And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
Jump to: Alford • Barnes • Bengel • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Chrysostom • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Exp Grk • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • ICC • JFB • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Meyer • Parker • PNT • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • Teed • TTB • VWS • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)And supper being ended.—The reading here is uncertain, but neither reading justifies our translation. It should probably be, “And it now becoming supper time.” As a matter of fact, the supper was not ended (John 13:12; John 13:26); but they had already reclined, and were, as we say, ready for supper.
The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot.—The better reading is, The devil having now put it into the heart, that Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, should betray Him. But the sense must be that of our version, “The heart of Judas” (the devil having suggested). The alternative interpretation, “the heart of the devil” (the devil having conceived) is opposed to all scriptural analogy. For the fact, comp. Notes on Matthew 26:14, and Luke 22:3.
For “Judas Iscariot,” comp. Notes on Matthew 10:4; Matthew 26:14. The name is given here in the sad fulness of this mournful record. The fact is recorded hero to explain the references to Judas which follow in our Lord’s words (John 13:10; John 13:18; John 13:21; John 13:26-27; John 13:30).John 13:2. And supper being ended — Or, as δειπνου γενομενου should rather be translated, supper, or supper-time, being come, or, while they were at supper, as Dr. Campbell renders it. Thus, John 21:4, πρωιας γενομενης, when morning was come. Acts 12:18; Acts 16:35, ημερας γενομενης, when day was come; and Acts 21:40, σιγης λενομενης, when silence was made: in all which places, and in many more, which might easily be collected from the Greek writers, it would be absurd to translate the word, ended. “When γενομενης,” says Dr. Campbell, “is joined with πρωιας, οψιας, ημερας, or with any term denoting a precise portion of time, it invariably signifies that the period denoted by the noun is begun, not ended.” Of this he produces several incontrovertible examples. “That this was the passover-supper, may be proved by four arguments: 1st, In John’s history of this supper we are told, when Jesus had washed the disciples’ feet he sat down again at table, and explained the meaning of the action, John 13:12; and then declared that one of them should betray him, John 13:18-21. This occasioned the beloved disciple first, and after him the other disciples, to inquire which of them should do the horrid deed, John 13:23. But, by the consent of all the evangelists, that declaration and inquiry were first made while they were eating the last passover. 2d, At this supper, mentioned by John, Jesus declared that Peter should deny him, John 13:38; and the words of his declaration are not, The cock shall not crow the next, the third, or the fourth day, but, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice: therefore the declaration must have been made on the night of the denial; and consequently the supper, at which it was made, must have been the paschal-supper, for all the evangelists agree that Peter denied his Master the night in which that supper was celebrated. 3d, The connection in which John’s supper stands with the subsequent facts mentioned by him shows plainly that it was the paschal-supper. For the discourse, (John 14,) being intended to give the disciples consolation, was delivered by Christ immediately after he had foretold Peter’s denial, and the cowardice of the rest. Having ended that discourse, Jesus went out of the house, (John 14:31,) and delivered the allegorical sermon, (John 15.,) which, from the subject of it, seems to have been preached in a place where there were many vines growing, probably on the mount of Olives, whither, as the other evangelists inform us, he retired after the paschal-supper. Immediately after the allegorical sermon, he spake that which is contained in the 16th and 17th chapters, and then went with his disciples over the brook Cedron, into the garden of Gethsemane, where he was apprehended. From this series of facts it appears, that the supper was the paschal-supper, because, between it and Jesus’s crucifixion, there is not the least chasm in John’s history, where the passover can be brought in. 4th, We are told, (chap. John 13:27-30,) that after Jesus had ordered Judas to do quickly what he was about to do, he went out; upon which Jesus mentioned the near prospect he had of being glorified, to intimate that he knew Judas was gone out to betray him. From this time forth there is nothing said of Judas by John till he appeared with the armed band. Nevertheless, by the accounts of the other evangelists, Judas was present at the institution of the sacrament of the supper, after the passover. Wherefore the passover being celebrated before Judas went out, the supper mentioned by John must have been that solemnity.” — Macknight. The devil having now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him — By this version the English reader would be led to apprehend, that it was at this paschal-supper that the devil first tempted Judas to betray Christ: but the original expression may be properly rendered, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas, &c., for the participle βεβληκοτος is of the perfect tense, and denotes an action done at some time past, and the particle ηδη, rendered now, often signifies already, or before: so that what Christ says here concerning Judas, may refer to what had passed between him and the chief priests, after the reproof given him in the supper at Bethany. And therefore when John says afterward, (John 13:27,) that after the sop was given him, Satan entered into Judas, the meaning must be, that he was then again incited by the devil to execute the treachery which he had before resolved upon, by a like instigation of the same evil spirit.
