either does not occur, or it occurs exceedingly rarely and among those who are very simple and rustic.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.133

Cyprian †258

Relying, therefore, upon your love and your piety, which I have abundantly known, in this letter I both exhort and command you, that those of you whose presence there is least suspicious and least perilous, should in my stead discharge my duty, in respect of doing those things which are required for the religious administration. In the meantime let the poor be taken care of as much and as well as possible; but especially those who have stood with unshaken faith and have not forsaken Christ's flock, that, by your diligence, means be supplied to them to enable them to bear their poverty, so that what the troublous time has not effected in respect of their faith, may not be accomplished by want in respect of their afflictions. Let a more earnest care, moreover, be bestowed upon the glorious confessors. And although I know that very many of those have been maintained by the vow and by the love of the brethren, yet if there be any who are in want either of clothing or maintenance, let them be supplied, with whatever things are necessary, as I formerly wrote to you, while they were still kept in prison,-only let them know from you and be instructed, and learn what, according to the authority of Scripture, the discipline of the Church requires of them, that they ought to be humble and modest and peaceable, that they should maintain the honour of their name, so that those who have achieved glory by what they have testified, may achieve glory also by their characters, and in all things seeking the Lord's approval, may show themselves worthy, in consummation of their praise, to attain a heavenly crown. For there remains more than what is yet seen to be accomplished, since it is written "Praise not any man before his death; " and again, "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." And the Lord also says, "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Let them imitate the Lord, who at the very time of His passion was not more proud, but more humble. For then He washed His disciples' feet, saying, "If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Let them also follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who, after often-repeated imprisonment, after scourging, after exposures to wild beasts, in everything continued meek and humble; and even after his rapture to the third heaven and paradise, he did not proudly arrogate anything to himself when he said, "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you."
Epistle V

That there is given to us an example of living in Christ. In the Epistle of Peter to them of Pontus: "For Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye may follow His steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, threatened not, but gave Himself up to him that judgeth unrighteously." Also Paul to the Philippians: "Who, being appointed in the figure of God, thought it not robbery that He was equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, He was made in the likeness of man, and was found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and the death of the cross. For which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowed, of things heavenly, and earthly, and infernal; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in glory of God the Father." Of this same thing in the Gospel according to John: "If I have washed your feet, being your Master and Lord, ye also ought to wash the feet of others. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye also should do to others."
Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

Ambrose of Milan †397

I, then, wish also myself to wash the feet of my brethren, I wish to fulfil the commandment of my Lord, I will not be ashamed in myself, nor disdain what He Himself did first. Good is the mystery of humility, because while washing the pollutions of others I wash away my own. But all were not able to exhaust this mystery. Abraham was, indeed, willing to wash feet, but because of a feeling of hospitality. Gideon, too, was willing to wash the feet of the Angel of the Lord who appeared to him, but his willingness was confined to one; he was willing as one who would do a service, not as one who would confer fellowship with himself. This is a great mystery which no one knew.
On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Prologue 15

John Chrysostom †407

14–15
"If I then," He saith, "your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."
And yet it is not the same thing, for He is Lord and Master, but ye are fellow-servants one of another. What meaneth then the "as"? "With the same zeal." For on this account He taketh instances from greater actions that we may, if so be, perform the less. Thus schoolmasters write the letters for children very beautifully, that they may come to imitate them though but in an inferior manner. Where now are they who spit on their fellow-servants? where now they who demand honors? Christ washed the feet of the traitor, the sacrilegious, the thief, and that close to the time of the betrayal, and incurable as he was, made him a partaker of His table; and art thou highminded, and dost thou draw up thine eyebrows?
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

14–15
"Let us then wash one another's feet," saith some one, "then we must wash those of our domestics." And what great thing if we do wash even those of our domestics? In our case "slave" and "free" is a difference of words; but there an actual reality. For by nature He was Lord and we servants, yet even this He refused not at this time to do. But now it is matter for contentment if we do not treat free men as bondmen, as slaves bought with money. And what shall we say in that day, if after receiving proofs of such forbearance, we ourselves do not imitate them at all, but take the contrary part, being in diametrical opposition, lifted up, and not discharging the debt? For God hath made us debtors one to another, having first so done Himself, and hath made us debtors of a less amount. For He was our Lord, but we do it, if we do it at all, to our fellow-servants, a thing which He Himself implied by saying, "If I then your Lord and Master-so also do ye." It would indeed naturally have followed to say, "How much more should ye servants," but He left this to the conscience of the hearers.
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

14–15
But why hath He done this "now"? They were for the future to enjoy, some greater, some less honor. In order then that they may not exalt themselves one above the other, and say as they did before, "Who is the greatest," nor be angry one against the other, He taketh down the high thoughts of them all, by saying, that "although thou mayest be very great, thou oughtest to have no high thoughts towards thy brother." And He mentioned not the greater action, that "if I have washed the feet of the traitor, what great matter if ye one another's?" but having exemplified this by deeds, He then left it to the judgment of the spectators.
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

14–15
(Tr. lviii. 4) This is, blessed Peter, what thou wast ignorant of; this thou wert told that thou shouldest know afterwards.
(Tr. lviii. 4) This act is done literally by many, when they receive one another in hospitality. For it is unquestionably better that it should be done with the hands, and that the Christian disdain not to do what Christ did. For when the body is bent at the feet of a brother, the feeling of humility is made to rise in the heart, or, if it be there already, is confirmed. But besides this moral meaning, is not a brother able to change a brother from the pollution of sin? Let us confess our faults one to another, forgive one another's faults, pray for one another's faults. In this way we shall wash one another's feet.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

14–15
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye ought also to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." This, blessed Peter, is what thou knewest not when thou refusedst it; this is what He promised thou shouldst know afterwards.
Tractates on John 58

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Somehow we are always grasping after what is greater, and the empty honors of life are always persuading our weak minds to vault up toward a more glorious position. In order, therefore, to save ourselves from this disease and obtain final relief from such a loathsome passion—for the passion of vainglory is a mere fraud and nothing less—let us engrave on our inmost hearts the memory of Christ, the King of all, washing his disciples’ feet, to teach us also to wash one another’s feet. For in this way, every tendency to arrogance will be restrained and every form of worldly pride will depart from among us.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 9

Bede †735

Our Lord first did something then taught it, because Jesus, establishing the pattern of a good teacher, taught nothing except those things that he did.
Commentary on Acts 1.1

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

For if I, acknowledged by you as Lord and Teacher, and acknowledged truly, for I indeed am, washed your feet (and He did not say "your feet, who are slaves, unlettered and unlearned," but left this for them to understand on their own), then you also must necessarily wash one another's feet, that is, render every service to one another.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

He draws the conclusion when he says, If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. He is arguing here from what is less expected to what is more expected. For it seems less expected that one who is greater humble himself than one who is not as great. And with this in mind he concludes, If I then, who am greater, because I am your Lord and Teacher, 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" (Mt 20:26).
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. Therefore, it is a serious sin not to wash the feet of others. I reply, according to Augustine, that every one should wash the feet of others, either in a physical or spiritual way. And 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. The first way is 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" (Col 3:13). Another way is by praying because of their sins, according to "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" (Jas 5:16). These two kinds of washing can be done by all the faithful. 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" (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, or gives food to one in need; and so on for the other works. "Contribute to the needs of the saints" (Rom 12:13).
Commentary on John

For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ δέδωκα ὑμῖν, ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε·

ѡ҆́бразъ бо да́хъ ва́мъ, да, ꙗ҆́коже а҆́зъ сотвори́хъ ва́мъ, и҆ вы̀ твори́те.

Theophilus of Alexandria †412

Therefore, imitate me, your Lord, that through this sacred work of mine you may become sharers of the divine nature. I decided to portray in advance for you this most excellent path of exaltation. I bent down once to the earth when I gave you existence and my good will as I took the clay of the earth and fashioned humanity, establishing a living being on the earth. And now I have seen fit to bend down that I may strengthen the foundation and pedestal of my collapsing creation. I have placed enmity and cursing between the deceiver and the deceived, a wariness of head and heel. And now I arm the wounded heel against the serpent, that it may no more limp away from the straight path. I have strengthened your feet to walk on serpents and scorpions and every power of the enemy, and they will not harm you at all. Through arrogance the one whispering of exaltation tore down the loftiness of the earth-born, first-created one. Smash his insolence by cheerful humility toward one another.
Sermon on the Mystical Supper

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

For through the washing, which is considered the lowest service, He teaches that we should all the more fulfill the other services, which are more honorable. "I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you," that is, serve with the same zeal. Although My deed is greater, inasmuch as I, the Master, washed the feet of servants, while you would wash the feet of your fellow servants. Thus we see that teachers too write very beautiful letters for children, so that they may little by little come to imitate them. And the Lord necessarily instills this in the Apostles. They were to receive honor, some greater and others lesser.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

He supports his conclusion in four ways: first, by his intention; secondly, by his authority (v 16); thirdly, by the reward due this action (v 17); and fourthly, by the dignity of those whose feet he washed (v 20).
He said the reason I did this was to give you an example; so you also ought to wash one another's feet, because that was what I intended by this action. For when we are dealing with the conduct of people, 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 example by one's actions.
Now 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 there was given to us 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 thing created, 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 Pet 2:21); "My foot has held fast to his steps, I have kept his way and have not turned aside," as we read in Job (23:11).
Commentary on John

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.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.

А҆ми́нь, а҆ми́нь гл҃ю ва́мъ: нѣ́сть ра́бъ бо́лїй го́спода своегѡ̀, ни посла́нникъ бо́лїй посла́вшагѡ є҆го̀.

Tertullian †220

His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord, " sets forth likewise the law as binding, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.
Pseudo-Tertullian Against All Heresies

Origen of Alexandria †253

The Savior, who is Lord, does something that surpasses all other lords, who have no desire to see their servants rise up to their level. He is such a Son of the Father’s goodness and love that, although he was Lord, he produced servants who could become like him, their Lord, not having the spirit of bondage, which comes from fear, but the spirit of adoption in which they too cry, “Abba, Father.” So then, before becoming like their teacher and lord, they need to have their feet washed because they are still deficient disciples who possess the spirit of bondage to fear. But when they attain the stature of master and lord … then they will be able to imitate their master and wash the disciple’s feet as the teacher.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.120-22

Cyprian †258

That humility and quietness are to be maintained in all things. In Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord God, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is the stool of my feet. What seat will ye build for me, or what is the place for my rest? For all those things hath my hand made, and all those things are mine. And upon whom else will I look, except upon the lowly and quiet man, and him that trembleth at my words? " On this same thing in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." Of this same thing, too, according to Luke: "He that shall be least among you all, the same shall be great." Also in the same lace: "Whosoever exalteth himself shall be made low, and whosoever abaseth himself shall be exalted." Of this same thing to the Romans: "Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, (take heed) lest He also spare not thee." Of this same thing in the thirty-third Psalm: And He shall save the lowly in spirit." Also to the Romans: "Render to all what is due: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour; owe no man anything, except to love another." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "They love the first place of reclining at feasts, and the chief seat in the synagogues, and salutations in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi. But call not ye Rabbi, for One is your Master." Also in the Gospel according to John: "The servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle greater than He that sent himself. If ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye shall do them." Also in the eighty-first Psalm: "Do justice to the poor and lowly."
Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

But I hear that some infect your number, and destroy the praise of a distinguished name by their corrupt conversation; whom you yourselves, even as being lovers and guardians of your own praise, should rebuke and check and correct. For what a disgrace is suffered by your name, when one spends his days in intoxication and debauchery, another returns to that country whence he was banished, to perish when arrested, not now as being a Christian, but as being a criminal! I hear that some are puffed up and are arrogant, although it is written, "Be not high-minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee." Our Lord "was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth." "I am not rebellious," says He, "neither do I gainsay. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to the palms of their hands. I hid not my face from the filthiness of spitting." And dares any one now, who lives by and in this very One, lift up himself and be haughty, forgetful, as well of the deeds which He did, as of the commands which He left to us either by Himself or by His apostles? But if "the servant is not greater than his Lord." let those who follow the Lord humbly and peacefully and silently tread in His steps, since the lower one is, the more exalted be may become; as says the Lord, "He that is least among you, the same shall be great."
Epistle VI.4

John Chrysostom †407

What He said before, this He saith here also, to shame them; "For if the servant is not greater than his master, nor he that is sent greater than him that sent him, and these things have been done by Me, much more ought they to be done by you."
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

Augustine of Hippo †430

We have just heard in the holy Gospel the Lord speaking, and saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle greater than he that sent him: if ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye do them." He said this, therefore, because He had washed the disciples' feet, as the Master of humility both by word and example. But we shall be able, with His help, to handle what is in need of more elaborate handling, if we linger not at what is perfectly clear.
Tractates on John 59

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Christ proceeds to strengthen the effect of His action by [deriving the same lesson from] laws that may be termed necessary, and shows that the transgression of His beneficial commandment would be in the highest degree dangerous. For when a law is confirmed by an oath, the transgressor of it cannot escape a just accusation. He says therefore that it is an offence admitting of no palliation, for servants to refuse to be of the same mind as their own masters: because a passionate longing for greater things, and for things higher than our merits deserve, is really covetousness and nothing else. And just so He would with perfect justice bring the same charge against the Apostles, namely, of seeking to be on a higher level than He Who commissioned them. For the mind of Him Who sent them should suffice for them, as the measure of all their glory. But this is nothing else than to use exactly the following argument:----"You will justly be laughed to scorn before the Divine tribunal if through excess of pride you refuse to do for each other the same things that I have done for you, although you have received as your lot the common name of servants, whereas I have been from the beginning in My nature God and Lord." For it would be truly preposterous, or rather not without indication of a share in the most extreme madness, for those who are servants, and therefore inferior to their Master and Sender, to blush with unsuitable shame at the idea of being servants to one another.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

He points out here what an inadmissible offense it would be for servants to refuse to be of the same mind as their own masters. Such a passionate longing for greater and higher things than our merits deserve is really covetousness and nothing else. And he would be perfectly just in bringing the same charge against the apostles, namely, of seeking to be on a higher level than he who commissioned them, if they acted like this. The mind of the One who sent them should be a sufficient yardstick of the glory they seek. It is as if he were saying You will be laughed right out of the divine tribunal if your pride gets in the way of doing for each other what I have done for you. You are servants. I, on the other hand, have always been from the very beginning, by nature, your God and Lord. It would be preposterous and the height of madness for servants who, by definition, are inferior to their master, to be ashamed at the idea of being servants to one another.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Lest they exalt themselves one over another, He cleanses the thoughts of all of them. For "a servant is not greater than his master," so long as he is a servant, nor "is a messenger greater than the one who sent him," so long as he is a messenger; but when he becomes greater, then he is neither a servant nor a messenger.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, he strengthens his conclusion by his authority. First, he mentions the status of his disciples; secondly, the work they do.
Then 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'" (Lk 17:10). The work they have to do is to be apostles - and an apostle is one who is sent: "He...chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles" (Lk 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 master, and this refers to their status, nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. Although the Son of God was sent to us, as we see in Hebrews (3:1), and he is equal to the one who sent him, that is, the Father, yet it is true of all others that he who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him.
This seems to contradict what our Lord said to his disciples below (15:15): "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing." I answer that there are two ways of being a servant. One way is based on reverence and respect, "filial fear," and this produces a good servant: "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Mt 25:23). This is the kind of servant our Lord is talking about here in John (13:16). The other way of being a servant is based on the fear of punishment, "servile fear." This kind of servant is mentioned in "You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me" (Mt 18:33). This is the kind of servant our Lord refers to when he says: "No longer do I call you servants" (15:15).
Commentary on John

CS Lewis †1963

Our Lord in Gethsemane made a petitionary prayer (and did not get what He asked for). You'll remind me that He asked with a reservation—"nevertheless, not my will but thine." This makes an enormous difference. But the difference which it precisely does not make is that of removing the prayer's petitionary character...
The servant is not greater, and must not be more high-minded than the master. Whatever the theoretical difficulties are, we must continue to make requests of God. And on this point we can get no help from those who keep on reminding us that this is the lowest and least essential kind of prayer. They may be right; but so what? Diamonds are more precious than cairngorms, but the cairngorms still exist and must be taken into account like anything else.
Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Letter 7

If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά.

А҆́ще сїѧ̑ вѣ́сте, бл҃же́ни є҆стѐ, а҆́ще творитѐ ѧ҆̀.

Apostolic Constitutions †380

For everywhere would He have us subject to His laws, but not transgressors of them. For says He: "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that search out His testimonies; with their whole heart shall they seek Him." And again: "Blessed are we, O Israel, because those things that are pleasing to God are known to us." And the Lord says: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 6

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

17–18
(Hom. Lxxi. 2) For all know, but all do not do. He then rebukes the traitor, not openly, but covertly: I speak not of you all.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

17–20
(Hom. Lxxii. 3) As the disciples were about to go forth and to suffer many things, He consoles them by promising His own assistance and that of others; His own, when He says, Happy are ye if ye do them; that of others, in what follows, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom †407

Then, lest any one should say, "Why now sayest Thou these things? Do we not already know them?" He addeth this very thing, "I speak not to you as not knowing, but that by your actions ye may show forth the things spoken of." For "to know," belongeth to all; but "to do," not to all. On this account He said, "Blessed are ye if ye do them"; and on this account I continually and ever say the same to you, although ye know it, that I may set you on the work. Since even Jews "know," but yet they are not "blessed"; for they do not what they know.
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

Augustine of Hippo †430

We have just heard in the holy Gospel the Lord speaking, and saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, nor the apostle greater than he that sent him: if ye know these things, blessed shall ye be if ye do them." He said this, therefore, because He had washed the disciples' feet, as the Master of humility both by word and example. But we shall be able, with His help, to handle what is in need of more elaborate handling, if we linger not at what is perfectly clear.
Tractates on John 59

Cyril of Alexandria †444

If therefore ye understand these things, He saith----that is, "if ye can clearly perceive the meaning of what I am saying,"----blessed are ye if ye do them. For it is not the knowledge of virtue, but rather the practice of it, that may well be pronounced worthy of both love and zeal. And I think that perchance it may be even better never at all to have learned, than after so learning to hamper one's mind with the bonds of indolence, and refuse to carry out in action what one knows to be the best and right course; according to the saying of the Saviour: He that knew not his lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with few stripes; but he that knew it, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. For in the case of a man who has sinned in total ignorance, it would not be at all unseemly for him, if perchance he were being visited with correction for his carelessness, to ask for a partial forgiveness: but in the case of one who knew what he was doing, that knowledge would become grievously weighty towards his condemnation. For though nothing was wanting to enable him, yet he disdained to do what was right and seemly. Knowledge therefore must lead to action: for then, clothed with perfect confidence in our citizenship in Christ, we shall receive in due season our most plenteous reward. As an instance of this, the Saviour said that whosoever did and taught [His commandments] should be called great in the kingdom of heaven: and that very justly, for what is wanting to such a man to make his goodness perfect? And whensoever a man can show that he can take to himself full credit for good deeds, then surely he will be able to glory in receiving most perfect gifts from God. And so whenever actions go hand in hand with knowledge, then assuredly there is no trifling gain; but when either is lacking, the other will be very much crippled: and it is written: Even faith apart from works is dead. Although the knowledge of God Who is One even in nature, and the confession of Him in guilelessness and truth is all included in faith, yet even this is dead, if it is not accompanied by the bright light which proceeds from works. Surely therefore it is utterly profitless merely to know what is good and yet to be undesirous to practise it at once. For this reason then He says that His own disciples, and so also all that believe on Him, will be blessed, if they have not only grasped the knowledge of the words spoken by Him, but are also fulfilling those words by their deeds
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Bede (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †735

To know what is good, and not to do it, tendeth not to happiness, but to condemnation; as James saith, To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17). Wherefore He adds, If ye know these things, happy are ye if yo do them.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Lest they should say, "Why do You tell us about this, as if we did not know? We ourselves know that humility is good," He therefore says, "If you know these things, this alone is not enough, but you are blessed when you do them." For the Jews also knew the commandments, but they are not blessed, but rather most wretched, because they did not fulfill them.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

When he says, If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them, he strengthens his conclusion by a reward. First, he mentions the reward; secondly, he excludes someone from it (v 18).
If you know these things, which many do know, blessed are you 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" (Lk 11:28); and "A good understanding have all those who practice it" (Ps 111:10). On the other hand, "Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (Jas 4:17).
Commentary on John

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.

οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ οἶδα οὓς ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, ὁ τρώγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ’ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν αὐτοῦ.

Не ѡ҆ всѣ́хъ ва́съ гл҃ю: а҆́зъ (бо) вѣ́мъ, и҆̀хже и҆збра́хъ: но да писа́нїе сбꙋ́детсѧ: ꙗ҆ды́й со мно́ю хлѣ́бъ воздви́же на мѧ̀ пѧ́тꙋ свою̀.

Origen of Alexandria †253

Literally, this means, I know who each person is whom I have chosen. Therefore, I also know who Judas is, and he does not escape my notice, although the devil has already put the things against me into his heart.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.152

John Chrysostom †407

"I speak not," He saith, "of you all." O what forbearance! Not yet doth He convict the traitor, but veileth the matter, hence giving him room for repentance. He convicteth and yet doth not convict him when He saith thus, "He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel against Me." It seems to me that the, "The servant is not greater than his lord," was uttered for this purpose also, that if any persons should at any time suffer harm either from domestics or from any of the meaner sort, they should not be offended; looking to the instance of Judas, who having enjoyed ten thousand good things, repaid his Benefactor with the contrary. On this account He added, "He that eateth bread with Me," and letting pass all the rest, He hath put that which was most fitted to restrain and shame him; "he who was fed by Me," He saith, "and who shared My table." And He spake the words, to instruct them to benefit those who did evil to them, even though such persons should continue incurable.
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

But having said, "I speak not of you all," in order not to attach fear to more than one, He at last separateth the traitor, speaking thus; "He that eateth bread with Me." For the, "not of you all," doth not direct the words to any single one, therefore He added, "He that eateth bread with Me"; showing to that wretched one that He was not seized in ignorance, but even with full knowledge; a thing which of itself was most of all fitted to restrain him. And He said not, "betrayeth Me," but, "hath lifted up his heel against Me," desiring to represent the deceit, the treachery, the secrecy of the plot.
Homily on the Gospel of John 71

Augustine of Hippo †430

Accordingly, after uttering these words, the Lord added, "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, shall lift up his heel upon me." And what is this, but that he shall trample upon me? We know of whom He speaks: it is Judas, that betrayer of His, who is referred to. He had not therefore chosen the person whom, by these words, He setteth utterly apart from His chosen ones. When I say then, He continues "Blessed shall ye be if ye do them, I speak not of you all:" there is one among you who will not be blessed, and who will not do these things. "I know whom I have chosen." Whom, but those who shall be blessed in the doing of what has been commanded and shown as needful to be done, by Him who alone can make them blessed?
The traitor Judas, He says, is not one of those that have been chosen. What, then, is meant by what He says in another place, "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Was it that he also was chosen for some purpose, for which he was really necessary; although not for the blessedness of which He has just been saying, "Blessed shall ye be if ye do these things"? He speaketh not so of them all; for He knows whom He has chosen to be associated with Himself in blessedness. Of such he is not one, who ate His bread in order that he might lift up his heel upon Him. The bread they ate was the Lord Himself; he ate the Lord's bread in enmity to the Lord: they ate life, and he punishment. "For he that eateth unworthily," says the apostle, "eateth judgment unto himself."
Tractates on John 59

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lix. 1) As if to say, There is one among you who will not be blessed, nor doeth these things. I know whom I have chosen. Whom, but those who shall be happy by doing His commandments? Judas therefore was not chosen. But if so, why does He say in another place, Have not I chosen you twelve? Because Judas was chosen for that for which he was necessary, but not for that happiness of which He says, Happy are ye, if ye do them.
(Tr. lix. 1) Shall lift up his heel against Me, i. e. shall tread upon Me. The traitor Judas is meant.
(Tr. lix. 1) They then who were chosen ate the Lord; he ate the bread of the Lord, to injure the Lord; they ate life, he damnation; for he that eateth unworthily, eateth damnation to himself. (1 Cor. 11:27)
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The meaning of these words is involved in no slight uncertainty. For while saying that they shall be blessed, who, knowing what is good, are ever zealous to carry it out in action, He straightway adds: I speak not of all. In these words, as I with many others believe, He hints darkly at the traitor; for in no enviable plight is one who is hated of God, and never would one be reckoned among the blessed who had so degraded his soul as to make it capable of such horrible impiety. And this interpretation of the passage before us is the one currently accepted with most men: but there is besides yet another possible meaning. For as Christ was intending to say, according to the perfect and most holy word of Scripture: He that eateth My bread did magnify himself contemptuously, or lifted up his heel against Me, He in some sort explains Himself beforehand, and carefully avoids giving pain to the faithful company of the other disciples, by attaching the force of His reproach to one single individual. For since they were all eating His bread, that is, sharing the same feast and helping to consume the food that He had caused to be provided, therefore He does well in not allowing the minds of the innocent to be crushed by vain fears, and He drives away the bitterness of suspicion by saying: I speak not of you all; for I know whom I have chosen. But, He says, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth My bread lifted up his heel against Me, or, did magnify himself contemptuously, according to the voice of the Psalmist. Something of this kind I imagine the passage to imply. Seeing therefore that a double meaning is delivered to us by these words, let the devout student test for himself the better and truer sense of them: but now let us comment further on the saying, in the endeavour to confirm the faith of simple folk.
For doubts may be felt regarding this passage in two ways. And first, some one will meet us with the objection: "If we believe that Christ was all-knowing, why did He choose Judas; and why did He associate him with the other disciples, if He was not unaware that he would be convicted of treachery and fall a prey to the snares of covetousness?" Furthermore, another will say: "And if, as Christ Himself says, Judas lifted up his heel against his Master on this account, namely, that the Scripture may be fulfilled, surely he himself could not be deemed guilty, as responsible for what had happened, but the blame must rest with the power that caused the Scripture to be fulfilled."
Now it is our duty speedily to give answers in detail to the objections we have mentioned, and to construct by all the arguments in our power the proper defence to be urged against each, for the edification and comfort of those who are not enabled by the resources of their own minds to understand the contents of the Divine Scripture. And first we have this to say, that if we were to be carried away by such criticisms on all the dealings of God, we should never cease to censure our Maker, but should be ever railing against the God Who calls non-existent things into being, and ignorantly depreciating His boundless love to man. For tell me what there is to prevent others also from using, possibly, objections such as this: "Why didst Thou choose Saul and anoint him to be king over Israel, when Thou knewest that he would altogether disregard Thy favour?" And why do I say only this? For the plausible nature of the charge thus laid will extend back to Adam, the leader of our race. Some one of those who are thus minded will perhaps say: "Why didst Thou, the All-knowing, fashion man out of the ground? For Thou wast not ignorant that he would fall and transgress the commandment given to him." On the same principle he would go on to make further clamorous objections on even higher and more important matters: "Why hast Thou created the nature of angels, well knowing, as God, the senseless decadence into apostasy that would befal some of them? For not all of them have kept their own principality." What result therefore would such reasoning lead to? The foreknowledge of God would never have allowed Him to appear as Creator, nor would the rational creation have even passed at all into existence, so that God would have been Sovereign of the irrational and senseless creation only, without anyone to acknowledge Him as being in His nature God. Now I think that those who look into the matter cannot help very clearly perceiving, that the Creator of all things entrusted to the rational among His creatures the guidance of their own purposes; and suffered them to move, at the bidding of impulses regulated by themselves, towards whatsoever object each might individually choose, after discovering by tests the best possible course. Those therefore that have inclined rightly to the side of good, preserve safe their own fair reputation, and remain sharers of the good things that have been allotted to them, and find themselves undisturbed in their tranquillity of mind. But those that are corrupted in their own evil thoughts, and are dragged down to lawlessness as it were by irresistible torrents of passions, endure the penalty that befits their crime; and, justly convicted on the charge of their utter ingratitude, will be subjected to severe and endless retribution. You will find also the nature of the angels to have been created with similar possibilities and limitations. For those that kept their own principality have their abiding-place and station in the midst of all beatitude sure and steadfast: but they who by their proneness to evil have fallen gradually away from their ancient glory, are cast down to hell in chains of darkness, as it is written, and are kept unto the judgment of the great day. In like manner was the first man, that is, Adam, created in the beginning. For he was in Paradise, and amid the highest delights, namely those that are spiritual, and in the presence of the glory of God. And he would have remained in the enjoyment of the good things that were bestowed on his nature at the beginning, if he had not been turned away to apostasy and disobedience, most rashly transgressing the commandment enjoined from above. Thus, too, God anointed Saul to be king: for he was in the beginning a not ignoble character; when however his conduct showed that a change had come over him, God removed him from his honourable rank and regal splendour.
In like manner Christ chose Judas and associated him with the holy disciples, since he was certainly gifted at first with a capacity for discipleship. But when after a while the temptations of Satan succeeded in making him captive to base greediness for gain, when he was conquered by passion and had become by this means a traitor, then he was rejected by God. This therefore was in no way the fault of Him Who called this man to be an Apostle. For it lay in the power of Judas to have saved himself from falling, namely, by making the more excellent choice, and transforming his whole heart and soul so as to become a sincere follower of Christ.
And to the second of the objections we are considering we make this answer. Let no one suppose, as do some ignorant persons, that the oracles delivered by the holy prophets are carried onward to final accomplishment simply in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. For if this is truly the case, there will be nothing to prevent those who have minutely shaped their conduct according to the letter of Scripture, from finding not invalid excuses for sin, or rather from actually making out that they have never erred at all. "For if it needs must have been," one will say, "that the Scriptures should be fulfilled by such and such things, surely those who were the instruments of the fulfilment must be free from all censure." The Divine Scripture therefore in such a case must have appeared especially as a minister of sin, urging men on as it were by force to the deeds spoken of by it, in order that what was uttered in days of old might really come to pass. But, because of this, I think the argument is very full of blasphemy. For who could ever be so utterly void of proper reason as to suppose that the Word of the Holy Ghost should become to any a patron of sin? Therefore we do not believe that the deeds of any were done simply for this reason, namely, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. But the Holy Ghost has spoken in perfect foreknowledge as to what will happen, in order that, when the time comes for the event, we may find in the prediction which describes the event, a pledge to establish our faith, and may thenceforward hold it without hesitation. And as our discussion of this question in another book is very full, it seems now somewhat superfluous to linger any further in lengthy discourses on the matter.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Cosmas of Maiuma †773

