Upper Room: Jesus Transparent
24
Lenten Series-2008
February 23/24, 2008
Digging Deeper (Questions are on the last page)
24: Upper Room, Jesus Transparent
(Robert Ismon Brown)
Background Notes
Key Scripture Texts: John 13:1-38
(NIV) John 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. 2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?" 7 Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand." 8 "No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." 9 "Then, Lord," Simon Peter replied, "not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!" 10 Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them. 18 "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.' 19 "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. 20 I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me." 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" 26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.
31 When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once. 33 "My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come. 34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
36 Simon Peter asked him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus replied, "Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later." 37 Peter asked, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Then Jesus answered, "Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
Outline of John 13:1-38
The Meal (13:1-30)
a. Circumstances and Certainties (13:1-3)
b. Foot-washing (13:4-17)
i. Preparation and Process (13:4-5)
ii. Peter: Questions and Answers (13:6-11)
iii. Jesus: Questions and Answers (13:12-17)
c. Betrayal (13:18-30)
i. Revealed by a troubled Jesus (13:18-21)
ii. Questioned by bewildered disciples (13:22-25)
iii. Judas and the Sign of Betrayal (13:26-30)
The New Commandment (13:31-35)
a. The "Glory" Saying (13:31-32)
b. Imminent departure (13:33)
c. The Commandment (13:34-35)
The Denial (13:36-38)
Peter: "Where?" (13:36a)
Jesus: "Not now! Later!" (13:36b)
Peter: "Now!" (13:37)
Jesus: "Deny!" (13:38)
Introduction
"The hour had come", John's Gospel announces in 13:1. Ancient writers described time in more than simply chronological ways. The Greeks distinguished between kairos, which pointed to a "season" or "opportune time", in distinction from chronos which had more to do with the elapse or passing of time. Then, when you wanted to speak of "urgency", the word was "hour" (hora). Throughout John's Gospel we encounter such references to time, as these few examples illustrate:
"Dear woman [speaking to his mother, Mary], why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time [lit. "hour"] has not yet come" (John 2:4).
Jesus declared, 21 "Believe me, woman [speaking to the Samaritan woman], a time [lit. "hour"] is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem…23 Yet a time ["lit. "hour"] is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. (John 4:21, 23).
25 I tell you the truth, a time [lit. "hour"] is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live… 28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time [lit. "hour"] is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice (John 5:25, 28).
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time [lit. "hour"] had not yet come (John 7:30).
He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time [lit. "hour"] had not yet come (John 8:20).
Jesus replied, "The hour [lit. "hour"] has come for the Son of Man to be glorified (John 12:23).
"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour (John 12:27).
[The passage for this study] It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time [lit. "hour"] had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love (John 13:1).
21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time [lit. "hour"] has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world… 32 "But a time [lit. "hour"] is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me (John 16:21, 32).
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you (John 17:1)
From the outset, John's Gospel is goal-directed toward the moment of final glory. As these passages suggest, Jesus saw the future and embraced its fulfillment, but, at the same time, he refused to be rushed and often held back the exact details of his calendar, even from the disciples. During a very revealing exchange between Jesus and his natural brothers, recorded in John 7:1-13, he hears them urging him, perhaps sarcastically, to hurry up and go the Feast of Tabernacles (sukkot) and take advantage of the PR such a visit would afford him, "a public figure" (7:1-5). In reply, Jesus says, "The right time (kairos) for me has not yet come; for you any time (kairos) is right…I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time (kairos) has not yet come…" (7:6-8). Notice how the NIV translators use the adjective "right" to modify the Greek word for "season" which means "opportune time". As this conversation shows, Jesus operated on a different timetable from other people. His life was advancing confidently to its climax, and he had no doubt about the timing. In no sense could we ever imagine Jesus "running out of time" or being "too late" or "too early". Nor does it make any sense to think about him dying "so young" before he really had time to accomplish something.
Our chosen text for this week's study, John 13:1-38, opens with the words of confidence: "Jesus knew that the time had come for him…" (13:1). His date with destiny had been written in the counsels of God long before "the Word became flesh" (1:14). The whole Gospel of John is painted against the landscape of "In the beginning was the Word" (1:1) where God and the Word lived in perfect harmony of purpose and fellowship. The earthly setting was the dramatic stage for enacting the divine intention to save the world. And Jesus had at last arrived at the "hour", the hora, for that to take place. What sort of "hour" was this, this moment of urgency?
It was the hour when God would glorify Jesus and, in turn, Jesus would display God's glory through the Cross and its salvation for the world (12:24-26).
