John 13 JOHN 13:1-5 Washing the Disciples’ Feet Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, he got up from the meal, removed his outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around himself.
He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself. The passage we have now read begins one of the most interesting portions of John's Gospel. For five consecutive chapters we find the Evangelist recording matters which are not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We can never be thankful enough that the Holy Spirit has caused them to be written for our learning! In every age the contents of these chapters have been justly regarded as one of the most precious parts of the Bible.
They have been the food and drink, the strength and comfort of all true-hearted Christians. Let us ever approach them with peculiar reverence. The place whereon we stand is holy ground. We learn, for one thing, from these verses, what patient and continuing love there is in Christ's heart towards His people.
It is written that "having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." Knowing perfectly well that they were about to forsake Him shamefully in a very few hours, in full view of their approaching display of weakness and infirmity, our blessed Master did not cease to have loving thoughts of His disciples. He was not weary of them--He loved them to the last. The love of Christ to sinners is the very essence and marrow of the Gospel.
That He should love us at all, and care for our souls--that He should love us before we love Him, or even know anything about Him, that He should love us so much as to come into the world to save us, take our nature on Him, bear our sins, and die for us on the cross--all this is wonderful indeed! It is a kind of love to which there is nothing like it, among men. The narrow selfishness of human nature cannot fully comprehend it.
It is one of those things which even the angels of God "desire to look into." It is a truth which Christian preachers and teachers should proclaim incessantly, and never be weary of proclaiming. But the love of Christ to saints is no less wonderful, in its way, than His love to sinners, though far less considered.
That He should bear with all their countless infirmities from grace to glory--that He should never be tired of their endless inconsistencies and petty provocations--that He should go on forgiving and forgetting incessantly, and never be provoked to cast them off and give them up--all this is marvelous indeed! No mother watching over the waywardness of her feeble babe, in the days of its infancy, has her patience so thoroughly tried, as the patience of Christ is tried by Christians. Yet His patience is infinite. His compassions are a well that is never exhausted.
His love is "a love that passes knowledge." Let no man be afraid of beginning with Christ, if he desires to be saved. The chief of sinners may come to Him with boldness, and trust Him for pardon with confidence. This loving Savior is One who delights to "receive sinners." (Luke 15:2.) Let no man be afraid of going on with Christ after he has once come to Him and believed. Let him not fancy that Christ will cast him off because of failures, and dismiss him into his former hopelessness on account of infirmities. Such thoughts are entirely unwarranted by anything in the Scriptures.
Jesus will never reject any servant because of feeble service and weak performance. Those whom He receives He always keeps. Those whom He loves at first He loves at last. His promise shall never be broken, and it is for saints as well as sinners--"Him that comes unto Me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37.) We learn, for another thing, from these verses, what deep corruption may sometimes be found in the heart of a great professor of religion.
It is written that "the devil put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Christ." This Judas, we must always remember, was one of the twelve Apostles. He had been chosen by Christ Himself, at the same time with Peter, James, John, and their companions. For three years he had walked in Christ's society, had seen His miracles, had heard His preaching, had experienced many proofs of His loving-kindness.
He had even preached himself and wrought miracles in Christ's name; and when our Lord sent out His disciples two and two, Judas Iscariot no doubt must have been one of some couple that was sent. Yet here we see this very man possessed by the devil, and rushing headlong to destruction. On all the coasts of England there is not such a beacon to warn sailors of danger as Judas Iscariot is to warn Christians. He shows us what length a man may go in religious profession, and yet turn out a rotten hypocrite at last, and prove never to have been converted.
He shows us the uselessness of the highest privileges, unless we have a heart to value them and turn them to good account. Privileges alone without grace save nobody, and will only make hell deeper. He shows us the uselessness of mere head-knowledge. To know things with our brains, and be able to talk and preach and speak to others, is no proof that our own feet are in the way of peace. These are terrible lessons--but they are true. Let us never be surprised if we see hypocrisy and false profession among Christians in modern days.
There is nothing new in it, nothing peculiar, nothing that did not happen even among Christ's own immediate followers, and under Christ's own eyes. Counterfeit money is a strong proof that there is good coin somewhere. Hypocrisy is a strong indirect evidence that there is such a thing as true religion. Above all, let us pray daily that our own Christianity may at any rate be genuine, sincere, real and true. Our faith may be feeble, our hope dim, our knowledge small, our failures frequent, our faults many. But at all events let us be real and true.
Let us be able to say with poor, weak, erring Peter, "You, Lord, who know all things, know that I love You." (John 21:17.) Technical Notes: 1. Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come that he should depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son , to betray him, 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4.
He rose from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. 5. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. There are peculiarities in St. John’s narrative of the end of our Lord’s life on earth, which seem to require a few introductory remarks before entering into the substance of the 13th chapter. A careful reader of the four Gospels can hardly fail to remark that in St.
John’s account of the last six days of our Lord’s ministry, many things mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke are entirely omitted. The parables of the two sons, of the householder who let out a vineyard, of the wedding garment, of the ten virgins, of the talents, of the sheep and goats, are left out.
The second cleansing of the temple, the cursing of the barren fig tree, the public discussion with the chief priests and elders about John’s baptism, the silencing of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the lawyers, the public denunciation to the multitude of the Scribes and Pharisees—all these interesting matters are found in the first three Gospels but passed over in silence in the fourth. We cannot doubt that there were wise reasons. But the most striking thing in St.
John’s narrative at this point is the entire absence of our Lord’s famous prophecy upon the Mount of Olives and of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Both these deeply interesting portions of our Lord’s last doings before His crucifixion, which are most fully given in the three Gospels, are completely omitted in the fourth. The reason of these two remarkable omissions we are left to conjecture.
“God gives no account of His matters.” If we once admit that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, we need not doubt that the Gospel writers were equally guided and directed by the Holy Ghost, both in the things they omitted and the things they recorded. Nevertheless, a few remarks on the subject may be interesting to some readers. (a) Concerning the omission of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, I venture the following conjecture. I think it is partly accounted for by the time when St. John’s Gospel was given to the Church.
That must have been very near the taking of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the complete overthrow of the Jewish ceremonial. Now if St. John had just at this crisis inserted anew this prophecy in his Gospel, it would have confirmed the erroneous notion which many have always held, that it refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem and does not extend to the second advent of Christ and the end of the world. His marked silence about it would be a testimony against the misapplication of the prophecy.
The second reason of the omission, I think, is the striking fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was inspired to write the Book of Revelation. No wonder, therefore, that he was directed to pass over our Lord’s prophecy when he was about to write at a later date the most striking prophetical book in the Bible. (b) Concerning the omission of the Lord’s Supper, I venture the following conjecture. I think it was specially intended to be a witness forever against the growing tendency of Christians to make an idol of the sacraments.
Even from the beginning there seems to have been a disposition in the Church to make Christianity a religion of forms and ceremonies rather than of heart, and to exalt outward ordinances to a place which God never meant them to fill. Against this teaching St. John was raised up to testify. The mere fact that in his Gospel he leaves out the Lord’s Supper altogether and does not even name it is strong proof that the Lord’s Supper cannot be, as many tell us, the first, foremost, chief, and principal thing in Christianity.
