CHAPTER XIII.
THE LAST SUPPER.
The events of this wonderful week have passed
rapidly. We have followed the Savior in his entry into Jerusalem upon
Sunday and his visit to the temple. On Monday occurred the incident
of cursing the fig tree, as he went from Bethany to Jerusalem, and a
second time he entered into the temple to assert his authority to cleanse
his Father's house by casting out the traffickers and money changers,
returning in the evening again to his beloved retreat at Bethany. Tuesday
was one of the busiest, stormiest, and most fruitful days of his ministry.
On his appearance at the temple he was accosted by the demand, "By what
authority doest thou these things?" Then came the attempts of the various
parties to entangle him, a succession of parables directed against the
Jewish nation, the awful denunciation of its sins recorded in Matthew,
chapter XXIII., the final and sad farewell to the temple and the nation
that closes that chapter, the discourse on the fate of the nation, the
end of the world and the day of judgment recorded in the next two chapters,
and, after these, a return to Bethany, where the next day, Wednesday,
seems to have been passed in rest and preparation for the approaching
struggle. From thence on Thursday afternoon he went into the city to
eat the passover. This last interview with the disciples before his
suffering is one of an unusually confidential and affectionate nature
and is the occasion of the sweetest and most consolatory teachings of
our Lord.
John passes over the second cleansing of the temple
and the conflicts of Tuesday, and the prediction of the fate of Jerusalem,
which we gather from the other historians, and takes his readers, at
once to the little gathering in the Upper Room where the Master and
his disciples had gathered to eat the passover, and where the Supper
was instituted. John speaks of the Supper, but he, only, of the four
historians, omits to give an account of its origin. He, only, gives
a full account of the remarkable discourses that the Savior delivered
on that memorable occasion. I cannot here enter into the discussion
whether the Savior ate the passover before the real time or not, nor
is it needful to settle that, in order to understand his teaching. [200]
It was on the morning of Thursday,--Green Thursday
as it used to be called during the Middle Ages,--that some conversation
took place between Jesus and his disciples about the paschal feast.
They asked him where he wished the preparation to be made. As he had
now withdrawn from public teaching, and was spending this Thursday,
as he had spent the previous day, in complete seclusion, they probably
expected that he would eat the passover at Bethany, which for such purposes
had been decided by rabbinical authority to be within the limits of
Jerusalem. But his plans were otherwise. He, the true Paschal Lamb,
was to be sacrificed once and forever in the Holy City, where it is
probable that in that very passover, and on that very same day, some
260,000 of those lambs of which he was the antitype were destined to
be slain.
It was towards the evening, probably when the
gathering dusk would prevent all needless observation, that Jesus and
his disciples walked from Bethany, by that familiar road over the Mount
of Olives, which his sacred feet were never again destined to tread
until after death. . . . We catch no glimpse of the little
company till we find them assembled in that "large upper room,"--perhaps
the very room where three days after the sorrow-stricken Apostles first
saw their risen Savior,--perhaps the very room where, amid the sound
of a mighty rushing wind, each meek brow was first mitred with Pentecostal
flame.--Farrar. It is at this supper, at the very foot of the
cross, that all believers are invited to sit down to angels' food in
enjoying the wonderful revelation of the Master in the next five chapters.
"It may be that the very act of taking their seats
at the table had, once more, stirred up in the minds of the apostles
those disputes about precedence which, on previous occasions, our Lord
had so tenderly and carefully rebuked. The mere question of a place
at table might seem too infinitesimal and unimportant to ruffle the
feelings of good men at an hour so supreme and solemn; but that love
for 'the chief seats at feasts,' and elsewhere, which Jesus had denounced
in the Pharisees, is not only innate in the heart, but is so powerful
that it has, at times, caused the most terrific tragedies."--Farrar.
Matthew Henry points out that the paschal lamb
was typical of "the Lord, our Passover," in the following features:
(1) It was a lamb, as Christ was the Lamb of God. (2) A male,
of the first year. In its prime. (3) Without blemish, as
Christ was perfectly pure, without spot. (4) Set apart four days
before, the 10th of Nisan. Christ's triumphal entry was four days
before the crucifixion, on the 10th. (5) It was slain, and roasted
with fire, denoting the death and exquisite sufferings of Christ.
(6) It was killed between the two evenings, three to six o'clock. Christ
suffered at the end of the world. He died at this same hour,
and at the passover feast. (7) Each person must have a slain lamb.
So Christ died for all. (8) Not a bone was broken. (9) It was eaten
with bitter herbs of repentance. (10) Its blood must be applied
to be effectual. (11) It looked forward to future deliverance, and became,
after the death, a feast of hope and joy. (12) It was a feast of separation
from the world; and (13) of protection as God's children.
