John 13:1-20
1. when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father—On these beautiful euphemisms, see on Lu 9:31; Lu 9:51.
having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end—The meaning is, that on the very edge of His last sufferings, when it might have been supposed that He would be absorbed in His own awful prospects, He was so far from forgetting "His own," who were to be left struggling "in the world" after He had "departed out of it to the Father" (Joh 17:11), that in His care for them He seemed scarce to think of Himself save in connection with them: "Herein is love," not only "enduring to the end," but most affectingly manifested when, judging by a human standard, least to be expected.2. supper being ended—rather, "being prepared," "being served," or, "going on"; for that it was not "ended" is plain from Joh 13:26.
the devil having now—or, "already." put into the heart of Judas . . . to betray him—referring to the agreement he had already made with the chief priests (Lu 22:3-6).3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, &c.—This verse is very sublime, and as a preface to what follows, were we not familiar with it, would fill us with inexpressible surprise. An unclouded perception of His relation to the Father, the commission He held from Him, and His approaching return to Him, possessed His soul.
4, 5. He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments—outer garments which would have impeded the operation of washing.
and took a towel and girded himself—assuming a servant's dress.5. began to wash—proceeded to wash. Beyond all doubt the feet of Judas were washed, as of all the rest.
6-11. Peter saith . . . Lord, dost thou wash my feet?—Our language cannot bring out the intensely vivid contrast between the "Thou" and the "my," which, by bringing them together, the original expresses, for it is not good English to say, "Lord, Thou my feet dost wash?" But every word of this question is emphatic. Thus far, and in the question itself, there was nothing but the most profound and beautiful astonishment at a condescension to him quite incomprehensible. Accordingly, though there can be no doubt that already Peter's heart rebelled against it as a thing not to be tolerated, Jesus ministers no rebuke as yet, but only bids him wait a little, and he should understand it all.
7. Jesus answered and said . . . What I do thou knowest not now—that is, Such condescension does need explanation; it is fitted to astonish.
but thou shall know hereafter—afterwards, meaning presently; though viewed as a general maxim, applicable to all dark sayings in God's Word, and dark doings in God's providence, these words are full of consolation.8. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash, &c.—more emphatically, "Never shalt Thou wash my feet": that is, "That is an incongruity to which I can never submit." How like the man!
If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me—What Peter could not submit to was, that the Master should serve His servant. But the whole saving work of Christ was one continued series of such services, ending with and consummated by the most self-sacrificing and transcendent of all services: THE SON OF MAN CAME not to be ministered unto, but TO MINISTER, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. (See on Mr 10:45). If Peter then could not submit to let his Master go down so low as to wash his feet, how should he suffer himself to be served by Him at all? This is couched under the one pregnant word "wash," which though applicable to the lower operation which Peter resisted, is the familiar scriptural symbol of that higher cleansing, which Peter little thought he was at the same time virtually putting from him. It is not humility to refuse what the Lord deigns to do for us, or to deny what He has done, but it is self-willed presumption—not rare, however, in those inner circles of lofty religious profession and traditional spirituality, which are found wherever Christian truth has enjoyed long and undisturbed possession. The truest humility is to receive reverentially, and thankfully to own, the gifts of grace.9. Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head—that is, "To be severed from Thee, Lord, is death to me: If that be the meaning of my speech, I tread upon it; and if to be washed of Thee have such significance, then not my feet only, but hands, head, and all, be washed!" This artless expression of clinging, life-and-death attachment to Jesus, and felt dependence upon Him for his whole spiritual well-being, compared with the similar saying in Joh 6:68, 69 (see on Joh 6:68,69), furnishes such evidence of historic verity such as no thoroughly honest mind can resist.