The devil - The leader or prince of evil spirits.
Having now put it into the heart - Literally, having cast it into the heart. Compare Ephesians 6:16; "The fiery darts of the wicked." See Acts 5:3; Luke 22:3. The meaning of this passage is that Satan inclined the mind of Judas to do this, or he tempted him to betray his Master. We know not precisely how this was done, but we know that it was by means of his avarice. Satan could tempt no one unless there was some inclination of the mind, some natural or depraved propensity that he could make use of. He presents objects in alluring forms fitted to that propensity, and under the influence of a strong or a corrupt inclination the soul yields to sin. In the case of Judas it was the love of money; and it was necessary to present to him only the possibility of obtaining money, and it found him ready for any crime.
the devil having now—or, "already."
put into the heart of Judas … to betray him—referring to the agreement he had already made with the chief priests (Lu 22:3-6).And supper being ended; possibly it were better translated, while they were at supper, or in supper time, Greek, deipnou genomenou, but the great question is, What supper is here intended? Our most learned Lightfoot is very confident this was not the paschal supper. The most interpreters, ancient and modern, seem to be of another mind. Or it may be rather a common supper, which they ate before the passover: for whereas some think this supper was that in the house of Simon the leper, mentioned Matthew 26:6, it seemeth no way probable, no circumstance inclining us to believe any such thing; and the evangelist having told us that it was after that supper that Christ rode into Jerusalem and again went from thence, and hid himself, John 12:36, and then reporting this as a thing subsequent to it in this chapter; it seemeth very clear to me, that it could not be the supper in the house of Simon the leper. Concerning the influence of the devil upon Judas, to put it into his heart to betray his Master, see Luke 22:3,4. John 13:1, that this was "before the feast of the passover"; and by comparing it with Matthew 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, John 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 Luke 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, Matthew 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, John 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, John 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 Matthew 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 Matthew 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.And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)John 13:2-5. And (et quidem) this εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς He fulfilled at the supper by the washing of the feet.
δείπνου γινομ.] Note the present standing in relation to the present ἐγείρεται, John 13:4 (see critical notes). Whilst it is becoming supper-time, i.e. whilst supper-time is on the point of being kept. They had already reclined for the purpose, John 13:4; John 13:12. According to the Recepta, γενομ., the meal was not yet over (Luther and several others, including Klee and Hofmann, p. 207, who explains as though μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον were expressed), but already in progress,—supper had begun. This itself was, according to John 13:1, not the paschal supper, but (hence also without the article) an ordinary evening meal on the 13th Nisan (in opposition to the synoptical account) in Jerusalem (not in Bethany, see on John 14:31), the last repast of Jesus before His death, at which He founded the Lord’s Supper (John 13:21 ff., John 13:38, John 18:1). The institution of the Supper is not mentioned by John,—not as though he were unacquainted with it (Strauss), or had perceived no ecclesiastical rite at all involved in it (Scholten), but because it was universally known (1 Corinthians 11), and the practice itself was in daily use (Acts 2:46). Accordingly, not repeating the account of this, because known to all, he rather selected from the abundance of that last night what he found, over and above, to be most in harmony with his peculiar object, the making known the δόξα of the ΛΌΓΟς in the flesh,—in the washing of the feet ΧΆΡΙς, in the discourses ΧΆΡΙς and ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ. According to Schenkel, John desired by his silence to preclude the notions of a magical effect resulting from the Lord’s Supper, and the later controversies concerning it. As though such a purpose would not have required the very opposite procedure, viz. distinct instruction! Baur’s assumption, p. 264, is, that the evangelist has dated back the importance of the Supper to the second Passover, chap. 6, because he did not wish to allow the last meal of Jesus to pass for the same as that in the Synoptics, namely, as a paschal meal. Comp. also Scholten, p. 289 ff. But for this purpose such an inversion of the synoptical material would not have been at all necessary. He could have mentioned the institution of the Supper at the last meal in such a way that this would nevertheless not have been a paschal meal.
τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη, κ.τ.λ.] cannot serve merely as a prelude to the subsequent and more frequent mention of the relation of Jesus to the traitor (John 13:10; John 13:18; John 13:21; John 13:26-27; John 13:30), as Godet maintains, which would be only a formal purpose, and one not in correspondence with the tragically solemn emphasis. Again, it is not even intended to make us sensible of the forbearance of Jesus, who Himself washed the feet of Judas (Euth. Zigabenus, comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, and several others), nor generally, as it were, the mere nearness (ἤδη) in point of time of the last destiny, which He yet employed in such a work of love (this, indeed, was already contained in εἰδὼς, κ.τ.λ.), but—to what the ἬΔΗ points—the undisturbed dear elevation of this His might of love over the outbreak, already so near, of the tragic devilish treachery, which could not even now, immediately before its occurrence, confuse His mind. According to the reading Ἰούδας Σιμ. Ἰσκαριώτης (see the critical notes), we must explain: the devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up, so that the καρδία is not that of Judas (Luthardt, Baeumlein), as in the Recepta, but that of the devil (comp. Vulgate); as also in the classics βάλλειν or ΒΆΛΛΕΣΘΑΙ ΕἸς ΝΟῦΝ, ΕἸς ΘΥΜΌΝ, ἘΝ ΦΡΕΣΊΝ, very frequently denotes in animum inducere, statuere, deliberare. See Wetstein in loc.; Kypke, II. p. 399; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 294. The more current this mode of speech was, the less can we be surprised in an anthropomorphic representation of the devil at the mention of his heart (in answer to Lücke, Godet, and others), in which he has his ἐπιθυμίας (John 8:44), ΜΕΘΟΔΕΊΑς (Ephesians 6:11), ΝΟΉΜΑΤΑ (2 Corinthians 2:11), etc. As the heart of God may be spoken of (Acts 13:22), so also the heart of the devil.
Ἰούδας Σίμ. Ἰσκαρ.] The full name, and at the close contains a shuddering emphasis.
The participial clause, further, is not to be placed in a parenthesis; it is co-ordinated with ΔΕΊΠΝΟΥ ΓΙΝΟΜ.
ΕἸΔῺς, Κ.Τ.Λ.] Although He knew (ὅμως εἰς ἄκραν συγκατεβη ταπείνωσιν, Euth. Zigabenus). The consciousness of His divine elevation rested, while on this threshold of death, in the fact that now, being on the point of entering, by stepping over this threshold, upon His glorification, the Messianic fulness of power, which had formerly been bestowed upon Him on the occasion of His mission (Matthew 11:27), which extended over all things, and was limited by nothing, was given into His hands for complete exercise (comp. on John 17:2, Matthew 28:18); and that God; as He was the source of His coming (comp. on John 8:42), so is the goal of His present departure.
On πάντα δέδωκεν αὐτῶ comp. 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 2:22; Php 2:9-11, et. al.
John 13:4. ἐγείρεται, κ.τ.λ.] Note how the whole representation regards things as present; to the historic present correspond the present and perfect participles γινομ., βεβληκ., εἰδώς, John 13:2-3. On ΤΊΘ. ΤᾺ ἹΜΆΤ. comp. Plut. Alc. 8.
The washing of the feet was wont to take place before the beginning of the meal, by the ministry of slaves (see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 50; Stuck, Antt. conviv. p. 217); it was not, however, always observed; see on Luke 7:44. Hence we cannot argue, from the omission of it up to this point at this meal (for the guests had already reclined at table), either against (Wichelhaus) or in favour of (Lange: the host was bound to eat with his family) the supposition that the meal was the Passover meal.
Any peculiar cause for the extraordinary procedure of Jesus is not intimated by John; and to drag in such from the dispute among the disciples about rank, mentioned in Luke 22:24 ff. (so, following the older commentators, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Godet, with various representations of the scenic associations; also Baur, who, however, regards the narrative only as the exposition, given in a historical form, of Matthew 20:26-27, and Luke 22:26-28, after Strauss had maintained it to be a mythical rendering of a synoptical discourse on humility), is arbitrary in itself, since John, fully as he introduces his narrative in John 13:1-2, gives not the slightest indication of the above, while it is appropriate neither to the position nor to the validity of the account of Luke (see on Luke 22:24). The symbolical act of departing love must, especially since Jesus had already reclined at table, have been the outcome of the moment, arising from His own urgent consideration of that which was needful for the disciples and for His work. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 542.
διέζωσεν ἑαυτ.] setting forth the personal performance more than the means (comp. John 21:18). He is, in truth, entirely a servant, πάντα μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας αὐτουργήσας (Euth. Zigabenus).
ΒΆΛΛΕΙ ὝΔΩΡ] He pours water. Comp. Planudius in Bachmann, Anal. 2. p. 90, 18.
εἰς Τ. ΝΙΠΤ.] into the wash basin standing by. “Nihil ministerii omittit,” Grotius.
ἬΡΞΑΤΟ] for the act commenced was interrupted when Peter’s turn came, and not till after John 13:10 was it continued and finished. John employs the ἤρξατο, so common in the other evangelists, here only in this minute description.
