João 13:8 Comentário

Our Saviour having finished his public discourses, in which he "endured the contradiction of sinners," now applies himself to a private conversation with his friends, in which he designed the consolation of saints. Henceforward we have an account of what passed between him and his disciples, who were to be entrusted with the affairs of his household, when he was gone into a far country; the necessary instructions and comforts he furnished them with. His hour being at hand, he applies himself to set his house in order. In this chapter I. He washes his disciples' feet (v. 1-17). II. He foretels who should betray him (Joh 13:18-30). III. He instructs them in the great doctrine of his own death, and the great duty of brotherly love (Joh 13:31-35). IV. He foretels Peter's denying him (Joh 13:36-38).

Now before the feast of the passover,.... This feast was instituted as a memorial of the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and was an eminent type of Christ; and this passover was what Christ had greatly desired, it being his last, and when he was to express his great love to his people, mentioned here, by dying for them. It was two days before this feast, so the Persic version reads this text, at Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, that the things recorded in this chapter were transacted; see Mat 26:2; when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world to the Father. The death of Christ is here signified by a departing out of this world, a way of speaking frequently used by the Jews as expressive of death; See Gill on Phi 1:23. Much such a phrase is made use of concerning Moses, of whom it is said (p), that the fourth song that was sung in the world, was sung by him "when "his time was come", , "to depart out of the world";'' an easy and familiar form of speech to express death by, as if it was only a removing front one place to another. The place from whence Christ was about to remove is called "this world": this present world, into which he was come to save sinners, and in which he then was, and where he had already met with very ill usage, and barbarous treatment, and was to meet with more: where he was going is said to be "to the Father", in whose bosom he lay, by whom he was sent, from whom he came; to his God and Father, and the God and Father of all his people, to take his place in their nature at his right hand. A time or hour was fixed for this; for as there was a set time, called "the fulness of time", agreed upon for his coming into the world, so there was for his going out of it: and now this "his hour was come"; the time was now up, or at least very near at hand; and he "knew" it, being God omniscient, which gave him no uneasiness: nor did it in the least alienate his affections from his people: for having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end. The objects of his love are described by his property in them, "his own"; by whom are meant, not all mankind, who are his by creation; nor the Jews, who were his nation and countrymen according to the flesh; nor the twelve apostles only, whom he had chosen; but all the elect of God, who are his own, by his choice of them, by the Father's gift of them to him, by the purchase he made of them with his blood, and by his effectual call of them by his grace: these are also described by their condition and situation, "which were in the world"; which is not said to distinguish them from the saints that were in heaven, or to express their former state of unregeneracy, but their present situation in this vain and evil world, which is no objection to Christ's love to them; for though whilst in this world they carry about with them a body of sin and death, are liable to many snares and temptations, and are involved in the troubles, and exposed to the hatred of the world, yet are, and always will be, the objects of the love and care of Christ. The acts of his love to them are expressed both in time past, and to come: "having loved" them; so he did from everlasting, with a love of complacency and delight, which he showed as early by espousing their persons to himself, by undertaking their cause, by taking the charge of their persons, and the care of both their grace and glory, and in time by assuming their nature; and having done all this, "he loved them to the end": and which he showed by dying for them; and continues to show by interceding for them in heaven, by supplying them with all grace, and by preserving them from a final and total falling away; and he will at last introduce them into his kingdom and glory, when they shall be for ever with him; and so that love to them continues not only to the end of his own life, nor barely to the end of theirs, but to the end of the world, and for ever; and so , signifies, and is rendered "continually", Luk 18:5, and in the Septuagint on Psa 9:6 answers to which signifies "for ever"; and is so translated here by the Ethiopic version. (p) Targum in Cant. i. 1, 7. Vid. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 96. fol. 84. 1. & Debarim Rabba, sect. 11. fol. 245. 2.

