1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
We are a little more than half way through the Gospel of John, but have already arrived at the day before His death. John devotes a good portion of his testimony to the last hours of Jesus’ life, to which he gives by far the most intimate account of Jesus with His chosen Apostles. Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end. While there is much teaching and doctrine still to come in the book of John, it will be given exclusively to the Twelve.
Before the feast of the Passover (see also John 13:29; 18:28; 19:14, 31). Reading the Synoptics one would think that Jesus observed the normal, scheduled Passover meal with the Twelve, at which time He also instituted the ordinance of Communion, and then was crucified the next day. John’s Gospel however, says this Last Supper took place the evening before the Passover, and never so much as hints that Jesus observed this final Passover. Most scholars have rejected John’s record in favor of the Synoptics, and therefore are forced to believe that the Last Supper which John describes in chapters 13-14 came a day or two before the Last Supper which the Synoptics describe. John Gill even says that this is the same supper recorded in John 12:1-3. Yet those ideas seems impossible. Is it plausible that Jesus would expose Judas as the one who would betray Him (Mat 26:21-25) and warn Peter that he would deny Him (Luke 22:31-34) at suppers on consecutive days?
After much study of this issue, I am convinced that Jesus died the evening of 14th Nisan, the same day and hour that the Passover lamb was being killed by the Jewish priests before the brazen altar in the temple, in exact accord with the highly detailed and symbolically significant rituals commanded by God and given to Moses in the OT. In the following paragraphs I intend to show that the typology, the year-date/day combination and John’s accurate account are just too convincing and sure. Furthermore, the problems with a post-Passover crucifixion are severe, for if Jesus was crucified on the day following the Passover, we are forced to believe that the Jewish multitudes, with their scribes and Pharisees in attendance, utterly violated their Sabbath (the Unleavened Bread, high day Sabbath!) by convening two Sanhedrin meetings and attending three Roman governor meetings upon it. We must also believe that they completely ignored their own agreement to be sure NOT to arrest and execute Jesus during the feast, which detail the Synoptics themselves record (see Mat 26:5; Mark 14:2). It is simply not credible that the Jewish rulers would have gotten up from their Passover meals and followed Judas to Gethsemane on this holy, high day Sabbath, which would have begun just a couple hours earlier at sundown. Moreover, it would conflict with the Synoptics themselves, for they all say that the Sabbath was the day following His death (Luke 23:54; Mark 15:42; Mat 27:62). On the other hand, if Jesus died upon the Passover day, all those meetings would have been lawful (the Passover day itself was not a holy day), and that is exactly what John shows on several occasions.
No less an authority than Alfred Edersheim has acknowledged, “The Institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded by the Synoptists, although without reference to those parts of the Paschal Supper and its Services with which one or another of its acts must be connected. In fact, while the historical nexus with the Paschal Supper is evident, it almost seems as if the Evangelists had intended, by their studied silence in regard to the Jewish Feast, to indicate that with this Celebration and the new Institution the Jewish Passover had for ever ceased.” Yet, instead of Edersheim’s rather odd conclusion that the Synoptics omit all details of the Passover in order to indicate that it had ceased, it is far more logical to conclude that their “studied silence” is due to the fact that Jesus did not observe the Jewish Passover at the Last Supper! This opinion of Edersheim (see Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) is especially noteworthy, for he is one of those scholars who reject John’s Gospel in favor of the Synoptics in this matter.
Agreeing with our position is Clement of Alexandria, who writes: “Accordingly, in the years gone by, Jesus went to eat the passover sacrificed by the Jews, keeping the feast. But when he had preached He who was the Passover, the Lamb of God, led as a sheep to the slaughter, presently taught His disciples the mystery of the type on the thirteenth day, on which also they inquired, “Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover?” It was on this day, then, that both the consecration of the unleavened bread and the preparation for the feast took place. Whence John naturally describes the disciples as already previously prepared to have their feet washed by the Lord. And on the following day our Saviour suffered, He who was the Passover, propitiously sacrificed by the Jews. Suitably, therefore, to the fourteenth day, on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Prætorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the passover in the evening. With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the Gospels harmonize. The resurrection also attests it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, pg 571).
