John 13:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Leaving aside everything else, He mentioned what could especially have restrained and shamed him. He means: the one whom I fed, the one whom I made a participant at My table.

He said this to teach us to do good to those who do evil to us, even when they are incorrigible.

Since He had said, "I am not speaking of all of you," He finally separates Judas, so as not to bring fear upon many. He says, "He who eats bread with Me."

The expression, "not of all," does not necessarily point to one person. Therefore He added, "He who eats bread with Me," showing the wretched man that He was not suffering his attack in ignorance, but with full knowledge.

This again, more than anything else, could have restrained him. He did not say, "He will betray Me," but, "He has lifted up his heel against Me," in order to express the treachery, wickedness, and secrecy of his design.

All this was written so that we would not remember wrongs against those who offend us, but would admonish them and weep over them.

Indeed, those who suffer offense are not worthy of tears, but those who inflict it. The extortioner, the slanderer, and everyone who does any other evil harm themselves far more.

They bring us the greatest benefit, if we do not avenge ourselves. Suppose, for example, that someone robbed you, and you thanked and glorified God for the offense.

Through this thanksgiving you have gained countless rewards for yourself, just as that man has prepared inexpressible fire for himself.

If someone says, "What if I could not take revenge on the one who offended me, because I am weaker than he?" I answer this: you could be irritated and angry, because that lies within our power.

You could wish evil to the one who grieved you, curse him a thousand times, and disgrace him everywhere. Therefore, whoever did not do this will receive a reward also for not taking revenge.

It is clear that he would not have taken revenge even if he could have done so. For the offended person, if he is fainthearted, uses every weapon. He avenges himself on the offender with curses, insults, and slanders.

Therefore do not merely refrain from this. Pray for him as well. If you not only refrain from doing these things, but also pray for him, you will be like God.

"Pray," it is said, "for those who abuse you, that you may be like your Father in heaven" (Mt 5:44-45).

Do you see what great benefit we receive from offenses caused to us by others? Nothing delights God so much as when we do not return evil for evil.

But why do I say, when we do not return evil for evil? We have been commanded to return the opposite: good deeds and prayers.

Therefore Christ also repaid the one who intended to betray Him with benefits. He washed his feet, rebuked him secretly, reproved him with meekness, served him, deemed him worthy of the table and the kiss.

Although Judas did not become better even from this, Christ still did not cease to do what belonged to Him.

But if you wish, I will teach you also by the example of servants, and especially of the servants of the Old Testament. Then you will see that we can have no excuse when we remember wrongs.

Do you want me to speak to you of Moses? Or shall I carry the discourse still further back? The more ancient the examples presented, the more persuasive they will be.

Why is this so? Because virtue was more difficult then. Those who lived at that time had neither written teachings nor examples of life.

Nature alone struggled without any external help and was compelled to swim everywhere without support.

For this reason, when Scripture praised Noah, it did not simply call him perfect, but added, "in his generation" (Gen 6:9). That is, he was perfect at a time when there were many obstacles.

Certainly others after him also became glorious. Yet he will be in no way less than they, because he was perfect in his own time.

Who, then, was longsuffering before Moses? Blessed and noble Joseph, who, having been glorified for chastity, was no less glorified for longsuffering.

He was sold, though he had done no wrong, but had served, labored, and fulfilled everything proper to servants. An evil slander was raised against him, but he did not avenge himself, though he had his father on his side.

On the contrary, he even brought food to his brothers in the wilderness. When he did not find them, he did not despair and return, though he had the opportunity if he had wished.

Instead, he always preserved a truly brotherly disposition toward these fierce and cruel men. Again, when he was sitting in prison and was asked the reason, he said nothing bad about them.

He only said, "I have done nothing," and, "I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). After this, when he again received authority, he both fed them and delivered them from countless evils.

Thus, when we keep watch over ourselves, the malice of our neighbor cannot turn us away from virtue.

But his brothers were not like this. They stripped him of his garment, wanted to kill him, and reviled him because of his dream.

He brought them food, while they plotted to deprive him of freedom and life. They themselves ate, and despised their brother after throwing him naked into a pit.

