John 13:23Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Does it seem a small thing to you that as soon as he heard, "Follow Me" (Mt 4:18-20), he immediately left the nets and his father and followed? Or that he alone, with Peter, was taken up the mountain? Or again, on another occasion, that he entered the high priest's house?

Besides, how much he himself praised Peter. He did not conceal that Christ said to him, "Peter, do you love Me more than these?" (Jn 21:15). Everywhere he shows Peter to be fervent and sincerely disposed toward himself.

Thus when Peter said, "What about this man?" (Jn 21:21), he said it from great love.

This is why no one else spoke so about himself. Nor would John have said it, had he not needed to speak of this circumstance. If he had said that Peter signaled John to ask, and added nothing more, he would have left us in greater perplexity.

He would have made us search for the reason behind Peter's action. Therefore, to remove this perplexity, he himself says, "He was reclining on Jesus' breast."

Do you think you have learned little when you hear that he reclined there, and that the Teacher allowed him such boldness? If you also wish to know the reason, it was done because of love. Therefore he says, "whom Jesus loved."

I think he did this for another purpose as well. He wished to show that he was untouched by the accusation of betrayal. For this reason he speaks and acts without fear.

Notice also how free John is from boasting. He did not name himself, but said, "whom He loved," just as Paul said, "I know a man who fourteen years ago."

For this reason his words express humility, not a desire to display himself. He does not say, "I loved Jesus," but, "He loved me." He sought me out according to mercy and compassion.

So also the Apostle Paul says, "I press on, if indeed I may lay hold of that for which God has laid hold of me" (Phil 3:12). Elsewhere he says, "Having known God, or rather having been known by God" (Gal 4:9).

So the words "whom Jesus loved" express not vainglory, but humble-mindedness.

Leaning a little toward the Teacher, he speaks secretly and in a whisper, asking Him to point out the son of perdition. But the Savior gives him no other indication than what had long ago been foretold by the prophet's voice.

"He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me" (Ps 41:9). For having dipped the morsel, He gives it, thereby indicating the one who eats His bread.

At the same time He removes fear from the holy Apostles. He also brings to their memory another prophecy, which says, "But you, a man of one soul with me, my guide and my close friend, who together with me enjoyed meals, with whom we walked in concord in the house of God" (Ps 55:13-14).

The betrayer himself had once been of one soul with the Savior. He had been close, a companion at table, and everything that belongs to intimacy. He was numbered with the other holy disciples.

They had one purpose with the Savior. Going throughout the land of Judea, they proved zealous servants of miracles and strove to accomplish all that pertained to His honor and glory.

But this close and like-minded disciple exchanged the grace of Him who honored him for shameful gain.

Notice how beautifully the most wise Evangelist encourages us to choose the wisest life. He urges us to exercise the sharpness of our mind for the easier apprehension of divine contemplations, and to strive for possible precision in words concerning the knowledge of God.

He says that John was especially honored and beloved by Christ our Savior. He even reclined near Him, upon the very breast of the Master. He presents this as proof of Christ's surpassing love for him.

Therefore those who have a pure heart will be near God and in the first places with Him, above all others. The Savior Himself appoints them a special reward, calling the pure in heart blessed, because they shall see God (Mt 5:8).

To prove the truth of these words, let us bring forward this most wise Evangelist himself. He beheld the glory of Christ, according to his word: "I beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, the Word full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14).

No one, of course, can behold with bodily eyes the Nature wholly invisible to all creation. For no one has seen the Father, according to the Savior's word, except the One who is from God, that is, the Son. "He has seen the Father" (Jn 6:46).

Yet to those whose mind is free from worldly impurity and vain care, even in this present life, Christ reveals His own glory. He does this by a certain subtle contemplation that surpasses the mind.

In this glory He also shows the glory of the Father. Therefore He said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).

It was the custom of those who handed down the Holy Scriptures to us that, when one of them narrates the divine history and the account reaches himself, he speaks as though about another. Thus he includes himself in the thread of his narrative, as if he were the narrator of another's deeds, not the teller of his own.

In the Latin text of the Gospel, two different words are used here for Jesus' breast. First comes sinus, "bosom" or "fold." Then comes pectus, "breast." The use of a word not directly meaning the breast led Augustine to give this explanation.

