And when supper was done, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him,)

“(Tr. lv. 2) He loved them unto the end, i. e. that they themselves too might pass out of this worlda, 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. 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.”

“Above, the Evangelist set down certain occasions of the passion and death of Christ; in this part he shows how Christ prepares his disciples before his passion, and first he shows how he formed them by example; second, how he comforted them by word, and this below in chapter 14, "let not your heart be troubled"; third, how he fortified them by the support of prayers, below in chapter 17, "these things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the example which Christ offered his disciples to imitate; second, the disciples' shortcoming, who were not yet fit to follow, there: "when Jesus had said these things, he was troubled." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the example; second he adds the usefulness of the example, there: "he came therefore to Simon Peter"; third he leads them to imitation, there: "after therefore he had washed their feet ... he said to them." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the affection of Christ giving the example; second he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, there: "and supper being made," and so on. Concerning the first three things are touched upon. First indeed the present feast; second the imminent death of Christ; third the fervent love of Christ. The present feast was the Passover; and this is what he says: "before the feast day of the Passover," and so on. Here it must be noted that some say this name "Pascha" is Greek, so that it is said from "passio" [suffering], as though this feast were called Pascha because then the Lord's passion is celebrated; and indeed it agrees with the Greek, for "Pascha" in Greek is the same as "to suffer." But the first origin of this word is had from the Hebrew: for "Pascha" is said as it were "phase," that is, the passage of the Lord, as is said in Exodus chapter 12:11. The Evangelist, however, interprets it here in this way on account of a twofold passage: one which preceded, namely that of the angel striking the firstborn of Egypt and saving the firstborn of the Hebrews; the other, which follows, of the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea. And therefore it was rightly done that this feast should be called Pascha. And thus we can say that our Pascha has the signification of both languages, namely the Hebrew and the Greek, because in the very passion of the Lord there was a passage of Christ from this world to the Father; Acts 10:38: "he went about doing good and healing." Likewise a passage of all of us, following Christ, either by penance and martyrdom, according to that of Psalm 65:12: "we passed through fire and water; and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment," or by the desire of the mind panting after heavenly things, according to that of Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my generations." Now as to his saying "feast day," it is said by way of pre-eminence. For, as is read in Exodus 23:14 and following, there were three solemn days of the year, on which the Jews had to assemble in the place which the Lord had chosen: namely the phase, when the Passover was immolated, and Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles, namely Scenopegia. But the day of the Passover was the most celebrated among the others. But a doubt arises here concerning his saying "before the feast day of the Passover": for that day is called the feast day of the Passover on which the lamb was immolated, which was the fourteenth moon. Since therefore he says that this was before the feast day of the Passover, it seems that this was done on the thirteenth moon, which preceded the fourteenth moon. The Greeks, following this, say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, when the Jews were to celebrate their Passover; and therefore the Lord, knowing that his passion was imminent, anticipated the celebration of the Passover, and on the preceding day celebrated his own Passover, before the feast of the Passover of the Jews. But because in Exodus 12:18 it is commanded that from the fourteenth day at evening until the twenty-first day of the month no leaven should be found among the Hebrews, they say further that the Lord made the supper not with unleavened bread, but with leavened: for "before the feast day of the Passover," that is, on the thirteenth moon, leavened bread was still found among the Hebrews. But the other three Evangelists are contrary to this opinion: for they say, namely Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, that it was the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover was to be immolated. From which it follows that the Lord's supper was made on that day on which the Passover of the Jews was immolated. To this indeed the Greeks respond, saying that the other Evangelists did not truly narrate this event, and therefore John, who wrote the last Gospel, corrected them. But it is heretical to say that anything false is found, not only in the Gospels, but in any canonical Scripture whatsoever; and therefore it is necessary to say that all the Evangelists say the same thing, and disagree in nothing. For the evidence of this, then, it must be known that, as is had in Leviticus 23:5, the solemnities of the Jews began from the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this is that they numbered days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening, whence they also reckoned the day from one evening to the next. And thus among them the solemnity of the Passover began from the evening of the preceding day, and ended in the evening of the day of the Passover; just as feasts are also celebrated among us. Thus therefore something done among us on the vigil of the Lord's Nativity can