Ch. 13:1-30. CHRIST WASHES HIS DISCIPLES’ FEET AND FORETELLS HIS
BETRAYAL.--THE NATURE OF HUMILITY ILLUSTRATED: NOT SELF-ABASEMENT BUT
SELF-ABNEGATION (3, 4).--TRUST AND OBEDIENCE HERE; KNOWLEDGE HEREAFTER
(7).--THE DOUBLE CLEANSING WROUGHT BY CHRIST: THE WASHING OF THE WHOLE
NATURE IN REGENERATION; THE WASHING AWAY OF SPECIFIC SINS IN
SANCTIFICATION (10).--CHRIST’S DESIGNATION OF HIMSELF: MASTER AND LORD
(13).--THE UTILITY AND THE INUTILITY OF CEREMONIAL.--CHRIST OUR
EXAMPLE IN THE SPIRIT AND IN THE LETTER (14, 15).--THE OFFICE OF
PROPHECY (19).--CHRIST SEEN BEARING THE SIN OF THE SINNER
(21).--CHRIST’S ENDEAVOR TO RECLAIM THE IRRECLAIMABLE (26-29).
* * * * *
PRELIMINARY NOTE.--John alone of the Evangelists gives no account of
the institution of the Lord’s Supper. But he alone gives us a report
of the last words of Christ, and his last prayer with his disciples at
the time of the institution of the Supper. This report occupies
chapters 13-17. This most sacred legacy which the Lord has left to his
disciples can never be interpreted except by the heart which enters
into the secret place of the Most High. All that the commentator can
hope to do is to point out the significance of the original, and the
connection between the various parts of this uninterpretable
disclosure of divine love. That the supper referred to in ver. 2 here
is the same described in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke
22:19, 20, I think is beyond question, and is indeed questioned by few
if any of the scholars except Lightfoot, who endeavors to identify it
with the supper at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus (Matt.
26:1-16; John 12:2-8). The time when the Last Supper was celebrated,
whether it was a true Paschal feast or one which ante-dated and
anticipated it, is confessedly one of the most difficult questions in
Biblical chronology. If we had only the Synoptical Gospels no one
would doubt that the Last Supper was the real Jewish Passover; if we
had only John, few would question that it was previous to the
Passover. This question I have stated and discussed in the notes on
Matthew (note on Lord’s Supper, Vol. I, p. 286), and to the discussion
there refer the student. I have no doubt, on a careful comparison of
the four accounts, that the four Evangelists refer to the same supper,
and that it was taken at the time of and was for them the true
Passover Supper. In that case Christ’s act here receives new
significance from a comparison with the events recorded by Luke (ch.
22:24-30 and notes). The disciples sat down to the meal without
washing their feet, after a hot and dusty walk. There was no servant
to perform the menial act for them; and no one would volunteer to do
it for the rest. They quarreled as to which should have the
pre-eminence at the table. Christ said nothing, waited till the
quarrel was over and they had taken their seats, and then rose from
the table, and girding himself as a servant, performed the slave’s
office in washing their feet. This was his answer to their unseemly
strife for the post of honor at the table.
1 Now[517] before the feast of the passover, when Jesus
knew that his hour[518] was come that he should depart out
of this world unto the Father, having[519] loved his own
which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
[517] Matt. 26:2, etc.
[518] ch. 17:1, 11.
[519] Jer. 31:3; Ephes. 5:2; 1 John 4:19; Rev. 1:5.
=1. Now before the feast of the Passover.= That is, immediately
before; just as he was about to sit down with his disciples to the
Paschal feast.--=Jesus knew that his hour was come.= In the full
consciousness of his approaching agony and passion. At the time when
above all others he needed that friends should sustain him, he carried
them in his heart; their burdens were his own.--=Having loved his own
which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.= The end both in
time and in accomplishment; that is, he loved them till death broke in
on his life of love; he loved them till love had finished its purpose
in them by their redemption--loved them despite their quarrels and
contentions, that by love he might brood and perfect the new life in
them. Properly the word (τέλος, τελέω) signifies not merely _end_ but
also _completion_. So in 1 Thess. 2:16: “Wrath is come upon _them to
the uttermost_” (εἰς τέλος), _i. e._, till it has accomplished its
purpose; and 1 Tim. 1:5, “The end of the commandment is love,” _i.
e._, love is the purpose which the commandment is designed to
accomplish. The phrase _his own which were in the world_, does not
imply a limitation of love, as though his love were for a limited
number; but it is only in his own that his love accomplishes its
designs. The language does imply that he has others who are his own
who are not in this world; either the O. T. saints who had died in
hope of him, or inhabitants of some other world who belong to him by
the purchase of his love, who are his own because redeemed by his
blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9).
2 And supper being ended, the[520] devil having now put
into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s _son_, to betray
him;
[520] ch. 6:70; Luke 22:3, 53.
3 Jesus knowing[521] that the Father had given all things
into his hands, and that[522] he was come from God, and
went to God;
[521] Matt. 28:18; Heb. 2:8.
[522] ch. 17:11.
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and
took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to
wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe _them_ with the towel
wherewith he was girded.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him,
Lord, dost[523] thou wash my feet?
