John 13 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

13:1 Before the Passover celebration. Critics are divided on the chronology of the Last Supper. Many scholars (Lindars, Schnackenburg, Kysar, Michaels) believe John places the Last Supper one day earlier than the synoptic Gospels do. (For example, Mark 14:12 places it on “the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread [= Passover], when the Passover lamb is sacrificed”; this differs from John’s timing here: “Before the Passover.”) Their idea is that John wanted to make a theological point by showing Jesus’ crucifixion coinciding with the time when the Passover lambs were slaughtered (a Thursday that particular year). Such scholars see this timing corroborated by John’s calling the day of the Crucifixion the “day of preparation” for the Passover (19:14, 31, 42; Cf. 18:28), indicating Thursday. Several solutions have been suggested to explain the differences in chronology: (1) Jeremias (1966) thinks the Last Supper was not a Passover meal but another of the preparatory meals, perhaps a Kiddush (“prayer”) meal or a Habburah (“fellowship”) meal. The details, however, clearly reflect Passover imagery. (2) Jaubert (1965) posits that John followed a sectarian solar calendar rather than the lunar calendar of the Pharisees and so placed it a day earlier, essentially calling the same day by a different name (so also Keener). However, there is no evidence for this, and the sacrifices in the Temple were offered on the official day (Thursday), so this theory is unlikely. (3) Witherington (1995:231) believes this was not a Passover meal but a Greco-Roman banquet celebrated sometime during Passion week (in fact he takes the farewell address of 13–17 as not a single address but a composite of messages delivered on several occasions during the week). This is possible but unnecessary. (4) It is best to follow those (Morris, Carson, Ridderbos, Burge, Blomberg, Köstenberger) who point out that “the day of preparation” on which Christ was crucified actually refers to the day before the “special Sabbath”—namely, the Sabbath (Saturday) of Passover week, rather than Friday. Therefore, John and the Synoptics are in agreement that the Last Supper was on Thursday night and the Crucifixion on Friday, which would have been the day of preparation for the Sabbath.

He had loved his disciples. Dodd (1953a:398) provides an interesting statistic: In chs 2–12, words for “life” (50 times) and “light” (32 times) predominate over words for “love” (12 times—I am adding the philos [TG5384, ZG5813] word group to this statistic). In chs 13–17, however, words for “love” (37 times) predominate over “life” (6 times) and “light” (no occurence). Jesus’ love and concern for his disciples control this section.

13:2 the devil had already prompted Judas. There is a text-critical question as to whether the text has the genitive Iouda [TG2455, ZG2683], in which it is the heart “of Judas” (A D K 28 33 ), or the nominative Ioudas [TG2455, ZG2683], in which Satan decides “in his own heart” to do it (66 א B L W 044 070). The nominative, as the more difficult reading, is probably the original (cf. discussion in Comfort 2007:[John 13:2b]), but this does not mean Satan made the decision himself. Rather, Satan and Judas formed a conspiracy of evil (so Carson).

13:10 bathed all over. This has often been seen as a reference to water baptism, but that hardly fits the context, which shows no awareness of such a theology. This is spiritual cleansing rather than baptism.

except for the feet. This phrase is missing in a few mss (א D Origen), and this is preferred by several scholars (e.g., Bultmann, Hoskyns, Lindars, Barrett, Brown, Beasley-Murray, Burge) on the grounds that the bath is complete and so the context makes the added material superfluous. The vast majority of mss, however, include the phrase, and this makes perfect sense in the context (as the interpretation above demonstrates). Therefore, it is likely that the phrase is original (so Westcott, Bruce, Morris, Michaels, Carson).

