Run in such a way as to get the prize
1 Co 9:24–27
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last for ever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
Key-point writing and instant speech in free style
Mark 10:42-45
Science Student, UNSW
[hana-flv-player video=”https://comnc.org/files/VS_Morphy.flv” width=”600″ height=”450″ description=”Science Student, UNSW” player=”5″ autoload=”true” autoplay=”false” loop=”false” autorewind=”true” /]
Business Student, UNSW
[hana-flv-player video=”https://comnc.org/files/VS_Lucinda.flv” width=”600″ height=”450″ description=”Business Student, UNSW” player=”5″ autoload=”true” autoplay=”false” loop=”false” autorewind=”true” /]
Upcoming Events
Good Friday Day Trip
Easter Camp 2015
Come & See Student Preacher (Engineering, UNSW)
The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)
[hana-flv-player video=”https://www.comnc.org/files/Ter_Talent.flv” width=”384″ height=”288″ description=”UNSW Student Preachers Series: The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)” player=”5″ autoload=”true” autoplay=”false” loop=”false” autorewind=”false” /]
Trust God
John 14:1-3
As shown in the previous chapters, the departure of Jesus was near
(John 12:35, John 13:33).
John 14 begins with a strong prohibition, a negative imperative which
carries the meaning of “Do not let your hearts be overcome with turmoil”
or perhaps, more colloquially, “Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by
the situation.” This statement is immediately followed by a call to evidence
(= make evident) confidence through the double use of “trust”. [1]
Jesus knew that his little band could and would be shaken not only by his
words concerning his departure but also by the fact that he would soon
become the crucified Lamb. Accordingly, he called for them to place their
“trust” not in the power evident in the world but in God and in himself.
This direct linkage between God and Jesus has been a fundamental
assertion of John, since he identified the Word with God
(John 1:1–2) and later Jesus with the Father (John 5:17–30). [1]
See v2.
The reason the disciples should be able to evidence trust is because Jesus
was going to provide preparation for them. That preparation is outlined in
the metaphor of the “Father’s house”, which undoubtedly refers to the
domain of God. That domain is described as being subdivided into
many mansions. [1]
See v3.
Clearly the details of the place are not mentioned, but the idea that
Christians will dwell with their Lord is extremely significant. [1]
References
[1] Borchert, G. L. (2002). John 12–21 (Vol. 25B, p. 103). Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial
John 13:31–38
This paragraph is considered as the 1st unit of farewell speeches as Jesus’ departure was coming closer.
Verses 31–38 are a kind of summation to the introduction of the Farewell Cycle, which is in four parts: (1) the glorification of Jesus (John 13:31–32), (2) the shortness of the time and the impossibility of following Jesus (John 13:33), (3) the new commandment to the community (John 13:34–35), and (4) the post-Passover possibility of following and Peter’s misunderstanding (John 13: 36–38). [1]
- The Glorification of Jesus (John 13:31–32)
As stated in chap. 12, the reader is here once again reminded by the use of “now” that the “hour” for the glorification of the “Son of Man” had arrived (cf. John 12:23). [1]
But beyond the “now” statement, the text continues to expand on the idea of glorification by indicating that “God is glorified in him.” It is probably best understood as “God has revealed his glory in Jesus.”[4] Indeed, if one remembers that Jesus was acting as God’s agent, then it should be clear that in the legal sense God is clearly to be understood to receive the benefit of any action undertaken by his representative on earth. [1]
The expansion of the idea of glorification in v. 32 may on first glance seem to be confusing double-talk. Nevertheless, the significance of the verse is that it presents the obverse side of the coin of v. 31. Not only is God glorified in the process but the Son is glorified in the Father’s glorification, and that glorification is an immediate one. [1]
This glorification does not require the coming of the end of time and the final victory. The glorification idea employed here is directly related to the obedience of the Son in the crucifixion and the subsequent resurrection. To see God’s act of glorification through the tragedy of the death of the Messiah and the victorious resurrection is a crucial aspect of the Gospel presentation. The drama of the divine reversal in history is the message of John and a basic summation thesis that is presented. [1]
- The Shortness of Time and the Impossibility of Following Jesus (John 13:33)
Addressing the disciples with the loving diminutive “little children”, used only here in the Gospel, the evangelist in the second place assumes the role of the teacher-parent similar to that of the writer of the First Epistle of John (1 John 2:1, 28; 1 John 3:7, 18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21) when he was speaking to the Christians. Jewish teachers often addressed their learners with such kind and gentle designations. [1]