Its perfect silence about it can never be reconciled with this favorite theory. It is a most conspicuous silence which the modern advocates of the so-called sacramental system can never get over or explain away. If the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper really is the first and chief thing in Christianity, why does St. John tell us nothing about it? To that question I can only see one answer: it is because it is not a primary but a secondary thing in Christ’s religion. The reason assigned for the omission by many commentators, viz., that St.
John thought it needless to repeat the account of the institution after it had been recorded by three evangelists and St. Paul, appears to me entirely insufficient. 1.--[ Now before...Passover. ] We should observe that the feast of the passover is always carefully mentioned by each Gospel writer as the precise time of the year when Jesus was crucified. It was ordered of God that it should be at this particular time for two good reasons.
For one thing, the passover lamb was the most striking and remarkable type in the whole Jewish ceremonial of Christ Himself, and the history of the passover of Christ’s work of redemption. For another thing, it secured the greatest assembly of Israelites to be eyewitnesses of our Lord’s crucifixion. At no time of the Jewish year were so many Jews gathered at Jerusalem. Anything that happened at the passover would be reported by Jewish worshippers, on returning home, all over the civilized world.
For these two reasons “the Lamb of God” was slain at this feast in spite of the priests who said, “Not on the feast day.” Let us remember that one of the few dates we know for certainty of the events in our Lord’s life is the time of His crucifixion. Of the time of His birth and baptism we know nothing. But that he died at Easter we may be quite sure. [ When Jesus knew that His hour had come. ] Let us note that our Lord knew perfectly beforehand when and how He should suffer. This, whatever we may think, is a great addition to suffering. Our ignorance of things before us is a great blessing.
Our Lord saw the cross clearly before Him and walked straight up to it. His death was not a surprise to Him but a voluntary, foreknown thing. [ That...depart...to the Father. ] Let us observe how death is spoken of here. It is taking a journey, a going from one place to another. In the case of our Lord, it was a return to His Father’s house and a going home after finishing the work He came to do. So a believer’s death, in a lower sense, is going home. Calvin observes: “This definition of death belongs to the whole body of the Church.
It is to the saints a passage to the Father, an inlet to eternal life.” [ Having loved his own...to the end. ] The meaning of this seems to be, “Having always loved His own disciples and having given many proofs of his singular affection, He now, before leaving them alone like orphans in the world, gave one more striking proof of His love by washing their feet, and thus on the last evening before His death showed that He loved them to the very end of His ministry and was not weary of them.” He knew perfectly that He was about to suffer within twenty-four hours, but the knowledge and foresight of it did not absorb His thoughts so as to make Him forget His little flock of followers.
Saints, when they are dying, often ask to be left alone and let alone. Christ, on the trial of His crucifixion, thought of others and loved His disciples to the end. The love of Christ to Christians who really believe in Him is a great depth. “It passes knowledge.” It is something that our poor corrupt nature cannot fully comprehend or measure. The expression “His own,” applied to believers, is very noteworthy. They are Christ’s peculiar property given to Him by the Father, and His own special care as members of His body.
Tittman’s idea that “His own” means all mankind is preposterous and weak, and ignores the privileges of believers. The expression, “who were in the world,” is another great depth. Believers are not in heaven yet, and find it out to their cost. They are in a cold, unkind, persecuting world. Let them take comfort in the thought that Jesus knows and remembers it. “I know your works and where you dwell” (Rev. 2:13).
Theophylact thinks that our Lord purposely deferred this act of washing the disciples’ feet to the last evening of His ministry in order to leave in their minds a pleasant impression of His love and condescension. Melancthon shows that the three greatest marks of pity and compassion are (1) to tolerate the wicked for a season, (2) to abstain from exposing their sins as long as possible, (3) to warn them plainly and gently before leaving them forever.
All this appears in our Lord’s dealing with Judas in this chapter. 2.--[ And supper being ended. ] These words would have been more literally rendered, “while supper was going on,” or “supper being in progress.” That this is the true meaning seems clear from the 26th verse. If supper had really been ended, we should not have heard of a sop being given out of the dish, etc. It is only fair to say that Scaliger and other learned men insist that the Jews had more than one supper at the passover—one a legal one strictly according to ritual, the other a social one.
They think these two suppers are both in this chapter. Gerhard gives this opinion at length. Whitby seems to lean to this view and maintains that our Lord twice pointed out Judas as the traitor—once privately and once publicly. Let it be noted that our Lord’s ministry ended with a supper, that the last ordinance He appointed was a supper, that one promise He has left to a believer is “I will come and sup with him” (Rev. 3:20), and that the first thing that will take place at His second advent will be the marriage supper of the Lamb.
All point to the same great truth—the close union, familiarity, and comfortable intimacy between Christ and His people. It is a thing far too little known. What supper this was we are not told and are left to conjecture. It is a point on which opinions widely differ. Some, as Lightfoot, think that the supper was the same that took place at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper two days before the passover. Rollock also thinks it was not the passover. Others think it was the ordinary passover supper that our Lord was eating with His disciples the night before His crucifixion.
This certainly, in my judgment, seems the more probable view. One thing at any rate is pretty clear. It was not the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It seems highly improbable that the washing of the disciples’ feet would take place after the Lord’s Supper. That blessed ordinance appears to come in after the 20th verse. Brentius stands alone in maintaining that it was the Lord’s Supper. [ The devil...heart. ] This does not mean that Judas now for the first time left the faith and became an apostate. Our Lord long before had spoken of him as one who “was a devil” (John 6:70).
But it means that now at length the devil suggested into the heart of this unhappy man the atrocious idea of betraying his Master. It was the last and final heading up of his apostasy. The personality of Satan and his old character as the father of all wickedness are forcibly brought out here. The word rendered “put” is literally “cast.” This graphically describes the way in which Satan works. He casts into the heart of those he tempts the seeds of evil. The heart is the seed plot which he sows. Suggestion is one of his chief weapons.
The sin of man consists in opening his heart to the suggestion—giving it a place and letting it sink down. This is obvious in the first temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden. Tittman’s idea that the expression is only a “popular form of speaking” is utterly untenable and cannot be reconciled with the general teaching of the Bible about the devil. [ Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son. ] Here, as in three other places, the false apostle is called emphatically “Simon’s son.” Doubtless this was to mark him out as not the Judas who was brother of James and son of Alphæus.
Who this Simon was we do not know. (See note on John 6:71.) [ To betray him. ] There seems no need for regarding Judas’ betrayal of his Master as anything but the wicked act of a wicked man who loved money more than his soul. The theory that he was a high-minded, impatient disciple who wished his Master no harm but desired to hasten His kingdom, and expected Him to work a miracle and save Himself at the last, is ingenious but lacks foundation. Our Lord’s word applied to him—“a devil”—and the word of St. John—“a thief”—appear to me to overturn the theory altogether.
