Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryJohn 13

Before the feast. [Washing the Disciples’ Feet, John 13:1–20=Luke 22:24–30. Major comment: Luke and John.] This incident occurred in connection with the paschal

Nichol, F. D. (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary : The Holy Bible with exegetical and expository comment. Commentary Reference Series (Jn 9:40). Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

supper on Thursday night of the Passion Week. For a discussion of the chronological aspects of this supper see Additional Notes on Matthew 26, Note 1. His hour was come. Earlier in His ministry Jesus had declared that His hour had not yet come (see on ch. 2:4). Now the crisis hour had arrived. This same night He would be betrayed into the hands of His enemies, and before the Jewish day, which began at sunset, should pass, Jesus would rest in Joseph’s tomb. Depart out of this world. Jesus had come from God (see on ch. 1:1, 14), had been sent into the world (see on ch. 3:17), but was not to remain in this world (ch. 16:7). After completing His work upon earth He would return to His Father. These facts John repeatedly emphasizes (see p. 892). His own. Here the disciples particularly, not the Jewish nation as in ch. 1:11. In the world. His disciples were “in the world” but not “of” it (ch. 17:11–16). Unto the end. Gr. eis telos, translated in 1 Thess. 2:16 “to the uttermost.” The same meaning may apply here, although the literal translation “unto the end” is also apposite to the context.

Ellen G. White

Supper being ended. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between this and the reading “while supper was in progress.” A piecing together of information provided by the various gospel writers leads to the conclusion that the latter reading is correct. However, the washing of the feet probably took place early in the meal, in connection with the paschal supper (cf. DA 645, 646; see on Luke 22:24). Not all details of procedure during the Last Supper are noted by the gospel writers; hence it cannot be definitely known at what point during the paschal ritual (see on Matt. 26:21)—if indeed the customary ritual was minutely followed by Jesus on the occasion—the Lord’s Supper was introduced (cf. DA 653). To betray him. See on Matt. 26:14; cf. Luke 22:3.

Ellen G. White

All things. That is, having to do with the plan of salvation (John 17:2; Heb. 2:8; see on Matt. 11:27; John 3:35). Was come from God. This fact is doubtless to impress the fact that even though Jesus mentioned to show that when Jesus was washing the dusty feet of His disciples He was fully conscious of His divinity. The act was thus supreme demonstration of His humility. Went to God. See on v. 1.

Riseth from supper. It was the custom to recline on a couch during the meal (see on Mark 2:15). Laid aside his garments. That is, His outer garment, which would impede His movements. See on Matt. 5:40. Girded himself. The purpose of these acts and of those that followed may be inferred from the account given by Luke regarding the strife for supremacy among the disciples (see on Luke 22:24). Jesus aimed to give an example of humble, unselfish service. He hoped that the practical demonstration would impress His disciples as no mere precept could.

Wash the disciples’ feet. According to Jewish custom extending back probably to the time of Jesus, the washing of the master’s feet was one of the duties of a foreign slave, but was not one expected of a Jewish slave. However, it was a service a wife owed her husband, and children their father. (See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, p. 557). The service was thus regarded as menial. Inasmuch as

no servant was present on the occasion of the Last Supper, one of the disciples should have undertaken the task, but none volunteered.

Dost thou wash my feet? The emphasis in the Greek is upon the pronouns “thou” and “my”: “Dost thou wash my feet?” Some commentators suggest that Peter may have drawn up his legs when he spoke these words. The act would be in harmony with his impulsive nature (Matt. 16:22; John 13:37). See on Mark 2:15.

What I do. The emphasis in the Greek is upon the pronouns “I” and “thou”: “What I do thou knowest not now.” The full significance of Jesus’ act would not be understood until later. In the meantime Peter was asked to exercise faith and humbly submit to the Master’s will.

Never wash. The negative is strongly expressed in the Greek. Such forceful outbursts are characteristic of Peter’s speech (see on v. 6). His words were those of self- confidence and not of humble surrender. He does not wait for the afterknowledge Jesus offered to him. No part with me. In view of the symbolic significance of the act Jesus was performing, only thus could Peter have part with Christ (see on vs. 12, 15). Furthermore, Peter’s independent spirit and haughty attitude were inconsistent with the character of those who enjoy spiritual fellowship with their Lord in this life and who entertain the hope of enjoying eternal fellowship with Him in the world to come. 9.Not my feet only. Another of Peter’s characteristic impetuous outbursts. Realizing that by refusing his Master he faced the prospect of separation from Him, Peter immediately surrendered, but characteristically even now sought to give further advice to his Master. He did not as yet understand the significance of the act.

