The new division in John’s Gospel is marked by a long, loosely connected, almost breathless comment by the narrator (vv. 1–3) in which he tries to gather up the themes of chapters 1–12 and 13–17 alike and use them as his stage setting. The first element in this setting has to do with time and circumstances: The notice that it was just before the Passover Feast (v. 1a) brings the temporal notices of 11:55 (“it was almost time”), 12:1 (“six days before”), and 12:12 (“the next day”) up to date. The further indication that the evening meal was being served (v. 2a) is a necessary minimum for making sense of verses 4–5. On the basis of the synoptic Gospels, the evening meal is commonly assumed to be Jesus’ last meal with his disciples, a Passover meal at which he instituted the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:12–26/Matt. 26:17–30/Luke 22:7–23; cf. vv. 21–30). But if this is the case, the author of John’s Gospel has ignored the institution of the Eucharist altogether (even though 6:52–58 suggests that he probably knew of it) and has focused instead on a different “sign” or symbolic act of Jesus. And instead of identifying the meal as a Passover, he has consciously placed it just before the Passover Feast (v. 1). It is unlikely, therefore, that the narrator attaches any particular significance to the meal itself (any more than to the “dinner” at Bethany [same word in Greek] mentioned in 12:2). It is simply the occasion for Jesus to “say … what the Father has told me to say” (12:50) both by sign and by word.
More important to the narrator than the external circumstances are the theological factors that go into his brief setting in verses 1–3, that is, what Jesus knew (vv. 1b, 3) and what the devil had done (v. 2b). The things Jesus knew (that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father, that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God) will provide several of the major themes of Jesus’ farewell discourse (13:31–17:26). A postscript appended to the first of these (Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love) centers attention on what is immediately to follow, the washing of the disciples’ feet (vv. 4–20), while the accompanying remark about the devil’s power over Judas (v. 2b) sets the stage for the subsequent designation of Judas as the betrayer and his exit into the night (vv. 21–30).
The procedure by which Jesus washed the feet of each of his disciples is described in very few words (vv. 4–5). Attention centers less on the act itself than on Jesus’ explanation of what it means. The interpretation is given in two parts: first, a somewhat confusing exchange with a somewhat confused Simon Peter (vv. 6–11), and second, a clearer and more complete explanation in a brief monologue addressed to the disciples as a group (vv. 12–20). Each part ends mysteriously with a reference to Jesus’ betrayal by Judas (vv. 11, 18–20), anticipating verses 21–30.
Simon Peter’s initial question (v. 6) highlights the fact that Jesus, by girding himself with a towel and washing the disciples’ feet, has reversed the customary practice. In the world of Jesus’ day, servants might wash the feet of their master on his return from a journey, a wife might wash her husband’s feet, or students the feet of their teacher, but not the other way around. Peter’s address to Jesus as Lord (v. 6), while customary among individual disciples in this Gospel (cf., e.g., 6:68; 11:21, 27, 32, 39; 13:36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22), has a special aptness here in accenting the incongruity of the situation. Why a Lord or master should act out the servant’s role toward those who are actually his servants is indeed hard to fathom, and for the moment Jesus provides no explanation. Though Peter and the other disciples do not realize now what his strange behavior means, later they will understand (v. 7). The expression later (Gr.: meta tauta; lit., “after these things”), when not used simply as part of a narrative (as in 5:1; 6:1; 7:1), can refer either to the future in a general sense or to future events mentioned in prophecies about the last days (e.g., Rev. 1:19). The promise of specific knowledge or belief or remembrance at some future time (usually after the resurrection) is a fairly common one in John’s Gospel (cf. 2:22; 12:16; 13:19, 29; 16:4, 25), and the immediate impression left by verse 7 is that the disciples will understand what the footwashing means after Jesus has been crucified and raised from the dead.