John wrote his Gospel years after the other accounts, and he is unerringly consistent in testifying that Jesus did not eat the normal Passover meal, and instead died upon that very day. Why then do the Synoptics imply that Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples the day before He died? Apparently because Jesus and the Apostles did celebrate some type of Passover ritual the night before His death. There are however, at least two ways that John and the Synoptics can be made to correspond. First, is the theory that Jesus and His disciples did observe the Jewish Passover, but one day earlier than the rest of the Jews. Second, is the option that Jesus initiated a new, special meal (Communion) which He called the Passover, but it was not strictly the Jewish Passover. Below we will elaborate these two ideas for which I am indebted to Adam Clarke (see his notes on Mat 26:75).
Option one: Jesus observed the Passover one day early. There are reasons to believe that the Jews did permit the Passover meal to be observed on the 13th and 14th Nisan this particular year. The Jewish calendar followed the lunar cycle, and therefore had to be re-calibrated often. This was done by an official ceremony in which the Passover date was fixed about two weeks before by a senate which convened at the end of every month to establish the appearance of the new moon that marked the beginning of each month. When enough approved witnesses came forward saying that they had seen the new moon, the first day of the month was ratified, the calendar fixed and the dates for feasts set. Sometimes, perhaps due to cloudy weather, there were no witnesses for the new moon and the senate was forced to calculate the first day of the month using the previous full moon as reference. But if later witnesses came and proved the earlier calculation to be wrong, the calendar had to be changed. In these cases the Jews allowed both days to serve as appropriate feast days, and thus it is that the Passover could have been lawfully observed on both the 13th and 14th Nisan. Several ancient Jewish authorities describe meticulously these details, yet do not give the particular years in which they were employed. A second reason has been advanced that would allow for the official Passover to be observed both the 13th and 14th Nisan, which is that the Jewish population had grown so much that there was not enough time to slay and process over a quarter million lambs (Josephus’ number) at the brazen altar of the temple in the 4-5 hours mandated by the Law. It is supposed that the Jews had expanded the time period to include the evening before, and the lambs would have been slain on two occasions, the 13th Nisan and the 14th Nisan.
Option two: The night before the Passover, Jesus initiated the ceremonies of Communion and Feetwashing, forever concluding the rites and typology of the Passover. John’s account in particular supports this idea, but it also corresponds with the communion supper which the Synoptics describe. In this scenario, the Passover Jesus so desired to eat (Luke 22:15) was a spiritual, mystical one at which He substituted bread and wine for the lamb. In so doing, He instituted the new ceremony of Communion and signaled the fulfillment of the typological prophecies of the Passover. Indeed, no rite has been so universally held among the varied Christian divisions and denominations as the Communion. The Synoptics would then give an accurate account (for they say nothing about eating lamb) of the disciples preparing for the Passover the day before, and of Jesus initiating a special Passover that has been commemorated by the Christian Church ever since. Those in favor of this option also point out that Jesus and His disciples are described as eating around a table from a common dish and bread (Mat 26:20), but the Passover meal was supposed to be eaten standing up with staff in hand and sandals on the feet, accompanied by unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exo 12:11; Num 9:11).
Both of these two options are plausible, yet there is an additional piece that might help complete the puzzle. The Passover was to be killed and eaten on the evening of the 14th day of the first month, but there were several important earlier rituals, the first being the selection of a perfect, unblemished lamb from the flock on the 10th day of the first month (Ex 12:3). In the week that Jesus died, that would have been Monday, the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The lamb, like Jesus, was to be observed and tested for imperfections for four days. On the evening of the 14th, the lamb was to be killed, and that was the very time and day that Jesus died on the cross. Another important ritual took place on the 13th, the day before the Passover, when by special family ritual the house was to be prepared and supplied for the ceremonial meal. While it was not Biblically commanded, even today Jews perform a formal preparation ceremony on the 13th Nisan, in which bitter herbs and other specialties are purchased and prepared, and a careful search is made that all leaven has been completely purged from the house, often by candlelight at evening. The cracks of the cupboards are thoroughly swept and any utensils that have had leaven in them are either boiled or put outside until the 7-day feast is over. Every room of the house is carefully checked and swept clean, and any chametz that is found is burned. The Last Supper would have fallen on this evening, and the disciples’ preparations for the Passover which the Synoptics record (Mat 26:17; Luke 22:8) would be the preparation rituals of the 13th, not the killing of the lamb of the 14th. See my note on Mat 26:17.
