Commentary on the Gospels

Setting of the Last Supper

John 13:1-17 and parallel passages
(Matt. 26:17-20: Mark 14:12–17; Luke 22:7–18)

Introduction

The sterling qualities of Christ serve as models for us as we seek to grow in Christ and become conformed to His image. Among His countless virtues are purity, wisdom, love, servanthood, poverty, and humility. But the ultimate proof of His greatness was the willing sacrifice of Himself to save a world of sinners.

To understand exactly what He suffered for mankind, we must examine in detail the Gospel accounts of all that He endured during the last twenty-four hours before His death. The exact time of his death was about three o'clock in the afternoon on Friday, the fourteenth of Nisan, in the year AD 33.¹ It fell on the Jewish festival known as Passover. In the same afternoon, the Passover lambs were slain.

Arranging the Passover meal

Place

Throughout the last week before His death, Jesus spent part of each day teaching the multitudes in the Temple (Luke 21:37–38). On the day before Passover, He and His disciples left the city perhaps well before sundown and retreated to their place of seclusion on the Mount of Olives. He then sent Peter and John back into the city to arrange for a Passover meal that He would share with all the disciples (Luke 22:7-13).

The exact time when He gave them instructions is stated by Luke. "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed, and he sent Peter and John" (Luke 22:7–8). The wording does not settle whether Jesus sent them when this day was about to begin or when it had already arrived. By Jewish reckoning, a day lasted not from midnight to midnight, but from sundown to sundown.² We conclude that Peter and John set off on their errand either shortly before or after sundown at the close of Thursday afternoon.

Jesus gave these two men detailed instructions on how to find the right place for the gathering that would be held a few hours later. After passing through the city gate, they were to look for a man carrying a pitcher of water. Evidently without initiating any conversation, they were to follow him until he entered a dwelling. Then they were to present themselves at the door and speak to the "Goodman of the house"—in other words, to the man who had charge of this property and who likely owned it as well. They were to ask him for permission to see his "guestchamber," a word signifying a room intended as lodging for travelers.³ When the disciples arrived at the house, they told the owner that the room was desired by their "Master." This choice of words strongly suggests that they expected the owner to know who their master was, and the owner's cooperation creates a strong possibility that he already was acquainted with these disciples, perhaps even that he too was a follower of Jesus. Since the Gospels disclose that the disciples found the guestchamber to be "furnished and prepared" (Mark 14:15), we suspect that the houseowner had earlier, in private conversation with Jesus, offered or consented to let Jesus use his upper room for a Passover meal.

Jesus anticipated that it would be a "large upper room" (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12), which in fact it proved to be when the disciples found it (Mark 14:16). Before returning to the other members of the Twelve back on the Mount of Olives, Peter and John made all the necessary preparations for the meal that would prove to be the last during Jesus' life on earth.

Time

The Gospel of Mark states,

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

Mark 14:12

The words "they killed" translate a single word, a verb variously described as "indefinite plural and imperfect"⁴ and "customary imperfect."⁵ Authorities agree that the most appropriate translation of the phrase "when they killed the passover" is, "when it was customary to kill the passover."⁶ The day Mark intends must therefore be the fourteenth on the official calendar, since only that day could be described as the customary time for Passover sacrifices. The lambs were slain in the afternoon of the fourteenth between three and five o’clock,⁷ shortly before they were eaten at the Passover meal in the evening. Since days were reckoned from sundown to sundown, the meal must have taken place at the close of the fourteenth and the outset of the fifteenth. The information that Mark provides is problematic in two respects.

