Before the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

“(Hom. lxx. 1) He did not know then for the first time: He had known long before. By His departure He means His death. Being so near leaving His disciples, He shews the more love for them: Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end; i. e. He left nothing undone which one who greatly loved should do. He reserved this for the last, that their love might be increased by it, and to prepare them by such consolation for the trials that were coming. His own He calls them, in the sense of intimacy. The word was used in another sense in the beginning of the Gospel: (c. 1:11) His own received Him not. It follows, which were in the world: for those were dead who were His own, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were not in the world. These then, His own which were in the world, He loved all along, and at the last manifested His love in completeness: He loved them unto the end.”

“(Tr. lv) Pascha is not a Greek word, as some think, but Hebrew: though there is remarkable agreement of the two languages in it. The Greek word to suffer being πασχεῖν, pascha has been thought to mean passion, as being derived from the above word. But in Hebrew, pascha is a passing over; the feast deriving its name from the passing of the people of God over the Red Sea into Egypt. All was now to take place in reality, of which that passover was the type. Christ was led as a lamb to the slaughter; whose blood sprinkled upon our door-posts, i. e. whose sign of the cross marked on our foreheads, delivers us from the dominion of this world, as from Egyptian bondage. And we perform a most wholesome journey or pass-over, when we pass over from the devil to Christ, from this unstable world to His sure kingdom. In this way the Evangelist seems to interpret the word: When Jesus knew that His hour was come when He should pass over1 out of this world unto the Father. This is the pascha, this the passing over.”

“Above, the Evangelist set down certain occasions of the passion and death of Christ; in this part he shows how Christ prepares his disciples before his passion, and first he shows how he formed them by example; second, how he comforted them by word, and this below in chapter 14, "let not your heart be troubled"; third, how he fortified them by the support of prayers, below in chapter 17, "these things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the example which Christ offered his disciples to imitate; second, the disciples' shortcoming, who were not yet fit to follow, there: "when Jesus had said these things, he was troubled." Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down the example; second he adds the usefulness of the example, there: "he came therefore to Simon Peter"; third he leads them to imitation, there: "after therefore he had washed their feet ... he said to them." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the affection of Christ giving the example; second he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, there: "and supper being made," and so on. Concerning the first three things are touched upon. First indeed the present feast; second the imminent death of Christ; third the fervent love of Christ. The present feast was the Passover; and this is what he says: "before the feast day of the Passover," and so on. Here it must be noted that some say this name "Pascha" is Greek, so that it is said from "passio" [suffering], as though this feast were called Pascha because then the Lord's passion is celebrated; and indeed it agrees with the Greek, for "Pascha" in Greek is the same as "to suffer." But the first origin of this word is had from the Hebrew: for "Pascha" is said as it were "phase," that is, the passage of the Lord, as is said in Exodus chapter 12:11. The Evangelist, however, interprets it here in this way on account of a twofold passage: one which preceded, namely that of the angel striking the firstborn of Egypt and saving the firstborn of the Hebrews; the other, which follows, of the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea. And therefore it was rightly done that this feast should be called Pascha. And thus we can say that our Pascha has the signification of both languages, namely the Hebrew and the Greek, because in the very passion of the Lord there was a passage of Christ from this world to the Father; Acts 10:38: "he went about doing good and healing." Likewise a passage of all of us, following Christ, either by penance and martyrdom, according to that of Psalm 65:12: "we passed through fire and water; and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment," or by the desire of the mind panting after heavenly things, according to that of Ecclesiasticus 24:26: "come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my generations." Now as to his saying "feast day," it is said by way of pre-eminence. For, as is read in Exodus 23:14 and following, there were three solemn days of the year, on which the Jews had to assemble in the place which the Lord had chosen: namely the phase, when the Passover was immolated, and Pentecost, and the feast of Tabernacles, namely Scenopegia. But the day of the Passover was the most celebrated among the others. But a doubt arises here concerning his saying "before the feast day of the Passover": for that day is called the feast day of the Passover on which the lamb was immolated, which was the fourteenth moon. Since therefore he says that this was before the feast day of the Passover, it seems that this was done on the thirteenth moon, which preceded the fourteenth moon. The Greeks, following this, say that the Lord suffered on the fourteenth moon, when the Jews were to celebrate their Passover; and therefore the Lord, knowing that his passion was imminent, anticipated the celebration of the Passover, and on the preceding day celebrated his own Passover, before the feast of the Passover of the Jews. But because in Exodus 12:18 it is commanded that from the fourteenth day at evening until the twenty-first day of the month no leaven should be found among the Hebrews, they say further that the Lord made the supper not with unleavened bread, but with leavened: for "before the feast day of the Passover," that is, on the thirteenth moon, leavened bread was still found among the Hebrews. But the other three Evangelists are contrary to this opinion: for they say, namely Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7, that it was the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover was to be immolated. From which it follows that the Lord's supper was made on that day on which the Passover of the Jews was immolated. To this indeed the Greeks respond, saying that the other Evangelists did not truly narrate this event, and therefore John, who wrote the last Gospel, corrected them. But it is heretical to say that anything false is found, not only in the Gospels, but in any canonical Scripture whatsoever; and therefore it is necessary to say that all the Evangelists say the same thing, and disagree in nothing. For the evidence of this, then, it must be known that, as is had in Leviticus 23:5, the solemnities of the Jews began from the evening of the preceding day. The reason for this is that they numbered days according to the moon, which first appears in the evening, whence they also reckoned the day from one evening to the next. And thus among them the solemnity of the Passover began from the evening of the preceding day, and ended in the evening of the day of the Passover; just as feasts are also celebrated among us. Thus therefore something done among us on the vigil of the Lord's Nativity can be said to