[523] Matt. 3:14.
=2-6. And supper being in progress.= Not _being ended_; for (ver. 12)
he sat down to supper again; nor does the original require the
translation given to it in our English version (see _Godet_, _Alford_,
_Meyer_). Christ waited till all contention was over, all had taken
their seats and were ready to begin the meal, before he rose to wash
their feet.--=The devil having already dropped into the heart of Judas
Iscariot to betray him.= The devil was the sower, but the soil was
ready to receive the seed. A past suggestion is indicated. The time
when and the way in which this suggestion was made is reported by
Matthew. It was at the time when Christ rebuked Judas for complaining
of the anointing of her Lord by Mary at Bethany (comp. John 12:4-7
with Matt. 26:14).--=Jesus knowing that the Father had given all
things into his hands.= See Col. 1:16. He acted in the full
consciousness of his divine power and majesty. Humility consists not
in a low estimate of one’s powers, but in a willingness to use them in
a lowly service.--=That he was come from God and went to God.= This
divine sense shone out in him, so that it was seen and felt by the
apostles, perhaps most of all by John, who was the most susceptible to
such spiritual impressions. For illustration of other times in which
the divinity of our Lord thus shone out upon men, see Matt. 21:12;
Mark 9:15; 10:32; Luke 4:20, 30; John 7:44-46; 18:6.--=He laid aside
his garments= (ἱμάτια). His outer mantle or cloak (see note on Matt.
24:18). Then the inner tunic was girded about the loins with a towel,
used partly in lieu of a girdle, partly to wipe the feet. Thus Christ
put on the ordinary habit of a servant for a servant’s work. In this
feet-washing the feet were not put into the basin; the water was
poured over the feet and then they were wiped by the servant. The
accompanying cut, from an original sketch by Mr. A. L. Rawson, shows
the manner of feet-washing, dress of servant, etc., as observed to-day
in the East.--=And began to wash the disciples’ feet.= Some of the
commentators suppose that he came first to Simon Peter (_Alford_); but
I see no ground in the narrative for this supposition, which indeed
seems to me to be negatived by the natural reading of the original.
The objection of Peter was an unexpected episode and interruption. So
_Meyer_, _Chrysostom_, and others. Feet-washing did not rise to the
dignity of a ritualistic observance, except in connection with the
service of the sanctuary (Exod. 30:19-21). It held a high place,
however, among the rites of hospitality. “Immediately after a guest
presented himself at the tent door, it was usual to offer the
necessary materials for washing the feet (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;
43:24; Judges 19:21). It was a yet more complimentary act betokening
equally humility and affection, if the host actually performed the
office for his guest (1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38-49; John 13:5-14; 1 Tim.
5:10). Such a token of hospitality is occasionally exhibited in the
East either by the host or by his deputy. The feet were again
washed (Sol. Song 5:3) before retiring to bed.”--(_Smith’s Bible
Dictionary._)--=Dost thou wash my feet?= There is an emphasis on the
word _thou_. Dost thou, my Lord and Master, act as my menial? “‘With
those hands,’ he saith, ‘with which thou hast opened eyes, and
cleansed lepers, and raised the dead!’”--(_Chrysostom._)
[Illustration: WASHING OF FEET.]
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest
not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet,
Jesus answered him, If[524] I wash thee not, thou hast no
part with me.
[524] 1 Cor. 6:11; Ephes. 5:26; Titus 3:5.
=7, 8. Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.= The
meaning is not merely that he would explain to them the significance
of his act, nor that they would understand it and him in the future
kingdom, though both may be indicated. But spiritual truth is only
spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14, 15), and the most significant acts
and teachings of Christ can be comprehended only as the character is
conformed to his character (2 Pet. 1:5-8). The meaning for Peter was
that he must submit to Christ’s authority and wait till time and
spiritual development enabled him to understand it; the meaning for us
is that if Christ is our Master, we must accept in his word, his life
and his providence much that is now incomprehensible, and wait for the
future to make it plain. But if this implies a limit to our present
knowledge, it also promises revelation hereafter. “Thou shalt know”
assures that all will be made plain by-and-by.--=Thou shalt never wash
my feet.= Literally, _Thou shall not wash my feet to eternity_. Pride
in Peter could not comprehend humility in Christ. He thought the act,
which was a manifestation of the true glory of the Lord, dishonored
him. The same spirit in our day accounts the declaration of the
incarnation and of the atonement dishonorable to God; it sees no glory
in the humiliation of love.--=If I wash thee not, thou hast no part
with me.= The phrase _to have part with another_ signifies to share in
his riches and glory (Josh. 22:25; 2 Sam. 20:1). Here it includes the
idea of a partnership in the divine nature of Christ (2 Pet. 1:4) as
well as in the glory of Christ which he has with the Father (John
17:22-26; Rev. 20:6). Washing was, it must be remembered, a symbolical
act, recognized so among the Jews, and signifying purification from
uncleanness. Christ’s act in rising from the table and washing the
feet of the disciples was the severest rebuke to their pride. See
Prel. Note. Peter’s refusal to be washed was a resistance to this
rebuke. That Christ’s language was understood by Peter to signify a
spiritual cleansing is indicated by his reply.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but
also _my_ hands and _my_ head.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save
to wash _his_ feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are
clean, but not all.