[201]
1. Now before the feast of the passover.
Immediately before, just as Christ was about to sit down with his disciples
to the paschal feast. Jesus knew that his hour was come. The
scenes of this hour, the passover, the Lord's Supper, the washing of
feet, and the solemn teaching were in immediate view of the cross. The
Lord saw the dark and bloody path of suffering just before him. In this
hour of sorrow the pre-eminent love that he had for "his own" shone
forth resplendent. "He loved them to the end."
2. Supper being ended. The Revision says,
"During the Supper," which expresses the meaning of the original. It
is likely that Christ arose near the beginning of the feast, washed
the feet, and then he sat down again to the feast. See verse 12. For
reasons that we will explain later, he arose after the feast began.
The devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, etc.
The devil planted the seed, but the soil of his heart was ready. The
devil has no power except where there is preparation for him. The covetous
disposition of Judas had prepared the way. His disappointment over the
costly box of ointment had enraged him. John calls attention, to the
fact that Judas was there, already a traitor at heart, and that Christ
knew it, in order to show the wonderful condescension that would stoop
to wash his feet.
3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given
all things into his hands. It was with a full consciousness of his
divinity, his divine power and majesty, of the glory that he had and
would enjoy with God, that he stooped to the menial office that he was
about to fill. John points out with care the wonderful sight of God
in Christ washing the feet, not only of the apostles, but of the traitor.
John's astonishment at what followed finds expression in this verse.
4. He riseth from supper, and laid aside his
garments. Shortly after they had sat down to the table, he arose,
laid aside his outer robe, girded a towel upon him, and began the lowly
office of washing the feet of twelve men, without a word of explanation.
Something more than ordinary must have caused so remarkable an act.
The fact that the cause has been lost sight of, has caused many to misunderstand
the significance, and to think the Savior was instituting a church ceremonial,
rather than giving a deep, practical, spiritual lesson for all ages.
I will endeavor to explain the circumstances: 1. The disciples still
expected the immediate manifestation of the kingdom. When they sat down
to this Supper [202] they felt that it was a
kind of state occasion, and a strife arose among them for precedence.
Each wanted the "chief seat at the feast." An account of this unseemly
controversy over the, old question, "Who should be greatest?" is found
in Luke 22:24-30. 2. The owner of the house had furnished the guest
chamber for the feast, had provided table, seats, water and vessels,
but his duties on a passover occasion had ended there. He had to arrange
for the passover with his own family. Jesus and his disciples had come
in hot and dusty from their walk from Bethany; their sandals had been
laid off according to custom. They sat down to the table with dry and
dusty feet, but no one brought water to wash their feet, an eastern
duty of hospitality made necessary by their hot, dusty climate. No apostle
volunteered to attend to the office, the duty of a servant. They were
rather filled with angry, envious thoughts who should have the most
honorable place. 3. Then, when they were filled with their ambitious,
envious feelings, and had engaged in strife right at the Lord's table,
after waiting long enough to have it shown that no one would condescend
to the menial, but needful duty, the Lord, the Son of God, full of conscious
divinity, arose, girded on the towel, and began the office. A rebuke,
an awful rebuke, to their ambitious strife, far more powerful than words
could have spoken; such a rebuke that never again do we see a hint of
the old question, "Who should be greatest?" It was Christ's answer to
their unseemly conduct, and a lesson to those Christians "who love the
pre-eminence" for all time. It said, "Let him that would be greatest
become the servant of all."
5. Poureth water into a basin. Girded as
a servant the Lord does a servant's work. The feet were not put into
the basin, but water was poured from it on the feet and they were then
wiped with the towel.
6. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? The language
of Peter is that of confusion, of astonishment and of remonstrance.
The emphasis is on the word thou. Dost thou, the Lord
and Master, do the work of a servant?
7. Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know
hereafter. "You do not understand this matter fully now, but thou
shalt know hereafter." There was much that was not clear to the dull
understandings of the apostles that became clear later. Knowledge comes
by submissive obedience if we will wait patiently.
8. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with
me. Peter, not yet reconciled to the Master discharging the duty
that he now feels he ought to have discharged, exclaims: "Thou shalt
never wash my feet." It was his characteristic [203]
obstinacy. Christ replied as above, in substance, "If thou art
not submissive to me, thou art not my disciple." Washing, with the Jews,
was a symbolical act, signifying purification from uncleanness. That
Christ referred to more than a washing with water was understood by
Peter as is evident from his reply. Christ could only wash with blood
the obedient.
9. Not my feet only, but my hands and my head.
Peter, not yet content, continues the argument. If thou dost insist
on washing me, why not my hands and head as well as my feet? His language
is partly due to embarrassment and partly to his great repugnance to
have the Savior perform such a duty upon him.