have been done on the feast of the Nativity. Following this manner, the other Evangelists said that the supper was made on the first day of unleavened bread, because it was made on the preceding day toward evening, since it already belonged to the first day of unleavened bread. But John the Evangelist here takes "the feast day of the Passover" for that day which was wholly festive, not for that day whose evening only was festive, which was the day preceding the Passover; and therefore he says "before the feast day of the Passover." It is clear, therefore, that the Lord's supper was made on the fourteenth moon, toward evening. Now the imminent death of Christ was his passage out of this world through the passion; and as to this he says, "Jesus knowing that his hour was come": for that solemnity of the Jews was a figure of the passion of Christ, "for all these things happened to them in figure," 1 Corinthians 10:11, and therefore he immediately sets down the truth, namely the passion of Christ. And as though explaining that Pascha is said from "phase," that is, passage, he makes mention of the passage: "that he should pass," he says, "out of this world to the Father." Here he sets down three things concerning the passion of Christ. First, that it was foreseen; second, that it was fitting; third, that it was promotive and exalting. It was foreseen indeed, not accidental, and as to this he says "Jesus knowing"; as if to say: not unwilling, not unknowing, but knowing and voluntary he suffered, etc.; below, John 18:4: "Jesus knowing all things that were to come." The converse is said of us, Ecclesiastes 8:6: "the affliction of man is great: because he knoweth not the things past, and what is to come he cannot know by any means." It was fitting, moreover, as to time, and as to this he says "that his hour was come," that is, the very day of the Passover, on which he was to pass through the cross; Ecclesiastes 8:6: "there is a time and opportunity for every business." This is that hour of which it is said above, John 2:4: "my hour is not yet come." Nor is this hour to be understood as fatal, as though subject to the course and disposition of the stars, but as determined by divine disposition and providence. Therefore, I say, it was determined for the Passover of the Jews, because it was fitting to the solemnity of the Jews that the truth should follow the figure, so that when the lamb, which figured Christ, was immolated, Christ, who is truly the lamb of God, might be immolated; 1 Peter 1:18: "you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." It was fitting also as to the matters accomplished. For already Christ had been glorified; below in the same chapter: "now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him." Already he had manifested the Father to the world; below, John 17:6: "Father, I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world." It remained, therefore, that he should consummate the work of the passion and of human redemption, of which it is said below, John 19:30: "it is consummated," and it follows: "bowing his head, he gave up the ghost." The passion of Christ was promotive and exalting, and not oppressive: because "that he should pass out of this world to the Father," that is, by making human nature a partaker of the Father's glory; below, John 20:17: "I ascend to your Father, my God and your God." Nor is it to be understood that he passes from place to place, since God the Father is not comprehended by place; Jeremiah 23:24: "I fill heaven and earth." But just as Christ is said to have come from the Father, not by forsaking him but by assuming a lower nature like to ours, so also he is said to have returned to him only insofar as, even according to his humanity, he was made a partaker of the Father's glory; Romans 6:10: "for in that he liveth, he liveth unto God"; Philippians 2:11: "that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." Consequently, when he says "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end," the fervent love of Christ is commended, and this as to four things. First, as to this, that it was preventing, according to that of 1 John 4:10: "not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us." And as to this he says "having loved his own," as though beforehand: he loved, I say, before he created; Wisdom 11:25: "thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made." He loved before he called; Jeremiah 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." He loved before he redeemed; below, John 15:13: "greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Second, his love is commended as to this, that it was fitting, because "he loved his own." Here it must be known that, according as some are "his own" in different ways, so according to this they are loved by God in different ways. Now some are his own in three ways. First by creation; and these he loves by preserving for them the goods of nature; above, John 1:11: "he came unto his own," by creation, "and his own received him not." Others, however, are his own by dedication, namely those who were given by God the Father through faith; below, John 17:6: "thine they were, and to me thou gavest them, and they have kept thy word." And these he loves by preserving them in the goods of grace. Others, however, are his own by special devotion; 1 Chronicles 11:1: "we are thine, O David, and thy flesh." These he loves by consoling them specially. Third, the love of Christ is commended as to this, that it was necessary, because "he loved his own who were in the world." For some are his own who were already in the glory of the Father, because even the ancient fathers were his own, inasmuch as they hoped to be freed through him; Deuteronomy 33:3: "all his saints are in his hand." But these did not need such love so much as those who were in the world; and therefore he says "who were in the world," namely in body, but not in mind. Fourth, it is commended as to this, that it was perfect, whence he says "he loved them unto the end." Now "end" is said in two ways: because there is the end of intention, and the end of execution. That indeed is the end of intention to which our intention is ordered; and such an end ought to be eternal life, according to that of Romans 6:22: "you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." Again, this end ought to be Christ himself; Romans 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law, unto justice, to every one that believeth." And these two are one end: because eternal life is nothing other than the enjoyment of Christ according to his divinity; below, John 17:3: "this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." According to this, then, he says "he loved them unto the end"; that he might lead them into himself as their end, or into eternal life, which is nothing other than that; Jeremiah 31:3: "in charity I have loved thee, therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." That, however, is the end of execution which is the terminus of a thing; and thus death can be called an end, so that it be said "he loved them unto the end," that is, unto death: which can have a threefold sense. In one way, according to Augustine, so that it be said, in a certain human manner, that Christ loved his own until death only, and no further. But this sense is false: for far be it that he should have ended his love with death, who was not ended in death. In another way it can be understood so that the "unto" indicates a cause; and thus the sense is: "he loved them unto the end," that is, love brought him even unto death; Galatians 2:20: "he loved us, and delivered himself for us." In a third way it can