THE RETURN OF JESUS FROM CONCEALMENT, IN LOVE TO HIS OWN. THE SEPARATION IN THE CIRCLE OF DISCIPLES ITSELF. THE ABASHMENT AND AGITATION OF THE FAITHFUL. THE SEPARATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF JUDAS. THE FOOT-WASHING OF CHRIST A GLORIFICATION OF HOSPITALITY, AS OF MINISTERING MASTERSHIP. SYMBOLISM AND FOUNDATION OF BROTHERLY DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH. THE DYNAMICAL SEPARATION OF THE ADVERSARY FROM THE DISCIPLESHIP OF JESUS
Joh_13:1-30
(Comp. Mat_26:17-35; Mar_14:12-31; Luk_22:7-38; Joh_13:1-15 Pericope for Maundy-Thursday)
1Now [but] before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew [Jesus knowing] that his hour was come [coming] that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were (who remained behind) in the world, he 2[omit he] loved them unto the end. And supper being ended [the meal being about to begin, or, having begun] the devil having now [already,
ἤäç
] put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him [put into the heart, i.e., suggested 3that Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, should betray him]; Jesus [He] knowing that the Father had given [him,
áὐôῷ
] all things into his hands, and that he was come [came forth,
ἐîῆëèåí
] from God, and went [was going,
ὑðÜãåé
] to God; 4He riseth from supper [the meal], and laid [layeth] aside his garments [the outer 5or, upper garment]; and took a towel and girded himself. After that [thereupon or, then] he poureth water into a [the] basin, and [and he] began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. 6Then cometh he [so he cometh] to Simon Peter: [,] and Peter [he] saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know [wilt learn, understand] hereafter. 8Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never [Never shalt thou] wash my feet. Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with [in] me. 9Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my [the] hands, and my [the] head. 10Jesus saith to him, He that is washed [hath been bathed] needeth not save to wash his [the] feet [needeth not to wash himself (save his feet)], but is clean every whit [wholly, entirely clean]: and ye are clean, but not all. 11For he knew who should [was about to] betray him; therefore [for this reason] said he, Ye are not all clean.
12So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments [upper garment] and was set [had sat] down again, he said unto them, Know[Un derstand] ye what I have done to you? 13Ye call me Master [the Teacher] and 14[the] Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your [the] Lord and Master [the Teacher], have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15For I have given you an example, that ye [also] should do as I have done to you. 16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The [A] servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent [nor one sent] greater than he that sent [the one sending] him. 17If ye know these things, happy [blessed] are ye if ye do them [the same].
18I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen [I chose]: but (thus it is) that the Scripture may be fulfilled, “He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up19his heel against me.” (Psa_41:9). Now [From henceforth] I tell you before it come [hath come to pass], that, when it is [hath] come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. [He, the Messiah indicated in Psa_41:9]. 20Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and [but] he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
21When Jesus had thus said, he [Having said this, Jesus] was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall [will 22betray me. Then [omit then] the disciples looked one on another [at one another] 23doubting [being uncertain (
ὰðïñ
o
ýçåíïé
)] of whom he spake. Now there was leaning [reclining at the table] on [in] Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24Simon Peter therefore beckoned [beckoneth, maketh a sign,
íåýåé
] to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake [and saith to him, say, who 25is it of whom he speaketh]? He then [But he] lying [leaning back (thus),
ὰíáðåóὼí
(
ïὕôùò
) ] on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus [therefore] answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it [for whom I shall dip the sop (morsel) and give it to him]. And when he had dipped the sop he gave it [Having therefore dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it] to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon [to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot].27And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then [Therefore] said Jesus unto him, That [What] thou doest, do quickly.
28Now [But] no man [no one of those reclining] at the table knew [understood] for what intent he spake [said] this unto him. 29For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag [kept the purse] that Jesus had [omit had] said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against [Buy what we need for] the feast; or, 30that he should give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and [but] it was night.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[Here begins the third main part of the gospel of John setting forth the glorification of Christ as the suffering High Priest and the victorious King. It is subdivided into three sections. The first treats of His private glorification in the midst of His disciples; the foot-washing, the parting discourses and the sacerdotal prayer, chs. 13–17; the second His public glorification in His passion and death, chs. 18 and 19; the third His full glorification in His resurrection and reappearance among His disciples as the pledge of His abiding presence to the end of time, chs. 20 and 21. With John 13 we approach the Holy of holies in the earthly life of our Lord. Having completed His prophetic office and public ministry, He spent the evening before His crucifixion in the quiet circle of His disciples and friends, and poured out before them His heart, in full view of the sacrifice on the cross by which He was shortly to show in fact His boundless love to them and to the whole world. Such an evening occurred but once in the world’s history: the fullness of eternity itself was condensed into a few fleeting moments. The farewell words of our Lord, chs. Joh_13:31 to Joh_17:26, stand alone even in the Book of books. The nearest approach to them we may find in the parting song and blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 32, 33), and the farewell address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus (Act_20:17 ff.). A more remote parallel is the prophetic picture in the second part of Isaiah, the prince and evangelist among the prophets, especially John 53, where the Messiah is represented as a man of sorrows who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. The last words of our Lord to His own combine the deepest emotion with serene repose; they are solemn, weighty and affecting beyond description; they seem to sound directly from heaven, and they lift the reader high above time and space. We have here more than words, we have things, verities, acts of infinite love going out from God and going into the hearts of men. The main idea is: I in the Father, the Father in Me; I in the believers, the believers in Me, sharing My glory; or, as Bengel puts it: I came from My Father in heaven, I fulfilled His will on earth, I now return to My Father. (“Veni a Patre, fui in mundo, vado ad Patrem”). No disciple was so well qualified to apprehend, preserve and record these farewell words, as the bosom friend of Jesus who, during their delivery, reclined on His breast and heard the beatings of His heart. He omits an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as being already sufficiently known from the other Gospels, but these discourses, as also those in chs. 4 and 6, are full of the ideas of vital union with Christ and the communion of saints, which the sacrament symbolizes. In the same way John omits the form of baptism, but unfolds the underlying idea of regeneration, (John 3). Comp on these wonderful chapters the introductory remarks off Dr. Lange below on Joh_13:31 and Joh_17:16—P. S.]
