Faithful love v. heinous betrayal (13:1-30)

FAITHFUL LOVE v. HEINOUS BETRAYAL (13:1-30)

The next five chapters of John are known as the ‘farewell discourse’. The crucifixion is only hours away (though the disciples probably don’t realise this yet) and they are celebrating Passover with Jesus. Even on the verge of awful suffering, humiliation and death, He is more concerned for them than for Himself. He uses the time to prepare them for the massive shift they are about to undergo: from knowing Jesus ‘in the flesh’, to knowing Father and Son ‘in the Holy Spirit’; from asking Jesus anything and everything, to asking the Father in the authority of Jesus’s name; from observing Jesus’s love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control, to manifesting the fruit of the Spirit themselves; and from assisting Jesus in His mission, to incarnating that mission themselves as apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists and teachers.

Jesus knows that the climax of His work has arrived: the ‘kairos’ moment in history, when the Lamb of God must be sacrificed for the Father’s glory - to demonstrate His righteousness, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom 3:26).

What is central in Jesus's mind however, is not the sacrifice but the returning home to His Father (13:1). The whole of the next five chapters revolve around this theme: His return to His Father, why the disciples should rejoice rather than fear this, how their relationship with Him will morph into a relationship with all three members of the Trinity, and His life will continue to flow into them, enabling them to continue His mission ‘as the Father sent Me’.

Also central is His agape love for His disciples. In the Old Testament there is a special word for God’s love, which is ‘hesed’. It is difficult to translate as it encapsulates many different shades of meaning in English: love, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, mercy, devotion, and favour. Some translations use compound words such as ‘loyal love’, ‘steadfast, unfailing love’, ‘faithful love’, and perhaps best of all, ‘loving kindness’. Hesed is the word used for covenant relationships such as man and wife, David and Jonathan, God and Israel. God describes Himself to Moses as compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in hesed and truth; who keeps hesed for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin…’” (Ex. 34:6-7). When the Old Testament was first translated from Hebrew into Greek, the Greek word agape was often used to translate ‘hesed’. For example it is used in translating the greatest commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5). This command shows us that hesed/agape love is not just intellectual assent, nor just an emotion, nor just practical loyalty: it is all of these, rolled into one.

Jesus had loved the disciples as ‘His own’. He regarded them as His family (Matt 12:48-50). He was very aware that each of them had been given to Him by His Father (17:6-12), and He was responsible for keeping them from the enemy - the ‘Prince of this world’. Though He had come into the world, His Kingdom was ‘not of this world’ (18:36). Now He is about to leave the world, and His concern is to prepare the Twelve to make the transition from knowing Jesus ‘after the flesh’ to knowing Him ‘in the Spirit’ and as one member of the Trinity. He now demonstrates His agape love - His loyal, steadfast, unfailing, gracious, merciful love - in devoting His last opportunity for fellowship to teaching them about living in His resurrection life, after the Cross.

There is debate about whether this meal was the same Passover meal described by the Synoptics. John doesn’t mention anything about the institution of the Lord’s Supper: but equally, he leaves out the majority of the episodes described in the other gospels. It seems his purpose in writing was to fill in the gaps in the other accounts, whilst selecting episodes from Jesus's life that fit his twin purposes ‘that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ’ and ‘that believing, you may have life in His name’. His account flows smoothly from the foot-washing into the meal; and then after Judas’s departure, Jesus's teaching about going to the Father. But at the end of that section, there is a potential break at the end of chapter fourteen, when Jesus says, “Arise, let us go from here” - only to continue the flow of His teaching for another two chapters. We have all experienced occasions when a visitor goes to leave, but then the conversation reignites and their departure goes on hold! Equally, some see this as the point where Jesus and team leave the Upper Room on their way to Gethsemane, with His ‘I am the true Vine’ metaphor being prompted by passing the Temple, which had a huge vine growing above its entrance.

Washing the disciples’ feet

The foot-washing happened when the meal was already on the table, not as the NKJV has it, after the meal had ended. For ceremonial meals such as this, the Jews had adopted the Greek custom of using long, broad benches around three sides of a table: guests would lie on the benches using their left arm to prop themselves up, whilst their right hand was free to take the food. This posture contrasted with the first Passover when the people were told to eat standing up, ready for a speedy departure; and it symbolised freedom and relaxation. Their lower body and legs would be on the outer edge of the bench, behind their right-hand neighbour. Their head and upper body would be in front of the person to their left. (Van Gogh's famous painting of ‘The Last Supper’ gives us quite the wrong impression.). Given there were thirteen people at the start of the meal, Jesus as the celebrant would have been in the middle of the middle table, with two disciples on each side. This means that John must have been to Jesus’s right, given that he was able to lean back and whisper his question to Jesus. And Peter must have been to John’s right. Given that Jesus was able to reach Judas to pass him the sop, it seems Judas was next to Jesus but on His left. This was traditionally a place of honour, in some traditions left vacant for Elijah.