11 For[525] he knew who should betray him; therefore said
he, Ye are not all clean.
[525] chap. 6:64.
12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his
garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know
ye what I have done to you?
=9-12. Not my feet only, but also the hands and the head.= This is
generally regarded as the expression of an impulsive revulsion of
feeling in Peter. “We have here the same Peter who one minute rushes
into the water, and the next calls out ‘I perish’; who now smites with
the sword and now flees; who goes even into the high priest’s palace
and who denies his Lord.”--(_Godet._) I should rather regard it as the
language of argument and remonstrance still continued. “If,” he says
in effect, “this is the reason of your washing, why stop with the
feet? why not go on and wash the rest, the hands and the head?” _i.
e._, the face and neck. To this argument Christ replies--=He that is
bathed needeth not save to wash the feet, but is wholly clean.= In the
original there is a distinction between _bathing_ of the whole person
and _washing_ of the feet which our English translation ignores, but
which is important. The meaning is, As he that has been once bathed,
and so cleansed, needs only to wash what has become soiled in his
walk, so he who by the washing of regeneration has been once cleansed
of his sins (Titus 3:5), needs only to come to Christ hereafter for
partial cleansing, _i. e._, for forgiveness and redemption from those
sins which are in some sense the product of his daily walk and
life. He does not need to come again and again for the washing of
regeneration, but only for the cleansing of special faults. But even
he who has been bathed still needs to be constantly washed by Christ
(1 John 1:8, 9).--=Ye are not all clean.= Not all that seem to have
come to Christ and to have entered his service, are really cleansed by
him (Matt. 7:21-23).--=He knew who should betray him.= Among those
whose feet were washed was Judas. No love can touch or change the
heart resolutely set to do evil.--=Know ye what I have done to you?=
That is, do you comprehend the reason why it is done, and the meaning
of the action. The disciples are silent. In the following verses
Christ goes on to explain its significance.
13 Ye[526] call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for
_so_ I am.
[526] Matt. 23:8-10; Phil. 2:11.
14 If I then, _your_ Lord and Master, have washed your
feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15 For[527] I have given you an example, that ye should do
as I have done to you.
[527] 1 Pet. 2:21.
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not
greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than
he that sent him.
17 If[528] ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
[528] James 1:25.
=13-17. Ye call me the Master= (literally _Teacher_) =and the Lord=.
Observe the definite article, not merely a teacher, or your teacher,
but _the_ teacher and _the_ Lord. For instances in which they had done
so, see ver. 6, 9, 25, 36, 37; ch. 14:5, 8, 22. Stress is perhaps not
to be laid on the fact that the phrase _the Lord_ (ὁ κύριος) is used
in the Septuagint (Greek O. T.) for Jehovah; but it certainly is here
more than a mere title of respectful address; and the declaration of
Christ here, coupled with the declaration of Matthew 23:8, One is your
Master (Teacher), and all ye are brethren, distinguishes him clearly
from his disciples, as not merely the chosen leader among them, but
having a divine authority over them.--=Ye say well; for I am.= The
humble office of feet-washing had been done by one who was not only
fully conscious of his supremacy, but who in the very act claimed that
supremacy. This divine authority Christ never abdicated; his divine
consciousness he never lost.--=If I then, the Lord and the Master.=
_The_ Lord, not merely _your_ Lord. He might have been their Lord and
teacher by their selection; he was _the_ Lord and teacher by divine
appointment, and by virtue of his own character.--=Ye also ought to
wash one another’s feet.= If we are to interpret literally the
commands of Christ, the command of feet-washing as a perpetual
observance is even more explicit than that for the observance of
the Lord’s Supper. That is in form a simple request: “Do this in
remembrance of me;” this is a request thrice repeated: “Ye ought also
to wash one another’s feet;” “I have given you an example that ye
should do as I have done to you;” “If ye know these things, happy are
ye if ye do them.” Nevertheless feet-washing has never been generally
practised by the Christian church. There is no indication of its
introduction into the apostolic church. The only reference to it in
the N. T. is 1 Tim. 5:10, and the probability is that the reference
there is to a rite of hospitality, not to a religious or symbolical
service. We first meet with feet-washing in ecclesiastical history in
the fourth century. It was practised in connection with baptism, on
the catechumens in some parts of the early church, especially in Gaul,
possibly in Africa and Spain. It is practised in some of the Greek
convents of to-day; by the R. C. church once a year on Maunday-Thursday,
when the Pope washes the feet of twelve pilgrims in Rome; and by the
Brethren (popularly known as Dunkards), a sect of German Baptists
chiefly found in Pennsylvania; the Mennonites, a sect of Dutch
Anabaptists, chiefly confined also to the eastern district of
Pennsylvania in this country; and possibly by some other minor sects.