The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are actually two separate events, but since they fall on consecutive days they were often named as one, and even began to be known as an eight-day feast instead of the OT seven-day ordination. The day following the Passover was the 15th of the month, which officially began the seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread. Jewish days began at sundown, and since the Passover was to be eaten at evening (Ex 12:6) it was possible that the supper stretched into the first hours of the 15th, though the lambs were always killed on the 14th. The Passover was a simple family supper of lamb, prepared and eaten exactly as the Mosaic Law prescribed. The seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread was instituted by God to celebrate the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt. However, the details of these were carefully designed by God to foreshadow this very time that Jesus and His disciples gathered together – even though those details were given 1500 years prior.
While the day of the Passover (the 14th) was a normal day, the first day of Unleavened Bread (the 15th) was a festival holy day somewhat similar to the sabbath. There were seven of these special holy days on the Jewish calendar, which are not called “sabbaths” in the OT Scriptures, and probably not even in later Judaism (which is strong point against those who speculate that there were sabbaths on consecutive days during the year of Jesus death). A holy convocation of the congregation to the Temple was required on these special holy days, and normal work was not permitted (Exo 12:16). Nevertheless, comparing the commandments in Lev 23, there was a distinction between the kinds of work not permitted on the sabbath and these holy days. Commentator Gill details the differences, which revolve around the idea of servile work, such as manufacturing or harvesting. The chief point to be appreciated in this is that the seven holy festival days were not considered to be equal to the sabbath, nor were they called the sabbath. This fixes Friday as the day of Jesus’ death. On this all the Gospels are emphatically unanimous (Mat 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42). In fact, the only minor doubt is the meaning of high day in John 19:31. See our notes there.
In the year of Jesus’ death, the 15th fell on the normal sabbath day, which means that Jesus was crucified on Friday. The Law also commanded that upon the day following the first Saturday-sabbath within this feast, a special ceremony called Firstfruits, was to be observed in the Temple at daybreak. That was the very Sunday, at the very same time of day, that Jesus rose from the grave! Note that only certain years did this day fall on the 3rd day following the Passover feast, but it all was pre-ordained by God that Messiah the Lamb, would die this year.
2 And supper being ended, the devil having now 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 was come from God, and went to God;
Supper being ended. Meaning the Communion supper, which the other gospels detail and John does not. Knowing that this was His last meal with the Twelve before returning to the Father, Jesus leaves them with two important lessons that have been committed to memorial services and observed by His followers ever since: Communion and Feetwashing. In parallel with the two great commandments (Mat 22:36-40), the first memorializes one’s relationship with God, and the second memorializes one’s relationship with his fellowmen.
There are various ideas among scholars concerning this supper as outlined in the gospel of John. These primarily derive from the ambiguity involving the exact night it took place (14th Nisan Passover, or the night before), and also because the actual communion is not described. However, it is common for John to omit what the other 3 Gospels have thoroughly covered, and to include events and clarify those details where their accounts are incomplete. And although John does not record Jesus instituting Communion, he gives the best commentary on its meaning in John 6:51-58. The proofs are very strong to believe that here John is describing the same Last Supper as do the Synoptics.
The Jewish Passover and the Christian Communion are ceremonies representing the same event, the death of the Son of God for the sins of the world. The Old Covenant Passover looked forward in types and careful symbolism to that day, and the New Covenant looks back in commemoration. The Passover was an elaborate affair with many precise requirements: a particular day and time, the exact kind of food and how it must be prepared and eaten, etc. In contrast, the Gospels seem to be written in order to avoid commanding particulars. No particular date nor time of day is specified. In fact, not even the emblems are precisely given. Should the bread be leavened or unleavened? Jesus probably used unleavened bread, for the Jews did not use leaven for 8 days, commencing the day before the Passover. Yet nothing is said about using unleavened bread, and early church history is generally silent regarding its use in Communion. Likewise is the drink emblem, which is never said to be “wine.” Instead it is called either the cup, or the fruit of the vine. Some scholars have made a case for using water, following its symbolic meaning in passages like John 4:14, The early church for centuries mixed water with the wine and drew an additional symbolic meaning from the water. They called it “the mixed cup.”