1. The first day of the feast formally known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread was the fifteenth of Nisan, beginning at sundown after the afternoon when the lambs were slain. Why then does Mark place the sacrifices on the first day of Unleavened Bread? Furthermore, why, in the passage quoted earlier, does Luke date this event in the same manner (Luke 22:7–8)? The answer is that in the standard usage of many Jews in Jesus’ time, the first day of Unleavened Bread referred to the fourteenth of Nisan. By this term they did not mean the first day when leavened bread was forbidden—they knew that the prohibition started at the Passover meal—but the first day of the entire festival.
        Technically, as the law prescribed, Passover was limited to one day, the fourteenth, and Unleavened Bread lasted seven days, from the fifteenth to the twenty-first (Lev. 23:5–8; Num. 28:16–25). But it was natural and inevitable that consecutive feasts celebrated by the nation during the same break from daily life would have become known by a single name. The single name they chose was not always the same. Both in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 22:1) and in the Book of Acts (Acts 12:3–4), the whole festival bears the name "Passover." In the Babylonian Talmud, the last seven days are called Passover, and the day when the lambs were sacrificed is called Passover eve.⁸ Yet another name for the whole festival was Unleavened Bread. Of decisive importance is the testimony of Josephus, a Judean and national leader of priestly descent who doubtless adhered to the calendar considered official in Jesus’ day. In several passages, he treats "Passover" and "Feast of Unleavened Bread" as synonymous terms, both referring to the whole feast.⁹
        So what may we conclude? We conclude that in the delightful manner of all humankind, the Jews in Jesus’ day were inconsistent in their use of terms. They spoke one way when they were seeking to follow the language of Scripture. They lapsed into less formal language whenever it was convenient. We likewise may refer to the holidays at the end of December as Christmas, or we may distinguish Christmas and New Year’s.
2. Since Mark as well as the other Synoptics (Matt. 26:17–19; Luke 22:8–15) identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal, a reader might jump to the conclusion that Nisan the fourteenth was the date of the Last Supper and Nisan fifteenth was the date of the Crucifixion. Such reasoning might seem especially justified by Luke’s account. He says that on the day of the Last Supper, Jesus sent Peter and John into the city "to prepare us the passover, that we may eat" (Luke 22:8). They were instructed how to find the right house and what to tell the houseowner: "Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?" (Luke 22:11). In obedience, "they made ready the passover" (Luke 22:13).
        Yet John states clearly that Jesus died on the fourteenth. His Gospel places Jesus’ trial in the early hours of the morning before the Passover meal.

   Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

   John 18:28

   Since Jesus died about the ninth hour (3 P.M.) on the day of His trial (Mark 15:1–37), John’s disclosure that the trial fell on the fourteenth of Nisan implies the same date for the Crucifixion. Moreover, John clearly places the Last Supper on the evening before the rest of the nation observed the Passover meal.

   1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

   2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

   3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

   4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

   John 13:1–4

   The obvious question is, why would the Synoptic writers call it a Passover meal if it took place a whole day before the customary time of its observance?

A proper answer requires that we look more closely at what happened before and during the actual meal. Matthew and Mark record that the disciples themselves initiated the work of getting ready for it (Matt. 26:17 Mark 14:12). On Thursday evening by our reading of the evidence, they approached Jesus and asked where He wanted them to prepare a Passover meal. No doubt they supposed that it would take place during the following evening, the normal time of its celebration. Their desire to make arrangements one day early probably rested on the assumption that everyone would be too busy to make them on Passover day itself. So, with Jesus’ encouragement and according to His directions, Peter and John procured a meeting place. Probably also they assured provision of all necessary furnishings and foods excepting the lamb itself, which they expected to obtain the following day.

When Peter and John had fulfilled their mission and returned to Jesus and the other disciples outside the city, imagine their surprise when Jesus took them to share the meal right away. It is helpful to remember that the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8) is also Lord of the Passover. Thus, Jesus had every right to change the day of the meal so that He might share it once more with His beloved disciples. He was moving it a day earlier because He knew that He would die in the following afternoon. He wanted to convert the last meal that they would eat together into the very meal that by God's design had always pictured the significance of His death.

Although the Last Supper did not actually satisfy the law’s requirements for a Passover meal, it was hardly unlawful to gather at another time for a meal of the same kind. Far from flouting the law, the meal on Thursday night actually protected the disciples from breaking it. Jesus knew that on the next day they would be in no state to observe Passover in the customary fashion, as the law required. Therefore, He let them know that they were fulfilling their duty by eating with Him the night before. By His divine authority He was designating it a true Passover meal.

