John 13:1-11

THE ACT OF LOVING SERVICE

Text 13:1-11

1

Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

2

And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,

3

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came forth from God, and goeth unto God,

4

riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and he took a towel, and girded himself.

5

Then he poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples-' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

6

So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7

Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt understand hereafter.

8

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

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 bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

11

For he knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

Queries

a.

Does John 13:1 indicate that this foot-washing incident was at another supper, separate from the Passover?

b.

Why Peter's change of attitude as in John 13:8-9?

c.

What does the figure of speech in John 13:10 mean?

Paraphrase

Even before the Passover Jesus was omnisciently aware that He must depart this world and His disciples and return unto the Father, And now at the Passover, more vividly aware than ever of the appointed time for His departure, and having loved His disciples fervently throughout His earthly ministry, He knew that the proper time had come to reveal to them His love to the uttermost. And during the paschal supper Jesus, fully aware that Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, had previously succumbed to the devil's temptations and had decided to betray Himand in full consciousness of His deity and His divine prerogativesarose from His couch at the supper table and, taking off His outer garments, He picked up a towel and put it around His waist. Then He poured water into the wash basin and began to perform the customary task of a servant by washing the disciples-' feet and drying them with the towel around His waist.
Around the table from couch to couch Jesus performed this service until He came to Simon Peter, In shocked astonishment Simon Peter said, Lord, are you going to wash my feet? Jesus answered, Simon, you do not understand the significance of what I am doing now but later on you will understand plainly. But Peter objected strenuously saying, Lord, you must never lower yourself to wash my feet! Jesus answered, If you cannot surrender to my way of humility, which I am here exemplifying, you can have no share in my kingdom. Then Simon Peter said to him, Lord, if to share in your kingdom I must be washed by you, then wash not only my feet but my hands and head also. Jesus said to him, Once a person has been cleansed and has become my follower he is cleansed completely and need not repeat the initial cleansing but must sanctify himself and grow in grace by daily repentance and humble acts of love. And you have all become initially true followers of mine but need to grow in grace and humble acts of love and service to one anotherall of you except one are true disciples. Jesus knew from the first that Judas would betray Him and to show His omniscience to His disciples who would later remember this prediction, He said therefore, You are not all clean.

Summary

Jesus teaches the proud and ambitious disciples a lesson on love, humility and true discipleship by performing a humble deed of love.

Comment

How expressive the words of this first verse of the thirteenth chapter. Long before this Passover Jesus was fully aware of the terrible suffering He must endure (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22-23; John 5:18, etc.) and yet His main concern was not for self but for His beloved disciples. All during the three years as the shadow of the cross grew more and more ominous His first care was teaching, encouraging, providing for and serving His disciples. They understood Him not and comforted Him not in His trials, yet He loved always. And now, having come to the crucial hour, more vividly aware than ever of His exodus He is not found selfishly engrossed with His own sorrows, but we find Him revealing His love to them to the uttermost. A. B. Bruce says, in The Training of The Twelve, Jesus loved His disciples to the end, though they did not all so love Him. One of them at this very moment entertained the diabolic purpose of betraying his Lord. Yet that Lord loved even him, condescending to wash even his feet; so endeavoring, if possible, to overcome his evil with good.

Ever since the second century it has been disputed as to whether the Passover and Last Supper as recorded in the Synoptics (Matthew 26:1-75; Mark 14:1-72; Luke 22:1-71) and the Supper in John 13:1-38 are the same or not. That they are one and the same should be plain when a comparison of the two accounts is made. Both John and the Synoptics record incidents which are identical. Compare them! Compare John 13:16-17 with Luke 22:14-15; Luke 22:24-27. Compare John 13:18; John 13:21-30 with Mark 14:17-21; Matthew 26:20-25. Compare John 13:38 with Matthew 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34. As Hendriksen says, Must we, indeed, assume that these three identical incidents occurred in connection with two different meals on two different evenings? McGarvey, in his Fourfold Gospel, says significantly, It accords with the supplementary nature of John's Gospel to thus mention it as a meal thoroughly familiar to his readers.