Judas betrayed Jesus because he loved money better than His Master. He probably did not realize the full consequence of his act. But this is often the case with wicked men. 3.--[ Jesus knowing that the Father, etc. ] The reason why this verse comes in here is not very plain. Why are we told that Jesus “washed His disciples’ feet” knowing all these wonderful things? What is the special point and object of the sentence?
Some think that the words means that our Lord knew the end of His ministry was at hand, that all His work was accomplished, that the Father had now committed to Him all power in heaven and earth, and that having come from God He was about to return to God very shortly. Knowing this, He seized the last opportunity that remained to give His disciples a practical example of love and humility. He knew that His time was short and that He must give the lesson this night, if it was to be given at all.
Others, as Chrysostom, Augustine, and Zwingle, think that the object of the words is to show the extent and depth of our Lord’s infinite condescension and love to His disciples. With a full knowledge that the Father had committed all power into His hands, that He had been from eternity with God and was going back to God, knowing all the dignity and majesty of His person and office, He yet condescended to perform the most menial office and to minister like a servant to His disciples. Either view is good sense and good divinity and admissible as a fair interpretation of the words.
For myself, I prefer the latter view. Theophylact points out that to argue our Lord’s inferiority to the Father from the expression “Delivered all things into His hand,” is unfair. He justly remarks that you might as well infer the Father’s inferiority to the Son from the expression in Corinthians, “When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father.” Bernard remarks that “Jesus came from God, not leaving Him, and went to God, not leaving us.” 4.--[ He rose from supper, etc. ] The minuteness with which every action of our Lord is related here is very striking.
No less than seven distinct things are named—rising, laying aside garments, taking a towel, girding Himself, pouring water into a basin, washing and wiping. This very particularity stamps the whole transaction with reality and is the natural language of an astonished and admiring eyewitness. The “laying aside garments” of course only means the laying aside the long, loose, outer garment which people in the East always wear, and which must be laid aside if any bodily exertion is used.
The “girding Himself” refers to the well-known practice of tying tightly round the person any loose garment before taking any action requiring bodily exertion. A good servant is said to have “his loins girded and his lamp burning,” ready for any errand or duty. The likeness between our Lord’s action here and the words in Luke 12:37 are very striking: “He shall gird Himself—serve them,” etc. Jansenius remarks that the “rising” here mentioned seems like a clear proof that this supper could not be the paschal supper. That was to be eaten standing.
The use of the present tense all through this description is noteworthy. It brings the whole transaction before us like a picture. Hengstenberg says here: “Jesus had seated himself at the table, and Peter probably enjoyed the honor of washing His feet. After this he, with the other disciples, sat down also at table, expecting that the younger would spontaneously assume the function of feet-washer for all the rest. But pride evoked pride. The younger Apostles, following a quick impulse, seated themselves also at table. Thus a situation of deep embarrassment resulted in murmuring and contest.
Who would be the first to rise up again? Jesus put an end to the embarrassment by rising from supper and washing the feet of His disciples.” This is possible, but it is only conjecture. 5.--[ After that he poured water, etc. ] Wonderful as all this transaction seems, and no doubt is when we remember who our Lord was, one thing must never be forgotten. The actions here described would not seem nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They were simply the courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost degree of hospitable attention to the guests.
Thus Abraham washed the feet of the three angel messengers. (Gen. 18:4. So also 1 Sam. 25:41.) In a hot country like Palestine, where people wore no stockings and the heat was very scorching to the skin, frequent washing of the feet was an absolute necessity, and to wash the feet of guests was a common piece of hospitality. It is one mark of a deserving widow that she has “washed the saints’ feet” (1 Tim. 5:10). The real wonder was that such a Master, on such a solemn occasion, should do such a condescending act to such weak disciples.
It was not so much the action as the doer of it that was remarkable. After all, there was a touching fitness in our Lord’s choice of an instructive action on this solemn occasion. He knew that He was leaving His disciples, like poor feeble travelers, in a weary, wicked world. He would therefore wash their feet before parting and strengthen and refresh them for their journey. It will be observed that the work was not left unfinished and half-done. Like a perfect servant, our Lord “wiped” the feet as well as “washed” them.” JOHN 13:6-15 Then he came to Simon Peter.
Peter said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" Jesus replied, "You do not understand what I am doing now, but you will understand after these things." Peter said to him, "You will never wash my feet!" Jesus replied, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!" Jesus replied, "The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you." (For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him.
For this reason he said, "Not every one of you is clean.") So when Jesus had washed their feet and put his outer clothing back on, he took his place at the table again and said to them, "Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example--you should do just as I have done for you.
The verses we have now read conclude the story of our Lord's washing the feet of His disciples, the night before He was crucified. It is a story full of touching interest, which for some wise reason no Evangelist records except John. The wonderful condescension of Christ, in doing such a menial action, can hardly fail to strike any reader. The mere fact that the Master should wash the feet of the servants might well fill us with surprise. But the circumstances and sayings which arose out of the action are just as interesting as the action itself. Let us see what they were.
We should notice, firstly, the hasty ignorance of the Apostle Peter. One moment we find him refusing to allow his Master to do such a servile work as He is about to do--"Do you wash my feet?" "You shall never wash my feet." Another moment we find him rushing with characteristic impetuosity into the other extreme--"Lord, wash not my feet only, but my hands and my head." But throughout the transaction we find him unable to take in the real meaning of what his eyes behold. He sees, but he does not understand.
Let us learn from Peter's conduct that a man may have plenty of faith and love, and yet be sadly destitute of clear knowledge. We must not set down men as graceless and godless because they are dull, and stupid, and blundering in their religion. The heart may often be quite right when the head is quite wrong. We must make allowances for the corruption of the understanding, as well as of the will. We must not be surprised to find that the brains as well as the affections of Adam's children have been hurt by the fall.
It is a humbling lesson, and one seldom fully learned except by long experience. But the longer we live the more true shall we find it, that a believer, like Peter, may make many mistakes and lack understanding, and yet, like Peter, have a heart right before God, and get to heaven at last. Even at our best estate we shall find that many of Christ's dealings with us are hard to understand in this life. The "why" and "wherefore" of many a providence will often puzzle and perplex us quite as much as the washing puzzled Peter.
The wisdom, and fitness, and necessity of many a thing will often be hidden from our eyes. But at times like these we must remember the Master's words, and fall back upon them--"What I do you know not now, but you shall know hereafter." There came days, long after Christ had left the world, when Peter saw the full meaning of all that happened on the memorable night before the crucifixion. Even so there will be a day when every dark page in our life's history will be explained, and when, as we stand with Christ in glory, we shall know all.
We should notice, secondly, in this passage, the plain practical lesson which lies upon its surface. That lesson is read out to us by our Lord. He says, "I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." HUMILITY is evidently one part of the lesson. If the only-begotten Son of God, the King of kings, did not think it beneath Him to do the humblest work of a servant, there is nothing which His disciples should think themselves too great or too good to do. No sin is so offensive to God, and so injurious to the soul as pride.
No grace is so commended, both by precept and example, as humility.
