ASSURANCE OF HEAVEN

Jesus gives heavenly assurance when He speaks of "My Father's house" - a familiar expression for heaven (John 14:2).  Philo, the Jewish philosopher, wrote of a soul returning "into the father's house," meaning heaven (Bernard, John, III:531). Jesus assures us that He is going (futuristic present) to prepare a place for us in His Father's house. Sandwiched between the opening phrase, "in My Father's house," and the closing assurance, "to prepare a place," is a clause that requires some attention.

The clause - "if it were not so, I would have have told you" - can be translated as either a question or a statement. As a question, it reads, "If it were not so would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" (ESV, NIV)  As a statement, it reads, "If it were not so I would have told you, for I go to prepare a place for you." (NASB, KJV) There were no punctuation marks in the original manuscripts so either translation is possible. The interpretation hinges on the little word, οτι, which can be translated either as "that" or "for/because." If we translate οτι as "that," we will read the clause as a question. If we translate οτι as "because," we will read the clause as a statement.

I don't think we should understand the clause as a question because Jesus never told them before that He was going to prepare a place for them so the question would be meaningless. I think it is best to understand οτι as "because" making the preceding clause parenthetical.  I connect the final clause - "because I go to prepare a place for you" - with the first clause - "in My Father's house are many dwelling places" - making the middle clause a parenthesis. There are many rooms in heaven because He is going to prepare them for us.

"In My Father's house there are many rooms (but if not, I would have told you) because I am going to prepare a place for you."

Jesus reassures us that there is room in heaven for us or He would have warned us not to expect a room in heaven. He left earth to prepare a place for us in heaven.  The word "place" (τοπον) meant a room to live, stay or sit (BAGD, Lexicon). The word "to prepare" (ετοιμασαι) was commonly used for preparations made for someone coming to visit (Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary, p.258). Jesus is preparing our rooms for our homecoming much like a parent prepares the room of  a child coming home from college. Our assurance is that Jesus would have warned us not to expect a homecoming if this was not true.

Praise God for the promise of our homecoming!

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day (Civil War background)

BELIEVE IN ME!

Why command believers to believe?

Jesus was speaking to His disciples in the Upper Room when He commanded them to "believe also in Me" (John 14:1). These were men who were already believers - every one of them!  Judas, the betrayer, has left the room. Only believers remain, yet Jesus ordered them to believe. Why?

The answer is found in the tense of the verb "believe" (πιστευετε).  This is a present tense verb. The present tense emphasizes continuing faith - ongoing faith - no matter what comes.  They could not know the crucible they were being thrown into in the next few hours. The fires of hell would soon test their faith.  We too cannot know the severe tests that will search our faith, and we must obey the command to continue to believe no matter what comes. True faith is persevering faith.

A saving faith is a growing faith. Jesus says, "believe in Me" (εις εμε).  The "in me" is emphatic. The preposition (εις) indicates motion towards a person or thing. There is a sense of movement in real faith.  We are not merely convinced that the teachings of Jesus are true or that he lived in history.  We are moving into a deepening sense of His nearness to help and His power to meet our needs. 

"There is a faith that accepts the words spoken and a faith that accepts the person who speaks. The former is only part of the latter" (S. Lewis Johnson, Private notes). 

We are growing to trust Him not just His words. We trust His character not just His teachings. We trust His love not just His doctrine. We trust He will never let us down even when we don't know how He will hold us up.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

The opening verses of John 14 are among the most familiar, precious and comforting verses in the Bible. I hesitate to disturb our familiarity with questions about the text, yet significant questions are raised by the text.  One of those questions pertains to the translation of "believe" or "trust" in verse one.

Jesus uses the word "believe" (πιστευετε) twice.  Jesus says, "Believe in God, believe also in Me" (NASB). Or does He say, "Ye believe in God, believe also in Me" (KJV)? Or perhaps Jesus says, "Believe in God, you are believing in Me"? Or is it, "You are believing in God, you are believing in Me" (Luther)? All 4 translations are grammatically possible (Meyer, John, pp. 406-407). Which translation accurately expresses the thought of Jesus?

The form of the verb "believe" (πιστευετε) is ambiguous. There are 4 ways these verbs could be translated. 1) Both verbs are imperatives (commands). 2) The first verb is an indicative (statement of fact) and the second is a command. 3) The first verb is a command and the second is a statement. 4) Both verbs are indicatives making factual statements. It is a matter of interpretation since all four translations are grammatically correct. The question boils down to the precise point that Jesus is making in this verse.