The hateful Iscariot, heedless, By intent, of the law of friendship, Readied for betrayal the feet Which Christ had washed. And though he ate Your bread, the divine Body, He raised his heel against you, O Christ, And knew not how to cry out: “Praise the Lord, O his works, and exalt him unto all ages.”
The man without conscience received The Body which redeems from sin And the divine blood poured out For the sake of the world; But he was not ashamed to drink What he sold for a price; He took no offense at his wickedness, And knew not how to cry out: “Praise the Lord, O his works, and exalt him unto all ages.”
Kanon for the Fifth Day of Great Week, Eighth Ode

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

With these veiled words He exposes the betrayer and at the same time does not convict him, for He wished to bring him to repentance. Therefore, passing over all the other benefactions He had shown him, He puts forward the one which more than all others could convert him. "I do not speak of you all." So as not to bring fear upon many, He clearly separates him (the betrayer) and shows that only one is plotting against Him. Therefore He says "he who eats bread with Me." When Jesus said "I know whom I have chosen," what did He tell us about Judas? Did He choose him as well? Yes, when he was good, He chose him, just as He chose Saul (but he himself changed, for he was free; and the Lord allows each person to act according to his own will, because He does not take away freedom); but when Judas changed, He rejected him, even though He had previously chosen him. He who eats My bread, whom I nourish, who shares My table (a circumstance that softens even enemies), that one… and He did not say "betrays" Me, but — "has lifted up his heel against Me" (Ps. 41:9), that is, has employed against Me cunning and deceit, after the manner of wrestlers who use trickery against their opponents and, tripping their heels, throw them down. "That the Scripture might be fulfilled." Understand this expression in the same way as the other similar ones, about which we have often spoken.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

He excludes someone when he says, I am not speaking of you all. First, he says there is an exception; secondly, he gives the reason for the exception (v 18). Thirdly, he tells why he said there was an exception (v 19). He does two things about the first: he mentions there is an exception; he answers an unspoken question.
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 Cor 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 blessed are you, without qualification; but he 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, "a servant is not greater than his master" (v 16). 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.
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 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" (15:16).
This seems to conflict with his earlier statement: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" (6:71). 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.
The reason there was an exception was so that the scripture may be fulfilled - not that scripture forced the event, but it did mention an event that would happen: "Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled" (Lk 24:44); "Not an iota, nor a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). This scripture says: He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. This is another translation of what we have in the Psalm (41:9) as: "The man of my peace, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has greatly deceived me." 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. Further, his malicious efforts against Christ are shown when it says, has lifted his heel against me; that is, he will try to crush me. And we do crush our enemies under our heel: "She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel" (Gen 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 am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself" (12:32).
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 maidens" (Song 2:2). And in one of his letters Augustine says: "I don't 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: "Shall they repay good with evil, by making a snare to take my life?" (Jer 18:20); "A man's foes will be those of his own household" (Mt 10:36).
Commentary on John

Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

ἀπ’ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα ὅταν γένηται πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

Ѿсе́лѣ гл҃ю ва́мъ, пре́жде да́же не бꙋ́детъ, да, є҆гда̀ бꙋ́детъ, вѣ́рꙋ и҆́мете, ꙗ҆́кѡ а҆́зъ є҆́смь.

Origen of Alexandria †253

And understand the words “that you may believe” as capable of being equivalent to the words “that you may be increased in faith,” while you continue to believe.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.176

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

I could not reveal what was about to happen, he says. However, in order that you might not think that I did not know the thoughts of those who follow me—or that I was unaware of what was happening to me and therefore striving in vain because of the shameful things that were happening to me—I foretell the facts before the event so that when they happen you will know who I am.
Commentary on John 6.18-19

Augustine of Hippo †430

"From this time," Christ adds, "I tell you before it come; that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He:" that is, I am He of whom the Scripture that preceded has just said, "He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel upon me."
Tractates on John 59

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

Now I tell you before it come, that when it is come, ye may believe that I am He, i. e. of whom that Scripture foretold.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

I have been led on, He says, by very urgent reasons to give you, even before the time, this account of the events that will very shortly happen. For it will gratify those who hear Me, and bring them no slight advantage, if they know My aim in the matter. For to be recklessly wasteful in the use of words in meaningless dissertations is contrary to My custom and pleasure: but whatsoever seems likely to be fraught with no slight profit to you provided you have knowledge of it, this I feel constrained to instil in your ears. From henceforth therefore, He says, I tell you things that are even now at the doors, and I implant in you the knowledge of things not yet fulfilled; that, when the time for their occurrence has come, you may be able to harmonise the final issue of the matters with the prophecies uttered by Me, and so may believe that I am He concerning Whom the Divine Scripture has uttered such oracles. At one and the same time therefore our Lord Jesus the Christ wisely attempts to correct the traitor, putting forward His rebuke in a form concealed under slight obscurities, as well as to show that the issue of the treachery would be a sure sign and most clear indication of the fact that He is Christ. For, as we have already said by anticipation, any one who compared the utterances recorded from old time in the sacred Scriptures with the daring deeds of the traitor, would perceive I think very clearly and without difficulty that their interpretation in reference to Him was certainly and very evidently true.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, I tell you this now, he gives the reason why he mentioned there was an exception. 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 tell you this 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'" (Jer 17:9); "Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods" (Is 41:23). Or, "I am who am" (Ex 3:14).
Commentary on John

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ λαμβάνων ἐάν τινα πέμψω, ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με.

А҆ми́нь, а҆ми́нь гл҃ю ва́мъ: прїе́млѧй, а҆́ще кого̀ послю̀, менѐ прїе́млетъ: а҆ прїе́млѧй менѐ прїе́млетъ посла́вшаго мѧ̀.

Origen of Alexandria †253

Whomever the Savior sends to minister to the salvation of anyone, that person who is sent is an apostle of Jesus Christ. But just as the apostle is an apostle of the one who sent him, so is he an apostle only to those to whom he is sent.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.204-5

He who receives whom[ever] Jesus may send, receives Jesus in the one sent, and he who receives Jesus receives the Father. Therefore, he who receives whomever Jesus may send receives the Father who sent Jesus.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.212

Apostolic Constitutions †380

Now this we all in common do charge you, that every one remain in that rank which is appointed him, and do not transgress his proper bounds; for they are not ours, but God's. For says the Lord: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me." And, "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." For if those things that are without life do observe good order, as the night, the day, the sun, the moon, the stars, the elements, the seasons, the months, the weeks, the days, and the hours, and are subservient to the uses appointed them, according to that which is said, "Thou hast set them a bound which they shall not pass;" and again, concerning the sea, "I have set bounds thereto, and have encompassed it with bars and gates; and I said to it, Hitherto shalt thou come, and thou shalt go no farther;" how much more ought ye not to venture to remove those things which we, according to God's will, have determined for you!
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 8

John Chrysostom †407

Great is the recompense of care bestowed upon the servants of God, and of itself it yieldeth to us its fruits. For, "he that receiveth you," it saith, "receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me." Now what can be equal to the receiving Christ and His Father? But what kind of connection hath this with what was said before? What hath it in common with that which He had said, "If ye do these things happy are ye," to add, "He that receiveth you"? A close connection, and very harmonious. Observe how. When they were about to go forth and to suffer many dreadful things, He comforteth them in two ways; one derived from Himself, the other derived from others. "For if," He saith, "ye are truly wise, ever keeping Me in mind, and bearing about all both what I said, and what I did, ye will easily endure terrible things. And not in this way only, but also from your enjoying great attention from all men." The first point He declared when He said, "If ye do these things happy are ye"; the second when He said, "He that receiveth you receiveth Me." For He opened the houses of all men to them, so that both from the sound wisdom of their manners, and the zeal of those who would tend them, they might have twofold comfort.
Homily on the Gospel of John 72

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. xlix. 2) The Arians, when they hear this passage, appeal immediately to the gradations in their system, that as far as the Apostle is from the Lord, so far is the Son from the Father. But our Lord hath left us no room for doubt on this head; for He saith, I and My Father are one. (supr. 10:30) But how shall we understand those words of our Lord, He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me? If we take them to mean that the Father and the Son are of one nature, it will seem to follow, when He says, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth Me, that the Son and an Apostle are of one nature. May not the meaning be, He that receiveth whosoever I send, receiveth Me, i. e. Me as man: But He that receiveth Me, i. e. as God, receiveth Him that sent Me. But it is not this unity of nature, which is here put forth, but the authority of the Sender, as represented by Him who is sent. In Peter hear Christ, the Master of the disciple, in the Son the Father, the Begotten of the Only Begotten.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

He then proceeds to say: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." Did He mean us to understand that there is as little distance between one sent by Him, and Himself, as there is between Himself and God the Father? If we take it in this way, I know not what measurements of distance we shall be adopting, in the Arian fashion. For they, when they hear or read these words of the Gospel, have immediate recourse to their dogmatic measurements, whereby they ascend not to life, but fall headlong into death. For they straightway say: The Son's messenger stands at the same relative distance from the Son, as expressed in the words, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me," as that in which the Son Himself stands from the Father, when He said, "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." But if thou sayest so, thou forgettest, heretic, thy measurements. Restrain, therefore, your foolhardy presumption; and do not be seeking to find in these words the same distance between the Son and His messenger as between the Father and His Son. But listen rather to the Son Himself, when He says, "I and my Father are one." For there the Truth hath left you no shadow of distance between the Begetter and the Only-begotten; there Christ Himself hath erased your measurements, and the rock hath broken your staircase to pieces.
But now that the heretical slander has been disposed of, in what sense are we to understand these words of the Lord: "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me"? For if we were inclined to understand the words, "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me," as expressing the oneness in nature of the Father and the Son; the sequence from the similar arrangement of words in the other clause, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me," would be the unity in nature of the Son and His messenger. But it is not this unity of nature which the Lord intended to commend in this sentence, but the authority of the Sender in Him who is sent. Let every one, therefore, so receive Him that is sent, that in His person he may give heed to Him who sent Him. If, then, thou lookest for Christ in Peter, thou wilt find the disciple's instructor; and if thou lookest for the Father in the Son, thou wilt find the Begetter of the Only-begotten: and so in Him who is sent, thou art not mistaken in receiving the Sender.
Tractates on John 59

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Having previously shown in a manner suitable to the occasion that He is the Christ, and having indicated the means by which the traitor was meditating his grievous outrage against Him, He now devises another very effectual method for overthrowing his evil designs. And now again His discourse seems to be marked by a certain want of distinctness: for He is still trying to conceal the daring deed, and as yet does not openly say who is about to betray Him. He proves therefore, and that very effectually by a clear illustration, that it is absolutely necessary to consider the Person of God the Father as included in the object of the love and reverence shown to Himself. And yet the main object that He wishes here to demonstrate is surely not this, but rather perhaps in my opinion exactly the converse. For leaving, as seems probable, the plainer [negative] form of speech, which He used at other times,----as for example in the words: He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father,----He has here passed to the milder [positive] form of expression, intending all the while that His hearers should from this infer the converse. For surely it was a time for threatening rather than for exhortation, when the deed was already at the doors, and when the grievous outrage against Him was already in course of preparation. For Satan had already planted the evil design in the heart of the traitor. "As therefore," He says, "a man would certainly acknowledge Me in My own person and not another, if he received one who had been sent by Me; even so he that received One sent forth by God the Father would in all likelihood receive the Father Himself." But in these words of Christ any one may perceive the meaning indicated, seeing through the mildness of the language. And turning the statement into its converse, the traitor's impiety will be seen to be a transgression, not only against the Son, but also against even the Father Himself. The language used is therefore a form of threatening, though couched in somewhat mild terms; and it conveys the same idea that words of foreboding would properly suggest. For even as one among ourselves will receive one sent by God, assenting to the words he speaks, and paying honour to the God of Whom he preaches by observing the Divine oracles he proclaims; on just the same grounds I think one would receive the Lord, and through Him the Father, by believing on the Son. For the manifestation of the parent is ever the natural office of the offspring. So he who has fully believed that Christ is the Son thereby fully confesses the God Who begat the Son. Terrible therefore is the sentence pronounced on the traitor, since his rebellious insult is even against God the Father, because so much is involved in his impious outrage against the Son. For if with unswerving faith he had acknowledged the Son to be God of God, he would then have accepted and reverenced Him, submitting heart and soul in sincerity to Him as to the Lord; and then would the wretched man have found his love to Christ stronger than base passions, nor methinks would he, by being found guilty of treachery, have made it true concerning himself that it would have been better for him if he had never at all been born.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

What is the connection of the present words with the preceding ones? For until now He was speaking about the betrayer, and now He adds "he who receives whomever I send receives Me"? The connection exists, and it is the closest one. The Lord said that He would be betrayed; He spoke of how He would leave them, that they would afterwards scatter, be dispersed, and endure many afflictions; therefore He comforts them in two ways. First, through Himself. For He showed them what He Himself would suffer, and what He did for the betrayer, washing his feet and admitting him to partake at the table. For if they keep this in mind, they will easily endure any afflictions. So then, the first way consists in this: that the Lord comforts them by what He did for the enemy, healing him to the very end, and by what He Himself would suffer. Another way is that He opens the homes of all people for them, that all who hear their teaching will receive them. Do you see the connection of the present words with the preceding ones? The Lord will leave them; they will endure a multitude of evils and afflictions; He comforted them by His own example, for He would be betrayed by a disciple, yet He washes his feet; He also comforts them by foretelling that although they will experience many afflictions, all will receive them. He who receives you receives Me, and through Me, God and the Father. Note the power of the consolation. "You," He says, "people will honor as God Himself; therefore do not be disheartened by the malice of persecutors."
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next (v 20), 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, Truly, truly, I say to you. He is saying in effect: Truly, you ought to wash their feet, because he who receives any one whom 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" (Mt 10:41). Secondly, he shows how a service given to Christ rebounds to the Father, saying, he who receives me receives him who sent me: "That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (5:23).
However, according to Origen, this verse can be understood in two ways. In one way by compressing the two parts into one, and then 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, that is, in a physical way, those sent by me, receives me; and those who receive me, that is, coming into their souls in a spiritual way - as in "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Eph 3:17) - receives 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" (14:23).
Arius used this text in the following way to help support his own error: the Lord says that he who receives him receives the Father; and so 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 any one whom I send receives me, as human, for I share with them in one human nature. In the second part he speaks in reference to his divinity: he who receives me, who am God, receives him who sent me, for I have the same divine nature as him.
Or, we could understand it to mean: he who receives one whom I send, receives me, for 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 the men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).
Commentary on John

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.

Ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι, καὶ ἐμαρτύρησε καὶ εἶπεν· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με.

Сїѧ̑ ре́къ і҆и҃съ возмꙋти́сѧ дх҃омъ и҆ свидѣ́тельствова и҆ речѐ: а҆ми́нь, а҆ми́нь гл҃ю ва́мъ, ꙗ҆́кѡ є҆ди́нъ ѿ ва́съ преда́стъ мѧ̀.

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 11.) His being troubled in spirit, was the human part, suffering under the 1excess of the spiritual. For if every Saint lives, acts, and suffers in the spirit, how much more is this true of Jesus, the Rewarder of Saints.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Apostolic Constitutions †380

And Judas knowing this, who for a long time had been perverted, but was then smitten by the devil himself with the love of money, although he had been long entrusted with the purse, and used to steal what was set apart for the needy, yet was he not cast off by the Lord, through much long-suffering; nay, and when we were once feasting with Him, being willing both to reduce him to his duty and instruct us in His own foreknowledge, He said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you will betray me;" and every one of us saying, "Is it I?" And the Lord being silent, I, who was one of the twelve, and more beloved by Him than the rest, arose up from lying in His bosom, and besought Him to tell who it should be that should betray Him. Yet neither then did our good Lord declare His name, but gave two signs of the betrayer: one by saying, "he that dippeth with me in the dish;" a second, "to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped it." Nay, although he himself said, "Master, is it I?" the Lord did not say Yes, but, "Thou hast said."
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 5

John Chrysostom †407

21–25
"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."
Again He bringeth fear on all by not mentioning the traitor by name. "But they are in doubt"; although conscious to themselves of nothing evil; but they deemed the declaration of Christ more to be believed than their own thoughts. Wherefore they "looked one on another." By laying the whole upon one, Jesus would have cut short their fear, but by adding, "one of you," He troubled all. What then? The rest looked upon one another; but the ever fervent Peter "beckoneth" to John. Since he had been before rebuked, and when Christ desired to wash him would have hindered Him, and since he is everywhere found moved indeed by love, yet blamed; being on this account afraid, he neither kept quiet, nor did he speak, but wished to gain information by means of John. But it is a question worth asking, why when all were distressed, and trembling, when their leader was afraid, John like one at ease leans on Jesus' bosom, and not only leans, but even lies on His breast? Nor is this the only thing worthy of enquiry, but that also which follows. What is that? What he saith of himself, "Whom Jesus loved." Why did no one else say this of himself? Yet the others were loved too. But he more than any. And if no other hath said this about him, but he about himself, it is nothing wonderful. Paul too does the same when occasion calls, saying thus, "I knew a man fourteen years ago"; yet in fact he has gone through other no trifling praises of himself.
Homily on the Gospel of John 72

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxii. 1) Our Lord after His twofold promise of assistance to the Apostles in their future labours, remembers that the traitor is cut off from both, and is troubled at the thought: 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.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

As in the episode of Lazarus he said that he was troubled in spirit, because he foretold what would happen, and that he was angered in order to show that he had knowledge of the things that still had to happen as if they had already happened, so here too he says he was angered because of Judas’s betrayal and was confused by how vicious he was. He also said here the words “Jesus was troubled in spirit” because through the operation of the Spirit that was in him he foreknew the future [and the trouble that awaited him].
Commentary on John 6.13.21-26

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lx. 1) This did not come into His mind then for the first time; but He was now about to make the traitor known, and single him out from the rest, and therefore was troubled in spirit. The traitor too was now just about to go forth to execute his purpose. He was troubled at the thought of His Passion being so near at hand, at the dangers to which His faithful followers would be brought at the hand of the traitor, which were even now impending over Him. Our Lord deigned to be troubled also, to shew that false brethren cannot be cut off, even in the most urgent necessity, without the troubling of the Church. (Tr. lxi. 1.). He was troubled not in flesh, but in spirit; for on occasion of scandals of this kind, the spirit is troubled, not perversely, but in love, lest in separating the tares, some of the wheat too be plucked up with them. (Tr. lx. 5.). But whether He was troubled by pity for perishing Judas, or, by the near approach of His own death, He was troubled not through weakness of mind, but power: He was not troubled because any thing compelled Him, but He troubled Himself, as was said above. And in that He was troubled, He consoles the weak members of His body, i. e. His Church, that they may not think themselves reprobate, should they be troubled at the approach of death.
(Tr. lx. 3) Away then with the reasonings of the Stoics, who deny that perturbation of mind can come upon a wise man; who, as they take vanity for truth, so make their healthy state of mind insensibility. It is good that the mind of the Christian may be perturbed, not by misery, but by pity. (lxi. 2). One of you,He saith, i. e. one in respect of number, not of merit, in appearance not in virtue.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

It is no light question, brethren, that meets us in the Gospel of the blessed John, when he says: "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." Was it for this reason that Jesus was troubled, not in flesh, but in spirit, that He was now about to say, "One of you shall betray me"? Did this occur then for the first time to His mind, or was it at that moment suddenly revealed to Him for the first time, and so troubled Him by the startling novelty of so great a calamity? Was it not a little before that He was using these words, "He that eateth bread with me will lift up his heel against me"? And had He not also, previously to that, said, "And ye are clean, but not all"? where the evangelist added, "For He knew who should betray Him:" to whom also on a still earlier occasion He had pointed in the words, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Why is it, then, that He "was now troubled in spirit," when "He testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me"?
Was it because now He had so to mark him out, that he should no longer remain concealed among the rest, but be separated from the others, that therefore "He was troubled in spirit"? Or was it because now the traitor himself was on the eve of departing to bring those Jews to whom he was to betray the Lord, that He was troubled by the imminency of His passion, the closeness of the danger, and the swooping hand of the traitor, whose resolution was foreknown? For some such cause it certainly was that Jesus "was troubled in spirit," as when He said, "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I unto this hour." And accordingly, just as then His soul was troubled as the hour of His passion approached; so now also, as Judas was on the point of going and coming, and the atrocious villainy of the traitor neared its accomplishment, "He was troubled in spirit."
He was troubled, then, who had power to lay down His life, and had power to take it again. That mighty power is troubled, the firmness of the rock is disturbed: or is it rather our infirmity that is troubled in Him? Assuredly so: let servants believe nothing unworthy of their Lord, but recognize their own membership in their Head. He who died for us, was also Himself troubled in our place. He, therefore, who died in power, was troubled in the midst of His power: He who shall yet transform the body of our humility into similarity of form with the body of His glory, hath also transferred into Himself the feeling of our infirmity, and sympathizeth with us in the feelings of His own soul.
Away with the reasons of philosophers, who assert that a wise man is not affected by mental perturbations. God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world; and the Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain. It is plain that the mind of the Christian may be troubled, not by misery, but by pity: he may fear lest men should be lost to Christ; he may sorrow when one is being lost; he may have ardent desire to gain men to Christ; he may be filled with joy when such is being done; he may have fear of falling away himself from Christ; he may sorrow over his own estrangement from Christ; he may be earnestly desirous of reigning with Christ, and he may be rejoicing in the hope that such fellowship with Christ will yet be his lot.
Strong-minded, indeed, are those Christians, if such there are, who experience no trouble at all in the prospect of death; but for all that, are they stronger-minded than Christ? Who would have the madness to say so? And what else, then, does His being troubled signify, but that, by voluntarily assuming the likeness of their weakness, He comforted the weak members in His own body, that is, in His Church; to the end that, if any of His own are still troubled at the approach of death, they may fix their gaze upon Him, and so be kept from thinking themselves castaways on this account, and being swallowed up in the more grievous death of despair?
Tractates on John 60

Of that indeed which precedes, (namely), that Jesus, when about to point him out, was troubled in spirit, we have treated in our last discourse; but what I perhaps omitted to mention there, the Lord, by His own perturbation of spirit, thought proper to indicate this also, that it is necessary to bear with false brethren, and those tares that are among the wheat in the Lord's field until harvest-time, because that when we are compelled by urgent reasons to separate some of them even before the harvest, it cannot be done without disturbance to the Church. Such disturbance to His saints in the future, through schismatics and heretics, the Lord in a way foretold and prefigured in Himself, when, at the moment of that wicked man Judas' departure, and of his thereby bringing to an end, in a very open and decided way, his past intermingling with the wheat, in which he had long been tolerated, He was troubled, not in body, but in spirit. For it is not spitefulness, but charity, that troubles His spiritual members in scandals of this kind; lest perchance in separating some of the tares, any of the wheat should also be uprooted therewith.
"Jesus," therefore, "was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." "One of you," in number, not in merit; in appearance, not in reality; in bodily commingling, not by any spiritual tie; a companion by fleshly juxtaposition, not in any unity of the heart; and therefore not one who is of you, but one who is to go forth from you. For how else can this "one of you" be true, of which the Lord so testified, and said, if that is true which the writer of this very Gospel says in his Epistle, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us"? Judas, therefore was not of them; for, had he been of them, he would have continued with them. What, then, do the words "One of you shall betray me" mean, but that one is going out from you who shall betray me? Just as he also, who said, "If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us," had said before, "They went out from us." And thus it is true in both senses, "of us," and "not of us;" in one respect "of us," and in another "not of us;" "of us" in respect to sacramental communion, but "not of us" in respect to the criminal conduct that belongs exclusively to themselves.
Tractates on John 61