be said to have been done on the feast of the Nativity. Following this manner, the other Evangelists said that the supper was made on the first day of unleavened bread, because it was made on the preceding day toward evening, since it already belonged to the first day of unleavened bread. But John the Evangelist here takes "the feast day of the Passover" for that day which was wholly festive, not for that day whose evening only was festive, which was the day preceding the Passover; and therefore he says "before the feast day of the Passover." It is clear, therefore, that the Lord's supper was made on the fourteenth moon, toward evening. Now the imminent death of Christ was his passage out of this world through the passion; and as to this he says, "Jesus knowing that his hour was come": for that solemnity of the Jews was a figure of the passion of Christ, "for all these things happened to them in figure," 1 Corinthians 10:11, and therefore he immediately sets down the truth, namely the passion of Christ. And as though explaining that Pascha is said from "phase," that is, passage, he makes mention of the passage: "that he should pass," he says, "out of this world to the Father." Here he sets down three things concerning the passion of Christ. First, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; third, that it was promotive and exalting. It was foreseen indeed, not accidental, and as to this he says "Jesus knowing"; as if to say: not unwilling, not unknowing, but knowing and voluntary he suffered, etc.; below, John 18:4: "Jesus knowing all things that were to come." The converse is said of us, Ecclesiastes 8:6: "the affliction of man is great: because he knoweth not the things past, and what is to come he cannot know by any means." It was fitting, moreover, as to time, and as to this he says "that his hour was come," that is, the very day of the Passover, on which he was to pass through the cross; Ecclesiastes 8:6: "there is a time and opportunity for every business." This is that hour of which it is said above, John 2:4: "my hour is not yet come." Nor is this hour to be understood as fatal, as though subject to the course and disposition of the stars, but as determined by divine disposition and providence. Therefore, I say, it was determined for the Passover of the Jews, because it was fitting to the solemnity of the Jews that the truth should follow the figure, so that when the lamb, which figured Christ, was immolated, Christ, who is truly the lamb of God, might be immolated; 1 Peter 1:18: "you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." It was fitting also as to the matters accomplished. For already Christ had been glorified; below in the same chapter: "now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Already he had manifested the Father to the world; below, John 17:6: "Father, I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world." It remained, therefore, that he should consummate the work of the passion and of human redemption, of which it is said below, John 19:30: "it is consummated," and it follows: "bowing his head, he gave up the ghost." The passion of Christ was promotive and exalting, and not oppressive: because "that he should pass out of this world to the Father," that is, by making human nature a partaker of the Father's glory; below, John 20:17: "I ascend to your Father, my God and your God." Nor is it to be understood that he passes from place to place, since God the Father is not comprehended by place; Jeremiah 23:24: "I fill heaven and earth." But just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by forsaking him but by assuming a lower nature like to ours, so also he is said to have returned to him only insofar as, even according to his humanity, he was made a partaker of the Father's glory; Romans 6:10: "for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God"; Philippians 2:11: "that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." Consequently, when he says "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end," the fervent love of Christ is commended, and this as to four things. First, as to this, that it was preventing, according to that of 1 John 4:10: "not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us." And as to this he says "having loved his own," as though beforehand: he loved, I say, before he created; Wisdom 11:25: "thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made." He loved before he called; Jeremiah 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." He loved before he redeemed; below, John 15:13: "greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Second, his love is commended as to this, that it was fitting, because "he loved his own." Here it must be known that, according as some are "his own" in different ways, so according to this they are loved by God in different ways. Now some are his own in three ways. First by creation; and these he loves by preserving for them the goods of nature; above, John 1:11: "he came unto his own," by creation, "and his own received him not." Others, however, are his own by dedication, namely those who were given by God the Father through faith; below, John 17:6: "thine they were, and to me thou gavest them, and they have kept thy word." And these he loves by preserving them in the goods of grace. Others, however, are his own by special devotion; 1 Chronicles 11:1: "we are thine, O David, and thy flesh." These he loves by consoling them specially. Third, the love of Christ is commended as to this, that it was necessary, because "he loved his own who were in the world." For some are his own who were already in the glory of the Father, because even the ancient fathers were his own, inasmuch as they hoped to be freed through him; Deuteronomy 33:3: "all his saints are in his hand." But these did not need such love so much as those who were in the world; and therefore he says "who were in the world," namely in body, but not in mind. Fourth, it is commended