Saint Matthew did the same. When the narrative touched on him, he said, "He saw a man sitting at the tax office, named Matthew, and He says to him, 'Follow Me'" (Mt 9:9). He did not say, "He saw me and said to me."

Blessed Moses acted in the same way, writing everything about himself as though about another. He says, "And the Lord said to Moses" (Ex 6:1).

The Apostle Paul also acted in the same way, with this difference. He did so not in a history where events are described, but in an Epistle. For he said of himself, "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows, was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2).

Therefore let us attribute it to the custom of our authors that here also the blessed Evangelist does not say, "I reclined in Jesus' bosom." Instead he says, "one of the disciples was reclining." Let us not be surprised.

For would any harm be done to truth if the events are set forth and the narrator seeks in some way to avoid boasting? Certainly not. For he was narrating something that belonged to his great glory.

And what does "whom Jesus loved" mean? Did He not love the others, of whom John himself says above, "He loved them to the end" (Jn 13:1)? He is speaking of himself in the third person.

The Lord Himself also says, "Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). Who can enumerate all the testimonies from the divine pages, in which the Lord Jesus is revealed in His love?

He loved not only him and the others who were then with Him. He loved also those who would afterward be His members and His whole Church.

Yet here, of course, something is hidden, and it concerns the bosom on which the narrator himself reclined. For what else is signified by "bosom" if not mystery? There is, however, another more fitting place in the Gospel. Then, if the Lord permits, we shall say what is sufficient about this mystery.

These virtues also exalted Moses. Notice too that during the sufferings of the Teacher, John alone of the disciples remained with Him until He gave up His spirit.

For this also Jesus Christ loved John more. He allowed him at this time to recline upon His breast, as a son upon the breast of his father, because in general he was close to the Savior by his virtue.

It is likely that John, already knowing of his Teacher's death, was deeply grieved by it. Therefore, after the washing of the feet, he was invited to recline upon the breast of Jesus Christ for consolation.

John recorded this in his Gospel not at all from ambition, for to avoid praise he even concealed his name. But since the other Evangelists were silent about Jesus Christ dipping the morsel and giving it to Judas, John intended to relate this.

By necessity, therefore, he also had to mention what he writes in this verse. Since, at Peter's sign, John quietly asked Jesus Christ who His betrayer was, he now had to say where he was reclining.

This explains how he could quietly ask Jesus Christ, and why he dared both to recline there and quietly to ask Him.

Or John said that he reclined on the breast of Jesus Christ in order to show the greatest self-abasement of Him who is greatest in His glory. He says that Jesus Christ loved him in order to show that Jesus Christ loves mankind, and that he himself is grateful to Him for this love.

He testifies only that he was loved by the Savior, but does not add why he was loved. By this John expresses his gratitude, and at the same time his humility.

To this they received the answer, "He who has dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me." Matthew alone adds that afterward Judas also asked the Lord, "Is it I, Rabbi?" and received an affirmative answer.

Finally, John says nothing about the questions each disciple put to the Lord. He relates how John, who was reclining at that time on Jesus' breast, asked the Lord at Peter's sign and received the answer, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it."

The end of this history belongs to John alone. Clearly the Evangelists relate different circumstances of the same event.

Luke, shortening the account, gives only the prediction of the betrayer and Jesus Christ's warning to him. Concerning the disciples, he gives their first confusion and their conversation with one another.

Matthew and Mark give the questions which each of them then addressed to the Lord. They also give the first indication of the betrayer, still general and unclear, together with a warning to him.

One may think that the fulfillment of this indication occurred at the same time as the indication given to John. Judas, striving either to be unconstrained and bold, or to appear so, turned to the Lord with the question, "Is it I, Rabbi?" He received the quiet answer, "Yes, you."

The disciples probably did not hear this last answer. They understood the Lord's words, "He who has dipped his hand with Me in the dish," in the most general sense. It meant, "one of the twelve," or, "the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me at the table" (Lk 22:21).

Then Peter turned to John and gave him a sign to ask Jesus who it was. If this happened during that part of the supper when the master of the house broke the bread and distributed it to those present, the revelation of Judas as the betrayer may be understood in this way.