Many argue that Jesus was commanding both faith in God and faith in Him. The two verbs should be translated the same way according to many. However, I think that Jesus recognized they had faith in God already, but they needed to trust Him. I think that Jesus said, "You trust (statement of fact) in God, trust (command) in Me also" (Helen Barrett Montgomery). He has just predicted that He is leaving the disciples and that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed. These are troubling predictions that raise doubts about what Jesus is doing. Jesus was not commanding them to believe God. They were pious Israelites. He knew they believed God. Jesus was commanding them to trust Him. After all, He was the one troubling them with these predictions.

For the Christian, trusting Jesus personally is inseparable from trusting God.  Yet trusting Jesus personally is essential to being a Christian - a unique mark of a Christian.  Many believe God. Many are religious. Many populate our churches. Many claim to be Christian. Yet no one is a Christian who fails to trust Christ for no one comes the Father but through the Son (14:6)!

ARE YOU EVER AGITATED?

Jesus commands us, "Do not let your heart be troubled" (John 14:1). The word "troubled" means to be stirred up like waters muddied by the tramping of many feet as it is used in the Greek translation of Ezekiel 32:2, 13 (Septuagint). To be troubled is to be agitated, unsettled or thrown into mental confusion. The present imperative with a negative commands us to stop an action already in process (Μη ταρσσεσθω). Jesus is specifically addressing Peter's question, "Lord, why can I not follow you" (John 13:37). The disciples were already troubled and needed to stop being agitated (Rienecker, Linguistic Key, p. 251).

Why does Jesus command them (and by extension us) to stop letting themselves be troubled when even Jesus was troubled? The same word is used to describe Jesus only minutes earlier on that very night (John 13:21) and at the death of His friend Lazarus (John 11:33). How can Jesus command us to stop being troubled when He was troubled?

First, Jesus was troubled that night by the presence of Judas, the betrayer, in the Upper Room (13:21) because it hindered the intimacy of His final night.  Jesus resolved that troubling after Judas left the room and Jesus could proceed to teach His disciples without the betrayer present (13:31). The departure of Judas relieved Jesus' spirit so he stopped being troubled just as he commands us to stop being troubled. It is not sin to be troubled but we must not allow the troubling to continue.  Second, this is a passive verb meaning that outside circumstances trouble us. When Jesus was troubled at the death of Lazarus (11:33) an active verb is used indicating that He troubled Himself (εταραξεν εαυτον). There are times when we should trouble ourselves just as Jesus did.  All "troubling" is not bad troubling! Some events like death or sin should disturb us. They disturbed Jesus!

Finally, the command here is a present tense command indicating a continuous, ongoing disturbance as opposed to the use of the Aorist to indicate something simply happened (11:33; 13:21). The prohibition against allowing ourselves to be agitated by our circumstances is the forbidding of a habit or an ongoing practice. Stop letting yourselves be troubled by your circumstances as an ongoing practice in your life!

We all, just like Jesus, become agitated. It is part of the human experience.  Sometimes we should become disturbed by what we experience in life. However, we should not allow ourselves to be agitated by our circumstances on a continual, habitual basis. Such continuous agitation is destructive. The antidote is faith as Jesus makes clear in the next phrase. We should not allow ourselves to be thrown into confusion by our circumstances. The antidote to confusion is truth as Jesus makes clear in the following verses. We must trust God and know His truth to avoid the troubling that we must not allow in our lives.

THE COMMUNITY OF JESUS

Love is the distinguishing mark of a follower of Jesus. Jesus said, "By this, all will recognize that my disciples you are" (John 13:35). The "my" (εμοι) is emphatic indicating that His name is at stake in our behavior.  The clause "by this" (εν τουτω) refers to what follows not precedes the statement. The condition that follows identifies the mark of His followers. Jesus' followers are identifiable "if you have love among yourselves."

The clause is a third class condition sometimes called a "future more probable condition" (Dana & Mantey, Grammar, p.290). There is an element of future uncertainty but the uncertainty is outweighed by the expectation. This condition (εαν αγαπην εχητε) indicates action that is expected or impending (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, pp. 188-190). The same conditional structure is used in John 16:7 where Jesus says, "If I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go,  I will send Him to you." Obviously, Jesus' going is impending or expected. His going is only uncertain because it is yet future but His going is expected. So is the love which marks us as Jesus' followers. Real followers of Jesus will love one another, not perfectly but actually.  Jesus expected us to love one another and, we might say, is sadly "surprised" when we don't.