Washed. Gr. louō, “to bathe.” Louō is used of washing the entire body (see Acts 9:37 and in the LXX Ex. 2:5; 29:4; Lev. 14:8, 9; etc.). When only a part of the body is washed the word niptō is generally employed, as later in this verse, and in Matt. 6:17; 15:2; etc. Jesus here probably refers to the custom of bathing before attending a feast. When the guests arrived they needed only to have their feet washed. From this the spiritual lesson is evident. The disciples had received spiritual cleansing in the “fountain opened to the house of David … for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech. 13:1). They had not lapsed into apostasy so as to be in need of a complete recleansing. However, their lives had not been without sin. They had often yielded to Satan’s suggestions. The washing was significant only as it represented removal of sin by sincere repentance and confession. His feet. Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of the words “save” and “his feet,” thus making the passage read, “the one who has been bathed has no need to be washed.” However, both textually and contextually the preponderance of evidence favors retaining the words. But not all. The reference is to Judas, who had never yielded himself fully to Christ.

Ellen G. White

For he knew. Jesus had known this “from the beginning” (ch. 6:64). Who should betray. Literally, “the one betraying.” The Greek represents the action as already going on, as was, of course, true (see on Matt. 26:14; cf. DA 645).

Taken his garments. See on v. 4. Know ye? Part of the significance of the act had already impressed them. Jesus’ example of unselfish service had humbled their pride, but the full spiritual significance of the service was yet to be revealed.

Ye call. That is, it is your custom to call. Master. Gr. didaskalos, literally meaning, “Teacher” (see on ch. 1:38). Lord. Gr. kurios, a term used both of men (Matt. 6:24 [translated “master”]; etc.) and of Deity (Matt. 1:22; etc.). More commonly kurios represented merely a common title of respect corresponding to “sir.” Later, and perhaps at times before the ascension of Jesus (see John 20:28), the word was also used n its fullest sense, ascribing deity to Jesus (see Acts 10:36; Rom. 14:8; etc.). The two titles are here referred to, doubtless to impress the fact that even though Jesus had performed this menial task He was still Teacher and Lord. The service had not detracted from His dignity. See on John 4:11.

Ellen G. White

Ought. Gr. opheilō, “to be obligated.” Opheilō is rendered “to owe” in Matt. 18:28, and “to be duty” in Luke 17:10; Rom. 15:27. Christ’s example of humble service was to be copied by His followers. The service demanded of them was a self-forgetting ministry of love that places the interest and conveniences of self behind and below those of others.

Ellen G. White

An example. Jesus was doing more than giving an example of service. He was instituting an ordinance to be observed by His followers to the end of time, an ordinance designed to bring vividly to mind the lessons of the original service. The ordinance has a threefold significance: (1) It symbolizes cleansing from sin. Baptism symbolizes the soul’s original cleansing from sin. The cleansing from the defilements that have subsequently accrued are symbolized by the ordinance of foot washing. As in the case of baptism, the ordinance has no significance whatever unless the participant by repentance and thorough conversion has expelled sin from the life. There is no merit in the act of foot washing itself. Only when there has been the appropriate preliminary preparation does the service assume meaning. (2) It symbolizes a renewed consecration to service. The one who participates and stoops to wash the feet of his brethren thereby indicates that he is willing to engage in the service of the Master no matter how humble that service may be. (3) It typifies the spirit of Christian fellowship. The ordinance is thus a suitable preparatory service to participation in the Lord’s Supper. For a further discussion of the subject see DA 642–651.

Verily. See on Matt. 5:18; John 1:51. The servant. Or, “slave.” Is not greater. If it was not beneath the dignity of the Master to perform a menial service, the servant, or slave, certainly ought not to think it beneath his dignity (cf. on Luke 6:40; see Matt. 10:24; Luke 22:27).

If ye know. A knowledge of duty places upon man the responsibility of performance. A man is not held responsible for the things of which he is ignorant, provided, of course, that his ignorance is not willful (see John 9:41; 15:22; Rom. 5:13; James 4:17). Happy. Gr. makarioi (see on Matt. 5:3). If ye do them. Doing is not to be divorced from professing (see Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46; 12:47;Rom. 2:13; James 1:25).

Not of you all. The words of blessing spoken in v. 17 do not apply to the entire group. Judas the traitor, is excluded.