ᾯ] with which (Hom. Il. x. 77, Od. xviii. 66; Athen. x. p. 443 B), or instead of ὅ, by attraction (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 15:6), as in John 17:5; John 17:11.2. supper being ended] There are two readings here, but neither of them means ‘being ended,’ moreover the supper is not ended (John 13:26). The common reading would mean ‘supper having begun,’ and the better reading, ‘when supper was at hand,’ or, ‘when supper was beginning.’ “It was the custom for slaves to wash the feet of the guests before sitting down to meat; and we are tempted to suppose that the symbolical act, which our Evangelist relates here, took the place of this custom.” S. p. 214.
the devil … to betray him] The true reading gives us, The devil having now put it into the heart, that Judas, Simon’s son, Iscariot, should betray Him. Whose heart? Only two answers are possible grammatically; (1) the heart of Judas, (2) the devil’s own heart. The latter is incredible, if only for the reason that S. John himself has shewn that the devil had long been at work with Judas. The meaning is that of the received reading, but more awkwardly expressed. ‘To betray’ is literally S. John’s favourite form ‘in order that he should betray.’ The traitor’s name is given in full for greater solemnity, and in the true text comes last for emphasis. Note the position of Iscariot, confirming the view (see on John 6:71) that the word is a local epithet rather than a proper name.John 13:2. Δείπνου, supper) Indefinitely. That was the day before the Passover supper.—γενομένου, when it was being made [but Engl. Vers., “supper being ended”]) Therefore the washing of feet was about the beginning of supper. Comp. the words, He riseth from, John 13:4, and lying down again [“after He was set down again”], John 13:12. Also the general custom of the Jews is in accordance with this view.—ἤδη, now) Chrysost. Æth. Arab. Lat, in some MSS., Pers. and Sy. versions, omit the particle; but it ought to be retained. The τότε, then, John 13:27, answers to it.—βεβληκότος, when he had [having] put into) There is great force in this. The words διαβόλου [Th. βάλλω] and βεβληκότος are conjugates.—καρδίαν, the heart) The purpose of Judas was as yet hidden.—Ἰούδα, of Judas) Precaution was taken by the washing of feet, that the impurity of Judas should not infect the hearts of the rest. Comp. John 13:11, “He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean.”—Ἰσκαριώτου, Iscariot) This is the surname, not of Simon, but of Judas; ch. John 6:71, John 14:22, “Judas—not Iscariot.”
 yr the Peschito Syriac Version: second cent.: publ. and corrected by Cureton, from MS. of fifth cent.
 Orig. 2,120; 4,212; 409; 425, omits ἤδη; also ac. But ABDbd Vulg. and Orig. elsewhere retain ἤδη.—E. and T.Verse 2. - A supper having commenced; or, being then in progress - without doubt the meal in which our Lord terminated the Old Testament dispensation and introduced the New, and which John discriminates, therefore, from the Passover proper referred to in ver. 1. The evangelist now reverts to the diabolic design which had been injected into the heart of Judas. The devil having already cast into the heart (of Judas) that he - Meyer's suggestion that the devil put this design into his own heart, does not lighten the construction, and encumbers the passage with ideas which are foreign to the Bible - (even) Judas, (the son) of Simon, the Iscariot, should betray him. The idea came from the devil, but the purpose of the devil was not irrevocable. The evangelist looked through his tears of love to the traitor's face as he sat at meat, and felt how the very excess and uttermost and hyperbole of love was reached and scaled by the contact between the treachery of the one and the Divine humiliation of the other. The contrast between these two mental states is one of the most striking antitheses in the Gospel. But how should John know that Judas had already plotted the betrayal of his Master? Hengstenberg makes the wise suggestion that the fourth evangelist was acquainted with the synoptic tradition of the priority of Judas's bargain with the chief priests (Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:3-6).
The most approved reading is γινομένου, the present participle, denoting while a supper was in progress. Hence Rev., rightly, during supper. The A.V. is wrong, even if the reading of the Received Text be retained; for in John 13:12 Jesus reclined again, and in John 13:26, the supper is still in progress. It should be, supper having begun, or having been served. It is important to note the absence of the definite article: a supper, as distinguished from the feast, which also is designated by a different word.
Having now put (ἤδη βεβληκότος)
Rev., better, already. Put, is literally, thrown or cast.
Into the heart of Judas
Meyer, strangely, refers the heart, not to Judas, but to the Devil himself; rendering, the Devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up. Godet does not speak too strongly when he says that "this meaning is insufferable."
LinksJohn 13:2 Interlinear
John 13:2 Parallel Texts
John 13:2 NIV
John 13:2 NLT
John 13:2 ESV
John 13:2 NASB
John 13:2 KJV
John 13:2 Bible Apps
John 13:2 Parallel
John 13:2 Biblia Paralela
John 13:2 Chinese Bible
John 13:2 French Bible
John 13:2 German Bible