Exegetical Report / The Gospel of John, Chapter 13

by Chris A. Foreman on April1, 2003

for GGBTS  S2324-01, The Gospel of John (Online), Dr. Jay Y. Noh, Spring 2003

 

I.  Introductory Questions:  Was the evening meal a Passover meal?  Why (not)?  We cannot be 100% sure, but it seems like it is.  R talks about Nisan 14 and Nisan 15 as possible dates for these events, but then tilts toward Nisan 15.  The terms “preparation of the Passover” and “Sabbaths” leave enough ambiguity to allow for honest disagreement among scholars.  Time lining is complicated by the doctrine that Jesus spent 3 days in the grave, rising on Sunday morning.  Thursday rather than Friday does seem to fit this timetable better.  For us non-Jews, it is just as important to remember that the Jewish day began at sunset and ended at the next sunset.  This means that Nisan 15 began with the Passover meal just as the sun was setting and ended with Jesus lying in the tomb just as it was ending.  It was a long 24 hour day for Jesus.

 

What are some of the similarities and differences between this account and those in the Synoptic Gospels?  M  points out that “John is concerned with principles and significance rather than with specific events (p 542)”. As in everything else, John is concerned with getting across major ideas to readers.  The SG are much more biographical.  After the two events in this chapter (foot washing and betrayal), the next 4 chapters deal with Jesus words only, no events. Of course the big difference is that John does not mention the institution of the Lord’s Supper, while the three SG do.

 

Why is there no mention of the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper?  This is indeed puzzling.  I would have guessed that John would mention it.  He chooses to reiterate much of the passion detail.  There are three possibilities:

1.  The author was ignorant of it.  He wrote from a tradition that did not know of the Lords Supper.  This seems unlikely.

2.  The author knew of the Lord’s supper, but was offering a different version of Christ and therefore left it out purposefully. Maybe he had a negative view of it.

3. The author knew of the Lord’s supper, but knew it was addressed adequately in the SG and therefore chose to focus on other matters.  This seems correct, but still its omission is a bit surprising.

 

II.  Theology:  V. 2 says, “… the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot … to betray Jesus” (cf. v. 27 “… Satan entered into him.”).  What is the relationship between the devil’s role and Judas’ responsibility?   The devil is the adversary to both Christ and his people.  When we choose Christ freely, our Christian doctrine tells us that Christ enters into us in a real way.  My guess is that the opposite may be true in some cases.  When we freely choose the side of Satan, we invite him into our very being.

 

Was Judas “chosen” to betray Jesus and had no control over it?  Jesus said in Matthew 18:7   “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”  This is an knotty question of free will and predestination.  The death of Jesus was necessary to redeem mankind.  If none of the twelve would have betrayed Jesus, then the “offence” would still have come. But woe unto Judas!  He could have chosen not to betray Jesus. Even as he accepted the morsel from Jesus, he could have said the brief prayer of Peter, “Lord, save me (Matthew 14:30)”. 

 

Was Judas culpable?  Why (not)?  Yes, Judas was culpable.  In 17:12, Jesus calls him the “son of perdition”.  We may not understand all the ins and outs, but certainly scripture accepted Judas as being a culpable traitor.  I accept their judgment.

III. Interpretation:  What is the significance of the footwashing in this chapter?  See R, 454-46 and summarize. Footwashing was necessary in this ancient time.  The inside of the house was kept tidy and dirt and dung was kept outside.  Sandals were left near the door and the lowliest servant would wash the feet of guests.  Often a little girl would do this.  M points out that this Passover event happened after the meal, so the disciples feet had already been washed.  This makes Jesus’ action even more deliberate.  I like the words of this being “a parable in action”.   We live in a day when evangelicals like to contemplate “servant leadership”.  This act of footwashing is the essence of servant leadership.  Before Jesus speaks of a “new commandment of love”, he provides a parable of what He is about to speak.