Peter, less than satisfied, still presses his question, this time in the form of a protest. For a teacher to wash his disciples’ feet is inappropriate, and Peter will not participate (v. 8). Jesus’ response is just as direct. If Peter does not let Jesus wash his feet, he is no disciple. Without explaining precisely what it means, Jesus here states unmistakably that footwashing (i.e., having one’s feet washed by Jesus) is not optional but a necessity for anyone desiring to follow him. To be a disciple, one must be clean. Peter grasps the point at last, and begs to be clean all over (v. 9), but Jesus makes a distinction based on the metaphor of someone returning home from the public baths (v. 10). Such a person is clean, except for the feet, which have picked up the dust of the road. What is needed is not a second bath, but only the routine washing of feet. Applying the metaphor to the disciples, Jesus tells them that, having bathed, they too are clean. They do not need a second bath (as Peter’s request implies), but only the washing of their feet.
Jesus’ metaphorical reply to Peter leaves behind more questions than it answers. In what sense are the disciples clean? What is their first bath that makes a second unnecessary? And there is still the question: What does the footwashing itself represent? Many commentators find here a reference to the once-and-for-all spiritual cleansing involved in Christian baptism, and it is easy to see how the first readers of the Gospel might have made this application. But though the Gospel offers glimpses of the disciples’ baptizing activity in the days of John the Baptist (3:22; 4:1–2), it shows no particular interest in their own baptism (presumably at the hands of John). More to the point is Jesus’ subsequent remark to them that “you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (15:3). In the course of Jesus’ public ministry they were separated from the world and united to Jesus by their acceptance of his message. The unbelieving among them were in turn separated from their number, so that finally they were established as a community of faithful disciples (cf. esp. 6:60–71). In this sense they are now clean, and Jesus is almost ready to address them as the faithful community that will continue his work in the world. The key to their identity and their mission in the world is somehow represented in the symbolic act of footwashing, but Jesus defers his explanation of how that is so until verses 12–20. For the moment, one obstacle remains. It is not quite true that all of you are clean (v. 10). Jesus had spoken earlier of the ones that “did not believe” and also of one who “would betray him” (6:64). The former had been unmasked and had gone away (6:66), but the latter was still present (6:70–71). Before presenting Jesus’ interpretation of the footwashing, the narrator pauses momentarily to mention the betrayer and to underscore Jesus’ awareness of his presence (v. 11; cf. 6:64, 71). The brief aside anticipates a somewhat longer reflection on the betrayal theme in verses 18–20.
The entire conversation between Jesus and Peter takes place in the course of carrying out the procedure described in verses 4–5, and verse 12 takes up where verse 5 left off. But when Jesus asks the disciples Do you understand what I have done for you? (v. 12b), it comes as a surprise because he has already stated that they will only understand later (v. 7). More surprising still is the comment in verse 17 that concludes his explanation: Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. The assumption is that the later time mentioned in verse 7 has arrived! Now they understand what Jesus is doing (cf. 15:15). Though verse 7 in its context seemed to point beyond the resurrection, it turns out to have its fulfillment just a few moments later, around the same table and in the same chapter. In John’s Gospel, “postresurrection truths” (i.e., things that become true when Jesus is raised from the dead to rejoin the Father) have a way of making their appearance already within Jesus’ ministry, especially as the Passion draws near. The future is superimposed on the present.
But what is it here that differentiates nonunderstanding in verse 7 from understanding in verse 17? Only Jesus’ few simple words of explanation, built on an argument from the greater to the lesser. If Jesus, whom they rightly address as Teacher (cf. 1:38; 11:28) and Lord (cf. vv. 6, 9; 6:68; 11:21, 27, 32, 39) has humbled himself as a servant to wash their feet, how much more should they be willing to wash one another’s feet? Jesus’ act of menial service is meant as an example to be followed (vv. 13–15). The principle that no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him (v. 16), which refers elsewhere (15:20; cf. Matt. 10:24) to the inevitability of persecution, is used here to reinforce the logic of verses 13–15. If no servant is greater than his master, then they should not be too proud to do what Jesus has done; if no messenger is greater than the one who sent him, then the servant role that belongs to Jesus’ mission cannot be considered foreign to their own.
The heart of Jesus’ pronouncement is verse 14, which can be laid out in the form of a triangle, with the statement I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet represented by a vertical line pointed downward (indicating something bestowed from above, or from someone greater), and the statement you also should wash one another’s feet represented by a horizontal line pointed either way (indicating mutuality between or among human beings).