Peter saith unto him, thou shall never wash my feet,.... Before he had behaved with modesty, but now with obstinacy and perverseness; and though these expressions might arise from great reverence to Christ, yet they were wrong and rashly spoken. Peter ought to have been satisfied with Christ's reply, and have submitted, since though he then did not know the reason of such surprising conduct, he should hereafter. In order therefore to bring him to a compliance, Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me; he does not say, if I wash not thy feet, but thee, meaning not with water, but with his blood, and by his Spirit; for Christ uses the word wash here, not literally, but in a mystical and figurative sense, and takes an occasion, as he sometimes does, from things natural, to discourse of things spiritual: moreover, he does not say, thou hast no part "in" me, but thou hast no part "with" me, that is, no fellowship and communion with me; see Co2 6:14; and it is as if he should say, Peter, if I had not washed thee with the washing of regeneration by my Spirit, and if I should not shed my blood for thee, and wash thee in it from thy sins, sad would be thy case; thou couldest have no communion with me in this world, nor any part and portion with me in the heavenly inheritance hereafter. Hence it may be observed, that unless a man is washed by Christ, he can have no part with him in this, or the other world. God's elect have a part, an interest in Christ through eternal, electing, and covenant grace, and in consequence of this are washed by Christ both with his blood, and with the washing of regeneration: and this is done in order that they may have a part with Christ, spiritual fellowship with him now, and possess with him the undefiled inheritance, when time shall be no more.

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly "that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea." It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.

When the other disciples entrusted themselves to Jesus and offered no resistance, [Peter], by what he says (although he seemed well intentioned) not only accuses Jesus of beginning to wash the disciples’ feet without a reason but also accuses his companions. For if he acted properly (which he thought he did) when he wanted to hinder Jesus, but the other disciples did not see the propriety in his actions, then he accused those who presented their feet to Jesus, contrary to what was proper at least in his mind. And if he thought that one must not resist what is reasonable and supposed that what happened when the disciples’ feet were washed by Jesus was reasonable, he would not have resisted what happened. He appears, therefore, to have assumed rashly that Jesus’ desire to wash the disciples’ feet was not reasonable.

Since Peter’s answer was disadvantageous for him, Jesus, who in a manner appropriate to his own goodness prevents those things from becoming true that would prove harmful to the one who speaks them, does not permit Peter’s answer to become true.

What then saith that hot and burning one? "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Vehement in deprecation, he becometh yet more vehement in acquiescence; but both from love. For why said He not wherefore He did this, instead of adding a threat? Because Peter would not have been persuaded. For had He said, "Suffer it, for by this I persuade you to be humbleminded," Peter would have promised it ten thousand times, in order that his Master might not do this thing. But now what saith He? He speaketh of that which Peter most feared and dreaded, the being separated from Him; for it is he who continually asks, "Whither goest Thou?" Wherefore also he said, "I will give even my life for Thee." And if, after hearing, "What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter," he still persisted, much more would he have done so had he learnt (the meaning of the action). Therefore said He, "but thou shalt know hereafter," as being aware, that should he learn it immediately he would still resist. And Peter said not, "Tell me, that I may suffer Thee," but (which was much more vehement) he did not even endure to learn, but withstands Him, saying, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." But as soon as He threatened, he straightway relaxed his tone. But what meaneth, "Thou shalt know after this"? "After this?" When? "When in My Name thou shall have cast out devils; when thou shalt have seen Me taken up into Heaven, when thou shalt have learnt from the Spirit that I sit on His right hand, then shall thou understand what is being done now."

"He saith unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shall know here after." That is "thou shall know how great is the gain from this, the profit of the lesson, and how it is able to guide us into all humblemindedness." What then doth Peter? He still hinders Him, and saith, "Thou shall never wash my feet." "What doest thou, Peter? Rememberest thou not those former words? Saidst thou not, 'Be merciful to Thyself,' and heardest thou not in return, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan'? Art thou not even so sobered, but art thou yet vehement?" "Yea," he saith, "for what is being done is a great matter, and full of amazement." Since then he did this from exceeding love, Christ in turn subdueth him by the same; and as there He effected this by sharply rebuking him, and saying, "Thou art an offense unto Me," so here also by saying, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me."