10. He that is washed needeth not save to wash
his feet. The Lord first speaks of the material facts. It was only
the feet that needed washing. After a tramp over the dusty roads they
needed cleansing. It must be born in mind that only sandals were worn
and that these were laid off when they entered the house. There is also
a spiritual meaning. He who is once cleansed by the blood of Christ
only needs, after this, to come to Christ for partial cleansing; for
the forgiveness of the special sins that make him unclean.
11. Ye are not all clean. Not all who enter
into his service ostensibly are cleansed. Judas was not. Some do not
enter through the "Door of entire obedience," but are thieves and robbers
(see John 12:1).
12. Know ye what I have done to you? When
he had completed his task, he laid aside the towel, resumed his robe,
sat down to the table, and asked, "Do you understand what I have done
to you?" They knew the act, but did they comprehend its meaning? Hence
the emphasis that follows.
13, 14. Ye call me Master and Lord. You
recognize the fact that I am your Lord and Master, or rather the Lord
and Master. Master is used in the sense of teacher, but Lord in the
sense of ruler. He then draws his conclusion from the promise that they
admit: "If I, your Lord and Master, wash your feet, ye ought also to
wash one another's feet." Ye ought to follow the example of humility,
self-sacrifice, and service to others, that your Lord sets you. Instead
of seeking the pre-eminence, disputing concerning the seats of honor,
and shrinking from humble service to each other, ye should follow my
example. [204]
15. For I have given you an example. Christ
gave an example, not a church ordinance. It is our duty to follow
the example and render the same kind of service to fellow Christians.
To make his example a ceremonial and follow it literally would be to
lose its spirit. We wish every student to note the fact that not once
elsewhere is it referred to in the New Testament as a church ordinance,
and only once mentioned at all. In 1 Tim. 5:10, it is named as a mark
of a godly widow. Nor is there any mention of it as a church ordinance
until the fourth century when the tide of corruption was sweeping in.
The Pope now washes the feet of twelve beggars once a year, the German
Baptists (Dunkards), Mennonites, and a few other minor sects practice
it, but with rare exceptions Christendom, from the days of the apostles
to our time, has looked upon the Savior's example as a sublime act of
humility whose spirit must always be followed, but has rejected the
idea of him establishing a church ordinance. There is a wide difference
between an example and a church ordinance. When Christ wept with
sympathy, or fed the hungry, or ministered to the sick, or taught lowly
service by washing the feet of his disciples, he set an example, and
happy are we if we know what he did, drink in his spirit, and
follow the example. That feet washing belongs to the class of examples,
rather than of church ordinances, is demonstrated by the fact that when
we turn to the inspired history of the church as recorded in Acts and
in the Epistles, it is silent concerning any such ordinance. The Savior,
the night before he was crucified, established a church ordinance, the
Lord's Supper. We discover it just as soon as the church is organized
on the day of Pentecost. The converts "continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in the breaking of
bread, and in prayers." In his commission, just before the ascension,
he established another ordinance, baptism. This we find, also, to appear
immediately. On Pentecost Peter commands it and "they that gladly received
the Word were baptized." Thus it continues; these undoubted church ordinances
are constantly named throughout Acts, through the Epistles, the Apostolic
Fathers and early writers of Christianity, while feet washing is named
only once more in the New Testament, and then in such a way as to show
that it was observed as a private benevolence, not as a church ordinance,
and is never mentioned in the latter aspect until the time of Augustine,
the Bishop of Hippo, when the apostasy had been fully inaugurated and
the Bishop of Rome was claiming to take precedence of all other dignitaries
in the church. This silence during the ages of apostolic purity settles
the interpretation we are to place on the Savior's language. It is our
duty to be always ready to do to others as he did, to serve them in
a spirit of humility and self-sacrifice.
16. The servant is not greater than his Lord.
If the Lord then should thus condescend, how much rather the servant.
To follow the Lord's example [205] the necessary
thing is not that he should gird on a towel and go through a form, but
that he should drink in the Lord's spirit. Spiritual pride has been
one of the greatest perils of the church. The Lord seeks to guard against
it.
17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if
ye do them. Know what things? Of course they knew that Christ had
washed their feet. But did they know what it meant? The meaning is clearly,
"If ye understand the meaning of my act, happy are ye if ye exemplify
the same spirit in your lives." This language itself shows that his
act was not to be taken in its literal form. Any one can know
that, but there are many who call themselves Christians who do not know
its significance. Those who catch his spirit and obey it are happy in
the Lord's approval. The word translated, "Happy are ye" is the same
one that is translated "Blessed are" in the opening of the sermon on
the mount. Here, therefore, we have another beatitude.
