John 13:1-17

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

John 13:1. Before the feast, etc.—Jesus came to Jerusalem steadfastly resolved to finish the work given Him to do (Luke 12:50, etc.). These words are not to be connected with either εἰδώς, or ἀγαπήσας. They “mark the date of the manifold exhibition of love, of the acts and discourses which follow immediately afterward” (Westcott). (As to the day, see note, pp. 371–373).) Knowing.—It was an hour He had been looking forward to (John 9:4; John 11:9). That He should depart (ἵνα μεταβῇ).—That He should pass hence to the Father. Thus death to the Christian should be a going hence to God. Having loved, etc.—Not simply to the close of His earthly ministry, although that is true, but He loved them with divine fulness to the extreme limit of love, as He showed in becoming the servant of all, etc. It is “the love of Christ which passeth knowledge” (Ephesians 3:19).

John 13:2. Supper, etc.—The reading probably is δείπνου γινομένου, “taking place’ (with א, B, L, Tischendorf, Greek Testament, Ed. VIII., etc.). The meaning seems to be that they had just sat down to supper. Into the heart of that Judas the son of Simon, Iscariot.—Meyer and Reuss take the words into the heart to refer to the devil’s heart; but, as Godet says, “where in Scripture is there mention of the devil’s heart?”

John 13:3. Jesus knowing that the Father had put, etc.—The Evangelist states this to show how wonderful the following act of humility is. All things (Matthew 28:18, etc.).—Yet He emptied Himself, made Himself of no reputation, became obedient unto death, etc. Astonishing humility! wondrous love!

John 13:4. He riseth, etc.—The disciples had been striving who should be the greatest, and none probably offered to do that act of service, the customary washing of the feet before beginning the supper (Luke 7:44). Garments.—The upper garment. He kept on only the tunic, the servant’s or slave’s robe.

John 13:5. He poureth water into the basin.—i.e. the basin used for that purpose. And began to wash, etc.—It has been gravely debated whether our Lord began with Simon Peter or with Judas. It is really a matter of no moment. The natural inference from the words as they stand would be that He had already began with others before He reached Simon Peter.

John 13:6. Dost Thou wash my feet? (σὺ μοῦ νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας;).—The pronouns are emphatic, and show in a lively fashion Peter’s astonishment.

John 13:7. What I do thou knowest not, etc.—Peter needed to rise above his imperfect knowledge of Jesus and His work; he needed to be “taught of the Spirit,” “led into all truth,” ere he could comprehend this and much else in the Redeemer’s words and actions.

John 13:8. Peter said, Thou shalt not ever wash my feet.—“A praiseworthy modesty: were it not that with God obedience is better than service” (Calvin). Jesus answered, etc.—Jesus demands implicit obedience. Notice the contrast between the lowly action of Jesus and His regal authority. And yet how beautifully are they blended! No part, etc. (Deuteronomy 12:12).—The Lord had shown that His action had a spiritual meaning (John 13:7). The meaning of our Lord is evidently to be connected with the rite then being instituted, the Lord’s Supper. “If thou art not washed spiritually in that fountain opened for sin,” etc. (Zechariah 13:1), “thou hast no part with Me, oneness with Me, in that glory which is Mine” (John 17:24). This is the deeper meaning of the action perhaps (John 13:11). And included in this, as evidence of the sanctified nature, there is the lesson of absolute self-surrender to Christ in the spirit of self-sacrificing love and service (John 13:12).

John 13:9. Simon Peter saith, etc.—No part with Christ! rather anything than that. And thus the impulsive apostle, still misunderstanding our Lord’s action, blunders from one error into another. He had thought this washing unnecessary; now that the Lord declares that it is needful, he for one will be “throughly cleansed” (Psalms 51:2).

John 13:10. He who has bathed needeth not save to wash his feet.—“Just as the guest, after the bath, needs only to have the dust washed from his feet when he reaches the house of his host” (Westcott). For sanctification we must daily look to Christ for grace. The saved man is clean even though the feet are superficially defiled by contact with the world, etc. “He does not sin wilfully” (Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 5:18). Christ “daily makes intercession for us” (Hebrews 7:25).