"Be clothed with humility." "He who humbles himself shall be exalted." "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God--but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men--and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself." (1 Pet. 5:5; Luke 18:14; Phil. 2:5-8.) Well would it be for the Church if this very simple truth was more remembered, and real humility was not so sadly rare.
Perhaps there is no sight so displeasing in God's eyes as a self-conceited, self-satisfied, self-contented, stuck-up professor of religion. Alas, it is a sight only too common! Yet the words which John here records have never been repealed. They will be a swift witness against many at the last day, except they repent. LOVE is manifestly the other part of the great practical lesson. Our Lord would have us love others so much that we should delight to do anything which can promote their happiness. We ought to rejoice in doing kindnesses, even in little things.
We ought to count it a pleasure to lessen sorrow and multiply joy, even when it costs us some self-sacrifice and self-denial. We ought to love every child of Adam so well, that if in the least trifle we can do anything to make him more happy and comfortable, we should be glad to do it. This was the mind of the Master, and this the ruling principle of His conduct upon earth. There are but few who walk in His steps, it may be feared; but these few are men and women after His own heart. The lesson before us may seem a very simple one; but its importance can never be overrated.
Humility and love are precisely the graces which the men of the world can understand, if they do not comprehend doctrines. They are graces about which there is no mystery, and they are within reach of all Christians. The poorest and most ignorant Christian can every day find occasion for practicing love and humility. Then if we would do good to the world, and make our calling and election sure, let no man forget our Lord's example in this passage. Like Him, let us be humble and loving towards all.
We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the deep spiritual lessons which lie beneath its surface. They are three in number, and lie at the very root of religion, though we can only touch them briefly. For one thing, we learn that all need to be washed by Christ. "If I wash you not, then have no part in Me." No man or woman can be saved unless his sins are washed away in Christ's precious blood. Nothing else can make us clean or acceptable before God.
We must be "washed, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:11.) Christ must wash us, if we are ever to sit down with saints in glory. Then let us take heed that we apply to Him by faith, wash and become clean. They only are washed who believe. For another thing, we learn that even those who are cleansed and forgiven need a daily application to the blood of Christ for daily pardon. We cannot pass through this evil world without defilement.
There is not a day in our lives but we fail and come short in many things, and need fresh supplies of mercy. Even "he that is washed needs to wash his feet," and to wash them in the same fountain where he found peace of conscience when he first believed. Then let us daily use that fountain without fear. With the blood of Christ we must begin, and with the blood of Christ we must go on. Finally, we learn that even those who kept company with Christ, and were baptized with water as His disciples, were "not all" washed from their sin.
These words are very solemn--"You are clean--but not all." Then let us take heed to ourselves, and beware of false profession. If even Christ's own disciples are not all cleansed and justified, we have reason to be on our guard. Baptism and Churchmanship are no proof that we are right in the sight of God. Technical Notes: 6. Then he came to Simon Peter, and Peter said to him, Lord, are you washing my feet? 7. Jesus answered and said to him, What I am doing you do not understand now, but you shall understand hereafter. 8. Peter said to him, you shall never wash my feet!
Jesus answered him, If I do not wash you, you have no part with me. 9. Simon Peter said to him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! 10. Jesus said to him, He who is washed needs only to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. 11. For he knew who should betray him; therefore he said, Ye are not all clean. 12. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and sat down again, he said to them, Do ye know what I have done to you? 13. Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. 14.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 6.--[ Then he came to Simon Peter. ] Whether our Lord began with Simon Peter is not quite clear from the words before us. The word “then,” however, certainly does not mean “then” in the sense of “in order.” Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet and then came to Peter.
From the subsequent action of dipping and giving a morsel to Judas, it certainly seems probable that he sat very near our Lord. Augustine holds that Jesus began with Peter. Bellarmine eagerly grasps at this and gives it as one of twenty-eight alleged proofs that Peter always had a primacy among the Apostles! [ And Peter said to him. ] The word “Peter” is not in the Greek text here, but simply “he” or “that man.” Our translators seem to have inserted it to make the meaning plain. [ Lord, do you wash my feet? ] The English language here fails to give the full emphasis of the Greek.
It would be literally rendered, “Do You, of me, wash the feet?” Such a one as You are, wash the feet of such a one as I am! It is like John the Baptist’s exclamation when our Lord came to his baptism: “Come thou to me?” (Matt. 3:14.) 7.--[ Jesus answered and said, etc. ] The famous saying of this verse stretches far beyond the literal application of the words.
Primarily, of course, it means, “This action of mine has a meaning which in a few minutes I will explain and you will understand, though at present it may seem to you strange and unsuitable.” But in every age true Christians have seen a higher, deeper, broader meaning in the words, and a pious mind cannot doubt that they were intended to bear that meaning. It supplies the key to many things that we cannot understand in the providential government of the world, in the history of the Church, in the events of our own lives.
We must make up our minds to see many things happening which we do not know and understand now, and of which we cannot at present see the wisdom. But we must believe that “we shall know hereafter” the full purposes, the why and wherefore and needs-be of each and all. It is a golden sentence to store up in our memories. God’s eternal counsels, the wisdom of the great Head of the Church, must never be forgotten. All is going on well, even when we think all is going on ill. When we cannot see it, we must believe.
In sickness, sorrow, bereavement, disappointment, we must summon up faith and patience and hear Christ saying to us, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you shall understand hereafter.” Musculus has some happy remarks here on the applicability of this expression to infant baptism, which are most just and true. 8.--[ Peter said...never wash my feet. ] Here, again, the English version fails to give the full strength of the Greek words. This sentence would be rendered literally, “You shall never wash my feet forever,” or unto eternity.
We may note here, in Peter’s language, that there is such a thing as “a voluntary humility” which runs into extremes. Hutcheson remarks: “Men may have much seeming humility in the matters of God which is yet but preposterous and sinful and learned from carnal reason.” Rollock compares with Peter’s conduct here the Romish worship of saints and angels under the pretense of deep humility and unworthiness to approach God. [Jesus answered...not wash you...no part with me. ] We need not doubt that this sentence was meant to bear a deep and full meaning and to reach far beyond the primary application.
It would be a very cold and tame exposition to say that our Lord only meant, “Unless your feet are washed by Me tonight, you are not one of my disciples.” It means a great deal more. Our Lord seems in effect to say, “You will not be wise to object to the symbolic action which I am performing. Remember, no one can be saved or have any part in Me and my work of redemption unless I wash away his sins. Except I wash away your many sins, even you, Simon Peter, have no part in Me. I must wash every saved soul, and every saved soul must be washed.
Surely, therefore, it does not become you to object to my doing an instructive and figurative act to your feet when I must needs do a far greater work to your soul.” The sentence is one of wide, deep, and sweeping application. It is true of every Christian of every rank and position. To each one Christ says, “If I wash you not, you have no part in Me.” It is not enough that we are Churchmen, professed communicants, and the like. The great question for everyone is this: “Am I washed and justified?” The common assertion that this “washing” here spoken of is baptism seems to be unwarrantable.