Everyone had taken their place, ready to start eating; but though the host had thoughtfully provided a basin and towel, there was no servant to wash their feet. This was considered such an ignominious role that it was considered beneath the dignity of a Jewish slave. But it was also an expected courtesy whose omission conveyed lack of respect, let alone love, for a guest (Lk 7:36-50). Luke later tells us that this very evening the Twelve had been arguing amongst themselves about who should be considered the greatest - presumably with an eye on leadership succession after Jesus’s departure! (Lk 22:24-27). Jostling for position had been a recurrent theme during their time with Jesus, sometimes even involving pushy parents lobbying Jesus on their behalf! I imagine that as the meal was prepared and served, the Twelve would have quietly debated who should deal with their dusty, smelly feet before they lay down beside each other on the benches! “I’m not doing i! - You do it!” “No, I'm not doing it!: someone else should.” All twelve took their places, tacitly refusing to humble themselves: and Jesus as Master of Ceremonies was about to 'say grace’, when the unthinkable happened.

He, the Lord of Glory, the Son of God, the Messiah, got up from the feast, stripped off down to His loincloth and put a towel around His waist, then knelt at their feet one by one, tenderly bathing them in the basin then drying their feet and toes. The One of whom John the Baptist had said, “I am not worthy to undo the buckle of his sandals”, shamed their pride and competitiveness by taking on Himself the form of a servant. His mindset was one of utter humility, although He knew He was equal with God (Phil 2:5-11). He laid aside His flesh-life, with its ‘pride of life’, as a statement that He was willing to lay down His life for them at the Cross. Truly, He loved them 'to the end’; ‘to the uttermost’. They must have wept at the memory of this event, once they understood after Calvary.

I expect Peter felt the shamefulness of what was happening. If Jesus was working His way clockwise around the table, Peter was the fifth to be washed. He crystallises the apparent inappropriateness of what is happening, refusing to let Jesus wash his feet. But Jesus was about to teach them (and us) a much deeper, multi-part lesson - relevant every day of our lives:-

1. We must allow Jesus to wash our feet, otherwise we can have no fellowship with Him. The metaphor is about letting Jesus cleanse us from our sin. “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful, and just to forgive us, our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 Jn 1:8-9). Refusing to accept our own sinfulness is just another form of ‘the pride of life’, and means we cannot receive our ‘portion’ in Christ.

2. When Peter then asks Jesus to wash his hands and head as well (!), Jesus extends the metaphor, “He who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet to be completely clean; and you are clean”. Later He says, “You are already clean, because of the word” (logos, torah, teaching) “I have spoken to you” (15:3). One who has believed in Christ has been cleansed in a fundamental way, such that whilst daily life may bring the need of fresh cleansing from the sins and defilements of daily life, he is still regarded by Christ as a ‘saint’: someone sanctified and set apart by God, to be holy and blameless in His sight (Eph 1:1-7).

3. ‘A servant is not greater than His master’. If you rightly accept Me as your Teacher and Lord, you must follow My example and wash each others’ feet. But what does this mean? Obviously we cannot cleanse each other from sin or defilement, though there is a role for prayer ministry to each other in this respect (Jas 5:16). Paul explains the implications in his letter to the Philippians: it means having Jesus’s mindset (Phil 2:5), His servant-heartedness. Not competing for honour and status within the church, but putting others’ interests first as Timothy did (Phil 2:19-21) ; if necessary risking our lives to serve others, as Epaphroditus did (Phil 2:25-30); and seeking reconciliation where we have been arguing with others (Phil 4:2). Though Paul himself had much to boast about, he ‘counted it all loss for the sake of knowing Christ and being found in Him’.

4. Outward observance of any ritual, even allowing Jesus to wash our feet in person, does not of itself guarantee any inward change. Perhaps taking Jesus’s command literally when He said “You should do as I have done”, the early Church did practice ritual foot-washing for some decades, but eventually it was abandoned. Maybe the example of Judas had something to do with this. He too had let his feet be washed, even though at that very moment he was looking for the right opportunity to betray Jesus!

Jesus prophecies Judas's betrayal

As yet (13:18), Jesus hasn't yet explicitly said that He is about to leave them, although He knows that His crucifixion lies only twelve hours ahead. He has spoken about ‘being lifted up’ (12:32-33) and warned them He won’t be present much longer (12:35). The disciples knew that the religious rulers were plotting to kill Jesus, but also that they were trying to avoid doing so during Passover, for fear it would lead to riots (Mk 14:2). They had put the word out, looking for informants who could lead them to Jesus out of the public view (11:57).