John gives us a rather unique portrait of the events preceding Jesus’ arrest. The synoptic Gospels provide an extensive presentation of the Last Supper, including Jesus’ elaborate preparations, the predictions of the betrayal of Judas and the desertion of the other disciples, and especially the words of institution over the bread and the wine, followed by the group’s movement to Gethsemane. John, probably aware of the Synoptic tradition (cf. the Introduction), decided to supplement their presentation with his own portrayal. The two central themes are found in 13:1—Jesus’ preparation of himself and his disciples for his departure from this world and his deep love for his disciples. The unique aspects are the washing of the disciples’ feet (13:1-20), the farewell discourse (13:31–16:33), and his high priestly prayer (17:1-26). The focus has shifted from the crowds to Jesus’ disciples. Jesus never again addresses the Jewish people in John but instead turns inward to prepare the disciples for the humanly terrible, yet spiritually wonderful, events to come. Lombard and Oliver (1991:367-369) argue that 13:1-38 is in effect an introductory section preparing for the major themes of Jesus’ farewell discourse. Within this scheme, the Last Supper becomes a “working supper” in which Jesus was trying to accomplish a great many things, such as to exemplify humble service in leadership, point to his betrayer, and launch his disciples into their future ministries.

The opening of chapter 13 places the time just “before the Passover” meal began and states that Jesus was aware of two things. First, he knew “his hour had come.” When he left Ephraim and came back to Bethany (11:54; 12:1), he knew the time had arrived, and this was corroborated when the Greeks came seeking him (12:23). This was the hour “to leave this world and return to his Father.” The world is the place of rebellion and rejection, but it is also the object of God’s redeeming love (3:16). He descended from heaven to this world (3:13) but was now about to ascend back to heaven; he had entered the final phase of his life on earth, and his attention was riveted on his disciples, to prepare them for the terrible process by which the “hour” would unfold. Second, his focus on his followers was controlled by love; he loved them to the very end. There is double meaning in “to the very end”; the end refers to both time (to the end of his life) and degree (to the uttermost, absolutely, so Morris, Ridderbos, Keener, Köstenberger). The theme of Jesus’ love for his own dominates the section. Hultgren (1982:542-544) thinks this scene entails Jesus’ offer of “eschatological hospitality” to his disciples and so tells them that they are welcome in his Father’s house (Cf. 14:2ff).

It was “time for supper” (13:2), probably meaning supper had just been served (so Barrett, Carson). John wants us to understand that “the devil had already prompted” Judas’s betrayal. The spiritual war already acknowledged in 12:31 was now in full sway—the betrayal was not simply engineered by Judas for the money (12:6; 13:27-30) but had been planned by Satan all along. In the midst of this cosmic war, however, Jesus “knew” two things (13:3): he had power and authority from God “over everything,” and he was soon to return to his heavenly origin. There was no question as to how the battle would turn out, for Jesus knew he was Lord of all. The Cross was not an isolated skirmish but the central act in the greatest cosmic drama history would ever know. The outcome was already settled. God was in charge, not Satan, and he had given all authority to his Son. Moreover, this was the time of the great return in which Jesus would ascend to that heavenly home from which he had come in the first place (Cf. 3:13).

To show his deep love for his disciples, and in light of his knowledge that the time of destiny had arrived, Jesus decided to perform a symbolic act that would help his disciples understand what his sovereign authority meant and why he was surrendering his life (13:4-5). We must understand that this was a sovereign act and one at the heart of true leadership; that is, Jesus showed them that to follow his example, their authority had to be exercised via servanthood (for the foot washing as a “model of humility,” see Keener 2003:904-907). To understand the significance of washing another’s feet, remember what the Baptist said: “I’m not even worthy to be his slave and untie the straps of his sandal” (1:27). Only a slave would wash the feet of a guest; in fact, some Jews believed it should only be Gentile slaves, not Jewish ones, since the task was so menial (Mekilta on Exodus 21:2). Still, wives would wash their husbands’ feet, children their parents’, and disciples their teachers’ (so Barrett, Edwards). When Jesus “took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, and poured water into a basin,” the disciples were aghast. Jesus was reversing the social order!