(Tr. lvi. 2) He did not refuse, because our Lord's act was above his understanding, but he could not bear to see Him bending at his feet: Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt not wash my feel for ever; i. e. I will never suffer it: not for ever is the same as never. (Tr. lvi. 2) If I wash thee not, He says, though it was only his feet that He was going to wash, just as we say, Thou treadest on me; though it is only our foot that is trodden on. (Tr. lvi. 2) But he, agitated by fear and love, dreaded more the being denied Christ, than the seeing Him at His feet: Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

"Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." That his fears might not be foolish, but salutary, that his refusal might not be obstinate, but converted into compliance, "Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me." He does not say, If I wash not thy feet, but "If I wash thee not," although all He was proceeding to do was to wash his feet. For why else did He thus speak, save that, in washing the feet, He washes a man? Certainly, were any one asked whether the hands formed part of a man, he would at once reply that they did; and this, although one's hands are not one's self any more than one's feet. Just so, when we speak of any one as treading upon us, the only part of him that actually touches us is his foot, and yet we say, You tread upon me, and not, Your feet tread upon me. But when the Lord says, "If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me," what else did He hold out, so to speak, to our hopes, but the words, "In my kingdom shalt thou have no part with me"? But when Peter heard Him say, "Thou shalt have no part with me," he was terrified lest he should be denied, not only the washing of his feet, but every part in Christ. And let him now, while distressed with such a fear, endure the application of his Lord's hands, not only to his feet, but even to his head.

When he heard these words, Peter the leader [of the Twelve] was at a loss as to his answer, saying, “Alas, O Lord, I am thwarted in every direction. Presumption is a burden, but refusal is harmful. To say no deserves punishment, but assent is most difficult for me. Nonetheless, let the command of God and not the opposition of the servant prevail, the Wisdom of God and not the excuse of the servant.”

Here it is clearly pointed out that this washing of the feet implies the spiritual purification of body and soul without which we cannot arrive at fellowship with Christ.

Peter deeply respects his Teacher, and therefore stands in awe of Him and does not accept service from Him. Although on another occasion Peter received a rebuke from the Lord (Matt. 16:22–23), and to avoid that rebuke he should have now accepted the washing from the Lord. Nevertheless, since the deed now being performed by Christ is very important, Peter resists, and does not consider that the Lord might perhaps reprove him again even more severely, as one who is disobedient. What then does Christ say? He does not say to Peter, "I am teaching you humility, and for this reason I wash your feet." For Peter would have said to Him, even with an oath, that I will have humility even without the washing of feet. What then does the Lord say to him? That which, according to the Lord's knowledge, could especially touch Peter's heart — that is what He sets before him, as a kind of threat. "If," He says, "I do not wash you, you have no part with Me." Since Peter more than all the other disciples desired to be together with Christ, which is why he also asked Him where He was going, and out of love promised to lay down his life for Him (John 13:36–37), the Lord shakes his soul with this threat. "If," He says, "I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."

Next, he shows that this action is necessary. First, the Evangelist mentions what Peter said which provoked Christ's answer; secondly, we see what Christ said. Peter says, You shall never wash my feet. He is saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God. And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered zeal: "They have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened" (Rom 10:2). His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary; for as we read: "We do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom 8:26). And so it is imprudent to refuse what God gives us, even if it seems disadvantageous. Paul too asked to be freed from his thorn (2 Cor 12:8), yet it was for his benefit. Again, it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally, it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument, while Peter refused, saying, You shall never wash my feet. Our Lord reproved him, saying, If I do not wash you, you have not part in me. This statement can refer to two things: to the action that Christ was performing, or to what the action signified. If we refer it to what the action signified, the meaning is clear. For no one can share in the eternal inheritance and be a joint heir with Christ unless he is spiritually clean, for we read: "But nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev 21:27). And in the Psalm (15:1) it says: "O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?" And the answer is given: "He who walks blamelessly." Therefore, it is like he was saying: If I do not wash you, you will not be clean; and if you are not clean, you have no part in me. But if we refer this statement to the action itself, then it can be asked if this washing was necessary for salvation. We can say to this that just as some things are forbidden because they are evil, and some things are evil because they are forbidden, so some things are commanded because they are necessary, and some things are necessary because they are commanded. And so this washing, about which our Lord said, If I do not wash you, you have no part in me, if considered in itself, was not necessary for salvation. But on the supposition that it was commanded by Christ, then it was necessary: "To obey is better than sacrifice," and so "stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (1 Sam 15:22-23).