IV.  Interpretation:  What is the meaning of the saying in v. 10, “[a] person who has had a bath”?  (See M and also the excursus in R, 461.)  There seems to be confusion on this point.  The most obvious guess is that the twelve had bathed just before this event.  Their bodies were therefore clean and only the feet need constant washing.  Maybe there is a hint of baptism being permanent, but occasional washing of the feet still needed.

V.  Interpretation:  Compare the actions of Jesus in vv. 4-5, 12 and those in Phil. 2:6-9.  Some see many similarities.  What do you think?   I am not sure what the Apostle Paul had in mind as he wrote down these words “but he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself.”  Paul is plainly speaking about the incarnation as a humbling experience and perhaps he had in mind this incident as an example of Christ’s humility.

VI. Symbolism:  The Gospel of John is replete with many symbolisms.  What do you think John intended by the comment right after Judas’ departure that “… it was night”?  How is “light” and “darkness” used in this Gospel?  Light has the ability to overcome darkness, but darkness cannot make light flee.  A flashlight can project a beam of light through darkness, but there can never be a “flashdark”, because light cannot be pierced by darkness.  Judas leaves in the darkness because he has abandoned the “light of the world”. 

VII. Interpretation:  In what sense is the commandment to love one another “new” (vv. 34-35)?  Isn’t it one of the core themes of the Bible (cf. Lev. 19:18)?  M points out that there is a qualifier to this new commandment of love—“as I have loved you”.  Jesus wants his disciples to love as He loves.  OT “hesed” type love was demonstrated by many OT figures (Judah toward Benjamin, Ruth toward Naomi), but nothing like the demonstration of love by Jesus toward his sheep and toward all people.  His disciples were shocked that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, touched the leper, and lunched with tax-collectors.  This is just a sample of the new commandment love that Jesus was talking about.

VIII. Interpretation:  Based on the flow of the dialogue, why is Peter’s question in v. 36 “out of context”?  How is Jesus reply emphatic in v. 38?  I believe that Peter loved Jesus so much that he could not get out of his head the words “I am going away”.  Nothing else mattered.  I picture myself as a little child listening to my mother speak to me.  She tells me “I am going away soon”.  After those words, I can hear no more.  It’s all just wasted breath.  My mind races at the possibilities.  The words of the new commandment were lost on Peter, because he was paralyzed by words of leaving.   This is the second time that Peter contradicts Jesus (after denying a footwashing).  Jesus notes a kind of pride in Peter that must be broken before Peter can truly become the prince of the apostles.  Peter’s pride will shortly be broken.

IX. Reflection:  Does it surprise you that in spite of the repeated warnings Jesus gave on the impending betrayal (cf. vv. 10, 18, 21, 26, 27), Judas Iscariot in the end did so anyway?  I think that there are many possibilities.  Maybe Judas did not think that Jesus was ever referring to him as the betrayer.  Maybe Judas thought that he was forcing the hand of Jesus.  Once facing arrest, Jesus would have to call down angelic armies from heaven.  Maybe Judas, lost confidence in Jesus after Palm Sunday.  Here Jesus was like Judas Macabeus ready to throw out the occupiers.  Now he is washing feet?!  Judas did not understand Jesus and he did not understand himself.

X. Discuss any other question(s) you want to address.  One time I preached about the “reverse pride” of Peter.  This is the self-righteous pride that does not accept help from others.  I see it when a father is “too proud” to accept government help, even when his children are hungry.  I see it when I offer homework help to a fellow seminarian, but they would rather suffer than admit they need help.  We all need to learn to accept the generous help of others when it is offered in true Christian love.  This is a hard thing for me.  Is it hard for you too?

 

Overall Reflection:  How would you summarize (13:1-38) Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet?  Jesus demonstrates a parable of his agape love and then commands it.  Jesus deals with two prideful men: one who will betray him and become the son of perdition, another who will deny him but return as the chief of his apostles.