Beginning of the meal

Procedure

Joachim Jeremias has detailed the many ways that, in his view, their meal together conformed to this annual rite.¹⁰

1. In obedience to the law (Deut. 16:5–7), it was eaten in the city of the Temple, in Jerusalem.
2. It was eaten after sundown, whereas the usual time for the last meal of the day was in the late afternoon.
3. The number who joined in a Passover meal was usually at least ten, but seldom many more than ten. Thirteen gathered for the Last Supper.
4. The participants reclined at the table. Among the Jews, this practice of Greco-Roman culture was reserved for special occasions.
5. The Jews began an ordinary meal with the breaking of bread. But at the Last Supper, as at the Passover meal, the breaking of bread was postponed until near the end of the meal.
6. The Last Supper was accompanied by wine. Yet wine was absent from Jewish meals except on special occasions, such as Passover.
7. Although red, white, and black wines were available in Palestine, the drink chosen for the Last Supper was red wine, like the wine used in the Passover meal.
8. The one who presided over a Passover meal explained the meaning of each food. This custom is seemingly reflected in Jesus’ comments on the bread and wine, identifying them as symbols of His body and blood.
9. Before departing from the table, Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn. It was customary at the end of the Passover meal to sing Psalms 115 through 118.

In our further discussion, we will draw evidence from the Gospel texts verifying that the meal indeed had most of these features.

Some might wonder how Jesus and the disciples could have construed the Last Supper as a Passover meal if it was missing the most essential food—a lamb slain hours before at the Temple. The answer offered by Harold Hoehner and some other scholars was that the Galileans used a calendar which started each month at the sunrise preceding the sunset that marked its beginning on the official Jewish calendar.¹¹ As a result, they believed that the proper times for slaying a lamb and sharing a Passover meal fell a day earlier than was customary in the nation as a whole. Yet any lamb placed on their table was indeed slain at the Temple. The priests accepted it as a sacrifice even though they did not agree with Galilean practice of the festival. Hoehner's theory founders on three considerations.¹²

1. There is not the slightest evidence that the Galileans used such a calendar.
2. Such a calendar would have been impossible to manage, since, unlike the official calendar which defined the beginning of the first day as the sunset leading to sighting of a new moon, it could not link the first sunrise to any obvious celestial event.
3. There is no historical evidence that any group of Jews sacrificed Passover lambs before the fourteenth of Nisan by official reckoning.

The main point Jesus was making at the Last Supper was that He is the Paschal lamb. He is the fulfillment of all the pictures engraved upon Mosaic ceremonial law. What need did they have for the type when the antitype was in their midst? He wanted them to understand, moreover, that they were in a profound sense complying even with the law’s requirement to feast on the Paschal lamb. Later in the meal He informed them that when they partook of the bread, they were eating His body, and when they sipped the wine, they were drinking His blood. Incidentally, no mention of a lamb anywhere in the account of the Last Supper is further evidence that it took place on the evening before Passover.¹³

Getting the meal underway

When evening came (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:17), Jesus brought all twelve of His disciples into the city and led them to the upper room prepared for their gathering. If it was the same upper room where 120 followers of Christ took refuge during the week before Pentecost (Acts 1:12–15), it was likely a very spacious and private retreat in an upper-class villa. Church tradition says that this upper room was in the house of John Mark's family, the same Mark who wrote the Gospel bearing his name. A slight hint that the room was really in Mark's house comes from the fact that he gives us the fullest description (Mark 14:15).

After Jesus and the Twelve entered the Upper Room, they took their places for the coming meal. Since first-century Jews followed many of the customs pervasive elsewhere in the Empire, the consensus of scholars is that the dining furniture at the Last Supper was like the kind in general use among Romans as well as Greeks. The diners did not sit on chairs. Rather, they all reclined on couches or divans, each large enough to hold three people comfortably or a few more if necessary. Three of these couches, known collectively as a triclinium, were set on different sides of the same rectangle so that everyone could, by lying forward, face the center.¹⁴ The fourth side was left free of couches so that servants could easily furnish the meal and attend to everyone's needs.

The posture assumed by Jesus and His disciples at the table is clearly specified by the Gospel writers. When Matthew tells us that Jesus "sat down" and when Mark tells us that they all "sat," the word is αναϰειμαι (Matt. 26:20; Mark 14:18), which means "recline."¹⁵ When Luke tells us that he "sat down," the word is αναπιπτω (Luke 22:14), which means "lie down."¹⁶ All the men were probably lying on cushions with their weight shifted somewhat onto their left sides while they ate with their right hands. Their bodies extended outward from the inner rectangle and perhaps slanted to the right so that upon each couch, the head of each person (except the last in clockwise rotation) was near the breast of the person on his left side.