What could be worse than such savagery? What murderers were not more humane than they? Then, after drawing him out of the pit, they delivered him to a thousand deaths.

They sold him to foreign and savage men, who were going to barbarians. But when he became king, he not only did not avenge himself on them, but delivered them, as far as lay in his power, even from sin.

He called everything that had happened an act of God's providence, not of their malice. Whatever he did with them, he did not do in order to avenge the offense, but only in pretense, for his brother's sake.

Therefore, when he later saw that they would not let his brother go from them, he immediately cast off the mask. He wept loudly and embraced them, as though they had shown him the greatest benefit, though they had previously destroyed him.

He brought them all into Egypt and showered them with countless benefits. What justification shall we have, then, if after the law and grace, and after such an increase of wisdom, we do not imitate one who lived before grace and the law?

Who will deliver us from punishment? Truly, there is nothing worse than remembering wrongs. The debtor of ten thousand talents also showed this.

At first his debt was forgiven, and then it was demanded again. It was forgiven by God's love for mankind, and demanded again because of his cruelty and remembrance of wrongs toward his fellow servant (Mt 18:24-38).

Knowing all this, let us forgive the sins of our neighbors and repay them with good. Then we too may receive mercy from God, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.

"I do not speak of all of you." So as not to bring fear upon many, He clearly separates him, and shows that only one is plotting against Him. Therefore He says: "He who eats My bread with Me." When Jesus said, "I know whom I have chosen," what has He said to us about Judas? Did He choose him too? Yes, when he was good, He chose him, as He chose Saul. But Judas changed of himself, for he was free. The Lord allows each person to act according to his own will, because He does not take away freedom. When Judas changed, He rejected him, though He had chosen him before. "That the Scripture may be fulfilled." Understand this expression as you understand other similar ones, of which we have often spoken.

Therefore He in some way beforehand defends and guards the true circle of the other disciples, assigning the guilt to only one, and to him alone.

Since all ate His bread, that is, shared the meal and partook of what was provided through Him, He profitably does not allow the spirit of the free disciples to be crushed by empty fears.

He forestalls the torment of suspicion, saying, "I am not speaking of all of you. For I know whom I have chosen, but that," He says, "the Scripture may be fulfilled: he who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me."

Or, according to the word of the Psalmist, "he has increased a stumbling-block." I think this is the meaning of these words. Thus a twofold contemplation has been given to us in them.

Let the lover of inquiry determine the better and truer meaning. Nevertheless, let us say something else about this saying, for the strengthening of simpler minds.

Two difficulties may be raised concerning these words. First, someone may make this objection. If we believe that Christ knows all things, why did He choose Judas?

Why did He join him to the other disciples, knowing full well that he would prove to be a betrayer and fall into the nets of covetousness?

In addition, someone may say: if he lifted up his heel against Christ precisely "that the Scripture might be fulfilled," as He Himself says, then Judas should not be considered guilty of the deed, but rather the necessity of fulfilling Scripture.

We must give an immediate explanation for each of these objections. By such arguments as we can, we must frame an answer suited to each difficulty, for the edification and consolation of those who cannot understand the meaning of divine Scripture by their own powers.

First of all, let us point out that, if we use such reasoning about every action of God, we shall never cease to reproach the Creator.

We shall blame God, Who calls into being the things that do not exist, and irrationally revile His immeasurable love for mankind.

What, tell me, would prevent others from accusing Him, for example, in this way: why did You choose Saul and anoint him king over Israel, knowing that he would surely reject grace?

And what shall one say about this? The pretext for accusation may rise all the way to the head of the human race, that is, to Adam.

One could reason, for example, in this way: why did You, the All-knowing, create the first man from the earth? You knew that he would fall by transgressing the commandment given to him.

In exactly the same way, one could accuse the Creator concerning the higher and more perfect creatures. Why did You form the nature of the angels, if, as God, You knew beforehand their coming deviation into apostasy?

For not all kept their own principality (Jude 1:6). What follows from this? The foreknowledge of God would not have allowed the Creator Himself to be revealed.

Or at least rational creation would never have passed into being. Thus God would have reigned only over irrational and insensible creation, and would no longer be known as God by nature.