On the hypotheses of modern criticism (Bretschneider, Strauss, Baur, etc.), concerning the history of the foot-washing, see Meyer [p. 492]. On the relation of the Johannean account of the farewell-repast of Jesus to that found in the Synoptists, comp. Comm. on Matthew, chap. 26. [Am. ed. p. 454 ff., where the English literature on this difficult question of chronology with many additional remarks is supplied.—P. S.]. After that general examination it will here suffice for us to render prominent once more the agreement between John and the Synoptists in those particular passages in which it is disputed. Thus here Joh_13:1-4; Joh_13:27; Joh_18:28; Joh_19:31.
Bynäus, Wichelhaus (History of the Passion) and Röpe (1856) hold that the repast of the foot-washing was not identical with the feast of the Passover. This view, is, indeed, not tenable in its separation of the two repasts;—there is, however, some truth in it, inasmuch as two divisions in the Last Supper are to be definitely distinguished, of which divisions the Synoptists portray preëminently the second, i.e. the institution of the Lord’s Supper, while John brings into relief the first section, i.e. the Jewish paschal feast,—that which has been transformed into the typical Christian love-feasts. That the Christian Agape, in its distinction from the Lord’s Supper and yet in conjunction with the same, was already existent at the time when John wrote his Gospel, is evident from 1Co_11:17 ff., etc.; Jude Joh_13:12; 2Pe_2:13; probably also, from Act_2:42; Act_2:46; Act_6:2. That, moreover, the Agape preceded the celebration of the Supper in the Apostolic Church, is evidenced by 1Co_11:20-21 and by the fact that down to Augustine’s time the African Church retained the custom of holding a common feast in the Church on Maundy Thursday, previous to the reception of the Lord’s Supper; this was the case long after the ordinary Agapes had been separated from the Lord’s Supper. (There was doubtless, however, a more decided separation of the Love Feast and the Communion in the Western than in the Eastern Church).
Now if in John’s time the Agape already existed in the stead of the Paschal feast, we can readily comprehend that the term
ἀãáðᾷí
,—an expression which of itself signifies: to testify love,—might have a double meaning in the mouth of John, and thus imply: He showed them His love by the Agape. The mysterious expression of the Evangelist seems to contain still more of design when we consider that
ôὸ ôÝëïò
was likewise indicative of the religious ceremony, the celebration of initiation. The scarce translatable word: unto the end, unto the decision He lovedthem (or: His love to them brought on His end together with its [His love’s] completion; or, as Zinzendorf has it: He loved Himself to death, brought on death by loving), contains for Christian Greek readers the assonance of the thought: He gave them the Agape in anticipation of the Christian festival of initiation, of Christian initiation into the fellowship of His death by the Lord’s Supper.
Since Christ desired to dovelop the Passover into the New Testament form of the Supper, it was quite significant that He so ordered the feast that the Passover itself took place before the beginning of the 15th Nisan and only the Supper fell into the full feast. Therefore He came early with the disciples to Jerusalem and commenced the celebration before the turning-point of the two days, i.e. Before six o’clock on the evening of the 14th Nisan; so early was it that the conclusion of the Paschal feast or original Agape was reached before six o’clock, or, at all events, just about that hour. This simple supposition removes all difficulties, especially when it is observed that in those days the accuracy of our measurement of time had no existence.
Joh_13:1. But before the feast of the passover, etc. [
ÉÉ ñὸ äὲ ôῆò ἑïñôῆò ôïῦ ðÜó÷á
,
åἰäὼò ὁ Ἰçóïῦò ὕôé ç
̇͂
ëèåí áὐôïῦ ἡ ὥñá ἵíá ìåôáâῇ ἐê ôïῦ êüóìïõ ôïýôïõ ðñὸò ôὸí ðáôÝñá
,
ἀãáðÞóáò ôïὺò ἰäßïõò ôïὺò ἐí ôῷ êüóìῳ
,
åἰò ôÝëïò ἠãÜðçóåí áὐôïýò
.] Different constructions:
1. The first sentence continues to the close Joh_13:5 [or rather Joh_13:4—P. S.] and the apodosis begins with the words Joh_13:4 : “He rose from supper” (Griesbach, Matthäi [Bleek, Ebrard, Westcott and Hort] and others). If we make it the evening before the festal eve, or the evening of the 13th Nisan and allow of no pause, the history is continued uninterruptedly through the night until the end of chap. 17, and the crucifixion follows the next day, on the 14th, still before the feast. This assumption is contradicted by a. the exceedingly difficult construction (comp. Joh_6:22); b. the different sense of
åἰäþò
, Joh_13:1; Joh_13:3; the distinction is entirely blotted out if we consider the second
åἰäþò
a repetition of the first, and the words:
åἰò ôÝëïò
, etc. a parenthesis. (Bleek: Before the feast, when Jesus knew that His hour was come to depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own who were in the world—He did love them unto the end—, when a repast was spread, etc.). The Evangelist had in view a twofold great antithesis redounding to the glorification of the Lord. The first (Joh_13:1) glorifies especially His love, whereby in the love-feast itself He revealed His love to the disciples unto the consummation; the second (Joh_13:2-4) especially glorifies His humility, in which He washed the disciples’ feet, although He knew, of Himself, that the Father was already tendering omnipotence to Him and that the Satanic betrayer was amongst the disciples. These two specifically different considerations cannot be mingled without obliterating the sense of the entire passage c. The formal ending of the sentence Joh_13:1 is equally clear.