18. I speak not of you all. There is one
present to whom knowledge will not bring happiness. He had been alluded
to in verse 10. I know whom I have chosen. Christ refers to the
choice to the apostolate, not to election to salvation. He declares
that he knew Judas, but chose him that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Judas was no surprise to Christ. He had known his sordid nature from
the beginning and to what it would lead him. The Evangelists do not
conceal the fact that the traitor was one of their own number. Why
was such a man chosen to be one of the twelve? (1) There was needed
among the disciples, as in the Church now, a man of just such talents
as Judas possessed,--the talent for managing business affairs. (2) Though
he probably followed Christ at first from mixed motives, as did the
other disciples, he had the opportunity of becoming a good and useful
man. (3) It doubtless was included in God's plan that there should be
thus a standing argument for the truth and honesty of the gospel; for,
if any wrong or trickery had been concealed, it would have been revealed
by the traitor in self-defence. (4) It is a relief to modern churches
to know that God can bless them, and the gospel can succeed, even though
some bad men may creep into the fold.
19. Now I tell you before it come to pass.
Hitherto the Lord had borne his sorrow alone, but now that the hour
was at hand and the traitor would soon be compelled to show his hand,
he would declare it to his disciples, before it come to pass, in order
that the fulfillment, instead of being a crushing disappointment, might
increase their faith. Believe that I am he. Rather, "Believe
that I am." The reader can hardly have failed to note how frequently
the Lord thus speaks of himself. He does not say, "I am he,"
the latter pronoun being an interpolation. The "I AM'S"
of our Savior associate him with the burning bush of Horeb where, when
Moses asked the name he should report [206]
to the children of Israel of the God who had appointed him as their
leader, he was told to say, "I am that I am hath sent thee." The self-existent,
uncreated Deity is revealed in these words and the similar terms used
by Christ are an affirmation of absolute existence. He did not, like
man, have a dependent being, but said, "I am," "I exist." This exalted
claim was demonstrated when he laid down his life of his own will "to
take it up again."
20. He that receiveth . . . receiveth me.
They whose faith was made strong to believe in him would be commissioned
as his heralds, sent from him, as he was sent from the Father. To receive
them, the King's messengers, would be to receive him; to receive him
would be to receive the Father who sent him.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The desire to be greater than others is the
cause of many quarrels and much evil.
2. Man's way to be great is to seek to be greater
than others,--self-seeking.
3. God's way to be great is to serve others, to
do all we can for them,--love.
4. It is Pharisaism to cling to a form, but to
neglect the spirit.
5. Often spiritual pride clothes itself in humble
forms. We have known a man very proud of a buckskin watch guard, or
of the hooks and eyes that fastened his coat. Pride may put on a towel
and wash feet. Once when Dr. Bethune preached against pride, a man went
to him and pointed to leather buttons on his coat, saying, "See, I am
not proud." "Yes," said the doctor, "you are proud of your leather buttons."
6. The great law of the kingdom of heaven is not
this,--Use thyself for thyself. Still less is it this,--Use
others for thyself. But it is this,--Use thyself for others.--Morison.
7. Voluntary service in the kingdom of love, and
under the impulse of humility and self-denial, makes a man a spiritual
power, gives him an unconscious and blessed greatness.--Lange.
8. Peter was always the chief speaker, and already
had the keys given him; he expects to be lord chancellor, or lord chamberlain
of the household, and so to be the greatest. Judas had a bag, and therefore
he expects to be lord treasurer, which, though now he comes last, he
hopes will then dominate him the greatest. Simon and Jude are nearly
related to Christ, and they hope to take the place of all the great
officers of state as princes of the blood. John is the beloved disciple,
the favorite of the Prince, and therefore hopes to be the greatest.
Andrew was first called, and why should not he be first preferred?--Matthew
Henry. [207]
WHEN CHRIST ATE THE PASSOVER.
It must be acknowledged that one of the most difficult
questions of solution presented in the history of the Lord's ministry
is the time when he ate the supper which must have been, in some sense,
at least, a passover. That the supper described by John in chapter XIII,
is not the feast at the house of Simon the Leper in Bethany, as Lightfoot
insists, but the paschal feast described by Matthew, Mark and Luke at
which the Lord's Supper was instituted, is, I think, evident to any
one who makes a comparison of the accounts. As far as John gives an
indication of the time, the supper was just before, or at the passover,
and from this feast the Lord retired to the garden of Gethsemane. At
this feast Judas was exposed and the fall of Peter predicted, events
that took place, according to the other Gospels, the evening of the
paschal supper. The authorities are therefore almost unanimous in the
view that John describes the feast that took place at the guest chamber
in the city of Jerusalem.
A far more difficult question is whether the Lord's
paschal feast was eaten at the regular time of the Jewish passover,
or one day before. If we were to read only the first three Gospels we
would conclude that he ate the Jewish passover at the regular time.