as to this, that it was perfect, whence he says "he loved them unto the end." Now "end" is said in two ways: because there is the end of intention, and the end of execution. That indeed is the end of intention to which our intention is ordered; and such an end ought to be eternal life, according to that of Romans 6:22: "you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." Again, this end ought to be Christ himself; Romans 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law, unto justice, to every one that believeth." And these two are one end: because eternal life is nothing other than the enjoyment of Christ according to his divinity; below, John 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." According to this, then, he says "he loved them unto the end"; that he might lead them into himself as their end, or into eternal life, which is nothing other than that; Jeremiah 31:3: "in charity I have loved thee, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." That, however, is the end of execution which is the terminus of a thing; and thus death can be called an end, so that it be said "he loved them unto the end," that is, unto death: which can have a threefold sense. In one way, according to Augustine, so that it be said, in a certain human manner, that Christ loved his own until death only, and no further. But this sense is false: for far be it that he should have ended his love with death, who was not ended in death. In another way it can be understood so that the "unto" indicates a cause; and thus the sense is: "he loved them unto the end," that is, love brought him even unto death; Galatians 2:20: "he loved us, and delivered himself for us." In a third way it can be understood so that the sense be: "unto the end," that is, whereas he had shown them many signs of love before, at the end, that is, around the time of his death, he showed them signs of greater love; below, John 16:5: "these things I told you not from the beginning, because I was with you," as if he were to say: it was not necessary then for me to show you how much I loved you, except at my departure, so that thus the love and memory of me might be more deeply impressed in your hearts. Consequently, when he says "and supper being made," he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, and first he describes the hour of the deed; second he adds the dignity of the doer, there: "Jesus therefore knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," etc.; third he pursues the humility of the deed, there: "he riseth from supper." Now he describes the time from two things: from one which pertained to his charity, and from the other which aggravated the iniquity of Judas, there: "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him." He says therefore, as to the first, "and supper being made." Here it must be known that a thing is said to be "made" differently in permanent things, and differently in successive things. In permanent things, indeed, a thing is said to be made when it arrives at the perfection of its own proper species and form, as a house is said to be made when it has its proper form. In successive things, however, a thing is said to be made when it is already consummated; as the world is said to have been made when it was completed. In this way also a thing is said to be made when it receives its proper species. When therefore he says "and supper being made," it is not to be understood that the supper had been completed and finished: because after he washed the feet of the disciples, he reclined again, and gave the morsel to Judas. It is to be understood, therefore, that "supper being made" means, that is, prepared, and already brought to its proper species: for they had already begun to sup, and afterward he rose. Whence in the midst of supping he washed the feet of the disciples. Concerning this supper it is had in Luke 14:16: "a certain man made a great supper." Now "dinner" differs from "supper." For "dinner" is said to be that which takes place in the first part of the day, but "supper" that which takes place at the end. Thus, then, spiritual refreshment is called "dinner," insofar as it is fitting for beginners; but "supper," insofar as it is fitting for the perfect. Consequently, when he says "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him," he describes the time from the fact that it aggravates the iniquity of the betrayer: which indeed the Evangelist describes for two reasons. First, indeed, that the iniquity of Judas might be shown the more, who, amid so many tokens of love and so many offices of humility, was contemplating committing so great an iniquity; Psalm 40:10: "he that ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Second, that the love of Christ might be rendered the more admirable, who, although he knew this, nevertheless, offering him the office of love and humility, washed his feet; Psalm 119:6: "with them that hated peace I was peaceable." But can the devil put anything into the heart of a man? It seems that he can. For in Psalm 77:49 it is said: "sendings in by evil angels." But to this it must be said that that is said to be in the heart of a man which is in his thought and will, whence what is said, "when he had now put into the heart," etc., is to be understood, that is, into his will. But to put something into the heart in this way can happen in two ways. Directly; and thus only he can put something into the heart of a man who has the power of moving his will from within, and this only God can do; and therefore he alone can directly impress upon the will of man; Proverbs 20:1: "the heart of kings is in the hand," that is, in the power, "of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it." But because the will is moved by an exterior object as by an apprehended good, hence it is that he who suggests that something is good is said to put that into the heart of a man, indirectly making him apprehend something as good, from which the