2. The first sentence comes to a conclusion with the first verse (Vulgate, Luther, Lücke, Lachmann, etc. [Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet]). Still there are various conceptions:
a. Kling, Luthardt and others connect
ðñὸ ôῆò ἑïñôῆò
, etc. with
åἰäþò
; when Jesus knew before the feast of the passover. But this would render the designation of the time unmeaning.
b. Application of the
ðñὸ ôí
͂
ò
, etc. to
ἀãáðÞóáò
(Wieseler, Tholuck) in this sense: having even before the feast, in His consciousness of His approaching departure (Joh_12:23), loved His own, He loved them more than ever at the end. In connection with this, Tholuck observes, that it is impossible to interpret
ἠãÜðçóåí áὐôïýò
with Lücke: He gave them a proof of His love, and he maintains that it indicates merely a loving frame of mind. But certainly it may mean a loving mood manifesting itself by a sign. And this admitted, the loving mood relapses into the proof of love.
c. Application of
ðñὸ ôῆò
to (the entire history. Meyer thinks that if it had been the eve of the feast (the evening of the 14th Nisan) John must have written:
ôῇ ðñþôῃ ôῶí ἀæýìùí
. The chronological turning-point seems to be obscured in this place by the fear of “Harmonistics.”
Ôῇ ðñþôῃ ôῶí ἀæýìùí
and
ðñὸ ôῆò ἑïðôῆò
are the self-same thing. We make
ðñὸ ôῆò
, etc. relate to the mysterious and significant
åἰò ôÝëïò ἠãÜðçóåí áὐôïýò
. But before the feast He came forward again (contrast to what has gone before). Then He carried His love to the
ôÝëïò
. The completed expression of His love brought along with it the completion of His life. In particular, namely, He manifested at the love-feast the humility of His love.
Jesus, knowing [
åἰäὼò ὁ Ἰçó
.].—The
äÝ
[after
ðñü
at the beginning of the verse] is of great moment here, serving also as an elucidation. Jesus had withdrawn Himself. But before the beginning of the feast He was again drawn forth by the consciousness that His hour was come, and by His love to His own, and now He loved them so that the end, or the crisis, was the result. The love-feast brought the crisis. And so, even though the primary reference of the words of the first verse is to the disciples, they also relate to the great mass of His own in the world. He came back and carried out His work of love to the end. He loved Himself to His end, to death, for the paschal feast brought on the decision of the betrayer and hence His death.
ἸÉãÜðçóåí
, therefore, has reference undoubtedly to the whole love-feast, and the like is true of
ðñὸ ôῆò ἑïñôῆò
. Before the paschal evening had fully begun, Judas went out into the night; with his departure
ôὸ ôÝëïò
was decided; Jesus’ act of love had induced the decision. But the more definite date was the leaving of Bethany for Jerusalem: that was the expression of His love by which the end was occasioned. The reference of the words
ἀãáðÞóáò ôïὺò ἰäßïõò
to the foregoing: to depart unto the Father, after He had loved (Meyer), is void of meaning; but the interpretation: “He rendered them the last testimony of His love,” likewise withholds from
åἰò ôÝëïò
its rights.
Joh_13:2. And when the meal bad begun, or, supper being served [
êáὶ äåßðíïõ ãéíïìÝíïõ
].—The introduction of
äåῖðíïí
without an article is explained by the fact that John has already indicated the nature of the
äåῖðíïí
by the
ἠãÜðçóåí
in the first verse. “It seems unfavorable to the idea that it was the paschal meal (Wichelhaus), but as
ἀðὸ äåἰðíïõ
,
ἐðὶ äåῖðíïí ἰÝíïõ
mean: after the repast, to go to table, so
äåßðíïõ ãéíïìÝíïõ
does not mean: when a meal took place, but it signifies when the meal took place or was about to take place, to wit, the repast of this day, and that was the festive meal.” Tholuck. Should we even read
ãåíïìÝíïõ
(see the Textual Notes), it would not mean: after the repast was over (Luther, Hofmann [E. V.]), but after it had already begun. According to Meyer and many others this meal was not the supper; John, they say, assumes that to be already known to his readers (it having been celebrated on the same evening). Hence, according to Meyer the paschal meal is omitted. According to Baur it is omitted because the author of the Gospel chap. 6. connected it with the second paschal feast of Jesus; according to Strauss the Evangelist knew nothing of the Supper. [According to Schenkel John intended to guard against ascribing a magical effect to the Lord’s Supper, and to prevent sacramental controversies. But this could have been done more effectually by plain instruction.—P. S.]
The meal having begun, or, being served.—That is, they had already reclined, Joh_13:4; Joh_13:12. [Not being ended, as in the E. V. See Textual Notes.—P. S.]