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Who is there among living men who would not feel plainly convinced that our human faculties are incapable of supplying either ideas or words which may at all express, in an irreproachable and infallible manner, the attributes peculiar to that nature which is both Divine and ineffable? Therefore we depend on the words of which our faculties are capable, as a feeble medium of expressing such things as pass our understanding. For how can we speak with clear fulness on a subject that really transcends the very limits of our comprehension? We are compelled therefore to take the feebleness of human phrases as a faint image of the true ideas, and then to endeavour to pass onward, as far at least as circumstances will allow, to realise the peculiarities of the Divine attributes. The Divine nature is exceedingly terrible in uttering reproofs, and is stirred to violent emotion by unmingled hatred of evil, against whomsoever the Divine decree may have determined that this feeling is justly due; and this in spite of immeasurable long-suffering. Whenever therefore the Divine Scripture wishes to express God's emotion against impious designs of whatever kind, it derives its language as on other occasions from expressions in use among us, and in human phraseology speaks of anger and wrath; although the Divine Essence is subject to none of these passions in any way that bears comparison with our feelings, but is moved to indignation the extent of which is known only to Itself and is natural to Itself alone, for the ways of God are utterly unspeakable. But the Divine Scripture, as we have said, is wont to record things too great for us in accordance with human fashion. Therefore here also the inspired Evangelist says that Christ was troubled in the spirit, calling the evil-hating emotion of the Spirit "trouble," because, as it seems, there was no other word he could use. And it certainly seems as though the emotion of the Godhead, intolerant of the restraint of the flesh, did really bring about a slight shuddering and an apparent condition of disturbance, exhibiting the outward signs of anger; doubtless similar to what is recorded also at [the raising of] Lazarus, [where we read] that Jesus went to the tomb groaning [or, moved with indignation] in Himself. For just as in that passage Christ's stern menace against death is called "groaning," even so here also His emotion against the impious traitor is indicated by the word "trouble." And good cause He had to be troubled, in indignation at the stubborn wickedness of Judas. For what could be the ultimate end of the impiety of one who, although in common with the other disciples he was the recipient of super-excellent honours and enrolled among the elect, yet was persuaded by a little silver to relinquish all his love to Christ, and while eating His bread lifted up his heel against Him,----a man who regarded neither honour nor fame, neither the law of love nor the reverence due to Christ as God, nor any other of the just claims that were laid upon him; but who, with his eyes fixed only on the loathsome pieces of money that were to be the result of his bargain with the Jews, sold his own soul irrecoverably for those few coins, and betrayed the innocent and righteous blood into the hands of polluted murderers? Most reasonable was the plea Jesus had for being troubled. And the reproof comes home to them in all its sternness, affecting indeed in its special significance one person only of the twelve, but enabling them all in a remarkable manner to realise the extreme horror of the accusation laid; and all but loudly imploring each one among the listeners to strictly guard his own soul, lest by any means it should be unwarily caught in such fatal snares, and fall a foolish prey to the cruel wiles of the devil. Instructive therefore was the force of the reproofs, the disregard of which by the traitor's heart left him to the unchecked influence of his own ambitions. Most emphatically then Christ adds the words: One of you shall betray Me. Hereby He either seeks to upbraid the ingratitude of the daring traitor, or indicates the vastness of the wickedness of the devil, which could even carry off one of the Apostles themselves.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord, having considered that the betrayer had lost both the one and the other — both the endurance in labors and the services from people who would receive the apostles — "was troubled in spirit," that is, He felt grief in His soul. "And He testified." This means: He foretold, He testified beforehand, He declared. Some understood the words "one of you" as meaning: "one who has fallen away from your company and departed from your number will betray Me," just as the expression "Behold, Adam has become like one of Us" (Gen. 3:22) was explained rather ingeniously as: "he has become like one who fell away from us, that is, the devil." For just as he fell away, so also this one through disobedience became from (outside) us, that is, fell away from us.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Above, the Evangelist presented the example Christ gave to 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; secondly, of the disciple who denied him (v 36). Two things are done with the first: one of the disciples is said to be a betrayer; secondly, we see him leave the supper. Two things are done concerning the first: the betrayal is predicted; then we see it beginning to be executed (v 27a). Two things are done about the first: the crime of the traitor is foretold; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 22).
Two things are done about the first: the emotions of the one foretelling the betrayal are mentioned; secondly, the event predicted is mentioned.
The one foretelling the betrayal is Christ, and he is troubled. As to this the Evangelist says, When Jesus had thus spoken, 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: "From time to time an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool and the water was disturbed...the sick man said, 'Sir, I have no one to plunge me into the pool once the water is troubled'" (5:4). Here it is the same thing for water to be disturbed or troubled. 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 there are some acts of the soul which 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. Now among all the affections or passions of the sensory appetite, sadness involves the most disturbance. While pleasure, since it implies a rest in a good which is possessed, has more the character of rest than of disturbance. Even fear, since it is concerned with an evil to come in the future, has less disturbance than sadness, which involves an evil which is present. This is why one who is afflicted with sadness is especially said to be troubled. So Christ was troubled, that is, he was sad.
We can recall here that there have been philosophers, the Stoics, who said that those who are wise are not troubled this way or by such passions. For although they admit that one who is wise may have fear, or joy or desire, such a one 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, which means 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 one who is wise. At other times, this can go beyond the limits of reason and trouble reason. This is not found in the wise.
The second way of being troubled is to have it come from one's reason, that is, when one is troubled in the sensory appetite because of a judgment of reason and from deliberation. This was the way Christ was troubled. And so the Evangelist is careful to say that he was troubled in spirit, that is, the sensory appetite of Christ was troubled because of a judgment of his reason. Thus he said above (11:33) that Jesus "troubled himself." For in Christ all things arose from the deliberation of reason, even in his sensory appetite; and so there were in him no sudden disturbances of his sensuality.
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; and 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 the Word took its place.
Secondly, 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. And because Jesus loved him, this made him sad. This gives an example to superiors that if now and then they have to pass a harsh judgment on their subjects, they should do it with a sad heart, according to "Let a good man strike or rebuke me in kindness" (Ps 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.
He is careful to say, one of you, i.e., 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 those who are evil: "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 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 Jn 2:19). One of you will betray me. Me, the Teacher, the Lord, the Savior.
Commentary on John

Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.

ἔβλεπον οὖν εἰς ἀλλήλους οἱ μαθηταί, ἀπορούμενοι περὶ τίνος λέγει.

Сзира́хꙋсѧ ᲂу҆̀бо междꙋ̀ собо́ю ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀, недоꙋмѣ́ющесѧ, ѡ҆ ко́мъ гл҃етъ.

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 12.) They remembered too, that, as men, before they were matured, their minds were liable to change, so as to form wishes the very opposite to what they might have had before.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Origen of Alexandria †253

The phrase about the disciples, "doubting of whom he spoke," is vivid. For they were unable to conceive of whom this had been said and were in doubt about it, and they found nothing clear either to think or say.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.259

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 1) As He did not mention Him by name, all began to fear: Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake; not conscious of any evil in themselves, and yet trusting to Christ's words, more than to their own thoughts.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxi. 3) They had a devoted love for their Master, but yet so that human weakness made them doubt of one another.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake." For while they were imbued with a reverential love to their Master, they were none the less affected by human infirmity in their feelings towards each other. Each one's own conscience was known to himself; but as he was ignorant of his neighbor's, each one's self-assurance was such that each was uncertain of all the others, and all the others were uncertain of that one.
Tractates on John 61

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Terror and dread at once thrill the hearts of the disciples, and they glance one at another, being filled with a twofold alarm at the words uttered. For each one, as was natural, on reviewing the state of his own individual soul, was weighed down with grievous fear; and furthermore, they all felt the agony, no less severe, which was produced by the suspicion that rested on them all in common. For they are well assured that the words spoken will be fully verified. They know that the saying of the Saviour could not pass away unfulfilled; and yet they reckon it as a terrible and unbearable misery that any one of those numbered among the disciples should have relapsed into such a depth of impiety. This leads them each one to examine his own conscience, and to look around him in bewildered inquiry as to who it is to whose share the lot of perdition is to fall, wondering much whence or how Satan will obtain such power as to steal away the allegiance of one even of Christ's own peculiar companions.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Each of them was conscious of being pure, finding no cunning in his own thoughts; but he regarded the word of the Lord as more trustworthy than his own thoughts. Therefore they all grieve and are perplexed. For the announcement was made by Him Who does not lie, and they were certain that it would inevitably come to pass.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next (v 22), the traitor is privately identified. First, the occasions for this are mentioned; secondly, the traitor is identified (v 26); thirdly, we see the effect of his identification (v 27). There were two occasions 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; and then the disciple's question.
With regard to the first, note that the good disciples had 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 any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor 10:12); "If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with lye, yet thou will plunge me into a pit" (Job 9:30).
Commentary on John

Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

ἦν δὲ ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς·

Бѣ́ же є҆ди́нъ ѿ ᲂу҆чн҃къ є҆гѡ̀ возлежѧ̀ на ло́нѣ і҆и҃совѣ, є҆го́же люблѧ́ше і҆и҃съ:

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 13.) I think this has a peculiar meaning, viz. that John was admitted to a knowledge of the more secret mysteries of the Word.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

23–24
(Hom. lxxii. 1) Whom Jesus loved. This John says to show his own innocence, and also why it was that Peter beckoned to him, inasmuch as he was not Peter's superior: Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. Peter had been just reproved, and therefore, checking the customary vehemence of his love, he did not speak himself now, but made John speak for him. He always appears in Scripture as zealous, and an intimate friend of John's.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

23–25
While all were trembling, and not excepting even Peter, their head, John, as the beloved disciple, lay upon Jesus' breast. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

(Hom. lxxii. 1) If thou want to know the cause of this familiarity, it is love: Whom Jesus loved. Others were loved, but he was loved more than any.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxi. 4) This is John, whose Gospel this is, as he afterwards declares. It is the custom of the sacred writers, when they come to any thing relating to themselves, to speak of themselves, as if they were speaking of another. For if the thing itself is related correctly, what does truth lose by the omission of boasting on the writer's part?
(Tr. lxi. 6) For by bosom what else is signified but secret? Here is the hollow of the breast, the secret chamber of wisdom.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved." What he meant by saying "in His bosom," he tells us a little further on, where he says, "on the breast of Jesus." It was that very John whose Gospel is before us, as he afterwards expressly declares. For it was a custom with those who have supplied us with the sacred writings, that when any of them was relating the divine history, and came to something affecting himself, he spoke as if it were about another; and gave himself a place in the line of his narrative becoming one who was the recorder of public events, and not as one who made himself the subject of his preaching. Saint Matthew acted also in this way, when, in coming in the course of his narrative to himself, he says, "He saw a publican named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, and saith unto him, Follow me." He does not say, He saw me, and said to me. So also acted the blessed Moses, writing all the history about himself as if it concerned another, and saying, "The Lord said unto Moses." And so, when the blessed evangelist also says here, not, I was leaning on Jesus' bosom, but, "There was leaning one of the disciples," let us recognize a custom of our author's, rather than fall into any wonder on the subject.
But what mean the words, "whom Jesus loved"? As if He did not love the others, of whom this same John has said above, "He loved them to the end;" and as the Lord Himself, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And who could enumerate all the testimonies of the sacred pages, in which the Lord Jesus is exhibited as the lover, not only of this one, or of those who were then around Him, but of such also as were to be His members in the distant future, and of His universal Church? But there is some truth, doubtless, underlying these words, and having reference to the bosom on which the narrator was leaning. For what else can be indicated by the bosom but some hidden truth?
Tractates on John 61

Bede (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †735

That he lay in the bosom, and upon the breast, was not only an evidence of present love, but also a sign of the future, (non occ.). viz. of those new and mysterious doctrines which he was afterwards commissioned to reveal to the world.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

All are in anguish, and even the chief Peter himself is in trepidation, while John, as if in joy, reclines on the Lord's bosom. Why is this? And further—why does he speak of himself as "whom Jesus loved"? John reclined for the following two reasons. First, because he was loved more than all the others, and a sign of love was reclining next to the Lord. Second, because by his boldness and confidence he wanted to show that he was free from the accusation of betrayal. He testifies about himself that Jesus loved him in order to resolve a perplexity. So that you, hearing that Peter motioned to him to ask, would not think that he motioned to him as to a superior, the evangelist says of himself that Peter motioned to him not as to one who was greater, but as to one who was loved by Christ. Therefore these words of his express humility, not a desire to display himself. For he does not say "I loved Jesus," but "He loved me," having sought me out by grace and compassion, just as the apostle Paul also says: "I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me" (Phil. 3:12), and in another place: "Having known God, or rather, having been known by God" (Gal. 4:9). So too the words "whom Jesus loved" express not vainglory, but humility of mind.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next (v 23), the disciple's question is stated. First we see the intimacy he had with Christ; secondly, what led him to ask (v 24); thirdly, his question (v 25).
The disciple's intimacy with Christ is shown by the fact that he was lying close to him. He says, one of the disciples was lying close to the lap of Jesus. This was John the Evangelist who wrote his 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 though he were someone else: "and the Lord said to Moses" (Lev 11:1). And so did Matthew: "He saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax office" as we see from Matthew (Mt 9:9). And further on Paul did the same: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).
John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him. John said that he was lying, 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 the waters of rest" (Ps 23:2). Secondly, he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel. He says he was lying close to the lap of Jesus, for the lap signifies things that are hidden: "The only Son, who is in the lap of the Father, he has made him known" (1:18). Thirdly, 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. First, because of the cleanliness of his 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" (Prv 22:11). Secondly, 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" (Prv 14:35). Thirdly, because of the great intensity of his love for Christ: "I love those who love me" (Prv 8:17).
Commentary on John

Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.

поманꙋ́ же семꙋ̀ сі́мѡнъ пе́тръ вопроси́ти, кто́ бы бы́лъ, ѡ҆ не́мже гл҃етъ.

Origen of Alexandria †253

Now, beckoning is taken as slander in proverbs, for the wicked person “beckons with his eyes” … Peter’s act, however, was to beckon out of his eagerness for knowledge, and subsequent to such beckoning, to say to his fellow disciple, since he was more intimate with the teacher, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.275

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 13.) Or, at first he beckoned, and then not content with beckoning, spake: Who is it of whom he speaks?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxi. 6.) Observe too his mode of speaking, which was not by word, but by beckoning; Beckoned and spake, i. e. spake by beckoning. If even thoughts speak, as when it is said, They spake among themselves, much more may beckonings, which are a kind of outward expression of our thoughts.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Why then does Peter not ask the Lord himself, but gives a sign to John? In many cases Peter, out of great fervor, was impetuous, but was subjected to reproach. Therefore now he was afraid to ask, lest the Lord once again rebuke him as being impulsive.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him, John mentions what led him to question Christ. But since to beckon is to suggest something without speaking any words, why does he say that Peter both beckoned...and said? I answer that the word beckon can also mean just to think something within ourselves, as "The fool says in his heart..." (Ps 53:1). And, 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 beckoned...and said, that is, thinking of something within himself, he indicated it by some kind of gesture. Or, one could say that he first gave some gesture, and then said in words: Who is it of whom he speaks? that is, who will betray him.
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? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. One is that 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 part in me." As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. Another reason is that 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.
The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Now Peter is instructed by Christ by means of 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" (Lk 10:39).
Commentary on John

He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

ἐπιπεσὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ λέγει αὐτῷ· Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν;

Напа́дъ же то́й на пє́рси і҆и҃сѡвы, глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀: гдⷭ҇и, кто̀ є҆́сть;

Tertullian †220

What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because "by three witnesses must every word be established.
The Prescription Against Heretics

Origen of Alexandria †253

John, by reclining on the Word and resting on more mystical things, was reclining in the bosom of the Word, analogous also to the Word being in the bosom of the Father, according to the statement, “The only-begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.264

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 13.) He then lying on Jesus' breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lx. 4) On Jesus' breast; the same as in Jesus' bosom. Or, he lay first in Jesus' bosom, and then ascended higher, and lay upon His breast; as if, had he remained lying in His bosom, and not ascended to lie on His breast, our Lord would not have told him what Peter wanted to know. By his lying at last on Jesus' breast, is expressed that greater and more abundant grace, which made him Jesus' special disciple.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The Evangelist tells us that he was himself the object of special honor and love on the part of Christ our Savior. He reclines next to Jesus, actually in the very bosom of the Lord, considering this a token of Christ's surpassing affection toward him. Those who are pure in heart are most especially near to God and in the highest place of honor. For the Savior himself assigns them this conspicuous honor when he says that the pure in heart shall be blessed for they shall see God. … To those who keep their mind unstained by the world and from an empty preoccupation with the things of this life, it does seem that Christ reveals his own peculiar glory by a subtle and perhaps incomprehensible process, thereby showing also the glory of the Father, which must be what Jesus meant when he said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."
Commentary on the Gospel of John 9

Notice again how effectually the very wise Evangelist spurs us on to a desire to live, as far as possible, in the manner most accordant with reason, and to train up the keenness of our intellectual powers so as to be able, and that with perfect ease, to act in obedience to the Divine intentions, and to endeavour, as far as in us lies, to thoroughly fulfil the conditions of the vision of God. He tells us that he was himself the object of special honour and love on the part of Christ our Saviour, so as even to recline next Him, actually in the very bosom of the Lord, deeming this circumstance a token of His surpassing affection towards him. Nearest therefore to God, and as it were in the highest place in His honour, will most especially be those whose heart is pure: and to them also the Saviour Himself assigns conspicuous honour when He says that the pure in heart shall be blessed, for they shall see God. And we shall bring forward, as evidence of the truth of this saying, even this very wise Evangelist himself. For he has seen the glory of Christ, according to his own words, for he says: I beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. For surely not with bodily eyes could any one gaze at the nature of Him Who to every creature is absolutely invisible. For, according to the Saviour's words: No man hath seen the Father, save He Which is from God, that is, the Son; He hath seen the Father. To those however who keep their mind untainted by worldly stain, and freed from vain imagination whose only concern is with this life, it seems that Christ reveals His own peculiar glory by a subtle and perhaps incomprehensible process, thereby showing forth also the glory of the Father. For it must have been with this meaning that He said: He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Why then does John lean upon the breast of Jesus so irreverently and indecorously? Because he did not yet understand anything great about Christ, and they had not been taught to render fitting honor to those deserving of respect, for they were fishermen and unversed in propriety. The Lord allows him to recline upon His breast in order to ease his sorrow, to calm the disturbance in his soul, and in general to soothe his grief. For it was natural that much sorrow was expressed on their faces as well.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it? he mentions the question. Note that when Peter was beckoning to John to get him to question our Lord, John was leaning 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: "Come to him and be enlightened" (Ps 34:5). For the secrets of divine wisdom are especially revealed to those who are joined to God by love: "He shows his friend that it is his possession" (Job 36:33); "His friend comes and searches into him" (Prv 18:17).
Commentary on John

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.

ἀποκρίνεται ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάψας τὸ ψωμίον ἐπιδώσω. καὶ ἐμβάψας τὸ ψωμίον δίδωσιν Ἰούδᾳ Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτῃ.

Ѿвѣща̀ і҆и҃съ: то́й є҆́сть, є҆мꙋ́же а҆́зъ ѡ҆мочи́въ хлѣ́бъ пода́мъ. И҆ ѡ҆мо́чь хлѣ́бъ, дадѐ і҆ꙋ́дѣ сі́мѡновꙋ і҆скарїѡ́тскомꙋ.

Ephrem the Syrian †373

All approached and drank from the cup, that is, only eleven of them. For when Jesus had given his bread indiscriminately to the eleven, Judas also approached to receive, just as his comrades who had approached and received. But Jesus dipped the bread in water and thus gave it to Judas. He washed the blessing from it and thereby marked off the offender. This is how the apostles recognized that it was he who would betray him. Jesus had dipped the bread and thus gave it to him so that its blessing might be removed from the bread. Thus Judas did not eat the blessed bread, nor did he drink from the cup of life. He grew angry that his bread had been dipped, for he knew that he was, then, not worthy of life. And the rage about this removed him from drinking from the cup of the blood of Jesus. He went out to the crucifiers and no longer saw the hallowed cup. Satan rushed to drive the Iscariot away from his comrades, so that he would not be a sharer with them of the living and life-giving sacrament.
Memra for the Fifth Day of Great Week (holy Thursday), Sermon 4

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 1) But not even then did our Lord expose the traitor by name; Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. Such a mode of declaring him, should itself have turned him from his purpose. Even if a partaking of the same table did not shame him, a partaking of the same bread might have. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"Simon Peter therefore beckons, and says to him." The expression is noteworthy, as indicating that something was said not by any sound of words, but by merely beckoning with the head. "He beckons, and says;" that is, his beckoning is his speech. For if one is said to speak in his thoughts, as Scripture saith, "They said [reasoned] with themselves;" how much more may he do so by beckoning, which expresses outwardly by some sort of signs what had previously been conceived within! What, then, did his beckoning mean? What else but that which follows? "Who is it of whom He speaks?" Such was the language of Peter's beckoning; for it was by no vocal sounds, but by bodily gestures, that he spake. "He then, having leaned back on Jesus' breast,"-surely the very bosom of His breast this, the secret place of wisdom!-"saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a piece of bread, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the bread, Satan entered into him." The traitor was disclosed, the coverts of darkness were revealed. What he got was good, but to his own hurt he received it, because, evil himself, in an evil spirit he received what was good.
Tractates on John 61

Cyril of Alexandria †444

We might naturally be filled with admiration, and especially from this further instance, at the zealous ardour displayed by the holy disciples in their love to God, and at the excessive strictness of their devotion. For being unable of themselves to know the guilty person, whoever he might be, and refusing also to place confidence in the uncertainties of deceitful conjectures, they again give vent to their curiosity by questions, and make one who was preeminent among them, I mean Peter, the representative of their eagerness to learn the truth. Peter shrinks from putting the question by his own mouth, and entrusts the interrogation to him who is reclining next to Christ and who is beloved for his more conspicuous purity, I mean John, the author of the book before us; who, in speaking of himself as beloved by Christ, has concealed his own name, burying it in silence, lest he might seem to any to be making a boastful display. For the mind of the saints is untainted by any such ambition. And so, turning himself gently towards his Master, in a secret whisper he sought to learn who was to be the son of perdition. But the Saviour vouchsafes to him no further indication of the fact save what had been proclaimed of old by the voice of the prophet in the words: He that eateth my bread did magnify himself contemptuously against me. For when He has dipped the sop, He gives it to Judas, thereby showing who it was that was eating His bread. And He thus both removes the fear felt by the holy disciples, and seems to remind them of another prophecy, that runs thus: But it was even thou, O my companion, my guide, and mine own familiar friend: eating at the same board, thou didst make my food sweet to me: we walked in the house of God as friends. For there was a time when even the traitor himself was a companion and a familiar friend to the Saviour, eating at the same board with Him, and sharing in everything that is reckoned to denote true discipleship; inasmuch as he had his allotted portion among the other holy disciples, who, with their whole lives devoted to the Saviour, traversing in His company the length and breadth of Judaea, were zealous attendants on Him in all His mighty works, and hastened on all occasions to do whatever might redound to His honour and glory. And yet this familiar friend and companion exchanged the grateful service owed to One Who had so honoured him for slavery to disgraceful passions.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord, when asked in this manner also, does not declare the betrayer by name, but makes him known by means of the morsel, so as to convert the betrayer and bring to his remembrance the fellowship of the table and bread, the partaker of which ought not to have betrayed the Nourisher and raged against Him. "Receive," He says, "this bread which you shared together with Me; acknowledge that we had a common table." But he, his soul lulled to sleep by passion, did not comprehend this. If you yourself also desire to recline closer to Jesus and fall upon His breast, and to learn mysteries from Him, strive to earn His love through simplicity and goodness. For John was more guileless, simpler, and meeker than all, and for this he was loved. So you too, if you are equally guileless, will be deemed worthy to fall upon the breast of Jesus, which serves as a sign of theological dignity. For, according to the testimony of Scripture, the words of the Lord are hidden in the heart (Ps. 118:11). Thus, the entire mystery and the betrayer of the Word will be revealed to you. For to the one entrusted with the grace of theology, the betrayer of the Word also becomes manifest — that is, the one who thinks contrary to the right faith. For the heretic, who adulterates the word of truth, which is bread, turns out to have it not without admixture, but soaked.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, Jesus answered, he identifies the betrayer: first by words, then by an action. He identifies by words when he says, It is he to whom I shall give this 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 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 mischief is in their hearts" (Ps 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, in spite of these he betrayed him: "But it is you, my equal, my companion, my familiar friend. We used to hold sweet converse together" (Ps 55:13).
He identifies the betrayer by an action when he says, so when he had dipped the bread, 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. And it was only after this that he gave the bread to Judas. Clearly, this was not the body of Christ.
Commentary on John

And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

καὶ μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον τότε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ σατανᾶς. λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὃ ποιεῖς, ποίησον τάχιον.

И҆ по хлѣ́бѣ тогда̀ вни́де во́нь сатана̀. Гл҃а ᲂу҆̀бо є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: є҆́же твори́ши, сотворѝ ско́рѡ.