If we were to read only John's account we would be compelled to conclude
that the Savior died on the day the passover lamb was slain, before
the Jews ate the passover. Matthew, Mark and Luke each speak of "the
first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," as the
day when the disciples "made ready the passover." It is not to be denied,
however, that there are difficulties even in their accounts. "The first
day of unleavened bread" was strictly the Jewish day that began in the
evening with the passover feast; that day was a legal Sabbath and it
would have been unlawful to conduct judicial business upon it, for Simon
Cyrenian to carry the cross, or for Joseph of Arimathea to bring a hundred
pounds weight of myrrh and aloes to embalm and bury the body of Christ.
These things were all done on the day on which the Savior was crucified.
In Exodus 12:16 it is said: "And in the first
day (of unleavened bread) there shall be a holy convocation, and in
the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you; no manner
of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that
only may be done of you." The prohibition of all regular work, except
the dressing of food, shows that the first day of unleavened bread was
a Sabbath, and it was always so regarded by the Jewish writers. I cannot
believe that all the violations of the law could have been made by devout
Jews, which have to be admitted, if the passover was eaten by the Jewish
nation the evening before Christ was crucified.
I suspect, from these circumstances, that there
is something in the language which alludes to the time in the first
three Gospels that must be interpreted in the light of Jewish usages,
which we do not fully understand. They were written with especial reference
to Jewish Christians, who understood all the customs of the Jews in
that age, and who, in view of that fact, would probably put a different
interpretation on "the first day of unleavened bread when the passover
was killed" from that which seems most probable to us, under [208]
the conditions of our limited knowledge. It is objected, however,
to the view that the Lord ate the passover before the regular time that
this would not be in accordance with the Jewish law. It may be replied
that, whether he kept the regular passover or not, he departed from
the law. It enjoined that no one should go out until the morning. He
sent Judas out from the supper table, and a little later went out himself
with his disciples beyond the Kedron to Gethsemane.
I now pass to a consideration of the statements
of John. 1. From John 13:1 it seems that the supper took place "before
the passover." 2. In 13:29 the disciples suppose that the Lord told
Judas to buy some things needed for the feast, which would be impossible
if the real passover feast had begun. 3. In 18:28 the Jews refuse to
enter the presence chamber of Pilate lest they should be so defiled
that they could not eat the passover, a passage irreconcilable with
the view that they had eaten it the evening before. 4. In 19:14, on
the day of the crucifixion, it is stated that it was "the day of preparation
of the passover," language irreconcilable with the fact that it had
been eaten the night before. 6. It is said in 19:31 that it was the
"preparation," and that the next day, the Sabbath, "was a high day,"
a statement understood to mean that it was a double Sabbath, not an
ordinary Sabbath, but one that coincided with the day following the
eating of the passover, which was hallowed as an annual Sabbath.
From these premises I accept the conclusion of
Alford, which I condense, as follows: 1. That on the evening of the
13th of Nisan (that is, the beginning of the 14th), the Lord ate a meal
with his disciples, at which it was announced that one should betray
him, and from which he went to Gethsemane; 2. That in some sense this
meal was regarded as eating a passover; 3. That it was not at the regular
time of the Jewish passover, but the evening before, since the disciples
understood when Judas left that he went to buy something, which could
not have been done during the first Jewish day after the passover feast
began, as it was a Sabbath. 4. On that night the Lord was seized, and
on the next day, before the Jews ate the passover, but the day the paschal
lambs were slain, the Lord, our Passover, was crucified. "His hour,"
of the coming of which he so often speaks, was the hour when he should
die, as the passover for man, on the very day when the paschal lambs
were slain.
JUDAS EXPOSED.
In washing the disciples' feet, Jesus had said,
"Ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who would betray him; therefore
he said, Ye are not all clean." So early, from the very first, did the
thought of Judas and his meditated deed press upon the Savior's spirit.
When the washing of feet was over, and Jesus sat down, and the repast
began, they all noticed that there was a cloud on the Master's countenance,
and the disciple who, sitting next to him, could best read the expression
of his face, saw that he was "troubled in spirit." They were not left
long in doubt as to the cause. Still sitting at the table and engaged
in the solemn feast, he began to speak of his betrayer. Already Judas
had been to the chief [209] priests and agreed,
for a certain sum of money, to betray the retreat of Jesus at night.
The time of the deed had not been determined and the Savior brings it
about that Judas, at once, leaves the company and perpetuates his dark
crime that night.
21. When Jesus had thus said he was troubled
in spirit. He had just closed his remarks on the lesson of humility
and service, illustrated by feet washing, and now a cloud comes over
his soul. The phrase, "troubled in spirit," occurs also in chapter 11:33
and 12:27. The Greek word always implies indignation mingled with sorrow.