will is moved. But this happens in two ways: either by suggesting exteriorly, and in this way even a man can put something into the heart; or by suggesting interiorly, and in this way the devil puts it in. For the imaginative power, since it is corporeal, when God permits, is subject to the power of the demon. Whence, whether waking or sleeping, he forms in it certain images, from the apprehension of which the will of man is moved to desire something. Thus, therefore, the devil puts something into the heart of a man, not directly by way of a mover, but indirectly by way of a suggester. Consequently, when he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," he treats of the dignity of the doer. Because it is said in Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "the greater thou art, humble thyself," therefore the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, first sets forth his greatest dignity; and this as to four things. First as to knowledge; and as to this he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands." For such are spiritual gifts, that once given they are not unknown; 1 Corinthians 2:12: "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God." And therefore Christ knew the things that had been given to him by God. He says this, however, so that his humility might be the more commendable. For sometimes it happens that someone is of great dignity, and yet, on account of his simplicity, does not recognize his own dignity. If such a one, then, were to do something humble, it would not be reputed to him for great praise, according to that of the Song of Songs 1:7: "if thou know not thyself, O fairest among women." But if someone knows the state of his own dignity, and yet his affection inclines toward humble things, his humility is to be commended. And therefore the Evangelist says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," yet he did not omit to do those things which are humble. Second, as to power, because "the Father had given him all things into his hands," that is, into his power. God gave to Christ as man, in time, those things which nevertheless had been in the power of the Son from eternity; Matthew, last chapter, 18: "all power is given to me in heaven and on earth." He says, however, "the Father had given him all things into his hands," for two reasons: to show that Christ did not suffer unwillingly. For if all things were in his hand, that is, in his power, it is manifest that his adversaries could do nothing to him thereby against his will. Second, because when someone of little importance is exalted, he easily grows proud, and does nothing humble, lest he seem to derogate from his dignity; but he who, existing in a great state, is exalted, does not neglect humble things: and therefore he makes mention of the dignity of Christ. Third, as to his nobility, and as to this he says "that he came from God, and goeth to God"; Wisdom 8:3: "having the fellowship of God." Fourth, as to his holiness, because "he goeth to God." In this consists the holiness of man, that he go to God. And he sets this down here for the reason that, since he himself goes to God, it is proper to him to lead others back to God: which indeed is done especially through humility and charity; and therefore he offered them an example of humility and charity.”

“And supper being ended,.... Or rather "supper being", or it "being supper time", for it was not ended; not the paschal supper, nor the Lord's supper, but the supper in Simon's house at Bethany, two days before the passover. There is no mention made in this whole chapter of the passover supper, or of any of its rites: the washing of the disciples' feet was a peculiar action of our Lord's, and had no manner of regard to any usage among the Jews at such a time; nor was it ever usual with them, at the passover, to wash the feet of those that ate of it; there is not the least trace of any such custom in any of their writings: besides, it is said in so many words, in Joh 13:1, that this was "before the feast of the passover"; and by comparing it with Mat 26:2, it appears to be two days before it; and so much time seems necessary to be allowed, for Judas to do what he did after this supper, in which he was first instigated to it: and that the feast of the passover was yet to come, when this supper was ended, and Judas had taken the sop, and was bid to do quickly what he did, is manifest from the sense the disciples put upon those words of Christ, who thought he ordered him to get the necessaries for the feast, Joh 13:29, which can be understood of no other than the feast of the passover, which was at hand, and for which many things were to be got ready; to which may be added, that Satan's entering into Judas, and putting it into his heart to betray his master, and his covenanting with the high priests to do it for such a sum, were before the passover supper, as is clear from Luk 22:1. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that Judas could meet that night, after the supper, with the chief priests, captains, and all the council, the great sanhedrim, who could not be together; since by the law of the passover, every head of a family was to be with his respective family: and if this could be supposed, yet there seems to be some time between this agreement, and the execution of it, in which he sought for a proper opportunity, Mat 26:16. Nor can it be thought there was time enough to do all he did, as to covenant with the chief priests, form his scheme for apprehending Christ, and get such a number of men together for that purpose, between the supper, and the time of night in which Christ was betrayed. Besides, certain it is, that Christ and his disciples arose from the place where he ate his supper, and went from thence elsewhere, Joh 14:31, which cannot be understood very well of any other departure than his going from Bethany to Jerusalem, and not of his going from Jerusalem to the garden, which is afterwards spoken