It was the hour of judgment for the world and defeat for the Evil One when Jesus through the Cross would triumph over them (12:31-32).
It was the hour for Jesus to finally return to the Father's heavenly throne (17:5).
This week's study will examine one defining scene which was part of this "hour" of divine urgency. John's version of this story is unique in numerous ways, and some readers have difficulty reconciling it with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Still, enough similarity exists to confidently say that they refer to the same event, only seen through different eyes. After all, how could such an important "hour" in the life of Jesus be so radically altered by a writer who was, no doubt, an eyewitness to what happened there?
The Meal (13:1-30)
Circumstances and Certainties (13:1-3)
All the Gospel accounts connect the "meal" they describe with the Passover, that is with the Jewish celebration of Pesah. For John, Jesus was thinking about his coming date with destiny even before that last Passover took place, or, as he phrases it: "Before the Feast of Passover" (13:1). What do we know about the Passover's chronology? The technical details are included in Appendix A at the end of these notes. You are encouraged to read through it, noting the chart and the explanations. Much debate has raged about the consistency of John's chronology of the events of Jesus' last week when compared with the Synoptics. Rather than enter that discussion during this study, we are asking that you consider the background provided in the Appendix and then do your own reading in the passion narratives, drawing your own conclusions. For the purpose of this study, our emphasis will be on John's particular slant on the evening we have come to call "The Last Supper".
We are faced with a stark contrast at the outset: (1) Jesus' deep and abiding love for disciples "even to the end" (Greek: eis telos egapesen autous). Some want to translate this "to the limit" or "to the full", while others prefer "to the very end", that is, to the end of his life by dying on the cross; (2) Judas' willing response to the promptings of the diabolos, "the devil" to betray ("hand over", paradoi) Jesus. John says this happened in Judas' "heart", his kardia, the center of his thought, feelings and choice. What we witness is the alignment of two battling forces, one motivated by the supreme love of God, while the other driven from the darkest places of the universe.
How is it that Jesus reaches such love-inspired devotion to his own disciples? The text tells us that Jesus "knew" with supreme confidence that his "hour" had arrived. The Greek word eidos, which means "to be aware" or "to come to know", is a participle in the perfect tense, implying a settled form of action: "he had come to know". Clearly, in passages we cited above, Jesus had deferred this "hour" on more than one occasion, until the precise moment, when he was fully aware that it had arrived. Certainly his destination had something to do with this certainty: he was going out of the world (ek tou kosmou) and going to the Father (pros ton patera), the place from which he came (see John 1:1-2, where similar language appears, namely, that the Word was "with God", and John uses the preposition pros to communicate this idea in that connection).
Leaving and returning to God sounds a great deal like coming out of exile and going back home. This would be, of course, appropriate language for a Passover setting. Thousands of Jewish people on that occasion were remembering how their ancestors had left Egypt and made their way toward what would one day be their home. On this occasion, Jesus, who has voluntarily shared in the exile of human beings by becoming one of them, prepares to make his "exodus", not only from the world, but from death and into resurrection life--the very life of God Himself. The road back to God was not going to be an easy one; "the hour" was urgent, and the agony would be deep. Still, in spite of this, Jesus devotes himself to the well-being of his own, driven by agape-love "until the very end". And he is encouraged by His Father who has placed all things under his power (11:3).
We are accepting the conclusion (supported by the data in Appendix A) that John is reporting the "Passover" meal also attested by the Synoptic Gospels. He uses the words deipnou ginomenou, "dinner having taken place" to reference the meal itself. We need to comment that John does not make specific reference to any elements of the Lord's Supper we normally associate with that event: identifying bread and wine as his body and blood, offering a blessing over them, and distributing them to the disciples. That being said, we also need to note that John often weaves such events into different settings, knowing that the reader already has some knowledge of one or more of the other Gospels. In the case of "body and blood", we have the story found in John 6 in the aftermath of Jesus' feeding of the five thousand. Part of that teaching (6:25-59) has to do with Jesus as "The Bread of Life". Near the end of this instruction, suddenly Jesus changes his tone and declares that "This bread is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world" (6:51). Startled by this claim, many who hear Jesus question what he means, only making him more assured in what he was claiming. His words which follow sound a great deal like something he might have said during the Last Supper, and are, by all accounts, John's way of giving us that information. Consider:
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever" (John 6:53-58).
