John 13
TFGJohn 13:1-20
(Thursday evening of the beginning of Friday.) J 1-20. [Since the second century a great dispute has been carried on as to the apparent discrepancy between John and the synoptists in their statements concerning the passover. The synoptists, as we have seen in the previous section, clearly represent Jesus as having eaten the passover at the proper time, and as having been arrested on the same night, while John [647] here and elsewhere seems to represent Jesus as being arrested the passover. Our space does not permit us to enter upon a discussion of this difficulty. The reader is referred to a thorough rehearsal of the arguments found in Tholuck (or, after the seventh edition, in his introduction to John’s Gospel). The simplest solution of the difficulty is to attribute the apparent discrepancy to that loose way of speaking of the feast which we mentioned in the ); 2. That by nature he was divine , and, 3.
That he was about to return to the divine exaltation which for our sakes he had laid aside– .] [John narrates in detail each of these acts: to him they seem as so many successive steps leading down to the depth of humility. The whole formed a striking but wholesome contrast to the self-seeking and ambitious spirit which the disciples had just manifested.] [The others were awed into silence by the strange conduct of their Master; but it accorded with the bold impulsiveness of Peter to challenge the act.] [It was no mere feet-washing; or Jesus would not have so spoken.
It was at once an example of humility and a symbol of the purification which the Lord accomplished for us by reason of his humiliation. The full meaning of the act was afterward revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.] [Since Jesus spoke of the act as in some sense a license or token of permission to have “part” with him, Peter desired that his head and hands also might be included, that he might in his entire man have part with Christ.] [The language implies that the disciples had bathed before leaving Bethany, and that only their feet, soiled [649] by the journey to Jerusalem, needed to be rewashed. The saying is spiritually true as well, for one who has been washed thoroughly by baptism needs not to be re-baptized. After that general cleansing the particular sins are removed by confession . But there is no efficacy in any ordinance when the heart and will do not accord with the purposes for which it is administered. Hence it was that Judas, though he had done all that the others had done, was still as foul as ever.] [Since a servant is not greater than his lord, he should not be ashamed to do what his lord does.
It is well known that many, by a literal construction of this passage, have esteemed it to be their duty to wash each other’s feet in their churches. But it should be noted that in the entire New Testament there is no command for this, nor is there any passage which recognizes any such church ordinance or practice.
Jesus did not feet-washing; he found it already a custom of the land, and merely used it as a most appropriate way of showing the proper spirit of humble service. Hence he does not say, “Do I have done,” but “Do I have done,” which requires us to do something to that which Christ had done, but necessarily the very thing. The washing of feet as an act of courtesy or hospitality was never a custom among Western people, and to adopt it because of these words of Christ is to entirely miss his meaning. What he did was a natural daily act of hospitality. But what we would do if we followed his words literally would be to [650] introduce a strange, outlandish practice, which would put a guest to great embarrassment and inconvenience.] [ .] [The meaning of the above passage may perhaps be brought out more easily if we paraphrase it as follows: “I do not speak of blessing to you all, for there is one who shall never be blessed. His conduct does not deceive or surprise me, for I know those whom I have chosen whether they be good or bad.
His choosing is in accordance with the prophecy contained in the Book of Psalms. Hitherto I have held my peace about him, but henceforth I shall point out his course, that my foreknowledge of his actions may strengthen your faith in my Messiahship, and not leave you in that condition of hopelessness and despair in which the consequences had come upon me unawares.
Do not let his treachery shake your confidence in me, for verily I say unto you that in being my messengers ye are indeed the messengers of the Most High.”] [FFG 647-651]
John 13:21-38
(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.) M 21-25, 31-35; M 18-21, 27-31; L 21-23, 31-38; J 21-38. [651] [The foreknowledge of Judas’ crime did not relieve the Lord from the sting of it. By the use of the word “betray” Jesus revealed to Judas that he had perfect knowledge of the peculiar crime which he was about to commit. To induce repentance the enormity of the crime is pointed out in two ways: 1. It was the act of one, an act in which no other could be found willing to have a part. 2. It was the act of one whose hand rested on the table, who was admitted to the closest intercourse and fellowship.] [in startled amazement] [that the Lord should be betrayed was sorrow enough, but that one of the twelve should do the deed was an added grief] [The form of the question in the Greek indicates that it expects “No” for an answer, so that it may be rendered, “Surely it is not I?”] [According to Oriental custom, knives and forks were not used. One dish served to hold the sop for several people, that they might dip their bread into it.
