John 13 Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet and Discourses With Them (John 13)

This is the second stage in John’s Gospel. Having revealed the One Who came from God as the true light to enlighten men and give eternal life, he will now describe Him as He approaches His final hour. For those concerned with the problem as to how John ties in with the Synoptics on the timing of the Passover please consult Appendix below.

We should not be too surprised that John does not mention the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). He omits describing Jesus’ baptism and the transfiguration, although bringing out the underlying meaning of both. And the significance of what lies behind the Lord’s Supper is found in chapter 6. He was more concrned to describe Jesus’ preparation of His disciples for what was to come.

The Washing of the Feet: A Lesson in Humility (13.1-16)

‘13.1 ‘Now Jesus, knowing before the Feast of the Passover that his hour had come to depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in this world, loved them to the end (or to the uttermost).’

‘Before the Feast of the Passover.’ It is clear from this that there is intended to be a close connection between the death of Jesus and the significance of the killing of the Passover lamb. This significance is brought out in the other Gospels by the meaning Jesus gives to the drinking of the Passover wine, as a participation in the New Covenant through His blood, after the consumption of the Passover lamb. John brings it out by the close connection of His impending hour with the Passover. Jesus knew that at this particular Passover ‘His hour had come’. This was why He had come, in order to be the Lamb of God. And He was fully aware of what lay before Him.

‘Knowing that His hour was come.’ In the light of the fact that His hour had come He took the next step in His self-abasement. He would reveal Himself as the One Who was the Servant, Who would give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10.45).

So in the face of the unbelievable suffering to come He turned His thoughts, not to Himself, but to His disciples, whom He had loved constantly. They were His constant companions and He treasured them. Now He would reveal His love for them to its fullest extent. In the hour of His trial He would not allow Himself to be taken up with His own thoughts but would take time to reveal to them the inner secrets of God.

Whether we translate ‘loved them to the end’ i.e. His love did not waver, or ‘loved them to the uttermost’ i.e. showed His love even more fully, the meaning is the same. His love flowed out to them. (Both are equally possible, compare 1 Thessalonians 2.16, and indeed the double meaning is probably intentional)

13.2 ‘And during the supper, the Devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.’

‘And during the supper.’ John will, from this point, deliberately play down the fact that it is the Passover meal and does not describe the instituting of the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). This is clearly deliberate. He was well aware that the early church was very familiar with the facts of that Supper and wants the time rather to be seen as the time when Jesus reveals inner truths about the future, something of which the early church was less aware. But all are aware of the shadow that lies behind it.

The Lord’s Supper was well established by this time and constantly celebrated. Through it the truth about His sacrificial death constantly came out. But, as always through his Gospel, John wants rather to bring out the spiritual truths. He is concerned to stress the spiritual benefits arising from His death. This event clearly occurred late on in the Supper, probably after the Passover meal had been eaten. Certainly Judas would not have left unless the meal was over. (The alternative reading ‘after supper’ is equally strongly attested).

‘ The Devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him’. (Compare Luke 22.3) To ‘have a devil’ was constantly used in various mouths to signify the Devil’s influence in men’s speech and behaviour (Matthew 11.18; Luke 7.33; John 7.20; 8.40, 49, 52; 10.20, 21), and Jesus had earlier said of Judas (incognito) that he ‘was a devil’ i.e. was submissive to the Devil’s control (6.70). Thus here the idea of the Devil’s control over Judas continues.

The idea of a supernatural lord of evil (the Devil, Satan, the Evil One) was widespread among the Jews, and it was he who had put Jesus to the test at the commencement of His ministry ( ‘the Devil’ and ‘Satan’ Matthew 4.1-11; ‘Satan’ Mark 1.13; ‘the Devil’ and ‘Satan’ Luke 4.1-13), and Jesus Himself testified to the power of ‘Satan’ when He pointed out that He had come to break his power (Matthew 12.24-29; Mark 3.22-27; Luke 11.15-22 - ‘Satan’ in all cases). In Matthew 13.39 the weeds were the sons of the Evil One, and the one who sowed them was the Devil.