of as a distinct thing, Joh 18:1. And to say no more, there is not in this chapter the least hint of the institution of the Lord's supper, which all the other evangelists make mention of, when they relate the last passover of our Lord. The reader may be more fully satisfied of the truth of this by consulting Dr. Lightfoot on Mat 26:6. The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; the person Satan influenced and acted upon, for his purpose, was Judas iscariot, Simon's son: whether this was Simon the Pharisee, or Simon the leper, in whose house Christ and his disciples were, or who he was, is not certain: was there any reason to think it might be Simon the tanner that was the father of Judas, or that either he or his father were tanners, I would venture to add one conjecture more to what has been made on Mat 10:4, concerning Judas's surname, Iscariot, as that it may come from "Iscortia", which signifies a tanner's coat: for so it is said in the (q) Talmud, "what is "Iscortia?" says Rabba bar Chanah, it is , "a tanner's coat":'' a sort of a leathern garment, as the gloss says, which tanners put over their clothes. However, this man was an apostle of Christ's whom Satan tempted to betray him; so that we see that the highest office, and greatest gifts, cannot secure men from the temptations of Satan: the manner in which he tempted him was, he "put", or "cast it into his heart"; it was a dart, and a fiery one, he threw into him, into his very heart; which shows the access Satan has into, and the influence he has upon the minds of men: his end in this temptation was to work upon him "to betray" Christ, his Lord and master, who had chosen him to be an apostle of his, and had invested him with this high office, into the hands of his enemies, in order to be put to death. This was an affair determined by God, known by Christ, and which he foretold to his disciples; yet all this did not in the least excuse the malice of Satan, and the wickedness of Judas: it was an action devilish indeed, and which, one would think, could never have entered into his heart, had not the devil put it there; and this was at supper time, whilst they were at table together, that this thought was darted into his mind; which is mentioned to show, that no place and company can preserve persons from the evil suggestions of the devil, and to aggravate the sin of Judas, who when, and while he was eating bread with Christ, first thought of, and determined to lift up his heel against him: moreover, it was when the ointment was poured on the head of Christ, and whilst Judas was fretting at it, that Satan took the opportunity of his choler and wrath, to stir him up to so vile an action. This account is prefaced to Christ's washing the feet of his disciples, to show the great composure of mind Christ was in, though he knew what was doing; and his wonderful condescension in washing the feet of so vile a creature, into whose heart Satan had already put it to betray him; and also his care of, and love to the rest of the disciples, when Satan had got possession of one of them. (q) T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 55. 2. Vid. Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Celim. c. 16. sect. 4. & Oholot, c. 8. sect. 1.”

“And supper being ended - Rather, δειπνου γενομενου, while supper was preparing. To support this new translation of the words, it may be remarked that, from Joh 13:26, Joh 13:30, it appears that the supper was not then ended: nay, it is probable that it was not then begun; because the washing of feet (Joh 13:5) was usually practised by the Jews before they entered upon their meals, as may be gathered from Luk 7:44, and from the reason of the custom. I think that John wrote, not γενομενου, but γινομενου, as in BL. Cant. and Origen, which latter reading is approved by several eminent critics, and should be translated as above. By the supper I suppose to be meant, not only the eating of it, but the preparing and dressing of it, and doing all things necessary previously to the eating of it. The devil had, before this time of the supper, put it into Judas's heart to betray his Master. See Mat 26:14, etc.; Mar 14:10, Mar 14:11; and Luk 22:3, etc. See also Bishop Pearce, from whose judicious commentary the preceding notes are principally taken. Calmet observes that John, designing only to supply what was omitted by the other evangelists, passes over all the transactions of the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, before the passion, and at once goes from Monday evening to Thursday evening. It is remarkable that St. John says nothing about the institution of the holy sacrament, which Matthew, Mat 26:26, etc., Mark, Mar 14:22, etc., and Luke, Luk 22:19, etc., describe so particularly. No other reason can be assigned for this than that he found it completely done by the others, and that he only designed to supply their defects. The devil having now put it into the heart - Judas formed his plot six days before this, on occasion of what happened at the house of Simon the leper: see Mat 26:14. Calmet.”

“And when supper was done. By this we must not understand, that the supper was over; for we afterwards find that Jesus again sat down, and gave bread to the traitor. But these words only mean, that all had partook of refreshment, and might be therefore said to have supped. (St. Augustine, tract. 55. in Joan.) — He knew that he went out from God, and would return to God; but at the same time, he did not leave God, when he went out from him, nor us, when he returns to him. (St. Augustine, as above.) — And though he went out from God, and returns to him, yet here he condescends to perform the office, not of the Lord God of the universe, but of a man and a slave; (St. Augustine) and this, says St. Chrysostom, (hom. lxix. in Joan.) that he might tread all pride under foot: doing every thing himself on this occasion, to teach us with what eagerness we ought to perform the duties of humility.”