With these exceptions, it has never been attempted to maintain
feet-washing as a religious observance in the Christian church. This
apparent disregard of Christ’s seemingly explicit command can be
defended only on the general ground that no ceremonial is of the
essence of Christianity; that the thing symbolized, not the symbol,
here the spirit of self-sacrifice and serving love, not the form by
which it is typified, is the essential thing; that as eating the bread
and drinking the wine, not discerning the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29),
is not a true observance of the Lord’s Supper, so, on the other hand,
the spirit that is willing to serve others to their cleansing, in
humbleness of love, is a true observance of the rite of feet-washing,
though the rite itself is disused. “It is not the act itself, but its
moral essence which, after his example, he enjoins upon them to
exercise. This moral essence, however, consists not in lowly and
ministering love generally, in which Jesus by washing the feet of
his disciples desired to give them an example, but, as ver. 10
proves, in that ministering love which, in all self-denial and
humility, is active for the moral purification and cleansing of
others.”--(_Meyer._)--=I have given you an example.= It is the inward
spirit of Christ, not the mere outward act, that is an example for us
to follow; the cleansing love, not the girded garment and the washing
of feet, that is our pattern. For the spiritual signification of this
declaration, see ch. 17:18; 1 John 3:16.--=The servant is not
greater=, etc. The repetition of this seemingly self-evident truth
indicates that Christ apprehended for his followers that spiritual
pride which has been in the history of the church almost their
greatest danger. See ch. 15:20; Matt. 10:24; Luke 6:40.--=If ye know
these things.= This language itself should have sufficed to guard
against the literalism which would maintain feet-washing as a
perpetual ceremonial. Know what things? That he had washed their feet?
Of course they knew that. The meaning clearly is, If ye understand the
meaning of my act, happy are ye if ye exemplify the same spirit in
your lives. _Per contra_, he that does not know, that does not
comprehend the spirit, is not blessed in going through the mere form,
and this is equally true respecting all ceremonials. He only is
blessed in them who comprehends their spiritual significance.
18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but
that the[529] scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth
bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.
[529] Ps. 41:9.
19 Now I tell[530] you before it come, that, when it is
come to pass, ye may believe that I am _he_.
[530] ch. 14:29; 16:4.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you,[531] He that receiveth
whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me.
[531] Matt. 10:40.
=18-20. I speak not of you all.= The highest service of Christ is
serviceable only to those who will receive it. The fact that Christ
washed the feet of Judas, and broke bread with him, added to the
blackness of his treachery and the enormity of his guilt. The church,
the Bible, the Sabbath, the Lord’s Supper will rise up in judgment
against those who have participated in them but have not imbibed the
spirit of Christ from them.--=I know whom I have chosen.= Couple this
with the declaration of ch. 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have
chosen you.” The meaning is that Christ comprehended the character of
those whom he had selected for his work; he was not deceived; and he
is not now deceived by false professions, however they may deceive the
church, the world, and even the false professor himself. Why Christ
should have chosen Judas is one of the unsolved enigmas of N. T.
history. We can see (1) that there was in every apostle the same
conflict between the spiritual and the earthly nature which there was
in Judas Iscariot, though the final issue was so different. (2) We
cannot say that there was not a possibility that it might have been
different in the case of Judas Iscariot. In other words, we cannot say
what are the limits to the freedom of the will, what the possibility
of good for the evil soul, what the possibility of evil for him who is
preserved from it by accepting the grace of God and so becoming his
child. (3) The case of Judas Iscariot has been full of warning to the
church in all ages; thus the development of his character in the
apostolate has been made a means of service to mankind. His spirit was
that of the Pharisee; his position simply gave that spirit an
opportunity to exhibit itself.--=But that the Scripture might be
fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel
against me, now I tell you before it come.= Observe the difference in
the punctuation, from that of the English version. The meaning is not,
_I have chosen Judas that the Scripture might be fulfilled_, for (1)
this interpretation, though that of Alford and Meyer, requires us to
supply or imagine a most important hiatus in the text. Christ says
nothing about his choice of Judas; he lays emphasis on the fact that
all the twelve were chosen by him, and therefore all were known to
him. Nor is the meaning, _I speak not of you all, in order that the
Scripture may be fulfilled_, which would make Christ withhold a
blessing for the purpose of fulfilling a prophecy, an incredible
interpretation. But _that the Scripture_ (which he parenthetically
quotes) _may be fulfilled_, _i. e._, that the disciples may recognize
its fulfillment in the events soon to take place, _I now tell you
before it is come to pass_. Thus the particle _but_ (ἀλλά) connects
this sentence not with the declaration which precedes, but with that
which follows. The Scripture is Psalm 41:9. The Psalm is clearly not,
in strictness of speech, a prophetic Psalm, uttered as by the Messiah,
for ver. 4 contains a confession of sin and a prayer for redemption.
“I said, Lord be merciful unto me and heal my soul; for I have sinned
against thee.” In that Psalm, ver. 9, “Yea mine own familiar friend in
whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel
against me,” primarily refers to some treachery displayed towards the
Psalmist, perhaps that of Ahithophel to David (2 Sam. 15:31; 16:23).