In Matthew 13.19 ‘the Evil One’ snatched away the seed sown by the sower, while in Mark it was ‘Satan’ (Mark 4.15). When Peter tried to deny the need for Him to suffer Jesus addressed him as ‘Satan’, i.e. as being used as Satan’s tool (Matthew 16.23; Mark 8.33). So the working of a powerful supernatural lord of evil was widely acknowledged, and confirmed by Jesus Himself, seen often as working through his minions, described as the ‘evil spirits, devils, or demons’ (e.g. Luke 13.11 with 16). Scripture elsewhere depicts him as presenting himself as ‘an angel of light’ (2 Corinthians 11.14) and there is nowhere any idea of horns or forked tails. Such ideas are false and dangerous as belittling the idea. Thus Satan, the Devil, was at work throughout Jesus’ ministry and was now seeking to have Him destroyed.

However, it should be noted that this does indicate that Satan did not understand what God was doing, for he was conniving in his own destruction. He was aware of Who Jesus really was, but he was not aware of the means that He would use to save men. While he must have been aware of what Jesus had taught he clearly could not conceive of such divine self-giving. It was totally outside his understanding and beyond his comprehension. Thus he was prompting Judas to betray Jesus to the authorities, thinking thereby to foil His purpose. We must not think of Satan as all-knowing, or as omnipresent, although he has many agents.

‘Judas Iscariot’ - Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was the weak link among the Apostles (John 6.70-71). But Judas, at least to begin with, was his own master, and Jesus gave him every chance to think again. In the end, however, money was more important to him than his belief in Jesus, a grim warning to us all. There may have been also the thought that he could spur Jesus into Messianic action, but the fact that he took money for his action is against such an idea. Any Messiah would hardly look well on someone who had taken money in such a fashion.

Later he genuinely regretted his action. The paying back of the money to the Temple treasury, where it was held separately to be repaid to the contractee, and if not claimed was used for public works, was a recognised means of cancelling a contract when the other party refused to accept the money back (Matthew 27.5), and it is quite possible that at that stage he could have repented and been forgiven. But his remorse was such that instead he took his own life.

13.3-5 ‘Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, and laying aside his top clothes, took a towel and wrapped it round him. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel he had wrapped around himself.’

The contrast is deliberate and striking. In full knowledge of His glorious status as the One into Whose hands all had been delivered, as the One Who had come from God and was returning to God, He performed the duties of the lowest servant. He put off His robe and vest and, deliberately clad like a slave, began to wash the disciples’ feet. Here He was depicting in an earthly setting the amazing humility He had shown when ‘being in the form of God He thought not equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but humbled Himself, taking on Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man’ (Philippians 2.6-7).

‘Began to’ probably simply prepares for the interruption that will shortly come. It is doubtful if we are to see in it the sacramental significance that He would go on doing so through the years.

We have to be careful here. John makes no suggestion that the disciples had been remiss. It is true that when people in the Middle East entered a house to dine it was the custom of a servant of the house to wash their feet, to remove the dust and grime accumulated in their journeying, and that Jesus is copying this act. But His action was ‘during the supper’ and ‘He rose from supper’, while the feet washing would have occurred some time before, i.e. before the supper commenced. It had quite possibly been performed by a servant of the owner of the house.

It is hardly possible to believe that if Jesus had risen to perform the menial task of washing their dirty feet there would not have been an outcry and a rush of willing volunteers, or that Peter would have waited for Jesus to get round to him before he did something. Had it been the normal feet-washing impetuous Peter would surely have protested immediately and risen to take over from Jesus saying, ‘Be it far from you, O Lord’, even if he had then suggested that someone else do it. It is true that they were proud, but surely not so proud that they would allow Jesus to get on with it without at least some move from themselves. The fact that they did so suggests they saw the whole thing as unusual and did not know what to do.

Besides it is specifically pointed out that His action was symbolic. Thus Jesus was not rebuking His disciples but teaching them lessons. It may well be that His action followed their discussions as to which of them would be the greatest (Luke 22.24), and indeed a quiet rising at that point to wash their feet would have been all the answer to that question He needed to give. They were not to think of greatness but of being servants.

However His action had a deeper significance even than that. What was Jesus seeking to convey to them? His action was truly an action of humility, but He wanted the disciples later to look back and remember what He did. He wanted them to recognise that He had one thing more to do for them. He wanted them to recognise that in going to the cross He was going there for their benefit, so that there might be for them a way of total cleansing. He had done much for them, but one thing further was necessary. He must die for them, His final service for them on earth.