This being the same Passover supper as that of the Synoptics we may determine the precise evening of the week in which Jesus washed the disciples-' feet. The disciples had been instructed by Jesus to prepare for the Passover at the regulated time and in the usual manner (cf. Matthew 26:17-21 ff. Mark 14:12-16). The regulated time for eating the Passover that year very evidently fell on Thursday evening for Mark, Luke and John all three state unequivocally that Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, Friday, the day before the sabbath, (cf. Matthew 26:17-21; Mark 14:12-16). We quote here from an essay by Seth Wilson on John 13:1-38, entitled, An Example in Humility: The Sabbath mentioned (Mark 15:42) must have been the regular Saturday sabbath, too; for the special day of holy convocation in Passover week (if it ever was called a sabbath) was the first day of unleavened bread (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:6-7) and would have been the day on which Jesus was crucified or even the day before, according to Mark 14:12, since Jesus was alive and free on the day on which the passover lamb was killed and the leaven was put out of the houses of Israel. The next day He was killed. The next day was -the sabbath.-' -And when the sabbath was past-' was the first day of the week, The accounts do not say that two sabbaths passed before the first day of the week (read Luke 23:54 through Luke 24:1; Mark 15:42 through John 16:2). For further discussion of this problem see the essay entitled, Was Jesus Crucified on Friday? by Seth Wilson, Special Study in the last pages of this volume.

Judas had probably made final arrangements with the authorities to betray Jesus on Wednesday. Now on Thursday night this same Judas is back with the other disciples hypocritically going through the rituals of the greatest feast of them all. Does he think Jesus is unaware of his evil plot and his hypocrisy? Never! He knew it all along (cf. John 6:71; John 12:4-6).

Where do we place the incident of feet-washing within the chronology of the events at the Last Supper? Most commentators and authors of harmonies place John 13:1-30 just after the dispute of the disciples (Luke 22:24-30) and just before the disclosure of Jesus concerning the betrayer among the Twelve (Matthew 26:21-25), assuming that Luke's account of this disclosure is chronologically out of sequence. Thus the chronology of events transpiring at the Last Supper seem to be as follows:

a.

Preparations for the Passover and coming into the Upper Room. (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13)

b.

Opening of the Passover supper by Jesus (Luke 22:15-18)

c.

Dispute among the disciples (Luke 22:24-30)

d.

Feet Washing and lessons in greatness (John 13:1-30)

e.

The Betrayer revealed and he goes out (Matthew 26:1-75; Mark 14:1-72; Luke 22:1-71; John 13:1-38)

f.

Institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:1-75; Mark 14:1-72; Luke 22:1-71)

g.

The New Commandment Given (John 13:33-38)

h.

Peter's denial and denial of all disciples foretold (Matthew 26:1-75; Mark 14:1-72; Luke 22:1-71)

The opening remarks of Jesus concerning the fulfillment in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:14-15) no doubt set the imaginations of the disciples to dreaming grandiose dreams again of thrones and positions. As they began to envision the kingdom and the positions available they began to strive with one another for the places of honor and position at this supper table. We quote again from Seth Wilson's essay An Example of Humility: It must have grieved Him and made Him feel lonely in this selfish world to know that they were quarreling with one another about their relative ranks and places of honor, in the very night when He was descending to the very depths of self-abnegation, claiming nothing of His own in order to bear the cross of shame to a criminal's death for the sake of those who so wrongly thought they had rights and rank. He was fully conscious of His own divine power and majestic rights by which He could have abased and humbled them into abject and cringing fear; but He loved them. He sought to teach them, not coerce them. He wanted to draw them to Him, not drive them from Him.