In discussing this, I think it especially necessary to keep in mind that the Creator of all gave rational creatures the capacity to be governed by their own free choice.

He granted them to follow the impulses of their own will, toward whatever each one wished and judged to be better.

Thus some, rightly striving toward higher perfection, preserve their glory. They receive a share in the good things appointed for them and find unceasing blessedness.

But those corrupted in mind, and carried toward what is improper as by the irresistible streams of passions, will undergo the judgment fitting for them. They will fall under just accusation for ingratitude and receive strict and eternal punishment.

You will find the nature of angels under the same conditions. Some, having kept their principality, have an unshaken and firm abiding in all good things.

Others, through inclinations to evil, were deprived of their original glory and dignity. Bound with chains of darkness in Hades, according to the word of Scripture (2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6), they are kept for the day of the great judgment.

So also the first man was created in the beginning, that is, Adam. He was in Paradise and enjoyed the highest blessedness, clearly spiritual, and glory with God.

He would have remained in the original good things of his nature, had he not turned toward apostasy and disobedience, irrationally transgressing the command appointed to him from above.

So too He anointed Saul as king, for in the beginning he was not a bad man. But when he later proved otherwise, He deprived him of his glory and royal dignity.

So He chose Judas and joined him to the holy disciples, evidently as one who in the beginning was capable of following Christ. But Satan tempted him with covetousness and little by little entangled him.

When Judas had been conquered by this passion and through it had become a betrayer, Satan finally dragged him away entirely.

Here, therefore, there is nothing that applies to the One Who chose him. Judas had the possibility not to fall, if, obviously, he had chosen what was right and given his whole mind to the work of true following after Christ.

To the other objection mentioned above, we shall answer as follows. Let no one think, in accordance with certain foolish people, that events foretold through the holy prophets come to pass in order that the Scriptures may be fulfilled.

If this were true, nothing would prevent those who necessarily fulfilled what was written from having a justification for their sin. More than this, they would appear to be entirely without sin.

For if, someone will say, Scripture had to be fulfilled, and it was fulfilled through them, then because it was fulfilled through them in this way, they ought to be free from every charge.

Otherwise Scripture itself would surely prove to be a "minister of sin" (Gal 2:17), as though violently compelling certain people to do what was spoken in it, so that what had once been proclaimed might come to pass.

But in such reasoning, I think, there is great blasphemy. Who could be so deprived of sound sense as to consider the words of the Holy Spirit the cause of sin for anyone?

Therefore we do not think that deeds are done by someone for this reason, that the Scriptures may be fulfilled.

Rather, the Spirit, foreknowing the future, declared what would be, so that, when it came to pass, we would have the prediction as a pledge of faith and would firmly know what had been written about.

Since we have given a lengthy discussion of this in another book, Book 5, Chapter 1, on Jn 7:30-38, we consider it unnecessary to enter again into long explanations of the matter.

For He is the One Who can make them blessed. He says that Judas the betrayer was not chosen. What, then, means what He said elsewhere: "Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil" (Jn 6:70). Was he not chosen for something else, for which he was necessary, and not for the blessedness of which He had just said, "Blessed are you if you do these things"? He does not say this of all, because He knows whom He has chosen to share in this blessedness. Among them there is no one who ate His bread so as to lift his heel against Him. They ate the Bread as the Bread of the Lord, but he ate the Lord's Bread against the Lord. They ate life, but he ate punishment. For, the Apostle says, whoever eats unworthily eats judgment to himself (cf. 1 Cor 11:29).

Why Jesus Christ chose the betrayer among His disciples has been explained in the interpretation of Mk 3:13: "And He went up on the mountain and called to Himself those whom He wished." "But that the Scripture may be fulfilled: He who eats (τρωγων) bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me" (Ps 40:10). Here too the expression with the conjunction ἵνα, "that," indicates only what must happen in the future. Jesus Christ speaks, as it were, in this way: I say this concerning the betrayer, because the Scripture of David must be fulfilled, which says: "He who eats (ἐσθίων) My bread has magnified a stumbling against Me" (Ps 40:10). The Seventy translated this passage from Hebrew in this way. But Jesus Christ, explaining it somewhat, expresses it in other words that have exactly the same meaning. ἐσθίων means the same as τρωγων, "eating." "Magnified" (ἐμεγάλυνε) means the same as "lifted up" (ἐπῆρε), and the remaining words are the same. Therefore Jesus Christ says of Judas: he who eats with Me and shares a common table with Me, in no way ashamed of this, "magnified and lifted up," that is, strengthened and raised against Me "his heel and stumbling." This means treachery and evil design, since he had already agreed with My enemies. Those who wished to overturn runners usually accomplished their evil intent by means of the heel or foot. Therefore here too "stumbling" and "heel" mean evil design and treachery.