Imagine the scene. As it was a formal meal, the disciples would have been reclining on couches or mats, probably in a U-shape radiating out from Jesus with the heads facing inward. When Jesus wrapped the towel around him, he took on the menial dress of a slave. This was anchored further when he began washing their feet, thereby demonstrating that the one who was God deliberately took on “the humble position of a slave” (Phil 2:6-7; cf. Luke 22:27, “I am among you as one who serves”). There may be a link to Mark 10:44-45, “whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else,” perhaps with a connection to Jesus’ death as “a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), the moment culminating Jesus’ life of servanthood (so Barrett, Edwards). Remember that one of those whose feet Jesus washed was Judas himself. This was a model of unbelievable love, to wash the feet of the very one who would send him to his death!

Peter’s protest (13:6) was very understandable; the others were probably in stunned silence. Disciples were expected to serve their rabbis, never vice versa. They all must have been in shock. Peter’s query, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” must have been filled with incredulity. In the Greek, “you” and “my” are side-by-side for emphasis: “You mean you . . . my feet?” Jesus’ response addressed them all: they didn’t understand then, but they would later. Usually this type of comment refers to the time after Jesus’ resurrection (2:22; 12:16); here it probably means after the Spirit had come to illumine their spiritual minds (14:26). Peter still could not comprehend the reason for Jesus’ incomprehensible act and so again protested (13:8), this time even more strongly: “You will never ever wash my feet!” As Whitacre says (1999:329): “In Peter’s response we see the pride and self-will that is at the heart of all sin and that is the very thing for which the Cross will atone and bring healing. Peter is working from a worldly point of view, and not for the first time (cf. Matt 16:22ff).”

This time Jesus’ reply was equally forceful: “Unless I wash you, you won’t belong to me” (lit., “you will have no part with me”). The language of having a “part” means to have a share in his inheritance (cf. Rom 8:17; Eph 3:6; 1 Pet 1:4). This was more than just a physical service; there was double meaning in “wash,” referring to not just physical but spiritual cleansing. Washing is the result of the cleansing of the Cross. Without accepting the cleansing Jesus offered, there could be no sharing in his Kingdom and community. Peter, in his typical exuberance, then went to the opposite extreme: “Then wash my hands and head as well!” (13:9). If that was the necessary requirement for acceptance by Jesus, Peter wanted more than just his feet washed—Peter remains an example of discipleship characterized by lots of heart and little head knowledge.

Jesus clarified his point further, and this is critical to understanding the foot-washing scene: “A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean” (13:10). The picture is of a person attending a feast, who bathes at home and then at his arrival only has to clean his feet (due to the dusty road) to be wholly clean at the table (so Morris). His point was that the disciples were wholly clean because they had believed in Jesus. All they needed was to take care of their individual sins (so Thomas 1991:124-125); however, not all the disciples were clean. Judas had his feet washed, but he experienced only outward and not inward cleansing. He remained covered by the far more serious dirt of sin. Moreover, his was a filthy presence among the disciples, and his departure was part of the cleansing of the group (so Whitacre).

When the foot washing ended, Jesus donned his robe once more and returned to his mat to teach them further about the significance of what he had done (13:12). There was no way the disciples could understand it, especially since the meaning of the event was so intimately tied to Jesus’ coming death. This is another thing they would not comprehend until after Jesus’ death and resurrection. They had no idea of a suffering Messiah, as seen in the fact that when Jesus was later arrested, Peter drew his sword and struck a man (18:10), undoubtedly thinking that the angelic hosts would arrive and the conquering Messiah, Jesus, would finally reveal who he really was. By washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus had just shown that he was truly the Servant of Yahweh, but even more that he was the servant of all (Luke 22:27). Finally, he had shown that this is the way God expects his servants to act toward others. This is the subject of 13:13-17.