In so large a company, two or three bowls would be used for convenience’ sake. The words of Jesus, therefore, limited the circle of accused ones from twelve to four or five, and also further emphasized the tender and close intimacy between the traitor and the Master.] [Jesus was following with unfaltering step the path of suffering marked out by the prophets. [652] But this fact in no way exculpated the authors of his death.
The prophecies referred to are many. As examples, see , . The woe pronounced upon Judas was no vindictive or vengeful wish; it is the solemn announcement of the divine judgment. The words of Jesus stop the mouths of the apologists for Judas. When the judge thus speaks in condemnation, who shall presume to argue in extenuation?] [John thus speaks of himself. His couch was in front of that of the Lord, so that when he laid his head back it rested upon Jesus’ bosom. See ). Alford says, “I feel, with Meyer, that there is something awful in this termination–‘it was night.’”] [The departure of Judas was the first step in the progress of the Lord’s Passion, and in this moment of its beginning Jesus exults in the prospect of its end.
Having just condemned the false pride and glory of men by washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus rejoices that the true glory of God is about to be immediately manifested in himself–the glory of humility, charity, service, and self-sacrifice, which was realized to the utmost in the person of Jesus.] [see ). It is found nowhere else in the Gospels. In the light of his near separation Jesus looked upon his apostles as about to be made orphan children. As to this new commandment, love had been commanded before , but the Christian love here commanded is different from that which the Jew was bade to feel for the Jew, just as the affection of a loving family differs from the mere broad and kindly spirit of neighborliness. A love which had Christ’s heart as the standard would of necessity be new, and would distinguish those who possessed it from all men.] [ ] [The scattering would take place after the return of the apostles to Galilee, and there after his resurrection, Jesus would gather them together as their shepherd.] [Peter, grieved at the prospect of separation, can see no reason why he should not follow, since he is willing to pass even through the portal of the grave that he may do so. Though perhaps prevented by no moral inability, he was prevented by the plan of life which God had designed for him.
It was not in accordance with the divine will that he should die at this time.] [The language here suggests a repetition, in some degree, of Satan’s conduct in the case of Job. See Jesus, having insight into what was going on in the spirit world, made supplication that Peter [655] might be enabled to endure the trial] [The language sadly intimates that Satan’s test would leave him in need of repentance.
As the one who perhaps exercised the strongest influence over the other ten apostles, Peter is exhorted to use his own bitter experience for their benefit and strengthening.] [Thus Peter repudiates the idea that he could not stand the test.] [Mark speaks of two cock-crowings and shows that the denial of Peter occurred between them . But Matthew, Luke, and John speak of but cock-crowing and place the denial before it. The discrepancy is not an important one. Luke and John look upon the night in its entirety and speak of the cock-crowing at three in the morning, the signal of the dawning day. Mark looks at the night in its details, and shows that the denials of Peter began at midnight, the time of the first cock-crowing, and were finished before the last, or about three in the morning. Peter appears to have been thunderstruck at this prediction, which showed the nature, the details, and the nearness of his sin.
He lapsed into silence, and we hear no more from him during the discourses which followed. But he did not yield without one final protest, as the sequel shows.] [According to Matthew’s account these accusations of our Lord and protestations of Peter were taken up again after [656] Jesus left the upper room and was on his way to Gethsemane.
The reader may therefore conceive of them as occurring again in the opening lines of ] [In this passage our Lord draws a contrast between the favor with which his messengers had been received on their mission and the trials and persecutions which awaited them in their course. If they had prepared then to be received with joy, they were to prepare now to be opposed with bitterness; for the utter rejection of the Master would be followed by the violent persecution of the servants. The apostles took the words of Jesus literally, and showed two swords, and the Lord, for their future enlightenment, said, “It is enough,” thus intimating that he did not mean a literal arming with carnal weapons, for had he done so, two swords would not have sufficed for twelve men.] [FFG 651-655]