The statement that follows the address consists of several parts. First, Jesus tells the disciples that he will be with them only for a “longer.” The shortness of time is thus highlighted here as in John 16:16. Second, the disciples are told here that they like the Jews would seek him and not be able to join him (John 7:34; John 8:21). That statement definitely created perplexity for the hostile Jews in the Festival Cycle as they sought to determine whether Jesus was going to the Diaspora (John 7:35) or going to commit suicide (John 8:22). But in this cycle the idea of Jesus’ departure was equally perplexing for the disciples (John 16:17), even though they do not ultimately remain perplexed. The basic thesis here then is that the disciples had to face realistically that Jesus’ time with them would be short, and that they could not join him in his Passover mission of death. [1]
- The Giving of the New Commandment to the Community (John 13:34–35)
In the present verses the focus is upon the community that Jesus will establish as a result of his Passover departure. Its distinctive quality was to be marked by a new commandment. Like the previous summation statements (John 13:31–32), which are related to other parts of John (John 12), this statement is clearly related to verses in the central passage of the farewell (John 15:12–13), where the commandment to love is reasserted. [1]
In the establishment of communities, one of the principle factors of success is the establishing of boundaries for action, which we call laws. These laws are based on community or national covenants, whether stated or unstated. These covenants that lie behind the laws, rules, or commands are absolutely crucial. Understanding underlying covenants is crucial to perceiving the significance of laws or commands. [1]
Thus, to understand the ten so-called commandments of Exodus 20 one must realize that they do not start with v. 3, “no other gods.” The Ten Commandments start with the presupposition of a covenant based on the liberating act of God in bringing the people out of Egypt, the house of bondage, as it is described in v. 2. It is only when one understands the foundational liberating act of God for Israel that one recognizes the responsibility to obey the divine commands. To forget the covenant is to set the commands in a sea of meaninglessness. Rules have to be contextualized to have meaning. [1]
So it is with the new commandment of John 13:34. The commandment to love one another has almost no meaning apart from its contextual presupposition, “I have loved you.” It is like commanding people to have no other gods who have not understood the meaning or accepted the exodus for themselves. Their question, “Why should I obey?” is perfectly legitimate until they recognize that the exodus is a paradigm for them as well. In the same manner, to ask people to love one another is pointless if they have not understood the love of Jesus in his Passover death for them, alluded to in the two previous summary thesis statements. Such love becomes philosophically a nice ideal without any root in reality. You can legislate “no discrimination” in the workplace based on a covenant of mutual respect, but you cannot make people love one another without the acceptance of the covenant foundation of the self-giving love of God for the world. [1]
The acceptance of God’s self-giving love for the people of the world, including each one of us as recipients of that love (John 3:16), and the obedient response in a derivative love enables “all people” (not merely men) to recognize the accepter as a disciple of Jesus (John 13:35). This way of loving one another is not to be interpreted exclusively as my little in-group (as it was by many Jews). Instead, it was to be understood as breathtakingly explosive of old relationships and old patterns of obedience in the way it was pointedly presented in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7 and particularly John 5:43–48; cf. also 1 John 4:7–21). These two verses of John (John 13:31-32) thus encapsulate the coming of the new era and the new community. This new community, in fact, epitomized God’s consistent intention in the Old Testament of calling out a people who are to be recognized by their love for God (Deuteronomy 6:4–5) and their love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) just as Jesus spelled out his model in the Sermon on the Mount. Likewise, in his first epistle (1 John 3:1–18) John articulated the fact that this new community of believers was expected to love one another (3:11) and not act like the evil Cain (3:12) because God had loved them and accepted them as his children (3:1–2). That thesis is basic to this Gospel. [1]
- The Post-Passover Possibility of Following Jesus and Peter’s Misunderstanding (John 13:36–38)
The final summation is played out not in monologue but in a dialogue between Jesus and Peter. This dialogue masterfully knits together several ideas or themes, some of which are not unlike elements in the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus and Peter. [1]
Almost as though he had missed the significance of the establishment of the new community and its mission to the world, Peter here is pictured as returning to the issue of Jesus’ departure (13:33) by his question, “Where are you going?” Jesus’ response repeats the fact that Peter is unable to follow Jesus, but he adds something new. That change did not negate the earlier statement of Jesus to the effect that Peter was not able to join him in his Passover death. Only Jesus could die such a death for the world. [1]
But the change in the statement was here possible because, with the coming of a new community that would follow the example of Jesus, a new element had been introduced in vv. 34–35. The “now” of v. 36, however, reminds one of the “now” of v. 31, which is related to the glorification of Jesus in his death and resurrection. Clearly Peter was not now able to join Jesus in that glorification, but his time would come in the era of the new community (“later”). Jesus’ prediction reminds the reader of the statements in 21:18–19, where Peter’s death as a glorifying of God is also predicted. [1]
