John 13 - Expositor's Bible Commentary - Abridged

III. The Private Ministry of the Word (13:1–17:26) A. The Last Supper (13:1–30) 1. The washing of feet (13:1–20)

1 The full Johannine account of the Passion begins at this point. John alludes to the nearness of the Passover as if to remind his reader that Jesus had been introduced by John the Baptist as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29). As the first Passover had been the turning point in the redemption of the people of God, so the Cross would be the opening of a new era for believers. John connects this with the manifestation of Jesus’ love for “his own” (i.e., his disciples), a love that has no limits. Jesus had accepted the responsibility for them and was obliged to instruct and protect them (17:6–12).

2 Whether this meal was the actual Passover or not has been warmly debated. It seems to have occurred on the same night as the arrest and betrayal. If so, it was presumably Thursday night, and the Crucifixion occurred on Friday. John stated later (18:28) that the Jewish delegates could not enter Pilate’s hall on Friday morning because they would be defiled and unable to eat the Passover. In that case, the Last Supper must have preceded the Passover by twenty-four hours. If, then, the Passover began on Friday night, the meal that took place on Thursday night would not have been the standard Passover Feast. The question is complicated by the fact, however, that the Synoptics imply that Jesus did intend to eat the Passover with his disciples (Mt 26:17–20; Mk 14:12–17; Lk 22:7–14). No mention is made of the Passover lamb, however.

Of all the suggestions regarding this problem, two are plausible. (1) Two calendars were in simultaneous use: one national group, using one calendar, ate the Passover on Thursday night whereas the other group, using the other calendar, ate the Passover on Friday night. (2) Jesus, having been repudiated by the priesthood and consequently considered apostate, would not have been allowed to obtain a lamb for sacrifice and would have been compelled to celebrate the feast at a different time. Whatever solution may be accepted, it seems clear that Jesus did celebrate the meal with his disciples on Thursday night, that the hearing before Pilate and the Crucifixion took place on Friday when the other Passover lambs were being sacrificed, and that his body was placed in the tomb before sunset late that afternoon.

The focus of action in this section lies in Jesus’ washing the feet of the disciples. By this time, Judas had already determined to betray Jesus. His specific motive is not stated, and the impulse is attributed to Satanic suggestion. In other words, the conflict was basically actuated by a rebellion against God. It is possible that Judas, realizing that Jesus’ enemies were implacably hostile and were politically powerful, concluded that Jesus was doomed to lose in the struggle and so decided that he might as well gain immunity from sharing Jesus’ fate. Furthermore, he could compensate himself by claiming the reward for betrayal. His act, however, was more serious than an incidental piece of treachery; he sold himself to the power of evil (cf. v.27).

3–5 John emphasizes the fact that Jesus was not the innocent victim of a plot, unaware of what was transpiring around him. Rather, he was fully aware of his authority, his divine origin, and his destiny. John says much more about the inner consciousness of Jesus than the Synoptics do, either because he was more observant or because Jesus confided in him.

The immediate situation was that they had come to the banquet room directly from the street. Ordinarily on such an occasion the host would have delegated a servant to the menial task of removing the sandals of the guests and washing their feet. Since the meeting was obviously intended to be secret, no servants were present. None of the disciples was ready to volunteer for such a task, for each would have considered it an admission of inferiority to all the others (Cf. 1:27).

Sometime during the meal Jesus rose, removed his outer cloak, tied a towel around his waist, and began to perform the work of the servant who was not present. It was a voluntary humiliation that rebuked the pride of the disciples. Perhaps it accentuated the tension of the situation, because Luke notes that when the disciples entered the room, they were arguing about who among them would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Lk 22:24).

6–8a The response of Simon Peter may have been representative of the common feeling that Jesus ought not to demean himself by washing their feet. He reveals both the impetuousness of his disposition and the high regard he had for Jesus.