Some, however do consider that what happened was that as there was no servant present at a meeting that had been deliberately kept secret, Jesus waited to see if any of His disciples would take the lower place. And that as they all went and lay at the table, and then discussed who was the greatest, Jesus, after a short pause, arose to teach them a vital lesson for the future. Only He was the greatest and He was the servant of all. This may have been so, but as mentioned above it does not seem to fit in with what we would expect of normal human beings. And even if it was we must not allow it to take away from us the main significance of His act which was symbolic and demonstrating that He was about to humble Himself deeply at the cross so that cleansing might be available to them all.

13.6-11 ‘Then he comes to Simon Peter. He says to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not now perceive, but you will know fully later”. Peter says to him, “Under no circumstances will you wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me”. Simon said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head”. Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed only needs to wash his feet (or ‘needs not to wash except his feet’) and then is completely clean. And you are clean, but not all of you”. (For he knew the one who would betray him, that is why he said “You are not all clean”).’

This incident is typical of Peter’s ambivalence, which the Gospels draw attention to again and again, and John clearly remembers it vividly, but its repetition is not in order to draw attention to Peter but to draw attention to the significance of the words that passed between him and Jesus. Peter’s question seems to confirm that this was not the usual run of the mill feet-washing.

Humanly speaking Peter rightly felt that it was not fitting that ‘the Lord’ (we must give the word its full significance here) should wash his feet. But he had overlooked that this was something outside the human. What Jesus was doing had a spiritual significance. He was beginning His unique time of voluntary submission, which began with the washing of the feet, continued in His prayers in Gethsemane, and reached its final fulfilment on the cross of shame. And it was all for them - and for us.

‘He who is bathed needs not to wash except for his feet’. The picture here is of a guest who, having bathed at home only requires to wash his feet to remove the stains of the journey. Here Jesus was saying, ‘I have already in the past bathed you so that you are clean, but now I am preparing you for your part in what lies ahead’. The bathing refers, of course, to the work of the Spirit by which Peter had been born of the Spirit and forgiven his sins, the ‘washing of regeneration’ (Titus 3.5). Now by the washing of the feet He was pointing to a further work of the Spirit which they would enjoy as a result of His death. Without that they would be ineffective. By this we know that Jesus will continue to minister to us so that we can be made daily clean. But only if we are willing to receive it. Compare here John’s words in 1 John 1.7-10. It is a comforting thought that our daily sin does not put us right back where we were before. It is a humbling thought that daily Jesus stoops to ‘wash our feet’ as the One Who is Lord of all.

‘Except his feet’ is omitted in a large number of old manuscripts, but it would appear to be required, or must be understood, for the sense. Perhaps it dropped out because it was not felt seemly that God’s ‘washing’ should be insufficient. Alternately Jesus may have left it to be assumed - ‘He who is bathed does not need a full wash’ and a discerning writer have added it as a note. But Jesus’ statement and action only really make sense with the contrast described. Otherwise Peter’s request for a full wash would be reasonable.

Many argue that Jesus’ action was intended to symbolise a full washing and therefore agree with the omission. But this ignores the fact that they had already been ‘born of water and Spirit’ (John 3.5), and that this was the final touch. The central purpose of Jesus’ act was twofold. Firstly so that they would recognise their participation in His final work and secondly to bring home the lesson of humble service and the need to minister to one another, as He made clear in the context. The symbolic lesson comes out especially because of Peter’s words.

‘You have no part with me’. In order to stand at Jesus’ side through what lies ahead, and to have a part with Him in what was to come, Peter, (and we as well), must submit to His ministrations, both in the short term and in the long term, for without His daily ministration we would be lost. And we must especially learn the need for humility.

To use theological language Jesus was saying, ‘You have been washed (made clean) once for all through My word, you have been sanctified (set apart as holy) once for all by My calling, you have been justified (declared in the right) once for all, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6.11). But now you need to recognise the basis on which all this comes to you and go on being continually sanctified by a daily dealing with sin and daily forgiveness and purification. ‘He has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified’ (Hebrews 10.14).

13.12-15 ‘So when he had washed their feet and taken his outer clothes and again sat down, he said to them “Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Master and Lord and you say well, for so I am. If I then the Lord and Master have washed you feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet, for I have given you an example that you also should do what I have done to you”.’