I know. Jesus knew the character of each of His disciples, and from the beginning had known that Judas would betray Him (see ch. 6:64). For a discussion of the reasons why he was given a place among the Twelve see on Mark 3:19. Chosen. See ch. 6:70. May be fulfilled. Prophecy had not decreed that Judas should betray his Lord. Divine foreknowledge had foreseen what would be (see on ch. 12:39). He that eateth bread. a quotation from Ps. 41:9 (see comment there).

Before it come. If Jesus had not told the disciples beforehand of the defection of Judas, they might have concluded that He had made a mistake in judgment when He permitted Judas to be one of the Twelve. The selection of Judas was an idea, not of Jesus, but of the disciples themselves (see on Mark 3:19). The fulfillment of prophecy is the stamp of validation upon the one uttering the prediction. I am he. See ch. 8:24.

Receiveth me. See Matt. 10:40.

Troubled. [The Betrayer Revealed, John 13:21–30=Matt. 26:21–25=Mark 14:18b–21=Luke 22:21–23. Major comment: Matthew and John.] See on ch. 12:27. Verily. See on Matt. 5:18; John 1:51. Betray me. The announcement is more specific than in vs. 18, 19. Compare Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18.

Doubting. Gr. aporeō, “to be at a loss,” “to be perplexed,” as in 2 Cor. 4:8. The disciples were perplexed because they could not understand how any one of the group would betray Jesus.

Leaning on Jesus’ bosom. For a discussion of the custom of reclining at banquets see on Mark 2:15. Guests reclined upon their left arms upon cushions especially designed for such occasions. The fact that John rested his head on the bosom of Jesus shows that his position was to the right of Jesus. Leonardo da Vinci’s famous masterpiece, the Last Supper, does not correctly represent the way in which the guests reclined at the table. Whom Jesus loved. John’s favorite designation of himself (see vs. 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). In ch. 20:2 the word for “loved” is phileō, whereas in the other passages agapaō is used (see on ch. 11:5).

Beckoned to him. Some have suggested that Peter occupied the position to the left of Jesus. However, if this had been his position it would have been difficult for him to motion to John. More plausible is the view that Judas occupied this position of importance (cf. DA 644).

Sop. Gr. psōmion, “a bit,” “a morsel,” perhaps of bread, though some suggest that here it may refer to bitter herbs, a portion of which, according to the Passover ritual, was to be dipped into the relish sauce, or charoseth (see on Matt. 26:21, 23). Judas Iscariot. See on Mark 3:19. Son of Simon. See on ch. 6:71.

Satan. The name occurs only here in John. Elsewhere the apostle calls Satan the “devil” (chs. 8:44; 13:2). For the meaning of the name “Satan” see on Job 1:6; Zech. 3:1; Matt. 4:1. Entered into him. That is, took complete possession of him. Heretofore there had still been opportunity for Judas to repent, but at this moment he passed the boundary line.

Do quickly. If Jesus, the true Passover Lamb, was to be slain on the day that the regular Passover lambs were slain (see Additional Notes on Matt. 26, Note 1), there was not much time left for Judas to commit his dastardly deed.

Knew. Rather, “had come to know,” or “recognized.” The discussion had been concerning betrayal, but there was no necessity of connecting Jesus’ statement to Judas (v. 27) with the betrayal. However, Judas himself understood what Jesus meant.

Bag. Gr. glōssokomon, “money box” (see on ch. 12:6). Judas was the treasurer of the group. Against the feast. That is, “for the feast.” The disciples had already provided for their own paschal supper, however the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread still lay ahead. Some who seek to establish the day of the regular Passover feast have advanced the argument that it would have been impossible for Judas to purchase provisions on a festival day. This argument is invalid. The Jews permitted purchases of food on that day, provided the transactions were not conducted in the usual fashion. This is made clear in the usual fashion. This is made clear in the Mishnah: “One may not whet a knife on a Festival, but one may draw it over another knife [to sharpen it]. A man may not say to a butcher, ‘Weigh me a denar’s worth of meat,’ but he slaughters [the animal] and shares it among them. A man may say [on a Festival] to his neighbour, ‘Fill me this vessel,’ but not in a measure. R. Judah says: If it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it. It is related of Abba Saul b. Batnith that he uses to fill up his measures on the eve of a Festival and give them to his customers on the Festival. Abba Saul says: He used to do so during the intermediary days of a Festival too, on account of the clearness of measure; but the Sages say: He used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures. A man may go to a shopkeeper whom he generally patronizes and say to him: ‘Give me [so many] eggs and nuts, and stating the number; for this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home’” (Beẓah 3. 7, 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 144, 148, 152). To the poor. The occasion was appropriate for donations to the poor, who might otherwise not be able to provide Passover lambs for the feast.