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 14.) Observe, that at first Satan did not enter into Judas, but only put it into his heart to betray his Master. But after the bread, he entered into him. Wherefore let us beware, that Satan thrust not any of his flaming darts into our heart; for if he do, he then watches till he gets an entrance there himself.
(t. xxxii. 14.) It was proper that by the ceremony of the bread, that good should be taken from him, which he thought he had: whereof being deprived, he was laid open to admit Satan's entrance.
(t. xxxii. 15.) This may have been said either to Judas, or to Satan, either to provoke the enemy to the combat, or the traitor to do his part in bringing on that dispensation, which was to save the world; which He wished not to be delayed any longer, but to be as soon as possible matured.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyprian †258

That the devil has no power against man unless God have allowed it. In the Gospel according to John: "Jesus said, Thou couldest have no power against me, unless it were given thee from above." Also in the third of Kings: "And God stirred up Satan against Solomon himself." Also in Job, first of all God permitted, and then it was allowed to the devil; and in the Gospel, the Lord first permitted, by saying to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly." Also in Solomon, in the Proverbs: "The heart of the king is in God's hand."
Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Ammonius of Alexandria †300

Since Satan saw Judas wishing to betray the Lord and hastening to do this, then “he entered him.” It is one thing for the devil to assail someone and quite another for the devil to enter him, just as it is one thing to strike someone outwardly and quite a different matter to hit someone’s vital organ or thrust a sword into him.
Fragments on John 457

John Chrysostom †407

Let no one … be a deceiver, no one full of evil, no one holding venom in his mind, lest his partaking lead to condemnation. After Judas took what was offered, the devil hastened into him, not because the devil despised the Lord’s body but because he despised Judas for his shamelessness. Thus you may learn concerning those who partake unworthily of the divine mysteries, that these especially are the ones the devil invades and enters at once, just like he did to Judas of old. Honors, indeed, are of benefit to those who are worthy, but those who enjoy them without deserving them are propelled into greater retribution. I say these things not to frighten but to protect you.
Sermon on the Betrayal by Judas 1.6

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxii. 1) So long as he was one of the twelve, the devil did not dare to force an entrance into him; but when he was pointed out, and expelled, then he easily leaped into him,
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

What Judas believed to be hidden and turning around in his mind was disclosed through the handing of the bread and made known to all the disciples. He was so far away from the admirable virtue of the one who knows the inner thoughts that, even though he had to feel ashamed and blush because of that public rebuke, he on the contrary confirmed even more inside himself the will of his iniquity. And since he was offended by the blame [he received], he prepared to execute his crime at once. The Evangelist rightly called this thought the entry of Satan by attributing to Satan the confirmation of Judas’s will.
Commentary on John 6.13.27-30

Augustine of Hippo †430

The one who persuaded Judas to betray Christ is the one who persuaded him to hang himself with a noose. He repented, you remember, of “having betrayed righteous blood,” but his repentance was without hope. He repented, but he also despaired. He did not believe he would receive mercy. He did not come to the one he had betrayed and ask him his pardon. He did not ask for pardon from him; he did not implore him to set him free; he did not entrust himself to his blood for redemption.
Sermon 313E.4

I know, dearly beloved, that some may be moved, as the godly to inquire into the meaning of, and the ungodly to find fault with, the statement, that it was after the Lord had given the bread, that had been dipped, to His betrayer that Satan entered into him. For so it is written: "And when He had dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the Son of Simon. And after the bread, then entered Satan into him." For they say, Was this the worth of Christ's bread, given from Christ's own table, that after it Satan should enter into His disciple? And the answer we give them is, that thereby we are taught rather how much we need to beware of receiving what is good in a sinful spirit. For the point of special importance is, not the thing that is received, but the person that receives it; and not the character of the thing that is given, but of him to whom it is given. For even good things are hurtful, and evil things are beneficial, according to the character of the recipients. "Sin," says the apostle, "that it might appear sin, wrought death to me by that which is good." Thus, you see, evil is brought about by the good, so long as that which is good is wrongly received. It is he also that says: "Lest I should be exalted unduly through the greatness of my revelations, there was given to me a thorn in my flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me. For which thing I besought the Lord thrice, that He would take it away from me; and He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for strength is made perfect in weakness." And here, you see, good was brought about by that which was evil, when the evil was received in a good spirit. Why, then, do we wonder if Christ's bread was given to Judas, that thereby he should be made over to the devil; when we see, on the other hand, that Paul was visited by a messenger of the devil, that by such an instrumentality he might be perfected in Christ? In this way, both the good was injurious to the evil man, and the evil was beneficial to the good. Bear in mind the meaning of the Scripture, "Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." And when the apostle said this, he was dealing with those who were taking the body of the Lord, like any other food, in an undiscerning and careless spirit. If, then, he is thus taken to task who does not discern, that is, does not distinguish from the other kinds of food, the body of the Lord, what condemnation must be his, who in the guise of a friend comes as an enemy to His table! If negligence in the guest is thus visited with blame, what must be the punishment that will fall on the man that sells the very person who has invited him to his table!
It was after this bread, then, that Satan entered into the Lord's betrayer, that, as now given over to his power, he might take full possession of one into whom before this he had only entered in order to lead him into error. For we are not to suppose that he was not in him when he went to the Jews and bargained about the price of betraying the Lord; for the evangelist Luke very plainly attests this when he says: "Then entered Satan into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, being one of the twelve; and he went his way, and communed with the chief priests." Here, you see, it is shown that Satan had already entered into Judas. His first entrance, therefore, was when he implanted in his heart the thought of betraying Christ; for in such a spirit had he already come to the supper. But now, after the bread, he entered into him, no longer to tempt one who belonged to another, but to take possession of him as his own.
But it was not then, as some thoughtless readers suppose, that Judas received the body of Christ. For we are to understand that the Lord had already dispensed to all of them the sacrament of His body and blood, when Judas also was present, as very clearly related by Saint Luke; and it was after this that we come to the moment when, in accordance with John's account, the Lord made a full disclosure of His betrayer by dipping and holding out to him the morsel of bread, and intimating perhaps by the dipping of the bread the false pretensions of the other. For the dipping of a thing does not always imply its washing; but some things are dipped in order to be dyed. But if a good meaning is to be here attached to the dipping, his ingratitude for that good was deservedly followed by damnation.
Tractates on John 62

But still, possessed as Judas now was, not by the Lord, but by the devil, and now that the bread had entered the belly, and an enemy the soul of this man of ingratitude: still, I say, there was this enormous wickedness, already conceived in his heart, waiting to be wrought out to its full issue, for which the damnable desire had always preceded. Accordingly, when the Lord, the living Bread, had given this bread to the dead, and in giving it had revealed the betrayer of the Bread, He said, "What thou doest, do quickly." He did not command the crime, but foretold evil to Judas, and good to us. For what could be worse for Judas, or what could be better for us, than the delivering up of Christ,-a deed done by him to his own destruction, but done, apart from him, in our behalf? "What thou doest, do quickly." Oh that word of One whose wish was to be ready rather than to be angry! That word! expressing not so much the punishment of the traitor as the reward awaiting the Redeemer! For He said, "What thou doest, do quickly," not as wrathfully looking to the destruction of the trust-betrayer, but in His own haste to accomplish the salvation of the faithful; for He was delivered for our offences, and He loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. And as the apostle also says of himself: "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Had not, then, Christ given Himself, no one could have given Him up. What is there in Judas' conduct but sin? For in delivering up Christ he had no thought of our salvation, for which Christ was really delivered, but thought only of his money gain, and found the loss of his soul. He got the wages he wished, but had also given him, against his wish, the wages he merited. Judas delivered up Christ, Christ delivered Himself up: the former transacted the business of his own selling of his Master, the latter the business of our redemption. "What thou doest, do quickly," not because thou hast the power in thyself, but because He wills it who has all the power.
Tractates on John 62

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxii. 3) Not as some careless readers think, that then Judas received singly Christ's body. For our Lord had already distributed the sacraments of His body and blood to all of them, while Judas was there, as Luke relates; and after this He dipped the sop, as John relates, and gave it to the traitor; the dipping of the bread perhaps signifying the deep dye of his sin; for some dipping cannot be washed out again; i. e. when things are dipped, in order to receive a permanent dye. If however this dipping meant any thing good, he was ungrateful for it, and deserved the damnation which followed him; And after the sop, Satan entered into him.
(Tr. lxii. 2) Or entered into him, that he might have more full possession of him: for he was in him, when he agreed with the Jews to betray our Lord for a sum of money, according to Luke: Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot, and he went away, and communed with the chief priests. (Luke 22:3. 4) In this state he came to the supper. But after the sop the devil entered, not to tempt him, as though he were independent but to possess him as his own,
(Tr. lxii) But some will say, was his being given up to the devil the effect of his receiving the sop from Christ? To whom we answer, that they may learn here the danger of receiving amiss what is in itself good. If he is reproved who does not discern, i. e. who does not distinguish, the Lord's body from other food, how is he condemned who, feigning himself a friend, comes an enemy to the Lord's table? Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
(Tr. lxii. 4) He did not however enjoin the act, but foretold it, not from desire for the destruction of the perfidious, but to hasten on the salvation of the faithful.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Most distinct was the token to mark the traitor that the Saviour showed to His own disciples. For when He had dipped the sop He gave it to him, thereby making clearly evident who it was that did eat of His bread, and was now about to lift up his heel against Him. Nevertheless the very wise Evangelist tells us that the guide and instigator of his impiety and accursed cruelty to Christ, and the deviser of the whole scheme, had rushed into the heart of the traitor, even that Satan in all his evil power had taken up his abode within him after the giving of the sop. And let no one suppose on the contrary that the sop was to the traitor the cause of his being possessed by Satan. For we shall not have so nearly reached the verge of madness, nor shall we even prove ourselves so bereft of proper intelligence, as to suppose that such a gift could have afforded the evil one any pretext for an entrance; but we will rather say this, keeping our statement about the traitor well within the limits of the truth:----Seeing that, although perfect love had been shown towards him, and nothing was in any way lacking of the things that are generally reckoned to imply a disposition to confer honour, he still clung fast to the same evil endeavours, never correcting by repentance his wicked thoughts, never turning his heart away from its ungodly designs, never weeping in bitter sorrow for the wickedness he had so much as dared to conceive; but still thirsting more and more to accomplish to the full his impious purpose, and so to be finally ruined by his own evil recklessness: Satan consequently entered into him, finding his heart ready and open like a gate to receive him, unprotected by sobriety; and seeing that his mind was not locked against him, but rather already inflamed with a willingness to do whatsoever he might wish and suggest.
And by searching thoroughly the inspired Scripture we shall find this to be an accustomed habit, as we may say, of the evil one. He at the beginning opens his attack by trying the hearts of those who worship God, first of all sowing the seed of evil questionings, and inciting us with the bait of paltry pleasures to false steps of various kinds. And he above all most violently assaults us at any point where he sees we have already suffered and been vanquished before. For he always uses somehow our own weakness as an auxiliary to his wicked devices, and employs again the passion which previously injured our soul. Thus, for example, he harasses one man perhaps with violent assaults through the senses which become the most depraved incentives to fleshly pleasures; whereas in the case of another who is overcome by base gains, to make a profit of unholy wealth seems somehow held up to honour as the best thing possible. Whenever therefore he makes war against us, he uses as an auxiliary force the passion that has before held sway in warring against us, and by its agency he ever devises the scheme of our perdition. For just as a commander, skilled in generalship, when laying siege to a city, hastens with all speed and by every device to attack the weakened parts of the wall, thither ordering his battering-engines to be brought into action, well knowing that in those quarters the capture will be easy; even so methinks Satan, when intending to lay siege to a human soul, sets to work at its weakest part, thinking that he will by this means bring it into easy subjection, especially when he sees it receiving no assistance from those helps by which it is likely the passion would be defeated, such as noble emotions, provocations to manly courage, suggestions to devotion, and the mystic Eucharist. For this most of all is effective as an antidote to the murderous poison of the devil.
Therefore it happened that the traitor was not dismayed at rebukes uttered as yet quietly and secretly, nor did he even regard the invincible might of love, nor honour and glory and grace, nor the gift that he received from Christ. But hurrying on, without pausing to reflect or checking himself for a moment, his eyes fixed on that, and that alone, which had proved too strong for him once before, I mean the curse of avarice, he was now finally ensnared, and fell to utter ruin. For no longer has he Satan merely as a counsellor, but he takes him now to be master of his whole heart and absolute dominator of his thoughts, who was at first merely an adviser who whispered suggestions. For Satan entered into him, according to the language of the gospel.
We must therefore be on our guard against, and very carefully avoid, the harm that may result from the first approaches of evil; and we ought as a duty to remember him who said: If the spirit of the powerful one rise up against thee, leave not thy place, for a remedy will keep in check great sins. For necessity would compel us again to grant authority over our thoughts to the spirit of the powerful one. If there is 2 not in us the power to resist altogether, still we are at any rate able to check a growing impulse at the outset, and not to allow it to take deep root by lazily yielding and giving way to it: rather we should hasten to extirpate it, as the germ of bitterness, desiring that our minds should be free from its vexations. Else we must surely know that Satan will prevail little by little through continual flattery, and we shall probably experience something like what the Psalmist did, who says: Before I was humbled, I went wrong. For before we suffer the full effect of the sin, we go astray in yielding assent to evil thoughts, cherishing them with approval, and so by this means giving Satan a place of access. And the case of the traitor will be to us a type and example of the whole matter.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

When a skilled general lays siege to a city, he spares no effort to quickly attack the weakest parts of the wall with his battering rams, knowing that in such areas the capture will be easy. I believe that Satan employs an identical strategy when laying siege to the human heart, attacking at its weakest point, thinking that he will easily bring it into subjection especially when he sees it unfortified by those reinforcements that would likely repel the attack of the passions such as emotions that are under control, bold courage, a devotional heart, and most importantly, the mystical Eucharist, for this is the most effective antidote to the murderous poison of the devil.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Our Lord Jesus the Christ may now appear to be addressing Satan himself rather than the disciple who by careless infatuation had fallen into Satan's power.… It is as though Jesus is saying, "That work of yours, O Satan, which you alone know and which is ever dear to you, see that you do it quickly. You killed the prophets, and you were always leading the Jews to impiety. In time past you obtained the death by stoning of those who were sent as ambassadors to Israel bearing the word of salvation. You did not spare one of those who were sent from God. Toward them you showed your incredible brutality and the excess of your madness. And now I have come following in their steps.… I have come to overthrow the sovereignty of sin that you have brought to power and to make clear to everyone the one who is truly God by nature. But I know full well your implacable temper. The harm you desire to inflict on all who wish to accomplish works like I have come to do is what you inflict on me now. But you will cause me no more grief by being swift to attack and quick in your assault, even though you will inflict great pain on me at first." … Jesus' words are not so much an exhortation as a threat to his enemy. It is as though some handsome youth in early manhood, his heart swelling with fresh vigor at the sight of an opponent running at full speed to attack him, were to pick up a sharp battle axe in his right hand, and in full knowledge that his enemy will no sooner reach him than die, were to call out, "What you are going to do, do it quickly, for you will feel the force of my right arm." And surely this would not be the cry of one who is eager to die but rather the cry of one who knows certainly that he will be victorious and will prevail over the one who wishes to hurt him.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

It may seem perhaps to some that this present verse is somewhat out of harmony, and not in a very close connection with what has been just previously said. "For what can be the reason," some one may ask, and not inappropriately, "that, while reproving the would-be traitor, and in a secret and somewhat obscure fashion seeking to divert him from his murderous design against Himself, the Lord now seems to be spurring him on to carry it into action, and urges him to proceed without delay to such an accursed and impious deed? And verily," he would say, "what need was there to urge on, more than he himself was inclined, one who was possessed by a disease that sprang out of his own heart, to commit a crime that had been started by his own device; instead of rather curbing his passion by admonitions to amendment, and hindering him from carrying out his intended plans?" One might readily say that the objection here alleged was wanting in proper cogency: still, by fastening our attention more keenly on the sense involved in the passage, we shall find that nothing is spoken unfittingly, but that on the contrary there is latent in the words a very pertinent signification, which I will endeavour briefly to set forth as far as I am able.
It was therefore not without careful foresight that the wise Evangelist told us in the preceding verses that Satan himself had forced his way and entered into the heart of the traitor, to the end that our Lord Jesus the Christ may now appear to be really and truly addressing Satan himself rather than the disciple who by heedless infatuation had fallen into his power, when He said: That thou doest, do quickly. It is as though He were saying plainly: "That work of thine, O Satan, whereof thou alone knowest, and which is ever dear to thee, see that thou do quickly. Thou killedst the prophets: thou wast ever leading on the Jews to impiety: in former days thou didst procure the death by stoning of those who were sent as ambassadors bearing the word of salvation to Israel: thou sparedst not one of those who were sent forth from God: towards them thou didst show forth thy incredible brutality and the excesses of thy madness. And now I am come following in their steps. To those who are still wandering in error I bring the power to avoid wandering so again for ever: to those that are in darkness I ensure a life within the light of God: and to those who have fallen into thy net, and become a prey to thy cruelty, I bring the power of escape from all thy snares. I am come to break up the sovereignty of the sin that thou hast caused to reign, and to make manifest to every man Who is in His nature the true God. But full well I know thy implacable temper. Whatsoever harm therefore thou art wont to attempt against all who wish to accomplish such works as I have come to do, that do thou even now practise against Me. For thou wilt cause Me no more grief by being swift to attack and |203 very urgent in thy assault, however great will be the pang piercing through Me at first."
Verily I for my part imagine that these words of the Saviour imply by somewhat obscure intimations the substance of what I have just said: but pray let us now proceed further to investigate the reason for His urging that the daring deed should be hastened. Terrible indeed beyond all description is the rash cruelty of the godless sinners who had deliberately planned in their ungovernable madness the outrageous crime. Before Him there lay, as He knew, insults and blasphemies intolerable, stripes and spitting, and the final misery of the death on the tree; nails and cross, vinegar and gall, and the spear-wounds. Why then, one may ask, does He hasten it on, and desire that the devil's designs concerning His passion should be brought to a speedy accomplishment? For the Jews were indeed instruments and accomplices in the crime, but it is to the devil that we will attribute the original authorship of the wicked deeds, as well as the supreme direction of the whole matter on to its most accursed conclusion. Still, however terrible may have been the daring insults offered to Christ by the unholy Jews, and however intolerable the overweening impiety of those who crucified Him, He knew most fully the ultimate purpose of all He had to suffer, and foresaw everything that would follow therefrom. For by the effect of His precious cross the sovereignty of the devil was doomed to fall to eternal ruin; death was to be deprived of its sting, and the sway of corruption to be destroyed; the human race was to be freed from that ancient curse, and to be enabled through the gracious love of our Saviour Christ to hope for the annulling of the sentence: Earth thou art, and to earth shalt thou return; all iniquity, in the words of the prophet, was to stop her mouth, and those in all the world that know not Him Who alone is in His nature God were to be utterly brought to nought, and no longer to condemn those that had been in her power but were justified by faith in Christ; and for the time to come the gate of paradise was to be expected to be opened. The world below was to be united with the world above, and the heavens to be opened, according to the saying of Christ; and the bands of the holy angels were to ascend and descend upon the Son of Man. Tell me therefore, seeing that such wondrous blessings were now in store for men, and that so brilliant an expectation was raised into existence for us by the agency of the salutary cross, was it not a matter of course that He Who thirsted for our salvation, and for this cause was made like unto us except in sin, should be eager to see actually present the time for which He longed thus earnestly? And was it not natural for One Who knew no evil to despise the handiwork of devilish ingenuity, and to hasten rather to pass onward to the ardently-desired period of such a joyous consummation?
To Satan then, who knew not that he was fighting against his own existence, and was utterly unconscious of going headlong to ruin in bringing to its accomplishment Christ's death upon the Cross, the Saviour addressed the words: That thou doest, do quickly. For this is the language of one threatening rather than of one exhorting. It is as though some handsome youth in early manhood, his heart swelling with fresh vigour at the sight of an opponent running at full speed to attack him, were to equip his right arm with a keen battle-axe; and, in full knowledge that his enemy will no sooner reach him than die, were then perchance to exclaim: "That thou doest, do quickly; for thou wilt feel the force of my right arm." And surely this would not be the speech of one who is desirous to die, but rather of one who knows certainly that he will be victorious, and will prevail over him who wishes to harm him. In this spirit our Lord Jesus the Christ urges Satan to speed more quickly on his course of daring assault upon Him. For the time has come when He will exhibit the offender fallen into feebleness and universal contempt, and will present to our view the world liberated from the tyrant who in arrogance held it of old, and prevailed against it by cunning deceit so far as even to turn it away from faith in God.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Lord gave the morsel to Judas so that he might be shamed by the fellowship of the table and the bread, and restrain himself from the betrayal. But Judas did not improve even from this, and from that point became even more on the side of Satan and, as one incorrigible, gave himself over to him completely. As long as Judas was counted among the disciples and a member of the holy company, Satan did not have such access to him. But when the Lord separated him and cut him off from the rest of the disciples, revealing him through the bread, then Satan took possession of him, as one abandoned by the Lord and excommunicated from the divine company. "Satan entered into him," that is, penetrated the depths of his heart and took possession of his soul. For Satan had previously attacked Judas from without, through the passion of avarice, but now completely took possession of him, suggesting to him the betrayal. Jesus says to Judas: "What you do, do quickly." By this the Lord does not urge Judas to betrayal, but rather rebukes him for going through with the betrayal. By the word "do," the Lord speaks as if to say: "Behold, I leave you; do what you will; I do not hinder your intention, I restrain you no longer." For before this, the Lord had been holding back the malice of Judas, preserving for Himself the time of His death, which is why He also said: "No one takes My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself" (John 10:18).
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

He continues with the effect of this identification, saying, then after 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 into a person's body, as in the case of those who are physically molested by a devil. In this way the devil can essentially enter into a person. Or, we might take it to mean that the devil enters into a person's mind, so that the devil would essentially penetrate the mind. However, no one but God can enter into a person in this way. Now the rational soul does not have quantitative dimensions so that something could be in it except what 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 into 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 loved.
It was said above: "And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." 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 this 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 deceive Christ into Judas, and then he entered into to possess him more completely and to lead him to accomplish the evil.
One might ask why Luke (22:3) says that Satan entered into Judas even before he received the morsel. This seems to conflict with what John says here, that after 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.
Was it wrong to give Judas this morsel, for 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 upon himself" (1 Cor 11:29).
We now see the betrayal itself, after it was predicted. First, we see that Judas was allowed to do what was predicted; and secondly, how it was done (v 30). John does three things with the first: first, he gives the words of our Lord, allowing Judas to act; secondly, he mentions that the meaning of these words was not clear; and thirdly, he states how the Apostles understood them.
Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." This is not a command or a counsel, since sin cannot be commanded or counseled, because "The command of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Ps 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 from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18); "He was offered because it was his own will" (Is 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" (Ps 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!" (Lk 12:50).
Commentary on John

Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

τοῦτο δὲ οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τῶν ἀνακειμένων πρὸς τί εἶπεν αὐτῷ·

Сегѡ́ же никто́же разꙋмѣ̀ ѿ возлежа́щихъ, къ чесомꙋ̀ речѐ є҆мꙋ̀.

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

28–29
(Hom. lxxii. 2.) That thou doest, do quickly, is not a command, or a recommendation, but a reproof, meant to show too that He was not going to offer any hindrance to His betrayal. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. It is not easy to see, when the disciples had asked, Who is he, and He had replied, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, how it was that they did not understand Him; unless it was that He spoke too low to be heard; and that John lay upon His breast, when he asked the question, for that very reason, i. e. that the traitor might not be made known. For had Christ made him known, perhaps Peter would have killed him. So it was then, that none at the table knew what our Lord meant. But why not John? Because he could not conceive how a disciple could fall into such wickedness: he was far from such wickedness himself, and therefore did not suspect it of others. What they thought He meant we are told in what follows: 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.
(Hom. lxxii. 2.) None of the disciples contributed this money, but it is hinted that it was certain women, who, it is said, ministered to Him of their means. But how was it that He Who forbad scrip, and staff, and money, carried bags for the relief of the poor? It was to show thee, that even the very poor, those who are crucified to this world, ought to attend to this duty. He did many things in order to instruct us in our duty.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

28–29
"Now no one of those at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the money-bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things which we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." The Lord, therefore, had also a money-box, where He kept the offerings of believers, and distributed to the necessities of His own, and to others who were in need. It was then that the custom of having church-money was first introduced, so that thereby we might understand that His precept about taking no thought for the morrow was not a command that no money should be kept by His saints, but that God should not be served for any such end, and that the doing of what is right should not be held in abeyance through the fear of want. For the apostle also has this foresight for the future, when he says: "If any believer hath widows, let him give them enough, that the church may not be burdened, that it may have enough for them that are widows indeed."
Tractates on John 62

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The disciples however understand not the force of the saying, and this (it seems) in accordance with the Divine dispensation, as Christ did not unfold its meaning to them: since in other places indeed we find Him teaching them that He would be delivered into the hands of sinners, and that He would be crucified, and put to death, and would rise again on the third day; but ever charging them by no means to tell this to any man. For His aim was to prevent the prince of this world from knowing who in very nature He was, to the end that He might actually be crucified, and by His crucifixion might destroy death, and effectually accomplish salvation for them that believe on Him. Therefore in accordance with His Divine purpose He conceals the deepest meaning of His words: for as God He ever knows what is best for man.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

And "none of those reclining at the table understood." It is worthy of investigation why no one recognized this, when the Lord, in response to the question about the betrayer, said that it is the one to whom I shall give the morsel. Evidently, the Lord said this quietly to John alone, so that none of the others heard. Moreover, John, leaning on His breast, asks almost in His ear, so that the betrayer was not revealed. For otherwise Peter would perhaps have drawn his sword and killed him. Did not even John understand this? Indeed, even he did not, for he did not expect that a disciple would be capable of such lawlessness. With his holy soul, being far removed from such malice, he did not suppose it easy for another either.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

What our Lord said was not clear to the disciples. John says, Now no one at the table knew why 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" (Prv 25:2).
A question arises here. Since our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying, it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, 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 being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.
Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say, no one at the table knew why 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.
Commentary on John

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.

τινὲς γὰρ ἐδόκουν, ἐπεὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν ὁ Ἰούδας, ὅτι λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῶ.

Нѣ́цыи же мнѧ́хꙋ, поне́же ковче́жецъ и҆мѧ́ше і҆ꙋ́да, ꙗ҆́кѡ гл҃етъ є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: кꙋпѝ, є҆́же тре́бꙋемъ на пра́здникъ: и҆лѝ ни́щымъ да нѣ́что да́стъ.

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxii. 5) Our Lord then had bags, in which He kept the oblations of the faithful, to supply the wants of His own followers, or the poor. Here is the first institution of ecclesiastical property. Our Lord shews that His commandment not to think of the morrow, does not mean that the Saints should never save money; but that they should not neglect the service of God for it, or let the fear of want tempt them to injustice.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The disciples failing to understand the force of Christ's words, readily resort to their ideas of what was usual, and suppose that Christ is once more indicating such commands as it was His wont to give. For as the feast was near at hand, they expected He was ordering the one who had the bag to buy something of what was necessary for it, or at least was very probably bidding him discharge that duty of which Christ was ever careful, namely, to give to the needy what He could, according to the resources at His disposal. For the Lord is gracious and merciful, as it is written. And for us also, the example of this occurrence will be found to be most excellent. For I think that those who wish to celebrate a feast in purity of heart and in a manner well-pleasing to God must not regard their own enjoyment alone, nor must they even take thought as to how they themselves alone may keep the feast in all its fullest gladness; but rather they must interweave with their thoughtfulness about themselves the spirit of mercy towards others who are in need. For then, and then only, fulfilling the Divine law of mutual love, shall we in perfection celebrate a truly spiritual feast to the honour of the Saviour Christ. Therefore also the law ordained of old for the Jews concerning the ingathering of the manna, charges those who are able to gather it not to do so for themselves alone: for it says: Gather ye every man for your companions that are in the tents. For if any one of their tent-mates was troubled with sickness, those who were free from that affliction, lending him as it were their own vigour, gathered in with their own measure what was enough for the weak as well; so that, in the words of Scripture: He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack. For so it happened, by a sort of mingling of their stores, that the principle of equality was preserved for all. He therefore does dishonour to the example suitable for holy feasts, who does not combine care for the needy with anxiety on his own account. For the union of these would in very truth make a festival perfect.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

So no one understood the words "do what you do quickly," but they thought that the Lord was commanding Judas to buy something for the feast or to give something to the poor. For He cared greatly for the poor, and although He urged the others to have neither bag nor money, He Himself allowed a money box to be carried with Him, showing thereby that even one who is without possessions and has been crucified to the world must have great concern for this class of people — the poor.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Now the Evangelist tells us what the disciples, ignorant of the real reason Jesus was speaking, thought he meant: some of the disciples thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him... Here we should note that the Lord God of Heaven, who feeds all living things, had a purse, 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 purse 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 what we need 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" (Mal 3:10). Secondly, its money can be used to help the poor, so he adds, or that he should give something to the poor.
One might argue against this that Matthew (6:34) says, "do not be anxious about tomorrow." 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; secondly, 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."
Some might also wonder why our Lord had a purse, since he told his disciples, "Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals" (Lk 10:4). According to Chrysostom, our Lord possessed a purse 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" (Ps 112:9). Or, we could say that when he told them to take nothing on their 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.
Commentary on John

He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

λαβὼν οὖν τὸ ψωμίον ἐκεῖνος εὐθέως ἐξῆλθεν· ἦν δὲ νύξ.