The devil having already put it into the heart of Judas [
ôïὺ äéáâüëïõ ῆäç âåâëçêüôïò åἰò ôὴí êáñäὶáí
]—The explanation of Meyer, when the devil had already made his plot [had put it into hisheart], is untenable (see Textual Notes). Strange indeed it would be if the heart of the devil were the subject of this announcement, independently of the fact that after all there would be little sense in the statement: the devil had resolved within himself, etc. As if such a thing were dependent on the resolve of the devil. The condition of affairs is this: the devil had sown the thought, the
ἐðéèõçßá
, of betrayal in Judas’ heart; the wicked counsel becomes a firm decree only in Joh_13:27. It is true that, according to Matthew, Judas had previously been to the high-priests and negotiated with them; this fact, however, does not preclude subsequent waverings and conflicts on the part of the unhappy man. Now while the first antithesis was general in its character and referred to the whole love-feast, this second antithesis is special and has reference to the humility of the love of Jesus which found expression in the washing of the disciples’ feet. Yet the words: the devil having, etc., are to be primarily referred as a supplement to the foregoing, in this sense: the brooding treason in the breast of Judas did not hinder the Lord from causing the repast to commence. Perhaps, however, it is likewise intended that the words should mark out Judas as the chief author of the dispute which arose among the disciples on this occasion as to their respective ranks,—a dispute chronicled by Luke. No doubt the unwillingness of each one of the disciples to take upon himself the office of the foot-washing was one of the modes in which their contentious spirit manifested itself (Luk_22:24; Luk_22:27; ancient exegetes; Leben Jesu, ii. p. 1314). Euthymius Zigabenus sees in the mention of Judas a trait illustrative of the long-suffering of Jesus; the truth of this view Meyer groundlessly denies.
Joh_13:3. Jesus, knowing.—Albeit He had the presentiment of His glory; namely 1. the presentiment of His elevation to divine power; 2. of His perfected mission resting upon His descent from the Father; 3. of His imminent elevation to the throne of glory.
Joh_13:4. He riseth from supper.—The contrast of His service with the presentiment of His lofty dignity. He rises to perform the foot-washing. Since this was ordinarily done by slaves previous to the commencement of the meal, in the absence of a slave the duty naturally devolved upon the humblest of the circle. In this assumption lay the fuse that kindled the disciples’ last strife for preëminence. At all events the dispute recounted by Luke appears to have been in part the occasion of the foot-washing. According to Strauss, De Wette; Meyer and others this is not the place for that dispute. It was, however, natural for it to break out more than once, and we should be attributing too great a piece of inaccuracy to Luke, were we to imagine that his placing of it in the history of the Supper was altogether erroneous. According to Meyer and Tholuck no such cause was requisite to induce Jesus to wash the disciples’ feet; they maintain that the act was a purely symbolical one. But this is in opposition to the realism of the life of Jesus and commingles the Old and New Testaments. Symbolism set forth in ceremonies is of the Old Testament. Wichelhaus discovers in the foot-washing an indication that the entertainment was no paschal feast, since, if it had been, the host must have assumed the duty. As contradictory to this view we cannot, with Tholuck, cite Luk_7:44, affirming that the washing of the feet was not always practiced. The omission of it there is reprehended. Manifestly, the very absence of the host proves that it was the time of the celebration of the Passover. On the evening of the 13th Nisan the host might have charged himself with the foot-washing; on the evening of the 14th Nisan he was obliged to eat in company with his family-circle as the father of the house and was thus prevented from performing the rite in question. For he did not sup with the circle of disciples; here the position of father of the family belonged to Jesus.
Layeth aside His outer garment [
ôὰ éìÜôéá
. Bengel: eas vestes, quæ lotionem impedirent.—P. S.]—The prompt and joyous alacrity of the Lord is picturesquely delineated by the rapid succession of the several sentences in designation of the several acts. The fact of His girding Himself contrasts with the expectation that others should have done it for Him.
Joh_13:5. Into the wash-basin [
ôὸí íéðôῆñá
].—Into the one appointed which stood there. [Grotius: Nihil ministerii omitlit.] From this trait as well as from the expression: He girded Himself, we perceive that the foot-washing was anticipated and had been left undone in default of a servant, or a disciple willing to discharge the office.
And He began [
êáὶ ἤñîáôï
].—It undoubtedly seems to follow from the relation of Joh_13:5 to Joh_13:6, that He had already washed the feet of other disciples when He came to Peter (Meyer), because the whole proceeding is already described Joh_13:5. But He seems too to have come soon to Peter, since the latter interrupted His work as He was beginning. It would also be contrary to the inversion of orders of rank in the foot-washing if Jesus had begun with a disciple who was in a certain respect the first. Augustine and many Catholic exegetes make Peter the first; Chrysostom and others, on the contrary, conceive Judas to have been the first.
Joh_13:6. Dost thou wash my feet?—According to Tholuck (with reference to Chrysost.), this is a refusal from reverence, only after the reproof of Jesus becoming a refusal from self-will. Yet the unmistakable reverence is lacking in a true sense of the extraordinariness and spiritual significance of the action,—is lacking in full submission; thus a germ of self-will lent its influence even here. At all events Peter applied to the action of Jesus the same rule of outward rank, which effectually hindered the introduction into his own mind of the idea that he should wash the feet of his fellow-disciples.