Here there is deep sorrow but condemnation of the traitor. The "trouble
of spirit" may be understood better by our own experience. If we have
present a company of loving friends and one comes in whom we know to
be false, a traitor, uncongenial in every respect, it throws a cloud.
I believe that Jesus wanted to speak to his friends alone the glorious
last words of chapters 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th, and that he deliberately
exposed Judas and sent him away. One of you shall betray me.
Christ had before foretold his betrayal (see Matt. 17:22 and 20:18),
but had not declared that one of the twelve should be the betrayer.
Judas, led captive by his covetousness, had already agreed to betray
him, immediately after his disappointment over the alabaster box of
ointment. See Matt. 26:14-16. None else of course knew of it and it
is no wonder the Savior's words startled the apostles.
22. Looked at one another. In wonder and
questioning. They did not venture to doubt the Savior's prophecy, but
it seemed to them impossible that one of their number could prove a
traitor.
23. There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of
his disciples. The party were reclining at the table in the Greek
and Roman fashion. A wide couch was placed along the table and each
guest reclined on his left elbow with his feet extended outward. The
disciple next in front of the Savior would, therefore, be very near
his bosom. He only needed to bend back a little to throw himself on
his bosom. Whom Jesus loved. This phrase occurs seven times in
John's Gospel, twice in speaking of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, and five
times as the designation of the one of the disciples who wrote this
Gospel. Though John never declares that he is the one meant, it has
always been so understood by the church. One reason for this view is
found in the fact that he names all the other apostles freely, but never
names himself otherwise. Some have insisted that it was egotism to thus
designate himself. Rather, I suppose that it was such a joy to John
to know and feel that one so glorious as Christ had loved "even him,"
that he could hardly suppress his joy. After long years of work and
trial had passed and he was a gray-haired man, it filled his soul with
transports to think that Jesus loved him and that he had reclined on
his bosom. [210]
24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him.
All are eager to know more, for they are filled with anxiety. Peter,
always impulsive, as usual is the one who acts. He does not speak but
beckons to John who was next to Christ to find out whom he meant. It
must be kept in mind that he did not speak, and probably none but John,
whose eye he had caught, saw him beckon. Therefore none else knew what
John would ask Christ, and as he asked in a low tone of voice, the answer
was not understood by the company.
25. He then, lying on Jesus' breast, saith
. . . Lord, who is it? The Revision says, "leaning back." The reader
must not forget their positions. As Lucke says: "Since the captivity,
the Jews lay at table in the Persian manner, on divans or couches, each
on his left side, with his face to the table, his left elbow resting
on a pillow and supporting his head. The second guest to the right hand
lay with head near the breast of the first, and so on." John, being
the disciple next to the Lord, let his head drop back on the bosom of
Jesus and asked in a low tone, unheard by the others: "Who is it?"
26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop.
In a low tone also, in the ear of John, the Lord answers that he will
show. There was upon the table a dish of bitter herbs, a kind of sauce
that was always eaten at the passover. No knives, forks or spoons are
used at an Eastern table, but the fingers only, which are always carefully
washed before eating. These are dipped in the dish. The Lord took a
piece of the unleavened bread, dipped it into the dish of sauce and
handed it to Judas. John saw the act and understood what it meant. The
rest did not yet comprehend that Judas was the traitor.
27. After the sop Satan entered into him.
We learn by comparison with the other accounts of this scene that the
apostles each asked when Christ declared one should betray him, "Is
it I?" Judas, who knew what he had sold himself to do, at last asked
the same question and the Lord answered, "Thou hast said." It is evident
from John 13:28, that this was answered in the ear of Judas and was
not understood by his companions. Startled to know that his treachery
was exposed to the Master, as soon as he receives the sop, he casts
aside an hesitation and gives himself up wholly to Satan's work. This
is what I understand by the statement, "Satan entered into him," for
already he was under the devilish influence. Up to this time he had
doubts and impulses to do better, but now he plunges headlong into the
bottomless pit. That thou doest, do quickly. Judas understood
these words. He was fully exposed. He had covenanted to do the [211]
wicked deed; Christ bids him do it at once.
Christ wished the work done that night and he wished the traitor to
leave at once that he might be alone to give a last sweet and loving
charge to the faithful disciples.
28, 29. No man at the table know for what intent
he spake. None but John knew that Judas was the traitor. Hence none
could understand what the Lord charged Judas to do. They supposed that
Judas was directed to spend some money for some purpose; for things
needed for the feast week of the passover which began with the passover
meal; or to give something to the poor. Judas carried the small purse
of the company, and scanty as it was, the poor had a share in it. See
John 12:6.