First he took His clothes and reinstated Himself as their Master and Lord. Then he brought home the lesson of what He had done. As He had humbled Himself on their behalf, so they must be willing to humble themselves on each other’s behalf, and on behalf of all the people of God. Only God can bathe them but they must wash each other’s feet.

No task should be too lowly for them in ministering to God’s people. His people would need constant attention and ministry in order to maintain their walk with God. And this was a personal and humbling task, to be carried out on the meek and lowly. The servant of God is not to stand above His people, but to kneel before them. For once a so-called servant of God begins to feel his own importance, he is failing in his task. He has ceased to be (even if he still calls himself it) the servant of all. (We note here that the meaning given for the act to the disciples as a whole refers to washing each other’s feet. Thus it cannot be referring to the original bathing of salvation).

Some Christians believe that Jesus' command here is binding on the church in a literal sense. They practise foot-washing as an ordinance of the church along with water baptism and the Lord's Supper. But Christians through the centuries have believed that Jesus meant that His disciples should follow His example by serving humbly rather than by specifically washing each other's feet. Nowhere else in the New Testament do its writers treat foot-washing as another ordinance.

1 Timothy 5.10 speaks of it as an example of humble service along with a number of others, not as an ordinance of the church. It was the attitude of humility that disciples should have toward one another that was the point that Jesus was making, not simply the performance of a ritual which has lost its point with modern clothing. Furthermore Jesus called foot-washing an example (Grek hypodeigma - a pattern) implying that there were to be other examples of the same attitude. It was an appropriate example of humble service in a culture where people wore sandals and soiled their feet easily in the heat of the day.

13.16-17 “With the strongest emphasis I tell you, a slave is not greater than his Lord, nor is one who is sent (Gk. ‘an apostle’, one who is sent) greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things you are blessed if you do them.”

This is so patently true that it cannot be denied. He was saying, ‘as I am greater than you and have done this, so you too must be ready to behave in the same way’. The trouble is that the Lord and the Sender was so deeply humble and so ready to serve that it makes it difficult for us arrogant humans. We are so the opposite of humble. We are good at putting on an act at the right time, but it is difficult to do it all the time, especially when it is out of the limelight. It is one thing to know these things. It is another to do them. But blessing only follows if we do them.

There Is One Among Them Who Will Betray Him (John 13.18-30)

13.18 “I do not speak of you all, I know whom I have chosen, but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, he who eats my bread lifted up his heel against me.”

What He had done brought home to Him that not all of them were ‘clean’. “I am not speaking of you all. I know those whom I have chosen, but it was in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ‘He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me’.” There was one to whom Jesus past words could have no meaning. Jesus was well aware that besides choosing those who, though failing through weakness would finally stand the test, He had chosen one who was weak and would now fail.

It reminds us that all must be given a chance, even those who will fail, for who knows whether they will make a recovery? Judas had been given his chance, and received into the closest relationship, to which he had outwardly fully responded.

The phrase ‘to eat bread’ signified an avowal of friendship. You did not eat bread with an enemy, for it would contravene the laws of hospitality. But there will always be those who betray those who trust them, and who can comprehend what thoughts must have been going through Judas’ mind at this moment? His conscience must have been tearing at him, but he must have been deliberately holding it in check. (This is proved by his later remorse).

Nor can we fathom all his reasons for acting as he did. Greed for money? Disappointment with the kind of Messiah Jesus was proving to be? Anger at some imagined slight which injured his self-esteem? All possibly played a part in his reasoning. But none really excused him for an act of pure treachery. Just as the Psalmist (Psalm 41.9) had experienced betrayal by a close friend, so would Jesus. It was necessary, for how else could He be said to suffer temptation as we do? He knew He must go through the experiences of all those who have suffered for God, and their sufferings are a mirror of His own. Thus was it a fulfilment of the Scripture. The lifting up of the heel may suggest a recalcitrant animal which kicks out at its owner and friend.

It is significant that Jesus performs the ‘cleansing’ act on Judas also. He did not see an outward ceremony as having any automatic inward effect. It was symbolic and only efficacious on those whose hearts truly responded.

13.18 “From now on I am telling you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may continue to believe that I am he”.

The betrayal resulting in His shameful death will come as a crushing blow to His disciples. They may well then be tempted to think, ‘if He were from God would He not have known?’ and finally lose hope. But God will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able. He wants them therefore to be aware that He knows about His coming betrayal. Thus they can be confident of what He is.