Jesus began with what they did understand—namely, his authority, affirming that he was indeed their teacher, or rabbi, and their Lord (13:13). Disciples regularly addressed their rabbis as “teacher/rabbi” and “lord” (Aramaic, mari), a title of respect (cf. Strack-Billerbeck 2.558). Jesus meant more than they realized, however, for he is cosmic Lord of the universe. The first to realize this was Thomas, who in 20:28 called Jesus “my Lord and my God” (see notes on 20:24-29). Then it became part of Christian confession—“Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:11; cf. 1 Cor 16:22). Once more, this was beyond their ken at this time, but they understood it dimly. Jesus was beginning where they were, with his identity as the authoritative Messiah. Then he moved into the area of their confusion, that the “Lord” washed their feet. Two aspects are critical: first the extent to which that act made them a family, and then the extent to which it was to guide their lives. As Ridderbos says (1997:463), “He has washed their feet to portray to them the nature of the fellowship that not only unites them with him but must also be the permanent measure and source of their mutual relations when he has gone from them.” If they were bound to Christ, they had to be bound to each other via acts of service and humility. Michaels (1989:241) calls this a “triangular statement” in that Jesus’ action was meant to result in a new set of “disciple to disciple” relations (for other triangular statements, Cf. 13:34; 15:12; 17:11, 20-23).

The footwashing was an example, a pattern or model for their future action, not only for their relations with each other but in their future ministries (13:15). Jesus’ self-sacrificial love, as exemplified in washing their feet, was to be the mainstay of the way they conducted themselves when they became leaders in the church. Leadership without servanthood is against God’s will. Jesus’ command in 13:15 has been interpreted in various ways in the history of the church. Many groups have taken this command literally and have virtually turned foot washing into a sacrament, observing it regularly, often as part of the eucharistic service. There is no evidence for this practice in the early church. The only other time it is mentioned (1 Tim 5:10, NLT mg) concerns a qualification for ministry in the order of widows. Foot washing was not practiced as a Christian rite in the patristic period. It would seem, then, that while it is good to have a footwashing ceremony on occasion as a reminder, such a rite is not required for the church.

Jesus closed with another double amēn [TG281, ZG297] (13:16), highlighting an important saying (see note on 1:51): “Slaves are not greater than their master,” nor the messenger greater than the sender (cf. Matt 10:24-25; Luke 6:40). Here, a shift begins from focus on Jesus as the one sent (3:17, 34; 5:36, 38) to Jesus as the one who sends. He would now be sending the disciples to continue his mission (17:18; 20:21). His mission had been characterized by self-sacrificial love and self-surrender (so Ridderbos), and why should they think that this was beneath them? True leaders are called to serve their flock, not lord it over them (cf. 1 Pet 5:3). The key was that God would bless them only if they continued in these acts of service (13:17). This has been a huge problem for Christian leaders in the past, and it is equally problematic today. All too few have a servant’s heart. In fact, I recall speaking with a group once about having a pastor’s seminar on leadership—when I said they should begin with servanthood, the general response I received was “Why?”

13:18 this fulfills the Scripture. The early church generally understood Judas’ betrayal in terms of scriptural fulfillment. Matthew 27:9 uses Zech 11:12-13 to explain the 30 pieces of silver, and Peter in Acts 1:20 cites Pss 69:25 and 109:8 to explain the betrayal.

turned against me. The actual image is “lifted up his heel against me,” one of the worst insults imaginable, even today.

13:23 The disciple Jesus loved. It has at times been suggested that this refers to Lazarus since he is the only male disciple (the pronoun is masculine) described as “loved” by Jesus (11:3, 5, 36). It is clear, however, that the Twelve were the ones with Jesus at the Last Supper, so this is unlikely. Others have taken this to be a reference to a literary figure—the ideal disciple—rather than an actual person. This is too disjunctive; there is no reason that the beloved disciple cannot be both an actual person and a model for the ideal disciple.

sitting next to Jesus. Lit., “in the bosom of Jesus” (cf. NLT mg), the same wording as 1:18 (“near to the Father’s heart,” or, “in the bosom of the father”). This indicates that the beloved disciple enjoyed relationship with Jesus similar to that which Jesus had with the Father (so Beasley-Murray, Whitacre).

13:29 go and pay for the food. Many have used this to support a meal before the Passover since at this time on a festival night shops would not have been open. This was a Thursday night, however, and shops were open for supplies in light of their being closed Friday and Saturday. Moreover, the food purchases would have been for the meals for that whole Passover (including the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the hagigah meals) week. Also, giving gifts to the poor on Passover eve was customary; the Temple gates were open from midnight on so that beggars could congregate there.