The Father had given all things into His hands. See Col 1:17. Given what He was about to teach in the Feetwashing ceremony, this statement is even more meaningful, for although He was the all-powerful Creator of the universe, yet He came to serve others and to give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:43-45). And if our Master so acted and lived, how much more should His followers? (v14).
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
The Communion bread had been blessed and eaten (Mat 26:26), and the two cups shared by the Twelve (Luke 22:17, 20), when Jesus arose from the table and began to wash the disciples’ feet. While the Synoptics do not record the feetwashing ceremony, Luke does say that during this supper the disciples argued about who was the greatest in Christ’s kingdom, and Jesus responded that the servant among them was the greatest (see Luke 22:24-27).
Washing a guest’s feet upon entering a house might have had some precedent in the Jewish culture, but the Master of the feast washing his guest’s feet during the meal was certainly unheard of. As far as I am aware, feetwashing was not a custom related to the Passover, but those scholars who believe this supper was the Passover are up to the challenge, and propose that Jesus and the disciples had as many as three suppers on this night.
By all appearances, Feetwashing and Communion were perfomed as entirely new ceremonies at the Last Supper, in which Jesus teaches by action as if He were speaking a parable. He makes a full circle of the Twelve, washing each one’s feet, even Judas. It is not hard to imagine the Twelve performing this didactive ceremony among the churches in which they ministered when spreading the Gospel to the far horizons. John describes Jesus’ actions in detail, how He removed His outer coat as might do a servant who was ready to work, and how He wrapped a towel around His waist, poured water into a basin, and then washed and dried the disciples’ feet. It is truly an eloquent picture, the Messiah and Savior of the world stooping down to serve in such a menial task. See Php 2:5-11.
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter 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 know 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.
Peter, not understanding what Christ was doing, was not about to let the Master wash his feet. In his bold, impulsive character he announces, Thou shalt never wash my feet. But he changes his mind just as forcefully when Jesus tells him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. Peter says, “Lord, don’t just wash my feet, wash my hands and head too!” His fervor is commendable, yet it was insufficient to sustain him later that night when he denied Christ three times.
Allowing Jesus to wash his feet became a test of discipleship for Peter, and that is true for every Christian in the Kingdom. It is not the literal washing of feet that is so important, but the willingness to submit oneself to the principles which that ritual embodies. Service, humility, love and self-sacrifice are the most highly valued elements in the churches of Christ. Every Christian must humble himself and serve his fellow Christians, and in return he must accept being washed by them. Peter later showed himself to be an exceptionally willing and able servant in the Kingdom.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
The language and topic are spiritual. He that has been washed (louo) from his sins needs only to have his feet washed (nipto) and he is completely clean. If Jesus has washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev 1:5), then we are clean every whit. See Heb 10:22; John 15:3. The first washing is figured in baptism, a one-time event that illustrates a man’s initial cleansing, salvation and acceptance into the Kingdom of Christ. The second washing illustrates the daily cleansing, forgiveness and commitment that each Christian must experience. While this is not the primary significance of the ceremony of feetwashing, that idea is implied in this verse.
Who should betray Him. See John 6:64; 13:18.
12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
The lesson Christ taught by this feetwashing ceremony is that His followers are to live in service of others following attitudes of love, humility and meekness. The attitudes must come first, for the action is to be willingly and freely given (1Pet 5:2). While serving others is a commandment for every member of the church, it is especially true for those in leadership. To see one’s leaders washing a laymember’s feet makes a powerful testimony, but the ceremonial action must extend into the daily life of the church itself or the lesson has been missed. The ceremony of feetwashing serves as an example to break down unhealthy social attitudes such that servants and their masters become equals in the churches of Christ. This is often just as difficult for the servant to perform as the master, for the natural wish of a servant is to assert himself in order to advance his perception as a lowly person in comparison with others.