‘From now on’ suggests that up to this point Jesus had wanted Judas to realise that there was still an opportunity for him not to go ahead with his betrayal. It was only now that He drew a veil over these attempts, and declared in a way that Judas would understand that for him there was now no hope. He had gone too far. His opportunity had gone. So He was aware of the struggle that was going on in Judas’ head and had seen him finally determine, against every pleading of conscience, that he would go on with his plan. But it was not just something He accepted philosophically. It hurt Him deeply (13.21).

13.19 “I strongly affirm to you that he who receives anyone whom I send, receives me, and he who receives me, receives him who sent me”.

These words are in contrast to the actions of Judas. And they stress the carrying on of Jesus’ ministry through His followers. What Judas was about to do could not affect the carrying forward of the Father’s plan. But how will men then know that He is Who He is? The answer is that His followers, those whom He sends, will now take His place on earth. He has groomed them for this and He is no longer necessary. His earthly task (apart from His final sacrifice) is complete. But He will be represented by His own, and reception of them and their message will be reception of Him, and reception of Him in this way will be reception of the Father. Thus will they know that He is Who He is.

13.20 ‘When Jesus had spoken thus he was troubled in spirit and testified saying, “I emphatically inform you that one of you will betray me”.’

This confirms that he now knew that Judas had made his final decision. He had hardened his heart and was now beyond helping. But this was not easy for Jesus to accept. He had loved Judas and felt deeply betrayed. His spirit was troubled within Him. And this forced out of Him the anguished words ‘one of you will betray me’. The plain truth could be held back no longer.

13.21 ‘The disciples looked at one another not sure of whom he spoke’.

Nothing that Judas had done had brought him under suspicion (although John seems to have been a little unsure of him (12.6) - but he was lying beside Jesus). The verb is continuous. There was a stunned silence and they looked from one to another again and again. They were totally baffled. The other Gospels tell us that they asked, aware of their own possible frailty, ‘Lord, is it I?’ They knew Jesus must be right and it awakened their worst nightmares. They were probably not thinking of quite such a total betrayal as Judas perpetrated.

13.23 ‘There was at the table, reclining next to Jesus to His right (literally ‘in Jesus’ bosom’, the favoured place next to Him), one of his disciples whom Jesus loved.’

The disciple whom Jesus loved was the author of the Gospel (21.20 with 24; compare 14.21; 15.9; 17.9, 12). He has already declared Jesus’ overwhelming love for all the disciples (13.1) so that now he can describe himself as one of them without conceit. It was ever a wonder to him that Jesus loved him, and he never ceased, even in his old age, to forget what a marvel it was that Jesus had chosen him (with the others) to be a disciple. As the writer of the Gospel he does not like to use his own name, so he calls himself the disciple whom Jesus loved. This is his most treasured thought. He is not thinking of earthly love but of the love His Lord and God has for him.

It may be that there was a special affinity between him and Jesus, but this was not his meaning, nor would he have thought it. He knew that Jesus was impartial. The suggestion that he could not use this title of himself is purely subjective and many would heartily disagree with it, recognising it was a title claimed in humility. That it was John is certain even on critical grounds. John is nowhere mentioned by name in the Gospel where we would most expect him, the Baptiser is called simply John, needing no further clarification, almost inconceivable except to John the Apostle himself who would think in that way, and the one who was in the favoured place next to Jesus must have been an apostle, and the suggestion that ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ was an ‘ideal’ disciple has little to commend it, especially as one who lies in a favoured place and converses with Jesus. There is thus little reason for denying John the title.

‘In Jesus’ bosom’ - that is lying at His right hand on cushions, with his legs stretched backwards, so that Jesus, leaning on His left elbow, was looking towards him. This is the second favoured place. The first favoured would be on Jesus’ left. The trusted one towards whom a man could turn his back.

(John did not consider it important who occupied the seat to the left but the probability is that it was Peter. Firstly because he was the leading Apostle, and secondly because at the feet-washing we get the impression that he was last, which he would be if Jesus started with John and went anti-clockwise. He could easily have beckoned to John from behind Jesus’ back. He would probably not have wanted Jesus to know he was doing it. Other suggestions have been Judas or James).