Joh_13:7. Thou knowest not now, but thou wilt know hereafter [
óí
̀
ïὐê ïἱäáò ἄñôé
,
ãíþóῃ äὲ ìåôὰ ôáῦôá
].—The antithesis of
óý
is sternly met by the antithesis of
ἐãþ
and
óý
. According to Chrysostom and others, also Tholuck [Hengstenberg, Ewald],
ìåôὰ ôáῦôá
is indicative of subsequent enlightenment [after the day of Pentecost]; according to Luthardt it means: in eternity; according to De Wette and Meyer, the explanation Joh_13:12 ff. That explanation is doubtless intended in the first instance, not, however, to the exclusion of a progressive experience or knowledge in Christian illumination. Calvin: Quavis scientia doctior hæc ignorantiæ species (est), cum Domino concedimus, ut supra nos sapiat.
Joh_13:8. Peter saith unto Him, Never shalt Thou wash my feet [
ïὐ ìὴ
…
åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá
].—Again the self-will of the apostle develops into open contradiction and disobedience,—as on the occasion when Jesus announced that He was about to tread the path of suffering, Mat_16:22. The connection between the two passages is discoverable, on the one hand, in the great attachment and reverence which Peter entertained for the Lord; but, on the other hand, also, in his cleaving to the external glory and sovereignty of Christ and in coveting a share thereof for himself. Christ now began practically with His self-humiliation to turn Peter’s moral view of the world upside down; Peter, meanwhile, instead of divining the blessing of the cross enfolded in this act, struggled with anxious forebodings against its pricks. Christ’s washing of the disciples’ feet was an affair utterly repugnant to his soul. Never; properly—to eternity, into the æon;
åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá
.
If I wash thee not.—In this case too Jesus must give utterance to a threat, as in Mat_16:23, before Peter’s strong self-will is brought into subjection. This strong self-will is indicated in the further history of Peter and likewise by the words of Jesus Joh_21:18. Hence the saying of Jesus was true, primarily, in the literal sense; not, indeed, in the sense ascribed to it by Peter, viz., If I do not corporeally cleanse thy feet,—but: if thou accept not my service of love in this washing of thy feet. Peter, had he persistently refused, would have put an end to the relationship between disciple and Master. The entire relationship was made dependent on this single point. No fortuitous thought was thereby involved, but a symbolic-typical act. Insomuch as this is true, Peter’s resistance was, in the first place, a negation of the act of religion symbolized by Christ; in the second place, a refusal to have his life purified by the Lord; a fatal protestation,—this latter—against that spiritual foot-washing, for example, which was apportioned him chap. 21. and without which he could have had no part in Christ; his resistance was, finally, a revolt against that ordinance obtaining in the kingdom,—the law of ministering love and humility in the Church of Christ;—a revolt which would in no wise have fitted him for his place as the first pioneer of that kingdom.
Thou hast no part with Me [
ïὐê ἔ÷åéò ìÝñïò ìåô
ʼ
ἐìïῦ
]—Mat_24:51, etc. (
àֶú çֵìֶ÷ּ òִí
,
çֵìֶ÷
) i.e. in the same kingdom and the same glory of the kingdom, they being founded on loving and serving. According to Maldonatus and others, the menace contains a renouncement of personal friendship; according to Grotius an announcement of the loss of eternal life; according to Bengel, Luthardt and others it signifies: no part in my cleansing. The latter explanation is, however, not demanded, as Tholuck thinks it is, by the ethical and symbolical sense of the washing (in so far as this sense is presupposed, which is certainly to be assumed). The outward washing is accompanied by that which is inward, i.e. moral purification; from this, however, the future blessing must be distinguished. Baptism is attended by the renunciation of sin, but the blessing of it is communion with Christ and Christians in this present world; the Lord’s Supper is attended by the sealing of reconciliation and the communication of the new life of Christ: but its future blessing is communion with Christ and with Christians in the resurrection. The view represented by Bengel, Luthardt and Tholuck might be designated as one-sided or ultra-Reformed.
Joh_13:9. But also my hands and my head.—An utterance prompted by the agitation and entire subjection of the disciple. Not for all the world would he lose the fellowship of Jesus. He would be washed by Him as a child; he offers to Him all the uncovered portions of his body: his hands, his feet, his head. A trace of dictatorialness is, however, still visible in this act of submission; a fact connected with his apprehension of the action of Christ; he still regards it in too great measure as an outward or legal thing and does not yet fully perceive the simple, Spiritual symbolicalness which appertains to it when viewed in accordance with the idea of Christ. Hence a third reprimand is necessary, albeit one of dispassionate mildness.
Joh_13:10. He that hath bathed, needeth not to wash himself.—Not a shade of doubt (as, for instance, by Tholuck) should be cast on the fact that Jesus primarily proclaims a law of the Jewish ordinances relative to purification (Michaelis, etc.). But this ordinance consisted not in the custom of bathing before each meal (Wetstein), and then again washing the feet, defiled by the going forth to the meal, or washing the feet again separately on account of their pollution by the bath-water itself (Beza). Rather, the bathing is indicative of the greater and rarer purification,—the foot-washing of the minor and daily one, such as was requisite each time that the traveller paused for rest or refreshment. Provided, therefore, that a man had seasonably bathed himself in conformity to the ordinance, he needed, on such an occasion as the present one, nought save to wash his feet. Jesus, then, declares in the first place, on Peter’s demanding a bath for his whole body, that he must content himself with the washing of his feet, in accordance with the law which regulated this custom. But at the same time He pronounces the spiritual law of life in conformity to which He would wash the feet of His people spiritually and symbolically. Ye are bathed in the spiritual sense and thus clean in general (although not all of you); hence ye need, in this sense, but the washing of your feet.