According to Luke, the disciples had been disputing which of them should be accounted the greatest even while seated at the Communion table (Luke 22:24-27). They did not yet understand that the Kingdom of Christ would operate under principles opposite from the world’s kings and rulers. The ordinance of Feetwashing speaks of equality in the church (James 2:1-9), of humble service and of leadership as a sober responsibility rather than a privilege to be used for one’s advantage. There were no hierarchies, positions, titles and places of honor in the early church, in which the twelve Apostles were the highest earthly authorities. Indeed, the power and influence of the Twelve has never been repeated since, men who had authority over demons, could with the spoken word heal the sick, and even raise the dead (Mat 10:8; Luke 9:1). They were the human instruments who wrote the Scriptures, and as evangelists they have had no rival, carrying the Gospel to all quarters of the known world. And yet, these greatest of men preferred to be recognized simply as elders (1Pet 5:1; 2John 1:1). Given the greatness of their gifts, power and authority, their humility is beyond remarkable. How do we know Matthew was a publican and tax collector? By his own mouth! The gospel of Mark, which is often called Peter’s gospel, omits recording that Christ blessed and exalted Peter above the eleven (compare Mark 8:27-30 to Mat 16:15-20). John, meanwhile, will not mention his own name anywhere in his gospel, referring to himself as the other disciple (John 13:23; 18:16; 20:2). In reading the Gospels, it is clear that during Jesus’ time on the earth the Twelve needed to learn humility and service, but how they did learn it! They had the best teacher in history.
The primary word used for leaders in the NT is elders (Titus 1:5), and that corresponds with the Scriptural comparison of the church to a body of many members, or to a large family in which the elders served the younger. Not many years after the apostolic era, the churches forgot these principles, and developed what was essentially a new, ruling body, the clergy. The apostle Paul had warned this would happen, but most church leaders and writers missed this dangerous development entirely (Acts 20:28-30; 2Thes 2:3-6). Popery and a complex hierarchy of clergymen emerged just a few centuries after Christ, and took over complete control of Christianity and even gained much political might. In so doing, great harm was done to the name of Christ, and much wickedness was done in His name. And yet, a millennium later when the Reformation shook the world to its very roots, the Protestant reformers simply adapted the existing Catholic authority structure to work in their own settings! Only the Anabaptists saw that the true Kingdom of Christ as taught in the NT will not have a ruling class of human priests/presidents/etc. as lords over the flocks of Christ (Mat 20:25-28; 1Pet 5:1-3). The title that the Anabaptists gave their leaders was, “brother” (Mat 23:8-12). Over the centuries, however, even Anabaptist churches have tended toward elevating a ruling body, usually a single bishop and one or two ministers, to often total control over the congregation. The picture given in the NT is of a church family being led by a body of elders made up of plural bishops and deacons (Php 1:1).
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. 17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
The servant is not greater than his Lord. Which is an obvious truth and a fitting conclusion to the Feetwashing ceremony. By His example, Jesus has set the bar very high for us. The Master served in all quietness, humility and great love, and those who would follow His path will be humble servants in the Kingdom. The Apostles were acting well in wishing to be the greatest; we should do the same. However, may we learn as they did that the greatest in the Kingdom is the humble one, the servant, the one that runs the errands and does the manual labor, the one content to work hard and let others receive the praise, the one that lives in prayer and seeks diligently to know and do all the will of Christ. I am convinced that on that day in which the Lord makes up His jewels, these unnoticed and perhaps unknown servants of God will shine brighter in the crown of the King than will the well-known theologians and influential preachers who filled the prominent seats on earth.
Neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. This is the literal rendering.
Christian churches in general have fallen far below the principles of humility, service and brotherhood that the Feetwashing ceremony illustrates, which has resulted in apathy, apostasy and a complete misconception of the church itself. Apathy and apostasy often occur when the flock does not receive the loving service Christ has taught, and yet the deeper issue is that virtually all mainstream denominations view the church as an institution separate from the laity, a hierarchal-based authority structure with a wide range of titles: bishops, deacons, presbyters, cardinals, priests, the “Honorable Reverend so-and-so,” etc. This does not correspond to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles that the church is spiritual temple of living stones in which God dwells, all humble servants, meek seekers and followers of the Truth, a brotherhood of believers in which the greatest are those that serve others (Mat 23:8-12). Elevating men to positions of ruling authority in the church inevitably results in unhealthy levels of pride and abuse of authority, as well as sin and hypocrisy in the leadership, all of which leads to a leadership/laity conflict, and debilitating “us/them” mentality.