be understood so that the sense be: "unto the end," that is, whereas he had shown them many signs of love before, at the end, that is, around the time of his death, he showed them signs of greater love; below, John 16:5: "these things I told you not from the beginning, because I was with you," as if he were to say: it was not necessary then for me to show you how much I loved you, except at my departure, so that thus the love and memory of me might be more deeply impressed in your hearts. Consequently, when he says "and supper being made," he indicates the deed in which he gave the example, and first he describes the hour of the deed; second he adds the dignity of the doer, there: "Jesus therefore knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," etc.; third he pursues the humility of the deed, there: "he riseth from supper." Now he describes the time from two things: from one which pertained to his charity, and from the other which aggravated the iniquity of Judas, there: "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him." He says therefore, as to the first, "and supper being made." Here it must be known that a thing is said to be "made" differently in permanent things, and differently in successive things. In permanent things, indeed, a thing is said to be made when it arrives at the perfection of its own proper species and form, as a house is said to be made when it has its proper form. In successive things, however, a thing is said to be made when it is already consummated; as the world is said to have been made when it was completed. In this way also a thing is said to be made when it receives its proper species. When therefore he says "and supper being made," it is not to be understood that the supper had been completed and finished: because after he washed the feet of the disciples, he reclined again, and gave the morsel to Judas. It is to be understood, therefore, that "supper being made" means, that is, prepared, and already brought to its proper species: for they had already begun to sup, and afterward he rose. Whence in the midst of supping he washed the feet of the disciples. Concerning this supper it is had in Luke 14:16: "a certain man made a great supper." Now "dinner" differs from "supper." For "dinner" is said to be that which takes place in the first part of the day, but "supper" that which takes place at the end. Thus, then, spiritual refreshment is called "dinner," insofar as it is fitting for beginners; but "supper," insofar as it is fitting for the perfect. Consequently, when he says "when the devil had now put into the heart, that Judas Simon's son, the Iscariot, should betray him," he describes the time from the fact that it aggravates the iniquity of the betrayer: which indeed the Evangelist describes for two reasons. First, indeed, that the iniquity of Judas might be shown the more, who, amid so many tokens of love and so many offices of humility, was contemplating committing so great an iniquity; Psalm 40:10: "he that ate my bread, hath greatly supplanted me." Second, that the love of Christ might be rendered the more admirable, who, although he knew this, nevertheless, offering him the office of love and humility, washed his feet; Psalm 119:6: "with them that hated peace I was peaceable." But can the devil put anything into the heart of a man? It seems that he can. For in Psalm 77:49 it is said: "sendings in by evil angels." But to this it must be said that that is said to be in the heart of a man which is in his thought and will, whence what is said, "when he had now put into the heart," etc., is to be understood, that is, into his will. But to put something into the heart in this way can happen in two ways. Directly; and thus only he can put something into the heart of a man who has the power of moving his will from within, and this only God can do; and therefore he alone can directly impress upon the will of man; Proverbs 20:1: "the heart of kings is in the hand," that is, in the power, "of the Lord: whithersoever he will he shall turn it." But because the will is moved by an exterior object as by an apprehended good, hence it is that he who suggests that something is good is said to put that into the heart of a man, indirectly making him apprehend something as good, from which the will is moved. But this happens in two ways: either by suggesting exteriorly, and in this way even a man can put something into the heart; or by suggesting interiorly, and in this way the devil puts it in. For the imaginative power, since it is corporeal, when God permits, is subject to the power of the demon. Whence, whether waking or sleeping, he forms in it certain images, from the apprehension of which the will of man is moved to desire something. Thus, therefore, the devil puts something into the heart of a man, not directly by way of a mover, but indirectly by way of a suggester. Consequently, when he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," he treats of the dignity of the doer. Because it is said in Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "the greater thou art, humble thyself," therefore the Evangelist, about to speak of Christ's humility, first sets forth his greatest dignity; and this as to four things. First as to knowledge; and as to this he says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands." For such are spiritual gifts, that once given they are not unknown; 1 Corinthians 2:12: "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God, that we may know the things that are given us from God." And therefore Christ knew the things that had been given to him by God. He says this, however, so that his humility might be the more commendable. For sometimes it happens that someone is of great dignity, and yet, on account of his simplicity, does not recognize his own dignity. If such a one, then, were to do something humble, it would not be reputed to him for great praise, according to that of the Song of Songs 1:7: "if thou know not thyself, O fairest among women." But if someone knows the state of his own dignity, and yet his affection inclines toward humble things, his humility is to be commended. And therefore the Evangelist says "knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands," yet he did not omit to do those things which are humble. Second, as to power, because "the Father had given him all things into his hands," that is, into his power. God gave to Christ as man, in time, those things which nevertheless had been in the power of the Son from eternity; Matthew, last chapter, 18: "all power is given to me in heaven and on earth." He says, however, "the Father had given him all things into his hands," for two reasons: to show that Christ did not suffer unwillingly. For if all things were in his hand, that is, in his power, it is manifest that his adversaries could do nothing to him thereby against his will. Second, because when someone of little importance is exalted, he easily grows proud, and does nothing humble, lest he seem to derogate from his dignity; but he who, existing in a great state, is exalted, does not neglect humble things: and therefore he makes mention of the dignity of Christ. Third, as to his nobility, and as to this he says "that he came from God, and goeth to God"; Wisdom 8:3: "having the fellowship of God." Fourth, as to his holiness, because "he goeth to God." In this consists the holiness of man, that he go to God. And he sets this down here for the reason that, since he himself goes to God, it is proper to him to lead others back to God: which indeed is done especially through humility and charity; and therefore he offered them an example of humility and charity.”