What is the meaning of this? A distinction must here be made between the signification of the saying as a rule of Christian ethics, and as the rule of an ecclesiastical ordinance. Relative to the former. Origen: they were clean in general through baptism; it was obligatory merely that the inferior parts, the affections, should be purified. Theod., Herak.: Clean by means of the doctrine; their feet must be consecrated to the apostleship. Chrysost.: Clean through the word (Joh_15:8); the washing of their feet signified that they had still to learn humility. The latter interpretation is doubtless the true one. As disciples, they had received, in the fellowship and the Word of Christ, the principle of their general purification or regeneration; but they must, by the shaming example of their Lord and Master, be cleansed from ambition and other sins which had clung to their feet, their endeavorings, in their pilgrimage as disciples.
The maxim generalized reads thus for Christians; Justification must be followed by sanctification or daily repentance (evangelical theologians). Connected with this is the symbolical interpretation with reference to the ecclesiastical ordinance in Cyprian, Aug. and others: “They were clean through baptism, and had need but of the Sacramentum pœnitentiæ.” Only not in a legal sense. The manner in which Christ made the love-feast with the foot-washing a purificative preparation for the Supper, is a vivid type for the evangelical, ecclesiastical ordinance, in accordance with which a purificative, disciplinary preparation or confession precedes the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It is not altogether clear how Tholuck, after De Wette, Lücke (so too Meyer) can protest against the universal, symbolical significance, originally intended, of Christ’s words; for together with the primary signification of the act for the disciples, its second universal, Christian, moral signification is established; and the latter contains likewise the ecclesiastical ordinance in embryo. Be it observed, furthermore, that the declaration relative to the needs of the disciples must by no means be confounded with the enforcement of the example of Jesus upon the disciples (Joh_13:14-15), although the second consideration corresponds with the first.
And ye are clean.—Application of His words to the disciples.—But not all.—A hint at the traitor. Since he does not stand in the communion of Jesus and His word, or, figuratively speaking, is not bathed, the foot-washing is vain in his case. “Such further comments on our passage as impute to it a polemical tendency against Peter, in spite of Joh_1:42; Joh_6:68, etc. (Strauss, Schwegler, Baur, Hilgenf.), and even credit Peter with the demand for an Ebionite lavation of the whole body (Hilgenf.), are pure fabrications.” Meyer.
Joh_13:12. Know ye what I have done to you.—Namely, the meaning and significance of it. Herewith begins the introduction to the explanation.
Joh_13:13. The Teacher and the Lord [
ὁäéäÜóêáëïò êáὶ ὁ êýñéïò
]—
îַø
and
øַáִּé
were likewise the titles given by the Rabbins’ scholars to their masters (Lightfoot and others). With the relation of the Master, who was also the Lord (in a theoretico-practical school), corresponded the relation of the disciples, who were also servants.
Joh_13:14. If I then,etc.—If your Lord has performed for you this service of a slave, ye must do likewise to one another. One another. Much more should ye, in conformity to your natural coördination, discharge for one another this lowly office of self-denying love. But since the disciples were to be under a life-long obligation to self-abasement in humble love, this act of Christ must also suggest to their minds the spiritual fact of His having ever thus served them in a spiritual sense. The sign of His self-humiliation hitherto in slavery to legal ordinances should thus be to them a presage of His impending self-humiliation unto the death of the slave. And so neither had the Lord in mind the outward copying of His action, but rather the spiritual imitation of it. This imitation in the service of love and humility is to consist, however, specifically in a mutual foot-washing, i.e., in efforts for the purification and emancipation of our brother from the sin that cleaves to him. If we would show our brother the right way and lead him in it as we should, we must do it in the spirit of humility, of subordination in self-denying love; thus done, it is an act of the greatest self-denial. Reprehension or reproof administered from the high horse or throne is no foot-washing.
Hence it is remarkable that the literal foot-washing gradually gained ground as a ceremony in the church at a time when the spiritual foot-washing receded more and more before hierarchical pride, lust of power and austerity (See the Article Fusswaschung, by H. Merz in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, with reference to Bingham, IV. 394). It follows from Augustine’s Epistol., 118 ad Januarium, that it was in use during his time, though without definite appointment of the day. Bernard of Clairvaux desired to convert the customary Catholic ceremony into a sacrament; without success. Catholic argumentation for the tradition of this rite does not sufficiently discriminate between the ancient custom of hospitality (1Ti_5:10), which of course extends forward into Christian times, and the rise of the Catholic ceremony. On Maundy-Thursday Catholic monarchs and the pope symbolically practise it upon twelve poor old men. Upon this Bengel sarcastically comments thus: “Magis admirandus foret pontifex, Unius regis, quam duodecim pauperum pedes, seria humilitate, lavans.” Luther counsels the substitution of a bath for the poor men when they really stand in need of one. Yet we cannot avoid recalling the beautiful saying of Claudius touching ceremonies that have become void: “they are little flags, floating above the surface of the waters and showing where a richly freighted ship hath sunk.” In the communion of the Moravians the governors of the choir decide as to the practice. The sacramental character of the foot-washing has found an advocate in Fr. Böhmer [Stud. u. Kritiken, fourth number, 1850). Tholuck.