Our Lord never baptized anyone, so far as we can learn from Scripture. Where is it said that He baptized Peter? Moreover, if baptism were meant, the past tense would have been used: “If I had not washed you, you would have no part in Me.” The washing here spoken of is something far above baptism. 9.--[ Simon Peter said, etc. ] The exclamation of Peter in this verse is highly characteristic of the man.
Impulsive, excitable, zealous, ardent, with more love than knowledge and more feeling than spiritual discernment, he is horrified at the very idea of “having no part in Christ.” Anything rather than that! Not seeing clearly the deep meaning of His Master’s words, and still sticking to a carnal, literal interpretation of the word “washing,” he cries out that his Master may wash him all over, hands and head as well as feet, if an interest in Christ depends on that.
Great zeal and love are perfectly consistent with great spiritual ignorance and dulness, and great slowness to comprehend spiritual truth. Rollock remarks that Peter erred as much in one extreme now as he had erred before in another. Stier remarks that the passionate, strong expression of Peter in this verse is just the language of a warm-hearted but dull-minded disciple just beginning to understand, as if light had suddenly flashed on him. 10.--[ Jesus said to him, He who is washed, etc. ] This sentence of our Lord’s conveys a latent rebuke of Peter’s spiritual dulness.
It is as though Jesus said, “The washing of head and hands of which you speak is not needed. Even assuming that a literal washing is all I meant in saying, ‘If I wash you not,’ it is well known that he who is washed needs only to wash his feet after a journey, and is accounted clean entirely after such a partial washing. But this is far more true of the washing of pardon and justification. He who is pardoned and justified by Me is entirely washed from all his sins and only needs the daily forgiveness of the daily defilement he contracts in traveling through a sinful world.
Once washed, justified, and accepted by Me, ye are clean before God—although not all of you. There is one painful exception.” The great practical truth contained in this sentence ought to be carefully noted and treasured up by all believers. Once joined to Christ and cleansed in His blood, they are completely absolved and free from all spot of guilt and are counted without blame before God. But for all this, they need every day, as they walk through this world, to confess their daily failures and to sue for daily pardon.
They require, in short, a daily washing of their feet over and above the great washing of justification, which is theirs the moment they first believe. He who neglects this daily washing is a very questionable and doubtful kind of Christian. Luther remarks pithily, “The devil allows no Christian to reach heaven with clean feet all the way.” “Every whit,” in this verse, means literally “the whole man.” The deep mine of meaning that often lies under the surface of our Lord’s language is strikingly exemplified in this verse, as well as in the seventh and eighth.
There is far more in many of His sayings, we may believe, than has ever yet been discovered. It is striking to observe that even of His poor, weak, erring disciples, Jesus says “Ye are clean.” Bullinger observes that the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses,” are a daily confession of the very thing here mentioned—the need of daily washing of our feet. Casaubon remarks that those who come out of a bath, as a matter of constant experience, only need to wash their feet which, stepping on the ground as they come out, must needs contract some defilement.
In eastern countries where bathing was very common, all could see the force of this. Hengstenberg remarks that “the expression ‘but not all’ was intended to pierce the conscience of Judas, whom the Redeemer did not give up until the last good impulse died within him.” The common idea that the “washing” here spoken of refers to the baptism, seems to me quite untenable. He who is washed must mean only “washed in a spiritual sense from his sins;” as Psalm 51:4. Hengstenberg’s discussion of the point is worth reading.
Burgon observes, “The traitor, Judas, though washed by the hands of Christ Himself, was filthy still.” 11.--[ For he knew who should betray him, etc. ] Our Lord’s perfect foreknowledge of His sufferings and the manner of them, and His thorough discernment of the real characters of all His disciples, are alike shown in this verse. He did not suffer because he did not foresee it and was taken by surprise. He walked up to death knowing every step he was about to tread. The sentence is an example of the explanatory glosses which are so characteristic of St. John’s Gospel.
The Greek words rendered “who should betray Him” are literally, “the person betraying Him,” in the past participle. 12.--[ So after...feet. ] After the conversation between our Lord and Peter, the washing seems to have gone on without interruption. The disciples were accustomed to see their Master do things they did not understand, and they submitted in silence. [ And had taken...sat down again. ] This refers to His putting on again the long loose outer robe, which was laid aside on performing any action requiring exertion in the East.
Then our Lord took His place once more at the table and commenced a discourse that seems to have ushered in the Lord’s Supper. Whether the washing of the feet was meant, among other things, to teach the need of special preparation for that blessed ordinance, is an interesting thought and worth consideration. It certainly seems our Lord’s last action before He gave the bread and wine. [ He said, Do ye know what I have done to you? ] This question was meant to stir up in the disciples’ minds inquiry as to the meaning of what they had just seen.
Understanding and intelligent perception of all we do in religion should be sought after and valued by all true Christians. There is no real religion in blind devotion. “What do I mean by this service?” should be the question often impressed on our minds. 13.--[ Ye call me Master and Lord. ] These words would be more literally rendered, “Ye call Me, or speak of Me, as the Master and the Lord.” The expression seems to show that this was the habitual language of the disciples while our Lord was on earth.
So Martha says to Mary, “The Master is come” (John 11:28). [ Ye say well, for so I am. ] The word “so” is not in the Greek.
It is simply, “for I am.” The expression is a beautiful warrant for applying to Jesus especially the appellation “the Lord.” He has Himself endorsed it by the words “Ye say well.” 14.--[ If I then, your Lord, etc. ] The argument of this verse is one which our Lord very frequently uses: “If I do a thing, much more ought ye to do it.” Literally rendered the meaning is, “If I, the Person whom ye speak of as ‘the Lord’ and ‘the Master,’ have washed your feet and condescended to perform the most menial act of attention to you, ye also ought to feel it a duty to do acts of the same kind for one another—acts as condescending as washing one another’s feet.” The words “Your Lord and Master” in the Greek are literally “The Lord and the Master.” “Ye ought” is a very strong expression.
It is tantamount to saying, “It is your duty and debt—ye are under an obligation to do it.” Paley in Evidences, p. 2, ch. 4, has a remarkable passage showing the close affinity between our Lord’s conduct here and His conduct when taking a little child and putting him in the midst of the disciples. In both he taught humility, that rare grace, by action. 15.--[ For I have given you an example, etc. ] “I have, in my own person, given you a pattern of what your own conduct should be.
The duty I want you to learn is of such vast importance that I have not left it to a general precept but have given you an example of my meaning.” Of course, the question at once rises, What did our Lord really mean? Did he mean that we all ought literally to do the very same thing that He did? Or did he only mean that we are to imitate the spirit of this action? The Church of Rome, it is well known, puts a literal sense on our Lord’s language. Once every year, about Easter, the head of the Romish Church publicly washes the feet of certain poor persons got ready for the occasion.
The absurdity, to say the least, of this view is evident on a moment’s reflection. It seems absurd to take our Lord’s words literally and to suppose that the Pope’s literal washing of a few feet at Easter can supersede the duty of all Christians to do the same. Yet it is only fair to remember that the Moravians to this day take a literal view of those words and have a custom called “pedilavium.” It is, in any case, absurd to suppose that our Lord would require His disciples to perform a duty which the young and the feeble would be physically unable to do.