Unfortunately Peter misunderstood the implications of Jesus’ words and assumed that the present (“now”) also was his time. In the context of his present safe community Peter forcefully enunciated his loyalty to Jesus by boastfully proclaiming his readiness to “lay down” his life for Jesus. Peter’s statement here is filled with irony [2]. Instead of Peter, however, Jesus was the one who freely (John. 10:18) was prepared in the “now” time to lay down his life for his sheep (John 10:15, 17; 1 John 3:16) just as he laid down his garments in the foot washing for his disciples (John 13:4). [1]
Peter, on the other hand, would in the moment of trauma not lay down his life for Jesus but in fact would deny him three times (John 13:38; John 18:17, 25–27). Jesus’ repetition here in question form of the very words of Peter highlights the irony in Peter’s words and sets the stage not only for the threefold denial of Peter but also for the threefold searing questions posed to Peter in the post-Passover period during the establishing of the community (John 21:15–17). The crowing of the cock later became the electrifying sign that was used to remind Peter of his well-intentioned but mistaken boast. [1]
In this passage (36), Peter’s first question, “Where are you going?” recalls the Latin tradition in the apocryphal Acts of Peter that when Peter was fearful of his forthcoming death and was fleeing Rome, he was met in a vision by Jesus, and Peter asked again, “Quo vadis?” (“Where are you going?”). When Jesus answered that he was going to Rome to be crucified again, Peter realized that he was about to repeat his mistake and in repentance turned back to face his certain death after the pattern of Jesus. [3]
Whether there is any truth in that apocryphal tradition, it is a story that vividly reminds us of this fourth thesis in the summation. Although no one could walk the lonely valley of redemption with Jesus, the disciples of Jesus do have the opportunity to follow their Lord, if they do not mistake their calling. [1]
References
[1] Borchert, G. L. (2002). John 12–21 (Vol. 25B, pp. 97–98). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[2] Duke, P. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
[3] Brown, R., K. Donfried, and J. Reumann, eds. Peter in the New Testament. Minneapolis/New York: Augsburg/Paulist, 1973.
[4]G. B. Caird, “The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics,” NTS 15 (1968–1969): 265–77.
Jesus Predicts His Betrayal
John 13:18 – 30 (English Standard Version)
18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ 19 I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
21 After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. 23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side, 24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. 25 So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” 28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. 29 Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30 So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.
See v18.
18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’
“I know whom I have chosen.”
His selection of Judas was not an accident or a failure in God’s plan. Jesus chose a betrayer among His 12 disciples (John 6:70–71) in order to fulfill the Scripture, namely, Psalm 41:9. As David was betrayed by his trusted table companion Ahithophel, who then hanged himself (2 Samuel 16:20–17:3, 23), so Judas, Jesus’ close companion, betrayed Him and then hanged himself. Though Judas’ deed was foreknown by God, he was fully culpable. [2]
“He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.” has been quoted from Psalm 41:9 (ESV).
9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted,
who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.
The long-term sharing of bread in the Middle East context was normally interpreted as referring either to a family member or a permanent guest at the table. To eat at one’s table was regarded as a symbol of acceptance growing out of the ancient camp context where acceptance of a stranger into the camp was symbolized by the sharing of a meal. To lift up the heel in a culture where displaying the bottom of the foot has been regarded as a breach of honor, especially after one had enjoyed acceptance at the meal, was the epitome of shaming the host and the equivalent to being a traitorous scoundrel. [1]
See v19. The fact that Jesus predicted accurately for his disciples what was going to take place means that he fit fully the requirement for the identification of a legitimate prophet according to the test established in Deuteronomy 18:21. Moreover, the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction was to be understood by his disciples as a confirmation of his identity and mission. [1]
See v20.
20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
Here, the point is that the disciples as a community of faith are to be viewed as belonging to the intimate relationship of Jesus with the Father.
See v21. Here, we see that the betrayal of Judas caused Jesus troubled in His spirit. He was overwhelmed by sorrow. No one wants to face unjust, cruel & imminent death, especially by the betrayal of a friend. I can see how sad Jesus would be. The Savior sent for us by God was experiencing injustice and sorrow when He deserved Novel Peace prize.
