As soon as he had received the piece of bread
This phrase marks a pivotal moment in the narrative of the Last Supper. The "piece of bread" refers to the morsel given by Jesus to Judas Iscariot, symbolizing the identification of the betrayer. In the Greek, the word for "piece of bread" is "psomion," which can denote a small piece or morsel, often used in the context of a meal. This act of giving bread was a gesture of friendship and honor in Jewish culture, making Judas's impending betrayal even more poignant. The act of receiving the bread signifies Judas's acceptance of his role in the unfolding events, highlighting the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

he went out immediately
The immediacy of Judas's departure is emphasized by the Greek word "euthys," meaning "immediately" or "at once." This suggests a sense of urgency and determination in Judas's actions. Historically, this moment is laden with the weight of impending betrayal, as Judas leaves to finalize his plans with the chief priests. The act of leaving the intimate setting of the Last Supper underscores the severing of fellowship and the beginning of the fulfillment of prophetic scripture regarding the Messiah's betrayal.

And it was night
The mention of "night" is not merely a time marker but carries deep symbolic meaning. In the Gospel of John, "night" often represents spiritual darkness and separation from the light of Christ. The Greek word "nux" for "night" underscores this duality of physical and spiritual darkness. This phrase serves as a powerful metaphor for the spiritual state of Judas and the world at that moment. The darkness of night contrasts with Jesus, the Light of the World, highlighting the gravity of Judas's actions and the unfolding of God's redemptive plan through the impending crucifixion. Theologically, this moment marks the transition from the light of Jesus's earthly ministry to the darkness of His passion, setting the stage for the ultimate triumph of light over darkness through the resurrection.

(30) He then having received the sop.--Comp. Note on John 13:27. The narrative is resumed from that point, John 13:28-29 being an explanatory note added by the writer. Returning to the record of what took place, he dwells again on the moment of receiving the sop as that in which the betrayer took the fatal step which could not be retraced.

And it was night.--These words doubtless state the physical fact that at the time when Judas left the room the darkness of night had already come on. He went out, and went out into the darkness of night. We cannot say that the writer meant them to express more than this, and yet we feel that there is in them a fulness of meaning that cannot have been unintentional. It was night; and he stepped forth from light into darkness; from the presence and guidance of the Light of the World, to be possessed by and guided by the prince of darkness. It was night; and St. John could hardly have written these words without remembering those he had written but a short time before: "If a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." (See Note on John 11:10.) Comp., for the way in which St. John gives emphasis to a tragic fulness of meaning by expressing it in a short detached sentence, John 11:35; John 18:40. . . .

Verse 30. - He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night. There is no advantage to be secured by omitting the οϋν, and connecting the η΅ν δὲ νύξ with the ὅτε (συν) ἐξῆλθε, nor is it preferred by the later editors. The immediate departure of Judas when he had taken the sop is compatible with all the context - a horror of the shadow of death falls on the tragic scene. He at least passes out into the outer darkness, apt symbol of his soul and of his deed. Hengstenberg imagines the Lord's Supper to have followed the previous words, and that the εὐθύς must be interpreted with some laxity, leaving time for the sacred meal to have been instituted and the solemn song to have been sung. It is difficult to say where the Eucharistic service is to be introduced, and every possible suggestion has been made. The statement of Luke 22:21, 22 makes it probable that the traitor was present at it. And all the synoptists make the indication of the traitor follow the institution of the Eucharist, and two of them place it on the very way to the garden of Gethsemane. Bengel, in harmony with his chronological scheme, supposes that the traitor went out and returned. According to Keim, the Eucharistic meal may be supposed to be introduced at the close of John 14. and before the discourse on the vine; but that discourse follows a summons of Jesus to his disciples to leave the upper chamber. And every attempt to find a place for it in the midst of the valedictory discourse is unsatisfactory (see these amply discussed in Godet, Lucke, Meyer). Thus Paulus, etc., place it after ver. 30. Lucke and Meyer, between vers. 33 and 34; but Peter's question looks back to ver. 33, allowing no such break. Neander and Ebrard place after ver. 32. Tholuck, after ver. 34, Lange identifies it with the new commandment; and Bengel makes the discourse down to John 14:31 precede Christ's journey to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, so that no clashing takes place. I think that the simplest solution of the difficulty is to put it at the commencement of the feast, and in the folds as it were of the sentence in John 13:2, which tells us that Jesus loved his disciples to the uttermost (εἰς τὸ τέλος). The endeavor made by Strauss, to argue from the silence of the fourth evangelist that he knew nothing of the institution of the Eucharist, is a great exaggeration. The synoptic tradition must, ex hypothesi of the late authorship of the Gospel, be well known to the author, and 1 Corinthians 11:33, etc., was ample proof of its historic basis. There was, in the entire representation of this Gospel, an intense perception of the inner meaning of the Eucharist, and of the new covenant and commandment based on the assumption of the Passion and death of the incarnate God; so that instead of describing the ceremonial, he expounds its ideas (see Introduction, pp. 105, 106.). Ver, 31 - John 16:33. - 3. THE VALEDICTORY DISCOURSES OF THE LORD.

Parallel Commentaries ...


As soon as he had received
λαβὼν (labōn)
Verb - Aorist Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2983: (a) I receive, get, (b) I take, lay hold of.

the
τὸ (to)
Article - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

piece [of bread],
ψωμίον (psōmion)
Noun - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 5596: A bit, morsel. Diminutive from a derivative of the base of psocho; a crumb or morsel, i.e. A mouthful.

[Judas]
ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos)
Demonstrative Pronoun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 1565: That, that one there, yonder. From ekei; that one (neuter) thing); often intensified by the article prefixed.

went out
ἐξῆλθεν (exēlthen)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1831: To go out, come out. From ek and erchomai; to issue.

[into the]
ἦν (ēn)
Verb - Imperfect Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.

night.
νύξ (nyx)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 3571: The night, night-time. A primary word; 'night'.


John 13:30 NIV
John 13:30 NLT
John 13:30 ESV
John 13:30 NASB
John 13:30 KJV

John 13:30 BibleApps.com
John 13:30 Biblia Paralela
John 13:30 Chinese Bible
John 13:30 French Bible
John 13:30 Catholic Bible

NT Gospels: John 13:30 Therefore having received that morsel he went (Jhn Jo Jn)