The point of such a “triangular” sentence is that God’s actions of grace toward humanity, through Jesus, find their completion and full realization in things that the recipients of this grace do for one another. This will be seen in other triangular statements in Jesus’ farewell discourses, centering on divine love: for example, 13:34b, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another,” and 15:12, “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you” (cf. also 1 John 4:11, “Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another,” and Eph. 4:32, “Forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you”). For the author of John’s Gospel, footwashing is both a symbol and a concrete expression of self-giving love. To wash one another’s feet (v. 14) is to “love one another,” and because the imagery is that of cleansing, it is likely that the mutual forgiveness of sins is implied as well.
The initiative in love, in forgiveness, and specifically in the washing of the disciples’ feet, rests with Jesus. It is the initiative of the cross. The tone for the narrative (as well as for the discourse to follow) has been set in the first three verses of the chapter: He who loved … his own was about to leave this world and go to the Father, for he had come from God and was returning to God. The self-giving expressed in the washing of feet foreshadows the self-giving involved in Jesus’ death on the cross. The Teacher who washes the feet of his disciples corresponds to the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (cf. 10:11, 15, 17; cf. 15:13). The extension of the latter principle can be seen in the triangular statement found in 1 John 3:16–18: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” Just as there is no one way in which disciples “lay down their lives” for each other, so there is no one way in which they wash one another’s feet. Mutual love is the key, but this love may express itself in material help, deeds of kindness, forgiveness of wrongs committed, protection from persecution, even death in another’s place—all the things that God himself provides for his children. This is what Jesus means by describing the footwashing as an example (v. 15). Not only is it absolutely essential to be “washed” in this sense by Jesus (v. 8); it is also necessary to “wash the feet” of others (cf. Matt. 10:8: “Freely you have received, freely give”). The should of verse 14 is a genuine obligation, not merely good advice. It is something that Jesus’ followers “owe” (Gr.: opheilete) to one another (cf. 1 John 4:11) and consequently, to everyone (Rom. 13:8; cf. 1 John 2:6, where the obligation is to “live just as Jesus Christ did”). Jesus allots one of this Gospel’s two beatitudes (i.e., expressions with the Greek word makarios, “blessed” or “happy,” akin to Matt. 5:3–12 and Luke 6:20–23) to those who faithfully pay their debt of love (v. 17, you will be blessed if you do them; cf. the beatitude in Luke 11:28).
The strong emphasis on “doing” or “putting into practice” the teaching of Jesus (vv. 15, 17) complements and balances the fourth Gospel’s characteristic accent on “believing” in him as the way to eternal life (contrast, e.g., the other Johannine beatitude, 20:29: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”). Jesus’ teaching in connection with the footwashing in John’s Gospel is thus surprisingly close to the teaching with which he concludes the Sermon on the Mount in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. 7:16–27/Luke 6:43–49): for example, “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:16a; cf. 7:20); “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21); “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:24; cf. 7:26).
The scope of the disciples’ responsibility is not specified. Clearly, they have an obligation to one another (v. 14), but the reference in verse 16 to being sent hints at a wider mission as well. Strictly speaking, verse 16a (no servant is greater than his master) is sufficient to make the point that they must follow their master’s example in the way they treat each other. Verse 16b (nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him) appears at first to have been retained by the author simply because the two sayings were remembered and handed down in the church as a pair (like the pair found in Matt. 10:24). But on closer examination, verse 16b proves to have a function of its own. The word messenger (Gr.: apostolos) is literally “apostle” (the only occurrence of this word in John’s Gospel), and it may be that verse 16b serves as a subtle reminder that the group addressed so decisively in verses 12–17 were in fact “the Apostles” (elsewhere in this Gospel referred to as “the Twelve” (6:67, 70; 20:24). In any case, the emphasis on sending in verse 16b is not accidental, for it is reinforced in verse 20, a pronouncement with close parallels of its own in the synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt. 10:40/Luke 10:16; Matt. 18:5). All of this suggests that, in washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus is preparing them for a mission to the world. Their servanthood to one another (v. 14) is not an end in itself but a means toward the greater end of continuing and extending Jesus’ own mission. Far from being merely parenthetical, verses 16 and 20 are crucial to the understanding of verses 1–20 as a whole. This will become clear as Jesus explains more fully in his farewell discourses the significance of what he has done and will do (cf., e.g., 15:16; 17:17–19).