Where was the food placed? Arrangements varied. In some homes, servants could walk into the space enclosed by the triclinium. There they generally found one or more small tables where they could set large containers. From these they could transfer a portion of food and drink to any diner either by giving it to him directly or by setting it on a low, narrow platform that ran under the inside edge of the three couches. In other homes a low table filled the whole space in the middle.¹⁷ The arrangement at the Last Supper is hardly in doubt, since Jesus on this occasion referred specifically to a table in their midst where anyone present could lay his hands (Luke 22:21). It is of course possible that the table was somewhat indented on the side accessed by servants.

Placement of diners

It was an established custom that, from the perspective of someone approaching the open side of the table, the master of the feast, the host, reclined in the middle of the left side, probably because that place was best for observing all guests as well as all servants in attendance. Presumably that was Jesus' position.¹⁸

There is no doubt that the person to the right of Jesus was John, for according to John's own account of the feast, he was "leaning on Jesus' bosom" (John 13:23). His words may have been a conventional figure of speech describing a place immediately to the right of another guest, or perhaps John actually rested on a cushion supported by Jesus.

Among the Romans, the place to the left of the host was known as locus consularis because it was reserved for his counselor.¹⁹ The person in that position, next to the host's back as he reclined, could easily whisper to him confidentially. The Gospel accounts leave little doubt that this was the location of Judas, because in the course of the meal, Jesus personally handed him a piece of food: specifically, a sop that He had dipped into sauce (John 13:25–26). We conclude that since John was immediately to the right of Jesus, Judas must have been the man immediately to his left. Yet John was still able to speak to Jesus in such a way that not even Judas could hear him.

It was customary to position the remaining guests in a manner reflecting their social rank. The farther away a guest was situated in the sequence of places going leftward from the host, the more important he was. Highest honor therefore belonged to the person in front on the right side.²⁰ It was the place of highest honor because all diners faced slightly to the right. Therefore, the last diner in clockwise rotation had the best view of everyone else and was also in the best position to receive the host's attention. We are not certain who the occupant was during the Last Supper, but perhaps, because he was leader of the Twelve, it was Peter. We do know that when Peter wanted to convey a secret question to Jesus, he "beckoned" to John (John 13:24), a realistic scenario if they were positioned directly across from each other.

The significance of the place to the right of the host varied. In mixed company it might be where he would see his wife. She would, as it were, recline on his bosom. In a company of men, the same place might be taken by a son or dear friend. A common belief among Bible students has always been, based on a tradition that John outlived Jesus by perhaps sixty years, that John was the youngest of the disciples. He was, by virtue of age and warmth of relationship, like an actual son of Jesus.

Many modern Christians have a picture of Passover celebration based largely on what happened when it was first instituted (Exod. 12:3–12). They therefore suppose that normally it was confined to a single family. But according to Josephus, the company partaking of a paschal lamb numbered ten men or perhaps as many as twenty.²¹ It was necessary to have a large group in order to consume the entire lamb. The gathering of thirteen men from many different families to share the Last Supper was therefore nothing extraordinary.

Stages in the meal

Jewish tradition imagines that an ancient Passover meal strictly followed a lengthy series of rituals, as follows.

1. A benediction was pronounced.
2. Everyone drank a cup of wine.
3. While reciting a prayer, the master of the feast (generally the host) passed a basin of water and the whole company washed their hands.
4. Bitter herbs were dipped in sauce, consecrated with words of blessing spoken by the host, distributed, and eaten.
5. A piece of unleavened bread was likewise blessed by the host and shared by the whole company.
6. The lamb and other portions of the meal were brought in.
7. After another benediction was pronounced, more bitter herbs were eaten by the company.
8. After each person's cup was filled again with wine, participants recited questions and answers about the origin of the feast. Ordinarily, a child would ask the questions and the master of the feast would answer them. Afterward, everyone drank the wine in his cup.
9. Everyone sang the first part of the hymn known as the Hallel (Ps. 113, 114), which was followed by a benediction.
10. The master of the feast washed his hands and served everyone a sop made by wrapping a bit of lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs and dipping it in the same sauce.
11. The company ate as much food as they wanted and finished with a piece of lamb.
12. After washing hands, everyone drank a third cup of wine.
13. They all sang the second part of the Hallel (Ps. 115-118).
14. In conclusion, they drank a fourth cup of wine.²²

Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that a Passover meal in Jesus' day conformed exactly to this sequence of rituals.²³ It is generally agreed that after the first century, a customary Seder (Passover meal) added many new details.²⁴ In his definitive study The Origins of the Seder, Baruch Bokser wrote that the Mishnah's conception of a proper observance represents "the need to overcome the loss of the temple."²⁵ The Mishnah was a rabbinical writing compiled in about AD 200 that laid out all the rules and obligations that had to be met by anyone desiring to be considered a good Jew.²⁶ It set standards for Passover celebration that Jews still respect. But at the time of the Last Supper, the same standards did not prevail. Moreover, Jesus followed the steps of observance customary in His day only if they were compatible with what He was seeking to accomplish at His final meeting with the Twelve. Yet overall, what happened was close enough to familiar practice that, in the eyes of the disciples, it seemed to be a true Passover meal.

What way of conducting this meal was familiar in Jesus' day? In his work The Hebrew Passover, published by Oxford University, J. B. Segal argues that in documents older than the Synoptic Gospels, we have scanty information about any changes in the customary way of celebrating the Passover meal. Available sources do not permit us to know for certain whether new elements were added or old ones forsaken. Yet he believes that the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper give what is likely a true picture of how the meal was celebrated in Jesus' day.²⁷ He infers from these accounts that a typical meal had the following elements:

1. It "opened with food other than bread."
2. "The 'sop' was dipped in the common bowl."
3. "The bread was broken and the wine drunk; this was not the order of the service on Sabbath and on the other festivals. The wine is likely to have been red, and perhaps new."
4. "The service ended in hymns."²⁸

Since a Passover meal in Jesus' day probably lacked many ritualistic details that became the norm in later centuries, we will largely confine our discussion of the Last Supper to words and conduct explicitly mentioned in the Gospels. We will not imagine that the meal included anything else unless it had a basis in Old Testament law.

For example, before celebration of the first Passover meal, God told the nation that it should consist of three foods (Exod. 12:5, 8): lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. Although the Gospels do not say that bitter herbs were eaten at the Last Supper, we will assume that they were the food dipped in the common bowl. Yet we will not assume that any lamb was served. It was missing because the Last Supper fell on the evening before Passover lambs were slaughtered at the Temple. Later we will show what food took its place.

In the first celebration of Passover, each man was commanded to eat the food with his "loins girded" (that is, with the bottom of his robe pulled up and tucked into his belt so he could move faster), with shoes on his feet, and with a staff in his hand (Exod. 12:11). God wanted the men to be prepared in mind and dress for the grueling journey that would soon begin. Yet this requirement was not included when, shortly afterward, the Lord told the nation how to celebrate Passover in the future (Exod. 12:41–51). Nor is this requirement mentioned in the law of Moses (Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:1–14; Deut. 16:1–8). Nor is there any evidence that it was ever observed at any Passover celebration after the first, placed on the night before Israel fled from Egypt.²⁹ Nor do the Gospel accounts give us any suggestion that Jesus at the Last Supper required His disciples to make themselves look like men at the original Passover meal. Yet we will see that among Jesus' words after the Last Supper, He counseled them on how to prepare for the hazardous journeys they soon would undertake in His service (Luke 22:35–38). Since their coming exploits amidst trouble and danger would echo the difficult march of Israelite men during the exodus, we may not altogether dismiss the possibility that to emphasize the parallel, He instructed them before the Last Supper to participate with shoes on their feet, a staff in their hands, and their loins girded.

Despite our overall policy of refraining from filling out our picture of the Last Supper with details missing from the Gospel record, we will make a few exceptions. We have already argued that seating at the table probably followed Jewish custom at times of formal dining. It is also likely that the Last Supper, like Passover meals today, included many prayers and blessings.