Foot-washing (13:4-20)
Preparation and Process (13:4-5)
Having provided that instruction in John 6, John sees no reason to repeat it in the context of the Passover meal, but instead determines to share other actions and words of Jesus not specifically found in the Synoptic accounts. And so we have a Passover setting for John 13, referenced by the words "after the meal", without any of the usual details. In their place, John places a remarkable account: the footwashing by Jesus of his disciples. The Jewish rabbis placed footwashing among the menial tasks which Jewish slaves should not be expected to do, based on a special reading of Leviticus 25:39. Only Gentile slaves were permitted to do that, as were wives and children! What Jesus elected to do was paramount to being a Gentile slave. When Jesus removed his outer garment and tied the towel around himself, he was exhibiting an act of humiliation, and was assuming the form of a slave (recall Paul's own words in Philippians 2:5-11 about Christ taking on the "form of a servant"). The Synoptic Gospels bear witness to footwashing as appropriate for guests and travelers, whose feet were covered with dust from their journey (see Luke 7:44; Mark 1:7). Jesus taught that to be "master" one must be servant of all (see Mark 10:43-44). The Old Testament stressed footwashing as ordinary hospitality (see Genesis 18:4; 19:2; 24:32). Among the priests, the washing of feet was required before performing sacred service in the Temple (see Exodus 30:19-21; 40:31). Washing the "saints feet" is commended by Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:9-10, among the churches.
John goes to great pains to describe how Jesus actually performed the action: how he attired himself, that he poured out the water, washed the disciples' feet, dried them with the towel wrapped around him. No one could doubt the precise role Jesus intended to imitate by this conduct. There was also something strangely "holy" about his movements, as if he were in fact a priest, as well as a servant, performing with care and love a sacred task within the Temple. It was as if the very deed was priestly service, a water ritual, poured out in divine worship before God (see Exodus 30:20). Had he been a priest, he might well have washed his own feet, and certainly would have throughout his regular duties poured out water for ceremonial purifications. For this and other reasons, many scholars see the actions of Jesus as prefiguring in a larger sense, what he was about to do on the cross. In a way, the laying aside of his clothing paralleled his laying aside of the heavenly glory and the surrounding himself with human flesh instead. Throughout his earthly life, he had adopted the servant's role, sharing in human need and suffering, offering forgiveness of sins, healing for the body, and food for the soul. All of this he performed at great cost to himself.
Before we examine the response of his disciples to this provocative and wholly unexpected action, we might well refer back to another incident which John gives us in his Gospel. In chapter 12, while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Lazarus (whom he raised from the dead), Lazarus' sister, Mary, took a pint of expensive perfume and poured it on Jesus' feet, wiping it with her hair. On that occasion, Judas Iscariot, in a hypocritical fashion, charged the Mary with "waste", to which Jesus responded, "Leave her alone. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial…" (12:7). What is important to notice is the connection Jesus draws between the anointing of his "feet" and his coming death and burial. Coming so soon afterwards, chapter 13's account of the footwashing strongly points in the same direction. What Jesus intended was to dramatize, in the first instance, his coming suffering and death, fulfilling what John told us in 13:1, "having loved his own, he loved them to the very end".
Peter: Questions and Answers (13:6-11)
How do the disciples respond? Peter, not known for his shyness, may well have spoken for the rest. In the Greek text, the words are strongly indicative of someone who is "spluttering" out his reaction: "Lord-you-my-wash-the-feet?" Astonished and puzzled, he blurts it out in a half-witted way. Of course, Peter had some practice with that sort of thing as witnessed in Mark 8:32-33 when he resisted the thought of Jesus going to the cross. Well-intentioned, and seemingly supportive of Jesus, he failed to grasp the larger picture. And so he similarly responds to the footwashing.
Jesus, catching the spirit of Peter's bafflement, virtually tells him: "Look, Peter, there's no way you could possibly understand what I am doing now, so don't try. Wait until later, when things start falling into place, and then you will 'get it'". The Greek may be saying that an intellectual grasp of Jesus' actions is simply out of the question (su ouk oidas arti), using oidas to imply a mental activity alone. However, meta tauta, "after these things", gvnose, "you will come to know", has the meaning of an "experiential understanding". Jesus will expand on this idea in the lengthy "discourses" he gives the disciples in chapters 14-16, especially as seen in the following passage:
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you (John 16:12-14).
Once Jesus had actually gone through death, and then come out on the other side in resurrection, he would be in a position to send the Holy Spirit to "fill in the blanks", so to speak. Peter can only see the incongruence of having "his" Master washing "his" feet. Apparently Jesus' early teaching about servants and masters had been lost on Peter.
