The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. John
Thirdly , according to the letter: If thou, O Peter, persistest in thy disobedience, thou shalt not communicate with Me in the Eucharistic table, — I will give thee no part of the bread that is about to be consecrated into My body, — I will not have thee for My familiar friend and the companion of My sacred table. Christ threatens Peter with the loss of His intimate friendship and of the Eucharist, not the loss of His grace and glory ; for though Peter was loth to obey, yet this arose from his profound humility and reverence, and was, therefore, worthy of pardon. Toletus says: He threatened not to give Peter the Eucharist by which Christ was to abide in him and he in Christ ; for it was chiefly for this that He washed their feet, so that they might be clean and fitly prepared to receive Him when He should give Himself to them and be really united to them. Peter did not distinctly understand what Christ said at the time, but only understood that he was to be cut off from Christ and have nothing in common with Him unless he underwent this washing; afterwards, however, he comprehended the mystery. There is a similar expression in 3 Kings xii. 16, where the people, exasperated by the cruelty of Roboam, say, “ What part have we in David ? or what inheritance in the son of Jesse ?”
S. Basil, in his “ Discourse on Sin,” says, “ For this reason threats of this kind were held out by Christ against Peter, that unless he had rectified his will by promptitude and quickening of obedience, not those wonderful blessings which had come to him from God, not his gifts, not the promises made to him, not even that declaration of such and so great a yearning towards the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father, would have served him to expiate his actual disobedience .” Hence S. Basil draws from this two remarkable rules of conduct : — “He that opposes himself to the commands of God, even though he do so with a pious and friendly intention, such an one is nevertheless for this cause estranged from the Lord.” And the second is : — “ Whatever is said by the Lord, that ought we to receive with all the fulness of our heart.” (Reg. xii. ch. 2.)
Simon Peter says to Him, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Struck by the threat of Christ as by a thunderbolt, Peter obeys, and offers more than Christ had asked. Hence S. Basil in his Shorter Rules, 60th Answer, gives a useful rule : — “Whatever we have before resolved upon beside that which is commanded by the Lord must be rescinded. This is plainly shown in the case of the Apostle Peter, who had first resolved ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet,’ but when he heard the Lord say positively, ‘Unless I wash thee, thou shalt have no part with Me,’ straightway changed his mind and said, ‘Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands.’ ”
Again, in the 233rd Answer, St Basil teaches us from this text that obedience is to be preferred to all the other virtues. “Peter,” he says, “although the Lord had borne him witness of such and so great meritorious acts, and had called him and pronounced him blessed in so singular a manner, yet, having in one point only seemed to turn aside from obedience, and that too not from negligence or pride, but from reverence and respect to his Lord, — for this and this only is it said to him, ‘Unless I wash thy feet, thou shalt have no part with Me.’ ”
Ver. 10. — Jesus says to him , He that has been washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean throughout. Observe that Christ here alludes to those who wash themselves in the baths and go out washed all over, but, walking barefoot on the ground soil their feet, and therefore afterwards wash them only. Again, observe that Christ, as His wont is, here rises from the corporal to the spiritual washing, thus — He that has been spiritually washed by baptism, as I, O apostles, have washed you, or he who has been washed by contrition and penance, such an one is washed all over in soul, but needs only to wash his feet, that is, purge frequently by contrition, bodily austerities, and the like virtues, the inclinations of the soul which is stained by contact with the things of earth, and contract from their slight impurities, and this is especially needful before receiving the Holy Eucharist.
SS. Augustine, Bede, Rupert, and S. Bernard in his Sermon on the Lord’s Supper, interpret more or less to this effect.
So Christ by this washing of feet purged away the sins of Peter and the apostles, especially their venial sins ; for by means of this act of self-abasement He pricked their consciences and reminded them of that inward purification that must be made in the soul by contrition by means of which venial sins are expiated.
Lastly, S. Augustine in his 108th Letter to Seleucianus, gathers with some probability from the words “ he that has been washed,” that Peter and the apostles had been baptized before the Eucharist ; both because no one is qualified to receive the Eucharist without having been baptized, and also because Christ baptized them before His death, for after His death He baptized no one, and it is clear that they must all have been baptized either by Christ Himself or by others in His behalf. The expression appears to be rightly applicable to the washing which takes place in baptism.
And ye are clean , but not all. Christ secretly strives to provoke Judas to think better of his plot of wicked treason; still He would not mention him by name, lest He should bring him into bad odour, and the apostles should rise up against him as a traitor, and ill-use him.
Ver. 11. — For He knew who it was that should betray Him; wherefore He said , Ye are not all clean . From this S. Augustine gathers that Judas was then present, and had been washed by Christ, and that he received the Blessed Sacrament — (Bk ii. contra Petil. ch. 22.) S. Cyprian, however, in his treatise on the Washing of Feet, says that Judas was not present at the washing, nor, consequently , at the Eucharist.
Ver. 13. — Ye call Me 'Master' and ‘ Lord,’ and ye speak rightly , for so I am. Christ was Master and Lord of all men and of the whole world, not only as God but as man, and not only taught externally by speaking, as masters commonly do, but illuminated minds interiorly, and impelled the will whithersoever He would. See Matt. xxiii. 10.
Ver. 15. — I have given you an example, that as I have done so ye may do also — not unto Me, seeing that I am even now going to death, but to others, your neighbours, when necessity or kindness shall require. For, as St. Gregory says in his preface to his books of Dialogues, “ Examples stir us up to the love of our heavenly country more than preaching.” It was thus that Jesus began first to do and then to teach (Acts i. 1), and taught more by deed than by word. Hence S. Basil teaches that he who bears rule must first do those things which he teaches his subjects to do, and that he ought to excel his subjects in humility as he does in dignity. Christ foresaw that the apostles would soon be wrangling in their pride as to who should be the greater, so He put before them this example of humility to break down and suppress their ambition; and in the event He did, if not crush, at least break it.
Ver. 16. — Verily , verily I say to you, The slave is not greater than his Lord, nor the messenger than He that sent him. Foreseeing the contention about the chief place which would soon follow, Christ insists on the humility which He is inculcating on His apostles.
Ver. 17. — If ye know these things , blessed shall ye be if ye do them. If you know these things — and who is ignorant that a master is greater than his slave ? — you shall be blessed if, as you know them, you also act up to your knowledge in practice. Blessed in hope, though not yet in actuality ; — blessed ye shall be after death if until then ye continue to do these things, and persevere in following Me, as I know that ye all will persevere excepting only Judas. And so, to indicate this exception, He adds,
Ver. 18. — I speak not of you all, because I know that Judas will not do these things which I have said. I know whom I have chosen. S. Augustine (Tract. 59) explains this with reference to the eternal predestination and election to glory by God : — I speak not of all, but of those only whom I have chosen to glory, and Judas I have not chosen. This, however, seems rather harsh, both because the whole blame must be laid upon Judas and not upon Christ, and His election from which He excluded Judas, and in the next verse Christ lays the blame on Judas ; and then again because Christ, when He speaks of the eternal election and predestination of God, is not wont to attribute it to Himself but to the Father, for it is a primary function of Providence, which is the attribute of the Father. Christ therefore is here speaking of His temporal election , by which He, as man, chose twelve apostles (see Luke vi.), and Judas himself among the number. This is the view of Toletus and Maldonatus.