So He arose from the supper, prepared Himself as a servant, and washed their feet. But why did He do that? Not only for a lesson. It was a genuine act of loving service, an act of humble willingness to do the most lowly service for His friends, an act of practical courtesy which they had forgotten or avoided in their preoccupation with selfish pride.
In the land of Palestine the rough and dusty roads, the absence of stockings, the use of sandals, the habit of walking barefoot, the much greater amount of walking than we do, all make it necessary to give the feet frequent washings. (Read Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 24:32; Genesis 43:24; Judges 19:21; 1 Samuel 25:41; 2 Samuel 11:8.) These passages show that washing the feet was the first act on entering a tent or a house after a journey. This is regularly done when entering a house, especially the better upper rooms which are usually carpeted. The shoes were never worn in the house. It was the common dictate of good manners to provide either water for the guests to wash their own feet, or a slave to do it. It became almost synonymous with hospitality (1 Timothy 5:10). Jesus rebuked a Pharisee, in whose house He was entertained, for not providing water for His feet (Luke 7:44). From an early date, however, it was considered one of the lowest tasks of servants (1 Samuel 25:41), probably because it was done by the youngest and least-trained servants, or because of the idea of defilement connected with the foot. Therefore, if rendered voluntarily, it was a symbol of complete devotion. The undoing of the latchet, or thongs, of the sandals (Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27) seems to refer to the same menial duty.

Whether Jesus began His loving act of service with Simon Peter or, having begun with one of the other disciples, came to him later we cannot tell for certain. The picture John paints seems to indicate to us that Jesus had already washed the feet of some who were so busy discussing rank and preoccupied with selfish dreams of glory they were oblivious to their Master's self-humiliation. But when Jesus came to Peter, He found one disciple with at least enough respect and reverence to object. The Lord's first answer to Peter (John 13:7) is mild, but firm, assuring the respectful Peter that what He was doing was fitting and although Peter did not understand now, he was to submit to the act and later he would understand.

But Peter (John 13:8) objected more strenuously with even the note of dictating in his voice as to what the Master could or could not do. We can almost see Peter hastily drawing his feet back from the Master's touch.

Simon Peter's intentions were no doubt motivated by a sense of respect and reverence which is good, except when it leads one to object to the Lord's will and to refuse to obey Him. This was the dangerous frame of mind possessing Peter here. Let us quote here from The Training of the Twelve, by A. B. Bruce, page 346: Observe, then, what was involved in the attitude assumed by Peter. He virtually took his stand on these two positions: that he would admit of nothing which seemed inconsistent with the personal dignity of his Lord, and that he would adopt as his rule of conduct his own judgment in preference to Christ's will. In other words, the ground taken up by this disciple compromised the whole sum and substance of Christianity, the former principle sweeping away Christ's whole state and experience of humiliation, and the latter not less certainly sapping the foundation of Christ's lordship. That is, Peter was objecting to the very basic tenent of Christ's ministryhumiliationvoluntary participation in the experiences of the flesh that He might conquer and redeem. In so refusing the Lord, Peter was in the dangerous position of disobeying Him and distrusting His demands because he did not understand and therefore letting his own fallible reason be his guide when Jesus had expressed His will in the matter. And, are not all of His disciples of all ages guilty at one time or another of the same misguided respect and reverence?

The Lord's answer (John 13:8) was more explicit and stern. For if Peter would not surrender to the way of humility which the Master came to exemplify and teachif Peter could not in whole-hearted faith obey his Master, even when he could not understandPeter could have no part with the Master in His kingdom of which Peter and the others so fondly dreamed.

As A. B. Bruce points out in Training of the Twelve, if God, in Christ, may not humble Himself, He can have no part with us. He is relegated to the Wholly Other as our contemporary existential neo-orthodox theologians would confine Him. A great impassable gulf separates the Divine Being from His creatures. His creatures may reach Him, perhaps, through the existential leap after they have reached the crises. But as for God, He may peer wistfully from His prison-house of the realm of the Absolute and contemplate the sorrowful estate of man, but He cannot come near them, and reach forth a helping hand.