This Evangelist does not transmit the promise, though it fits very well among the Lord's sayings which he gives between verses 17 and 18. Namely, He indicated that only those chosen by God for salvation would share in the goods of the promise. Yet over one of them, though he had been chosen among the Lord's disciples, Scripture had to be fulfilled (Ps 40:10; Jn 13:18). The betrayal of Judas, together with all its consequences, would trouble the true disciples of Christ. But they had to remember that this had been foretold to them and therefore foreseen by the Lord (19). To strengthen their faith still more, the Lord, in contrast to the betrayal of Judas, foretells that they will be His messengers. At the same time He describes the high dignity of their ministry: whoever receives them receives Jesus Christ Himself and God Himself (20). The connection of verse 18 with what precedes in St. John, apart from Luke's Gospel, would be this: blessed are you if you not only know, but do what has been said (17). Meanwhile, one of you is not only unready to wash the feet of his fellow disciples, but will soon set his foot even upon his own Teacher and Lord.

This psalm depicts the sufferings of the righteous man and therefore has a typological-prophetic character. It contains the idea of the suffering Righteous One, the Messiah. Among the sufferings endured by the righteous man of the psalm, the psalmist presents the treachery of his friend toward him. The Lord Jesus applies this feature to Judas in relation to Himself, indicating in this the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. To lift up the heel, with the threat of striking a blow, perhaps a mortal blow, or crushing, is an image of a villainous attempt on life. Here the villain is someone close, one with whom the table was shared, as a sign of friendship or of closeness in general. Thus the action of this man expresses extreme treachery. Such is the action of Judas here, although its criminality is much heavier, since the object of the treachery is not a mere man, but the Messiah.

The words of Scripture cited by the Savior (Ps 40:10) were spoken by David about the treacherous Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:31; another printed reference is uncertain). But David's destiny was an image of the destiny of Jesus the Messiah, and the greater part of David's psalm refers literally to the Messiah. Judas should at least have been careful not to become another Ahithophel, even if he did not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

We stand before the great question of will and predestination. This question arises in connection with the whole religious life of our soul, just as it lay at the foundation of the first sin of our forefathers.

Judas Iscariot was chosen by the Lord among the twelve closest disciples of the Lord. Like all of them, he enjoyed the light of the Lord’s teaching and was a witness of His miracles.

Like the other Apostles, he had authority in the name of the Lord to cast out demons and work miracles, Mt 10:5-8. Cf. Chrysostom, Homily 47 on John, § 5.

In his hands also the loaves multiplied when they were distributed to the hungry people. He saw the Lord walking upon the water. See on chapter 4. And yet he lifted up his heel against the Lord.

Can even the most subtle sophist possibly prove that Judas, the man of perdition, did not apply his own effort and his own evil will in order to reach his perdition?

If one can explain the significance of this man, it is only by pointing to Jn 12:6, “that he was a thief.” In other words, in this man there was a particular passion for money, a greed for gain.

Probably the other Apostles also, like all men, were not without human weaknesses. They too probably had an inclination toward one sin or another.

Yet the greatness of the Lord, bringing light into their souls, made them capable of struggling against their passions and weaknesses. By their good will they joyfully received the light that entered their souls, and they went toward the light. Cf. Jn 3:19-21.

In the soul of Judas the opposite took place. He did not struggle against his passion, but indulged it. He developed it by satisfying it.

Soon it so mastered all his thoughts that it drove out the light, darkened his soul, and obscured his understanding. At the same time it even extinguished faith.