The frequent recurrence of evangelical theologians to this view overlooks these facts:
1. That the Lord desired a reciprocal foot-washing of all the faithful, not a one-sided one of inferiors by superiors.
2. That He elevated His foot-washing into a unique symbol, expressly substituting for His people the ethical explanation and application.
3. That the foot-washing as a sacrament would be a sacrament devoid of any definite word of promise; a circumstance which would, of course, alter the whole idea of a sacrament.
4. That the ecclesiastical consideration of the moral exaction of the Lord is fulfilled in the evangelical preparation or confession.
5. That the foot-washing as a sacrament would constitute a pendant to the Lord’s Supper, as the sacrament of sanctification, equally marring with the Catholic confession or absolution in its relation to the Lord’s Supper. Irrespective of the fact that the outward foot-washing is too climatic in its nature and too closely connected with the difference between sandals and shoes, to be adapted for a universal rite. In many places it is more necessary to shoe the feet; in the Polar regions to warm them.
The commandment of the Lord; ye shall wash each other’s feet, is indicative of the duty of humbly and lovingly helping our neighbor in his daily repentance; with equal distinctness does the necessity for washing the feet set forth the necessity for accepting the assistance of others in our daily repentance. “Humbly to labor for the purification of others” (Meyer, Luthardt).
Joh_13:15. For I have given you an example.—Now an example is intended not to be outwardly counterfeited, but to prompt to ethical imitation.
Joh_13:16. A servant is not greater,etc.—Comp. Joh_15:20; Mat_10:24; Luk_6:40. With a “verily, verily” the humility and self-denial of ministering love here enforces the axiom according to which the servant should look upon himself as being at least as lowly as his master. Well did the Lord foresee the great temptations and errors connected with clerical self-upliftment in His church. See Mat_20:25; Mat_24:49.
Joh_13:17. Blessed are ye if ye do them.—“In conclusion yet another reference to the great gulf that is wont to lie between insight and practice with regard to this very commandment.” Tholuck. As with regard to all commandments; here, however, it is particularly damnable. This is a saying spoken by the Lord as if in anticipation of the ceremony of foot-washing. For the ceremony is at all events an expression of intelligence. Suggestive of the “servus servorum.” The non-performance of knowledge, then, is in like manner followed by unblessedness. A knowing without doing, i.e., without moral realization in spirit and life, is creative of a shadowy doing in abortive ceremony; in many respects the ceremony may be regarded as the visible type of knowledge that falls short of performance.
Joh_13:18. Not of you all.—A second stronger allusion to Judas. See Joh_13:10. Tholuck: “According to general interpretation, Joh_13:18 is connected with Joh_13:17 : a fulfilment of this ministering love is not to be expected from you all. Since this thought, however, does not fit into the connection of the subsequent remarks, we must assume that reference is had to Joh_13:10,—a looseness which fails to appear surprising in the Johannean style.” Yet even here John is sufficiently precise. Meyer, after ancient exegetes (Augustine: est inter vos, qui non erit beatus, neque faciet ea), more pertinently refers Joh_13:18 to the beatitude, Joh_13:17. The two verses are even implicative of a sharp antithesis: there is one who, instead of washing the feet of his fellow-disciples, ventures to trample his Master under foot. The contrast to faithful, humble, ministering love towards fellow-disciples is found in false, haughty, seditious treason to the Lord and Master.
I know whom I chose.—This sentence—
ἐãὼ ïῖ
̓
äá ïὕò
[Tischend., Alf.:
ôßíáò
]
ἐîåëåîÜìçí
—is differently explained:
1. The emphasis is upon
ἐêëÝãåóèáé
. Election ad salutem is meant, either in accordance with the Calvinistic doctrine of decree, or with reference to foreknowledge, agreeably to the teaching of the Lutheran communion. “Non omnes ad apostolatum electi ad beatitudinem electi sunt” (Gerhard). Tholuck gives a slightly different explanation: “I know whom I have really chosen; thus in 1Jn_2:19 the signification is: ‘those who have fallen away from us were—not really of us.” Yet another interpretation has been attached to this: I know whom I have chosen, i.e. of My own accord, not at the instigation and intercession of the circle of disciples. But there is no second
ἐãþ
to support this. The passage Joh_6:70 is, however, contradictory of the method of explanation noted above. In this place, as in the former passage, a distinction must be made between the eternal election of God and the historical election of Christ. That Christ acknowledges having in the historical sense chosen Judas, is proved by the following: “he that eateth My bread.” Hence
2.
Ïἰ
̈
äá
must be emphasized. I know them; I fathom them all and discriminate between them; thus I know even the wretch. The same idea is presented as in Joh_6:70; it is but developed. But then, according to Meyer, the idea proceeds thus:
ἀëë
̓ with the supplement of
ἐîåëÝîáìåí áὐôïýò
, etc.: but I have made the selection in the service of that divine destiny conformably to which the Scripture had to be fulfilled. An exceedingly hazardous and fatalistic supplement. Meyer here also fails to discriminate between the moment of the calling of Judas and that moment of his germinant apostasy, Joh_6:70. [
Ïὐê ἐãὼ ὑìᾶò ôïὺò äþäåêá ἐîåëåîÜìçí
;
êáὶ ἐîὑìῶí åἱò äéÜâïëüò ἐóôéí
].