We now return to the scene of the Last Supper that parallels the Synoptics—the betrayal of Judas (Mark 14:18-21 and parallels). Here it is a much longer scene. Jesus had already warned them repeatedly (6:70; 12:24; cf. also the synoptic passion predictions), even in this scene (13:10). In promising that God would bless his disciples (13:17), Jesus clarified that he was not speaking of “all” the disciples. He had “chosen” the Twelve, including Judas (6:70), but had been aware of his betrayer from the start. It is difficult to know why he allowed Judas to operate as he had; probably it was fulfillment of prophecy, as he went on to say, citing Psalm 41:9, “The one who eats my food has turned against me.” According to the Psalm, David as the righteous sufferer experienced the betrayal of a close friend—and all while he was ill and being persecuted by his enemies. This is not an explicit messianic passage but was applied typologically by Jesus (that is, Jesus was reliving/fulfilling the experience of David). Carson makes two points (1991:470): first, from such passages as 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and Psalm 2, we see that David was a type of the future Messiah so that Jesus the Messiah fulfilled many aspects of his life; second, one of the major Davidic themes picked up in the New Testament is his suffering (e.g., Ps 22 later in the Passion events), leading to David as a type of the suffering Messiah. Judas, then, was the antitype of David’s treacherous friend. The point is that God and Jesus were well aware of Judas’s intention, indicating that they were in complete control.

The point of his prophecy (13:19) was not just to prepare the disciples beforehand for what was going to happen (he certainly knew they would be confused) but to help them even more afterwards. Then they would realize he had known all about it; they would understand he is indeed the “I AM” (in the Greek this is another of the absolute “I am” passages, Cf. 8:24, 28, 58), Yahweh himself (cf. Exod 3:14; Isa 41:4; 43:10). Jesus was well aware of the difficulties that were ahead for the disciples. Such hints as those he gave here were intended to provide a foundation for them to center upon in the times of confusion and reflection to follow. In fact, the entire farewell discourse that begins in 13:31 has that purpose.

Jesus now makes his second “I tell you the truth” statement in this discourse (13:20; Cf. 13:16; see note on 1:51), with much the same message as the first. Jesus was ready to be taken from them and was in the process of passing the baton to them. They were to replicate his servant heart (13:16), but they would also have the same authority as he did. A slave is like his master, and an agent like the one who sends him (13:16), so accepting these agents would mean accepting their two senders, Jesus and his Father (13:20; see 17:18; 20:21). Jesus was elevating the status of the disciples and giving them the same significance that he has. Jesus is one with the Father as the “I AM,” and now we see a oneness between him and his followers (Cf. 15:5, “those who remain in me, and I in them”). They were to take up the banner of his mission, and thus they would constitute his presence in the world. This is very similar to the mission discourse of Matthew 10:40-42, where Jesus also said that the reception of his disciples constituted reception of him and the Father.

After this brief excursus on the mission of the disciples, Jesus expressed his deep sorrow that one of them would betray him (13:21). For the third time (after the death of Lazarus in 11:33 and at the realization that the “time” had arrived in 12:27), Jesus was “deeply troubled.” This time his heart broke more over the sin of Judas than over his own approaching death. As Whitacre (1999:334) says, “In his anguish we see revealed the effects of our sin on the heart of God from the first rebellion in the garden right up to the most recent sin you and I have committed today.”

Again we see the lack of understanding on the part of the disciples (13:22). They were surprised and shocked at these words (though it is difficult to see why, in light of the number of times Jesus had hinted at this very thing—6:64, 70-71; 12:24; 13:10-11, 18). In the Synoptic accounts they look at each other and ask, “Am I the one?” (Mark 14:19 and parallels). John expanded the scene in order to introduce the beloved disciple. We are told that he was “reclining on Jesus’ bosom” (13:23, NLT mg), which means that he was in one of the places of honor to the right of Jesus (the primary place of honor was on the left—perhaps Judas, 13:26; cf. Mark 10:37), since a guest would recline with his left elbow on the cushion and his head therefore near the person on his left (so Ridderbos). There is no evidence that there was any required seating pattern for the disciples or that social protocol was followed here. At any rate, Peter had put his foot in his mouth once already (13:6-9) and was probably leery of doing so again, so he motioned to the beloved disciple and asked, “Who’s he talking about?” It was the beloved disciple who asked, “Lord, who is it?”