13.24-26 ‘Simon Peter therefore gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell who it is he is speaking about”. He, leaning back as he was on Jesus’ breast, says to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus therefore answers, “He it is for whom I will dip the sop and give it to him.” So when he had dipped the sop he takes and gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.’

It was typical of Peter that he rushed in when all others were silent. All were aware that something solemn was in the air, and they were dumbstruck. But not Peter. Yet even he kept it to a question put in privacy. He hinted to John that he should question further. It would seem that this episode was private between the three of them.

He, leaning back as he was, close to Jesus (literally ‘on Jesus’ breast’), says to him, “Lord, who is it?” Then Jesus answers, “It is the one for whom I will dip the sop (broken bread with bitter herbs dipped in a sauce) and give it to him”. It is possible that Peter assumed that Jesus had already told John who it was. Alternately his question may have been deliberately indirect because he did not want Jesus to think he was asking Him a direct question, so that it was an indirect suggestion that he ask Jesus. Either way John gets the point and asks, ‘Lord, who is it?’

It is not accidental that all were now calling Jesus ‘Lord’. By it the writer wishes us to recognise that it was the Lord of glory with Whom the disciples were fellowshipping. While they may have been using a courtesy title which could be translated ‘lord’, it must have had a deeper meaning even then. Thus it bears a double meaning.

Jesus did not denounce the traitor openly. Now that Judas has delivered himself into Satan’s hands He wished him to carry out his evil deed. Thus while Jesus made known to John who it was He kept it from the other disciples. (This must be so due to what immediately follows) Quietly He told him that it was the one to whom He would give a piece of dipped bread. Then He dipped the bread into the mixture of bitter herbs, vinegar and salt (or alternately one of mashed fruit, water and vinegar), and gave it to Judas. Outwardly, as far as the rest were concerned, this was the final titbit at the end of the meal given to a favoured friend. John, thus aware that Jesus did not wish the matter known, remains silent. This final offering of the titbit to Judas was a final chance for him to recognise Jesus’ goodwill towards him. Jesus did not give up until there was no hope at all.

13.27 ‘And then, after the dipped bread, Satan entered him. Jesus says to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly”.’

Again we have here a double meaning. We already know that Judas had submitted to Satan, but John stresses it here so that he can add ‘Jesus says to him’. That is, to Judas certainly, but also to Satan who now possesses Judas. He had no fear of what Satan could do to Him, and He wanted him to know it. Jesus’ words were carefully weighed as far as Judas was concerned, “what you are doing” (just think about the enormity of it Judas) “do quickly”. There must be no delay for, in the final analysis, it was in the purpose of God, and nothing, except perhaps his own conscience, must be able to intervene and stop him. To Satan He was saying, ‘carry on with your evil work. I am ready.’ This was the moment at which Jesus finally gave up on Judas. He was now Satan possessed.

13.28-29 ‘Now no one at the table knew the reason why he said this to him, for some thought that, because he held the communal purse, Jesus was saying to him, “Buy what we need for the feast”, or else that he should distribute something to the poor’.

This confirms that probably only John knew the significance of what had happened. The others merely assumed he had duties to perform. (‘No one’, of course, excludes John and Jesus. He is speaking of the others). Buying ‘for the feast’ refers to the purchases that will need to be made for the remaining days of the feast of Unleavened Bread, and especially for the next day. The 15th of Nisan was always a ‘sabbath’ but special concessions were made with regard to preparations for meals on that day. That Judas was thought to be able to purchase at night after the Passover meal demonstrates that food sellers made special provision for providing such goods.

13.30 ‘He then, having received the dipped bread, immediately went out. And it was night.’

Does the speed at which he acted suggest the torment he was under? He did not stop for a moment for he wanted to get away as quickly as possible. He knew he must not think about what he was going to do. Once he knew he was known he would not be able to bear being with Jesus another minute. What a terrible state he had got himself in.

‘And it was night’. Again the double significance. True, it was dark outside, although there would be a bright Passover moon. But the truth is that the darkness was more inside Judas. There had never been such a darkness. The blackness of the darkest night was in his heart. He had forsaken the light of the world. (Compare Luke 22.53 to His enemies, ‘this is your hour and the power of darkness’).

