John § 44

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.

(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.

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.

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

Two preambles to the passion have been determined, namely the conspiracy of the Jews and the prediction of the passion; thus in this part follows the third thing to be determined, namely the confirmation of the disciples. The Lord confirms and fortifies the disciples against the impending tribulation first by the example of humility; second, by the word of instruction and consolation, at the beginning of the fourteenth chapter, where it says: Let not your heart be troubled; third, by the aid of prayer, at the beginning of the seventeenth: Jesus spoke these things and lifting up, etc.

First, the disciples are confirmed by the example of humility in a fourfold manner. The present chapter, therefore, in which the Lord strengthens his disciples by example, has four sections, according to the four things which he touches upon there. For first he sets forth the example; second, he exhorts to imitation, where it says: After therefore he had washed, etc.; in the third, he shows or uncovers the perversity of Judas for going astray, where it says: When he had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; in the fourth, he shows the weakness of the disciples for following him through the passion, where it says: Little children, yet a little while I am with you.

The example, therefore, which he sets forth for imitation, is described in this order. First is shown the fitness of the time; second, the humility of Christ; third, the reverence of Peter; fourth, his obedience.

The opportuneness of the time is shown in this, that the time of death was already pressing near, on account of which he ought to show special signs of love. Therefore he says: Before the feast day of the Passover, that is, before the first day of unleavened bread, whose evening was the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, when the lamb was sacrificed. Jesus knowing that his hour had come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father. The Passover is a passing over; and therefore the Lord willed to die at the Passover, because his dying was a passing over. This passing over was signified by the crossing of the Red Sea, concerning which First Corinthians 10: "Our fathers all passed through the sea," etc. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end, that is, he then showed the chief signs of love. Augustine: "Far be it that he should have ended his love by death, who was not ended by death"; and "This is not an end that consumes, but one that consummates." The Lord loves his own; Isaiah 49: "Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb?" The time is touched upon and the hour of the time.

Question. Here the inquiry concerns what he says, that this supper was made before the feast day of the Passover. And from this it seems that the Lord consecrated with leavened bread. But against this are the other Evangelists, who say that the Lord ate the Passover according to the common custom. To this the Greeks respond, as is said in the Gloss, that the Lord anticipated, as is said here, the day of the Passover and consecrated with leavened bread, and that John corrects the other Evangelists. But they speak foolishly: for far be it that the other Evangelists lied in anything, since they spoke by the same Spirit. Hence the day of the Passover is not called here the day of immolation, but the first among the days of unleavened bread, on whose preceding evening the lamb was immolated.

But if you ask how these things come about, ask grace, not doctrine; desire, not understanding; the groaning of prayer, not the study of reading; the Bridegroom, not the master; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the fire that wholly inflames and carries into God through ecstatic anointings and most ardent affections. Which fire is indeed God, and his furnace is in Jerusalem, and Christ kindles this in the fervor of his most ardent passion, which only he truly perceives who says: My soul has chosen hanging, and my bones death. Whoever loves this death can see God, because it is indubitably true: No man shall see me and live. Let us die, therefore, and enter into the darkness; let us impose silence upon our cares, concupiscences, and phantasms; let us pass over with Christ crucified from this world to the Father, so that, when the Father is shown to us, we may say with Philip: It suffices us; let us hear with Paul: My grace suffices for you; let us exult with David, saying: My flesh and my heart have failed, God of my heart and God my portion forever. Blessed be the Lord forever, and let all the people say: So be it, so be it. Amen.

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.

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.

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

(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.

And when supper was done, when the devil had already put into the heart, that is, had suggested, that Judas of Simon Iscariot should betray him; because he had then resolved to betray him, from which betrayal Christ was not diminished but exalted.

Question. Likewise the inquiry concerns what he says, that when the devil had already put into the heart, that Judas should betray him. Therefore it seems that the devil is the one who implants evil thoughts. And that this is so, it seems: because he is the god of this age and rules over the sons of unbelief, Ephesians 2: therefore just as God implants good thoughts in the elect, over whom he rules, so also the devil implants evil ones. But against this is the fact that, if the devil implants them, then whether man wills it or not, he will sin: therefore according to this he would be superior to the mind itself, which is against reason and against Augustine. I respond: It must be said that to put into the heart or to implant is spoken of in two ways: properly and commonly. To implant properly is to form within by one's own power, and this belongs to God alone; but commonly indeed to implant is to suggest by offering an occasion. In the first way it does not befit the devil, but in the second way it does. But as to the objection that the devil reigns: it must be said that he does not reign by his own power, but through the consent of a perverse will, which willingly consents to him, according to that saying of Gregory: "The enemy is weak against those who resist, strong against those who consent." Therefore he is not said to implant, but to suggest or to inflame.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"[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.

(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.

Knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, according to that passage in the last chapter of Matthew: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth"; and knowing that he came forth from God and goes to God, according to that passage below in the sixteenth chapter: "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; again I leave the world and go to the Father." This knowing, that is, foreknowing that his death was at hand.

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.

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

"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.

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."

(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)

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

(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.

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.

He rises from supper, to set an example; because the opportune time was already at hand, as it was said to the minister of the Church in Acts twelve: "Rise quickly." And he lays aside his garments. Here the second point is touched upon, namely the humility of Christ, because he lays aside his garments, so as to be unencumbered like a servant; therefore he says: He lays aside his garments; and also to be prepared like a servant; on this account he says: And having taken a towel, he girded himself; Luke twelve: "Amen I say to you, that he will gird himself," etc. He carries out the office of a servant.

"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."

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. This is the office of a servant: such an office the Lord of majesty assumed; Luke twenty-two: "But I am in your midst as one who serves." "For the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a redemption for many." And this is the most humble service, the washing of feet.

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.

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.

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. For this reason, too, He administered food to them in a recumbent posture, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were they to whom He came to impart life. As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[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.

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.

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.

(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.

He came therefore to Simon Peter, etc. Here the third point is touched upon, namely the reverence of Peter, by which he refused the Lord's service; on account of which he says: He came to Simon Peter, namely to wash his feet. And Peter says to him: Lord, do you wash my feet? As if trembling with awe, Peter says: You, for me? You the Lord, for me a servant? You the Master, for me a disciple? You the Almighty, for me a wretch? Chrysostom: "With the hands with which you opened eyes, cleansed lepers, raised the dead, you wash my feet?" As if to say: I dare not allow it; and because he was going too far in his reverence, the Lord admonishes him to desist on account of the mystery.

Question. Likewise the inquiry concerns this, that Peter alone resisted the Lord when he willed to wash their feet: how is it that all said nothing? And if all were silent, how was he willing to be singular? If you say that the Lord came to him first, and he resisted first, and afterward the others were corrected: the text is contrary to this, because it says: He began to wash and to wipe: and afterward: He came therefore to Simon Peter. Chrysostom responds that he believes that he first washed the feet of Judas, because Judas, as one who would presume the first place, had taken the foremost position, and afterward he came to Peter, and Peter resisted. But it is better to say, according to the Gloss, that he came first to Peter, and that statement was made by way of anticipation.

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:

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

Simon Peter says to him. Here the fourth point is touched upon, namely Peter's obedience, after the threat was made to him. Hence above he was called Peter: "Peter says to him"; but in this response it says: "Simon Peter says to him," that is, obedient, fervent, because he offers more than the Lord commands: hence he says: Lord, not only my feet, as you command, wash, but also my hands and my head. Hence Simon Peter, truly obedient, could say that word of the Psalm: "My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready." But because above he erred in reverence, and now indeed he exceeded in obedience: therefore Peter above was terrified, but now Simon is instructed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).