It is inconsistent with the general tenor of our Lord’s teaching to suppose that He would ever attach so much importance to a mere bodily action. “Bodily exercise profits little” (1 Tim. 4:8). A formal performance of bodily acts of religion is just the easiest thing that can be imposed on people. The thing that is really hard, and yet always required, is the service of the heart. The true interpretation of the two verses is that which places a spiritual sense on our Lord’s words. It is a practical illustration of Matthew 20:26-28.
He wished to teach His disciples that they ought to be willing to wait on one another, serve one another, minister to one another even in the least and lowest things. They should think nothing too low, or humble, or menial to undertake if they can show love, kindness, and condescension to another. If He, the King of kings, condescended to leave heaven to save souls and dwell 31 years in this sin-defiled world, there is nothing that we should think too lowly to undertake. Pride, because we possess wealth, rank, position, place, education, or high-breeding, is condemned heavily in this passage.
He who would shrink from doing the least kindness to the poorest Christian has read these verses to little purpose and does not copy his Master’s example. One caution only we must remember. Let us not suppose that an ostentatious attention to the poor constitutes the whole of obedience to the law of this passage. It is easy work comparatively to care for the poor. We are to be ready to do the least acts of kindness to our equals quite as much as to the poor. There is nothing about temporal poverty in the passage.
The disciples were told their duty to “one another.” This is a very important point. It is much easier and more self-satisfying to play the part and do the work of a Christian to the poor than to our equals. How entirely the passage overthrows the claim of mere talking, head-learned professors of sound doctrine to be accounted true Christians, it is needless to show. Doctrinal orthodoxy without practical love and humility is utterly worthless before God. Bullinger remarks how singularly full of Christian truth the passage is which ends at this verse.
That we are washed clean from all sins by Christ our Savior, that although washed the remainder of infirmity sticks to us and obliges us to wash our feet daily, that the duty of a disciple is to make Christ his example in all things—these three great lessons stand forth most prominently. Gurnall observes, “The master here does not only rule the scholar’s book for him, but writes him a copy with his own hand.” JOHN 13:16-20 "I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them. "What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he. I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me." If we would understand the full meaning of these verses, we must mark carefully where they stand in the chapter.
They follow right after the remarkable passage in which we read of Christ washing His disciples' feet. They stand in close connection with His solemn command, that the disciples should do as they had seen Him do. Then come the five verses which we have now to consider. We are taught, for one thing, in these verses, that Christians must never be ashamed of doing anything that Christ has done.
We read, "Verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." There seems little doubt that our Lord's all-seeing eye saw a rising unwillingness in the minds of the Apostles to do such menial things as they had just seen Him do. Puffed up with their old Jewish expectation of thrones and kingdoms in this world, secretly self-satisfied with their own position as our Lord's friends, these poor Galileans were startled at the idea of washing people's feet!
They could not bring themselves to believe that Messiah's service entailed work like this. They could not yet take in the grand truth, that true Christian greatness consisted in doing good to others. And hence they needed our Lord's word of warning. If He had humbled Himself to do humbling work, His disciples must not hesitate to do the same. The lesson is one of which we all need to be reminded. We are all too apt to dislike any work which seems to entail trouble, self-denial, and going down to our inferiors.
We are only too ready to relegate such work to others, and to excuse ourselves by saying, "It is not in our way." When feelings of this kind arise within us we shall find it good to remember our Lord's words in this passage, no less than our Lord's example. We ought never to think it beneath us to show kindness to the lowest of men. We ought never to hold our hand because the objects of our kindness are ungrateful or unworthy. Such was not the mind of Him who washed the feet of Judas Iscariot as well as Peter.
He who in these matters cannot stoop to follow Christ's example, gives little evidence of possessing true love or true humility. We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the uselessness of religious knowledge if not accompanied by practice. We read, "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them." It sounds as if our Lord would warn His disciples that they would never be really happy in His service if they were content with a barren head-knowledge of duty, and did not live according to their knowledge.
The lesson is one which deserves the continual remembrance of all professing Christians. Nothing is more common than to hear people saying of doctrine or duty--"We know it, we know it;" while they sit still in unbelief or disobedience. They actually seem to flatter themselves that there is something creditable and redeeming in knowledge, even when it bears no fruit in heart, character, or life. Yet the truth is precisely the other way. To know what we ought to be, believe, and do, and yet to be unaffected by our knowledge, only adds to our guilt in the sight of God.
To know that Christians should be humble and loving, while we continue proud and selfish, will only sink us deeper in the pit, unless we awake and repent. Practice, in short, is the very life of religion. "To him that knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17.) Of course we must never despise knowledge. It is in one sense the beginning of Christianity in the soul. So long as we know nothing of sin, or God, or Christ, or grace, or repentance, or faith, or conscience, we are of course nothing better than heathens. But we must not overrate knowledge.
It is altogether valueless unless it produces results in our conduct, and influences our lives, and moves our wills. In fact knowledge without practice does not raise us above the level of the devil. He could say to Jesus, "I know You who You are, the Holy One of God." The devils, says James, "believe and tremble." (James 2:19.) Satan knows truth, but has no will to obey it, and is miserable. He that would be happy in Christ's service must not only know, but do. We are taught, for another thing, in these verses, the perfect knowledge which Christ has of all His people.
He can distinguish between false profession and true grace. The Church may be deceived, and rank men as Apostles, who are nothing better than brethren of Judas Iscariot. But Jesus is never deceived, for He can read hearts. And here He declares with peculiar emphasis, "I know whom I have chosen." This perfect knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ is a very solemn thought, and one which cuts two ways. It ought to fill the hypocrite with alarm, and drive him to repentance.
Let him remember that the eyes of the all-seeing Judge already see him through and through, and detect the absence of a wedding garment. If he would not be put to shame before assembled worlds, let him cast aside his false profession, and confess his sin before it is too late. Believers, on the other hand, may think of an all-knowing Savior with comfort. They may remember, when misunderstood and slandered by an evil world, that their Master knows all. He knows that they are true and sincere, however weak and failing.
A time is coming when He will confess them before His Father, and bring forth their characters clear and bright as the summer sun at noon-day. We are taught, finally, in these verses, the true dignity of Christ's disciples. The world may despise and ridicule the Apostles because they care more for works of love and humility than the pursuits of the world. But the Master bids them remember their commission, and not be ashamed. They are God's ambassadors, and have no cause to be cast down.
"Verily, verily," He declares, "He that receives whomsoever I send receives Me; and he that receives Me receives Him that sent Me." The doctrine here laid down is full of encouragement. It ought to cheer and hearten all who lay themselves out to do good, and specially to do good to the fallen and the poor. Work of this kind gets little praise from men, and they who give themselves up to it are often regarded as miserable enthusiasts, and meet with much opposition. Let them however work on, and take comfort in the words of Christ which we are now considering.