In some Mennonite churches the ordination of a minister is not that different from the Catholics selecting a pope. The selection process picks an ordinary man from the congregation and places him on a higher plane closer to God, where he magically becomes more discerning and spiritually astute than he was formerly as a member of the laity, and where he receives direct wisdom from God concerning the needs and priorities of the church. The resulting difference between congregation and ministry is immense; they are two separate bodies on different spiritual planes. The congregation is generally content to let the ministers communicate and administrate God’s will to and for them, and the ministers control every movement and decision of the flock according to their superior spiritual gifts.
Do not misunderstand, authority structures are very necessary in the churches, but the above formula is dangerously near to being lords over God’s heritage instead of ensamples to the flock (1Pet 5:3). It is right that the ministry be composed of the best examples of Christ to be found in the congregation, and therefore they should be more discerning and spiritually in tune with God. However, the Bible does never indicates that the 2-4 men ordained by the voice of the congregation be elevated such that they stand between God and the church body in matters of determining God’s will and interpreting the Scripture. In these settings, the church has become an institution that stands on its own, and doesn’t even need a congregation to exist! And it is not uncommon for that very situation to develop in church quarrels.
Leaders (the Biblical term is elders) are essential components in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; Acts 15:4) and are to be honored and respected in their service and love for the brethren (1Tim 5:17; Heb 13:17; 1Thes 5:12-13). Yet they should not be elevated to act as mediators between Christ and His church (1Pet 5:3; 2Cor 1:24; 1Tim 4:11-16; Mat 20:25-27). There is one head in each church, and that is Christ (Eph 5:14; 5:23), who is the chief corner stone upon which each church body is to be built (1Pet 2:5-9; Eph 2:19-22; 1Cor 3:8-14). Upon that foundation there is a need for many living stones, each humbly and ably fulfilling the task that God has given him (Eph 4:11-16; 1Cor 12:27-28). The Scriptures everywhere portray the church as a family, a brotherhood, a body, a living temple which, while having degrees of honorability among its members, is notably emphasized as being ONE in spirit, mind and practice (Php 2:3; Rom 12:3). The Apostle Peter urges the elders and laity in the church: all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility (1Pet 5:5).
My personal assessment is that the Anabaptist tradition of having a very small ministerial body of elders is unhealthy and unwise. The Scriptures speak of bishops (plural) and deacons (the Greek word is simply, minister), not a bishop and two ministers. A larger body of elders will contribute greatly towards diminishing a clergy/laity attitude, or first plane/second plane mediators between God and His church which has so often resulted in an us/them attitude. A booklet that I found very helpful on this subject is Alexander Strauch’s “Biblical Eldership,” in which the author shows that the present-day idea of a body of elders is quite different from the Scriptural concept.
Happy are ye if ye do them. Contentment comes with doing the Master’s will, although there are many who struggle due to conflicts with self-will. Serving others results in a feeling of fulfillment, of self-worth and of being needed. The one who lives for self will seek and seek for happiness but will never find it.
18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. 19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
David said these words (Ps 41:9) when his close friend, Ahithophel, betrayed him into the hand of Absalom. There are some interesting literal parallels between Ahithophel and Judas beyond the obvious fact that they both betrayed their masters, one example is that they are the only two men in the Bible to have hung themselves (2Sam 15-17). See my notes for more on the typology.
That ye may believe that I am (he). The “he” is not in the original (see John 8:24; 8:28; 8:58). Jesus had chosen Judas to be His disciple, knowing even then that he was going to betray Him (John 6:70). Many theologians have offered their views on what that implies. I believe that Judas Iscariot began just as the other disciples, a sincere follower of Christ who was honestly seeking God. He was not a wicked person when Jesus chose him, but over the years he had allowed Satan to foment bitterness and sin within his heart. Yet, after his awful deed, he was so filled with remorse that he took his own life. What did cause Judas to betray Christ? Well, like all men, Judas had his “besetting sins.” Greed and bitterness led eventually to revenge and retaliation (see note on Mat 26:6). It is a sober warning for every Christian.