The handwashing which has come to have a prominent place in the Seder probably derives from one of the most fanatical convictions of the ancient Pharisees. They insisted on elaborate rituals of self-washing with water to rid themselves of uncleanness.³⁰ One reason perhaps is that they did not use forks and spoons. They used their hands to transfer food to their mouths. Yet when they severely criticized Jesus' disciples for failure to wash their hands before eating bread, Jesus rebuked them as hypocrites (Matt. 15:1–20). He said that instead of having so much zeal for outward cleanliness, they should attend to their acute need for inward cleanliness, achieved only by genuine obedience to the law of God. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts do we read that He encouraged His disciples to eat their meals with clean hands. Therefore, we may not assume that handwashing was included at the Last Supper. Perhaps it was, if it was a well-established tradition, but perhaps it was not.

Introductory remarks

Upon entry into the upper room with His disciples, Jesus probably gave first attention to showing them their proper places at the table. Then Jesus took His own place in their midst. Then He said,

With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until the kingdom of God shall come.

Luke 22:15

No explanation for eating the Passover with His disciples was necessary if the meal was being celebrated at the usual time and in the usual manner. Something out of the ordinary is clearly indicated here.³¹

Probably next, Jesus gave His disciples a larger perspective on what was about to happen.

For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:16

Yes, it would truly be a Passover meal, but it would also be their last time of precious fellowship together, for afterward would come His suffering and death. So far, He was reminding them of what they should have already known. But then He spoke words that must have added a new dimension to their understanding. He said that a time would eventually come when He would eat a Passover meal again, for He would reinstitute the festival of Passover after He returned in glory to set up His kingdom upon the earth.

First cup of wine

In the centuries after the death of Christ, Jewish celebration of Passover settled into a fixed sequence of rituals that included drinking four cups of wine. Yet wine was apparently not included in the Passover meal when it was first introduced. There is no mention of it in any Old Testament account of the meal's observance. The first record of wine drinking at the meal appears in the Book of Jubilees,³² written before 105 BC.³³ Segal suggests that wine was added because it had become a usual feature of meals at festive gatherings of family and friends.³⁴

Luke's account of the Last Supper is unique in informing us that the meal included two cups of wine. No other account speaks of more than one. He places the first right after Jesus' introductory remarks (Luke 22:15–17), then parenthetically refers to a second, calling it the "cup after supper" (Luke 22:20).

The first was a single cup that was passed around the table to furnish all the disciples with a sip of wine. No Gospel writer suggests that each disciple drank from his own cup. Luke says, literally, "And having received a cup, . . . , he said, 'Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves" (Luke 22:17).³⁵ It appears that the second cup of wine was also one shared by all, for Mark says, literally, "And having taken the cup, . . . he gave to them, and they drank of it [singular]" (Mark 14:23).³⁶

Later in the meal, Jesus informed His disciples that the main portions of their food and drink had larger significance. The bread was intended to picture His body and the wine, His blood. The symbolic meaning possessed by these elements of the Last Supper illuminates many details of the event. Because the wine signified blood, all portions consumed were undoubtedly red rather than white. Although the Babylonian Talmud recommends that wine be mixed with water before it is served at meals,³⁷ its symbolic meaning at the Last Supper suggests that it was undiluted. No doubt one reason that Jesus had them drink from the same cup was to show their unity as believers enlivened by the blood as well as by the body of Christ.

From Jesus' usual practice, we can also be confident that the wine was unfermented. The Jews knew several ways of keeping wine fresh and thus free of alcohol. "After the grape harvest, jars containing the pressed juice were stored in caves or wells where the temperature was low enough to inhibit fermentation, which occurs only within a certain temperature range, the lower limit being about 45°F."³⁸ Yet Jesus knew that in the coming centuries, many churches that celebrated the rite variously known as communion and Eucharist would have no compunction against fermented wine. Therefore, to minimize all the evil side-effects of churches giving their people fermented wine at communion, Jesus limited the amount to small sips.

After distributing the wine, Jesus gave His disciples the first hint as to its larger meaning.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Luke 22:17-18

As He did a few minutes earlier (vv. 15–16), He prophesied that He would never partake of Passover food again until the kingdom of God had supplanted all the defective and doomed kingdoms of fallen man. But this time as He pointed to His death soon, He gave them red wine to drink. The most thoughtful among them might have begun to grasp the deeper message in Jesus' words. The red wine being distributed by this man about to die pictured His own shed blood.