“It has generally been taken for granted by commentators that Christ's washing his disciples' feet, and the discourse that followed it, were the same night in which he was betrayed, and at the same sitting wherein he ate the passover and instituted the Lord's supper; but whether before the solemnity began, or after it was all over, or between the eating of the passover and the institution of the Lord's supper, they are not agreed. This evangelist, making it his business to gather up those passages which the others had omitted, industriously omits those which the others had recorded, which occasions some difficulty in putting them together. If it was then, we suppose that Judas went out (Joh 13:30) to get his men ready that were to apprehend the Lord Jesus in the garden. But Dr. Lightfoot is clearly of opinion that this was done and said, even all that is recorded to the end of ch. 14, not at the passover supper, for it is here said (Joh 13:1) to be before the feast of the passover, but at the supper in Bethany, two days before the passover (of which we read Mat 26:2-6), at which Mary the second time anointed Christ's head with the remainder of her box of ointment. Or, it might be at some other supper the night before the passover, not as that was in the house of Simon the leper, but in his own lodgings, where he had none but his disciples about him, and could be more free with them. In these verses we have the story of Christ's washing his disciples' feet; it was an action of a singular nature; no miracle, unless we call it a miracle of humility. Mary had just anointed his head; now, lest his acceptance of this should look like taking state, he presently balances it with this act of abasement. But why would Christ do this? If the disciples' feet needed washing, they could wash them themselves; a wise man will not do a thing that looks odd and unusual, but for very good causes and considerations. We are sure that it was not in a humour or a frolic that this was done; no, the transaction was very solemn, and carried on with a great deal of seriousness; and four reasons are here intimated why Christ did this: - 1. That he might testify his love to his disciples, Joh 13:1, Joh 13:2. 2. That he might give an instance of his own voluntary humility and condescension, Joh 13:3-5. 3. That he might signify to them spiritual washing, which is referred to in his discourse with Peter, Joh 13:6-11. 4. That he might set them an example, Joh 13:12-17. And the opening of these four reasons will take in the exposition of the whole story. I. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might give a proof of that great love wherewith he loved them; loved them to the end, Joh 13:1, Joh 13:2. 1. It is here laid down as an undoubted truth that our Lord Jesus, having loved his own that were in the world, loved them to the end, Joh 13:1. (1.) This is true of the disciples that were his immediate followers, in particular the twelve. These were his own in the world, his family, his school, his bosom-friends. Children he had none to call his own, but he adopted them, and took them as his own. He had those that were his own in the other world, but he left them for a time, to look after his own in this world. These he loved, he called them into fellowship with himself, conversed familiarly with them, was always tender of them, and of their comfort and reputation. He allowed them to be very free with him, and bore with their infirmities. He loved them to the end, continued his love to them as long as he lived, and after his resurrection; he never took away his loving kindness. Though there were some persons of quality that espoused his cause, he did not lay aside his old friends, to make room for new ones, but still stuck to his poor fishermen. They were weak and defective in knowledge and grace, dull and forgetful; and yet, though he reproved them often, he never ceased to love them and take care of them. (2.) It is true of all believers, for these twelve patriarchs were the representatives of all the tribes of God's spiritual Israel. Note, [1.] Our Lord Jesus has a people in the world that are his own, - his own, for they were given him by the Father, he has purchased them, and paid dearly for them, and he has set them apart for himself, - his own, for they have devoted themselves to him as a peculiar people. His own; where his own were spoken of that received him not, it is tous idious - his own persons, as a man's wife and children are his own, to whom he stands in a constant relation. [2.] Christ has a cordial love for his own that are in the world. He did love them with a love of goodwill when he gave himself for their redemption. He does love them with a love of complacency when he admits them into communion with himself. Though they are in this world, a world of darkness and distance, of sin and corruption, yet he loves them. He was now going to his own in heaven, the spirits of just men made perfect there; but he seems most concerned for his own on earth, because they most needed his care: the sickly child is most indulged. [3.] Those whom Christ loves he loves to the end; he is constant in his love to his people; he rests in his love. He loves with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3), from everlasting in the counsels of it to everlasting in the consequences of it. Nothing can separate a believer from the love of Christ; he loves his own, eis telos - unto perfection, for he will perfect what concerns them, will bring them to that world where love is perfect. 2. Christ manifested his love to them by washing their feet, as that good woman (Luk 7:38) showed her love to Christ by washing his feet and wiping them. Thus he would show that as his love to them was constant so it was condescending, - that in prosecution of the designs of it he was willing to humble himself, - and that the glories of his exalted state, which he was now entering upon, should be no obstruction at all to the favour he bore to his chosen; and thus he would confirm the promise he had made to all the saints that he would make them sit down to meat, and would come forth and serve them (Luk 12:37), would put honour upon them as great and surprising as for a lord to serve his servants. The disciples had just now betrayed the weakness of their love to him, in grudging the ointment that was poured upon his head (Mat 26:8), yet he presently gives this proof of his love to them. Our infirmities are foils to Christ's kindnesses, and set them off. 3. He chose this time to do it, a little before his last passover, for two reasons: - (1.) Because now he knew that his hour was come, which he had long expected, when he should depart out of this world to the Father. Observe here, [1.] The change that was to pass over our Lord Jesus; he must depart. This began at his death, but was completed at his ascension. As Christ himself, so