See v22.
22 The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.
That anyone in this close fellowship could do this to Jesus was almost beyond comprehension. Judas had covered his tracks so well that none of the others suspected him.[2]
In v23 – 26, Peter motioned to Disciple John to ask Jesus who the betrayer is. So Jesus answered to John that He would give the morsel to that person. And it was given to Judas Iscariot.
After Judas had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him (27a).
“Satan entered into him” is one of the most terrible expressions in the Scriptures. Satan now used Judas as his tool to accomplish his will.[2]
Note that it was not a devil but Satan. From this moment, what Judas would do was Satanic because Satan overtook him.The war was taking place between Jesus and Satan.
Giving the morsel to Judas was an uncaught sign of recognition to John, but it was also the Lord’s final extension of grace to Judas. Hosts giving a morsel of bread to a guest was a sign of friendship. How ironic that Jesus’ act of friendship to Judas signaled Judas’ betrayal of friendship. [2]
See v27b. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”
Jesus asked Judas to go ahead because Judas’ heart was stubbornly refusing to do the right thing.
Similarly Jesus said in Matthew 23:32 (NIV).
32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!
Jesus knew not only Judas was a betrayer but also where his plan was up to. And Jesus was not just a victim of betrayal but in control to obey God’s will and fulfill the Scripture.
The command to go on is but the echo of that mysterious appointment by which the sinner in the exercise of his own corrupted will becomes the instrument of the purposes of God. [3]
See v28.
28 Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him.
Disciples didn’t know that Judas had discussed with the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard how to betray Jesus (Luke 22:4) and intended to hand Him over to their hands that night. Judas could deceive human beings. But Jesus knew all. No one can hide from God. We’d better live before God than man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7a). We have limited knowledge and understanding. So, Proverbs 3:5, 6 says
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will direct your paths.
Some of Disciples thought Judas was asked to buy something for the feast or give something to the poor (29).
They did not think anything but good of Judas. [2]
As far as the disciples knew, Judas was a follower of Jesus, as strong in his commitment as any of them. That is one reason why Jesus warned in Matthew 13:24-30 that we should be careful about trying to point out the difference between the wheat and the weeds. [4]
In v30, Judas went out but it was night; the time was too late for buying something. Also ‘night’ has spiritual indication as below.
Judas was leaving the Light (John 8:12; John 12:35, 46) and going out into the darkness of sin (John 3:19) [2]. Judas went out into a spiritual night to accomplish the work of darkness [3].
References
[1] Borchert, G. L. (2002). John 12–21 (Vol. 25B, p. 89). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[2] Blum, E. A. (1985). John. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 321). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[3] Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John (p. 414-5). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[4] Gangel, K. O. (2000). John (Vol. 4, p. 254). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet
John 13:1 – 17
See v1a. It was just before the Passover Festival. This Passover Festival was when Jesus would be sacrificed as the Lamb of God. What is the name of the Festival “Passover” originated from? When Moses asked Pharaoh to release Israelite in Slavery, he kept refusing. For every refusal, God punished him by sending a plague. The 10th plague was death of firstborn. But if door post was marked with the blood of lamb, the angel of death passed over the household without killing the firstborn. Israelite were saved from this plague through the blood of lamb. This is the origin of “Passover” Festival. Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29) whose blood marks believers’ heart.
See v1b. Here ‘the hour’ is that of Jesus’ departure from this world. In John 12:23, it was expressed as the coming of the hour of glorification.
This departure itself, that is, Jesus’ death for the world is the ultimate extent of love. Particularly here, this love was expressed for those in the world who belonged to Him. Jesus has been prepared by having dealt with His agony (John 12:27 – 28) and has now begun the preparation of the disciples for the death of the Passover Lamb of God (John 1:29, 19:14). [1]
The evening meal (2a) was the so-called “Last Supper”. The devil had thrown into the the heart the betraying of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon (2b). The devil had a part to play in Judas’s betrayal of Jesus.
The heart that is inspired by the devil wills what the devil wills[2] (cf. also John 13:18, 21, 27).
Then, is Judas not responsible for the betrayal?
Judas is clearly the responsible actor in the betrayal of Jesus and the devil is the one who inspires the evil heart. [1] In Genesis 3, the serpent that was the tempter, woman and man who were victims of temptation were all responsible and God judged each of them.