But events as well as words are prophetic; and the treachery of
Ahithophel towards David was itself a prophecy of the treachery of
Judas towards David’s greater Son. To eat bread with another is, in
the East, the highest possible confirmation of a sacred covenant with
him. To lift up the heel is a figure taken from the kick of a horse,
who turns suddenly upon one who has been feeding him. This seems to me
a better interpretation than that of Canon Cook, who sees in it a
figure taken from the act of a conqueror putting his heel on the neck
of a prostrate foe.--=That when it is come to pass ye may believe that
I am.= The office of prophecy is here intimated. It is not designed to
give us in the present a definite knowledge of future events. The most
spiritually minded among the Jews did not comprehend the O. T.
prophecy of Christ, and did not understand the nature of his advent.
It is rather so to depict the future as (1) to awaken hope or serve as
a warning; and (2) to serve as an evidence of the inspiration of the
writer of the book after the fulfillment of the prophecy has
demonstrated the prescience of the author. On the phrase _I am_, see
ch. 8:58, note.--=He that receiveth you=, etc. See Matt. 10:40, note,
where the same declaration is made in a different connection. Here
Christ, in order to encourage the disciples, reiterates a principle
with which they were already familiar. Although, he says, you are to
serve in humble ways, as I have served you, and although you will meet
with many a discouraging rebuff from without and with treachery from
among your own number, yet you are not to forget that you are sent
into the world as your Master was sent into the world, so that to
receive you will be to receive me.
21 When[532] Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit,
and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
that one of you shall betray me.
[532] Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of
whom he spake.
=21, 22.= An account of this prophecy of the betrayal is given by all
the Evangelists (Matt. 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23). See
notes on Matthew. There is some difficulty in determining the exact
nature and order of the events, though not more than we might expect
in a comparison of four independent accounts of circumstances involved
in so great confusion. The fullest account is that of John. He alone
mentions Judas’ departure from the room. Matthew declares that Christ
replied directly in the affirmative to Judas’ question, Is it I? John,
on the other hand, asserts that no one in the room knew why Judas went
out (comp. Matt. 26:25 with vers. 28, 29 here). The differences are
not irreconcilable. Comparing the four accounts, it would appear that
Christ’s declaration, “One of you shall betray me,” produced the
utmost consternation and excitement; that all the disciples eagerly
asked, “Is it I?” “Is it I?” that Peter asked John to tell him who it
was, assuming that John knew, or could ascertain (see ver. 24); that
at the same time Judas, thunderstruck at the disclosure of his
treachery, which had been already planned (Matt. 26:14-16), asked,
perhaps somewhat tardily, the question, “Is it I?” to hide his
confusion; that Jesus replied in an aside to him, “Thou hast said”
(Matt. 26:25), a reply that in the confusion either was not heard or
was not heeded; that John, turning toward Jesus so as to rest upon his
bosom (ver. 25), asked who the betrayer should be; that Jesus seemed
to give the information, but really refused to do so, in his reply,
“He it is to whom I shall give a sop” (ver. 26), since he gave a sop
in turn to all; so that when a moment or two later Judas went out
angered by what he erroneously believed to be a public disclosure of
his treachery before all the disciples, no one, not even John, knew
why he had gone. The question whether Judas was at the Lord’s Supper
has been greatly discussed. The question seems to me of no practical
importance; and it is one impossible to answer with positiveness, for
John, who alone mentions his going out, gives no account of the
institution of the Lord’s Supper. I believe, however, on a comparison
of the four accounts, that he was not at the Last Supper, but went
out immediately before its institution. According to Matthew, the
prophecy of the betrayal preceded the institution of the Supper;
according to John, Judas went out _immediately_ after receiving the
sop (comp. Matt. 26:25, 26 with ver. 30 here). And the explanation of
Christ’s course, as described by John, appears to me to be his desire
to have, in this last sacred conference, only those who were really
his friends, and measurably in spiritual sympathy with him. This I
believe to be the explanation of the direction to Judas in ver. 27.
For an elaborate discussion of this question, see Andrews’ _Life of
our Lord_; for a fuller harmonic account of the events, Lyman Abbott’s
_Jesus of Nazareth_.--=He was troubled in spirit.= Compare ch. 11:33;
12:27. Our own experience helps to interpret this, which Alford calls
a “mysterious troubling of spirit.” The presence of an uncongenial
soul often suffices to destroy the sympathy of a sacred circle; the
presence of a known traitor might well have prevented Christ from an
outpouring of his soul in confidential converse which renders the
14th, 15th, 16th and 17th chapters of John the most sacred in the
Bible to the disciples of Christ.--=One of you shall betray me.=
Christ had before foretold his betrayal, Matt. 17:22; 20:18;
26:2, etc., but now for the first time he declares that he
should be betrayed by one of the twelve. No wonder that they were
startled.--=The disciples looked one on another doubting of whom he
spake.= And asking one another (Luke 22:23) and eagerly asking Christ
(Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19). Not one of them ventures to question the
truth of the Lord’s prophecy, and each asks the personal question, “Is
it I?” No one accuses, even by implication, his neighbor. Is not this
a pattern for us in that self-examination which should always precede
our seasons of sacred communion with our Lord (1 Cor. 11:28)? an
examination which should look forward rather than backward; prepare
for the future rather than attempt to measure the past; and always be
a _self_ examination.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one[533] of his
disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[533] ch. 20:2; 21:7, 20.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should
ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who
is it?