But if the Son of God may have no part with us, then, in the second place, we can have no part with Him. We cannot share His fellowship with the Father, if He come not forth to declare Him. A God whose majesty, like an iron gate, kept Him aloof from sinners, could not even effectively forgive them. Still less could He sanctify them. Love alone has sanctifying virtue, and what room is there for lore in a Being who cannot humble Himself to be a servant? (A. B. Bruce, ibid).
The epistle to the Hebrews is the most extensive of all the books of Holy Scripture dealing with the necessity of Christ's participation in humanity in order that He might save, sanctify and intercede for man. If by grace God does not become incarnate in flesh so as to win the victory, how will man ever be restored to fellowship with a perfectly righteous and just Judge? By grace are we saved, and that through faith in a humiliated, yet triumphant Lord!
And if our carnal minds cause us to judge honor and dignity as the world judges and we reject the way of humility and service which our God chose and bids us followWE SHALL HAVE NO PART WITH HIM!

The stern warning of Jesus shook the impulsive Peter to the very innermost feelings of his heart. There is much to commend in Peter. Who can doubt his willingness to follow the Lord (John 6:68-69)? Who can doubt his courage (Matthew 26:35; John 18:10-11)? Peter believed in Jesus and he wanted earnestly to follow Him, to death if necessary, to establish the Messianic kingdom. But Peter's concept of Messianic kingdom was carnalearthy. We believe that it was disappointment with Jesus in not fulfilling his earthly concept of the Messianic kingdom that caused Peter and the others to be offended in Jesus at the hour of crucifixionnot their cowardice. They would have fought at a mere suggestion to do so by Jesus (John 18:36).

So when Jesus suggested that unless Peter allow himself to be washed he could not participate with Him in His kingdom, the thought of being excluded caused him to jump to the opposite extreme of overdone compliance. Lord, wash me all over, if that be one of the requirements for having part in your kingdom, was Peter's reply (John 13:9).

The reply of Jesus in John 13:10 must be interpreted in harmony with all that has preceded in this incident and, especially, in harmony with John 13:11, We have attempted such an interpretation in our paraphrase of this text, What Jesus is trying to get the impetuous Peter to see is that once a man has become a devoted and faithful follower of His by an initial cleansing and sanctifying call (whatever that initial cleansing process may be) the new disciple must then grow in his spiritual comprehension of Christ's will and work. The disciples (all except one who was a hypocrite) had in all sincerity and honest desire answered His call to discipleship. They had all, no doubt, been baptized with John's baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Being therefore of honest hearts and having by obedience to the command of God through John the Baptist been initially cleansed, they needed not to go back to first principles, but they definitely needed to be purified of their carnal conception of the way in which the Messiah was to accomplish His purpose and their earthly idea of the Messianic kingdom. They needed to grow in humility and love for one another even to the extent that they would willingly perform the lowliest services for one another. Every disciple of Christ must see the need for daily washing of the feet (purifying, sanctification). It is a daily task, this cleansing, by renewing the mind (Romans 12:1-2; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Colossians 3:1-17).

But they were not all honest and sincere. One was a thief and a hypocriteJudas. Jesus knew all along who the betrayer was (cf. John 6:70-71). In order to indicate to the disciples who would later recall His omniscience in this matter and in order that they might record for all time that He was not taken unawares by Judas, but is in complete control of the situation and in order to give the traitor an opportunity to repent, Jesus said, You are not all clean. But Judas had allowed the devil to take possession of his heart and was greedily plotting to betray the One who had in love and humility even washed the betrayer's feet and tried to bring him to repentance.

Quiz

1.

What great division within the ministry of Jesus appears at Chapter 13?

2.

Why are the actions of Jesus at this supper so full of pathos?

3.

Prove that the supper of John 13:1-38 is the same as the Last Supper of the Synoptics. Upon which day of the week was the supper held?

4.

Name, in order, the events transpiring at the Last Supper.

5.

What two things are indicated concerning Peter in his refusal to let Jesus wash his feet?

6.

What is the meaning of Jesus-' statement in John 13:10?

7.

Why inform them that there was one among them who was not clean?