John 13:11. [Ye are clean, but not all.] For He knew, etc.—Judas had received in some measure the “knowledge of the truth”; but he had “sinned wilfully” (Hebrews 10:26), and was ready to go forth into the darkness (Hebrews 6:4). But the disciples were clean notwithstanding the presence of the traitor; and thus the Corinthian Church, and all true Churches of Christ, are communities of the saints, the cleansed ones, though traitors and unworthy ones lurk in the fold (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 5:1, etc.).

John 13:12. Know ye, etc.—The “hereafter” of John 13:7 is not exhausted here—would not be indeed until Pentecost. The lesson that follows is the lesson they could then understand.

John 13:13. Master and Lord, etc. (ὁ διδάσκαλος, teacher).—“ ‘Rabbi and Mara,’ the names of reverence which disciples of the Hebrew teachers were accustomed to offer to their masters” (Reynolds). Again the mingling of humility and nobility. He who had just washed the disciples’ feet told them they did well to name or call Him (φωνεῖν) by those titles of respect and reverence.

John 13:14. Ye ought also, etc.—The apostolic Church learned this lesson thoroughly. In the Epistles there are many exhortations to mutual and self-denying helpfulness (Romans 15:1 ff.; Galatians 6:2; Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:3; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:11). The impulsive Peter learned this lesson well, and was able afterwards from the heart to urge the duty of mutual service, etc. (1 Peter 5:5).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— John 13:1

A lesson of humility and ministering love.—It must have been with mingled feelings that Jesus entered Jerusalem on that last passovertide. The streets would be thronged with multitudes who had come to keep the feast. Friends joyfully met their friends. There would be few who would greet gladly Jesus and His disciples. There would be rather scowls of enmity on the part of some, and some would even be rejoicing that there was a traitor in that little band. Yet Jesus, on entering the upper chamber, must have felt in His heart a glow of exultation that here was to be instituted an ordinance in which loving hearts would “remember” Him to the end of the age, and which should be a medium of intimate communion between Him and His people till all of them shall sit down with Him at the heavenly feast. The institution of the supper is not expressly mentioned by St. John, but it is implied (John 13:2; John 13:4). The Evangelist did not repeat what had already been made known in the other Gospels, and which was, when he issued his own, a rite firmly established and constantly observed in the Church. It is the incident recorded in these verses we consider. What is its significance to us?

I. It affords a striking example of the grace of humility.—

1. Through some neglect the feet of the wayfarers had not been washed. Possibly the house was too poor to maintain servants. Among the disciples, too, there had been a dispute which of them should be the greatest. Hence none of them had offered to undertake this duty.
2. Jesus took advantage of this circumstance to inculcate a much-needed lesson. It was one of the chief lessons of His whole life. He took upon Him the form of a servant, and in this act of His toward its end He became the servant of all. He showed this spirit of humility which should animate His followers in every age at the very moment when “He knew that the Father had given all things into His hand.”
3. The spirit here displayed is the spirit of true greatness, which does not depend on adventitious circumstances. Pomp and pride are far beneath it. The great man is; he does not need to blow a trumpet and flaunt his pretensions before men. Being and doing are the warp and woof of his nature.

4. True greatness, as Christ taught His disciples, is found in service, in doing the will of God. If we do the divine will from the heart, that must be because we love Him. And if we love Him, then we must love the brethren; and love will find expression in even the humblest service which will lead to men’s highest good. It was this the Saviour showed forth in this act of humility, etc., etc.

II. Our Lord’s action was the means of bringing home to the disciples a sense of their spiritual need.—

1. The impulsiveness of Peter furnished Jesus with an opportunity of teaching the symbolic meaning of this action. It was a necessary act of service which Jesus thus ennobled.
2. Peter observed the action with wonder—wondered that no one interposed—resolved that he would. What! his Master, whom multitudes had hailed as king, who was yet to reign over the kingdom of God, that He should stoop to this act! He forgot that the humiliation lay in Christ being where He was. When, therefore, Jesus came to him, the impulsive apostle cried out, “Lord, dost Thou,” etc.

3. The answer of Jesus should have sufficed (John 13:7). Not, however, for self-willed Peter. But when Jesus said, “If I wash thee not,” etc., then Peter showed that his resistance was due to no want of love, but to his impulsive self-confidence. Seeing now the spiritual meaning our Lord conveyed in His action, the disciple went to the other extreme, and cried out, “Not my feet only,” etc.