To spend and be spent in trying to do good, makes a man far more honorable in the eyes of Jesus than to command armies or amass a fortune. The few who work for God in Christ's way have no cause to be ashamed. Let them not be cast down if the children of the world laugh and sneer and despise them. A day comes when they will hear the words, "Come you blessed children of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." (Matt. 25:34.) Technical Notes: 21.
When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, that one of your shall betray me. 22. Then the disciples looked at one another, doubting of whom he spoke. 23. Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him to ask who it was of whom he spoke. 25. He then, lying on Jesus’ breast, said to him, Lord, who is it? 26. Jesus answered, he it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it .
And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27. And after the sop, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him, What you do, do quickly. 28. Now no man at the table knew for what reason he said this to him. 29. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said to him, Buy those things we have need for the feast; or that he should give something to the poor. 30. He then having received the sop went immediately out.
And it was night. 21.--[ When Jesus had thus said. ] This would be more literally rendered, “had said these things,” referring to all He had just been saying. There seems to be a kind of break or pause in the narrative here. This is the point in St. John’s narrative where the institution of the Lord’s Supper seems to come in. At any rate, there seems no point, comparing his account of this evening with that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where it can be so well fitted in.
This is the view of Jansenius, Lampe, and Burgon. [ He was troubled in spirit. ] This expression, applied to our Lord, is peculiar to St. John. We find it only in his Gospel, here and at 11:33 and 12:27. Here it seems to mean principally the pain and sorrow that our Lord experienced on seeing one of his own chosen Apostles about to betray him. In addition to this, it probably includes that peculiar agony and distress of soul that our Lord was subject to under the presence of a world’s sin laid upon Him, and which we see intensified in the garden of Gethsemane.
Let it be noted that of all the Gospel writers, John is the one who dwells most fully on the Divine nature of our Lord, and also is the one who describes most fully the reality of His human affections. Observe that to be troubled and disturbed in mind is not in itself sinful. Brentius remarks, after Augustine, how foolish were the Stoic philosophers who taught that a wise man is never disturbed in mind.
Musculus thinks that our Lord’s distress and sorrow at the sight of the wickedness of Judas had much to do with this “trouble of spirit.” Nothing is so sad as the sight of a hardened, incorrigible backslider. [ And testified and said. ] The frequency with which John used the word “testified” is very remarkable. It occurs thirty-three times in his Gospel and only three times in all the other three Gospels. Why our Lord is said to “testify” in this place is hard to see.
We must suppose that it means He made an open, solemn declaration in a very impressive manner, like a witness bearing testimony to some great and unexpected fact. [ Verily...shall betray me. ] The solemn “Amen, amen” here, as elsewhere, was calculated to arrest the attention of the disciples to the declaration our Lord was going to make. “One out of you ( i.e. , out of your number) shall betray Me. My last and crowning trial draws near. I am about to bear a world’s sins in my own body, on the tree.
And painful as it is to say, the first step in the history of my passion shall be my betrayal by one of yourselves.” Let us note our Lord’s thorough foreknowledge of all the details of His sufferings as well as of the great fact that He was about to be killed. 22.--[ Then the disciples looked at one another. ] The first effect of our Lord’s declaration seems to have been silence. Like men stunned and amazed, the disciples looked at one another in astonishment.
The thing announced was the last thing they expected hear. [ Doubting of whom he spoke. ] The word “doubting” hardly conveys the full force of the Greek here. It is rather, as 2 Cor. 4:8, “perplexed,” “puzzled.” Let us note that neither here nor afterward does any suspicion appear to have fallen on Judas. For anything we can see, he looked as good as Peter, James, and John, and as unlikely to betray his Master.
The length to which hypocrisy can go is very awful. 23.--[ Now...leaning...bosom. ] To understand this we must remember the customs of the East, in the time of our Lord, about the position and attitude of the guests at a meal. They did not sit but reclined. The famous picture of the Last Supper by Leonardo DaVinci gives a totally inaccurate idea of the scene. [ One...Jesus loved. ] There can be no doubt this was John, the writer of this Gospel. It is the first time he speaks of himself in this way, and the expression occurs afterward four times: 19:26, 20:7, 20:20.
The Greek word rendered “loved” deserves notice. It signifies the higher, nobler, and more refined kind of love. There are two words in the Greek language translated “love” in the New Testament. Let it be noted that the general special love with which our Lord loved all His disciples did not prevent His having a particular love for one individual. Why He specially loved John we are not told. Gifts certainly do not appear so much in John as grace. But it is worth noticing that love seems more the characteristic of John than of any disciple, and that in this he showed more of the mind of Christ.
It is quite clear that special friendship for one individual is quite consistent with love for all. It is noteworthy that of all the writers of the New Testament, none goes so deep and reveals so much of the hidden things of God as he who lay in the bosom of Christ. 24.--[ Simon Peter therefore beckoned, etc. ] The characteristic forwardness and zeal of Peter come out strikingly in this verse. None seem so excited by our Lord’s announcement as he is. None is so anxious to know of whom our Lord can be speaking. He cannot wait silently like the others.
He makes a sign to John to ask privately who it can be. A fisherman by early training, like John, he was probably intimate with him and could make himself understood by signs. Let us note that the whole transaction seems to show that Peter did not sit next to our Lord in the post of honor and favor. That place was given to John.
Rollock here observes that so far from Peter having any primacy among the Apostles, he here used the intercession of John! 25.--[ He then, lying on Jesus’ breast, etc. ] The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, “He having fallen upon.” It is so translated in eleven out of twelve other places where it occurs in the New Testament. The idea is evidently of one moving and leaning towards another, so as to get closer to him and whisper a question, so as not to be heard or observed. That this is what John did is evident.
It is plain that he did not say out aloud, “Lord, who is it?” 26.--[Jesus answered...give a sop...dipped it. ] The action by which our Lord told John He would indicate the traitor to him was probably so common at an Eastern banquet that no one at the table would remark anything about it. That it was a common way of eating is shown by Ruth 2:14, “Dip thy morsel in the vinegar.” The word “sop,” the marginal reading tells us, might be translated “morsel.” To give a morsel, as our Lord did, was probably a mark of favor or compliment. That our Lord’s answer was whispered is evident.
No one seems to have noticed it except John. Hengstenberg observes that by this act of kindness and attention, Jesus “would touch the heart of Judas once more, if haply he might be susceptible of better emotions.” [ And when...sop...Judas Iscariot. ] The word “gave” is literally “gives,” in the present tense, showing the immediate action which followed our Lord’s reply to John’s question. Here, as elsewhere, it is noteworthy that John specially calls Judas “the son of Simon,” in order to make it quite clear which Judas it was who did this foul deed.
Bengel remarks: “How very near to Jesus was Judas on this occasion! But in a short time after, by what a wide gulf did glory separate Jesus from Judas, and destruction separate Judas from Jesus.” 27.--[ And after the sop, Satan entered into him. ] Of course, this does not mean that now for the first time Satan entered, but that from this moment Satan got full and entire possession of the heart of Judas. Up to this time he was in it, but now he possessed it. The word “then” is emphatically given in the Greek but omitted by our translators.