The common theme of sending supports the view that verses 18–20, despite their apparent reference to the traitor Judas, belong with verses 1–17, not 21–30. In a sense, they serve the same function in relation to verses 12–17 that verse 11 serves in relation to verses 6–10. But it should be noted that the reference to Judas in verses 18–20 is not explicit (in v. 11 it became explicit only as a comment of the narrator). Jesus mentions Judas neither by name nor by such an expression as “he who betrays me” (cf. v. 11). His words do not even have to be understood as referring to one betrayer in particular. Verse 20 suggests that their most immediate application was to the mission of the disciples after Jesus had sent them forth. The three verses are a kind of prophetic oracle, warning of the danger of betrayal among those supposedly committed to Jesus and his mission. There are several New Testament examples of such oracles:
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death (Matt. 10:21; cf. Mark 13:12).
I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household” (Matt. 10:35–36; cf. Luke 12:52–53).
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other (Matt. 24:10).
The behavior described in such pronouncements stands in total contrast to the behavior demonstrated in the footwashing.
Jesus ties his oracle to a biblical text, Psalm 41:9, which he says is to be fulfilled in his experience and in that of the disciples (v. 18; an allusion to Micah 7:6 in Matthew 10:35–36 accomplishes the same purpose, but without the fulfillment formula). The text deals with betrayal within a family or close-knit community (i.e., among those who eat at the same table). Though the narrator surely thinks of Judas as the prime historical example of such betrayal (vv. 21–30), there is no reason to assume that he (or Jesus) has Judas exclusively in mind. The pain of discord and treachery is to be just as real an experience within the Christian community as the pain of persecution, and Jesus wants his disciples to be prepared. When professed believers “betray and hate each other” (Matt. 24:10), Jesus wants it known that he has warned of these very things in advance (cf. 16:4a, where he makes the same point about persecution). Those who remember his warnings (cf. Mark 13:23/Matt. 24:25) will maintain, in the face of every disappointment, their faith in Jesus as all that he claimed to be (i.e., that I am he, v. 19), and in so doing find their faith vindicated. They are the ones who prove themselves truly “apostles” or “sent ones,” and to them the promise of verse 20 is given. The brief mission oracle ends appropriately with a prophetic guarantee of the authority of the messengers (cf. the placement of Matt. 10:40–42 and Luke 10:16 at the end of substantially longer missionary discourses).
Jesus is thus vindicated as God, the I am and the giver of life (cf. 8:58), in the mission of his disciples, with its setbacks as well as its triumphs, not (despite 18:5–8) in his personal betrayal by Judas. But now, having spoken generally of betrayal in the context of his disciples’ impending mission, Jesus is ready to address the specific betrayal (and betrayer) immediately at hand.
Additional Notes
13:1 Just before (or simply before). The vague expression makes it impossible to extract an exact chronology of Passion week from John’s Gospel. All that is clear is that this is not the Passover meal (cf. 19:14).
His own who were in the world: There are echoes here of the prologue: “He was in the world … the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him …” (1:10–12). In the present passage, the “some” who received him are identified as his own, for now they have displaced “his own” who rejected him. Still Jews, they belong to the new Israel that Jesus began almost immediately to gather around himself (cf. 1:31, 47–51; 2:11). The statement that they are in the world is not as redundant as it may sound to the casual reader, but hints at the fact that they will have a mission to the world after Jesus’ departure (cf. 17:11).
He now showed them the full extent of his love. Some translations tend to connect this statement with the footwashing in particular (e.g., NIV; BDF par. 207[3]: “he gave them the perfect love-token”), but it is more likely that the phrase, the full extent (Gr.: eis telos) has a temporal as well as a qualitative sense, and that the statement points beyond the footwashing to what the footwashing itself represents, Jesus’ death on the cross.
13:2 The evening meal was being served: Some ancient manuscripts read “when supper was finished.” This reading, while quite well attested, probably rests on a copyist’s error (perhaps an error of hearing), for the supper was by no means finished (cf. vv. 21–30).
The devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus: lit., “the devil having already put it into the heart that Judas would betray him.” The question is whether the devil puts the thought into Judas’ heart to betray Jesus or whether the devil puts it into his own heart (a Semitic idiom meaning “to decide”) that the betrayal should take place. The former is more plausible, for it is unlikely that the narrator would reflect on the thought processes of the devil. Some ancient manuscripts tried to make this meaning more obvious by actually putting Judas in the genitive case (“the heart of Judas,” GNB, which is equivalent to prompted Judas). But the best manuscripts have Judas as nominative; the reference is simply to “the heart,” but since the narrator’s purpose is to make a comment about Judas’ motivation (cf. v. 27; 6:71), “the heart” is implicitly the heart of Judas.
13:6 Lord, are you going to wash my feet? No readable English can convey the emphasis of the Greek (lit. “Lord, you? of me? wash the feet?”). The placement of Lord and the two pronouns together at the beginning of the sentence strongly accents the incongruity of the situation as Peter saw it.
13:8 You have no part with me. A part (Gr.: meros) with Jesus refers to a place in the community of believers and a share in the unique destiny they enjoy of being with Jesus forever (cf. 14:3). Other NT uses of meros refer to an eternal destiny, whether of punishment or blessing (Matt. 24:51 /Luke 12:45; Rev. 20:6; 21:8).
13:10 Only … his feet: These words are omitted in one ancient Greek manuscript, but the vast majority of manuscripts, including the most ancient, preserve the longer reading. If the shorter variant is adopted (as many commentators suggest), either: (a) the bath referred to is not the footwashing, in which case the point of the pronouncement is that no footwashing is necessary; or (b) the bath referred to is the footwashing, in which case Jesus is saying that the disciples’ whole body is clean by virtue of the footwashing itself. But a contradicts the whole thrust of the passage (v. 8 in particular), while b is rendered (at least) difficult by the assertion in 15:3 that the disciples are clean by virtue of Jesus’ teaching. It is better to follow the lead of the best manuscripts (as NIV has done) and adopt the longer reading, with its implication that the footwashing represents not the initial bath but a second cleansing (i.e., the practice of love and forgiveness by the community of faith.) It is possible, though by no means certain, that the narrator has in mind baptism as the accompaniment to receiving Jesus’ teaching in the church of his own day and is making the point that baptism is not to be repeated. The emphasis of the passage as a whole, however, is not on the once-and-for-all character of baptism but on the absolute necessity of footwashing, however the latter is understood.
And you are clean, though not every one of you: lit., “but not all.” The words attributed here to Jesus do not refer explicitly to one person. It is the narrator (in v. 11) who makes the connection with Judas explicit. Although Jesus’ literal words allow an application to Judas, they also allow (if you is understood as looking beyond the Twelve to the entire Christian community) a wider application as well. The phrase “though not every one of you” anticipates v. 18 (“I am not referring to all of you”) and the warning given there that betrayal—and betrayers—will be a continual thorn in the side of those chosen by Jesus and sent into the world.
13:15 An example that you should do: The context shows that Jesus has in mind primarily a moral example. But a liturgical example (i.e., that the disciples in their worship should literally act out the symbolism of the footwashing) is by no means excluded. This is especially true in light of the fact that, in this Gospel, the symbolic act of footwashing replaces the symbolic act of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Possibly John either knows of, or is advocating, the practice of footwashing in the Christian communities with which he is familiar. Such a practice would be a way for the Christian community to dramatize the responsibility of its members to be servants to one another and so bring to full realization in the world the forgiveness and love of Jesus. It is not likely, however, that John intends an “ordinance” or “sacrament” of footwashing to displace the Lord’s Supper at the center of Christian worship. His omission of the Lord’s Supper is probably to be explained by the earlier inclusion of the synagogue discourse on the bread of life (esp. 6:52–58), which made an account of the institution superfluous. If John envisioned footwashing as a liturgical practice, he probably viewed it as part of what happened around the Lord’s table, perhaps as a preparation for the Eucharist proper.