all believers, by virtue of their union with him, when they depart out of the world, are absent from the body, go to the Father, are present with the Lord. It is a departure out of the world, this unkind, injurious world, this faithless, treacherous world - this world of labour, toil, and temptation - this vale of tears; and it is a going to the Father, to the vision of the Father of spirits, and the fruition of him as ours. [2.] The time of this change: His hour was come. It is sometimes called his enemies' hour (Luk 22:53), the hour of their triumph; sometimes his hour, the hour of his triumph, the hour he had had in his eye all along. The time of his sufferings was fixed to an hour, and the continuance of them but for an hour. [3.] His foresight of it: He knew that his hour was come; he knew from the beginning that it would come, and when, but now he knew that it was come. We know not when our hour will come, and therefore what we have to do in habitual preparation for it ought never to be undone; but, when we know by the harbingers that our hour is come, we must vigorously apply ourselves to an actual preparation, as our Master did, Pe2 3:14. Now it was in the immediate foresight of his departure that he washed his disciples' feet; that, as his own head was anointed just now against the day of his burial, so their feet might be washed against the day of their consecration by the descent of the Holy Ghost fifty days after, as the priests were washed, Lev 8:6. When we see our day approaching, we should do what good we can to those we leave behind. (2.) Because the devil had now put it into the heart of Judas to betray him, Joh 13:2. These words in a parenthesis may be considered, [1.] As tracing Judas's treason to its origin; it was a sin of such a nature that it evidently bore the devil's image and superscription. What way of access the devil has to men's hearts, and by what methods he darts in his suggestions, and mingles them undiscerned with those thoughts which are the natives of the heart, we cannot tell. But there are some sins in their own nature so exceedingly sinful, and to which there is so little temptation from the world and the flesh, that it is plain Satan lays the egg of them in a heart disposed to be the nest to hatch them in. For Judas to betray such a master, to betray him so cheaply and upon no provocation, was such downright enmity to God as could not be forged but by Satan himself, who thereby thought to ruin the Redeemer's kingdom, but did in fact ruin his own. [2.] As intimating a reason why Christ now washed his disciples' feet. First, Judas being now resolved to betray him, the time of his departure could not be far off; if this matter be determined, it is easy to infer with St. Paul, I am now ready to be offered. Note, The more malicious we perceive our enemies to be against us, the more industrious we should be to prepare for the worst that may come. Secondly, Judas being now got into the snare, and the devil aiming at Peter and the rest of them (Luk 22:31), Christ would fortify his own against him. If the wolf has seized one of the flock, it is time for the shepherd to look well to the rest. Antidotes must be stirring, when the infection is begun. Dr. Lightfoot observes that the disciples had learned of Judas to murmur at the anointing of Christ; compare Joh 12:4, etc. with Mat 26:8. Now, lest those that had learned that of him should learn worse, he fortifies them by a lesson of humility against his most dangerous assaults. Thirdly, Judas, who was now plotting to betray him, was one of the twelve. Now Christ would hereby show that he did not design to cast them all off for the faults of one. Though one of their college had a devil, and was a traitor, yet they should fare never the worse for that. Christ loves his church though there are hypocrites in it, and had still a kindness for his disciples though there was a Judas among them and he knew it. II. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might give an instance of his own wonderful humility, and show how lowly and condescending he was, and let all the world know how low he could stoop in love to his own. This is intimated, Joh 13:3-5. Jesus knowing, and now actually considering, and perhaps discoursing of, his honours as Mediator, and telling his friends that the Father had given all things into his hand, rises from supper, and, to the great surprise of the company, who wondered what he was going to do, washed his disciples' feet. 1. Here is the rightful advancement of the Lord Jesus. Glorious things are here said of Christ as Mediator. (1.) The Father had given all things into his hands; had given him a propriety in all, and a power over all, as possessor of heaven and earth, in pursuance of the great designs of his undertaking; see Mat 11:27. The accommodation and arbitration of all matters in variance between God and man were committed into his hands as the great umpire and referee; and the administration of the kingdom of God among men, in all the branches of it, was committed to him; so that all acts, both of government and judgment, were to pass through his hands; he is heir of all things. (2.) He came from God. This implies that he was in the beginning with God, and had a being and glory, not only before he was born into this world, but before the world itself was born; and that when he came into the world he came as God's ambassador, with a commission from him. He came from God as the son of God, and the sent of God. The Old Testament prophets were raised up and employed for God, but Christ came directly from him. (3.) He went to God, to be glorified with him with the same glory which he had with God from eternity. That which comes from God shall go to God; those that are born from heaven are bound for heaven. As Christ came from God to be an agent for him on earth, so he went to God to be an agent for us in heaven; and it is a comfort to us to think how welcome he was there: he was brought near to the Ancient of days, Dan 7:13. And it was said to him, Sit thou at my right hand, Psa 110:1. (4.) He knew all this; was not like a prince in the cradle, that knows nothing of the honour he is born to, or like Moses, who wist not that his face shone; no, he had a full view of all the honours of his exalted state, and yet stooped thus low. But how does this come in here? [1.] As an inducement to him now quickly to leave what lessons and legacies he had to leave to his disciples, because his hour was now come when he must take his leave of them, and be exalted above that familiar converse which he now had with them, Joh 13:1. [2.] It may come in as that which supported him under his sufferings, and carried him cheerfully through this sharp encounter. Judas was now betraying him, and he knew it, and knew what would be the consequence of it; yet, knowing also that he came from God and went to God, he did not draw back, but went on cheerfully. [3.] It seems to come in as a foil to his condescension, to make it the more admirable. The reasons of divine grace are sometimes represented in scripture as strange and surprising (as Isa 57:17, Isa 57:18; Hos 2:13, Hos 2:14); so here, that is given as an inducement to Christ to stoop which should rather have been a reason for his taking state; for God's thoughts are not as ours. Compare with this those passages which preface the most signal instances of condescending grace with the displays of divine glory, as Psa 68:4, Psa 68:5; Isa 57:15; Isa 66:1, Isa 66:2. 