8b Jesus’ rejoinder expresses the necessity, not only for the cleansing of Peter’s feet to make him socially acceptable for the dinner, but also for the cleansing of his personality to make him fit for the kingdom of God. The external washing was intended to be a picture of spiritual cleansing from evil.

9–10 Peter, mistaking Jesus’ veiled figure for the literal act, expressed his devotion by asking for a bath. Separation from Jesus was abhorrent to him. Jesus reminded him that a person once bathed needed to wash only his feet. “You are clean, though not every one of you” gives the clue to the interpretation of this action. One of the disciples had consistently refused Jesus’ spiritual ministration. The others, who had been loyal though sometimes slow to understand, needed only occasional correction.

11 This gospel emphasizes strongly the self-consciousness of Jesus concerning himself and his work. From the beginning of his ministry he had supernatural discernment of the potentialities of his disciples (1:42, 47–48, 51). He predicted his death and resurrection (2:19; 3:14; 6:51; 8:28; 10:18; 12:32). He claimed a peculiar relationship with God (5:19, 26; 10:38). Now, at the close of his ministry, the gospel emphasizes even more strongly his supernatural awareness of the significance of what was occurring. Jesus realized that the time had come to leave his disciples (13:1), that the Father had committed all action to his authority (v.3), that the betrayer was already at hand (vv.10–11), that the identity of the chosen believers was settled (v.18), that the outcome of the existing situation was fixed (v.19; Cf. 18:4), and, finally, that the moment of consummation had come (v.21; Cf. 19:28).

12–14 A second lesson Jesus wished to impart to the disciples by this act was one of love and humble service. His question, “Do you understand what I have done for you?” contrasts with his remonstrance of Peter in v.7. The discernment of the disciples developed slowly. It took them a long time to begin to comprehend the intensity of Jesus’ love for them and the nature of his humility in dealing with them. “Teacher” and “Lord” are both titles of respect that placed Jesus on a level above the disciples. Jesus went on to emphasize the fact that his actions as their leader should set the pattern for dedicated living (see also Mt 10:24; Lk 6:40; Jn 15:20). The concept of the servant-master relationship appears frequently in Jesus’ teaching.

15 The “example” does not necessarily imply the perpetuation of footwashing as an ordinance in the church. Rather, Jesus put his emphasis on the inner attitude of humble and voluntary service for others (see the fuller explanation of this in Php 2:4–8).

16–17 The recurrence of “sent” (GK 4287) here is a reminder that Jesus was constantly conscious of being commissioned by the Father. Jesus included his disciples both in his commission and in his action of servanthood. The true nature of Christian living was serving one another. And for those who would be willing to take this role on themselves, Jesus said there would be blessings.

18 Jesus’ reason for washing the disciples’ feet was not solely good manners and sanitation. The imminence of the betrayal was pressing in on him, and the resultant anguish was tearing at his heart. He knew that the disciples would fail at the crucial moment, but he despaired of none except Judas. The psalm Jesus quoted is attributed to David, who was lamenting the defection of a trusted confidant (Ps 41:9). This likely refers to Ahithophel, who had been David’s counselor and diplomatic advisor but deserted him in Absalom’s rebellion (2Sa 15:12; 16:15–23; 17:4, 14, 23). Again this is an example of prophecy by parallelism.

19–20 Jesus was not merely asking for personal loyalty but for belief that he was the One sent by God (Cf. 8:24, 28, 58). He wanted the disciples to commit themselves to his claims before other events would seemingly invalidate them and before the Resurrection would confirm them (Cf. 2:22). He went on to say that accepting the messenger whom he sent was equivalent to receiving him and that receiving him involved also receiving God. The language implies a close connection between the disciple and the master and an equally close connection between Jesus and God.

2. The prediction of the betrayal (13:21–30)

21 Jesus was not surprised that Judas would betray him. He had announced it to the disciples at least a year earlier (6:70). Nevertheless, it “troubled” him immensely (the same verb is used of Jesus’ agitation in 11:33 and 12:27). As “the hour” approached, the bitterness of the betrayal Jesus anticipated became known.