Christ washes the feet of his disciples, and gives them instructions concerning humility and charity, vv. 1-17. He tells them that one of themselves will betray him, Joh 13:18-20. The disciples doubting of whom he spoke, Peter desires John to ask him, Joh 13:21-25. Jesus shows that it is Judas Iscariot, Joh 13:26. Satan enters into Judas, and he rises up and leaves the company, Joh 13:27-30. Christ shows his approaching death, and commands his disciples to love one another, Joh 13:31-35. Peter, professing strong attachment to Christ, is informed of his denial, Joh 13:36-38.

If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me - Thou canst not be my disciple unless I wash thee. It is certain Christ did not mean to exclude him from the apostolic office, if he should persist, through the deepest reverence for his Master, to refuse to let him wash his feet: this act of his was emblematical of something spiritual; of something that concerned the salvation of Peter; and without which washing he could neither be an apostle or be finally saved; therefore our Lord said, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. There is a mystical washing by the blood of Christ, Jo1 1:7; and by his Spirit, Co1 6:11; Tit 3:5, Tit 3:6. It was the common custom of our Lord to pass from sensible and temporal things to those which were spiritual and eternal; and to take occasion from every thing that presented itself, to instruct his disciples, and to raise their souls to God. If the discourse was of bread, water, leaven, father, mother, riches, etc., he immediately changed the literal sense, and under the figure of these things, spoke of matters altogether spiritual and Divine. I have met with many good persons who have attempted to imitate our blessed Lord in this, but I never knew one to succeed in it. The reason is, it requires not only very deep piety, but sound sense, together with an accurate knowledge of the nature and properties of the subjects which, in this way, the person wishes to illustrate; and very few can be found who have such deep, philosophical knowledge as such cases require. The large folio which a good-intentioned man printed on the metaphors is, alas! a standing proof how little mere piety can do in matters of this kind, where the sciences, and especially practical philosophy, are totally wanting. Jesus Christ was a consummate philosopher: every subject appears grand and noble in his hands. See an ample proof in the preceding chapter, Joh 12:24 (note).

AT THE LAST SUPPER JESUS WASHES THE DISCIPLES' FEET--THE DISCOURSE ARISING THEREUPON. (John 13:1-20) when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father--On these beautiful euphemisms, see on Luk 9:31; Luk 9:51. having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end--The meaning is, that on the very edge of His last sufferings, when it might have been supposed that He would be absorbed in His own awful prospects, He was so far from forgetting "His own," who were to be left struggling "in the world" after He had "departed out of it to the Father" (Joh 17:11), that in His care for them He seemed scarce to think of Himself save in connection with them: "Herein is love," not only "enduring to the end," but most affectingly manifested when, judging by a human standard, least to be expected.

Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash, &c.--more emphatically, "Never shalt Thou wash my feet": that is, "That is an incongruity to which I can never submit." How like the man! If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me--What Peter could not submit to was, that the Master should serve His servant. But the whole saving work of Christ was one continued series of such services, ending with and consummated by the most self-sacrificing and transcendent of all services: THE SON OF MAN CAME not to be ministered unto, but TO MINISTER, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. (See on Mar 10:45). If Peter then could not submit to let his Master go down so low as to wash his feet, how should he suffer himself to be served by Him at all? This is couched under the one pregnant word "wash," which though applicable to the lower operation which Peter resisted, is the familiar scriptural symbol of that higher cleansing, which Peter little thought he was at the same time virtually putting from him. It is not humility to refuse what the Lord deigns to do for us, or to deny what He has done, but it is self-willed presumption--not rare, however, in those inner circles of lofty religious profession and traditional spirituality, which are found wherever Christian truth has enjoyed long and undisturbed possession. The truest humility is to receive reverentially, and thankfully to own, the gifts of grace.