Jesus Christ answered John, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." This was the moment when, passing the portions of bread in order, He was to give a portion to Judas.

Judas's agitated state, and his effort to mask that state of soul, made him move his hand toward the dish too early. The Lord was still only lowering His hand into the dish with the morsel of bread intended for him.

Since we do not admit contradiction in the Evangelists' accounts, we must recognize that Jesus first said, as it were to all, that the one who would betray Him was he who would put his hand into the dish at the same time as He did.

But the troubled Apostles were probably so occupied by the news that had struck them that they did not even follow which of them stretched out his hand to the dish at the same time as Jesus. Therefore, in answer to John's question, Jesus gave another indication.

At the Paschal supper, besides the roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, a thick sauce of dates, figs, and other fruits was served on a separate dish. Forks and knives were not then used. Food was taken simply with the hands.

They ate unleavened bread by dipping its pieces into the dish with the sweet sauce.

But His gaze fell upon Judas, and His spirit was troubled. Seeing that the disciples had not noticed His earlier hint, Christ now declared openly, for all to hear, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me."

This declaration struck them like thunder. Fear seized them, and each, feeling a certain uncertainty within himself, turned to the Teacher with the question, "Is it I, Lord?"

In order not to reveal his guilt before his brethren, Iscariot too asked unwillingly, "Is it I, Teacher?" He received the answer, "You have said it."

But again this clear answer was not noticed by the Apostles. Peter, with his usual impatience, wished to know more exactly who the betrayer was. He urged John, whose head was inclined close to the Savior's breast, to ask Him who would betray Him.

To this Christ answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." Then indeed, "having dipped the morsel, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot." This revelation bound John's tongue with horror, and he told no one.

Yet already in the prophet Amos we read the rebuke: "You who lie upon beds of ivory" (Amos 6:4). In Homer, too, the ancient Greeks do not recline, but sit at table.

The custom of reclining at table was probably borrowed from the Far East. We do not know where it began, but we suppose it was borrowed from the Persians, though there are no direct indications of this.

The Roman custom assigned one couch to three persons. According to the Greek, or Athenian, custom, only two persons occupied one couch, and the head of one came to the height of the other's breast.

All reclined on the left elbow, so as to have the right hand free. Those reclining on one couch could speak with one another. One lay obliquely on the couch and could see over the head of the first reclining person the one who lay on another couch behind him.

But that latter person could not speak with his neighbor except by turning his head backward. See various articles and drawings on this in the dictionaries of Smith and Kitto, the Real-Encyclopedia, and others.

We have entered into these explanations so that one may understand why it was easier for Peter, lying on the second couch behind the Lord, to signal John. John was lying obliquely on the couch with the Lord. It was easier than addressing Jesus himself with a question.

Likewise, from this description of the table with its couches, it is clear that it was entirely convenient for John to bend forward only slightly, lean upon the Lord's breast, and whisperingly ask Him about the doubt troubling them all.

Likewise, the Lord's answer, falling into John's ear, remained completely unknown to the other disciples. This is clear from verse 28. After the Lord gave the piece of bread to Judas, none of them understood why the Lord had given it to him.

Nor did they understand why He said to him, "What you do, do quickly." Yet it is notable that John himself also seems not to have understood, or not fully understood, Judas's betrayal. As Chrysostom indicates, he did not dare think that a disciple could reach such great iniquity.

In general, the disciples' eyes were closed. As Chrysostom very rightly notes, the Lord deliberately did not reveal the betrayer clearly to them. It could have happened that, in the first impulse of their indignation, the betrayer would have been killed and torn apart by them on the spot.

Chrysostom also explains why Peter, while all the disciples look at one another in fear and amazement, signals John to ask the Lord and does not dare address Him with a question himself. Chrysostom says that Peter is still in some confusion after being rebuked concerning the washing of the feet.

We have seen above that the very arrangement of the table helped Peter give a silent sign to John. This was all the more so because he felt that the question could not be asked aloud. It was evident to all that the Lord did not wish to name the betrayer directly.

We should also note that all the smallest details recorded by the Evangelist certainly testify that the Gospel was written by an eyewitness of these events. The periphrasis by which Saint John always avoids his own name is deeply moving in its humility.