See v3. Jesus knew not only ‘the hour had come’ but also His authority, His origin and His goal or destiny. He had authority to forgive (Matthew 9:6). He had authority to execute judgment (John 5:27). The Word (Logos) was active in creation (John 1:3) and became flesh (John 1:14).
But given these divinely oriented attributes, what comes next is absolutely stunning. See v4 and v5. Instead of basking in the glow of power and authority, Jesus emptied or humbled himself and adopted the form of a servant (cf. Phil 2:7). As indicated in connection with the story of the Baptizer (John 1:27), touching feet was regarded as menial slave work and as such was primarily an assignment given to Gentile slaves and women. Students were responsible to rabbis or teachers to perform menial tasks of labor, but touching feet was clearly not expected. In a society that was very conscious of status symbols of shame and honor, such as the touching or washing of feet, was an extremely important matter. John the Baptizer had been unwilling to be categorized in the same context with Jesus, even as his lowest slave (John 1:27). He was viewed by the Disciple John as an ideal model of a witness. But here the lowly slave was God’s agent, the proclaimer of the key thesis to understanding the message of the Gospel, namely that Jesus is “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (1:29). [1]
But what is startling in this story is the vivid portrayal of the Messiah adopting a shameful/lowly posture in relation to his disciples. I know of no other example in the literature of the ancient world before the coming of Jesus where such a foot washing by a leader occurs. The Disciple John makes clear that Jesus intended that he should be viewed in the posture of such a slave by removing or “laying down” his “outer clothing”. Then he tied a towel around himself in the fashion of a slave and actually used that towel to wipe the feet of the disciples once he had washed them. The humbling or dishonoring symbolism is unmistakable. [1]
To get the full impact of this scene one should review the setting again. The text is not unrelated to the issue of ambition among the disciples, who wanted the chief seats in Jesus’ coming “kingdom” (Matt 20:21, Mark 10:37). And since it was the sons of Zebedee who were making the request, this idea of glory probably left an indelible impression on the Disciple John here and on all the disciples. These disciples undoubtedly had evidenced the human trait of ambition. Moreover, Peter was clearly convinced of his own ability to follow Jesus, as is indicated later in this chapter (John 13:37). And to complete the picture of the disciples, Judas had apparently already schemed the betrayal of Jesus (John 13:11, Mark 14:10–11, Luke 22:3–4). It was in this very human-centered context that Jesus adopted the totally different example of a humble servant to be the model for discipleship. [1]
The picture is made more intense when one understands that at the meal they were undoubtedly reclining (not sitting) with their heads facing the center and their feet stretched out behind them. They supported themselves on one elbow (primarily the left) and reached for food with the right hand. The participants at the meal could ignore the one washing their feet. [1]
See v6 – 9.
In v6, Peter expressed his sense of shock. “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Peter only thought this was shame for the teacher. And Peter didn’t understand its meaning. Jesus said that he would realize the significance of it later (7). Peter was convinced that he would never dishonor Jesus by having Him wash his feet (8a). Jesus answered with devastating “no part with me” statement. Peter’s response was extremely amusing. Peter probably thought it was kind of ritual to make him an heir of Kingdom of Jesus. So he asked Jesus to wash his hands and head as well (9).
What is the answer of Jesus? See v10.
10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
Believer or follower of Jesus is ‘bathed’ – they have repented & been forgiven.
‘feet’ is only area that requires attention if bathed because ‘feet’ get dirt easily while walking around, which requires care – but only possible to care if with humility.
Jesus said not every one of them were clean because they included a betrayer (10b, 11).
Jesus asked “Do you understand what I have done for you?” (v12). Jesus commanded “You also should wash one another’s feet.” (14b)
The foot washing of Jesus becomes in v14–15 the model for the disciples to follow. It is precisely because their Lord and Teacher was willing to adopt the humbling model of foot washing that Jesus’ disciples cannot treat humility as merely a nice idea that is unrelated to Christian life.[1]
This practice seems a humble, self-giving treatment of other people without regard to shame and honor codes of society. [1]
But the model of Jesus is not merely one of self-giving service to others epitomized in the foot washing. The model is, in fact, one that also represents the dying Lamb of God. Therefore the servant/follower of Jesus should realize that the self-giving washing of feet may be far more costly a calling than merely a matter involving a basin of water and a towel.[1]
There is His promise of blessing for doing them (17).
References
[1] Borchert, G. L. (2002). John 12–21 (Vol. 25B, pp. 76–77). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[2] A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1948),