4. The Lord’s reply put him right. “He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet.” The traveller over the dusty ways might in the morning have bathed; but in the evening the dusty feet needed washing, which was grateful and refreshing.

5. So Christ’s disciples daily need sanctifying grace. They who are cleansed, bathed, in the fountain opened for sin, are cleansed once for all. But they still come in contact with sin, the world’s evil, and need daily cleansing of the feet, daily approach unto Christ through His Spirit for sanctifying grace.
6. “Now ye are clean, but not all.” Judas was there, soon to depart from that company for ever—an example of those for whom the wonderful humiliation of Jesus and His love plead in vain.

III. This action of Jesus teaches us a lesson of self-sacrificing love.—

1. “I have given you an example,” etc. Two of the great historic Churches consider this to mean that our Lord meant those who represent Him to do what He did. No interpretation of His words could be more puerile. If the scene is to be transacted literally, then a Judas should always be among the twelve!

2. Christ said, Do as I have done unto you, standing in the place of a minister among you.

3. It was an actual service which had been omitted that Jesus performed, and from which He drew a spiritual lesson. But times and customs change, dress and habits; also what in that land and in those days might be essential is not so now. But the lesson of ministering love remains for all men and all times. The Christian life is to be a life of service in imitation of our Lord and Master, Christ.

Learn—

1. In the present age there is much need to remember the Lord’s saying, “What I do thou knowest not now,” etc. (John 13:7). It is not an age of humility, but of boasted knowledge. In every department men need to learn the lesson of humility, of dependence on God, and of the limited and relative nature of all human knowledge. Neither scientific knowledge nor any other department can claim to be absolute.

2. Humility and reverent submission become Christian men in view of the mysteries of Providence. The divine ways sometimes seem dark. The righteous are afflicted, whilst the wicked prosper. But we have not entered entirely into the secret divine counsels, nor do we know the end of these things. It is when, like Asaph, we go with such troubled thoughts in humility to the sanctuary that light arises for us (Psalms 73:17).

3. But we must beware of false humility. There are times when Christian men vividly feel their unworthiness, and are prompted to cry out, “What am I that the Lord should be mindful of me?” “I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof” (Matthew 8:8); “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Yet true disciples will humbly and thankfully receive the blessing sent. But there is a false humility that would obtrude its own ideas as to the fitness of things, and, misled by it, men would seek cleansing in their own way. They will not submit entirely to Christ’s way; they must themselves do what He alone can do. They forget that sanctifying grace, as well as saving grace, comes alone through Christ, and that they must daily look to Him for it (John 13:8).

4. We may learn, therefore, to avoid that pride which apes humility, and that false pride also which often leads men to shrink from obvious duty. And as the Lord in this action of His stooped even to entreat a Judas, so should we learn to bend a pitying eye on perishing sinners, and hold out to them a helping hand.

John 13:8; John 13:14. Ministering love.—To every thoughtful reader of this portion of Holy Scripture it must seem strange and worthy of special notice that St. John records this incident of the feet-washing, not narrated by the other Evangelists, in place of the holy supper, the institution of which is given in the other Gospels. And it is worth noting that, although here this incident takes the place of the other, there are yet manifold points of connection between them.

I. As Christ here says to Peter, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me,” so He had formerly declared in a rich and profound discourse, “If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you”

(6.). We cannot, indeed, but think of those words in our sacramental communion. Yet it is quite evident that the eating of the bread, which the Lord calls His body, stands in relation to the spiritual enjoyment of His flesh and blood, as the outward washing here corresponds with the spiritual washing of the soul. It is as if St. John would have us especially understand that neither in the one case nor the other is the chief reference to the visible and outward. For here the Lord Himself says, after He had done alike to all, “Ye are clean, but not all,” because in this action one had had part who was to betray Him. Even so should we also realise that mere outward eating and drinking (in the sacrament) can give life to none, nor maintain it. As it was in the feet-washing, the communication of life must be something inward. But then, as Christ exhibited this action of washing His disciples’ feet to be a helpful testimony of His heartfelt, meek, and lowly love for our imitation, as, indeed, He had manifested that love toward His disciples all along the course of His public life, so our holy feast is a remembrance of His love. He constituted the ordinance of the supper in part to be an example to His disciples, so that they should love each other with the same love with which He loved them, and in part that from that period Christians should be called to show forth His love in partaking at one holy table.