Lifted up his heel against Me. The meaning of this expression is clear enough, but its origins are not. Clarke thinks it may have reference to a horse who kicks his master, and would be similar to the English expression, “to bite the hand that feeds you.” Perhaps there is a subtle link to the very first Messianic prophecy in the Scriptures, Gen 3:15, where God remarks to Satan, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Satan, using Judas as part of his plot to destroy Christ, tried to destroy Him.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
This verse seems to interrupt the account of Jesus exposing Judas as the one who would betray Him. Perhaps however, Jesus spoke of Judas here, for it certainly true that Judas did not receive Jesus. Another possibility is that this continues the thought of verse 16, where Jesus alludes to those He would send out in His name. More than thirty times in the book of John, Jesus speaks of the One that sent Me. This verse is a modification of John 12:44 (see also John 17:21; 20:21; Mark 9:41).
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. 23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. 25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
One of you shall betray Me. With these words Jesus foretold His coming betrayal to the Twelve. They were completely surprised, astonished even, and looked around at one another wondering what and who Jesus could be speaking about. Not one of them professed to have any suspicions concerning Judas. The other Gospels are equally strong in describing the shock of the disciples upon hearing Jesus’ words. Judas even asked Christ if he was the betrayer, although most likely in order to deflect suspicion (see Luke 22:23; Mark 14:19; Mat 26:25).
The disciple whom Jesus loved. This is the way John refers to himself in his Gospel (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20), in order to deflect from himself any attention or personal praise that his readers might be inclined to develop concerning him.
Leaning on Jesus’ bosom. According to some scholars, it was a custom at that time to eat in a reclining, sideways posture upon low couches around the table, such that the legs were positioned away from the table and the elbow was upon it, and everybody faced in the same direction. John, being the disciple next to and in front of Jesus, leaned back in order to look at Him and ask who the betrayer would be. A hint of the close relationship between Peter and John is here visible. Peter, never one to be bashful, wished to know who Jesus was speaking about, but for some reason he did not want to ask Christ himself. So, with some simple, discrete motions which John readily understood, Peter was able to get John to ask the question. Judas was probably sitting on the other side of Christ, for Jesus directly handed him the sop.
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
It is generally thought that the sop was a piece of bread dipped in vinegar wine, as in Ruth 2:14, for there the Septuagint uses the same Greek word, although not in diminutive form as in John. It is a striking scene. Jesus, with the same bread He had served the disciples Communion minutes before says, “The one to whom I give this piece of bread is the one that will betray Me.” Then He gives it to Judas, who accepts the bread into his body and Satan into his heart (1Cor 11:28-30). Then he went immediately out: and it was night (John 13:30). The last words are ominously significant, for evil loves darkness and wicked deeds are done in the night (John 3:19-20; Eph 5:11-13).
After the sop, Satan entered into him. It would appear that Satan had been working in Judas’ heart for some time, trying to find some place there, some root of bitterness (Eph 4:27; Heb 12:15). A few days earlier the wicked fruits of his heart began to be exposed when he criticized Mary for wasting her money on expensive perfume, and perhaps he was irked that Jesus reprimanded him for that. However, there is every indication that Judas was well-respected by the others and that they considered him a worthy disciple of Christ. He was their treasurer, and such was their trust in him that when Jesus clearly indicated that it was Judas would betray Him, they couldn’t imagine it (Mat 26:20-25).
The sign that Judas used to betray Jesus to the Jews was a kiss, an act of friendship, as was also the sign that Jesus used to foretell who would betray Him. The sight is jarring, for evil is returned for good, betrayal for love. And yet, the similarity between Judas’ betrayal and Christianity’s hypocrisy is no less striking. Many profess to love Christ and offer their praises every Sunday, but then they go out and betray Him by living contrary to His example and disobeying His commandments.
Giving a piece of bread to someone at the table was an act of friendship. Jesus did not verbally accuse Judas, but kindly gave him one last chance to change his mind. Jesus loved and chose Judas (John 6:70), but Judas did not choose and love Christ in return.