=23-25. There was leaning on Jesus’ bosom.= The party were reclining
at the table according to the Greek and Roman fashion. For
illustration, which better than any description shows the manner, see
Matt. 26:20, note. John was lying next to Jesus.--=Whom Jesus loved.=
“Here, out of the recollection of that sacred and by him
never-to-be-forgotten moment, there first breaks from his lips this
nameless, and yet so expressive designation of himself.”--(_Meyer._)
The phrase “whom Jesus loved” occurs seven times in John’s Gospel;
twice as a designation of Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:3, 5);
five times as the designation of one of the disciples (John 13:23;
19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). It has been almost universally regarded as
a designation of John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, who is
accordingly known in the church as the “beloved disciple,” though this
designation is not found in the Gospels themselves. The main reasons
for this opinion are two. (1) John is not once named in the Fourth
Gospel, while an unnamed disciple is frequently referred to (John
1:35, 40; 18:15; 19:27; 21:3, 4, 8; 21:23; and see refs. above). It is
not easy to conceive of any reason why the author should leave unnamed
any other disciple, but it is not at all strange that he should use a
circumlocution to designate himself. (2) His character, so far as we
know it, corresponds with his designation as the “beloved disciple.”
See Introduction. It has been, indeed, objected that there is a
certain appearance of egotism in his singling himself out as the
disciple whom Jesus loved, a designation never given to him by either
of the other Evangelists. The reply to this is, or at least may be,
that the designation was employed by John, not because he desired in
any sense to claim or imply a supremacy above the other disciples, but
because the wonder of his life was that Jesus should love such an one
as he, and by love should transform him. All facts in his life sink
into insignificance in his thought by the side of this fact, that he
was beloved of Jesus, chosen to be the witness of his transfiguration,
his nearest companion at the Last Supper, the sympathizing sharer in
his agony at Gethsemane, and the guardian of his mother after the
death of her son (Matt. 17:1; 26:37; John 13:23; 19:26, 27).--=Simon
Peter therefore beckoned to him and said, Tell us who it is.= This is
the true reading, adopted by all critics, Alford, Meyer, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, etc. The expression has been altered to that of the
Received Text in order to adapt Peter’s question to John’s account as
described in the next verse. The Sinaitic manuscript has the Received
Text, “That he should ask who it should be,” as an explanatory gloss
or comment alongside the original expression, “Tell who it is.” Peter
seems to have assumed that John would know. Possibly in the general
tumult the latter preserved his composure, and conscious of his own
supreme love for his Lord, did not join in the general exclamation,
“Is it I?”--=He then throwing himself back on Jesus’ breast.= (See
Robinson’s _Lexicon_, ἐπιπίπτω.) The language of the English version
is inadequate and incorrect, since it merely repeats the phrase used
in verse 23, as though to identify the person; whereas the original
implies an action on John’s part, by which he turned and rested more
closely than before on Christ’s bosom. He had before been reclining
next to Jesus in the manner indicated in the illustration on page 282
of Vol. I of this Commentary. He now raises himself, and turns so as
to rest upon Jesus’ breast and whisper in his ear. The graphic details
of this entire narrative are unmistakably those of an eye-witness.
[Illustration: DIPPING THE SOP.]
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.
=26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop.= This reply, and Christ’s
accompanying action, is generally regarded as a designation, at least
to John, of the traitor. I think this is a mistake. It is no uncommon
act in an Eastern meal for the host, as a special act of
consideration, to dip a piece of bread or meat in the sauce or gravy
and pass it to a special guest, or even put it into his mouth. In the
Passover feast, the head of the house habitually took from the
passover cake a piece, dipped it in the sauce of bitter herbs (Exod.
12:8), and passed it in turn to the persons at the table. Christ’s
answer to John, therefore, was simply a more solemn reiteration of the
declaration of ver. 18, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up
the heel against me.” He dipped the piece of bread in the sauce, and
passed it to the disciples in turn. In doing so he gave it first to
Judas. John may have understood the significance of the act; but it is
plain from ver. 28 that none of the others at the table did so. I
should rather regard the act as a new endeavor on the part of Christ
by love to turn Judas from his evil purpose. He has answered without
designating him. He now endeavors to draw him to himself by singling
him out for a manifestation of special love. In the same spirit are
the last words he addressed to the apostate--words not of angry
rebuke, but of pathetic remonstrance: “Friend, wherefore art thou
come? Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Matt. 26:50; Luke
22:48.)
27 And after the sop Satan[534] entered into him. Then said
Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[534] Luke 22:3.
28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake
this unto him.
29 For some _of them_ thought,[535] because Judas had the
bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy _those things_ that
we have need of against the feast: or, that he should give
something to the poor.
[535] chap. 12:6.
30 He then, having received the sop, went immediately out:
and it was night.
=27-30. Satan entered into him.= It is a mistaken literalism which
interprets this phrase as indicating that Judas was from this time
demoniacally possessed. Nor, on the other hand, is it to be regarded
as a merely figurative expression, indicating that Judas gave himself
up wholly and unreservedly to evil. The N. T. teaching assumes the
existence of evil spirits and their influence over human beings (Matt.