But trusting Jesus' words seemed farthest from Peter's thoughts. The "theology of the future" had little interest to a man who was fiercely proud and loyal all at the same time. Peter was simply unable to see anything beyond the absolute impropriety of a "master", a "rabbi", nonetheless, washing his feet. He simply can't "allow it", and he won't let Jesus demean himself in this fashion. His words are "priceless": "You shall never wash my feet!" (13:8a). How close to an oath can you come in New Testament Greek? Pretty close! Ou me vipses mou tous podas eis ton aiona. When you combine ou with me you are doubling up on the negative so as to make it as strong as possible, approaching an oath. This is the language of obstinacy laced with outrage. We can only imagine Peter's reddened face, his slanted eyes, his clenched hands, and his raging tone. He cannot imagine anything in the future altering his present frame of mind. "Masters do not wash servant's feet: not then, not now, not ever!" In fact, Peter used the phrase eis ton aiona which elsewhere applies to something that never ends, but is "eternal" or "everlasting". "Never, never, never!" is the implied meaning.
We can only imagine the different trains of thought Jesus might have brought to bear on Peter's outburst. Perhaps he could have said, "Are you finished now?" Or, "Don't say 'never' to me!" What Jesus ends up saying is surprising in itself. Far from rejecting Peter for his insolence, he makes plain that he wants to "include" Peter all the more in his kingdom. He does this by using the phrase "no part in me", taken from the Greek word meros and referring to the Jewish notion of inheritance. Peter's failure to allow the footwashing implies his refusal to accept the terms of Jesus' divine inheritance. Examples of this use can be seen in Luke 15:12; 22:29-30; Matthew 24:51; Revelation 20:6; 21:8; 22:19. Jesus will develop this idea further in two additional passages:
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am (John 14:3 ).
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world (John 17:24).
To have a "part", a meros with Jesus, means being in the place provided by Jesus, namely, with him in his glory, the place God the Father gave him. For the average Jew in Jesus' day, such a place meant either a richer stake in the holy land or future life in the kingdom of God (see Old Testament texts: Numbers 18:20; Deteronomy 12:12; 14:27).
Not to be outdone, Peter figures if washing his feet will garner him a place in the coming kingdom alongside Jesus, then washing his hands and head would have to count for even more. Still oblivious to the point Jesus wants to make, Peter looks for ways to reduce the humiliation of the "washing". He wants to include "head" and "hands", certainly more "honorable" parts of the human anatomy than the "feet". Was Peter attempting to elevate the form of cleansing so as to minimize the humiliation involved? If so, we have yet another parallel to the act of footwashing and the coming suffering and death of Jesus on the cross. For the cross was the ultimate instrument of "shame" and "humiliation", so much so, that in the New Testament the writers spoke of the "scandal" or "stumbling block" of the cross (see Galatians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:7-8). The Jewish community was scandalized when one of its own was executed on a cross by the Romans. That is why, in all likelihood, the Jewish leadership resisted Pilate's placing of the placard ("Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews") over Jesus' cross. They could scarcely bear the humiliation of seeing one of their own in this sorry condition lifted up as if he were their "king". In a similar sense, Peter could not countenance having Jesus lower himself to the level of a Gentile slave. What the Jews wanted was someone to be their "leader", their "head and their hands", so to speak, not a convicted criminal.
Moreover, "head and hands" were more befitting the role of a proper priest, preparing himself and others for their sacred work. But Jesus has other ideas, and, in 13:10, changes the language of the conversation, introducing new vocabulary. Whereas the Greek word used thus far for foot "washing" has been nipto, Jesus becomes more precise by using the word louo "to bathe". Peter seemed to be saying that if footwashing means inheritance with Jesus, then the more washing, the bigger inheritance. Jesus now corrects this misunderstanding, as he did on other occasions when the disciples missed his point entirely. It is not the number of washings or their variety of mode that increases one's inheritance with Jesus. Only the washing of the feet is necessary since it represents Jesus' coming death. Judaism was rife with washing rituals, not all of them rooted in Torah. Jesus himself challenged the need to wash "the outside of the cup" when it was the inside which needed true cleansing (see Luke 11:38-41, among others). Repeated washing were part of Peter's surrounding religious culture, and it was easy for him to make this leap. However, Jesus makes clear, the one who has been completely bathed (Greek: leloumenos, the perfect participle of the verb, implying action completed in the past with continuing results) does not have a need except that the feet be washed. This is a simple analogy drawn from daily life. In the Middle East, a person might completely bathe periodically, but the dusty roads and the open sandals required more frequent footwashing. In our culture, the hands are most at risk of contamination, and we are encouraged to frequent hand washing to prevent sickness. We bathe once a day but wash out hands often. Similarly, Jesus and the disciples would practice footwashing.