Footwashing

During the Last Supper, Jesus rose from the table, girded Himself with a towel, and went around to wash the feet of each disciple (John 13:1–11). Exactly where this footwashing fell in the order of events has always been an unsettled question. The only clue that John provides lies in his comment setting the time as, "And supper being ended" (v. 2 in KJV). But this translation is very misleading. A more accurate rendering is, "And supper taking place,"³⁹ wording that merely sets the footwashing during the meal. This inference is confirmed by the author's further comment that in order to accomplish His task, Jesus "riseth from supper" (v. 4). Some scholars have assumed that He chose to wash everyone's feet at what is now the usual time for the first washing of hands—that is, after the first cup of wine and before the first course of the meal.⁴⁰ Perhaps, but it seems more likely that He performed this humble, even self-sacrificing, service at the very beginning of the meal as a way of introducing His disciples to its larger significance. We will show that the whole meal would picture Jesus' self-sacrifice not only for His disciples, but also for the entire world.

Placement of footwashing soon after they gathered indoors was in line with Jewish custom. After traveling roads and streets in Jesus' day, feet shod only in sandals were dirty, and the Jews as well as many other ancient peoples did not want feet and sandals polluted by mire and garbage and animal dung to come into their homes. Therefore, the ordinary practice of anyone entering a house was to remove his footware and undergo footwashing. He might wash his own feet, but more often the task fell to the lowest ranking person among the greeters—generally, if available, to a servant or slave.

Yet footwashing may not have been done as often as many students of Jewish history assume. When Jesus was invited to eat with Simon the Pharisee, no one washed the Lord's feet when He came into Simon's house, nor was He given water to wash His own feet (Luke 7:44). Perhaps Simon was afraid of treating Jesus in any fashion that might be seen as a token of respect for His claim to be God's mouthpiece.

Footwashing may not have been universal for another reason as well. People like the Twelve were not always careful to meet standards of cleanliness. In every human culture, a group of virile, tough-fibered men caught up in a mission demanding hard work or hard travel may not view keeping clean as a high priority. Jesus' disciples, for example, were, as we have seen, severely criticized by the Pharisees for not washing their hands before eating.

Therefore, we need not assume that when Peter and John went to the upper room and prepared for a Passover meal, they made arrangements for footwashing. Yet, on the other hand, it seems that they did, for the water, basin, and towel that Jesus needed to wash the disciples' feet were readily available. The most likely scenario is that all their preparations were in fulfillment of Jesus' instructions. He had probably told them that when they met with the houseowner and made necessary plans, they should inform him that Jesus wanted the houseowner's servants to prepare and serve the meal, but not to wash the disciples' feet.

After Jesus and His disciples entered the upper room, He did not have them wait inside the door for footwashing before they went further. Instead, He probably gestured that they should proceed to find their places at the table. Then, after they were reclining in comfort and He had distributed the first cup of wine, He rose to perform the task Himself. To accomplish it, He took up a basin full of water and a towel to wipe their feet.

The first disciple He approached was Peter (v. 6). That he was first in line agrees with what we inferred earlier about his location at the table. The first seat on the side opposite to Jesus would have been a natural place for Him to begin as He toured the whole group of disciples. When Peter saw Jesus approach with towel and water basin, he asked incredulously whether Jesus intended to wash his feet (v. 6). Jesus' answer must have left Peter wholly puzzled. He said that although Peter did not know then what Jesus was doing, he would know "hereafter" (v. 7). When we read further along in John's account, we learn that indeed, as soon as Jesus had washed the feet of all the disciples, He explained the larger significance in His act of humble service.

Peter's response was to raise a protest. He refused to let Jesus wash someone's else's dirty feet, thereby lowering Himself to the level of a mere servant with no right to command respect or obedience (v. 8). Jesus overcame his resistance by giving him a simple choice. Either he would let Jesus wash his feet or he would be disowned as Jesus' disciple (v. 8).