13:19, 38; Luke 4:6; 22:31; John 14:30; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 2 Cor. 2:11;
Ephes. 2:2; 4:27; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 3:8; 5:18), and
the language here is in accordance with its spiritual philosophy. It
simply indicates that Judas’ determined resistance to the warning
words and the winning love of Christ gave to the Evil One a new
advantage and influence over him. The solemn lesson for us is that, as
every faithful performance of known duty opens our heart to the
incoming of God (ch. 14:23), so every determined resistance of sacred
influences and every persistence in sin, opens our nature to the
incoming of unknown but tremendous Satanic influences. It has before
been said of Judas that Satan entered into him (Luke 22:3). There is
growth in the kingdom of darkness as in that of light. As God enters
by successive manifestations of himself into his saints, so Satan into
those that give themselves up to him.--=That thou doest, do quickly.=
Literally, _more quickly_ (τάχιον); _i. e._, hasten it. This is not to
be regarded as merely permission, as Adam Clarke: “What thou art
determined to do, and I to permit, do directly; delay not; I am
ready;” nor yet as mandatory, and involving the utterance of a divine
decree, as Alford: “The course of sinful action is presupposed, and
the command to go on is but the echo of that mysterious appointment by
which the sinner in the exercise of his own corrupted will becomes the
instrument of the purposes of God;” but as the expression of Christ’s
desire to be rid of the oppressive proximity of the traitor, as
Ambrose and Tholuck. He sees that the purpose of Judas is fully fixed;
he will not have him remain there, contaminating the very atmosphere,
and increasing his own guilt by his dissembling. We are apt to judge
men by the external act; no wonder then that Christ has been accused
of pushing Judas over the precipice. But he who judged by the heart,
and accounted him already a murderer who has murder in his heart
(Matt. 5:22), would not have the resolute apostate increase the guilt
of betrayal by that of hypocrisy. Moreover, Christ wishes the few
minutes that remain for sacred converse with his faithful friends; and
that he cannot have in the presence of the hypocrite and traitor. So
he bids him begone. “Play the hypocrite here no longer,” he says to
him; “but since you are determined on treason, go on and consummate
it.”--=Now no one at the table knew why he thus spake to him.= Perhaps
the writer himself, that is John, is to be excepted from this general
statement. This is the opinion of most of the commentators. Yet it is
not at all impossible that not even John comprehended the significance
of Christ’s act in handing the sop to Judas first of the
disciples.--=Because Judas had the bag.= Being treasurer of the little
band. See ch. 12:6, note.--=Buy those things we have need of against
the feast.= From this phrase it is argued by Alford and Meyer that the
supper at which our Lord was sitting with his disciples could not have
been the Passover Supper. “Had it been the night of the Passover, the
next day being hallowed as a Sabbath, nothing could have been
bought.”--(_Alford._) But Tholuck has shown that according to
Rabbinical rules a purchase could be made on the Sabbath by leaving a
pledge and afterwards settling the account. The feast lasted for the
week; therefore the disciples may well have supposed that a purchase
for a later period of the feast was contemplated. And the fact that
Christ hastened Judas would have been better understood if the
following day was the Sabbath, when the shops would be shut.--=Or that
he should give something to the poor.= Evidently this little band
carried out the precepts of Christian love which their Master
inculcated. Small as was their store, it is clear that out of it they
were accustomed to bestow alms on the more needy.--=Went out
immediately.= There was then, clearly, no opportunity for the
institution of the Lord’s Supper during his presence, unless it was
instituted either before the feet-washing, which the order of the
narrative and its probable connection with the contest about places
described in Luke, makes exceedingly improbable, or between verses 20
and 21, which seems from the connection to be also very improbable. I
believe it is to be regarded as occurring between the departure of
Judas and the beginning of Christ’s discourse in ch. 14. Matthew and
Mark both put it immediately after the prophecy of the betrayal; Luke
before.--=And it was night.= A graphic addition to the picture;
significant of the fact that the narration is that of an eye-witness
in whose memory every detail was indelibly impressed; and suggestive
of the darkness of the deed about to be consummated, and of the
traitor’s heart. It is always night when a deed of determined sin is
entered upon. “The night which this miserable wretch has in his heart
is, without comparison, blacker and darker than that which he chooses
for his work of darkness.”--(_Quesnel._)
31 Therefore when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now[536] is
the Son of man glorified, and God[537] is glorified in him.
[536] ch. 12:23; 17:1-6.
[537] ch. 14:13; 1 Pet. 4:11.
32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him
in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
=31, 32. When he was gone out Jesus said.= The departure of Judas is a
relief. Now for the first time Christ can speak freely, unoppressed by
the presence of a traitor and a hypocrite.--=Now has the Son of man
been glorified, and God has been glorified in him= (ὲδοξάσθη, aorist).