The Path to Glory Which He Must Tread Alone (John 13.31-38)

The next section, from 13.31 to 17.26, is the equivalent of the dying words of Jesus. Words spoken on approaching death, and especially on a deathbed, were considered to be particularly potent. There are numerous examples, like the blessings of Jacob to his sons in Genesis 47.29-49.33, the farewell of Joshua to the nation of Israel in Joshua 22-24, and David's farewell speech in 1 Chronicles 28-29. Thus we must see these chapters as essentially spoken to the disciples, although of course we may apply much of what was said generally as well. But within them Jesus gives them special promises of unique gifts and blessings which were only for them.

13.31-32 ‘When therefore he had left Jesus says, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. And God will glorify him in himself, and immediately he will glorify him’.

Jesus has accepted His destiny on the cross, and by it He is to be glorified, and God is also glorified, for He has willingly given His Son, revealing His love for men. God commends His love towards us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5.8).

But it would not end there. For God will further glorify Him, first in His own being, a glory beyond our comprehension, and then by immediate resurrection and exaltation. So in each step of humiliation, by washing the disciples’ feet, by bidding Judas to go about his purpose, by willingly taking the way to the cross through humiliation and degradation, Jesus was glorified, and God was glorified with Him. Jesus had to go through it step by step, and the Father had to stand back and watch. And then, ‘immediately’, will come the coronation, the final glory. The Son of Man will receive His kingdom (Daniel 7.14).

13.33-35 “Little children, I am with you for a little while longer. You will look for me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you, where I am going you cannot come. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another. In the same way that I have loved you, that you love one another. By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love the one for the other”.

Now Jesus looked with fondness on His disciples, and called them ‘little children’. He saw them as they will be, facing a terrible new world when He has gone. Soon He will not be there to sustain them. Therefore they must sustain each other by the love that they have for each other. He is going where they cannot at present come, and when they look for Him they will not find Him, for He will not be on this earth. His time on earth is over. So their love for each other, the kind of love that He had for them, will be very important. It will be the mark that they are His. It is indeed something that replaces all the commandments. It is the new commandment. Do we stand the test?

Jesus had previously stressed the two great commandments, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul, and mind and strength, and you shall love your neighbour as yourself (Mark 12.30-31). Now is added this third, ‘you shall love one another, as I have loved you’. Love is at the heart of all true ‘religion’ and this special kind of love was to be a distinguishing mark of the true Christian..

13.36-38 ‘Simon Peter says to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow me later”. Peter says to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you even now? I will lay down my life for you.” Jesus replies, “Will you lay down your life for me. I tell you emphatically, the cock will not crow before you have denied me three times”.’

The disciples were still not sure what was happening and what Jesus meant but Jesus’ enigmatic reply makes Peter recognise that perhaps death is involved. However, that does not put him off. He is ready to die for Jesus, or so he thinks. Yes, immediately. Let them go to death together. It was not a question of later. And he meant it.

How careful we should be in our boasting. We all know what happened with Peter. Just as Jesus says, he will shortly deny Jesus three times out of craven fear. But at least he would be there. He did his best but it was just too much for him. All the disciples learned a new lesson in humility that night, and the wonder of their forgiving Lord.

Yet in contrast with Judas, out of his failure would come a new beginning. Only his feet would need to be washed. We too may fail Jesus out of weakness. But if we are willing He will restore us so that we have the strength to overcome. Being His is not a guarantee that we will not fail. It is rather a guarantee that we will not finally fail, because He is our shepherd.

Mark has ‘before the cock crow twice’ (14.30). His is probably the more exact rendering. Rarely does a cock crow just once, and Jesus knew it. But the remaining Gospels are thinking of ‘the cock crow’ as an event of timing each day rather than picturing the actual happening.

Note on The Passover.

The Passover - Was the Last Supper the Passover Meal?

The Passover was the great Jewish festival which commemorated the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt, and the following exodus from Egypt of the Israelites (Exodus 12.24-27), together with those who joined themselves with them (the ‘mixed multitude’) and became Israelite by adoption (Exodus 12.38). The passover lambs were slain on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan (roughly April), after the daily sacrifice, which, by the time of Jesus, was put back in order to leave time for the slaying of the passover lambs, which had to be slain in great numbers. The Passover meal was eaten in the evening (the commencement of 15th Nisan, for the Jewish day began at sunset). There was a specific pattern followed at the meal, although variations within that pattern were allowed. The celebration of the Passover was connected with the seven day feast of Unleavened Bread which by this time was so closely linked with the Passover that the whole eight days of the feast could be called The Passover (Luke 22.1) or Unleavened Bread (Mark 14.12). This specific link with the Passover, which was there from earliest times, is confirmed by Josephus, the Jewish first century AD historian.