Went immediately out. Judas understood the import of Jesus’ statement (see DA 654). He knew that the Master read his purposes. His decision not to yield took him across the boundary line of his personal probation (see on v. 27). The act of betrayal resulted from his own decision (see on ch. 3:18, 19). It was night. It was night literally (see 1 Cor.11:23), for the Passover supper was eaten after sunset. According to the Mishnah the Passover offering must be eaten only during that night, and before midnight (Zebaḥim 5. 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 283). But John probably intended to express more than this. It was spiritual night for Judas, who left the presence of the “light of the world” (John 8:12), to be possessed and guided by the prince of darkness (cf. Luke 22:53; see Additional Note on Mark 1).

Son of man. [Parting Counsel, John 13:31 to 14:31.] See on Matt. 1:1; Mark 2:10. Glorified. The exit of Judas was the sign that the betrayal and death of the Son of man were at hand. Jesus would be glorified in the events soon to take place (see chs. 7:39; 12:16, 23, 24). The discourse of chs. 13:31 to 14:31 was given in the upper room prior to the departure to the Mount of Olives (see ch. 14:31; cf. DA 672, 673).

God is glorified. The Father and the Son were working in close harmony for the salvation of the world (see on ch. 10:30). The glory of the one was the glory of the other.

Little children. Gr. teknia. This term of endearment occurs only here in the Gospel of John, but it is frequent in 1 John (chs. 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). A similar expression (“my children”) was common in the mouths of Jewish teachers when addressing their pupils (see Talmud Ta’anith 21a, Soncino ed., p. 104; Baba Bathra 60b, Soncino ed., p. 245; etc.). A little while. Compare ch. 7:33. Said unto the Jews. See ch. 8:21. Ye cannot come. See on ch. 8:22.

New commandment. The command to love was not in itself new. It belonged to the instructions given by the Lord through Moses (Lev. 19:18). The injunction is found also in the Mishnah: “Be thou of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, [be thou] one who loveth [one’s fellow-]creatures and bringeth them nigh to the Torah” (Aboth 1. 12, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 8). The command was new in that a new demonstration had been given of love, which the disciples were now bidden to emulate. By His revelation of His Father’s character Jesus had opened to men a new concept of the love of God. The new command enjoined men to preserve the same relationship with one another that Jesus had cultivated with them and mankind generally. Where the old commandment enjoined men to love their neighbors as themselves, the new urged them to love as Jesus had loved. The new was, in fact, more difficult than the old, but grace for its accomplishment was freely provided. Love. Gr. agapaō; see on Matt. 5:43, 44. The command reads literally, “keep on loving.”

Ellen G. White

By this. Followers of great teachers reflect the characteristics of their teachers. Love was one of the principal attributes of Jesus. Jesus’ life had been a practical demonstration of love in action. A manifestation of this same kind of love by the disciples of Jesus would give evidence of their relationship and close association with their Master. It is love rather than profession that marks the Christian. Have love. Literally, “keep on having love.” Constant, fervent manifestations of love, rather than isolated, fitful outbursts of charitableness, are the evidences of discipleship. Paul defines this type of love in 1 Cor. 13. The word there rendered “charity” is the same as the one here translated “love.”

Whither goest thou? Peter by-passes comment on the new commandment. Perhaps its requirements were too rigid for his present level of experience. He was, however, interested in Jesus’ reference to a departure, the nature of which he misunderstood (see v. 37), as had the Pharisees earlier (chs. 7:35; 8:22). Follow me afterwards. The passage probably has a twofold application: (1) Peter’s following Jesus in death. This the disciple was unprepared to do at the moment, as later events clearly indicated (Matt. 26:56, 69–75). However, he later suffered crucifixion for his faith (see John 21:18, 19; cf. AA 537, 538). (2) To Jesus’ ascension to heaven. For this Peter would have to wait until the return of his Lord at the end of the age (ch. 14:1– 3). There was probably a purposeful ambiguity in the statement.

Ellen G. White

Why cannot I? For Peter’s characteristic impatience see on Mark 3:16. His impulsive loyalty was unquestionably sincere at the time he spoke but proved altogether

too fickle when put to the test. Well might Peter have pondered the parables of Building a Tower and a King Going to War (see on Luke 14:27–33). Lay down my life. About 35 years later, in the city of Rome, Peter did lay down his life for his Master. At his own request he was crucified with his head earthward (see AA 537, 538). See on Matt. 26:35.

Verily, verily. See on Matt. 5:18; John 1:51.