30. He . . . went immediately out. He ate
the sop, Christ spoke to him at once, and he immediately arose and went
out. The question has been much discussed whether Judas was present
when the Lord's Supper was instituted. I do not consider it vitally
important that this should be settled, but I am of the opinion that
he was not. We have just had the account of the passover; it was at
the passover meal that Judas ate the sop; he went out immediately, leaving
the Lord and the rest of the apostles at the table. After the passover
meal the Supper was ordained; then followed the touching discourses
recorded by John. It will be observed that this is the order of Matt.
26:17-30. Matthew was present and undoubtedly followed the chronological
order. His order is, 1. The Passover; 2. The exposure of Judas; 3. (Omitting
to mention the departure of Judas which John records.) The institution
of the Supper. Mark and Luke were not present, and neither follows closely
the chronological order, as is done by the two apostolic writers who
were present.
THE SON OF MAN GLORIFIED.
We have entered upon the Holy of Holies of the
Gospel history. The farewell discourses of our Lord, extending from
chapter 13:31 to 17:26, are unique even in this unique Gospel of John
who was nearest the heart of Jesus and best qualified to drink in those
words of comfort and instruction before the great sacrifice of the cross.
Lange calls them "the most mysterious and most holy of the sayings of
Christ, and a spiritual ante-celebration of his own glorification and
that of his people in the new celestial life opened up by his death
and resurrection." The parting song and blessing of Moses (Deut., chapters
32 and 33), the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, the evangelist of the
prophets, and the farewell address of Paul to the Ephesian elders (Acts
20:17-36), bear a remote resemblance. We may also compare these last
discourses with the Lord's final discourses in Matthew, chapters 24
and 25, Mark, [212] chapter 13, and Luke, chapter
21. In John the Lord revealed the inner consummation of his work and
the spiritual revolution to be accomplished; in the other Gospels he
prophesied the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy and the establishment
of his kingdom. Such an evening as the 14th of Nisan in the year of
the crucifixion occurred only once in the world's history; the full
meaning of eternity was condensed into a few hours. The last words of
our Lord to his eleven disciples combine the deepest emotion with serene
repose; they are unutterably solemn, weighty and comforting; they seem
to sound directly from heaven, and they lift the reader high above time
and space. We have more here than words; we have things, verities, acts
of infinite love going out from God and going into the hearts of men.
The main ideas are: "I in the Father; the Father in me; I in the believer;
the believer in me; I came from my Father in heaven; I fulfilled his
will on earth; I now return to my Father, and prepare a place for my
disciples in the many mansions of my Father's house that they may be
where I am and share my glory."--Schaff.
31. When therefore he was gone out. When
Judas had gone out the last disturbing element seems to have been removed
from the mind of the Lord. The clouds of the world are lifted and there
begins the most remarkable discourse recorded in history. The hour has
come; the Master is about to part from his disciples; he will go through
his bloody pathway to the presence of the Father; they will be left
without him to meet the storms, trials and persecutions of earth. It
is the time, therefore, for the Lord to pour forth the deepest feelings
of his soul in their behalf. The discourse that follows, comforts, consoles,
instructs and points them to the glory, power, and grace of their Lord.
In it he apparently strives, as never before, to reveal himself to them
so fully that every doubt of his divine majesty shall pass away. And
when the gloom that gathered around his tomb was broken every doubt
was forever dispelled in the deep knowledge of his glory. Now is
the Son of man glorified. To him, now that Judas has gone, and he
is at the foot of the cross, the struggle is passed, his weary ministry
ended, and the glorification begun. There is an emphasis and exultation
in "now." His disciples were not yet fully freed from their carnal ideas
of his earthly glorification. They had expected its accomplishment in
his coronation as King of the Jews in Jerusalem. He had, however, already
pointed to the cross as the means of his glorification and as its shadow
already falls upon him he anticipates the "lifting up" as a sacrifice,
as a risen Savior, and as an ascending Lord to take seat upon a universal
throne. It is his work now to more especially prepare his disciples
for the disappointment of the false hopes that they had cherished, born
of their Jewish education, by pointing them to his greater majesty,
filling them with larger hopes and investing them with higher prerogatives
and honors than they could ever have had in an earthly kingdom. The
Lord's Supper, instituted this night, pointed unmistakably to the cross;
now he points to it as the beginning of his glorification. His glory,
while engaged in his lowly ministry, had not been seen. Nor would it
be seen on [213] the cross. The world's idea
of his glory was different, but proceeding right from the cross would
begin an honor and exaltation that even the world would recognize and
from it he would ascend, after a few days' instruction to his disciples,
to enjoy the glory he had with the Father before the world was.
33. Little children, yet a little while I am
with you. Observe the tenderness of the term applied to his disciples,
a term applied nowhere else except in 1 John 2:1, 12. He had told the
Jews (7:34; 8:21) that he would go away and they could not follow him.