2. Here is the voluntary abasement of our Lord Jesus notwithstanding this. Jesus knowing his own glory as God, and his own authority and power as Mediator, one would think it should follow, He rises from supper, lays aside his ordinary garments, calls for robes, bids them keep their distance, and do him homage; but no, quite the contrary, when he considered this he gave the greatest instance of humility. Note, A well-grounded assurance of heaven and happiness, instead of puffing a man up with pride, will make and keep him very humble. Those that would be found conformable to Christ, and partakers of his Spirit, must study to keep their minds low in the midst of the greatest advancements. Now that which Christ humbled himself to was to wash his disciples' feet. (1.) The action itself was mean and servile, and that which servants of the lowest rank were employed in. Let thine handmaid (saith Abigail) be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord; let me be in the meanest employment, Sa1 25:41. If he had washed their hands or faces, it had been great condescension (Elisha poured water on the hands of Elijah, Kg2 3:11); but for Christ to stoop to such a piece of drudgery as this may well excite our admiration. Thus he would teach us to think nothing below us wherein we may be serviceable to God's glory and the good of our brethren. (2.) The condescension was so much the greater that he did this for his own disciples, who in themselves were of a low and despicable condition, not curious about their bodies; their feet, it is likely, were seldom washed, and therefore very dirty. In relation to him, they were his scholars, his servants, and such as should have washed his feet, whose dependence was upon him, and their expectations from him. Many of great spirits otherwise will do a mean thing to curry favour with their superiors; they rise by stooping, and climb by cringing; but for Christ to do this to his disciples could be no act of policy nor complaisance, but pure humility. (3.) He rose from supper to do it. Though we translate it (Joh 13:2) supper being ended, it might be better read, there being a supper made, or he being at supper, for he sat down again (Joh 13:12), and we find him dipping a sop (Joh 13:26), so that he did it in the midst of his meal, and thereby taught us, [1.] Not to reckon it a disturbance, nor any just cause of uneasiness, to be called from our meal to do God or our brother any real service, esteeming the discharge of our duty more than our necessary food, Joh 4:34. Christ would not leave his preaching to oblige his nearest relations (Mar 3:33), but would leave his supper to show his love to his disciples. [2.] Not to be over nice about our meat. It would have turned many a squeamish stomach to wash dirty feet at supper-time; but Christ did it, not that we might learn to be rude and slovenly (cleanliness and godliness will do well together), but to teach us not to be curious, not to indulge, but mortify, the delicacy of the appetite, giving good manners their due place, and no more. (4.) He put himself into the garb of a servant, to do it: he laid aside his loose and upper garments, that he might apply himself to this service the more expeditely. We must address ourselves to duty as those that are resolved not to take state, but to take pains; we must divest ourselves of every thing that would either feed our pride or hang in our way and hinder us in what we have to do, must gird up the loins of our mind, as those that in earnest buckle to business. (5.) He did it with all the humble ceremony that could be, went through all the parts of the service distinctly, and passed by none of them; he did it as if he had been used thus to serve; did it himself alone, and had none to minister to him in it. He girded himself with the towel, as servants throw a napkin on their arm, or put an apron before them; he poured water into the basin out of the water-pots that stood by (Joh 2:6), and then washed their feet; and, to complete the service, wiped them. Some think that he did not wash the feet of them all, but only four or five of them, that being thought sufficient to answer the end; but I see nothing to countenance this conjecture, for in other places where he did make a difference it is taken notice of; and his washing the feet of them all, without exception, teaches us a catholic and extensive charity to all Christ's disciples, even the least. (6.) Nothing appears to the contrary but that he washed the feet of Judas among the rest, for he was present, Joh 13:26. It is the character of a widow indeed that she had washed the saints' feet (Ti1 5:10), and there is some comfort in this; but the blessed Jesus here washed the feet of a sinner, the worst of sinners, the worst to him, who was at this time contriving to betray him. Many interpreters consider Christ's washing his disciples' feet as a representation of his whole undertaking. He knew that he was equal with God, and all things were his; and yet he rose from his table in glory, laid aside his robes of light, girded himself with our nature, took upon him the form of a servant, came not to be ministered to, but to minister, poured out his blood, poured out his soul unto death, and thereby prepared a laver to wash us from our sins, Rev 1:5. III. Christ washed his disciples' feet that he might signify to them spiritual washing, and the cleansing of the soul from the pollutions of sin. This is plainly intimated in his discourse with Peter upon it, Joh 13:6-11, in which we may observe, 1. The surprise Peter was in when he saw his Master go about this mean service (Joh 13:6): Then cometh he to Simon Peter, with his towel and basin, and bids him put out his feet to be washed. Chrysostom conjectures that he first washed the feet of Judas, who readily admitted the honour, and was pleased to see his Master so disparage himself. It is most probable that when he went about this service (which is all that is meant by his beginning to wash, Joh 13:5) he took Peter first, and that the rest would not have suffered it, if they had not first heard it explained in what passed between Christ and Peter. Whether Christ came first to Peter or no, when he did come to him, Peter was startled at the proposal: Lord (saith he) dost thou