The "marking" love is a love we have among ourselves (εν αλληλοις). Jesus is not thinking here of our love for those who are not followers of Jesus. Jesus says that the distinguishing mark is our love which is exercised within the community of believers (Hanna, Grammatical Aid, p.175). This is the love that He makes possible by changing our hearts by His grace.  We should certainly love those in the world but the real mark of a Christian is how we love other Christians. Sadly, we often do better at loving those outside the church than we do those inside the church. We reserve our harshest attacks for others who follow Jesus but deviate slightly from our expectations of orthodoxy or, more often orthopraxy - our own personal practices! Our petty squabbles within the church turn vicious grieving the heart of Jesus as we fail His expectations by dragging His name through the mud.

HIS LOVE, OUR LOVE

Jesus loved us with a sacrificial love and commands us to love each other with that same kind of love. He said, "Just as I have loved you in order that you might also love each other" (John 13:34). His love for us was highlighted by His sacrifice on the cross. Our love for each other is highlighted by our sacrifices for each other. The first word in the clause - "just as" (καθως) - provides the connection.  He modeled the love He calls us to live. We are most like Him when we sacrifice for each other.

The contrast in verbal structure between His love and our love is instructive.  When Jesus said, "I have loved you," he used the indicative mode of expression in past time.  This is the mode of fact. That He has loved us is a factual statement.  Our love is expressed in the present tense and subjunctive mode (αγαπατε). The present tense indicates ongoing, continuous love.  We are to love one another with an ongoing love. Therein lies the challenge for it is easy to love another when all is going well in our relationships but our love is to be an ongoing love even in the bad times.  The subjunctive mode of expression is the mode of probability not fact. Here the probability is connected to a command or expectation. We are not guaranteed to love as He loved but we are expected to love as He loved.

As we unpack the verse more, we see that this is a purpose clause.  Our love is introduced with the little word "in order that" (ινα). The purpose of His love for us is that we should love one another.  He expects us to love each other because He loved us, and that is precisely why He loved us in the first place. The pronoun - "each other" (αλληλοις) - is a reciprocal pronoun.  The love he purposed for us is a reciprocal love between us. The next verse makes clear that the love Jesus is talking about here is among the disciples.  We are to experience a reciprocal love by mutual expression.

Christians are known by our reciprocal love for each other as an ongoing habit of our lives. The purpose of Jesus' love for us is for us to love each other. He expects to see that love visible in us. When we fail to love each other, we fail to meet His expectations for us.  Sadly, He suffers as much by our unloving actions in the church as He did by His loving sacrifice on the cross.

THE NEW COMMANDMENT

In what sense is Jesus' command to love one another a new commandment? (John 13:34) God had commanded the Israelites to love both fellow Israelites and strangers in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 19:18,34). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus had repeated this command (Mark 12:31). Jesus, ratifying the Mosaic Law, commanded us to love God and love our neighbors as the two greatest commandments of all time. How, then, can Jesus say to His disciples "a new commandment I give to you, that you love one another" on the night before He died for us on the cross?

The Greek text uses a particular word for "new" that explains the answer to that question.  John expresses Jesus' command with καινος as opposed to the synonym νεος. In many contexts, the two words for "new" are used interchangeably, but sometimes - as here - there is an important distinction. The word νεος emphasizes new with respect to time, new in reference to something that has recently come into existence.  The word καινος emphasizes new with respect to quality. This is the word used in John 13:34.  The emphasis is on new as opposed to something that has become worn out or damaged by age (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p.220.  A good example of this use is John 19:41. Joseph of Arimathea has a "new tomb" (καινος) in which no body had been laid. This was not a tomb that was new because it had been recently carved out of the rock. This was a new tomb in the sense that the tomb was fresh, never been used before. Here is the key to understanding the "new commandment."  The new commandment to love one another is new in the sense of fresh, as opposed to the old commandment that had become worn out by usage. Jesus says, "A fresh commandment I give to you, that you love one another."

The freshness of the command to love one another rests on the foundation of a new standard for love and a new basis for love. The new basis for our love is the cross. We are to love with a "cross love."  Jesus goes on to say that we are to love one another "as I have loved you." Here is the new standard for our love. The Mosaic Law commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Loving another as I love myself is a high calling but a humanly doable calling.  I can (sometimes!) attain to loving someone as I love myself.  It is a fleshly standard - a human standard - for love, but at least it is humanly attainable. The fresh commandment for the new covenant is founded on the standard of Christ's love for us.  Oh, how far I fall short of this standard for love!  My only hope for loving others as Jesus loved me is to love others with His love.  I cannot possibly love as He loved me unless He loves through me.  Please Lord, love others through me - despite me - with your love!