It was celebrated in Jerusalem in smallish groups (ten males or more) in individual houses within the city bounds, each group having a lamb. The lambs were slain within the Temple area, which confirms that they were sacrificial offerings. Movement during the evening was restricted to a limited area, although Gethsemane came within that area. Jews living within a reasonable distance were expected to gather in Jerusalem for the feast, and even those who lived far afield among the Gentiles (the Dispersion) made great efforts to attend. Thus Jerusalem might contain around 200,000 people at Passover time (Josephus’ estimate of 3,000,000 is almost certainly exaggerated. It would not have been possible to sacrifice sufficient lambs to meet his figures within the restricted Temple area in such a short time).

The Passover meal would begin with the ritual search by candlelight for any leavened bread which may have been overlooked (it was forbidden at the feast) and the Passover meal would then be eaten reclining. It included the symbolic elements of roasted lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, some other condiments and four cups of red wine mixed with water, at specific points. The first cup was drunk with a blessing (Luke 22.17 probably refers to this cup, although some refer Luke’s reference to the second cup), followed by the washing of hands by dipping in water. Some of the herbs would then be dipped in salt water and given out After this the eating surface would be cleared, and the second cup would be filled.

Before the drinking of the second cup the story of the original Passover was recounted in a dialogue between father and eldest son (or if necessary suitable substitutes). At this stage the Passover meal would be brought back to the table and each of its constituents explained. It is quite possible that one question would be (as it was later) ‘what means this bread?’ The reply was ‘this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate when they were delivered from the land of Egypt’.

After these explanations the second cup would be drunk, accompanied by the singing of part of the Hallel, and then there would be a further dipping of the hands in water. After this came the breaking of one or two of the unleavened cakes, which was followed by the giving of thanks. Pieces of the broken bread with bitter herbs between them were dipped in a mixture and handed to each of the company (see John 13.26), and it would appear that then the company would themselves dip bread and herbs into the mixture (Matthew 26.23; Mark 14.20). This was the real beginning of the actual Passover meal. The Passover lamb would now be eaten. Nothing was to be eaten thereafter, although in later times the eating of a final piece of unleavened bread followed. After a third dipping of hands in water the third cup was drunk, again accompanied by a blessing. This cup was considered of special importance. The singing of the Hallel was completed with the fourth cup (see Matthew 26.30; Mark 14.26), and this was followed by prayer. It must be remembered that this was a feast and not a service so that eating and general conversation would be taking place throughout, except at the solemn moments.

It is quite clear that the first three Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels) show the Last Supper of Jesus to be the Passover meal. Jesus sent two of His disciples (Peter and John - Luke 22.8) to ‘prepare the Passover’ (the lamb, the unleavened bread, the bitter herbs, the wine, etc), so that He could ‘eat the Passover with His disciples’ (Mark 14.12-15 and parallels). It was probably one of these who went to the Temple area with the lamb for slaying. The room was ‘furnished and ready’ which may mean that the owner had provided what was necessary. We are told that they ate the meal reclining (Matthew 26.20; John 13.23) as would be expected at the Passover meal.

It is possible that the breaking of bread by Jesus ‘after He had given thanks’ was the same as the breaking of bread at the feast but if so it is noticeable that Jesus gave thanks beforehand because He was enduing it with a new meaning . It could, however, have been that Jesus introduced a second breaking of bread, establishing a new pattern with a new significance. ‘This is my body’ parallels ‘this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate’. In the latter case it was clearly symbolic, a partaking with the fathers, as it were, in their affliction, but with a real sense of participation. Thus the former is also to be seen as symbolic, a partaking with Jesus, as it were, in His sufferings and their consequence, again with a real sense of participation. The wine, which Paul calls the ‘cup of blessing’ (1 Corinthians 10.16), was probably the third cup given a new significance.

Some have argued that it could not have been the Passover meal. They have argued:

• 1). A trial would not have been held on Passover night.
• 2). The disciples would not have borne arms on that night.
• 3). Simon of Cyrene would not have been ‘coming in from the country’ the following morning.
• 4). Some Synoptic passages are inconsistent with it e.g Mark 14.2