13:17 Now that you know: lit., “if you know.” The translation is justified because the first class conditional clause in Greek assumes reality, i.e., that in fact they do know the truth Jesus speaks. The conditional clause in the same verse, if you do them, is a different grammatical construction referring to something that may or may not take place in the future rather than to something already true in the present.
13:18 I know those I have chosen. These words must be understood as qualifying 6:70. Jesus chose the Twelve as a group, but Judas will shortly be seen not to have been truly chosen as an individual.
He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me. Some commentators have noticed that shares my bread (lit., “ate my bread”) uses the same unusual Greek word for “eat” found in 6:54, 56–58 and have proposed that John has chosen this word (instead of the common word found in the LXX of Ps. 41:10) for the sake of supposed eucharistic implications. More likely it is either a word he was in the habit of using purely as a matter of style, or else the LXX manuscripts with which he was familiar had it in their texts of Ps. 41:10. It is true, however, that what was violated, both by Judas and by subsequent betrayers in the ancient church, was (at least at one level) the fellowship of the Lord’s table (cf. Mark 14:18, “one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me”).
The phrase lifted up his heel against me rests on an ancient gesture of contempt probably carrying the connotation of trampling someone underfoot, or perhaps shaking the dust of his city from one’s feet. Such a gesture is to this day regarded by Arabs as an insult (cf. E. F. F. Bishop, Expository Times 70 [1958–59], pp. 331–32.
Jesus Predicts His Betrayal
Verse 21 marks a solemn and troubling moment for both Jesus and the disciples. The words after he had said this (Gr.: tauta eipōn) terminate the mini-discourse of verses 12–20 and introduce a new sequence of events (cf. 18:1, where the same expression terminates the farewell discourses as a whole). The reference to Jesus being troubled in spirit recalls his anguish at the tomb of Lazarus (11:33) and again at the prospect of the “hour” of his death (12:27). The betrayal of which he is about to speak is a betrayal to death, and (as before) it is the nearness of death and of the devil that agitates his spirit. He makes his declaration both openly and solemnly, as one bringing a formal testimony: I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me. The narrator has kept this betrayal ever before the eyes of his readers (cf. 6:64, 71; 12:4, 6; 13:11), but to the disciples it comes as a shock: Who can the traitor be? (v. 22).
At this tense moment a new character comes into the story, a disciple never identified by name, but only as the disciple whom Jesus loved (v. 23; cf. 19:26–27; 20:2–8; 21:7, 20–24). Just as the identity of all the disciples rests on the fact that Jesus “showed them the full extent of his love” (v. 1), so this disciple’s identity as an individual rests on Jesus’ love for him. His position at the table, next to Jesus, was regarded by the disciples as a place of special honor (cf. Mark 10:35–40). Not even Simon Peter sat as close to Jesus as he (v. 24). Though the identification of this disciple with John, the son of Zebedee, is as plausible as any that has been proposed (see Introduction) the fact remains that, as the Gospel’s author (21:24), he has chosen to remain anonymous, and the commentator has no choice but to respect his anonymity.
As soon as he has been introduced, the disciple whom Jesus loved becomes the recipient of a revelation (vv. 24–30). Simon Peter asks him to find out from Jesus the traitor’s identity, and Jesus arranges a private signal for him by which to recognize who it is: It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish (v. 26). When the bread is dipped and given to Judas, the beloved disciple (but apparently no one else) knows that Judas is the betrayer. The narrator remarks that as soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him, almost as if he remembers actually seeing it happen. If the signal was indeed for him, his fascination with Judas as an instrument of Satan through much of his Gospel (cf. 6:70–71; 13:2; 17:12) is understandable.
Whether the narrator is himself the beloved disciple or whether he is drawing on eyewitness material that comes from this person, he seems to assume the beloved disciple’s place at the table and to write from his standpoint. The ignorance of the rest of the disciples is illustrated by their misunderstanding of Jesus’ last words to Judas, What you are about to do, do quickly (v. 27). The statement that No one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him (v. 28) gives evidence of being written from the beloved disciple’s point of view. The narrator seems, by making him the observer, to exclude the beloved disciple from the generalization that no one at the table knew what was going on. The narrator sees the action through the beloved disciple’s eyes. Though this does not prove the two are the same person, nothing in the narrative is inconsistent with that supposition. The beloved disciple is the one person seated at the table other than Jesus and Judas himself who understands the significance of Judas’ departure. Whether he even shared his insight with Peter, whose request first drew him into the situation, the reader is not told. As the one disciple with insight into what had just transpired, he is also the appropriate one to preserve and put in perspective Jesus’ last revelations and instructions.