It should be, “After the Supper, then Satan entered into him.” Let us note the reality, personality, and awful power of our great spiritual enemy the devil. There are degrees in his power and dominion over us. If his first temptations are not resisted, he may in the end gain full and entire possession of every part of our soul and lead us captive to be his slaves. This seems the history of Judas.
Musculus observes that even at the first communion Satan was present and busy in a heart. [ Then Jesus said...do quickly. ] The full meaning and purport of this solemn saying it is not easy to define positively. It is evidently a very elliptical saying, and we can only conjecture about it. Of course we cannot suppose that our Lord desired to hasten on an act of wickedness, nor yet can we suppose for a moment that there was any impatience in our Lord or unwillingness to await the hour of His sufferings.
But we must remember that our Lord foreknew perfectly all that was before Him in the next twenty-four hours. Does He not then speak to Judas as to one of the instruments in the great work which was about to be accomplished? Does He not seem to say, “If you must indeed do this wicked act—and I know now that the prince of this world has got full possession of your heart—go on and do it. There need be no delay. I am ready to suffer and to die. Do your part and I will do mine. The Sacrifice is ready to be slain.
Do your part in the transaction and let there be no unnecessary waste of time.” Chrysostom says: This is not the expression of one commanding nor advising, but of one reproaching and showing him that He desired to correct him; but that since he was incorrigible, He let him go. Augustine says, “This was a word rather of glad readiness than of anger.” Calvin says: “Hitherto Jesus tried by various methods to bring Judas back, but to no purpose.
Now He addresses him as a desperate man: ‘Go to destruction, since you have resolved to go to destruction.’ In doing so, He performs the office of a Judge who condemns to death not those whom He drives of His own accord to ruin, but those who have already ruined themselves by their own fault.” Cyril starts the odd idea that our Lord addresses these words to Satan rather than Judas, and as it were challenges him to do his worst! Gerhard sees a likeness in the expression to God’s words to Balaam when He says “Rise up and go” (Num. 22:20). They did not signify approbation but only a permission.
Yet God’s anger was kindled when Balaam went with Balak’s ambassadors. Musculus observes the use of the present tense here. It is not “What you are going to do,” but “What you are doing now.” Even at the Lord’s table wickedness was going on in Judas’ heart. Lightfoot says: “I take this expression for a tacit, severe threat, pronounced not without scorn and indignation: ‘I know well what you are contriving against Me. What you do, do quickly, else your own death may prevent you; for you have but a very short time to live.
Your own end draws on apace.’” Whitby compares it to Ezek. 20:39: “Go ye, serve every one his idols.” Some, as Hengstenberg, would render the Greek word for quickly “more quickly,” as if our Lord wished him to hasten his work. But there seems no necessity for this. After all, it is noteworthy that the disciples did not know what the saying meant. Even John, writing forty or fifty years afterward by inspiration of God, was not directed to explain it (though he does explain our Lord’s sayings in other places). We may therefore safely leave the meaning somewhat uncertain.
That our Lord spoke these mysterious words aloud and openly so that all the company heard is quite evident from the context. John’s question was a whisper; his reply was another whisper, and neither was remarked or heard by others.
But the address to Judas was heard by all. 28.--[ Now no man at the table, etc. ] This verse would be more literally rendered, “Now this thing no one knew, of them that were sitting at the table, for what purpose He said it to him.” The sentence confirms the statement above made that both John’s question and our Lord’s answer were spoken in a whisper or undertone and not noticed by anyone. This sudden address of our Lord to Judas would therefore take the disciples by surprise. 29.--[ For some of them thought, etc. ] This whole verse is interesting and throws light on some curious points.
The statement that “Judas had the bag” shows the position he occupied among the Apostles. He was so far from being suspected that he had the charge of the common store of money. Bullinger even thinks that he must have been a man remarkable for wisdom, prudence, economy, and faithfulness. The supposition of some, that Jesus told Judas to “buy the things needed against the feast,” shows clearly that our Lord did not work miracles in order to procure the necessaries required by Himself and His disciples.
Christians must buy and sell like other people and must manage their money affairs with prudence and economy. It shows how little the disciples realized that their Master’s death was close at hand. The supposition of others, that Jesus told Judas to “give something to the poor,” shows plainly what was our Lord’s custom in the matter of almsgiving. He sanctified and adorned the practice of caring for the poor by His own example. This passage and Galatians 2:10 deserve careful consideration.
It may be doubted whether the English Poor Law has not tended to shut up English almsgiving far more than is right before God. Let us mark the snares that attend the possession, fingering, and handling of money. The man who has care of the money in our Lord’s little company of followers is the very man who makes shipwreck of his soul forever though the love of money.
“Give me neither poverty nor riches” should be a Christian’s frequent prayer. (Prov. 30:8.) Bullinger points out that the possession of money is evidently not in itself sinful and wicked, and argues from the verse that the Romish mendicant friars and others who made a merit of self-imposed poverty are under a complete delusion. It is not the having but the misusing of money which is sinful. 30.--[ He then...sop...immediately out. ] The hasty departure of Judas as soon as our Lord had given him the morsel and spoken the remarkable words already commented on, may easily be explained.
He saw at once that our Lord knew all his plot, and dreaded exposure. His conscience condemned him, and he dared no longer sit in our Lord’s company. He, at any rate, understood what our Lord meant if nobody else did. He felt himself detected and discovered, and for very shame got up and went away. It is curious and noteworthy that John, at all events, must have known Judas to be the traitor, and yet he seems to have said nothing.
It seems very difficult to me to explain this part of the history of this memorable evening unless we admit that Judas Iscariot received the Lord’s Supper with the other Apostles. From this point to the seizure of our Lord in the garden, the narrative flows on without break or interruption, and I cannot see any place at which the Lord’s Supper can come in. I therefore hold strongly that Judas was actually a communicant.
The subject is very fully discussed by Gerhard, who takes this view and confirms it by quotations from Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Euthymius, Aquinas, Ferus, Toletus, Bellarmine, Jansenius, Baronius, Maldonatus, Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, and Whittaker. After all, the expression of Luke 22:21 appears to me unanswerable. [ And it was night. ] This emphatic little sentence of course is not inserted without a meaning; but why, we are left to conjecture.
Perhaps it was meant to show us that Judas purposely waited till darkness to accomplish his deed of darkness. “This is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). Perhaps it was meant to show that Judas slunk off at a time when nobody could see where he went, follow him, or observe his movements. Perhaps it was meant to show that the time was hastening on, and that our Lord had reason to say, “What you do, do quickly.” Perhaps it was only meant to mark the precise time when our Lord delivered the exquisite address of the next three chapters. St.
John loves to mark time and places in his narrative. One thing, at any rate, is very clear. The expression shows that the first Lord’s Supper was not celebrated by day but by night. The objections to an evening sacrament commonly made by certain persons are really so untenable in the face of this passage that one marvels how men of common sense can make them.