Прїи́мъ же ѻ҆́нъ хлѣ́бъ, а҆́бїе и҆зы́де: бѣ́ же но́щь. Є҆гда̀ и҆зы́де, гл҃а і҆и҃съ:

Origen of Alexandria †253

The Savior said to Judas, “What you are going to do, do quickly,” and for once the betrayer obeys the teacher. For when he had received the morsel, he neither hesitated nor procrastinated, but as it is written, “he went out immediately” to do quickly the work of betrayal in accordance with Jesus’ command. And “he went out” truly, for he not only went out of the house in which the supper was held, according to the simpler meaning, but he also went out from Jesus in a final sense, analogous to the statement “they went out from us.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.300-301

“And it was night,” has not been interjected in vain by the Evangelist. The perceptible night at that time was symbolic, being an image of the night that was in Judas’s soul when Satan, the darkness that lies over the abyss, entered him.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.313

Origen of Alexandria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †253

(t. xxxii. 16.) Our Lord then said to Judas, That thou doest, do quickly, and the traitor this once obeyed his Master. For having received the sop, he started immediately on his work: He then having received the sop, went, immediately out. And indeed he did go out, not only from the house in which he was, but from Jesus altogether. It would seem that Satan, after he had entered into Judas, could not bear to be in the same place with Jesus: for there is no agreement between Jesus and Satan. Nor is it idle enquiring why after he had received the sop, it is not added, that he ate it. Why did not Judas cat the bread, after he received it? Perhaps because, as soon as he had received it, the devil, who had put it into his heart to betray Christ, fearful that the bread, if eaten, might drive out what he had put in, entered into him, so that he went out immediately, before he ate it. And it may be serviceable to remark, that as he who eateth our Lord's bread and drinketh His cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh to his own damnation; so the bread which Jesus gave him was eaten by the rest to their salvation, but by Judas to his damnation, inasmuch as after it the devil entered into him.
(t. xxxii. 16.) The time of night corresponded with the night which overspread the soul of Judas.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 2.) It follows: And it was night, to show the impetuosity of Judas, in persisting in spite of the unseasonableness of the hour.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

"He then, having received the morsel of bread, went immediately out: and it was night." And he that went out was himself the night. "Therefore when" the night "was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified." The day therefore uttered speech unto the day, that is, Christ did so to His faithful disciples, that they might hear and love Him as His followers; and the night showed knowledge unto the night, that is, Judas did so to the unbelieving Jews, that they might come as His persecutors, and make Him their prisoner.
Tractates on John 62

Cyril of Alexandria †444

In haste he hurries away in obedience to the will of Satan, and like one stung and goaded on to madness he rushes from the house. He sees nothing that can overcome his love of gain, and, marvellous though it is, we shall find him in no way benefited by the gift from Christ, of course because of his irrepressible inclination for getting money. For, completely overpowered by his passion, and possessed heart and soul by the father of all iniquity, the wretched man henceforward cannot even discern whither he is rushing on. So with his soul sunk in a night of its own, and darkened by a gloom-bringing swarm of unholy thoughts, he falls headlong into the abyss of Hades as into a trap; and, according to the saying in Proverbs, he flees away as a stag smitten to the liver with a dart, or like a dog into chains, and knoweth not that he runneth with peril of his life. And it seems to me that the inspired Evangelist did not without a purpose say that, having received the sop, he straightway went out. For Satan is terribly wont to urge on those whom he has once captured, and who have once for all fallen into his power, to straightway accomplish their evil works; and, throwing aside all delay, to compel them even against their will to carry out his pleasure. He fears, perhaps, with his usual bitterness of spirit and continual maliciousness, lest perchance in the interval of postponement some change of mind should overtake the man, inducing him to repent and to form a good resolution, and causing him to lay aside his pleasure in sin as a drunkard might leave off drunkenness; and so drag out of his net a victim whom he had deemed already caught in its toils. For this reason I suppose the offender harasses ever those who have fallen into his power, urging them to make great haste and speed in doing whatever is pleasing to him. For instance, he compels Judas, straightway after receiving the sop, as holding him now in his power, at once to proceed to that unholy deed; being very probably afraid as well of his repentance as of the effective power of Christ's gift, lest this, shining as a light in the heart of the man, should persuade him rather to make a deliberate choice of well-doing, or at any rate should give birth to the genuine honest temper of one who had been at length persuaded against his better feelings even to attempt the betrayal.
For that this is ever the wont of the demon in working against us we shall also see to be the case from what happened by way of type. The Jews were in subjection to Pharaoh while still in Egypt, and being by his orders sore vexed with laborious tasks in working with clay and making bricks, were allowed no time for the services they owed to God. For instance, Pharaoh says to the overseers of their tasks: Let the tasks of these men be made heavier, and let them not regard vain words; meaning by "vain words" their eagerness to escape to a state of freedom, their ardent passionate longing for this object, their lamentations over their slavery, and prayer for the greatest blessings. For he was not ignorant that in the leisure time which would be spent on these they would find great comfort. Passing then from the types to the perfect knowledge of the truer meanings, we shall find Satan ever hurrying onward to perform their wickedness those who have once fallen within his snares, and urging on those over whom he has already won a complete victory to be the ministers of such evil deeds as please him.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Romanos the Melodist †555

And leaving the sheepfold, [Judas] hurried to the beasts of prey, leaving behind the lambs.
Kontakion on Judas 33.12

Gregory the Dialogist (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †604

(ii. Mor. 11) By the time of the day is signified the end of the action. Judas went out in the night to accomplish his perfidy, for which he was never to be pardoned.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

"It was night when he went out." The Evangelist did not note without purpose that "it was night," but in order to teach us that not even the time hindered Judas, but even at night he was occupied with treachery. It seems to me that Judas went out at the fifth hour of the evening, when Satan also entered into him. For at the fourth hour Satan attacked Judas, namely: when the woman mentioned by the Evangelist Matthew (Matt. 26:6–16) poured out the myrrh, and Judas went and made an agreement with the Jews concerning the betrayal. But at the fifth hour of the evening Satan entered into Judas, that is, he took possession of his heart. For it is one thing to strike someone with the hand from the outside, and another to plunge a sword into him and pierce his inward parts. Judas "went out" from the Savior both physically and mentally. "It was night," perhaps also a mental night, that is, the darkness of avarice that had enveloped him.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next (v 30), John shows that what was predicted came about. First, he mentions the action which was done; secondly, the time when it was done.
What was done was done quickly, because after receiving 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 Cor 6:15); "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (1 Cor 10:21).
Taken the other way, we could think that Judas ate the bread he received. Then the meaning is, after receiving 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.
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 till 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 any one walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him" (11:9-10).
Commentary on John

Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

Ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθε, λέγει ὁ Ἰησοῦς· νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ.

[Заⷱ҇ 46] нн҃ѣ просла́висѧ сн҃ъ чл҃вѣ́ческїй, и҆ бг҃ъ просла́висѧ ѡ҆ не́мъ:

Tertullian †220

It was the Son of God who was in the Son of man that was betrayed, as the Scripture says afterward, “Now the Son of man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him.” Who is here meant by God? Certainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father who was in the Son of man—that is, in the flesh in which Jesus had been already glorified by the divine power and word. “And God,” he says, “will also glorify him in himself.” In other words, the Father shall glorify the Son because [the Father] has [the Son] within himself. And even though the Son is prostrated to the earth and put to death, [the Father] would soon glorify [the Son] by his resurrection and make him conqueror over death.
Against Praxeas 23.11-12

Origen of Alexandria †253

After the glory of his miracles and his transfiguration, the next glorifying of the Son of man began when Judas went out with Satan, who had entered into him.… Because it is not possible that the Christ is glorified if the Father is not glorified in him, the statement “and God is glorified in him” is added to the words “now is the Son of man glorified.” But the glory that resulted from Jesus’ death for the human race did not belong to the only-begotten Word, which by nature does not die, nor to wisdom and truth, nor to any of the other titles that are said to belong to the divine aspects in Jesus. They belonged to the man who was also the Son of man born of the seed of David according to the flesh. … Now I think God highly exalted this [Son of] man when he became obedient “unto death, even the death of a cross.” For the Word in the beginning with God, God the Word, was not capable of being highly exalted. But the high exaltation of the Son of man that occurred when he glorified God in his own death consisted in the fact that he was no longer different from the Word but was the same with him … so that the humanity of Jesus became one with the Word when he who “did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped” was highly exalted. The Word, however, remained in his own grandeur or was even restored to it when he was again with God, God the Word being man. But Jesus glorified God in death, and “when he had despoiled the principalities and powers, he exposed them confidently, having triumphed in the cross.” “He also “made peace through the blood of his cross, whether they are things in earth or things in heaven.” … For in all these the Son of man was glorified, and God was glorified in him. Now since he who is glorified is glorified by someone, you will ask who this is.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.318, 321-22, 324-28

The noun glory is not used with reference to an indifferent entity in the way some of the Greeks take it, where they define glory to be approval by the multitude. It is clear that the noun is used of something over and above this from the following words in Exodus. “And the tabernacle was filled with the glory of the Lord.” … “And when [Moses] descended from the mountain [he] also did not know that the appearance of his facial skin had been glorified while he spoke with him.” …So far as the literal sense is concerned, there was a divine epiphany in the tabernacle and in the temple, which were destroyed, and in the face of Moses when he had conversed with the divine nature. But in a higher and more spiritual sense we are glorified, when with the eye of the understanding we penetrate into the things of God. For the mind, when it ascends above material things and spiritually sees God, is deified. The visible glory on the face of Moses is a figure of this spiritual glory. For it was his mind that was deified by its contemplation of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.330-31, 334, 338-39

But there is no comparison between the excellent glory of Christ and the knowledge of Moses whereby the face of his soul was glorified.… For the whole of the Father’s glory shines on the Son, who is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person. Yes, and from the light of this whole glory there go forth particular glories throughout the whole rational creation, though none can take in the whole of the divine glory except the Son.…But only insofar as the Son was known to the world, so far was he glorified. And as yet he was not fully known. But afterward the Father spread the knowledge of him over the whole world, and then the Son of man was glorified in those who knew him. And of this glory he has made all who know him partakers, as the apostle said, “We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory,” that is, from his glory we receive glory. When he was approaching then that dispensation by which he was to become known to the world and to be glorified in the glory of those who glorified him, he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” And because “no one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal him,” and the Son by the dispensation was about to reveal the Father, this is why he said, “And God is glorified in him.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.342, 353, 356-59

But the matters in this passage might be understood even more clearly as follows. Just as the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of some, so, because of the saints whose good works are seen very distinctly before people, the name of the Father who is in heaven is glorified. In whom, then, was it glorified more than in Jesus, since he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth, nor did he know sin? And since he is such as this, therefore, the Son is glorified, and God is glorified in him. But if God is glorified in him, the Father presents something to him in return that is greater than what the Son of man has done. For the glory of the Son of man, when the Father glorifies him, far exceeds the Father’s glory when he [the Father] is glorified in the Son, since it is only fitting that the greater should return the greater glory.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.360-63

Hilary of Poitiers (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †367

31–32
(xi. de. Trin. c. 42) That God is glorified in Him, refers to the glory of the body, which glory is the glory of God, in that the body borrows its glory from its association with the Divine nature. Because God is glorified in Him, therefore He will glorify Him in Himself, in that He who reigns in the glory arising from the glory of God, He forthwith passes over into God's glorya, leaving the dispensation of His manhood, wholly to abide in God. Nor is He silent as to the time: And shall straightway glorify Him. This referring to the glory of His resurrection which was immediately to follow His passion, which He mentions as present, because Judas had now gone out to betray Him; whereas that God would glorify Him in Himself, He reserves for the future. The glory of God was shown in Him by the miracle of the resurrection; but He will abide in the glory of God when He has left the dispensation of subjection. The sense of these first words, Now is the Son of man glorified, is not doubtful: it is the glory of the flesh which is meant, not that of the Word. But what means the next, And God is glorified in Him? The Son of man is not another Person from the Son of God, for, the Word was made flesh. (John 1:14) How is God glorified in this Son of man, who is the Son of God? The next clause helps us; If God is glorified in Him, God also will glorify Him in Himself. A man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God who is glorified in man, because He receives glory, cease to be God. So the words, God is glorified in Him, either mean that Christ is glorified in the flesh, or that God is glorified in Christ. If God means Christ, it is Christ who is glorified in the flesh; if the Father, then it is the Sacrament of unity, the Father glorified in the Son. Again, God glorifies in Himself God glorified in the Son of man. This overthrows the impious doctrine that Christ is not very God, in verity of nature. For how can that which God glorifies in Himself be out of Himself? He whom the Father glorifies must be confessed to be in His glory, and He who is glorified in the glory of the Father, must be understood to be in the same case with the Father.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Hilary of Poitiers †367

In the words, "Now is the Son of Man honoured, and God is honoured in Him," we have first the glory of the Son of Man, then the glory of God in the Son of Man. So there is first signified the glory of the body, which it borrows from its association with the divine nature: and then follows the promotion to a fuller glory derived from an addition to the glory of the body. "If God hath been honoured in Him, God hath honoured Him in Himself, and straightway hath God honoured Him." God has glorified Him in Himself, because He has already been glorified in Him. "God was glorified in Him:" this refers to the glory of the body, for by this glory is expressed in a human body the glory of God, in the glory of the Son of Man is seen the divine glory. "God was glorified in Him, and therefore hath God glorified Him in Himself:" that is, by His promotion to the Godhead, whose glory was increased in Him, God has glorified Him in Himself. Already before this He was reigning in the glory which springs from the divine glory: from henceforth, however, He is Himself to pass into the divine glory. "God hath glorified Him in Himself:" that is, in that nature by which God is what He is. "That God may be all in all:" that His whole being, leaving behind the Dispensation by which He is man, may be eternally transformed into divinity. Nor is the time of this hidden from us: "And God hath glorified Him in Himself, and straightway hath He glorified Him." At the moment when Judas arose to betray Him, He signified as present the glory which He would obtain after His Passion through the Resurrection, but assigned to the future the glory with which God would glorify Him with Himself. The glory of God is seen in Him in the power of the Resurrection, but He Himself, out of the Dispensation of subjection, will be taken eternally into the glory of God, that is, into God, the all in all.
On the Trinity, Book 11, Section 42

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

31–32
(Hom. lxxii. 2.) i. e. by Himself, not by any other. And shall straightway glorify Him, i. e. not at any distant time, but immediately, while He is yet on the very cross shall His glory appear. For the sun was darkened, rocks were rent, and many bodies of those that slept arose. In this way He restores the drooping spirits of His disciples, and persuades them, instead of sorrowing, to rejoice.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxiii. 2) Or thus: The unclean went out: the clean remained with their cleanser. Thus will it be when the tares are separated from the wheat; The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matt. 13:43) Our Lord, foreseeing this, said, when Judas went out, as if the tares were now separated, and He left alone with the wheat, the holy Apostles, Now is the Son of man glorified; as if to say, Behold what will take place at My glorifying, at winch none of the wicked shall be present, none of the righteous shall perish. He does not say, Now is the glorifying of the Son of man signified; but, Now is the Son of man glorified; as it is not that rock signified Christ, but, That Rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:4) Scripture often speaks of the things signifying, as if they were the things signified.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

Let us give our mind's best attention, and, with the Lord's help, seek after God. The language of the divine hymn is: "Seek God and your soul shall live." Let us search for that which needs to be discovered, and into that which has been discovered. He whom we need to discover is concealed, in order to be sought after; and when found, is infinite, in order still to be the object of our search. Hence it is elsewhere said, "Seek His face evermore." For He satisfies the seeker to the utmost of his capacity; and makes the finder still more capable, that he may seek to be filled anew, according to the growth of his ability to receive. Therefore it was not said, "Seek His face evermore," in the same sense as of certain others, who are "always learning, and never coming to a knowledge of the truth;" but rather as the preacher saith, "When a man hath finished, then he beginneth;" till we reach that life where we shall be so filled, that our natures shall attain their utmost capacity, because we shall have arrived at perfection, and no longer be aiming at more.
What is it, then, that the Lord says, after that Judas went out, to do quickly what he purposed doing, namely, betraying the Lord? What says the day when the night had gone out? What says the Redeemer when the seller had departed? "Now," He says, "is the Son of man glorified." Why "now"? It was not, was it, merely that His betrayer was gone out, and that those were at hand who were to seize and slay Him? Is it thus that He "is now glorified," to wit, that His deeper humiliation is approaching; that over Him are impending both bonds, and judgment, and condemnation, and mocking, and crucifixion, and death? Is this glorification, or rather humiliation? Even when He was working miracles, does not this very John say of Him, "The Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified"? Even then, therefore, when He was raising the dead, He was not yet glorified; and is He glorified now, when drawing near in His own person unto death? He was not yet glorified when acting as God, and is He glorified in going to suffer as man? It would be strange if it were this that God, the great Master, signified and taught in such words.
I get here a sight of something that prefigures a great reality. Judas went out, and Jesus is glorified; the son of perdition went out, and the Son of man is glorified. He it was that had gone out, on whose account it had been said to them all, "And ye are clean, but not all." When, therefore, the unclean one departed, all that remained were clean, and continued with their Cleanser. Something like this will it be when this world shall have been conquered by Christ, and shall have passed away, and there shall be no one that is unclean remaining among His people; when, the tares having been separated from the wheat, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The Lord, foreseeing such a future as this, and in testimony that such was signified now in the separation of the tares, as it were, by the departure of Judas, and the remaining behind of the wheat in the persons of the holy apostles, said, "Now is the Son of man glorified:" as if He had said, See, so will it be in that day of my glorification yet to come, when none of the wicked shall be present, and none of the good shall be wanting.
Tractates on John 63

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Since the thoughts of the disciples had fallen, the Lord raises them up, saying "now the Son of Man is glorified." He persuades them not to grieve, but rather to rejoice. For the sufferings and the bestowing of honor upon people through dishonor constitute His glory. And in another way: He was glorified through the miracles that occurred at the Cross, namely: when the sun was darkened, the stones were split, the veil was torn, and all the other signs took place.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

31–32
After Judas left to bring about our Lord's death, Jesus mentions that he himself will be leaving for glory. First, to console them, he mentions the glory to which he is going; secondly, he foretells his leaving (v 33).
The glory to which he is going is the glorification and exaltation of Christ insofar as he is the Son of man. When he had gone out, that is Judas, Jesus said, to his disciples, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in him God is glorified. The word used was actually "clarified" and not "glorified." But both words mean the same thing. To be clarified, (to be made bright or splendorous, to be displayed and made known) is the same as to be glorified, for glory is a kind of splendor. According to Ambrose, someone has glory when he is known with clarity and praised. And so exegetes translate the Greek word "clarify" as "glorify," and vice versa.
We can understand this statement in four ways, by referring it to the four kinds of glory which Christ had: the glory of the cross; the glory of his judicial power; the glory of his resurrection; and the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Scripture attributes this fourfold glory to Christ.
First, then, Christ was glorified by being lifted up on the cross. Even Paul said that his own glory was in the cross: "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14). This is the glory Chrysostom has in mind in his explanation of the text. In this explanation our Lord mentions four things about the glory of the cross: the glory itself; the fruit of this glory; the author of the glory; and the time of the glory.
As to the first, the very glory of the cross, he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. Note that when something is beginning, it seems in a way to already exist. Now when Judas went out to bring back the soldiers, this seems to be the beginning of Christ's passion, the passion by which he was to be glorified. This is why he says, now is the Son of man glorified, that is, the passion by which he will be glorified is now beginning. Indeed, Christ was glorified by the passion of the cross because by it he conquered the enemies of death and the devil: "that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14). Again, he acquired glory because by his cross he joined heaven and earth: "to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col 1:20). Further, he was glorified by his cross because by it he acquired all kingship. One version of Psalm 95 (v 9) says: "Say to the nations that the Lord has reigned from his cross." Again, Christ was glorified by the cross because he accomplished many miracles on it: the curtain of the temple was split, an earthquake occurred, rocks were split and the sun was darkened, and many saints arose, as Matthew (27:51) states. So with his passion drawing near, these are the reasons why our Lord said, now is the Son of man glorified. It is like saying: now my passion is beginning, the passion which is my glory.
The fruit of this glory is that God is glorified by it. So he says, and in him God is glorified, that is, in the glorified Son of man. For the glory of the passion leads to the glory of God. If God was glorified by the death of Peter - "This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God" (21:19) - he was much more glorified by the death of Christ.
The author of this glory is not an angel or a human being, but God himself. He says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if his glory is so great that God is glorified by it, he does not need to be glorified by another. But God will also glorify him in himself, that is, through himself: "Father, glorify me" (17:5).
The time for this glory is fast approaching, because God will glorify him at once, that is, he will give him the glory of the cross. "For the cross, although it is foolish to the Gentiles and to those who are lost, yet to us who believe, it is the very great wisdom of God and the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18).
The second glory of Christ is the glory of his judicial power: "And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory" (Mk 13:26). This is the glory about which Augustine speaks. In reference to this, he does four things here: first, he mentions the glory of the judicial power of Christ; secondly, he shows the merit from which he acquired it; thirdly, he expounds on this; fourthly, he shows the source of Christ's glory. As to the first, he says, Now is the Son of man glorified. We should note that in Sacred Scripture, one thing is not explicitly said to signify another, and the word for the signifying thing is also used for the thing signified. For example, we do not read that "The rock signified Christ"; rather, it says, "And the Rock was Christ" (1 Cor 10:4). In the departure of Judas away from the apostles we have a kind of image of the future judgment, when the wicked will be separated from the good, and Christ will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left (Mt 25:33). Since this departure of Judas signified the future judgment, right after this our Lord began to speak of the glory of his judicial power, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified; that is, this departure or separation represents the glory which the Son of man will have in the judgment, where none of the good will perish and none of the evil will be with them. He does not say: "Now is the glorification of the Son of man signified," but rather, Now is the Son of man glorified, in keeping with the above-mentioned custom of Scripture.
Now the merit of this glorification is that God would be glorified in him. For God is glorified by those who seek to do his will, and not their own. Christ was like this: "For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (6:38). And this is why in him God is glorified. He amplifies on this when he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if, by doing the will of God, he glorifies God, then rightly God will also glorify him in himself, so that the human nature assumed by the eternal Word will be given an eternal glory. Thus, in himself, that is, in his own glory: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). Therefore the glorification by which God is glorified in Christ is the merit in virtue of which Christ as man is glorified in himself, that is, in the glory of God. This will occur when his human nature, its weakness having been laid down by the death of the cross, receives the glory of immortality at the resurrection. So the resurrection itself was the source from which this glory began. Accordingly he says, and will glorify him at once, at the resurrection, which will quickly come: "I will arise in the morning early" (Ps 108:2): and also, "You will not let your Holy One see corruption" (Ps 16:10).
The third glory of Christ is the glory of his resurrection, about which we read, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4). It is in terms of this glory that Hilary explains this passage, and Augustine also in part.
From this aspect, Christ first foretells this glory of his, saying, Now is the Son of man glorified. Here he is speaking of the future as if it has already happened, because what we think will quickly happen we regard as good as done. Now the glory of the resurrection was very near, and so he says, Now is the Son of man glorified, as if his body, by its union with the divine nature, had in a way acquired the glory of the divinity.
Secondly, he mentions the cause of this glory quite subtly. As he said, in the resurrection the humanity of Christ was glorified because of its union with the divine nature; and there was one person, that of the Word. For we read: "You will not leave my soul in Sheol; you will not let your holy one," who is the holiest of all, "see corruption" (Ps 16:10). Such glory is also due to this human being, Christ, in so far as he is God. We too will have the glory of the resurrection to the extent that we share in the divinity: "He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you" (Rom 8:11). So he says that the Son of man, that is, Christ considered in his human nature, is glorified, by his resurrection. And who will glorify him? He says, God will also glorify him in himself, so that this human being, Christ, who reigns in the glory which is from the glory of God, may himself pass into the glory of God, that is, might entirely abide in God, as though deified by the way his human nature is possessed. It is like saying: A lamp is bright because a fire is burning brightly within it. That which sends the rays of brightness into the human nature of Christ is God; and thus the human nature of Christ is glorified by the glory of his divinity, and the human nature of Christ is brought into the glory of his divinity, not by having its nature changed, but by a sharing of glory in so far as this human being, Christ, is adored as God: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" (Phil 2:9). So he says, if God is glorified in him, that is, if it is true that the glory of his divinity overflows to the glory of his humanity, subsequently God will also glorify him in himself, give him a share of his own glory by assuming him into that glory: "Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father" (Phil 2:11).
Thus, Christ has a twofold glory. One is in his human nature, but is derived from his divinity. The other is the glory of his divinity, into which his human nature is in a way taken up. But each glory is different. The first-mentioned glory had a beginning in time. For this reason he speaks of it as past, saying, and in him God is, or has been, glorified, on the day of the resurrection. The other glory is eternal, because from eternity the Word of God is God. And the human nature of Christ, assumed into this glory, will be glorified forever. And so he speaks of this as in the future: and will glorify him at once, that is, he will always establish him in that glory forever.
The fourth glory of Christ is the glory of being known by the faith of the people. Origen has this kind of glory in mind in his exposition. According to him, glory means one thing in ordinary speech, and another thing in Scripture. In ordinary speech, glory is the praise given by a number of people, or the clear knowledge of someone accompanied by praise, as Ambrose says. While in Scripture, glory indicates that a divine sign or mark is upon one. We read in Exodus (40:34) that "The glory of the Lord appeared over the tabernacle," that is, a divine sign rested over it. The same happened to the face of Moses, when it was glorified. Just as glory, in the physical sense, indicates that a divine sign rests upon one, so, in the spiritual sense, that intellect is said to be glorified when it is so deified and so transcends all material things that it is raised to a knowledge of God. It is by this that we are made sharers of glory: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, if anyone who knows God is glorified and made a sharer of glory, it is clear that Christ, who knows God most perfectly, since he is the brightness of the entire divine glory (Heb 1:30), and able to receive the splendor of the entire divine glory, if, I say, this is so, then Christ is most perfectly glorified. And all who know God owe this to Christ.
But men did not yet realize that Christ was so glorified by this most perfect knowledge and participation in the divinity. And so, although he was glorified in himself, he was not yet glorified in the knowledge of men. He began to have his glory at his passion and resurrection, when men began to recognize his power and divinity. Our Lord, speaking here of this glory, says, Now is the Son of man glorified, that is, now, in his human nature, he is receiving glory in the knowledge of men because of his approaching passion. And in him God, the Father, is glorified. For the Son not only reveals himself, but the Father as well: "I have manifested thy name" (17:6). Consequently, not only is the Son glorified, but the Father also: "No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Mt 11:27). He says, in him, because one who sees the Son also sees the Father (14:9).
It is characteristic of one who is greater to return what is greater. And thus he adds, if God is glorified in him, that is, if the glory of God the Father somehow increases because of the glory of the Son of man, because the Father becomes better known, God will also glorify him in himself, that is, make it known that Christ Jesus is in his glory. This will not be delayed for he will glorify him at once.
Commentary on John

If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

εἰ ὁ Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν.

а҆́ще бг҃ъ просла́висѧ ѡ҆ не́мъ, и҆ бг҃ъ просла́витъ є҆го̀ въ себѣ̀, и҆ а҆́бїе просла́витъ є҆го̀.