Verse 30 picks up the flow of external dramatic action from verse 26, after the significant interpretive aside represented by verses 27–29. As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out, in apparent obedience to Jesus’ command in verse 27: What you are about to do, do quickly. The narrator adds that it was night, probably as a dramatic comment on Judas’ fate. In his last pronouncement to the religious authorities, Jesus had said, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going” (12:35). For Judas, the curtain of night had now fallen; having left the circle of the disciples to do his evil work, he was walking in darkness.
Additional Notes
13:23 Was reclining next to him: The reclining posture was characteristic of formal meals in the Greek world, and among Jews was optional (except at Passover when it was obligatory; the Jewish Passover Haggadah says, “on all other nights we eat and drink either sitting or reclining, but on this night we all recline”). John’s choice of words here suggests to some commentators that he is describing a Passover meal (other details, such as the dipping of bread in v. 26 and the mention in v. 30 that the meal took place at night also support such a theory). If it is a Passover meal, however, it is obviously a private one celebrated at least one day in advance (cf. v. 1). The author clearly does not regard it as the Passover in a literal, chronological sense. Possibly it is a solemn meal held in lieu of the Passover one precisely because “Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world” (v. 1); by the time the official meal was to be eaten, he would be gone. Yet the disciples, at any rate, were still expecting to celebrate the official Passover with him (v. 29).
The word for “next to” (lit., at Jesus’ “side,” Gr.: kolpos) is the same word used in the statement in the prologue that Jesus was “at the Father’s side” (1:18), and may have been chosen here to accent the intimacy that existed between Jesus and the disciple whom he loved.
13:25 Leaning back against: The Greek text (at least several of the most important ancient manuscripts) has the adverb houtōs (“thus” or “like this,” left untranslated in NIV), which captures something of the storyteller’s excitement about his narrative, and perhaps also the graphic recollection of an eyewitness (i.e., the beloved disciple himself?). See note on 4:6.
13:26 This piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish: lit., “dip the morsel.” A morsel for dipping in broth or sauce was normally a piece of bread, but according to the Passover Haggadah, a small wad of bitter herbs was used for dipping in a sauce at the Passover meal. The question whether the morsel here is bread or bitter herbs is therefore tied in with the question of whether Jesus regarded this as a Passover meal (note, however, that NIV supplies the word bread even in Mark 14:20). Some have argued from v. 18 (lit., “he who ate my bread”) that bread is meant here, but the connection is precarious. Bread is probably meant, but in any case the narrator’s emphasis is on the ritual act of dipping and giving, not on the menu.
13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread: lit., “after the morsel.” Though Judas’ acceptance of the morsel is implied here, it is not explicit until v. 30.
Jesus told him: The untranslated Greek particle oun allows the possibility that Jesus said this as he offered the morsel of bread to Judas (v. 26). The intervening statement that “after the morsel, Satan entered him” despite being woven skillfully into the narrative as if seen by an eyewitness, is essentially a theological judgment, whether made on the spot by the beloved disciple or (more likely) in retrospect as the story was told and written down.
13:29 To buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor: The first of these suppositions reinforces the impression given by v. 1 that the Passover Feast had not yet begun, that the meal described in this chapter was not a proper Passover, and that the disciples still expected that they would all celebrate the Passover together (see note on 13:23). The reference to the poor recalls 12:5–6 and, in light of that exchange, strikes a note of irony: The disciples who thought Judas was collecting for the poor could hardly have been more mistaken.
13:30 As soon as Judas had taken: The Greek particle oun is again left untranslated in NIV (cf. note on v. 27); like the oun of v. 27, it is probably meant to resume the thought of v. 26. V. 30 would follow smoothly after v. 26 with nothing in between. This resumptive oun could be appropriately translated “so.”