II. The words we have read show us the true use of this incident—viz. that we should seek to purify each other as the Redeemer seeks to purify us. And in order that this may not appear too gigantic a task for any of us, toward the doing of which we can only faintly strive, we must not overlook the difference which Christ Himself here emphasises. He says, i.e., “He that is bathed needs henceforward only a partial cleansing.” Of the first, the complete cleansing, He speaks here no more. He presupposes it as already experienced by the disciples. But this second partial cleansing He commands and commissions us to practise toward each other. He brings the first to pass when He is received as the only begotten Son.… But here He requires His own people, as true servants and consecrated instruments, not to effect what He alone can effect certainly, but (in order to point others to Him) to bear witness for Him, and to represent Him to men in all His purity and love, which must tend to draw all hearts to Him.

III. Thus it is with the partial cleansing which those who are already sanctified still require that we have to do here.—Life ever brings elements of defilement with it to our individual lives. Even this partial cleansing also can be perfectly effected by divine power alone. As John has elsewhere said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful,” etc. But in this very particular we may minister to each other. Even before the need of cleansing appears, even whilst we are seeking to guard ourselves as far as possible from the assaults of temptation, and afterward when we have encountered temptation, our fellow-disciples should seek to strengthen us by a living example, by means of comforting admonition and earnest prayer. And yet more should they seek that through the word of God we may be edified, and should unite together in the acknowledgment and confession of sin. This is one of the positive ends of those actions of worship in which we are united together. This community of confession has a quickening influence on us all, and strengthens us in the assurance of our cleansing. And it is also exceedingly beautiful and precious when in the midst of our ordinary life we can be helpful to each other, in counsel and deed supporting each other in this effort after cleansing. And this will come about only in the measure in which we are closely related to each other—whether it be by firm bonds in an enduring fashion, or whether it be in those accidental reunions, which life so often brings us, with the experience of blessed communion of souls. This should bind Christians together. To this we should bind ourselves at the holy table of the Lord; we should minister spiritually to one another, that each may seek to do so in lowly love as he is able toward all who bear the name of Christ, as Christ has here shown us. And we should do this in small things as well as in great, so that we may in all things advance in that spiritual beauty and purity in which the Church of Christ should ever represent her Master and Lord.—Translated from, Fr. Schleiermacher.

John 13:15. The great example.—Jesus taught not only by word, but by His life and walk. Even although He had spoken not a word, His life would have been the most impressive of sermons. He was indeed the ideal and prototype of all perfection.

I. How can we describe this ideal?—It is impossible to do so fully. We can only partially describe certain features that we can catch. The complete image who can describe? If we look first at the example Jesus here gave His disciples, we see Christ as—

1. The highest example of ministering love.—He was among the disciples as “One that serveth,” etc.

2. Jesus was meek and lowly, and He was also free from all self-seeking, which is one of our sinful affections. His love was a communicating love. We through His poverty have become rich. He gave and gives all His best gifts to His people: He gave Himself.

3. It was a self-denying love.—He denied Himself all earthly comforts, etc. “Foxes have holes,” etc. His life was a constant self-forgetting, self-offering one from beginning to end. It was an example of the purest, most disinterested, devoted, and self-surrendering, the most active and all-embracing love.

4. Most conspicuous also was His love to the Father.—This was the spring of His love to men. Because of His love to the Father He bore witness to the truth—did the works of the Father while it was day, took on Him the form of a servant. “The fulness of the divine life was the breath of His soul”; therefore every thought was consecrated into prayer, every word to the revelation of God, every deed to the glorifying of His heavenly Father. Everything in His case had a relation to the highest and the heavenly. His life was an unbroken prayer, a glorifying of God.

5. He was free from all sin.—Every virtue was found in full perfection in Him. He “fulfilled all righteousness.” All the virtues were exemplified in Him—strength, gentleness, etc. In each He is the type of perfection. With men these virtues are difficult of acquisition—hard to attain to, easy to fall from. In His case they were the spontaneous fruit of His nature. He was not only the best of men; He is the alone good, pure, and holy One as God is. Because He is the image of the invisible God, He is the prototype of a perfected humanity. Every man is a sinner. But as every nay has its opposing yea, so Christ appears as the ideal example before us, and we thus may carry within us the image of a perfect virtue and moral perfection, the conception and possibility of perfect purity and disinterested goodness, undisturbed peace, and immutable truth.