Calling one disciple “the disciple Jesus loved” does not mean Jesus failed to love all of them (13:1) but that there was a special relationship between them. Therefore, it seems likely that he was one of the inner circle (Peter, James, and John), and since Peter is named here, he must have been one of the two brothers. They were cousins of Jesus (see note on 19:26), and of the two, John is the most likely. He is named in every Gospel except this one. He did not call himself “the disciple Jesus loved” out of pride but undoubtedly out of a sense of awe at the grace of God in Jesus. This disciple appears often (19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), usually in scenes with Peter (another point favoring John, for they were close). In these scenes, the beloved disciple always seems to triumph, and so some have thought there was a sense of rivalry between them. Few have pursued this, however, because closer reflection actually shows that Peter and the beloved disciple triumphed together. In a sense, the beloved disciple is the archetypal disciple showing the difference Christ can make in a person willing to follow him all the way (cf. Köstenberger 1998a:154-161).

When the beloved disciple asked who it was, Jesus responded with a symbolic act (13:26), telling them the betrayer was the one to whom he would give a piece of bread dipped in the bowl. At the Passover meal, the bowl probably was the haroseth, which consisted of a fruit paste made from dates, raisins, and sour wine; at an earlier part of the meal, bitter herbs would have been dipped in the sauce (so Bruce). A supreme irony, the act of passing a choice morsel to Judas honored him as a favorite. It was a demonstration that, with regard to Judas as well, Jesus “loved [him] to the very end” (13:1). Jesus must have said this quietly so that only the beloved disciple heard, for no one seemed to understand. When Jesus gave the morsel to Judas, however, “Satan entered into him” and possessed him completely (13:27). The evil union was complete, a terrible copy of the supreme oneness between Jesus and his followers (6:56; 15:4; 1 John 2:24; 3:24). Judas was hardened, assuming a terrible resolve to carry out his evil deed, and Jesus, knowing the hour had arrived, said, “Hurry and do what you’re going to do.” The climax of the ages had come.

The rest of Jesus’ companions seem to have remained in stunned silence, not knowing what was happening (13:28). It is hard to know why the beloved disciple did nothing, for he certainly had heard what Jesus said. Perhaps he was in shock (cf. also 20:9-10, when he does this again). Since Judas was the treasurer (cf. also 12:6), the disciples assumed that when Jesus told him to “do what you’re going to do,” he was telling Judas to go buy more food or to give money to the poor. The supplies would have been for the week of festival meals, and almsgiving was expected at Passover time (cf. note on 13:29). With this, Judas headed out “into the night,” (“night” symbolizing sin; cf. “dark” in 3:2). As Hendriksen says (1953:250), “night outside; night also in the heart of Judas.”

13:32 And since God receives glory because of the Son. This clause is missing in many early mss (66 א* B C* D L W), but the clause could have been omitted due to homoioteleuton (a visual error by a scribe) or perhaps because it was thought to be redundant. Metzger (1994:206) says, “There is a logical connection rightly expressed between the earlier and subsequent glorification, and the step-parallelism is characteristically Johannine.”

13:34 Love each other. Strangely, some scholars believe this to be an inferior brand of love because it does not include love for outsiders. This is indeed an odd sentiment because love for the world is so essential to John (1:10; 3:16, 19-20; 1 John 4:9). It is clear that all three aspects of love—for God, the world, and fellow believers—are equally essential in John’s Gospel. Also, as noted in the commentary on 13:13, this verse again shows what may be called a “triangular statement” of love in that Jesus’ love for the disciples should bring about love between each of them (Michaels 1989:273; Cf. 15:12; 17:11).