Hilary of Poitiers †367

The meaning of his opening words can hardly be disputed when he says, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” He was saying that all the glory that [the Son of man] obtains is not for the Word but for his flesh.… What, then, is the meaning of what follows … when he says that “God is glorified in him,” that is, in the Son of man? Tell me, then, is the Son of man the same as the Son of God? And since the Son of man is not one entity and the Son of God another—but he who is the Son of God is himself also the Son of man—who, pray tell, is the God who is glorified in this Son of man who is also the Son of God?… The third clause helps us with this when he adds, “If God is glorified in him, God has also glorified him in himself.” … Now, a man is not glorified in himself, nor, on the other hand, does God, who is glorified in the man, cease being God just because he receives glory.… “God is glorified in him” must certainly be referring either to Christ, who is glorified in the flesh, or to the Father, who is glorified in Christ. If it is Christ, Christ is clearly God who is glorified in the flesh. If it is the Father, we are face to face with the mystery of the unity, since the Father is glorified in the Son.… But when we consider that God glorifies in himself God who is glorified in the Son of man, by what loophole, pray tell, can your profane doctrine escape from the confession that Christ is very God according to the truth of his nature?… The Father glorifies him, not with a glory from without but in himself. By taking him back into that glory that belongs to himself and that [the Son] had with him before, the Father glorifies [the Son] with himself and in himself.
On the Trinity 9.40-42

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

The time is near when the Son of man who was assumed will be glorified in a laudable way and in which, above all, God will be revealed before everybody through the things that happen to him. The events that happened at the time of the crucifixion, when the earth shook, the light of the sun was obscured, the darkness covered the earth, the sepulchers opened and the rocks were broken, showed how great was already—and how great would have been—the magnificence of the one who had been crucified. And, at the same time, they were the reason why people admired God who made the Son of man worthy of such an honor. “If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself and will glorify him at once.” Evidently, he says, God is glorified by those things that are happening in him as much as he also glorifies him. It cannot happen that he appears to be admirable because of him if the things that happened to him were not great. And they, he says, had already been given to him.
Commentary on John 6.13.31-32

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

But the glorifying of the Son of man, is the glorifying of God in Him; as He adds, And God is glorified in Him, which He proceeds to explain; If God is glorified in Him—for He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him—God shall also glorify Him in Himself, so that the human nature which was assumed by the eternal Word, shall also be endowed with eternity. And shall straightway glorify Him. He predicts His own resurrection, which was to follow immediately, not at the end of the world, like ours. Thus it is; Now is the Son of man glorified; the now referring not to His approaching Passion, but the resurrection which was immediately to follow it: as if that which was so very soon to be, had already taken place.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

But after saying, "Now is the Son of man glorified," He added, "and God is glorified in Him." For this is itself the glorifying of the Son of man, that God should be glorified in Him. For if He is not glorified in Himself, but God in Him, then it is He whom God glorifies in Himself. And just as if to give them this explanation, He further adds: "If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself." That is, "If God is glorified in Him," because He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him; "and God shall glorify Him in Himself," in such wise that the human nature, in which He is the Son of man, and which was so assumed by the eternal Word, should also be endowed with an eternal immortality. "And," He says, "He shall straightway glorify Him;" predicting, to wit, by such an asseveration, His own resurrection in the immediate future, and not, as it were, ours in the end of the world. For it is this very glorification of which the evangelist had previously said, as I mentioned a little ago, that on this account the Spirit was not yet in their case given in that new way, in which He was yet to be given after the resurrection to those who believed, because that Jesus was not yet glorified: that is, mortality was not yet clothed with immortality, and temporal weakness transformed into eternal strength.
Tractates on John 63

Cyril of Alexandria †444

The traitor departs to minister to the stratagems of the devil. And now Christ begins His discourse; teaching us thereby, as in a figure, that the things which are fitted only for true disciples are not to be uttered in the hearing of all men. For it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs, as Christ Himself says, nor even to allow pearls to be insulted by the feet of swine. The very same lesson that He had thus given them before in the form of a parable He now endeavours to teach them at a time requiring its practice, and calling for a more distinct explanation of it. So then, after the departure of the traitor and his hasty withdrawal from the house, Christ now, as at the fitting moment, unfolds the mysteries to His true disciples, saying: Now is the Son of Man glorified; and by this He is pointing to His sufferings as Saviour, as being already at the doors, and after but a brief while to come upon Him. He says, however, that "the Son of Man" is glorified, meaning none other than Himself; not implying a separation in Himself, as some have thought, for the Christ is one only Son both before and after His incarnation, as well after He became man like unto us as before He had become man. But we must now inquire what manner of glorification that is to which He now specially alludes; for some perhaps may say: Was He not surely glorified before this, by the mighty wonders which He wrought? Surely, when with a single word He rebuked the angry rage of the sea and checked the violence of the fierce winds, then He was worshipped by those that were in the boat, and heard them say: Of a truth Thou art the Son of God. Again, when He had bidden Lazarus at Bethany return once more to life, the marvellous deed was noised abroad, even so much that as He went up to Jerusalem at the time of the feast all the people together with their babes came forth to meet Him, and joined in the strain of wondrous praise addressed to Him, saying: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. Nay, more, there was a time when He brake five loaves and two small fishes, and satisfied therewith the hunger of the multitude who had come together unto Him, amounting to five thousand men, besides babes and women. And to some the wonder then wrought seemed so magnificent that, astonished at the greatness of the achievement, they sought even to proclaim Him king; for this the Evangelist himself has testified to us. And there would be no difficulty in extending our argument at length by enumerating many other deeds wherein Christ's glory was manifested no less highly than in those we have just mentioned. How then, after all, does it happen that He Who had been glorified long before speaks of Himself as glorified at this particular time? Truly He had been glorified in other ways, and had won for Himself most distinctly a reputation for possessing Divine authority: still the perfect consummation of His glory and the fulness of His fame were summed up in the facts of His suffering for the life of the world and opening by His own resurrection the gate through which all may rise. For if we examine as well as we may the real character of the mystery of His work, we shall see that He died, not merely for Himself, nor even especially for His own sake; but that it was on behalf of humanity that He suffered and carried out both the suffering in itself and the resurrection that followed. For in that He died according to the flesh, He offered up His own life as an equivalent for the life of all; and by rendering perfect satisfaction for all, He fulfilled in Himself to the uttermost the force of that ancient curse. And in that He has risen again from the dead to a life imperishable and unceasing, in Himself He raises the whole of nature. For having died once for all, thenceforward, as it is written, He dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died unto sin once: but the life that He liveth, He liveth unto God. This also will for Christ's sake be true even in our own case. For we shall rise, no more subject to death, but endowed with endless life; even though there will be hereafter a great diversity of lot among those that rise----I mean as regards their glory and the recompence which each shall receive as due to his works. Christ therefore, after becoming obedient to God the Father even unto death, yea, the death of the cross, according to the saying of Paul, was once again highly exalted, receiving the name which is above every name. For He Who was believed to be a mere man was glorified very much beyond that, by being acknowledged as in very truth really God and the Son of God; not being promoted to a new dignity in possessing the Divine nature, but rather returning with His flesh to the full enjoyment of that very glory which was equally His before He took flesh. For this reason then we shall reckon that He was now glorified, although there never was a time when He was not Lord of glory. For in Christ we do not find one of His God-befitting attributes appearing as a new thing, but all appear as having naturally belonged to Him as God, even before the time when He is said to have emptied Himself. But still, when the form of a servant had been assumed, forasmuch as He raised Himself to those conditions again, even after He became man, He is conceived of as being "glorified," and is said to have "received" [the exalted name]. With Christ therefore in His glorification, God the Father also is greatly glorified. And He is glorified in the Son; not as receiving from His Offspring any addition of glory, for of no such addition does the Divine and ineffable nature stand ever in need; but because it is made known of what a Son He is the Father. For even as it is a pride and a glory to the Son to have such a Being for His Father, likewise also methinks it is a pride and a glory even to the Father to have born from Himself so glorious a Son. Therefore Christ says this: And God is glorified in Him; and God shall glorify Him in Himself, and straightway shall He glorify Him: for at the same time the Father is glorified on account of the Son, and straightway glorifies the Son in return. For to Both, for the sake of Both, the ascription of glory extends.
But in order that we may bring down the application of the passage to our own level, and so make it a source of edification to our hearers, we will add this to what has been said. If in ourselves we glorify God, we may expect that we shall be glorified by Him. For, As I live, saith the Lord, them that honour Me I will honour, and they shall not be lightly esteemed. And God is glorified by us and in us, when, casting away the defilement of sin, we adorn our lives in all the beauty of good works. For thus it is that we live to His glory.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

What does it mean that God will glorify the Son "in Himself"? It means that He will glorify Him through Himself, not through another, not through angels and archangels, not through another power, but through Himself, for He did all things for the glory of the Son. "Soon He will glorify Him," that is, He will not delay, but will glorify Him on the very cross, then after three days will raise Him, and after forty days will send down upon the disciples the grace of the Spirit. Let us also consider the purpose of these words. "Now the Son of Man is glorified," that is, I who teach and perform miracles; and the glory did not stop with Me, but ascended to God and the Father. And since My glory becomes the glory of the Father, do not grieve. For the Father will again glorify Me, so that He too may be glorified. For I do not claim glory for Myself, and does it not ascend to Him? Yes, the glory is common to Us. Therefore He will again glorify Me, and will not delay, but soon, when I shall endure dishonorable sufferings, when, apparently, I shall be taken from among the living through death, then He will honor Me all the more, then through the resurrection He will glorify Me.
Commentary on John

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.

τεκνία, ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι. ζητήσετέ με, καὶ καθὼς εἶπον τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι ὅπου ὑπάγω ἐγώ, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν, καὶ ὑμῖν λέγω ἄρτι.

Ча̑дца, є҆щѐ съ ва́ми ма́лѡ є҆́смь: взы́щете менє̀, и҆ ꙗ҆́коже рѣ́хъ і҆ꙋде́ѡмъ, ꙗ҆́кѡ а҆́може а҆́зъ и҆дꙋ̀, вы̀ не мо́жете прїитѝ: и҆ ва́мъ гл҃ю нн҃ѣ.

Clement of Alexandria †215

In this way the Lord in the Gospels spurs on His disciples, urging them to attend to Him, hastening as He was to the Father; rendering His hearers more eager by the intimation that after a little He was to depart, and showing them that it was requisite that they should take more unsparing advantage of the truth than ever before, as the Word was to ascend to heaven. Again, therefore, He calls them children; for He says, "Children, a little while I am with you."
The Instructor Book 1

Origen of Alexandria †253

The statement “Yet a little while I am with you” is clear in the simple sense, so far as the literal sense is concerned, since he would soon no longer be with the disciples. First, he was arrested by the cohort and the tribune and the servants of the Jews who bound him and led him off to Annas first, and after this he was delivered to Pilate. Next, he was condemned to the cross, and then he spent three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.376

For in that “little while” in which they would not see him, they would seek Jesus, and for this reason they would weep and lament, although their grief would change to joy when the saying was fulfilled, “And again a little while and you will see me.” But to seek Jesus is to seek the Word, and wisdom, and justice, and truth and the power of God, all of which Christ is.
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.385, 387

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 3) And therefore He said, little children; for He did not mean to speak to them, as He had to the Jews. Ye cannot follow Me now, He says, in order to rouse the love of His disciples. For the departure of loved friends kindles all our affection, and especially if they are going to a place where we cannot follow them. He purposely too speaks of His death, as a kind of translation, a happy removal to a place, where mortal bodies do not enter.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

He references the time up until his passion when he says “only a little longer.” He says to the Jews, “You will look for me,” and adds, “and you will not find me,” because they would no longer see him anymore after his passion. But to his disciples he only says, “You will look for me.” Indeed, they looked for him and, since they were led by devotion in their search for him and saw themselves deprived of the care of their teacher, they found him. They saw him after his resurrection, and they lived and ate with him until he ascended into heaven.
Commentary on John 6.13.33

But, he says, as I said to the Jews that they could not come where I go, “so now I say to you.” Notice that he added “now.” By saying that they could not come where he goes, he means that they still cannot face death like him. In fact, they all run away. And even Simon denied him. But he added “now” to declare that afterward they would disregard sufferings and trials. Indeed, after the descent of the Holy Spirit they even enjoyed suffering for Christ since they were fully confirmed in faith in him and in the promise of future things. Therefore, he says, even though you are led by love to look for me—I know that you do this because of your love for me—nevertheless you cannot prove now your love with your works since your natural weakness inspires you with fear. Therefore things are going to happen [now] that cannot happen in a different way. If you want, you can do what I am teaching you to do even now while you are still a little apprehensive since it is useful now, and it will be [even more] useful later.
Commentary on John 6.13.33

Augustine of Hippo †430

It becomes us, dearly beloved, to keep in view the orderly connection of our Lord's words. For after having previously said, but subsequently to Judas' departure, and his separation from even the outward communion of the saints, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him;"-whether He said so as pointing to His future kingdom, when the wicked shall be separated from the good, or that His resurrection was then to take place, that is, was not to be delayed, like ours, till the end of the world;-and having then added, "If God is glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him," whereby without any ambiguity He testified to the immediate fulfillment of His own resurrection; He proceeded to say, "Little children, yet a little while I am with you." To keep them, therefore, from thinking that God was to glorify Him in such a way that He would never again be joined with them in earthly intercourse, He said, "Yet a little while I am with you:" as if He had said, Straightway indeed I shall be glorified in my resurrection; and yet I am not straightway to ascend into heaven, but "yet a little while I am with you." For, as we find it written in the Acts of the Apostles, He spent forty days with them after His resurrection, going in and out, and eating and drinking: not indeed that He had any experience of hunger and thirst, but even by such evidences confirmed the reality of His flesh, which no longer needed, but still possessed the power, to eat and to drink. Was it, then, these forty days He had in view when He said, "Yet a little while I am with you," or something else? For it may also be understood in this way: "Yet a little while I am with you;" still, like you, I also am in this state of fleshly infirmity, that is, till He should die and rise again: for after He rose again He was with them, as has been said, for forty days in the full manifestation of His bodily presence; but He was no longer with them in the fellowship of human infirmity.
There is also another form of His divine presence unknown to mortal senses, of which He likewise says, "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." This, at least, is not the same as "yet a little while I am with you;" for it is not a little while until the end of the world. Or if even this is so (for time flies, and a thousand years are in God's sight as one day, or as a watch in the night,) yet we cannot believe that He intended any such meaning on this occasion, especially as He went on to say, "Ye shall seek me, and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come." That is to say, after this little while that I am with you, "ye shall seek me, and whither I go, ye cannot come." Is it after the end of the world that, whither He goes, they will not be able to come? And where, then, is the place of which He is going to say a little after in this same discourse, "Father, I will that they also be with me where I am"? It was not then of that presence of His with His own which He is maintaining with them till the end of the world that He now spake, when He said, "Yet a little while I am with you;" but either of that state of mortal infirmity in which He dwelt with them till His passion, or of that bodily presence which He was to maintain with them up till His ascension.
That no one, however, may deem that sense inconsistent with the true one, in which we say that the Lord may have meant the communion of mortal flesh which He held with the disciples till His passion, when He said, "Yet a little while I am with you;" let those words also of His after His resurrection, as found in another evangelist, be taken into consideration, when He said, "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you:" as if then He was no longer with them, even at the very time that they were standing by, seeing, touching, and talking with Him. What does He mean, then, by saying, "while I was yet with you," but, while I was yet in that state of mortal flesh wherein ye still remain? For then, indeed, He had been raised again in the same flesh; but He was no longer associated with them in the same mortality.
"Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so say I to you now." That is, ye cannot come now. But when He said so to the Jews, He did not add the "now." The former, therefore, were not able at that time to come where He was going, but they were so afterwards; because He says so a little afterwards in the plainest terms to the Apostle Peter. For, on the latter inquiring, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" He replied to him, "Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards." But what it means is not to be carelessly passed over. For whither was it that the disciples could not then follow the Lord, but were able afterwards? If we say, to death, what time can be discovered when any one of the sons of men will find it impossible to die; since such, in this perishable body, is the lot of man, that therein life is not a whit easier than death? They were not, therefore, at that time less able to follow the Lord to death, but they were less able to follow Him to the life which is deathless. For thither it was the Lord was going, that, rising from the dead, He should die no more, and death should no more have dominion over Him. For as the Lord was about to die for righteousness' sake, how could they have followed Him now, who were as yet unripe for the ordeal of martyrdom? Or, with the Lord about to enter the fleshly immortality, how could they have followed Him now, when, even though ready to die, they would have no resurrection till the end of the world? Or, on the point of going, as the Lord was, to the bosom of the Father, and that without any forsaking of them, just as He had never quitted that bosom in coming to them, how could they have followed Him now, since no one can enter on that state of felicity but he that is made perfect in love? And to show them, therefore, how it is that they may attain the fitness to proceed, where He was going before them, He says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another."
Tractates on John 64

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

After He had said, And shall straightway glorify Him, that they might not think that God was going to glorify Him in such a way, as that He would no longer have any converse with them on earth, He says, Little children, yet a little while I am with you: as if He said, I shall indeed straightway be glorified by My resurrection, but I shall not straightway ascend to heaven. For we read in the Acts of the Apostles, that He was with them forty days after His resurrection. These forty days are what He means by, A little while I am with you.
(Tr. lxiv. 1) It may be understood too thus: I am as yet in this frail flesh, even as ye are, until I die and rise again. He was with them after His resurrection, by bodily presence, not by participation of human frailty. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, (Luke 24:44) He says to His disciples after His resurrection; meaning, while I was in mortal flesh, as ye are. He was in the same flesh then with them, but not subject to the same mortality. But there is another Divine Presence unknown to mortal senses, of which He saith, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Mat. 28:20) This is not the presence meant by, A little while I am with you; for it is not a little while to the end of the world: or even if it is a little while, because that in the eye of God, a thousand years are as one day, yet what follows shows that it is not what our Lord is here alluding to; for He adds, Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now. At the end of the world they were to follow Him, whither He went; as He saith below; Father, I will that they be with Me, where I am. (c. 17:24)
(Tr. lxiv. 4) Or He means that they were not yet fit to follow Him to death for righteousness' sake. For how could they, when they were not ripe for martyrdom? Or how could they follow our Lord to immortality, they who were to die, and not to rise again till the end of the world? Or how could they follow Him to the bosom of the Father, when none could partake of that felicity, but they whose love was perfected? When He told the Jews this, He did not add now. But the disciples, though they could not follow Him then, would be able to do so afterwards, and therefore He addsc, So now I say to you.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Ye shall seek Me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say unto you.
Not altogether without pain to His own disciples will the departure be, He says; it will be the departure of Himself. In the first place they will languish in grief on account of it, and will find the weight of bitterness produced by it to be intolerable. For beyond all question they will thirst once more to be with Him, and long to live with Him for ever; just as also the inspired Paul, preferring the being with Christ to life itself here, said it was better to depart and be with Christ. Perceiving this, and well knowing the hearts of those who love Him, Christ said that His Ascension would not be without grief to His disciples. But there was also, besides this feeling, another just cause that forced the holy disciples to seek to be with Christ. They were destined within a brief while to be compassed about with grievous dangers, and to be exposed on all sides to the ungovernable frenzies of the Jews, and even to fall victims to madness on the part of strangers, while on their mission through the whole world, preaching the word of the Saviour to those that were still wandering afar; so as to become acquainted with prisons, and to have their part in all kinds of insult and outrage, and to gain no less experience of other tortures: and all this in spite of their never having experienced any such suffering while they were with Christ. "Then most especially," He says, "ye shall seek My company, when the manifold waves of trial break over you." And hereby He sought not to bring the disciples to cowardly timidity, or to shatter their courage with fear; but rather to brace them up to fresh vigour, and in a manner to teach them to be ready prepared for the patient endurance of all which they expected would come upon them. For we shall find the Psalmist's song to be anything but meaningless, nay, rather to convey very profitable instruction in the words: I was prepared and was not confounded. For the wholly unexpected arrival of misfortune is wont to throw us into confusion, taking us as it were off our guard: but when a trial has been known beforehand and long expected, the greater part of the terror it occasions has passed away before it comes, and its power over its victims is not at all absolute, as the mind has already rehearsed it and often in imagination received its attack. In the same way, if some wild and savage animal, starting up from the midst of a luxuriant and dense jungle, rushes on one who does not see it coming, it tears him limb from limb before he is conscious of the attack, having seized him while he was unprepared for warfare: whereas if the beast is seen from afar and its coming expected, it meets an armed foe, and either does him less harm, or perchance has even to depart in helpless impotence. Just so in the case of temptations: that which is wholly unexpected will attack us more fiercely and more severely than one which has been anticipated for some time. With kind intent therefore does our Lord Jesus the Christ in saying "Ye shall seek Me" hint at the evils that will come on the disciples when His presence is removed, and the troubles that will arise from their enemies; preparing them by this warning for a renewal of their courage: with kind intent also He adds to these hints the statement that there will for the present be an obstacle in the way of their following Him. For as I said to the Jews, He says, even so I say now unto you: Whither I go ye cannot come. For not yet was the time come when the disciples should have accomplished their service on earth, and be admitted to the mansions above. For their entrance to those realms was reserved most strictly to its appointed season.
This point however we must notice again, that in speaking to the Jews, while giving to them this same warning, He said: Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find Me; but to His disciples He only says: Ye shall seek Me, fitly breaking off without the words "and shall not find Me." And why so? The Jews will rightly deserve to be told that they should never find Him, on account of their monstrous infidelity and the surpassing baseness of their impiety towards Him: but to those who have a true affection for Him, and have preserved their love in all sincerity, it could not be fitly said: "Ye shall not find Me." For He was ever with them, and will be with them to the end.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Little children, yet a little while I am with you.
He places the disciples in the position of little children and accounts them as new-born babes, although they had advanced to so high a stage in virtue, and were possessed of wisdom such as is fully vouchsafed to few; showing us hereby, and that very plainly, that even he who is accounted very perfect in the eyes of man is an infant in the sight of God, and feeble in mental faculties. For what is the understanding of man in comparison with the wisdom that fashioned the universe? Therefore it is that a Psalmist said to God: I was as a beast before Thee. And no one whatever will say, if he has any perception at all, that the Psalmist compares himself to a beast because of his having cleaved closely unto God; for such an idea would be a bitter disparagement of the Divine nature, and would be seen to involve a great impropriety. For he that cleaves to a wise man and "is" ever "before" him, (for I suppose I must adapt the words of the Psalm so far as is necessary,) would never become "as a beast;" but rather would become ready of mind, and quick of understanding, and skilful in judgment. If therefore any one acknowledged this to be very just and true, would not a person be thought foolish in the extreme who should suppose that one who cleaves fast to the wisdom that comes from God Himself will ever become as a beast in senseless folly? Why then does the Psalmist say that even he who is counted very wise among men will in comparison with the wisdom of God appear to be as a beast, and be reckoned among those who have no sense to guide them? It is because the understanding of man can no more be compared with the wisdom of God than the smallest star can vie with the rays of the sun, or even the heaviest of stones with the highest of all mountains; but rather is as nothing at all in comparison with it. And so it appears that even the perfect man is but as a little child.
Yet a little while, however, Christ said He would be with the disciples; not meaning that He was soon to depart so as to return no more, or to be separated from them altogether and entirely, for He is with us (according to His own words) alway, even unto the end of the world; but implying that He would not be with them in the flesh, as He had been yesterday and the day before, and that now there was even at the door, or rather within the door, the time of His departure thence unto the Father, and of His ascension into heaven. And I say that it is necessary for us all, at least those who are right minded and have their faith well established, to realise the fact that even though He is absent from us in the flesh, now that He has returned from earth to God the Father, yet He pervades all things in His Divine power, and is ever present with those who love Him. For surely this is why He also declared: Verily, verily, I say unto you, wherever two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them. For just as, while still sojourning among men, yea, while verily on earth with flesh, He filled the heavens, and even then was still present with the holy angels, and never left the realms above; so now also, while verily in heaven with His own flesh, He fills the earth, and is ever present with those who know Him. And notice how, although expecting to be removed from earth as regards His flesh alone, since in the power of His Divinity He is ever with us, He nevertheless speaks of being with us yet a little while, including in this statement His whole and perfect Self without any division: lest any should endeavour to sever the One Christ into two Sons, but that all should think and believe that the Word begotten of God the Father is one with the Temple assumed from the holy virgin; not that they are of the same essence, but that after their ineffable union, none can speak of severing them without impiety: for the Christ is, of them both, One.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Since they were about to undergo afflictions, the Lord foretells them about this, so that they would remember the afflictions and prepare themselves for them. This also serves to His glory. For announcing to the disciples beforehand what would happen to them was no small glory for Him, when the disciples later recalled that the Lord had foretold them about this. And showing that not only now, for the first time, does He learn of it, but that He knew long before that in trials they would seek Him, He says that He, as one who foreknew long in advance, said this very thing to the Jews as well. By the words "where I go," the Lord shows that His death is a passage and departure to a better place, where perishable bodies are not received. To the Jews He said: "You will seek Me, and where I go, you cannot come" (John 7:34), in order to strike fear into them, but to the disciples He says it in order to kindle love in them. For when we see one of our friends departing, we are usually inflamed with a more fervent love for him, especially if he is going where it is impossible for us to come. So He says this to them in order to kindle love in them. For this reason He also added "little children," so that they would not think He said this to them from the same disposition as to the Jews, but from love. The Jews sought the Lord when their city was taken and the wrath of God rushed upon them from every side, as Josephus also testifies that this befell them for the killing of Jesus. The disciples, however, sought Him when they were fleeing or experiencing other affliction. Therefore in another place He also says: "The bridegroom will be taken away, and then the friends of the bridegroom will fast" (Matt. 9:15). So, the Lord foretells the future to both groups, but to the one — on account of unbelief, and to the other — on account of love, so that they would not be subjected to unexpected calamities.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Above, our Lord spoke of the glory he would acquire by his leaving. Here, he is telling them that he will leave them. First, he foretells his leaving; secondly, he shows that his disciples were not yet fit to follow him (v 33b); thirdly, he shows how they can become fit, A new commandment I give to you.
He briefly foretells his coming departure, saying, Little children, yet a little while I am with you. He uses the words of a parent to his children the more to inflame their love; for it is when friends are about to leave each other that they especially glow with love: "Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" (13:1). He says, little children, to show their imperfection, for they were not yet perfectly children, because they did not yet perfectly love. They were not yet perfect in charity: "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be informed in you" (Gal 4:19). Still, they had grown somewhat in perfection, because from slaves they became little children, as he calls them here, and brethren, "Go to my brethren and say to them" (20:17).
We should note that the expression, yet a little while, can be explained in three ways, according to the three ways Christ is present to his disciples. Christ was present to his disciples in body. But his body can be considered in two ways. First, we can view it as having the characteristics that belong to human nature, for Christ had a mortal body, just as others. So, a little while, is understood as the time between these words and his death. So the sense is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, a little time remains until I am taken and die, and then I will rise and be immortal, even in body: "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Rom 6:9). So Luke (24:44) says: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you."
Secondly, he was with them in body, but a body that was already glorified. Then, a little while, indicates the time that intervened until his ascension: "A little while, and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me, because I go to the Father" (16:16); "Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land" (Hag 2:6).
Thirdly, it can be explained as applying to the spiritual presence of Christ, his presence in his divinity and in the sacraments. Then, a little while, is taken to mean the time which would intervene until the end of the world. This is a little while in comparison with eternity: "Children it is the last hour" (1 Jn 2:18). Then the meaning is: yet a little while I am with you, that is, although I will leave you in body, I am still spiritually with you for a little while which remains before the end of the world: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).
Yet this explanation is not appropriate to the presence of Christ in his divinity, for he will be with them not only to the end of the world, but for all eternity. For this reason Origen explains it another way. He says that Christ is always with the perfect, who do not sin in a serious way. But he is not always present to the imperfect, because when they sin he withdraws from them. Now in a little while the disciples would leave Christ, fall away and abandon him: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31). And so Christ spiritually withdrew from them. In reference to this he says, yet a little while I am with you, that is, in a little while you will leave and abandon me, and then I will not be with you.
Next, he mentions their inability to follow him. First, he notes their effort, you will seek me, whom you have spiritually abandoned by your flight and denials. You will seek me, I say, by your repentance, as Peter did, who wept bitterly: "Seek the Lord while he may be found" (Is 55:6); "In their distress they seek me" (Hos 5:15). Or, you will seek me, that is, you will want me to be present in body: "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it" (Lk 17:22).
Secondly, he shows their weakness, saying, as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, Where I am going you cannot come. Yet this was said differently to the two. Some of the Jews would never be converted. It was to these that it was said absolutely that they could not go where Christ was going. But now that Judas has gone, none of the remaining disciples would be separated from Christ. And to them he did not say absolutely, you cannot come, but added, now I say to you. It is like saying: I said to the Jews, that is, to the obstinate among them, that they could never come. But I say to you, that for now, you cannot follow me, because you are not perfect enough in charity to want to die for me. For I will leave you by dying.
Again, I am going to the glory of my Father, to which no one can come unless he is perfect in charity. Also, I will be glorified now, for as we read, "Now is the Son of man glorified." But it is not yet the time for your bodies to be glorified; so, where I am going you cannot come.
Commentary on John

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους.