22 The announcement startled the disciples. Although Jesus had previously mentioned the betrayal, they had not taken it to heart. Now, realizing the hostility of the authorities in Jerusalem and knowing that Jesus’ death might be imminent, the act that had seemed remote became an immediate possibility.

23–25 Peter signaled to the disciple who occupied the place next to Jesus and “whom Jesus loved” (presumably John), asking him to inquire who the traitor might be. His inquiry demonstrated not only a persistent trait of curiosity but also Peter’s loyalty. He may have contemplated preventive action; for if he could know in advance who the person might be, he could intervene.

26 Jesus gave no specific identification. He simply indicated that the offender would be the one to whom he would give the special morsel he had dipped into the dish. For the host to select a tidbit from the main dish and give it to a guest would be a mark of courtesy and esteem. The disciples, seeing this, would conclude only that Jesus regarded Judas as a close friend. While Jesus’ reply would answer the question for the beloved disciple, he could scarcely have communicated his knowledge to Peter at that moment without disturbing the peace of the group.

27a “Satan entered into him.” This moment was Judas’s last opportunity to renounce his treachery. If the other disciples were ignorant of Judas’s intentions, he could change the course of his action without explanation, and none but Jesus would know. Once Judas left the room to seal his bargain with the priests, he would pass the point of no return.

27b–28 Conscious that the time had come for his sacrifice (13:1), Jesus wished Judas to get on with his plot and leave. Once he was gone, Jesus would be able to continue his intimate ministry with his disciples in the upper room.

29 The reference to making a purchase for the Passover may corroborate the view that this Last Supper was held on the night preceding the Passover (cf. comment on v.2). Jesus would hardly have waited until this moment to obtain a lamb if they were at the Passover at that moment; and the text says that the disciples didn’t know the reason for Jesus’ statement to Judas, which would hardly be the case if the lamb was missing.

30 The repetition of the phrase “As soon as Judas had taken the bread” (cf. v.27) indicates that Satan’s control of Judas and Judas’s departure from the group must have been simultaneous. As Judas left, it was dark outside. John’s comment about “night” corresponds to Jesus’ statement when Judas betrayed him: “This is your hour—when darkness reigns” (Lk 22:53). It also heightens the implication that Jesus’ life was one of conflict. The opposition of darkness and light is announced in the Prologue (1:5) and is illustrated by the growing hostility between Jesus and his enemies. As the conflict becomes more marked, Jesus said it reflected the contrast between what he had seen with his Father and what they had heard from their father (8:38, 42–44). John notes the continuing progress of the spiritual conflict in 13:27; 14:30; 17:15.

1. Questions and answers (13:31–14:31) a. The new commandment (13:31–35)

31 The title “Son of Man” appears twelve times in the gospel of John, of which this is the last occurrence (see comment on Mk 8:31). As the “Son of Man,” Jesus reveals divine truth (1:51); he has a supernatural origin (3:13; 6:62); his death by being “lifted up” achieves salvation for humans (3:14; 8:28; 12:34); he exercises the prerogative of final judgment (5:27); he provides spiritual nourishment (6:27); and he will be “glorified” (Cf. 12:23), which John applies specifically to Jesus’ death and resurrection (7:39; 10:16). In general, “Son of Man” is the title of the incarnate Christ who is the representative of humanity before God and the representative of deity in human life.

32 The Johannine use of “glorify” (GK 1519) is peculiar. This word occurs five times in vv.31–32 in what seems to be unnecessary repetition. Intrinsically the word means “exaltation.” But as Jesus used it, it relates to his death (see comment on 12:32–33). The Cross would become the supreme glory of God because the Son would completely obey the will of the Father. The meaning of “exalt” or “magnify” seems to fit better the last two uses in this verse. This dual dimension of “glorify” appears also in the prayer of Ch. 17 (see comments on 17:4–5; see also Php 2:4–11). In this concept the Cross and the Resurrection are united as phases of a single redemptive event by which the purpose of God is completed and his righteousness vindicated.