6. But can He then be an example for all?—Yes. For what is virtue? What are all the virtues? The expression of the principle of love to God. He who loves God has reached the source of all virtue; for “love is the fulfilling of the law,” the bond of all perfection.

II. That Christ is our example is an important fact for our Christian life.—

1. It should prove a guide and direction to us, as to how we ought to live when bearing the name of Christ. He is the head of a new spiritual race; He is a second, a better Adam. The image of Christ is held up before us by the apostles in gospel and epistle as our Ideal. We must observe it, and carry it with us wherever we go, in our thought and activity discovering ever new glories in it, and dark spots in our own lives. And as unknown to ourselves His light shines on us, we are transformed into the same likeness. If a French philosopher confessed in reference to the devout Fénélon: “I dare not remain in the presence of this saintly man; if I were to do so I should be compelled to discard my infidelity: such purity and loveliness of character as he displays prove the truth of his religion, and that religion really comes from heaven,”—much more must we subscribe the words of another (Rousseau) concerning Christ: “If the death and life of Socrates are those of a sage, so are the life and death of Jesus those of a God.”

2. The example of Christ should be an inspiration.—It is pleasant to follow a high example. It is easier to do so than to have to discover the way for ourselves. With Christ’s example before us the way becomes more easy. No spur will be needed for duty. It will be done without thought of reward, etc. Is it asked, Is it possible to follow the example and obey the precepts of Christ and live as He did in the world? Truly He is always an unattainable ideal. But He is also “the author and finisher of our faith,” so that we may grow up into Him in spirit, whence flow the issues of the eternal life. We have not attained, etc.; but if we cannot run, we may be able to walk, etc. And His word will be, “Thou hast done what thou couldst.”

3. A true example saves us from all false, visionary, etc., examples, and from, deifying, worshipping, and serving the creature.—Men are either better or worse than their systems. Only in the case of Christ word and deed, doctrine and life, are in fullest accord. Thus He supersedes all merely human examples. What religion of earth has ever furnished such an example? What prophet can be named in comparison with Him?

It follows that He alone is worthy of the consecration of our time and strength. He alone is worthy that we should copy Him, and fix our regards on Him as much as possible—that we should call Him Master—that we should glorify Him in word and work our whole life long. We truly become Christians only when Christ is formed in us and lives and rules in us through His life with demonstration of the Spirit and of power.—Abridged from F. Arndt.

