Second, we have the spiritual reality behind the example. The crucial point is in verse 10, “One who is bathed has no need except to wash his feet”. Anyone who has been ‘washed in the blood of the Lamb’ has had his bath. But walking on the paths of life we get our feet dirty, we sin, and sin breaks our fellowship with God—you can't go into the living room with dirty feet. We need the blood of Christ for our daily cleansing, upon which depends our fellowship and communion with Him—as He said to Peter, “If I do not wash [not ‘bathe’] you, you have no part with me”. I regard Philippians 2:5-8 as a parallel passage: He took the form of a slave (verse 7), and His ‘work’ took Him to the cross, where He shed His blood, upon which both our salvation [bath] and daily walk [washing] depend.
*13:1 This appears to be a cover statement, introducing the rest of the book. What Jesus would do in the upper room, in the garden, on the cross, after the resurrection, were expressions of His love for His own. His love took Him through to ‘the end’, the last consequence—nothing was left undone. How could He return to the Father if He didn't do all that had to be done? He had been sent to recover all that the first Adam had lost, and He did!
†13:2 Less than 0.5% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, read ‘during’ supper (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.), which confuses the account. There was an ordinary meal, and then the Passover ritual itself. The meal was basically over, but they couldn't proceed with the ritual because they were ceremonially unclean—their feet hadn't been washed (they were dirty from the dust of the road).
‡13:2 This editorial aside seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but John does this sort of thing in other places as well. However, it furnishes important background information for verse 27 below.
§13:3 The Plan depended on Him, was “in His hands”. For Him to know that He was “going to God” (end of verse) meant that He knew He was going to win.
*13:4 The Text has ‘garments’, plural, so the rendering ‘robe’ doesn't seem to fit. I gather that Jesus stripped down to a loincloth, or basic underclothing, which is what a servant might wear. Since He was about to perform the duty of a servant (that should have been there, but wasn't), it was a graphic symbolism.
†13:5 Yes, ‘the’ basin. When the Lord sent some disciples to prepare the room, they would not only have to be sure that there were thirteen couches, properly arranged [they did not sit on chairs, they reclined on couches, with their heads in toward the table, and so their feet would stick out—just right for washing], but also see to a basin, water and a towel, so that the necessary ceremonial washing could be performed. So this was ‘the’ basin that had been placed there on purpose.
‡13:5 Normally there would have been a servant there to perform the duty of washing feet, but I assume that the Lord had given instructions not to have one. There was an ongoing dispute among them as to who was the greatest (Luke 22:24), so naturally none of them was prepared to take the place of the servant. They could eat the meal with dirty feet, as they did, but not the Passover. I imagine that the situation began to get uncomfortable—it was time to proceed with the ritual, but first someone had to wash feet, and no one was offering. So finally Jesus Himself gets up.
§13:6 The pronoun is emphatic. The picture seems to be that Jesus had already done several pairs of feet, whose owners had submitted in silence. But now it is Peter's turn and he cannot take it (maybe he had a more tender conscience than the others).
*13:7 The Lord makes an important distinction here—He advises Peter that he doesn't understand what is going on, as Peter proves the next time he opens his mouth, but in the future his knowledge on this subject will have been gained by experience.
†13:8 Peter loses it; his answer is totally without restraint.
‡13:9 Peter continues to demonstrate that he is not understanding, but his heart is in the right place. Faced with the possibility of being cut off from the Lord, he swings to the other extreme—now he wants a bath.
§13:15 First, we have the physical example of washing feet—those communities that practice foot washing have more basis for doing so than the rest of us have for not doing so (foot washing can be an important spiritual exercise). Second, we have the spiritual reality behind the example. The crucial point is in verse 10, “One who is bathed has no need except to wash his feet”. Anyone who has been ‘washed in the blood of the Lamb’ has had his bath. But walking on the paths of life we get our feet dirty, we sin, and sin breaks our fellowship with God—you can't go into the living room with dirty feet. We need the blood of Christ for our daily cleansing, upon which depends our fellowship and communion with Him—as He said to Peter, “If I do not wash [not ‘bathe’] you, you have no part with me”. I regard Philippians 2:5-8 as a parallel passage: He took the form of a slave (verse 7), and His ‘work’ took Him to the cross, where He shed His blood, upon which both our salvation [bath] and daily walk [washing] depend.