THE GLORY OF THE CROSS

The traitor has left the room to do his evil work. As soon as Judas departed Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him" (John 13:31). Right now?! Really? The verb is not a present tense verb although often translated as a present tense. The verb is in the aorist tense which often would be translated "was glorified" (εδοξασθε) reinforced by another aorist "God was glorified in Him."

Here we see one of the oldest uses of the aorist tense to describe something that has just happened (Moulton, 1:135). It has happened so recently that in English we express it best in present time. It is called a "Dramatic Aorist" - an idiom used to express a state or reality which has just been entered (Dana & Mantey, p.198). What event plunged Jesus into this glorified state or reality? Judas left the room.  The cross work was now under way. Verse 31 is explained by verse 32 which uses a future tense to describe the same glorified state. "God will glorify Him immediately" (δοξασει) (Robertson, p.847).

The cross work of Jesus is His glorification - His finest hour.  Glorification refers to the act of displaying the greatness of a person. The greatness of Jesus was most displayed in the cross work of Jesus which began the moment Judas left the upper room.  John uses "glorify" (δοξαζω) to refer to the cross (John 12:16, 23). The greatness of the Son is displayed on the cross even as the Son displays the Father's greatness on the cross (John 17:1).

Therefore, whenever we diminish the cross, we diminish Christ. Whenever we devalue the cross, we devalue our Lord. Whenever we ignore the cross, we ignore our Savior.  We diminish the cross by exalting human abilities. We devalue the cross by over valuing our methods and skills. We ignore the cross when we promote our solutions to life's problems. Sadly, this describes much of modern, western Christianity. We pull Him down when we puff ourselves up. The result is a popular church that thrives on cheap grace and the latest techniques instead of glorying in the cross of Christ.

THE SINNER'S CHOICE AND THE SAVIOR'S GRACE

A free choice is not free in the sense of un-influenced. A person chooses to sin based on internal and external influences, but the choice is still a genuine choice. 

Judas chose to betray Jesus. He took the piece of bread and "went out immediately; and it was night" (John 13:30).  John, who loves to contrast light and dark, presents the night as a spiritual, not just physical, darkness. Judas chose to leave the light and join the night. How deep is the darkness that envelopes the soul of the one who chooses to leave the light?!

Satan influenced the choice of Judas "having already put into the heart of Judas ... to betray Him" (Jn. 13:2). Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas who ate it and "Satan then entered into him" (Jn. 13:27).  Jesus commanded Judas, "What you do, do quickly" (Jn.13:27).  Although possessed by Satan, Judas obeyed Jesus. He carried out the will of the Savior thereby accomplishing the grace of God. The idea originated with Satan, but the command came from Jesus; yet the choice was made by Judas.

The verb, "he went out," (εξηλθεν) is in the active voice meaning that Judas performed the action. The choice is his choice.  The choice is not made for him by either Jesus or Satan. We can only speculate on the internal influences leading to his choice, but he makes the choice. Judas excommunicates himself not just from Jesus but from the disciples.  Peter also betrays Jesus on that night, but he chooses to remain connected and so will receive the grace that Judas rejects. Excommunication is the choice of the unrepentant sinner to remove himself from the grace of God.

Judas chose to enter the darkness under the influence of Satan even as he obeyed Jesus. This alchemy of wills led to the death of Christ, planned before the world began, and our salvation, initiated by the grace of God.

THE ABSALOM SYNDROME

Have you ever been hurt by someone you trusted?  Jesus knows your pain.  He was "troubled" (εταραχθη) in spirit (John 13:21). The same verb was used of Jesus at the death of his friend Lazarus (John 11:33). The word means to be disturbed or stirred up. The noun form was used of riots or revolts in the Roman Empire during the first century (Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary, p.625). Jesus' emotions were rioting within Him. There was chaos in His spirit - turmoil in His soul. He was being ripped apart from within because He knew what was coming.

The verb is passive telling us His inner riot was caused by an outside person, namely Judas. Jesus has just quoted from Psalm 41:9 which is a psalm by David after he was betrayed by his own son, Absalom, and his trusted adviser, Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15). The parallels are striking.  David prefigured Jesus. Absalom and Ahithophel both ate meals with David as loved and trusted confidants in his inner circle. Ahithophel hanged himself after his betrayal (2 Samuel 17:23) just like Judas would soon do. They were friends who ate bread together but lifted up the heel to kick the one who fed them.  Like the kick of a mule in the gut, Jesus felt the pain of betrayal.

