CHAPTER XIII.

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.