So it must have come as a big shock when just after telling them they must serve one another - indeed, love one another - as He has done, He tells them there is a traitor in their very midst! (13:18). The Passover meal was a deeply sacred occasion, a celebration of family salvation. No sooner has He broken bread, than He says one of those eating His bread - accepting His kindness and friendship - will suddenly lash out with a ju-jitsu kick of betrayal.

A couple of days earlier, Judas had agreed to betray Jesus to the Chief Priests for the sale-price of a slave - thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:14-16). So whilst Jesus’s foot-washing may have been the final nail in the coffin of any military-Messiah hopes Judas had, he had already made the choice to serve Mammon rather than God. Indeed, he had been betraying the whole team's trust, every time he embezzled funds from the communal purse. Greed and fraud had become so habitual that he only realised too late that he had doomed himself.

Having just underscored the need for serving one another, and being about to start a meal celebrating deliverance and salvation, why does Jesus choose this moment to issue such a deeply unsettling prophecy? We see its resulting consternation in the series of troubled questions it provokes from the disciples (13:36,37; 14:5,8,22)

All twelve knew they had been personally chosen by Jesus: even Judas, who was a devil (6:70). Had Jesus not forewarned them, they might have been tempted to doubt His foreknowledge and therefore His divinity, when it happened. The primary function of prophecy is so that we may know retrospectively that God knows everything from beginning to end, from alpha to omega: that He is God. ‘Then you will know that I am the Lord’ occurs fifty times following his prophecies, in Ezekiel. (See Ezek 20:42-44, 37:12-14 for examples), It is not just to foretell the future or to accredit ate the prophet. Jesus wants them to hold fast to the truth of His divinity: “I AM”.

Bolstering their faith in Himself as the Son of God, is vital for their future mission. If He is not God, then ‘we are of all men most to be pitied’ (1Cor 15:19). But if He is the Son of God, then anyone who receives those He sends, receives Him: and those who receive Him, receive the Father who sent Him.

The thought of Judas betraying Him, deeply disturbs Jesus (13:21). He has known it all along from the scripture He quotes; so it is not the surprise factor that causes this. Rather, it is His compassion, even for Judas. “The Son of Man goes just as it is written off Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man, if he had not been born" Then Judas, who was betraying him, answered, and said, "Rabbi, is it high?" He said to him, "you have said it “. (Matt 26:24,25)

His evident distress heightens the disciples’ consternation and sorrow. How can they trust one another once Jesus is gone, if they don’t even know who did it? If they knew, maybe they could prevent it happening? Their concern has gone from “Who is the greater?”, to “Who is the traitor?” Even worse, what if their own hearts are deceiving them?

In their newfound humility, they take turns asking Jesus, “Is it I?” Presumably Jesus makes no reply, so Peter asks the one person he's sure it can’t be - ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ - to whisper to Jesus, “Who is it, Lord?” Being on Jesus’s right, all John needs to do is to lean back against Jesus's breast.

In fact, the answer to the question lay in the original prophecy. ‘The one who eats My bread’ - the one who personally accepts an extra portion directly from Jesus, the one whom He seemingly honours - will be the betrayer. Jesus quietly explains the hidden meaning to John, then dips the bread in the sauce bowl and hands it to Judas.

The bread was unleavened bread, meant to symbolise sincerity and truth. Usually, Jews ate sourdough bread, where each new batch contained a small lump of dough from the previous batch to provide the necessary yeast. Leaven symbolised sin, and before Passover the whole family would hunt for any traces of breadcrumbs so that the whole house could be clean for the feast. The sauce would have been horseradish sauce, the ‘bitter herbs’ symbolising both the bitterness of their lives as Egyptian slaves, and the bitter cost of their redemption: the death of all the firstborn sons in Egypt. Accepting the sop was the height of hypocrisy for a man who was about to be utterly insincere and betray his master and friend to an especially bitter death.

The disciples (apart from John, and perhaps Peter) still can’t work out who is the one. Presumably it was important for them not to know, as otherwise they might have turned on Judas and prevented him from the dire deed. To forestall this, Jesus ends Judas out with a coded command which the others thought meant some element of the feast had been missed out in the preparations, or else that he should give alms to the poor: a traditional Jewish way of earning righteousness before worshipping God.

Something quite horrific now happens in the spiritual realm: Satan enters into Judas. In all the other gospel accounts of demonised people, they still seem to have the freewill to approach Him, even if being near Christ’s holiness then causes the evil spirit to throw a fit. But in Judas’s case, he has so opened the door for Satan by his habitual filching, and now by agreeing a price to betray Christ, that Satan in person enters him. Far from throwing himself on Jesus’s mercy as all the other demonised people do, hJudas goes out immediately into the night to find the High Priest and seal the deal. Truly, he is ‘the son of perdition’ (17:12).

Free now to speak at liberty, Jesus starts an extended discourse teaching them about the wonderful effects His death and resurrection will bring about in their spiritual lives, along with the terrible cost of being identified with Him and carrying on His work.