HOMILETIC NOTES

John 13:1. The time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.—Although it is not necessary here to enter on a full survey of the vexed question that has arisen on the note of time in John 13:1, yet in order to gain a clear conception of the narrative in the succeeding Chapter s, the chief points in the controversy as to the day of our Lord’s crucifixion should be noted. The idea most widely entertained is that the three Synoptic Evangelists seem clearly to affirm that the Lord’s Supper was instituted at the passover feast proper, i.e. at the supper during which the paschal lamb was eaten, on the evening beginning the 15th Nisan. But St. John expressly says it was before the feast of the passover that the incidents here recorded took place; in John 13:29 “buying the things needed for the feast” is spoken of; whilst in John 18:28 the Jews would not enter Pilate’s palace, we are told, lest they should be defiled, and thus debarred from eating the passover. The whole question has been sub judice since the middle of the second century. It is still virtually undecided. A considerable number still maintain, and produce strong arguments for their position, that the Lord’s Supper was instituted on Thursday, the 14th Nisan, i.e. at the beginning of the new day (reckoning from sunset to sunset), which followed the close of Wednesday, the 13th, and that consequently the Crucifixion took place on the morning of the 14th Nisan, so that the ninth hour, when Jesus died on the cross, would be about three o’clock in the afternoon of the 14th, when the priests in the temple began, “between the two evenings” (Exodus 12:6), to slay the passover lambs of the worshippers, and to sprinkle the blood on the altar. Now it seems to be unquestionable that the narrative of St. John appears to favour this solution of the difficulty. But the question then is, Is this Evangelist at variance with the other three? This by no means follows. It cannot be asserted that there is any real contradiction; and various attempts have been made on the one side and the other to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies. Some link seems still to be wanting to complete the chain of evidence on one side or the other. And as within the present century links have been found to complete other chains (e.g. Zumpt’s solution of Luke 2:2), so we may believe this difficulty also will be resolved in process of time and discovery. But there is no doubt that at present the weight of argument seems to lie on the side of what may be called the Johannine explanation. (See, e.g., Caspari’s admirable treatment of the question in his Chronological, etc., Introduction to the Life of Christ.) It seems clear that our Lord’s resurrection took place on the first day of the week, a fact confirmed by this other fact that Pentecost fell also on the first day of the week (Leviticus 23:15; Deuteronomy 16:9). It is by no means clear that the Synoptists intended to indicate that it was at the meal when the paschal lamb was eaten our Lord instituted the supper. There is no mention made in their narratives of the special observances of that meal. The lamb is not spoken of, nor the bitter herbs, the numerous cups of wine mingled with water, etc. Indeed, the Lord’s Supper is regarded, even by those who think it was instituted on the 15th Nisan, as an appendix to the passover meal, and no part of that meal (1 Corinthians 11:25). When Matthew and the other Synoptists speak of the first day of unleavened bread, etc., they may, and in fact must, mean the 14th Nisan, the day on which all leaven was removed from the houses, and when preparation for the whole passover week was made. Then on the beginning of the evening of the 14th (i.e. after the close of the evening at the end of the 13th) the casting out of the leaven was begun. It may have begun even before that; and then the people went to draw fresh water for the making of the unleavened bread (Mark 14:13). The enemies of our Lord did not wish to take Him on the first day of the feast, which was a day of holy convocation (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2); and well might they desire to avoid such a contretemps; for all the proceedings before the high priest and Pilate would have been a direct violation of that most sacred day (sacred as the weekly Sabbath), the 15th Nisan. The “preparation” of the passover (Matthew 26:17) may reasonably be taken to mean preparation for the whole course of the feast, including the 14th Nisan, the day in which all leaven would be excluded from the houses. If, then, the meal at which the ordinance of the supper was instituted was not the passover meal, what was it? Was it an anticipation of the passover? Even though unprecedented, we might see a reason why our Lord might anticipate this feast. The feast was “a shadow of good things”; but now the shadow was to give place to the substance (Hebrews 10:9). It has been asserted also that our Lord observed the passover at the same time as a certain body of the Jewish people; or that He observed it at the proper date, whilst the bulk of the people did not. There is no actual proof for these conjectures, however. The view held by Neander is worth noting. “He foresaw that He would have to leave His disciples before the Jewish passover, and determined to give a peculiar meaning to His last meal with them, and to place it in a peculiar relation to the passover of the old covenant, the place of which was to be taken by the meal of the new covenant” (Neander, Life of Christ). Another supposition is thus given, which, if it were undoubtedly confirmed, would at once dissolve the difficulty. “The simple supposition,” says Dr. Reynolds, “that a custom prevailed among the Jews of spreading the allowable opportunity of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb over a larger portion of time, in consequence of the great crowd in Jerusalem at the time, would really cover every difficulty, if we add to it that our Lord, ‘desiring to eat the passover with His disciples before He suffered,’ had chosen to select such portions of the ritual, and such hour of the day, as best suited His dread foreknowledge of the immediate future.” And, we may add, could not the Son of man (Mark 2:26), in view of His becoming men’s true passover (1 Corinthians 5:7), make such change? Those who hold that the Synoptic narratives refer to the actual passover feast get over the difficulties in John’s Gospel in the following manner:—They consider, e.g., that John 13:1 is a simple introduction. Before the passover the Saviour’s love was specially manifested to His disciples. They explain the reference in John 13:29 as the preparation for the chagigah (peace-offering and festivals 2 Chronicles 30:22); and hold that John 18:28 refers to fear of defilement preventing the Jews from eating the chagigah; and that the “preparation of the passover” (John 19:14) means simply the preparation for the Sabbath, i.e. the Friday before a Sabbath, which had a special importance when it fell in the passover week. The difficulty throws no doubt on the authenticity or truthfulness of any of the gospel narratives, and it is indeed a very clear testimony to the independence of these documents. The solution turns perhaps on the ascertaining of some fact or facts regarding the mode of celebration of the passover at the time of our Lord’s sojourn on earth. Is it too much to expect that in these days of earnest research and wonderful discovery this long-vexed question may at length be settled?