The wretched man was already fighting against faith as against an enemy hindering him from acting according to his base intentions. “Take heed,” said the Lord, “lest the light that is in you be darkness,” Lk 11:35.

That he fought against faith and, it seems, overcame it, but after the crime learned that he could not overcome it, is clear. Yet he then believed as a trembling demon, Jas 2:19, and not as a disciple.

We see this clearly from his words to the Pharisees and from his contemptible death, Mt 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19.

We venture to express one more supposition. Was not Judas the one among the disciples who, during the Lord’s absence on the Mount of Transfiguration, tried to cast out the demon from the boy and could not? Mt 17:16, 20; Mk 9:18; Lk 9:40.

Was it not he, perhaps even with mercenary intent, who tried to begin miracles and healings independently of the Lord? He used only the power of that great name, which before, in his mouth and with the Lord’s blessing, had worked miracles.

But probably, as soon as this thought matured in his soul, he saw his own powerlessness. This powerlessness created malice.

Though a demonic faith, that is, one that trembles but does not love, could not die in his soul, it was barren for the works of God. For “Satan cannot cast out Satan,” Mt 12:26; Mk 3:23, 26; Lk 11:18.

From this it seems clear that before Judas, as before every man, two roads lay open. One was broad and led to destruction. The other was narrow and led to salvation, Mt 7:13-14; Lk 13:24.

By his will he could have struggled against greed. He could have refrained from stealing from the common purse entrusted to him. By the habit of good he could have drawn ever nearer to the light and illumined with it the darkness of his soul.

But by his own will he went into darkness and began to do the works of darkness. Therefore he withdrew further and further from the light.

For, as the Lord said, “everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed, because they are evil,” Jn 3:20.

By the foreknowledge of God, the whole course of the events that marked our redemption and salvation was revealed in the prophecies and psalms. Among these events the crime of the traitor was also indicated.

But the will of Judas, the evil will of the betrayer, was his own. He had the right to dispose of it as he wished, and he used his freedom for evil, though this was known to God from eternity.

When He called Judas to the apostleship, the Lord, according to His Godhead, knew that he would betray Him, Jn 6:70-71.

Yet the Lord, as Chrysostom indicates in Homilies 70 and 71 on John, tirelessly sought, both by hints and by humility, to stop him at the edge of destruction.

He is the type of every man who perishes through evil intent. For such a man all God’s indications, all loving warnings, and even temporal calamities that might open his eyes pass away without trace.

This happens because a vile satanic passion has taken possession of his soul.

The significance of Judas in the history of the Church is also comprehensible. He represents that part of mankind whose every thought is directed toward earthly things.

In this sense he is the representative of the Pharisees and the leaders of the last epoch of the Old Testament Church. For this reason they could not enter the Kingdom of God, Mt 21:31-32; 23:5-7; Lk 13:28, and elsewhere.

These people, in ancient times as in our own, did not understand and did not wish to have any interests except earthly goods. Therefore they rejected, and still reject, faith as an unnecessary burden.

They think that they possess the highest human wisdom, and that this wisdom is entirely sufficient for man.

On the other hand, Judas was a type and forerunner of the one who is called “the man of sin, the son of perdition,” 2 Thess 2:3-4.

St. John the Theologian in Revelation calls him the beast and the dragon, Rev 13:1-7; 17:8-11, and the false prophet, Rev 19:20.

Judas reasoned with his little mind before the majesty of the wisdom of God. He even dared to think that his human plans had influence upon the destinies of God.

Even at the last moment he did not understand that the Lord Jesus is God. Therefore he came to repent not to the Lord, but to the Pharisees, Mt 27:3-5.

He could not understand that only one thing was truly real in all his actions: his sin and his destruction. Such will be the significance of Antichrist, to whom authority will be given “for a time,” 2 Thess 1:8.

This will last as long as God is pleased to permit “the power of the prince of this world.”

The Lord chose twelve pillars for the establishment of His Church, knowing that one of these pillars would collapse and be replaced by another, Acts 1:16-26.

Let the fallen pillar serve as an example and a sign of how “with fear and trembling” one must work out the matter of one’s salvation, 1 Pet 1:17; Phil 2:12; Heb 12:28.