wash my feet? Here is an emphasis to be laid upon the persons, thou and me; and the placing of the words is observable, su mou - what, thou mine? Tu mihi lavas pedes? Quid est tu? Quid est mihi? Cogitanda sunt potius quam dicenda - Dost thou wash my feet? What is it thou? What to me? These things are rather to be contemplated than uttered. - Aug. in loc. What thou, our Lord and Master, whom we know and believe to be the Son of God, and Saviour and ruler of the world, do this for me, a worthless worm of the earth, a sinful man, O Lord? Shall those hands wash my feet which with a touch have cleansed lepers, given sight to the blind, and raised the dead? So Theophylact, and from him Dr. Taylor. Very willingly would Peter have taken the basin and towel, and washed his Master's feet, and been proud of the honour, Luk 17:7, Luk 17:8. "This had been natural and regular; for my Master to wash my feet is such a solecism as never was; such a paradox as I cannot understand. Is this the manner of men?" Note, Christ's condescensions, especially his condescensions to us, wherein we find ourselves taken notice of by his grace, are justly the matter of our admiration, Joh 14:22. Who am I, Lord God? And what is my father's house? 2. The immediate satisfaction Christ gave to this question of surprise. This was at least sufficient to silence his objections (Joh 13:7): What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. Here are two reasons why Peter must submit to what Christ was doing: - (1.) Because he was at present in the dark concerning it, and ought not to oppose what he did not understand, but acquiesce in the will and wisdom of one who could give a good reason for all he said and did. Christ would teach Peter an implicit obedience: "What I do thou knowest not now, and therefore art no competent judge of it, but must believe it is well done because I do it." Note, Consciousness to ourselves of the darkness we labour under, and our inability to judge of what God does, should make us sparing and modest in our censures of his proceedings; see Heb 11:8. (2.) Because there was something considerable in it, of which he should hereafter know the meaning: "Thou shalt know hereafter what need thou hast of being washed, when thou shalt be guilty of the heinous sin of denying me;" so some. "Thou shalt know, when, in the discharge of the office of an apostle, thou wilt be employed in washing off from those under thy charge the sins and defilements of their earthly affections;" so Dr. Hammond. Note, [1.] Our Lord Jesus does many things the meaning of which even his own disciples do not for the present know, but they shall know afterwards. What he did when he became man for us and what he did when he became a worm and no man for us, what he did when he lived our life and what he did when he laid it down, could not be understood till afterwards, and then it appeared that it behoved him, Heb 2:17. Subsequent providences explain preceding ones; and we see afterwards what was the kind tendency of events that seemed most cross; and the way which we thought was about proved the right way. [2.] Christ's washing his disciples' feet had a significancy in it, which they themselves did not understand till afterwards, when Christ explained it to be a specimen of the laver of regeneration, and till the Spirit was poured out upon them from on high. We must let Christ take his own way, both in ordinances and providences, and we shall find in the issue it was the best way. 3. Peter's peremptory refusal, notwithstanding this, to let Christ wash his feet (Joh 13:8): Thou shalt by no means wash my feet; no, never. So it is in the original. It is the language of a fixed resolution. Now, (1.) Here was a show of humility and modesty. Peter herein seemed to have, and no doubt he really had, a great respect for his Master, as he had, Luk 5:8. Thus many are beguiled of their reward in a voluntary humility (Col 2:18, Col 2:23), such a self-denial as Christ neither appoints nor accepts; for, (2.) Under this show of humility there was a real contradiction to the will of the Lord Jesus: "I will wash thy feet," saith Christ; "But thou never shalt," saith Peter, "it is not a fitting thing;" so making himself wiser than Christ. It is not humility, but infidelity, to put away the offers of the gospel, as if too rich to be made to us or too good news to be true. 4. Christ's insisting upon his offer, and a good reason given to Peter why he should accept it: If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. This may be taken, (1.) As a severe caution against disobedience: "If I wash thee not, if thou continue refractory, and wilt not comply with thy Master's will in so small a matter, thou shalt not be owned as one of my disciples, but be justly discarded and cashiered for not observing orders." Thus several of the ancients understand it; if Peter will make himself wiser than his Master, and dispute the commands he ought to obey, he does in effect renounce his allegiance, and say, as they did, What portion have we in David, in the Son of David? And so shall his doom be, he shall have no part in him. Let him use no more manners than will do him good, for to obey is better than sacrifice, Sa1 15:22. Or, (2.) As a declaration of the necessity of spiritual washing; and so I think it is to be understood: "If I wash not thy soul from the pollution of sin, thou hast no part with me, no interest in me, no communion with me, no benefit by me." Note, All those, and those only, that are spiritually washed by Christ, have a part in Christ. [1.] To have a part in Christ, or with Christ, has all the happiness of a Christian bound up in it, to be partakers of Christ (Heb 3:14), to share in those inestimable privileges which result from a union with him and relation to him. It is that good part the having of which is the one thing needful. [2.] It is necessary to our having a part in Christ that he wash us. All those whom Christ owns and saves he justifies and sanctifies, and both are included in his washing them. We cannot partake of his glory if we partake not of his merit and righteousness, and of his Spirit and grace. 