So now he says to his disciples, but he comforts them by the assurance
(14:3) that he will return for them.
34. A new commandment I give unto you.
The commandment to love was not new, but such love as the Savior commanded
was new. It was such love for each other as he had shown for them that
he commanded. That love was one so intense as to give up all things.
His love led him to leave heaven, to take our infirmities upon him,
to endure a weary and painful ministry, to become a servant, even to
wash the feet of his disciples, and it was about to show itself forth
in the outpouring of his blood for the sake of his people. It was such
love as he would inspire in the hearts of his disciples for each other;
a self-denying, self-sacrificing love which is not of the earth, but
carries its own demonstration that it is of heavenly origin. The "new
life" is love.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples. Such love as this excited the wonder of the heathen
in the earlier ages of the church when it burned with such a heavenly
flame, and they said, "See how these Christians love one another." But
the presence of such love does more than cause those who behold it to
marvel. It points them to Christ as its author, for all must admit,
when it shines forth in its excellency, that it is of heavenly origin.
Hence, when it is fully exhibited men know that those who possess it
are the disciples of Christ. So it has been in all ages. The men who
have loved their race, given themselves for it, have gone as missionaries
to the wretched, have built the hospitals and refuges; the Oberlins,
Judsons, Howards and Florence Nightingale, have been those who were
filled with the love of Christ. When did an infidel build a hospital!
[214]
36. Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither
goest thou? I believe that in the interval after the departure of
Judas and before this question the Lord's Supper was instituted. The
Lord said, "Do this in remembrance of me until I come again." Peter,
after the supper is eaten, not yet able to comprehend the Lord's death,
asks, "Whither goest thou?" Here begins what Olshausen calls the "Most
Holy Place" in John's Gospel; the last moments the Lord spent with his
own before his suffering, a moment in which he speaks words full of
tenderness and heavenly meaning; if possible, the most precious words
of Christ himself. At first there is a conversation around the table;
then they arise from it (John 14:31) and the discourse takes a higher
form, culminating in the touching prayer of chapter 17th. The Savior's
first words are to Peter in answer to his question. Whither I go
thou canst not follow me now. The Lord's way was to the cross, the
sepulcher, the ascension, and to heaven. Peter might follow in due time,
but the Lord had other work for him now. He does not, however, answer
Peter's question directly. According to tradition, Peter did follow
Christ to the cross in death. He was also crucified.
37. Why cannot I follow thee now? It was
very hard for Peter to give up. He was impetuous, generous and self-willed.
His conduct now was characteristic of the man. Christ has spoken of
death; Peter declares that he will die too for his Master's sake.
38. Wilt thou lay down thy life? The Lord
reveals to him his weakness. It was then night. Before the cock shall
crow for the dawn of the next morning he will have thrice denied his
Lord. For the fulfilment of this prediction, see Luke 22:54-60. Peter
had bravely attempted to defend his Master with a sword when the company
came, led by Judas, but when Christ was led away, he "followed afar
off." His courage was departing. First, in the hall of the high priest,
he denied to the maid servant that he knew Christ; then, a little while
after, he denied to another man. About an hour later another said, "Of
a truth this fellow was with him; for he is a Galilean." And Peter denied
with oaths, declaring, "Man, I know not what you say." Just then the
cock crowed for the approach of day.
PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS.
1. The love of money is the root of all evil.
If a man surrenders to a sordid desire for wealth he will be prepared
for any deed. [215]
2. The only way to deal with temptation is to
say, "Get behind me, Satan!" If we cherish the thought of wrong doing,
the desire will grow upon us until "Satan enters into us." "Resist the
devil and he will flee from you."
3. Beware of the beginnings of evil. The seed
may be small as a grain of mustard, but if nourished it becomes a great
tree that overshadows a life. When Judas began to pilfer from the bag,
he had no thought that he would ever sell his Master. When Nero first
ascended the Roman throne, a tender youth, he mourned that he had learned
to write, he shuddered so to sign a death warrant. He lived to become
the bloodiest tyrant of the earth by the gradual growth of the evil
within that he did not seek to repress.
4. Wouldest thou sell Jesus? Dost thou
not? Dost thou forsake him for the sake of making money? or for pleasure?
or for friends? Then for these things dost thou betray the Master. You
sell him and your birthright for a mess of pottage.
5. Before the cock crow. Before three o'clock
in the morning. Three crowings of the cock were distinguished,--the
first between midnight and one o'clock, the second about three, the
third between five and six. The mention of those two crowings, the first
of which should have already been a warning to Peter, perhaps makes
the gravity of his sin the more conspicuous.
[NTC3 200-216]
|