ILLUSTRATIONS

John 13:1. Christ loving His own to the end.—To the end He loved His own, to the end of His earthly course. And what the disciples experienced from that point was a new history of His love. He loved them, bore them to their old age. When they came at last to the next world, His love again was there. This is the same Lord who is also ours. Great comfort for hearts that feel their need of love! Glorious balm for bruised souls, Jesus loves to the end! Even this may be listened to with cold heart. Thou hast enough of earthly love: what need of Jesus’ love? Or thou art enough for thyself: why speak of love at all? We may also say, Jesus loving to the end is matter of course: how else could He be Saviour? What would His love be to me, if it did not love to the end? Very good; if any one deems himself worthy of the love of Jesus, to him this is matter of course. And in the case of almost all men there is a time when the heart thinks itself worthy of love—the time of natural pride, of an unsubdued heart. But a time may also come to thee, when thou canst scarcely believe that Jesus will love thee, even thee, when thou wouldst fain believe and wouldst give much if thou couldst believe it and canst not. For it is indeed divinely natural, but for this very reason wondrous, that Jesus should love, love us, love to the end. God is the wonder of wonders. Jesus’ love is matter of faith, for Jesus is invisible, and His working also is often hidden. What thou seest and sufferest often looks unlike love. But again come times when one can feel, taste love, and times when the heart by a power from above is sure and glad of this: Jesus loves, and He loves even me. Every one among us, if he is only in earnest, may have such experiences. Therefore should every one among us, those of ripe age especially, be able to say, I know that He loves, how much He loves, and I know in what the certainty rests, that He is an exhaustless fount of love. Nor can our inner life be bright or one of joyous progress until we have the certainty that Jesus loves us.—Dr. W. F. Gess, in “The Thinker,” October 1893.

John 13:4. The power of self-denying love.—At present the Lord Jesus gives above all this command to His disciples: “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). To say that this is not to be taken literally is to say too little. The precept of feet-washing is one of the cases to which Paul’s saying applies: “The letter killeth, the spirit makes alive”—at least in one of its aspects. A man might fulfil it literally and yet remain spiritually dead; pay, confirm himself in death by the practice. But what is the spirit of Jesus’ saying? Has none of us to do with contrary people, when it requires self-denial to use friendly, gentle language to them, or to give them practical help, and that more than once? Among thy acquaintance are there weak-minded people who need thy love? In this case you will easily understand what the words mean, “Wash one another’s feet.” In such circumstances it is often difficult to show kindly, loving patience, and that for years, even to near kindred, to brothers and sisters. Even parents, when age comes with its infirmities and whims, become a trouble to children. Then it behoves to remember the precept of feet-washing. And what as to us parents with our children? In regard to the amiable and gifted, who are our joy and glory, a parent’s heart naturally rejoices in diligence and truthfulness; then the greatest sacrifice is no sacrifice. But the feeble and troublesome, whom one cannot speak of? Even here natural love sometimes overcomes every obstacle. Yet love often makes so blind that parents cannot see even the defects of children. Christians should not be blind, even toward children. But when children become an irksome tax upon them, what should they do? Perhaps thou hast too a bad, misguided child. My friends, Christians are not then to be like old Eli, not to shut their eyes and deceive themselves, not to be faint-hearted and do nothing. Then is the time to be earnest, to show anger—anger like God’s—zeal against sin, and therefore against the sinner who nurses sin in himself, and with it death, the unpitying zeal which springs from true love, from real mercy. But how feel love toward a bad child? How soothe trouble of heart for a child’s ingratitude? Any one among us who knows such parental grief will understand what the Lord means by the feet-washing: exercise love, be bold to love, when loving grows irksome.—Dr. W. F. Gess, in “The Thinker.”