За́повѣдь но́вꙋю даю̀ ва́мъ, да лю́бите дрꙋ́гъ дрꙋ́га: ꙗ҆́коже возлюби́хъ вы̀, да и҆ вы̀ лю́бите себѐ:

Ignatius of Antioch †108

Let no man's place, or dignity, or riches, puff him up; and let no man's low condition or poverty abase him. For the chief points are faith towards God, hope towards Christ, the enjoyment of those good things for which we look, and love towards God and our neighbour. For, "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself." And the Lord says, "This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." And again, "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another. They have no regard for love; they despise the good things we expect hereafter; they regard present things as if they were durable; they ridicule him that is in affliction; they laugh at him that is in bonds.
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Apostolic Constitutions †380

He who then had forbidden murder now forbids anger without cause. He who had forbidden adultery now forbids all unlawful lust. He who had forbidden stealing now pronounces him most happy who supplies those that are in want out of his own labors. He who had forbidden hatred now pronounces him blessed who loves his enemies.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 6.23

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 3) Or, as I have loved you: for My love has not been the payment of something owing to you, but had its beginning on My side. And ye ought in like manner to do one another good, though ye may not owe it.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

The Lord Jesus declares that He is giving His disciples a new commandment, that they should love one another. "A new commandment," He says, "I give unto you, that ye love one another." But was not this already commanded in the ancient law of God, where it is written, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why, then, is it called a new one by the Lord, when it is proved to be so old? Is it on this account a new commandment, because He hath divested us of the old, and clothed us with the new man? For it is not indeed every kind of love that renews him that listens to it, or rather yields it obedience, but that love regarding which the Lord, in order to distinguish it from all carnal affection, added, "as I have loved you." For husbands and wives love one another, and parents and children, and all other human relationships that bind men together: to say nothing of the blame-worthy and damnable love which is mutually felt by adulterers and adulteresses, by fornicators and prostitutes, and all others who are knit together by no human relationship, but by the mischievous depravity of human life. Christ, therefore, hath given us a new commandment, that we should love one another, as He also hath loved us. This is the love that renews us, making us new men, heirs of the New Testament, singers of the new song. It was this love, brethren beloved, that renewed also those of olden time, who were then the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets, as it did afterwards the blessed apostles: it is it, too, that is now renewing the nations, and from among the universal race of man, which overspreads the whole world, is making and gathering together a new people, the body of the newly-married spouse of the only-begotten Son of God, of whom it is said in the Song of Songs, "Who is she that ascendeth, made white?" Made white indeed, because renewed; and how, but by the new commandment! Because of this, the members thereof have a mutual interest in one another; and if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. For this they hear and observe, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another:" not as those love one another who are corrupters, nor as men love one another in a human way; but they love one another as those who are God's, and all of them sons of the Highest, and brethren, therefore, of His only Son, with that mutual love wherewith He loved them, when about to lead them on to the goal where all sufficiency should be theirs, and where their every desire should be satisfied with good things. For then there will be nothing wanting they can desire, when God will be all in all. An end like that has no end. No one dieth there, where no one arriveth save he that dieth to this world, not that universal kind of death whereby the body is bereft of the soul; but the death of the elect, through which, even while still remaining in this mortal flesh, the heart is set on the things which are above. Of such a death it is that the apostle said, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." And perhaps to this, also, do the words refer,"Love is strong as death." For by this love it is brought about, that, while still held in the present corruptible body, we die to this world, and our life is hid with Christ in God; yea, that love itself is our death to the world, and our life with God. For if that is death when the soul quits the body, how can it be other than death when our love quits the world? Such love, therefore, is strong as death. And what is stronger than that which conquers the world?
Think not then, my brethren, that when the Lord says, "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another," there is any overlooking of that greater commandment, which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind; for along with this seeming oversight, the words "that ye love one another" appear also as if they had no reference to that second commandment, which says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." For "on these two commandments," He says, "hang all the law and the prophets." But both commandments may be found in each of these by those who have good understanding. For, on the one hand, he that loveth God cannot despise His commandment to love his neighbor; and on the other, he who in a holy and spiritual way loveth his neighbor, what doth he love in him but God? That is the love, distinguished from all mundane love, which the Lord specially characterized, when He added, "as I have loved you." For what was it but God that He loved in us? Not because we had Him, but in order that we might have Him; and that He may lead us on, as I said a little ago, where God is all in all. It is in this way, also, that the physician is properly said to love the sick; and what is it he loves in them but their health, which at all events he desires to recall; not their sickness, which he comes to remove? Let us, then, also so love one another, that, as far as possible, we may by the solicitude of our love be winning one another to have God within us. And this love is bestowed on us by Him who said, "As I have loved you, that ye also love one another." For this very end, therefore, did He love us, that we also should love one another; bestowing this on us by His own love to us, that we should be bound to one another in mutual love, and, united together as members by so pleasant a bond, should be the body of so mighty a Head.
Tractates on John 65

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxv. 1) And now He teaches them how to fit themselves to follow Him: A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. (Levit. 19:18) But does not the old law say, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? Why then does He call it a new commandment? Is it because it strips us of the old man, and puts on us the new? That it renews the hearer, or rather the doer of it? Love does do this; but it is that love which our Lord distinguishes from the carnal affection: As I have loved you, that ye also love one another. Not the love with which men love one another, but that of the children of the Most High God, who would be brethren of His only-begotten Son, and therefore love one another with that love with which He loved them, and would lead them to the fulfilment of their desires.
(Tr. lxiv. 2) But do not think that that greater commandment, viz. that we should love the Lord our God, is passed by. For, if we understand the two precepts aright, each is implied in the other. He who loves God cannot despise His commandment that he should love his neighbour; and he who loves his neighbour in a heavenly spiritual way, in the neighbour loves God. That is the love which our Lord distinguishes from all human love, when He adds, As I have loved you. For what did He, in loving us, love, but God in us; not who was in us, but so that He might be? Wherefore let each of us so love the other, as that by this working of love, we make each other the habitations of God.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Well and truly writes the inspired Paul: Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold all things are become new. For Christ does renew us, and fashions us again to a newness of life which is unknown to and untravelled by the rest of mankind, who love to regulate their lives by the Law, and remain constant to the precepts given by Moses. For the Law makes nothing perfect, as it is written; but it is very evident that the standard of reverence towards God involved in the commands of our Saviour is the highest possible. For this is why He Himself somewhere says to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. We do not wish to struggle against the manner of life of the Jews, and yet except we outstrip very decisively the righteousness contained in the Law, I doubt if we should ever enter into the kingdom of heaven. And we do not mean to assert that the Law as given by Moses was useless and unprofitable: for it has brought to us, albeit imperfectly, a knowledge of good, or at any rate has been found to be a tutor for our instruction as to the nature of the Gospel dispensation. And in bringing before us by hints and types a pattern of the true worship, it imprinted on our minds the dim outline of the teaching we learn from Christ. Hence, surely Christ Himself also said: For I say unto you, that every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a rich man, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. For in very truth it is the highest form of spiritual wealth, that a man should be well versed in the words spoken by Moses, and have all the good that can be derived from them treasured up in his mind, and besides should have added to this store the beauty of the evangelic teaching, and so have twofold ground for boasting, in his knowledge as well of the ancient as of the new laws. Therefore our Lord Jesus the Christ, by way of showing that His commandment was better than the ancient one, and that His preaching of salvation was as yet foreign to those who regulated their lives by the Law, now that He is about to ascend into heaven, lays down the law of love as a foundation and corner-stone of all that is good, meaning by love not that which was in accordance with, but that which transcended, the Mosaic Law. Therefore He says: A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. "But tell me now,' some one may say, "why He has called this commandment new, when He had said to former generations by the voice of Moses: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. For see, while setting love to God in its fitting place, in the forefront of and in preeminence to all other affections, He has there introduced in the very next place our mutual love, and has joined with our love to God love to each other, implying that in no other way would love to God rightly exist, except it were accompanied by the love which is due to our neighbour. For we all are brethren one of another. For instance, the very wise John, most excellent alike in knowledge and in teaching, says: He that loveth his brother loveth God. How then cometh a new commandment by Christ, although the very same had been declared by the ancient laws?" But notice, I pray you, the justifying clause; look at the illustration used. He does more than say: A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another; He plainly signifies the novelty involved in His command, and the extent by which the love that He enjoins surpasses that old idea of mutual love, by straightway adding the words: Even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
We must investigate therefore the question how the Christ loved us, in order to understand clearly the full force of the words used. For then we shall indeed perceive, and that very easily, the novel character and the changed nature of the commandment now given. We know that, being in the form of God, He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. And again: though He was rich, yet He became poor, as Paul elsewhere testifies to us. Dost thou see the novelty of His love towards us? For whereas the Law enjoined the necessity of loving our brethren as ourselves, our Lord Jesus the Christ on the other hand loved us far more than He loved Himself, Else He would never have descended to our humiliation from His original exaltation in the form of God and on an equality with God the Father, nor would He have undergone for our sakes the exceeding bitterness of His death in the flesh, nor have submitted to buffetings from the Jews, to shame, to derision, and all His other sufferings: speaking briefly, so as not to protract our argument to endless length by enumerating everything in detail. Nay, He would never have become poor from being rich, if He had not loved us very exceedingly more than Himself. Marvellous then indeed was the extent of His love. So also He would have us be minded, keeping ever our love to our brethren as superior to all other motives, such as reputation or riches; not hesitating to descend if need be even to death in the flesh, so that we may secure the salvation of our neighbour. And this is exactly what the blessed disciples of our Saviour have done, as also have those that followed in their train; reckoning the salvation of others superior to their own life, enduring toil of all kinds, and suffering the extremest of evils, that so they might sa\e the souls of those that were perishing. For instance, Paul in one place saith: I die daily; and in another again: Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I burn not? Thus the Saviour urges us to practise ever the love that transcends the Law as the root of all true and perfect devotion to God; well knowing that so, assuredly, and not otherwise, we shall be most highly approved in the sight of God, and by tracing out the Divine beauty of the love by Him implanted in us we shall attain to the enjoyment of great and perfect blessings.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

He plainly indicates the novelty involved in his command here—and the extent to which the love he enjoins here surpasses the old idea of mutual love—by adding the words “Even as I have loved you, you also should love one another.” … The law of Moses mandated the necessity of loving our brothers as ourselves, yet our Lord Jesus the Christ loved us far more than he loved himself. Otherwise, he would have never descended to our humiliation from his original exaltation in the form of God and on an equality with God the Father, nor would he have undergone for our sakes the exceptional bitterness of his death in the flesh, nor have submitted to beatings from the Jews, to shame, to derision, and all his other sufferings too numerous to mention. Being rich, he would never have become poor if he had not loved us far more than he loved himself. It was indeed something new for love to go as far as that! Christ commands us to love as he did, putting neither reputation, wealth or anything else before love of our brothers and sisters. If need be, we even need to be prepared to face death for our neighbor’s salvation as our Savior’s blessed disciples did, as well as those who followed in their footsteps. To them the salvation of others mattered more than their own lives, and they were ready to do anything or to suffer anything to save souls that were perishing.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Since they, having heard this, could naturally become troubled, as people who would be left without help, He comforts them, saying: "Do not grieve, I give you a strong guardian – love; if you have it, then, strengthened by one another, you will be invincible." Then, another might ask: "Lord! Why do You present love as a new commandment, when we know that love was also commanded in the Old Testament?" He adds: "As I have loved you, so you also must love one another." "As," He says, "I loved you freely, without prior merits, even when human nature was in enmity with God and separated from Him, I nevertheless took it upon Myself and sanctified it, so you too must love one another freely; and if a brother offends you, do not remember it." Do you see, the new commandment consists in loving one's neighbor freely, even if we owe him nothing at all. But the Law said "love your friend," commanding love as if paying a debt to a neighbor who began loving first.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then, he teaches them how they can become fit to follow him: a new commandment I give to you. First, he mentions the special character of this commandment; secondly, he shows why they should live up to it (v 35). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions a feature of this commandment, secondly, its meaning; and thirdly, its standard.
The feature of this commandment he emphasizes is its newness. Thus he says, a new commandment. But did not the Old Testament or Law have a commandment about the love of one's neighbor? It did, because when Christ was asked by a lawyer which was the greatest commandment, he replied: "You shall love the Lord your God," and continued, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 22:37). This is found in Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).
Nevertheless, there are three special reasons why this commandment is said to be new. First, because of the newness, the renewal, it produces: "You have put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator" (Col 3:9). This newness is from charity, the charity to which Christ urges us. Secondly, this commandment is said to be new because of the cause which produces this renewal; and this is a new spirit. There are two spirits: the old and the new. The old spirit is the spirit of slavery; the new is the spirit of love. The first produces slaves; the second, children by adoption: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship" (Rom 8:15); "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you" (Ez 36:26). The spirit sets us on fire with love because "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). Thirdly, it is a new commandment because of the effect it established, that is, a New Covenant. The difference between the New and the Old Covenant is that between love and fear: as we read in Jeremiah (31:31): "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel." Under the Old Covenant, this commandment was observed through fear; under the New Covenant it is observed through love. So this commandment was in the Old Law, not as characteristic of it, but as a preparation for the New Law.
The import of the commandment is mutual love; thus he says: that you love one another. It is of the very nature of friendship that is not imperceptible; otherwise, it would not be friendship, but merely good-will. For a true and firm friendship the friends need a mutual love for each other; for this duplication makes it true and firm. Our Lord, wanting there to be perfect friendship among his faithful and disciples, gave them this command of mutual love: "Whoever fears the Lord directs his friendship aright" (Sir 6:17).
The standard for this mutual love is given when he says, as I have loved you. Now Christ loved us three ways: gratuitously, effectively and rightly.
He loved us gratuitously because he began to love us and did not wait for us to begin to love him: "Not that we loved God, but because he first loved us" (1 Jn 4:10). In the same way we should first love our neighbors and not wait to be loved by them or for them to do us a favor.
Christ loved us effectively, which is obvious from what he did; for love is proven to exist from what one does. The greatest thing a person can do for a friend is to give himself for that friend. This is what Christ did: "Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (Eph 5:2). So we read: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). We also should be led by this example and love one another effectively and fruitfully: "Let us not love in word or in speech but in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18).
Christ also loved us rightly. Since all friendship is based on some kind of sharing (for similarity is a cause of love), that friendship is right which is based on a similarity or a sharing in some good. Now Christ loved us as similar to himself by the grace of adoption, loving us in the light of this similarity in order to draw us to God. "I have loved you with an everlasting love; and so taking pity on you, I have drawn you" (Jer 31:3). We also, in the one we love, should love what pertains to God and not so much the pleasure or benefits the loved one gives to us. In this kind of love for our neighbor, even the love of God is included.
Commentary on John

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐμοὶ μαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.

ѡ҆ се́мъ разꙋмѣ́ютъ всѝ, ꙗ҆́кѡ моѝ ᲂу҆чн҃цы̀ є҆стѐ, а҆́ще любо́вь и҆́мате междꙋ̀ собо́ю.

Pope Zephyrinus †217

Assist ye, therefore, one another in good faith, and by deed and with a hearty will; nor let any one remove his hand from the help of a brother, since "by this "saith the Lord, "shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Fabian of Rome †250

Ponder these things, and minister comfort to the brethren in all things; for, as the Truth says in His own person, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Apostolic Constitutions †380

On which account let him also be void of anger; for Wisdom says: "Anger destroys even the prudent." Let him also be merciful, of a generous and loving temper; for our Lord says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another." Let him be also ready to give, a lover of the widow and the stranger; ready to serve, and minister, and attend; resolute in his duty; and let him know who is the most worthy of his assistance.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 2

Gregory of Nyssa †395

It is true, indeed, that the divine beauty is not adorned with any shape or endowment of form, by any beauty of color, but it is contemplated as excellence in unspeakable bliss. As then painters transfer human forms to their pictures by means of certain colors, laying on their copy the proper and corresponding tints so that the beauty of the original may be accurately transferred to the likeness, so I would have you understand that our Maker also, painting the portrait to resemble his own beauty, by the addition of virtues, as it were with colors, shows in us his own sovereignty. There are also many and varied tints, so to say, by which his true form is portrayed: not red or white or the blending of these, whatever it may be called, nor a touch of black that paints the eyebrow and the eye and shades, by some combination, the depressions in the figure, and all such arts that the hands of painters contrive. But instead of these, purity, freedom from passion, blessedness, alienation from all evil and all those attributes of a similar kind that help to form in men and women the likeness of God. With such hues as these did the Maker of his own image mark our nature.And if you were to examine the other points also by which the divine beauty is expressed, you will find that to them too the likeness in the image that we present is perfectly preserved.… God is love and the fount of love: for this the great John declares that “love is of God” and “God is love,” the Fashioner of our nature has made this to be our feature too. For “in this,” he says, “shall all know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” And so, if love is absent, the whole stamp of the likeness is transformed.
On the Making of Man 5

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxii. 4) Passing over the miracles, which they were to perform, He makes love the distinguishing mark of His followers; By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another. This it is that evidences the saint or the disciple, as He calls him.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

How is it new? “Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.” The way to love is what is new. In the Law it had been ordered that anyone should love his neighbor like himself. But the voice of the Lord wants our companions in faith to be loved even more than ourselves, because he orders us to imitate his love for us. In the words that follow he shows that accurately. Indeed, in order to amplify the greatness of this precept he says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” So excellent is the observation of that command that it is a sign clear enough of my discipleship.
Commentary on John 6.13.34-35

Augustine of Hippo †430

"By this," He adds, "shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another:" as if He said, Other gifts of mine are possessed in common with you by those who are not mine,-not only nature, life, perception, reason, and that safety which is equally the privilege of men and beasts; but also languages, sacraments, prophecy, knowledge, faith, the bestowing of their goods upon the poor, and the giving of their body to the flames: but because destitute of charity, they only tinkle like cymbals; they are nothing, and by nothing are they profited. It is not, then, by such gifts of mine, however good, which may be alike possessed by those who are not my disciples, but "by this it is that all men shall know that ye are my disciples, that ye have love one to another." O thou spouse of Christ, fair amongst women! O thou who ascendest in whiteness, leaning upon thy Beloved! for by His light thou art made dazzling to whiteness, by His assistance thou art preserved from falling. How well becoming thee are the words in that Song of Songs, which is, as it were, thy bridal chant, "That there is love in thy delights"! This it is that suffers not thy soul to perish with the ungodly; it is this that judges thy cause, and is strong as death, and is present in thy delights.
Tractates on John 65

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxv. 3) if He said, Other gifts are shared with you by those who are not mine; birth, life, sense, reason, and such good things as belong alike to man and brutes; nay, and tongues, sacraments, prophecy, knowledge, faith, bestowing of goods upon the poor, giving the body to be burned: but forasmuch as they have not charity, they are tinkling cymbals, they are nothing: nothing profits them.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

You will set upon yourselves, He says, an irresistible and unquestionable mark of your having been My disciples, if you hasten to follow in the track marked out by My own conduct, at least as far as your nature and the limit of human powers will permit; so as to have ever the bond of mutual love firmly drawn, and to be united one to the other in full sympathy, at least to the extent of mutual love and the incomparable glory of affectionateness: for this it is that will stamp on us most exactly the true character of our Master. "Nay, but," some one will object, meeting us perchance with this question: "How comes it that love alone is the characteristic token of discipleship to Christ, whereas in Him there appeared the perfect display of all possible virtues: not exhibited merely in kindness to others, nor again as the outcome of much labour and struggling, as would be the case in a man; but as the natural and essential attributes of His real self? For to the Divine Nature there belong as its special and peculiar attributes things which transcend all wonder."
In very truth, my good sir, we will admit that you acted most rightly in adding this last remark. For the peculiar and especial attributes of the Supreme Essence are the natural fruits of Itself. But it is quite possible to perceive, by looking into the matter, that every species of virtue is necessarily comprehended in perfect love, and that everything which can rightly be looked upon as really and truly good seems to have its principle and aim comprised in love. For this reason, surely, the Law lays it down as a commandment preeminent above all, to love the Lord God with all the soul, and with all the heart, and with all the mind; and, second only to this, there is joined to it in close proximity the sister commandment, to love one's neighbour, which completes the whole Law. So again, the inspired Paul, summarizing all the commandments in this one, writes in an epistle: For this, Thou, shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not swear falsely, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love, therefore, is the fulfilment of the Law. And that love has created for itself a fashion of every kind of virtue within its own proper limits, and as it were embraces within its arms all that is really good, the very wise Paul himself again shall testify, exclaiming: Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, and similar expressions ---- for it would be a long task to tell the full extent of love. Most especially then do I say that it is most befitting and right for those who have given themselves up to a life of love that they should make themselves known to all men as having become Christ's disciples, by making the crown of love their chief glory, and by bearing about with them their mutual affection as a sign and seal of their discipleship. And the reason for this I will specify in a few words. Supposing that any ordinary man were practising the art of working in brass or of weaving, would he not appear very evidently to have been a pupil of a brassworker or of a weaver? And what of the man who shows some experience in carpentry? Would he not tell you that the reason why he can succeed in the works of his art is that, while gaining his experience, he had a carpenter as his guide? On just the same grounds I believe that they who display in themselves fully developed the power of Divine love, will speedily make known to the world that they have been disciples of Love, or of Christ Who is filled to the uttermost with love. For He so loved the world as to lay down even His life for it, and to endure the fierceness of Jewish outrages: and He shall Himself testify to this in His words to the disciples: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. For seeing that God is love, according to the saying of John, He, being the Son of Love, i.e. of Him Who is by nature the only and true God, has Himself also been shown forth to us as love; not resting His claim to the title on elaboration of arguments and grandiloquence of boastful words, but by deeds and positive facts proving Himself to be the Fruit of His Father's Essence. For by no means will we suppose that the Essence which is exalted far above all others is capable of receiving additional good; nor yet will we admit that the possession of any good quality is for It an acquired attribute, as with us; nor again that it is what we term a merely accidental quality, such as may pertain to an ordinary person, similar for example to the knowledge of any science which a man may possess: for man is not in himself knowledge, but is rather a recipient of knowledge; whereas we affirm that the Divine Ineffable Nature is by special right in Itself the sum of all that is good, whatsoever we may believe this to be; and is, as it were, a fountain-head containing within itself every kind of virtue, and pouring it forth in an inexhaustible stream. Most reasonably, therefore, will He, Who is the Fruit of Love, Himself also be Love; and being Himself like to the Father Whose Son He is, He will be shown forth in our lives most chiefly by the token of love, ever engraving on the hearts of good men, as an evident characteristic of their close relationship to Himself, an ardent clinging to the grace of mutual affection. Besides, according to the saying of Paul, Christ is our peace: for in Him all things were united, the world below to the world above; and by His means we were reconciled to God the Father, though we had in old times deliberately wandered far away from Him in our evil courses; and we who had formerly been divided into two peoples, Gentiles and Israelites, were created in Him into one new man, for the middle wall of partition has been broken down, and the power of the enmity abolished, the Law being put to silence by the ordinances of the Gospel. If this be so, how could those who had no peace in their mutual relations be known as disciples of [Him Who is] peace? For what else would be involved in the severance of love than a stirring up of war, and an utter overthrow of peace, and an introduction of every kind of discord? For just as by an unbroken bond of love all the blessings of peace are safely secured to us, so in the same way by the interruption of our love the evil that arises from war finds a way to insidiously enter. And what follows thereupon? Insults arise, and strifes, and jealousies, and angers, and wraths, and whisperings, and back-bitings, and envyings, and every form of baseness.
Seeing therefore that every virtue is summed up and fulfilled in the form and habit of love, let no one among us think highly of himself for fastings, or prostrations on the ground, or any other ascetic practices, unless he be faithful to preserve in all fulness his love for his brethren. For else he is carried away very wide of the turning-post in the race, like the more unskilled of the charioteers; and wanders out of his course like a pilot who, with the ship's rudder in his hand, ignorantly misses the goal that lies directly in front of his course. Wherefore also, he who said in all boldness: If ye seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me, I mean of course the inspired Paul, gloried not simply in the fact of his hastening onwards, but in the fact of his moving in the right direction, onward towards the goal: for to glory boastfully in bodily labours, while falling short all the while of the more important and essential qualities, this surely is to fail in hastening onwards towards our goal. And he knew so well that love is as it were a corner-stone at the foundation of every virtue, that he most justly says, in eager contention on its behalf: And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing: if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And so it appears that it is the special glory of love to be in us a figure and characteristic token of belonging to the Saviour Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Showing that after His departure they will not be humiliated but will become glorious, He says: "By this all will know." Do you see, He declares that they will become known to all, and by this He comforts them not a little. Passing over in silence the miracles they will perform, He sets love as their distinguishing mark. For many of those who performed miracles will hear "I never knew you" (Matt. 7:23). If the whole world was brought to faith by miracles — what is surprising about that? They had the power to perform miracles precisely because they had love. But if they had fallen away and separated from one another, everything would have perished for them, and no one would have believed when they were raging against each other, since what made them worthy of faith more than miracles was that the believers were "of one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32).
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Then when he says, By this all men will know that you are my disciples, he gives the reason for following this command. Here we should note that one who is in the army of a king should wear this emblem. The emblem of Christ is the emblem of charity. So anyone who wants to be in the army of Christ should be stamped with the emblem of charity. This is what he is saying here: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. I mean a holy love: "I am the mother of beautiful love and of fear and of knowledge and of holy hope" (Sir 24:24).
Although the apostles received many gifts from Christ, such as life, intelligence and good health, as well as spiritual goods, such as the ability to perform miracles - "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" (Lk 21:15) - none of these are the emblem of a disciple of Christ, since they can be possessed both by the good and the bad. Rather, the special sign of a disciple of Christ is charity and mutual love; "He has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit" (2 Cor 1:22).
Commentary on John

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.

Λέγει αὐτῷ Σίμων Πέτρος· Κύριε, ποῦ ὑπάγεις; ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω, οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι, ὕστερον δὲ ἀκολουθήσεις μοι.

Глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀ сі́мѡнъ пе́тръ: гдⷭ҇и, ка́мѡ и҆́деши; Ѿвѣща̀ є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: а҆́може (а҆́зъ) и҆дꙋ̀, не мо́жеши нн҃ѣ по мнѣ̀ и҆тѝ: послѣди́ же по мнѣ̀ и҆́деши.