28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. 29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. 30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
The twelve apostles did not understand that Jesus was going to be given into evil hands that very night, nor did they grasp that Judas was even then going out to betray Him. How did they not see it? First, because all of the events leading to Jesus’ death were carefully designed by God. Now the moment had come, and it was not intended that the disciples should interfere, either with Judas’ betrayal or with Jesus’ crucifixion. The hands of the wicked Jews were supernaturally withheld when they had tried to arrest Christ earlier, for His hour had not yet come (John 7:30; 8:20). But now, nobody stopped Judas as he left the table to begin his wicked deed because His hour had come.
Some think that John and Jesus’ conversation was not heard by the others. The two were sitting side by side, and perhaps whispered their communication. However, John would have heard and seen the sign, so why did not even he respond? In my opinion the better interpretation is that the disciples simply did not grasp the imminent significance of Jesus’ words, and indeed seem more individually worried about being the betrayer than being motivated to protect their Master (Mat 26:20-25).
Buy those things that we have need of against the feast. The Gospel of John declares (directly and indirectly) that Jesus was crucified before the feast of the Unleavened Bread, and that He died at the very hour the Passover lambs were being killed in the Jewish temple. The Last Supper took place on the 13th Nisan, the night before Passover (see note on John 13:1). Bitter herbs, unleavened bread and other specialty items were required for the Passover meal. If this were (as many scholars teach) the 14th Nisan passover lamb meal, Judas would be going out to buy at night on the 15th, the holy sabbath day on which it was unlawful to work, buy or sell.
31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
The hour for which Jesus had come into the world was near. In a few hours He would be arrested in Gethsemane and at this time tomorrow He would be in the tomb. Because of their supreme act of love, the names of God and His Son would be magnified and exalted among men and angels forevermore (Php 2:9; Eph 1:20-21), God for giving up His only begotten Son (Rom 8:32), and Jesus for being willing to give up His life (Mat 26:39; Rev 5:3-6). Jesus would be with His disciples yet a little while, and then He would return to the Father who sent Him. Peter’s response follows in verses 36-37.
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
A new commandment. Many commentators point out that, strictly speaking, this was not a new commandment, for the Law had long ago said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Lev 19:18). Yet the NT commandment to love others is so vastly broadened that it is rightfully said to be a new commandment. The wording of the two commands is similar, but in the NT the terms have been re-defined and re-directed. In the famous story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus re-defined the terms after the lawyer asks, And who is my neighbor? (Luke 10:27-29). Jesus taught that a neighbor is every fellow-man, whether good or evil, friend or enemy (Mat 5:44; Luke 6:32-34). That is certainly new. Moreover, Jesus’ new commandment adds, As I have loved you, that ye also love one another. That kind of love is very high, very new.
By this shall all men know. The banner of true Christianity is unfeigned love; first love for Christ (Rev 2:4), then for the church body (Col 2:2; Gal 6:10), and also for all men (1Thes 3:12). Above all, Christianity should be noted in all the world for LOVING ACTION, just as the Pharisee is noted for his broad phylacteries, and the Muslim for praying 5 times a day. In the days of the early church this was truly the case, as even their persecutors marveled, “Look how they love one another, and are ready to lay down their lives for each other” (Tertullian).
36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. 37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
Jesus had told the disciples that where He was going they could not follow (v33), but Peter was not satisfied. He wanted to be with Jesus, even if that meant laying down his life. However, Peter would soon discover that Christ was right, for he would be unable to follow Him even in the next few hours. In the parallel accounts (Mat 26:33; Luke 22:33) Peter is even stronger in voicing his allegiance to Christ. Nevertheless, at the end of his life Peter’s commitment had matured, and he did indeed lay down his life for the sake of Christ (John 21:18). Earlier, Jesus had told the Jews that where He was going (to heaven) they were not able to follow (John 7:33-35; 8:21), but to the disciples He adds, but thou shalt follow Me afterwards.
Peter had a pretty high concept of himself, but Jesus brought it all crashing down, and in this he learned not to depend on himself but on Christ.
38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Jesus’ stunning prophecy that Peter would deny his Lord three times that very night is recorded in all 4 Gospels (Mat 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34). In the book of John, which devotes a good portion of time to record the last teachings of Christ, the actual episode of Peter denying Christ is still five chapters future (John 18:25-27).