The threat completely altered Peter's outlook. Not only did he want to have his feet washed; he wanted his hands and his head to be washed as well (v. 9). No doubt with a gentle voice expressing pleasure at Peter's response, Jesus answered that a washing of all exposed skin was hardly necessary for someone who had recently received a thorough cleansing. Walking about afterward did not add dirt to any part of the body except the feet (v. 10). Although what Peter said was very commendable, it stood in sad contrast to what he would say the very next morning, when he would thrice deny that he knew Jesus.

The thorough cleansing that Jesus referred to was salvation. Any sinner who has come to Christ and obtained forgiveness for his sinful condition needs no further forgiveness except for the sin that he picks up as he walks through a dirty world. Jesus then added His divine appraisal of the disciples gathered around Him. He said that they were all clean with one exception (v. 10). He meant that the hearts of all but one of the disciples were free of unrepented sin. In the course of the supper that evening, the person He was defining as unclean revealed Himself by setting out to commit the most horrific of all sins—the betrayal of the very person who with divine love had offered to make him sinless (v. 11). The hopelessly evil man was Judas.

The intended lesson

After completing the task of washing everyone's feet, Jesus put on the garments He had removed and returned to His place at the table (v. 12). He then revealed the vital lesson that He wanted them to draw from His selfless act. It was that they also should wash each other's feet. What He had done was intended as an example of behavior pleasing to God. He was no less than their Lord and Master because He was God Almighty (v. 13). Yet He had condescended to wash the feet of mere human beings who live in this world for an eyeblink of time on an eternal scale and who, in comparison to divine omnipotence, are as weak as beetles and bunnies. Therefore, He had demolished anyone's prideful reluctance to wash the feet of a fellow believer who seemed lower on the social or spiritual ladder (vv. 14–17).

A prominent theme of Jesus' ministry from the beginning had been the nature of true greatness. He taught that the prerequisite for high standing in the kingdom of God is to assume a place which is "last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Moreover, He said, "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" (Matt. 20:27). Jesus returned frequently to the same teaching during the closing months of His ministry. For example, on His final journey to Jerusalem, after James and John had approached Him to request a high rank in His kingdom (Mark 10:35–40), He exhorted the disciples that only by living as the servant of all could they become chief among them (Mark 10:41-45).

Yet a self-effacing lifestyle is the avenue not only to true greatness, but also to true happiness (John 13:17). In pursuit of joy, sinful man imagines that he will find it only by increasing his possessions and gratifying his fleshly lusts. But the avenue he chooses will lead not to happiness but to frustration, emptiness, loneliness, death, and divine wrath, whereas a faithful disciple of Christ who devotes himself to loving service on behalf of others will find himself basking forever in the center of divine love.

Jesus' treatment of Judas

Notice that Judas was among those whose feet Jesus washed with self-effacing kindness, even though He knew that Judas would soon leave to betray Him. He was giving this wayward disciple a last chance to turn away from an insane scheme to gain a little extra cash. Jesus' simple kindness toward His chief enemy among men was an example of humble love par excellence. It was an example that He expected us to follow. How do you react when men wrong you with evil words? Do you strike back like a snake, delivering venom with your tongue, or do you make your tongue an instrument that returns good for evil? Even under the greatest provocation, the tongue should be a fountain of blessing, not cursing. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44).

Think of the last incident in your life when someone brought you to grief. Did you bless your enemy? Did he hear you bless him? Are you blessing him now in your heart, or are you nurturing bitterness? Bitter thoughts yield bitter words, words which in their essence are curses.

Of course, to have a spirit of blessing and forgiveness when you are hurt does not mean that you must go around all bubbly, with a grin for everybody you meet. To hide emotional pain under a smiley face is not possible unless your emotions are shallow or you are good at putting on a show. But even in the midst of inner suffering, you can let people see that trouble has not destroyed your joy as a heaven-bound child of God (Gal. 5:22), and you can be kind to your enemy. You can even take opportunities to minister to his needs.

Again we must say that our example is Jesus. He not only washed Judas’s feet at the Last Supper, but also later, when Judas led a mob through the dark to arrest Jesus and identified the targeted man by greeting Him with a kiss, Jesus responded by calling Judas "friend" (Matt. 26:50). But I do not think for a moment that Jesus spoke the word with a smile on His face. No doubt His face showed grief at Judas’s decision to throw his life away. To feel hurt by someone is not a sin. The sin is to hate him.