=If God has been glorified in him, God also shall glorify him in
himself, and shall straightway glorify him.= The significance of this
utterance has been, it seems to me, misapprehended by the
commentators, from a failure to consider the mental attitude and
expectation of the disciples. The phrase _Son of man_ was a common
Jewish designation of the Messiah, borrowed from Daniel, and would
have been so understood by the disciples (Matt. 10:23, note). They had
come up to Jerusalem anticipating the coronation of the Messiah as
King of the Jews. They had entered Jerusalem in triumph, hailing him
as such (Matt. 21:1-11). Two of the disciples on the way had come to
him privately for the best offices (Matt. 20:20, 21). The twelve even
had quarreled for pre-eminence as they were sitting down at the table
(Luke 22:24). The immediate object of Christ in the discourse which
follows is to prepare them for the terrible revulsion of feeling, the
shock of disappointment and despair which the morrow had in store for
them. He begins, therefore, with the declaration that the glory of the
Messiah is an already accomplished fact. He has been glorified; by his
incarnation, his life of loving self-sacrifice, his patience, courage,
fidelity, love; and in his life and character, God has been glorified.
The disciples have beheld already the glory of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace and truth (ch. 1:14). Then he adds a
prophecy of further glory; not that of the death; not that of the
resurrection; not that of the ascension; but that of being again one
with the Father.--The Father shall glorify him, _in himself_. He
foresees and foretells the answer to be given to the prayer “Glorify
thou me, _with thine own self_, with the glory which I had with thee
before the world was” (ch. 17:5). And for this there is to be no
waiting; no delay for an earthly coronation. There must be a long
interval of redeeming work before he can see of the travail of his
soul and be satisfied; before every knee will bow and every tongue
confess him Lord; before he can reign King of kings and Lord of lords;
but for this the Father will not wait. Immediately that his work of
suffering and self-sacrifice is over, he will return to the bosom of
the Father, to share with him the glory which he had from the
foundation of the world.
33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye
shall seek me: and[538] as I said unto the Jews, Whither I
go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
[538] chaps. 7:34; 8:21.
34 A new[539] commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
[539] ch. 15:12, 17; Lev. 19:18; Ephes. 5:2; 1 Thess.
4:9; Jas. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 2:7, 8; 3:11,
23; 4:20, 21.
35 By this shall all _men_ know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
=33-35. Little children.= The only place where this phrase is used by
Christ in addressing his disciples. But we find it more frequently in
the Epistles of Paul (1 Cor. 4:14, 17; 2 Cor. 6:13; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim.
2:1). It “affectingly expresses his, not only brotherly, but fatherly
love (Isa. 9:6) for his own, and at the same time their immature and
weak state, now about to be left without him.”--(_Alford._)--=And as I
said to the Jews= (ch. 8:21), =Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I
say to you.= But though they could not go to him, he would come to
them, and abide with them (ch. 14:18, 23). The longing to depart and
be with Christ is to be gratified only by our having Christ with us,
until the time of final departure comes. It is one thing to desire him
here, willing to fill up the measure of his suffering in our own life,
if he is in us and with us (2 Cor. 12:10); it is another and very
different thing to desire to depart and be with him that we may
escape the suffering. The first is a Christian longing; not so the
second.--=A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.= The commandment
to love is not new (Lev. 19:18). But Christ’s life gives to it a new
interpretation and makes it new. Love has, ever since the life and
death of Christ, taken on a new signification. To forgive is now to
bless those that curse us, and do good to those that despitefully use
us. The language here is parallel to and interpreted by ch. 17:18, “As
thou (Father) hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent
them into the world.” It is the interpretation of the direction,
“Follow me.” We are to be followers of his spirit, especially of his
love. This general definition includes other special definitions that
have been given, _e. g._, it is new because with it there comes a new
motive power, the love of Christ experienced in the heart, which
becomes in turn the fountain of love to all others (_Meyer_); a
renewed commandment, rejuvenated, cleansed of the overlay of
ceremonialism which Pharisaism had put upon it (_Calvin_); new to the
disciples, unexpected by them, who were looking for a new disclosure
of divine glory in a very different direction (_Semler_ quoted
in _Meyer_); new because love is ever new, never can grow old
(_Olshausen_); new because the law of the new covenant, the
firstfruits of the Spirit in the new dispensation (Gal. 5:22). It is
notable how this one law of love runs through and colors all this last
sacred discourse of Jesus. Comp. ch. 14:15, 24; 15:9, 10, 17. The last
words of Jesus are words full of the comfort and inspiration and
exaltation of love.--=By this shall all men know that ye are my
disciples.= Not by professions, or creeds, or ceremonials, or
religious services, but by love one towards another. Love is the
Christian water-mark, the Christian uniform. The banner over Christ’s
church is love (Sol. Song 2:4).
36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou?
Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me
now; but[540] thou shalt follow me afterwards.
[540] ch. 21:18; 2 Pet. 1:14.
37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now?
I will[541] lay down my life for thy sake.
[541] Matt. 26:33, etc.; Mark 14:29, etc.; Luke 22:33,
etc.
38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my
sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not
crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
=36-38. Prophecy of Peter’s denial.= This is probably identical with
the prophecy of Luke 22:31-38, see notes there; but distinct from that
of Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31. =Thou canst not follow me now.=
Because it was not the divine will that the apostles should share in
their Master’s death.--=But thou shalt follow me afterwards.= Peter,
according to tradition, was crucified; thus he followed Christ in
death, and through death into glory. Comp. John 21:18.--=The cock
shall not crow.= The second crowing at dawn is intended. See Matt.
26:34, note.