*13:17 We have here a condition of fact—the Lord is assuming that they understand; it follows that it is not enough to understand—we must do, in order to be blessed.
†13:18 The reference is to Psalm 41:9.
‡13:20 To represent Christ on this earth is both a great privilege and a great responsibility.
§13:20 This is the second time; for the first see Matthew 26:21-25, Mark 14:18-21 and Luke 22:21-23.
*13:22 The way I used to think about Judas, I would have expected that the others would immediately suspect who it was, and start looking at him out of the corner of their eye. But no, they were clueless—no one thought of Judas! Which tells me that up to that moment he had conducted himself in an exemplary way; in fact, they trusted him so much that he was the treasurer.
†13:23 They were reclining on their sides, propped up on their left elbows (unless someone was left handed). So John was next to Jesus, with his back to Jesus' bosom. In order to put his question, he leaned back until his shoulder touched Jesus' chest (he would have to rest his weight there), and in that way he was looking up at Jesus.
‡13:27 As we know from verse two, Satan had already planted the idea in Judas' head/heart, but at this point he enters the man—Judas wasn't just demonized, he was satanized! Evidently Satan required permission to do this, and giving the sop was the signal; Jesus gave him the go-ahead. Obviously Satan had to be there, in that upper room! (If he was in that upper room, why can't he be in your church? Any Judases in your church?) I take it that Satan entered Judas to make sure that he would carry through with the plan.
§13:27 Although to the disciples it would appear that Jesus was addressing Judas, I rather suspect that He was actually addressing Satan, since it was Satan who would now control the man's thoughts. He orders him to get on with it; that is right, Jesus gave Satan an order, and Satan obeyed.
*13:29 This is instructive—even though Jesus had just said that it was Judas, the others just could not believe it.
†13:30 Commentators like to wax eloquent on this statement. It was literally night, perhaps about 9 p.m., but it was also spiritually ‘night’—Satan's finest hour.
‡13:31 The verb is in the present tense; I get the impression that as soon as the door clicked behind Judas the Lord started speaking. The events have been set in motion that will culminate in His being glorified.
§13:32 Actually, ‘do so’ stands for ‘glorify Him’, that is repeated from the previous clause.
*13:34 The Law says to love your neighbor as yourself; Grace says to love as Christ loves—clearly a higher standard!
†13:35 Since agape love is an unknown commodity in the ‘world’, demonstrations of it do tend to get attention.
‡13:35 This is the first warning. The second is recorded in Luke 22:31-34, which I would place after John 16:15, toward the end of the proceedings in the upper room. Both the context and the content of the warning differ from John. The third warning, in two parts, is recorded in Matthew 26:31-35 (1st part) and Mark 14:27-31 (2nd part). The first two warnings happened in the upper room, the third after they had left it.
§13:36 Peter didn't hear the ‘new commandment’; he was stuck on the prior statement. (This sort of thing happens during sermons all the time. So if the preacher says something unexpected, he had better stop and explain or he loses his audience.)
*13:36 I imagine that the Lord is referring to Hades, in the first instance (referring to physical death), but then also to Heaven. It is not part of the Plan for Peter to die just yet (in fact, he was delivered from prison in a supernatural way to avoid a premature death—Acts 12:6-11), but of course he will die and go to Heaven later on.
†13:38 The emphasis here is on the obligatory absence of any cockcrow until Peter has denied [at least] three times. There is no definite article with ‘rooster’, so it is “a rooster”; the negative is double, therefore emphatic, “absolutely not”. If you have lived where there were a number of roosters, you know that one or another can sound off at any time, and some one of them will crow almost on the hour throughout the night, while at dawn they put on a chorus. It was probably somewhere around 9 p.m. when Jesus issued this warning, and Peter's first denial probably happened at least five hours later. For not a single rooster to crow anywhere within earshot during that time required supernatural intervention—which is why I render “no rooster can crow” (if an angel can close lions' mouths [Daniel 6:22], closing roosters' beaks would be a cake walk).