The closest friends cause the greatest hurts.  Betrayal by a loved one is like a kick in the solar plexus. Judas, like Absalom and Ahithophel, was a trusted friend and leader. No one, in the whole company of disciples, suspected he was a traitor. He was honored and trusted to keep the money and was seated in the position of honor at the banquet beside Jesus Himself. Absalom was hugely popular with the people. Ahithophel was respected as a counselor.  Respected church leaders sting the most when they betray others in the church. The betrayal of a spouse wounds very deeply.  Close friends can turn against us when we least expect it.  Jesus knows exactly how you feel for He has felt that inner riot of emotions too. Bring your hurts to the one who has experienced those same hurts and can heal your deepest wounds.

DOING OR KNOWING: WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT?

The blessing of God is enjoyed by the doing not the knowing, but we must know in order to do God's work. The knowing is necessary for the doing but the doing is necessary for the blessing.  I am struck anew by this truth as I meditate on John 13:17. Jesus has just finished washing the feet of the disciples giving them an example to follow. Jesus says, "If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them."

The verse contains a double condition necessary to enjoy God's blessing, but the two conditions are not equal in force.  The first condition ("if you know") is a first class condition (ει οιδατε) which assumes that the knowing is a fact - a reality. The first class condition emphasizes the reality of the statement so it could be translated "inasmuch as you know these thing" (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, p.189). The second condition ("if you do these things") is a third class condition (εαν ποιητε) which assumes that the doing is uncertain or questionable. Jesus assumes that they know what He has been teaching them, but the doing of it is doubtful (Robertson, Grammar, p.1019).

Both knowing and doing are necessary for blessing, but the doing is less certain than the knowing and, therefore, more critical to the blessing. Jesus cuts to the heart of my spiritual life when He makes this statement. I want to enjoy God's blessing, but I try to achieve that blessing through knowing what to do instead of doing what I know. The struggle in my Christian life is not knowing what to do but doing what I know to do. I can waste a lot of time trying to figure out what to know instead of doing what I already know. If I would do what I already know, I would enjoy His blessing while learning more of what I need to know so I can do more of what He wants me to do.

DIRTY FEET

John 13:10 is an important verse for our spiritual lives.  Jesus used a physical action to illustrate a spiritual truth.  There are 3 Greek words that bring out the spiritual truth behind the foot washing.

The first word is λελουμενος ("the one who has been bathed"). This word referred to the washing of the whole body (Heb. 10:22; Acts 9:37). It was used in the literature of the day for bathing the body in the bathing room. An interesting use of the word is found in 2 Peter 2:22 which is best translated "the sow that washes itself by wallowing in the mire" (Moulton & Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 381). Some people bathe themselves in the muck of sin but we have been bathed in the pure water of Jesus. The form of the verb refers to action that occurred in the past with ongoing results in the present.

The second word is νιψασθαι ("to wash"). This word refers to washing a part of the body like hands or feet (Liddell & Scott, Lexicon, cf. Mark 7:3; Mt. 6:17). The verb is an Aorist Middle Infinitive which is probably best understood as a permissive middle - "to let his feet be washed" (S.Lewis Johnson, private notes). This washing is not a washing done to us in the past but a washing we must allow whenever we get spiritually dirty in the present.

The third word is καθαρος ("clean"). It is used in tandem with ολος ("wholly or completely"). It meant to be pure, innocent or free from offence (Liddell & Scott, Lexicon). The one who has been bathed by Jesus (saved) is wholly pure. Jesus continues by saying "You are pure ones, but not all." Obviously, He is referring to Judas as the exception to purity in their midst even though Jesus has probably washed his feet physically. All who have been spiritually bathed by Jesus (regeneration) are pure on an ongoing basis (present tense) even though they get dirty in life.

The illustration refers to a person who bathes at home but gets dust on his feet walking to the banquet. Such a person only needs to wash his feet to enjoy the banquet. We get dirty as we walk through life and we need to let Jesus wash our feet spiritually to enjoy the intimacy of dinner with Him.

WITH JESUS OR FOR JESUS?

I like Peter because I am so like Peter. As I meditate on John 13, I see a man who thinks he knows it all when he knows nothing at all.  Peter protests the washing of his feet even though Jesus tells him he doesn't understand.  Peter replies (13:8) with a passionate "Never may you wash my feet forever" (εις τον αιωνα). It is a "forever" denial driven by an ignorant zeal. Jesus gently corrects him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me" (13:8).