Origen of Alexandria †253

The Word, however, departs on his own courses, and he who follows the Word follows him. But one who is not prepared to walk in his steps persistently cannot follow, since the Word leads those to his Father who do all things that they might be able to follow him and that they may follow him until they may say to the Christ, “My soul has clung to you.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John 32.400

Ambrose of Milan †397

Therefore, he prudently asks to be drawn, because not everyone can follow. Finally, when Peter said, "Where are you going?" the Word of God answered, "You cannot follow me now, but you will follow later" (John 13:36). He entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven to her and considered her equal by following him. However, he did not delay this soul; because she did not presume, but she asked.
On Isaac and the Soul, Chapter 3.10

John Chrysostom †407

36–37
A great thing is love, and stronger than fire itself, and it goeth up to the very heaven; there is no hindrance which can restrain its tearing force. And so the most fervent Peter, when he hears, "Whither I go ye cannot come," what saith he? "Lord, whither goest thou?" and this he said, not so much from wish to learn, as from desire to follow. To say openly, "I go," he dared not yet, but, "Whither goest thou?" Christ answered, not to his words, but to his thoughts. For that this was his wish, is clear from what Christ said, "Whither I go thou canst not follow Me now." Seest thou that he longed for the following Him, and therefore asked the question? And when he heard, "thou shalt follow Me afterwards" not even so did he restrain his longing, and, though he had gained good hopes, he is so eager as to say, "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thee."
Homily on the Gospel of John 73

John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †407

(Hom. lxxiii. 3) Great is love, and stronger than fire; nothing can stop its course. Peter the most ardent of all, as soon as he hears our Lord say, Whither I go ye cannot follow Me now, asks, Lord, whither goest Thou?
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxvi. 1) The disciple asks this, as if he were ready to follow. But our Lord saw his heart; Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow Me now; He checks his forwardness, but does not destroy his hope; nay, confirms it; But thou shalt follow Me afterwards. Why hastenest thou, Peter? The Rock has not yet established thee with His spirit. Be not lifted up with presumptions, thou canst not now; be not cast down with despair, thou shalt follow Me afterwards.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo †430

While the Lord Jesus was commending to the disciples that holy love wherewith they should love one another, "Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?" So, at all events, said the disciple to his Master, the servant to his Lord, as one who was prepared to follow. Just as for the same reason the Lord, who read in his mind the purpose of such a question, made him this reply: "Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now;" as if He said, In reference to the object of thy asking, thou canst not now. He does not say, Thou canst not; but "Thou canst not now." He intimated delay, without depriving of hope; and that same hope, which He took not away, but rather bestowed, in His next words He confirmed, by proceeding to say, "Thou shall follow me afterwards." Why such haste, Peter? The Rock (petra) has not yet solidified thee by His Spirit. Be not lifted up with presumption, "Thou canst not now;" be not cast now into despair, "Thou shalt follow afterwards."
Tractates on John 66

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?
Peter again with his usual curiosity is anxious to learn more, and busies himself about the significance of Christ's words, not yet (as seems probable) comprehending the real meaning of what had been said, yet feeling with all the force of his fiery zeal that it was his duty to follow Christ. And in this matter most admirable is the behaviour of the disciples. For certainly no one would allow that it was only the chief disciple who was in ignorance while the others fully understood the matter, and that this was why he asked the question. I should rather say that they yielded to him, as chief among them, the privilege of speaking first, and of taking the initiative in courageous inquiry. For the speaking into the ears of their Master was no light and easy matter, even for those who were reputed to be somewhat. And the conduct of Peter is no less admirable, who is harassed by no fear of being thought sluggish in the comprehension of those matters of which he was ignorant, but zealously seeks for enlightenment, considering that the profit he will derive from gratifying his love of knowledge will be of more value than an unseasonable sense of shame: and so in this also he is a pattern to those that live after him. For we ought never, I think, to pass over the words of our teachers, even though they may not be so very distinct, merely for the sake of seeming to be shrewd people and very quick in intelligence; but rather to investigate the meaning and search it out wisely, in the teaching at first delivered to us for our profit. For the knowledge of what is useful is far nobler than a vain semblance of wisdom, and far better is it to learn a thing in reality than merely to seem to know all about it.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

The disciples had not yet been clothed with the power from on high, neither had they received the strength that was to invigorate them and impart courage to their character—I mean the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, they were not able to wrestle with death and engage in a conflict with terrors so hard to face.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

Peter, having become bold from great fervor, when he heard the Lord say "where I am going, you cannot come," asks: "Where are You going?" He speaks to Christ as if to say: "What kind of path is this that I cannot travel?" He asks this not so much wishing to learn where He is going, as covertly expressing the thought that even if You were to go by the most difficult path of all, I would still follow You. So much did he love always being together with Christ! Therefore Christ also answers Peter's thought: "You cannot follow Me now, but afterward you will follow Me."
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Above, John mentioned the defection of one of the disciples, Judas the traitor; here he tells of the failure of another, Peter, who denied Christ. First we see the occasion of Christ's prediction; secondly, the prediction of Peter's denial. He does two things about the first: he mentions Peter's desire; secondly, his confidence, Why cannot I follow you now? He does two things about the first: he shows Peter expressing his desire; secondly, he shows that its fulfillment will be delayed, you cannot follow me now.
Peter's desire is shown by the quick way he questioned Christ: Simon Peter said to him, Lord, where are you going? Peter had heard our Lord say that he would be with them just for a little while, and he became anxious about Christ's leaving them. So he asks, Where are you going? Chrysostom says about this: "Peter's love was indeed great, and more furious than a fire that nothing could stop." This is why even after Christ had said, "Where I am going you cannot follow," Peter still wanted to follow him. So he asked where he was going, just like we read in the Song of Songs: "Whither has your beloved gone, O fairest among women? Whither has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?" (6:1).
Yet he cannot now have what he desires, since for the present he is prevented from following Christ. Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you shall follow afterward. This is like saying: You are still imperfect, and thus not able to follow me now; but later, when you are perfect, you will follow me. This is similar to what we will read further on: "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young," that is, imperfect, "you girded yourself...but when you are old," and have climbed the mountain of perfection, "you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you" (21:18).
Commentary on John

Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.

λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος· Κύριε, διατί οὐ δύναμαί σοι ἀκολουθῆσαι ἄρτι; τὴν ψυχήν μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω.

Глаго́ла є҆мꙋ̀ пе́тръ: гдⷭ҇и, почто̀ не могꙋ̀ нн҃ѣ по тебѣ̀ и҆тѝ; (нн҃ѣ) дꙋ́шꙋ мою̀ за тѧ̀ положꙋ̀.

John Chrysostom †407

37–38
When he had shaken off the dread of being the traitor, and was shown to be one of His own, he afterwards asked boldly himself, while the others held their peace. "What sayest thou, Peter? He said, 'thou canst not,' and thou sayest, 'I can'? Therefore thou shalt know from this temptation that thy love is nothing without the presence of the impulse from above." Whence it is clear that in care for him He allowed even that fall. He desired indeed to teach him even by the first words, but when he continued in his vehemence, He did not indeed throw or force him into the denial, but left him alone, that he might learn his own weakness.
Homily on the Gospel of John 73

Augustine of Hippo †430

Peter had earlier answered the Lord out of a kind of proud self-assurance when he had told him, “I will lay down my life for you.” He had not yet received the strength to carry out that promise. Now, in order to be able to do so, he is already filled with charity. That is why he is asked, “Do you love me?” And he answers “I do,” because it is only charity that can carry it out. So how do things stand, Peter? Dying is what you were afraid of. He is alive and talking to you, the one you saw dead. Do not be afraid of death anymore. It has been conquered in him whose death you dreaded. He hung on the cross, he was fixed there with nails, he gave up the spirit, he was struck with a lance, laid in the tomb. That is what you were afraid of when you denied him, afraid you would suffer this. And by fearing death you denied life. Understand the truth now: when you were afraid of dying, that is when you died.
Sermon 253.3

Peter promised he would die for him, and he was not even able to die with him. He had staked more, you see, than his credit could stand. He had promised more than he could fulfill, because it was in fact unfitting that he should do what he had promised. “I will lay down my life,” he said, “for you.” But that is what the Lord was going to do for the servant, not the servant for the Lord. So as he had staked more than he was worth, he was then loving in an inverted sort of way; that is why he was afraid and denied Christ. Later on, though, the Lord, after he has risen, teaches Peter how to love. While he was loving in the wrong way, he collapsed under the weight of Christ’s passion. But when he was loving in the right way, Christ promises him a passion of his own.
Sermon 296.1

The blessed Peter, as we have just heard, is ordered to follow. And yet he had originally been thinking of going ahead when he said to the Lord, “I will lay down my life for you.” He was so sure of himself that he was unaware of his fear. He wanted to go ahead of the one he should be following. It was a good thing he was eager to do, but he did not keep to the right order.
Sermon 297.1

But what does he say to this? "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake." He saw what was the kind of desire in his mind; but what the measure of his strength, he saw not. The weak man boasted of his willingness, but the Physician had an eye on the state of his health; the one promised, the Other foreknew: the ignorant was bold; He that foreknew all, condescended to teach. How much had Peter taken upon himself, by looking only at what he wished, and having no knowledge of what he was able! How much had he taken upon himself, that, when the Lord had come to lay down His life for His friends, and so for him also, he should have the assurance to offer to do the same for the Lord; and while as yet Christ's life was not laid down for himself, he should promise to lay down his own life for Christ!
Tractates on John 66

Cyril of Alexandria †444

What is there, he means, that prevents or that can keep him back from following His Master, now that his deliberate aim is to die for Christ's sake, reckoning this as his proudest boast? For the utmost of all danger, and the extremest violence of the implacable enmity of persecutors, have no effect beyond the range of the flesh; for with the flesh alone has death to deal: and he that is ready and fully prepared even for this extreme, would not easily be hindered from his purpose, or give up his intense conviction as to the duty of following to the end. The zeal of Peter was most ardent, and the extent of his promise excessive; yet one might see that the power latent in him was not inconsiderable, or rather the issue of the events themselves would convince one of this. One point however must be considered. Our Saviour Christ, speaking now in one way and now in another of His ascension into heaven, says that Peter will not follow Him now, but will follow Him hereafter; as soon, namely, as his apostolate is fulfilled, and when the fit season has come to summon the bodies of the saints to the city above: whereas Peter himself protests that he is now ready even to risk his life, going as it were by a different way, and not coming by a direct course to the meaning of the words. And I think his language must imply this: failing as yet to attach to what has been spoken by Christ its exact signification, he believes that the Lord intends possibly to pass over to some of the wilder villages in Judaea, or even to visit foreign peoples, who will, after carefully listening, so violently dissent from the words which He will be likely to speak, that the daring plots of the Pharisees will seem feeble compared with the base designs of the other Jews, and the madness inherent in them will be shown to be of the very mildest type. For this reason he declares that he will suffer nothing to interfere with his following Christ: he does not absolutely promise to die, but says that if the need should arise he will not shrink from death. Now there is a passage exactly similar to this in the previous part of this book, and I will proceed to tell you where it occurs.
At one time Christ was sojourning among the Galilaeans to avoid the fury of the Jews, their ungovernable temper, and their unbridled insolence in speech; and great was the wonder excited in those quarters by His marvellous deeds. But when the brother of Mary and Martha had died, I mean of course Lazarus, He as God knew of it, and forthwith said to His disciples: Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. Hereupon the disciples affectionately reply: The Jews were but now seeking to stone Thee; and goest Thou thither again? And when Christ is on the point of starting, and urgently tells them that He must certainly return to the country of the Jews, Thomas, who is called Didymus, said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with Him. I believe that Peter's object in speaking is pregnant with some similar idea. For he thinks, perhaps, as I said just now, that Jesus is on the eve of departing to preach somewhere else among people at whose hands He will be exposed to danger. Therefore he himself also, in his uncontrollable affection for Christ, declares that his zeal now to defend his Master will be invincible and irresistible, meaning that there is nothing left in the world that is strong enough to check his devotion, now that he has convinced himself that he must follow Christ, seeing that he is ready and willing even to die in his Master's cause.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

But Peter is so irrepressible in his eagerness that he even contradicts Christ. He is not satisfied with having received the good hope of following Christ later, but insists on his own way and self-confidently says: "Why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for You." See what power desire has! Peter had heard the Lord say that "greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13); therefore he himself strives for this degree and desires to attain the very highest love, which is why he promises to lay down his life for the Lord.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

When John says, Peter said to him, he indicates Peter's confidence. Peter had understood what our Lord had just said as expressing some doubt about the perfection of Peter's love. Love is perfect when one exposes oneself to death for a friend: "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). And so because Peter was ready to die for Christ, he declared that he was perfect in love when he said, I will lay down my life for you, that is, I am ready to die for you. He really meant this, and was not pretending. Still, we do not know the strength of our own love until it meets some obstacle to be overcome: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted" (1 Cor 4:4).
Commentary on John

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.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις; ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσει ἕως οὗ ἀπαρνήσῃ με τρίς.

Ѿвѣща̀ є҆мꙋ̀ і҆и҃съ: дꙋ́шꙋ ли твою̀ за мѧ̀ положи́ши; а҆ми́нь, а҆ми́нь гл҃ю тебѣ̀: не возгласи́тъ а҆ле́ктѡръ, до́ндеже ѿве́ржешисѧ менє̀ три́щи.

John Chrysostom †407

Christ had said that He must be betrayed; Peter replied, "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not happen unto Thee." He was rebuked, but not instructed. On the contrary, when Christ desired to wash his feet, he said, "Thou shall never wash my feet." Again, when he hears, "Thou canst not follow Me now," he saith, "Though all deny Thee, I will not deny Thee." Since then it was likely that he would be lifted up to folly by his practice of contradiction, Jesus next teacheth him not to oppose Him. This too Luke implies, when he telleth us that Christ said, "And I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not"; that is, "that thou be not finally lost." In every way teaching him humility, and proving that human nature by itself is nothing.
Homily on the Gospel of John 73

But, since great love made him apt for contradiction, He now sobereth him, that he might not in after times be subject to this, when he should have received the stewardship of the world, but remembering what he had suffered, might know himself. And look at the violence of his fall; it did not happen to him once or twice, but he was so beside himself, that in a short time thrice did he utter the words of denial, that he might learn that he did not so love as he was loved. And yet, to one who had so fallen He saith again, "Lovest thou Me more than these?" So that the denial was caused not by the cooling of his love, but from his having been stripped of aid from above. He accepteth then Peter's love, but cutteth off the spirit of contradiction engendered by it. "For if thou lovest, thou oughtest to obey Him who is beloved."
Homily on the Gospel of John 73

"I will lay down my life for Thee." For since he had heard, "Greater love than this hath no man," he straightway sprang forward, insatiably eager and desirous to reach even to the highest pitch of virtue. But Christ, to show that it belonged to Himself alone to promise these things with authority, saith, "Before the cock crow." That is, "now"; there was but a little interval. He spake when it was late at night, and the first and second watch was past.
Homily on the Gospel of John 73

Theodore of Mopsuestia †428

This is not contrary to what is said in Mark. For he said, “The rooster will not crow twice before you will deny me three times.” You see, as soon as he denied him, the rooster crowed. And as he denied for a third time, the rooster crowed for a second time, in some way bearing witness to the truthfulness of the Lord, as well as reminding Peter both what he said to the Lord and what he heard from him. Therefore, when he denied at first, by the will of the Lord the bird uttered a sound out of its proper time. But when he denied for the third time, then it crowed at the appointed time. However Mark, dictating the Gospel according to Peter’s view, also said how many times the bird crowed during the denial, as if he wanted to establish more clearly the reproach of Peter by his own sin.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Fragment 119.13.38

Augustine of Hippo †430

John is not the only Evangelist who details this prophetic announcement of Jesus’ own denial to Peter. The other three also record the same thing but not at the same time in all cases. Matthew and Mark introduce it after they have left the house in which they were eating the Passover. Luke and John bring it in before he left that scene. We may suppose either that the two former are referring to what had passed or the two latter are anticipating what is coming. Or the great difference not only of the words but of the subjects that precede the speech and that excite Peter to the presumption of offering to die for or with our Lord may lead us to conclude that he made this offer three times and that our Lord three times replied, “Before the rooster crows, you shall deny me three times.”
Harmony of the Gospels 3.2.5

"Jesus" therefore "answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?" Wilt thou do for me what I have not yet done for thee? "Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?" Canst thou go before, who art unable to follow? Why dost thou presume so far? what dost thou think of thyself? what dost thou imagine thyself to be? Hear what thou art: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice." See, that is how thou wilt speedily become manifest to thyself, who art now talking so loftily, and knowest not that thou art but a child. Thou promisest me thy death, and thou wilt deny me thy life. Thou, who now thinkest thyself able to die for me, learn to live first for thyself; for in fearing the death of thy flesh, thou wilt occasion the death of thy soul. Just as much as it is life to confess Christ, it is death to deny Him.
Or was it that the Apostle Peter, as some with a perverse kind of favor strive to excuse him, did not deny Christ, because, when questioned by the maid, he replied that he did not know the man, as the other evangelists more expressly affirm? As if, indeed, he that denies the man Christ does not deny Christ; and so denies Him in respect of what He became on our account, that the nature He had given us might not be lost. Whoever, therefore, acknowledges Christ as God, and disowns Him as man, Christ died not for him; for as man it was that Christ died. He who disowns Christ as man, finds no reconciliation to God by the Mediator. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He that denies Christ as man is not justified: for as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one man shall many be made righteous. He that denies Christ as man, shall not rise again into the resurrection of life; for by man is death, and by man is also the resurrection of the dead: for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. And by what means is He the Head of the Church, but by His manhood, because the Word was made flesh, that is, God, the Only-begotten of God the Father, became man. And how then can one be in the body of Christ who denies the man Christ? Or how can one be a member who disowns the Head?
But why linger over a multitude of reasons when the Lord Himself undoes all the windings of human argumentation? For He says not, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied the man; or, as He was wont to speak in His more familiar condescension with men, The cock shall not crow till thou hast thrice denied the Son of man; but He says, "till thou hast denied me thrice." What is that "me," but just what He was, and what was He but Christ? Whatever of Him, therefore, he denied, he denied Himself, he denied the Christ, he denied the Lord his God. For Thomas also, his fellow-disciple, when he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God," did not handle the Word, but only His flesh; and laid not his inquisitive hands on the incorporeal nature of God, but on His human body. And so he touched the man, and yet recognized his God. If, then, what the latter touched, Peter denied; what the latter invoked, Peter offended. "The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice." Although thou say, "I know not the man;" although thou say, "Man, I know not what thou sayest;" although thou say, "I am not one of His disciples;" thou wilt be denying me. If, which it were sinful to doubt, Christ so spake, and foretold the truth, then doubtless Peter denied Christ. Let us not accuse Christ in defending Peter. Let infirmity acknowledge its sin; for there is no falsehood in the Truth. When Peter's infirmity acknowledged its sin, his acknowledgment was full; and the greatness of the evil he had committed in denying Christ, he showed by his tears. He himself reproves his defenders, and for their conviction, brings his tears forward as witnesses.
Nor have we, on our part, in so speaking, any delight in accusing the first of the apostles; but in looking on him, we ought to take home the lesson to ourselves, that no man should place his confidence in human strength. For what else had our Teacher and Saviour in view, but to show us, by making the first of the apostles himself an example, that no one ought in any way to presume of himself? And that, therefore, really took place in Peter's soul, for which he gave cause in his body. And yet he did not go before in the Lord's behalf, as he rashly presumed, but did so otherwise than he reckoned. For before the death and resurrection of the Lord, he both died when he denied, and returned to life when he wept; but he died, because he himself had been proud in his presumption, and he lived again, because that Other had looked on him with kindness.
Tractates on John 66

Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †430

(Tr. lxvi. 1) Wilt thou do that for Me, which I have not done yet for thee? Canst thou go before, who canst not come after? Why presumest thou so? Hear what thou art: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied Me thrice. Thou who promisest Me thy death, shall thrice deny thy life. Peter knew his great desire, his strength he knew not: he boasted of his will, while he was yet weak; but the Physician saw his weakness. (c. 2.). Some who perversely favour Peter, excuse him, and say that he did not deny Christ, because when asked by the servant maid, he said he did not know Him, as the other Evangelists witness more expressly. As if to deny the man Christ, was not to deny Christ; yea, that in Christ, which He was made for our sakes, that that which He made us, might not perish. By what is He the Head of the Church, but by His humanity? And how then is he in the body of Christ, who denies the man Christ? But why do I argue so long? Our Lord does not say, The cock shall not crow till thou deniest man, or the Son of man, but till thou deniest Me. What is Me, but that which He was? So then whatever Peter denied, he denied Christ: it is impious to doubt it. Christ said so, and Christ said true: beyond a doubt, Peter denied Christ. Let us not, to defend Peter, accuse Christ. The frailty of Peter himself, acknowledged its sin, when he witnessed by his tears the evil he had done in denying Christ. Nor do we say this, because we have pleasure in blaming the first of the Apostles; but that we may take warning from him, not to be confident of our own strength.
(Tr. lxvi. 2) That took place in the soul of Peter, which he offered in the body; though differently from what he meant. For before the death and resurrection of our Lord, he both died by his denial, and lived again by his tears.
(de Con. Evang. iii. c. 2. [5.]) This speech, The cock shall not crow, occurs in all the Evangelists, but not at the same time in all. Matthew and Mark introduce it after they have left the house, in which they were eating; Luke and John before. We may suppose either that the two former are recurring to what had passed, or the two latter anticipating what is coming. Or the great difference not only of the words, but of the subjects which precede the speech, and which excite Peter to the presumption of offering to die, for or with our Lord, may lead us to conclude that he made this offer three times, and that our Lord three times replied, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria †444

Wonderful as the zeal of Peter in this matter may be, his promises are beyond his power to fulfil: Christ, however, with the gloom of the threatening tempest in His mind, knowing well how severe will be the temptation and how bitter the persecution, seems as it were to shake His head in sorrow; and then, unfolding to Himself the whole extent of His sufferings, as though it were present to His bodily eyes, beholding the surpassing fury of the Jews in their madness, and seeing clearly all that will come to pass in that hour, He exclaims as though to say: "Dost thou, O Peter, lay down thy life for Me, and sayest thou that thy fear in this matter is as nothing? and supposest thou that thou wilt be strong enough to overcome the trials that will encompass thee? Nay, thou knowest not the grievous weight of the coming temptation, for the suffering that lies before thee is beyond thy strength to endure: thy heart shall fail thee utterly, even though thou wouldst not have it so: thrice shalt thou deny Me, and that too in one single night." We must surmise that Jesus means to speak somewhat to this effect: yet herein again it is fitting that we should admire the kindness to mankind that appeared in Him: for having predicted that the strength of Peter's courage will not be commensurate with the tone of his zealous assertions, but will fail and flag so utterly as to yield at the mere alarm of a coming danger, He added not one single word of threatening; erhaps for this reason, that Peter had not spoken under any Divine impulse: at all events, for some reason or other He does not hold out any threat of chastisement against one who suffered from human infirmities. For He knew that the nature of man was as yet enfeebled, and unable to endure the threat of death. Death had not yet been deprived of its power through His resurrection, and was still boastfully vaunting against the mind of all men, still strong enough to crush, even by fear and that alone, the hardiest and bravest of heroes. For human nature, being unnaturally subjected to death, yields to death as to a conquering power, or rather used to yield at that time: but now that our Saviour has burst its bonds, the approach of death is delightful to those who love Christ, even though it come in bitterness and pain. For the everlasting life has arisen in its stead, destroying the power of corruption.
And let no one here again imagine that Peter's denial and failure were caused by the words of Christ. He is not speaking by way of imposing any obligation on the disciple, or drawing him on by constraint to the sufferings of which He speaks; but rather He means to predict to His disciple exactly what as God He knows will most surely and certainly come to pass.
But seeing that all that happened to the men of former times has been written for the admonition of those who live after them, let us now say somewhat necessary to our edification, drawing our conclusions from this passage. I do not think that we ought to make any rash vows before God, or to promise to perform what may sometimes be beyond our power, as though we could control human events. And I say this in regard to the charges to which we render ourselves liable in case of failure: especially I consider that hasty statements, such as "I will do this," or, "I will do that," as the case may be, are not far removed from arrogance. For in all cases where one may have deliberately determined to undertake any matter, wishing to carry it out successfully, one's duty is always to use those words of the very wise disciple: If the Lord will, and we live. For while I maintain that a zeal for good works must be inherent in the souls of the godly, as well as eager willingness to carry these virtuous resolves with all our might into effect, yet our duty is to pray for the successful means of gaining this end through the gracious blessing that is from above, and not to make rash promises as though success lay already in our own grasp. Thus we shall be able to keep unbroken our promises to God of all that is good, and we shall have "our feet clear" of blame, according to the saying of the Greek poet. And on other authority: Better is it not to vow to any, than to vow and not pay.
Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 9

Bede (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274) †735

Which sentence may be read in two ways: either as affirming, thou shalt lay down thy life for My sake, but now through fear of the death of the body, thou shalt incur spiritual death: or as mocking; as if He said,
Nevertheless, should any one fall, let the example of Peter save him from despair, and teach him that he can without delay obtain pardon from God.
Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid †1107

The Savior, showing him that He alone, and not any man, can promise this with certainty, says: "The rooster will not crow before you deny Me three times," that is, right now; for little time remains. The Lord was saying this late at night, and the first and second watches of the night had already passed. Since Peter was contradicting out of great love, the Lord accepts the love but cuts off the contradiction. Therefore He deprives him of help from above and brings him to the knowledge of his own weakness. For if you love, you must submit to the One you love. I said that you cannot, yet you contradict. From the denial you will clearly learn that what I say cannot fail to come true. Therefore, sparing him, He allowed him to fall, so that he would not experience this later as well, when he would receive the stewardship of the whole world, but would come to know himself. And see how he fell: not once, but three times. Thus abandonment by God exposes our powerlessness, and whoever is attentive finds in this the greatest benefaction.
Commentary on John

Thomas Aquinas †1274

Next, John shows Jesus predicting the denial of Peter. First, Jesus checks Peter's presumption; secondly, he predicts his denial.
As to the first we should note that after Christ said you cannot follow me now, Peter was confident of his own strength and said that he could follow Christ and die for him. Our Lord checked him by saying, Will you lay down your life for me? It is like saying: Think what you are saying. I know you better than you know yourself; you do not know how strong your own love is. So do not assume that you can do everything. "So do not become proud, but stand in awe" (Rom 11:20). A similar thought is found in Matthew (26:41): "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Our Lord allowed Peter to be tempted and to fall so that when he became head of the Church he would have an unpretentious opinion of himself and have compassion for his subjects when they sinned: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). In Peter, some temptations grew into sins. But Christ was tempted as we are, not because he committed sin, but because the temptations were penal in character.
Christ predicts Peter's denial when he says, Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times. This causes a problem as it seems to be false: for in some versions of Mark (14:68) we read that the cock crowed immediately after his first denial. Augustine answers this in two ways. In the first way he says that our Lord was expressing Peter's state of mind rather than his actions: for such fear had overcome Peter's soul that he was ready, by the time the cock crowed, to deny our Lord not only once but three times. So the meaning is: you will be ready to deny me three times before the cock crows. He explains it another way by saying the prediction refers to the very beginning of Peter's denial. Something is said to happen before something else even it if only begins to happen. Now our Lord predicted three denials; they began before the first cock-crow, although the entire series was not completed before it. Here the meaning is: your triple denial will begin before the cock crows.
There is also a question about where these words were spoken. Matthew and Mark say that our Lord said this to Peter after they had left the upper room; but Luke and John say he said this in the upper room. It is after the farewell discourses that John has Jesus saying, "Rise, let us go hence" (below 14:31). In answer to this we should say that it is true that our Lord said this in the upper room. Matthew and Mark did not follow the order of history, but of memory.
One could also say, with Augustine, that our Lord said this three times. A close inspection of our Lord's words which led to his predicting the denial of Peter shows that three different things were said. In Matthew we read that our Lord said: "You will all fall away because of me this night" (Mt 26:31); and Mark says the same (Mk 14:27). Peter answered: "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away" (Mt 26:33). Then Jesus said: "This very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times" (Mt 26:34). In Luke, however, we read that Jesus said: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:31). Peter then said, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death" (Lk 22:33). Our Lord answered this: "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me" (Lk 22:34). But here, in John, when Peter asked our Lord where he was going, our Lord replied: "the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times." We can conclude from this that our Lord predicted Peter's denial several times.
Commentary on John