But—that the Scripture may be fulfilled.—This but contrasts the allusion to the apostasy of Judas, prophesied by the Scripture, with the painful fact that Christ sees through His chosen ones and perceives a traitor among them. It is the ever-recurring antithesis of the human, moral grief of Jesus over unbelief, apostasy, and His religious elevation and pacification in view of that divine providence which directs all things; a mode of pacification in which He has been followed by the apostles and by all Christians of all ages (see Joh_12:38). Hence the connection of
ἀëë
’ with
ôñþãùí
(whereby
ἵíá ἡ ãñ
. would be resolved into a parenthetic proposition, Semler, Kuinoel) is contrary to analogy (comp. Joh_19:28; Joh_19:36). To be supplied is “this happened” (see 1Co_2:9).
The Scripture:Psa_41:9. A free citation [differing from the Hebrew and the Sept.] without any material alteration of the sense. The expression: My bread is changed into: bread with me. It was not Christ’s intention to represent Himself as the bread-provider of Judas in a literal sense; David, to whom the description is more applicable than to Jeremiah (Hitzig), might with truth thus speak of his betrayer. But in a higher sense Judas did indeed eat His bread, subsisting, as he did, upon the blessing of His society. But what Jesus desires to throw into relief is the contrast between the malicious plot of the traitor and the unbounded confidence that prevailed in his familiar association with Judas at the table. This prophecy manifestly belongs to the spiritual types [and was fulfilled in an analogous experience of a higher order]; even that experience of shameful treason allotted to David, the typical Mashiah, must finally, in accordance with divine judgment, be fulfilled in that highest imaginable treason of Judas to the real Messiah. The choice of the passage was likewise suggested by the meal.—He hath (already) lifted up his heel against me.—The figure represents a fellow who, having turned his back, makes off with a sudden act of cunning and brutal malice; it cannot be expressive of the throwing of the foot under in wrestling [
ðôåñíßæåéí
]. We need not enlarge upon the truth that the prophecy of the Scripture is in this instance as little proclamatory of a fatalistic destiny as in similar cases, since the prophecy should be regarded as the ideal consequence of the facts, although it does historically precede them.
Joh_13:19. From henceforth I tell you [
ἀ ð
’
ἄñôé
, now, from, this time], etc.—He intimates that He will tell them repeatedly, and gives His reason for so doing.—That I am he [
ὅôéἐãþåἰìé
] has here more of explicitness than chap Joh_8:24, to which Tholuck refers. The very Person is meant to whom that passage in the Psalms typically points. When the treachery of Judas stalked forth in all its horridness, the disciples (whose faith might have been shaken by the success of that treachery, Meyer) stood in special need of comfort; this was afforded them when they contemplated the fulfilled word and sentence of God.
Joh_13:20. He that receiveth whomsoever,etc.—Comp. Mat_10:40. The original fitness of the saying in this place is confirmed by the preceding verily, verily (notwithstanding that Kuinoel and Lücke consider the words as a gloss derived from Matthew, and that Lampe [Hengstenberg] and others annex them to Joh_13:16). The connection is resident in the fact that Jesus intends to contrast the future glory of His faithful ones with the picture of the miserable traitor, for the consolation and comfort of those (Melanchthon and others), and for a mirror to the traitor; in connection with the antithesis between those whom He has historically chosen and those, from among these historically chosen ones, whom He will send in the might of the Spirit (between disciples and apostles). They shall be endued with such dignity, they shall communicate such blessing, as though He came Himself; nay, as though, mediately through Him, God Himself came. This dignity is still more powerfully represented in its spiritual exaltedness by being portrayed in the light of the receivers of apostles, i.e. of the faithful. By means of them Christ shall appear, God shall be made manifest, throughout the world. And thus the contrast between treason and apostolic worth is also expressed (Hilgenfeld, see Act_2:17-18). According to Calvin Christ means to say: the wickedness of some few who are guilty of unworthy conduct in the apostolic office does not impair the dignity of that office—a conclusion which results but indirectly from this passage and which is but conditionally correct; according to Zwingle, He designs to dissuade the others from imitating the apostasy of Judas;—but of their eventual fidelity He was assured (see Joh_13:10). [Alford: The saying sets forth the dignity of that office from which Judas was about to fall; and the consideration of this dignity, as contrasted with the sad announcement just to be made, leads on to the
ἐôáñÜ÷èç ôῷ ðí
. of the next verse. Meyer connects Joh_13:20 with
ἴíá ðéóôåýóçôå
, Joh_13:19, i.e. to confirm you in this faith, I say to you, etc.—P. S.]
Joh_13:21. One of you will betray me.—On the relation of John to the Synoptists comp. Comm. on Matthew [p. 469 Am. Ed.]; Tholuck, p. 347. In the 21st verse we find the first intimation of the Lord’s Supper, together with the beginning of the history relative to the disclosure of the betrayer. Comp. Mat_26:21. That the conflict here undergone by Jesus [
ἐôáñÜ÷èç ôῷ ðíåýìáôé
, comp. Joh_11:33; Joh_12:27] extended far deeper than that recorded Joh_11:33, and that it was not merely “physical compassion,” results from the fact that He is here represented not as being stirred up in spirit so that He troubles Himself outwardly, but as being troubled in the spirit itself. The inmost life of His human spirit was invaded by horror at the unprecedented fact of His approaching and imminent betrayal; the sight of the crafty one and of his connection with the circle of disciples, most of whom were without suspicion of his guilt and had trusted implicitly to his fidelity, tempted Him to despise the whole race of mankind and tended to produce in Him an exasperation of spirit which He must summon all His energies to resist. His victory was comprised in the open proclamati