The "me" (εμου) is emphatic and the "with me" (μετ' εμου) indicates Jesus is talking about communion not union. Jesus does not say, "You have no part in (εν) me." which would have suggested salvation. He says, "you have no part with (μετ') me."  Jesus is talking about the intimacy of true friendship. A follower of Jesus can miss out on closeness with Jesus through the pride of ignorant passion.

To have a part with Jesus is to share in His ministry. It is "to be his partner, to share in his work" (Bernard, St. John, 2:461). To have a part with Jesus is also to share a friendship with Him. The word is used in the story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:42) when Jesus tells Martha, "Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."  The good part is the intimacy of true friendship with Jesus that only comes by letting Jesus serve us - letting Jesus wash our feet.  Our service for Jesus can become a substitute for intimacy with Jesus.

I like Peter because he catches the point even while missing the truth. Peter immediately asks Jesus to wash not just his feet but also his hands and his head (13:9). He is filled with passionate loyalty, but he still won't let Jesus do as He pleases.  It is possible to be very devoted to the Lord yet very wrong at the same time.  I, too, feel that temptation to substitute ministry for intimacy and miss the depths of love Jesus longs to share with me.

WHAT?! NOT ME!

Jesus begins to wash the feet of the disciples, and he arrives at Peter in John 13:6. Some think that he starts with Peter, but I think he ends with Peter. This would mean that even Judas had accepted the Lord's washing of his feet - but not Peter.  Peter's angst rises inside him with each passing disciple until it explodes when Jesus arrives at him. Curling his feet up under him, he says, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" The words sound bland because we do not have any facial expression or verbal intonation to tell us much about Peter's response. However, we do have some clues in the Greek text to help us. The pronouns συ (you) and μου (my) are both emphatic in the sentence. Greek uses word order to emphasize certain words, but μου (my) is particularly stressed because of it's position before the verb. It is clear that Peter's primary concern is himself here.  "My feet" shows his pride.  Perhaps his voice even dripped with disdain for all the other feet Jesus had washed before him. Peter thinks the other disciples have failed in accepting the foot washing by Jesus.

The verb νιπτεις (wash) is a conative present which indicates an attempted action. So the best translation would be "Lord, are you trying to wash MY feet?" (Moulton, Howard, Turner, Grammar, Vol. 3, p. 63).  Peter's tone of voice would have been incredulous and offended.  Peter is incredulous on two counts - that he should need his feet washed and that the Lord should be the one to do it. This is pride masquerading as humility. We, too, can sound so humble in exalting Jesus with our words when we actually are too proud to accept his washing work in our lives. A few verses later, Jesus will highlight this truth by saying, "He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet" (13:10). He uses the same Greek word for wash but in a different form (νιψασθαι).  Here it is in the middle voice and indicates permission in this verse.  We could translate it, "He who has bathed needs only to let (allow) his feet to be washed."  We exalt Jesus the most when we allow Him to wash our dirty feet.  Jesus is most exalted when we welcome His cleansing.

LOVED IN FULL

John begins his description of the final Passover Supper with the words "having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end" (John 13:1). The word order of the Greek text is actually "to the end He loved them" placing the emphasis on the adverbial phrase "to the end."  What does John mean by that editorial comment? Is he simply saying that Jesus loved them until the end of His life? This seems rather obvious from the passage and hardly worth emphasizing, as John takes pains to do by placing the phrase ahead of the verb.  There is another way to look at the phrase and it powerfully moves our minds into the mystery of His love. The preposition, εις (to), indicates purpose (Moulton, Howard, Turner, Grammar, Vol. 3, p. 266). Jesus loved them with the purpose of loving them to the end - the end of His love! The noun, τελος (end), can also mean complete or full so the phrase can be summarized as completely or fully. He loved them in full. He loved them with the intention of loving them to the fullness of His love so "he gave them the perfect love token" (Blass/Debrunner, Grammar, p. 112). John's editorial comment introduces the foot washing that immediately follows this passage. The foot washing was Jesus' love token, showing that He purposely loved them in full - to the fullness of His love. What does it mean when an infinite God, with an infinite capacity to love, intentionally loves us to the fullness of His love?  No matter how great the marriage, a husband and wife do not love in full. There is always some element of selfishness in our love. Human love always falls some centimeters short of full love - but not Jesus. He loves us to the fullness of His infinite love. There is not a smidgen of love left unloved - for them - for me - for you!  Mind boggling!