John 13:9. The need of continual spiritual cleansing.—“If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me.” How terrified Peter is when he hears this! Then he tacks about and cries, “Lord, not my feet alone, but my hands and my head” (John 13:9). It was a fine trait in him that his greatest pain was to hear the Lord say, “Else thou hast no part in Me.” When we see that a certain thing would hinder fellowship with the Lord, or others tell us so, are we as resolved to make sure of having part with Jesus? Do we then say, “Lord, not my feet alone, but my hands and my head”? This was Peter’s honest heart, in virtue of which he was able afterward to become so perfect a disciple of the Saviour. But now he has to be checked. Jesus says to him, “He that has bathed needs not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit” (John 13:10). This third saying of our Lord also is of abiding significance. It distinguishes bathing from feet-washing. The whole man is made clean by bathing; but the feet are the first to be soiled again, and so ever need cleansing. What does the Lord mean by having bathed? It is what Holy Scripture means by the new birth. Washing the feet is daily forgiveness and sanctifying. Jesus bears witness to His disciples, “Ye are clean” (John 15:3). This they become through His word and intercourse with Him; their heart was turned away from the world, from the service of vanity, and belonged in reality to the Lord. And, accordingly, when He departed, the Spirit came from on high and dwelt in the centre of their heart. This is the new birth which we all need. “Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Our very mind and heart must be transformed. This may possibly be done gradually by God, from the time of baptism, so that the Spirit gains power in us imperceptibly, as Tersteegen says:

“As flowers their opening leaves display,
And glad drink in the solar fire.”

But if it has not taken place after baptism, it must take place now. It is scarcely credible, before one has experienced it, how much our heart leans on itself, how closely our own nature clings to us. Most men do not know it. We only perceive it when we begin to try to go out of ourselves. But we must go out of ourselves. Instead of our own ideas, the love and the glory of God must become our end, a new life of God’s Spirit must begin in us. Such a transformation of nature took place in the disciples; they became pure. Now, says Jesus, ye need still to wash the feet. Too many new stains and faults occur. The old man still works; we fall short of God’s will; we go astray in our own ways. But do not treat it lightly, do not think, “My heart is all right, I am bathed; my outward circumstances and natural temperament still make me stumble now and then, but in my heart I am the Lord’s disciple; no one is perfect!” This is the way to forget the daily washing. We know that this and that is not right, but we would fain forget it; we feel how deep-rooted inclination is, and do not struggle against it. But faults of the soul are not like faults in wood and stone, or even some bodily defects, which are fixed; but it is here as with those physical ailments which must either be got rid of or they consume the whole body. Either—or. There is no true peace of heart, unless one is always anew coming to an understanding with Jesus. What takes place between us and Him we are always to discuss with Him and come to a settlement about with Him. We may go on with a heart which has but a half-peace, in which is a certain unrest. This is not the true Christian state. But as soon as we have failed in anything (and the failure is always toward God), in doing or leaving undone, we should humbly confess it to Him, seek His forgiveness, and begin afresh. By thus ever seeking His forgiveness, and not resting until we have it, the heart is set free, enjoys perfect peace, and daily receives new strength to go forward in the narrow way.—Idem.

John 13:14. Mutual aid in the spiritual life.—To wash one another’s feet is, in the deeper meaning of the thing, to help one another out of the evil that is in the world, to aid, one another in the keeping of a pure conscience and of a wholesome and holy life. This assuredly must be our first concern as to those whom God has given us. Our love will show itself by counting nothing too lowly, and nothing too hard, by which we may strengthen against sin—lead into the way of peace, or at least witness for the eternally right and good. For example, supposing one has wronged you, really wronged you, injured you at the innermost place of your heart, spoken or done what you feel was not only an unkindness and a personal pain, but an untruth between him and God: to carry out the idea symbolised by Christ, you must not merely forgive that one, you must try to get him out of that untruth which is between him and God, to have the soul cleansed from the evil that it has contracted. And a man is great, Christlike, in the measure in which he can lay aside merely personal considerations, and in tender yet faithful love deal with, that he may win, his brother. Did not Jesus wash the feet of Judas, into whom Satan had entered? Did He not try, even to the last moment, to save him from his lie? Brainerd, in his younger days, carried away by an indiscreet zeal, provoked the censure of his seniors at college, and was severely, too severely, punished. In later years he saw his error. He had been unkindly treated; but he could say, “I would willingly humble myself before those whom my error led into sin, and ask their forgiveness, although they should still refuse to own that in which they wronged me.” Was not that Christlike indeed? Is it not truly divine to come down from a vantage-ground and be nowhere, that God’s love may be manifested, and men may indeed know it in its separation from evil?—Dr. Marshall Lang.