5. Peter's more than submission, his earnest request, to be washed by Christ, Joh 13:9. If this be the meaning of it, Lord, wash not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. How soon is Peter's mind changed! When the mistake of his understanding was rectified, the corrupt resolution of his will was soon altered. Let us therefore not be peremptory in any resolve (except in our resolve to follow Christ), because we may soon see cause to retract it, but cautious in taking up a purpose we will be tenacious of. Observe, (1.) How ready Peter is to recede from what he had said: "Lord, what a fool was I to speak such a hasty word!" Now that the washing of him appeared to be an act of Christ's authority and grace he admits it; but disliked when it seemed only an act of humiliation. Note, [1.] Good men, when they see their error, will not be loth to recant it. [2.] Sooner or later, Christ will bring all to be of his mind. (2.) How importunate he is for the purifying grace of the Lord Jesus, and the universal influence of it, even upon his hands and head. Note, A divorce from Christ, and an exclusion from having a part in him, is the most formidable evil in the eyes of all that are enlightened, for the fear of which they will be persuaded to any thing. And for fear of this we should be earnest with God in prayer, that he will wash us, will justify and sanctify us. "Lord, that I may not be cut off from thee, make me fit for thee, by the washing of regeneration. Lord, wash not my feet only from the gross pollutions that cleave to them, but also my hands and my head from the spots which they have contracted, and the undiscerned filth which proceeds by perspiration from the body itself." Note, Those who truly desire to be sanctified desire to be sanctified throughout, and to have the whole man, with all its parts and powers, purified, Th1 5:23. 6. Christ's further explication of this sign, as it represented spiritual washing. (1.) With reference to his disciples that were faithful to him (Joh 13:10): He that is washed all over in the bath (as was frequently practised in those countries), when he returns to his house, needeth not save to wash his feet, his hands and head having been washed, and he having only dirtied his feet in walking home. Peter had gone from one extreme to the other. At first he would not let Christ wash his feet; and now he overlooks what Christ had done for him in his baptism, and what was signified thereby, and cries out to have his hands and head washed. Now Christ directs him into the meaning; he must have his feet washed, but not his hands and head. [1.] See here what is the comfort and privilege of such as are in a justified state; they are washed by Christ, and are clean every whit, that is, they are graciously accepted of God, as if they were so; and, though they offend, yet they need not, upon their repentance, be again put into a justified state, for then should they often be baptized. The evidence of a justified state may be clouded, and the comfort of it suspended, when yet the charter of it is not vacated or taken away. Though we have occasion to repent daily, God's gifts and callings are without repentance. The heart may be swept and garnished, and yet still remain the devil's palace; but, if it be washed, it belongs to Christ, and he will not lose it. [2.] See what ought to be the daily care of those who through grace are in a justified state, and that is to wash their feet; to cleanse themselves from the guilt they contract daily through infirmity and inadvertence, by the renewed exercise of repentance, with a believing application of the virtue of Christ's blood. We must also wash our feet by constant watchfulness against every thing that is defiling, for we must cleanse our way, and cleanse our feet by taking heed thereto, Psa 119:9. The priests, when they were consecrated, were washed with water; and, though they did not need afterwards to be so washed all over, yet, whenever they went in to minister, they must wash their feet and hands at the laver, on pain of death, Exo 30:19, Exo 30:20. The provision made for our cleansing should not make us presumptuous, but the more cautious. I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them? From yesterday's pardon, we should fetch an argument against this day's temptation. (2.) With reflection upon Judas: And you are clean, but not all, Joh 13:10, Joh 13:11. He pronounces his disciples clean, clean through the word he had spoken to them, Joh 15:3. He washed them himself, and then said, You are clean; but he excepts Judas: not all; they were all baptized, even Judas, yet not all clean; many have the sign that have not the thing signified. Note, [1.] Even among those who are called disciples of Christ, and profess relation to him, there are some who are not clean, Pro 30:12. [2.] The Lord knows those that are his, and those that are not, Ti2 2:19. The eye of Christ can separate between the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean. [3.] When those that have called themselves disciples afterwards prove traitors, their apostasy at last is a certain evidence of their hypocrisy all along. [4.] Christ sees it necessary to let his disciples know that they are not all clean; that we may all be jealous over ourselves (Is it I? Lord, is it I that am among the clean, yet not clean?) and that, when hypocrites are discovered, it may be no surprise nor stumbling to us. IV. Christ washed his disciples' feet to set before us an example. This explication he gave of what he had done, when he had done it, Joh 13:12-17. Observe, 1. With what solemnity he gave an account of the meaning of what he had done (Joh 13:12): After he had washed their feet, he said, Know you what I have done? (1.) He adjourned the explication till he had finished the transaction, [1.] To try their submissio”

“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew, etc. - Or, as some translate, Now Jesus having known, before the feast of the passover, that his hour was come, etc. The supper mentioned in Joh 13:2 is supposed to have been that on the Thursday evening, when the feast of the passover began; and though, in our common translation, this passage seems to place the supper before that feast, yet, according to the amended translation, what is here said is consistent with what we read in the other evangelists. See Mat 26:2; Joh 12:1. Having loved his own - His disciples. Which were in the world - Who were to continue longer in its troubles and difficulties. He loved them unto the end - Continued his fervent affection towards them to his latest breath, and gave them that convincing proof of it which is mentioned Joh 13:5. That the disciples alone are meant here every man must see.”

“Before the festival day, or feast of the Pasch. See the note on this word Pasch, Matthew xxvi. ver. 2. Here when St. John says, before the festival day, he means in the evening, or latter evening after sunset, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the great feast of Azyms or unleavened bread was begun, (for the Jews began their feasts from sunset on the foregoing day) so that the hours from sunset, at least, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (at which time the paschal lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread belonged to the first, and great day of Azyms, which lasted till sunset on the 15th day of the month [of] Nisan. St. John therefore says, the day before, meaning after sunset on the 14th day of the month; but yet it was part of the same great feast, which was kept on the 15th day. See also the note Matthew xxvi. ver. 17. (Witham)”