33 “My children [GK 5448]” is expressive of Jesus’ love and concern for the Eleven, who must have seemed to him to be weak and immature (cf. John’s use of the same term to introduce admonitions in 1Jn 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). Jesus recalled to their memory his words to the Jews: “Where I go, you cannot come” (8:21). To the disciples he was speaking of the fact that they were now unprepared to follow him, though they would rejoin him later (see 14:3). To the Jews he made no such promise; instead, he predicted that they would die in their sins.

34–35 The most important instruction that Jesus left for the Eleven was this fresh, “new commandment”—to love one another. If their motive in following him had been to obtain a high place in the messianic kingdom (1:40, 49), Jesus knew that the spirit of rivalry would disrupt their fellowship before they could accomplish his commission to them. The attitude of love would be the bond that would keep them united and would be the convincing demonstration that they had partaken of his own spirit and purpose. He had loved them without reservation and without limit (13:1–5) and expected them to do the same.

B. The Last Discourse (13:31–16:33)

With the departure of Judas, Jesus commenced the long farewell discourse to his disciples. The dialogue comprising the first section (13:31–14:31) should not be broken at 14:1.

b. The question of Peter (13:36–14:4)

The structure of this dialogue offers a contrast between the attempt of Jesus to present some consecutive teaching in preparation for his departure and the nervous unrest of the disciples, who were disconcerted by the awareness of impending danger. As usual, Simon Peter was the first to speak.

36 Peter’s question (“Where are you going?”) expresses bewilderment and perhaps slight exasperation. Jesus had previously spoken publicly of going away (8:21). On that occasion his enemies were mystified and wondered whether he was contemplating suicide. Now, in the intimacy of his inner circle, the disciples are equally puzzled, though conceivably less critical. Jesus’ promise, “You will follow later,” implies that Peter had asked the question so that he might go with him. His affection for Jesus, though often expressed clumsily, was undeniably genuine.

37–38 Peter was impatient and avowed that he was ready to lay down his life. Jesus, who understood the situation as Peter did not and who knew Peter’s inner weakness, was gently incredulous. His answer about Peter’s denial reveals his estimate of this disciple. The crowing of the rooster was reckoned as the watch between twelve midnight and three o’clock in the morning, when the light of dawn began to glimmer on the eastern horizon. When Peter heard this word, he must have been completely baffled. He would not question Jesus’ authority. Yet he was so sure of his own devotion that he could not imagine such a failure.

14:1 Furthermore, the other disciples must have been equally perturbed, for Jesus added, “Do not let your [plural] hearts be troubled.” The way in which Jesus phrases this implies that they should “stop being troubled” (i.e., they should set their hearts at ease). He then urged them to maintain both their trust in God and in himself. Their uncertainty and discouragement had weakened them, and he wanted to strengthen them against complete collapse in the imminent tragedy.

2 In spite of the threatening circumstances, Jesus spoke with calm assurance of the divine provision for them and took for granted that they would have a place in the eternal world. Jesus never speculated about a future life; he spoke as one who was as familiar with eternity as one is with his hometown. The imagery of a dwelling place (“rooms”) is taken from the oriental house in which the sons and daughters have apartments under the same roof as their parents. The purpose of his departure was to make ready the place where he could welcome them permanently. Certainly he would not go to prepare a room for his friends unless he expected that they would also eventually arrive.

3 “I will come back” is one of the few allusions in this gospel to Jesus’ return. He was not speaking of a general resurrection but of his personal concern for his own disciples. Though he did not elaborate on the promise, the guarantee is unmistakable. His return is as certain as his departure, and he would take them with him to his Father’s house.

4 Verses 1–4 not only contain Jesus’ answer to Peter’s question but also indicate Jesus’ attempt to return to the theme of the discourse he had first begun. He assumed that they knew the way to their destination; all they would need to do would be to follow the road. His sheep would follow him and find “the house of the LORD” at the end of their journey (Ps 23:6; Jn 10:27–28).