10. He that is washed—in this thorough sense, to express which the word is carefully changed to one meaning to wash as in a bath.
needeth not—to be so washed any more. save to wash his feet—needeth to do no more than wash his feet (and here the former word is resumed, meaning to wash the hands or feet). but is clean every whit—as a whole. This sentence is singularly instructive. Of the two cleansings, the one points to that which takes place at the commencement of the Christian life, embracing complete absolution from sin as a guilty state, and entire deliverance from it as a polluted life (Re 1:5; 1Co 6:11) —or, in the language of theology, Justification and Regeneration. This cleansing is effected once for all, and is never repeated. The other cleansing, described as that of "the feet," is such as one walking from a bath quite cleansed still needs, in consequence of his contact with the earth. (Compare Ex 30:18, 19). It is the daily cleansing which we are taught to seek, when in the spirit of adoption we say, "Our Father which art in heaven . . . forgive us our debts" (Mt 6:9, 12); and, when burdened with the sense of manifold shortcomings—as what tender spirit of a Christian is not?—is it not a relief to be permitted thus to wash our feet after a day's contact with the earth? This is not to call in question the completeness of our past justification. Our Lord, while graciously insisting on washing Peter's feet, refuses to extend the cleansing farther, that the symbolical instruction intended to be conveyed might not be marred. and ye are clean—in the first and whole sense. but not all—important, as showing that Judas, instead of being as true-hearted a disciple as the rest at first, and merely falling away afterwards—as many represent it—never experienced that cleansing at all which made the others what they were.6-11. Peter saith . . . Lord, dost thou wash my feet?—Our language cannot bring out the intensely vivid contrast between the "Thou" and the "my," which, by bringing them together, the original expresses, for it is not good English to say, "Lord, Thou my feet dost wash?" But every word of this question is emphatic. Thus far, and in the question itself, there was nothing but the most profound and beautiful astonishment at a condescension to him quite incomprehensible. Accordingly, though there can be no doubt that already Peter's heart rebelled against it as a thing not to be tolerated, Jesus ministers no rebuke as yet, but only bids him wait a little, and he should understand it all.
12-15. Know ye what I have done?—that is, its intent. The question, however, was put merely to summon their attention to His own answer.
13. Ye call me Master—Teacher.
and Lord—learning of Him in the one capacity, obeying Him in the other. and ye say well, for so I am—The conscious dignity with which this claim is made is remarkable, following immediately on His laying aside the towel of service. Yet what is this whole history but a succession of such astonishing contrast from first to last?14. If I then—the Lord.
have washed your feet—the servants'. ye—but fellow servants. ought to wash one another's feet—not in the narrow sense of a literal washing, profanely caricatured by popes and emperors, but by the very humblest real services one to another.12-15. Know ye what I have done?—that is, its intent. The question, however, was put merely to summon their attention to His own answer.
16, 17. The servant is not greater than his lord, &c.—an oft-repeated saying (Mt 10:24, &c.).
If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them—a hint that even among real Christians the doing of such things would come lamentably short of the knowing.18, 19. I speak not of you all—the "happy are ye," of Joh 13:17, being on no supposition applicable to Judas.
I know whom I have chosen—in the higher sense. But that the scripture may be fulfilled—that is, one has been added to your number, by no accident or mistake, who is none of Mine, but just that he might fulfil his predicted destiny. He that eateth bread with me—"did eat of my bread" (Ps 41:9), as one of My family; admitted to the nearest familiarity of discipleship and of social life. hath lifted up his heel against me—turned upon Me, adding insult to injury. (Compare Heb 10:29). In the Psalm the immediate reference is to Ahithophel's treachery against David (2Sa 17:1-23), one of those scenes in which the parallel of his story with that of His great Antitype is exceedingly striking. "The eating bread derives a fearful meaning from the participation in the sacramental supper, a meaning which must be applied for ever to all unworthy communicants, as well as to all betrayers of Christ who eat the bread of His Church" (STIER, with whom, and others, we agree in thinking that Judas partook of the Lord's Supper).19. I tell you before . . . that when it comes to pass, ye may believe—and it came to pass when they deeply needed such confirmation.
20. He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, &c.—(See on Mt 10:40). The connection here seems to be that despite the dishonor done to Him by Judas, and similar treatment awaiting themselves, they were to be cheered by the assurance that their office, even as His own, was divine.
Joh 13:21-30. THE TRAITOR INDICATED—HE LEAVES THE SUPPER ROOM.