What is Jesus' point? He is saying to Peter: "What makes you clean, Peter? Is it not because I have washed your feet? If I washed your feet is not that enough? It's just like when you bathe occasionally, but wash your feet often. Isn't washing your feet sufficient on those occasions? How much more so with my washing your feet! This footwashing (nipto) is as good as a bath (louo) because I have done it! Once I have washed you in this way, you don't need anything more. Like the man who at the moment he washes his feet, you are clean entirely (katharos holos, that is, "clean-in-the-whole")." Then notice how Jesus' affirms the positive results of his "washing": "And (even so) you are katharos." Why were they clean? They are clean simply because Jesus washed them in the way he chose and on the terms he chose. If Jesus washes them, they are clean, without qualification. However, like Peter, they make take exception to the way they are made clean. They want to dictate the terms of the cleansing, the how and the what. To all of this Jesus responds, No, dear ones, you are clean because I have made you so. Later Jesus would teach them: "Now you are clean through the word I have spoken to you" (15:3)
To illustrate this point, the Old Testament has a similar story told about the Syrian Captain, Naaman, who was once a leper (read 2 Kings 5 for the full account). He was counseled to seek out Elisha, the prophet, for a cure. In turn Elisha commanded him to dip seven times in the muddy Jordan River, something Naaman initially refuse to do. His excuse is relevant to our present study: "'Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than any of the waters of Israel? Couldn't I wash in them and be cleansed?' So he turned and went off in a rage." (2 Kings 5:12). Later he came to his senses and agreed to follow the prophet's instructions, with the result that he became clean from his leprosy. Was Peter any different from Naaman, resisting the word of the Lord? When the Christ follower obeys his Lord and accepts his word, he too can be clean. This is Jesus' point.
A few additional comments on the footwashing event. Some Christians have adopted this ritual as part of their celebration of the Lord's Supper, and they see it as equally important as an ordinance of the Church. Other communions only practice it during the Thursday of holy week. Moreover, it's hard not to see connections between the washing and the idea of baptism. Scholars have debated this correlation, but we do have some New Testament parallels to "washing" or "bath" in such texts as Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Hebrews 10:22, and you are encouraged to study these on your own. There are connections between the washing imagery and the cleansing by Jesus' blood in such places as Hebrews 9:22; 10:22; Titus 2:14 and 3:5. Whatever connection existed between the "washing" in John 13 and the rite of baptism must not blur the distinction between the "sign" and the "reality of the sign". Jesus made clear elsewhere that his coming death was a "baptism" to be shared by his disciples, and so it's easy to correlate baptism with the cross. Consider this important text from Mark's Gospel:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." 38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" 39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." (Mark 10:35-40).
There is great irony in this Mark account, and it has parallels in John 13. "Do for us whatever we ask" is a strange request from someone who has just called Jesus "Teacher"! When Jesus responds, he combines both the image of baptism and the image of the cup together, and these symbols plainly point to his coming death--an event which one day they must also share. In our text in John 13, Peter is pretty much asking for Jesus to do for him something on his own terms, whereas Jesus makes plain to him that it doesn't work that way! And so for the Christ follower both the washing and the cup point to the cross and its powerful effect on human life.
Raymond Brown summarizes:
The simplest explanation of the footwashing, then, remains that Jesus performed this servile task to prophesy symbolically that he was about to be humiliated in death. Peter's questioning, provoked by the action, enabled Jesus to explain the salvific necessity of his death: it would bring men their heritage with and it would cleanse them of sin (p. 568).
Still, some are left unaffected, as we read on in the text. "…but not all." Those words round out the thought of 13:10, followed by John's own commentary in 13:11. Judas Iscariot was unchanged by the footwashing. Whereas Peter protested, but then accepted Jesus' action, Judas, on the other hand, was already intent on betraying him, and refused to accept salvation on Jesus' terms. Recall in the earlier passage at the home of Lazarus, how Judas resisted Mary's love for Jesus, and criticized her "waste" of the perfume. Here, he is unaffected by Jesus' washing, and the text makes that plain with the words ouchi pantes: "not all". While it is true that the cross provides for the salvation of everyone, not everyone experiences the benefit of that provision. Judas had opened his heart to the devil, and refused the agenda of Jesus. He outwardly accepted the washing, but did not accept it in his heart. Many still do the same. Wanting the outward approval, they inwardly resist, their hearts filled with the "cares of this life".
Jesus: Questions and Answers (13:12-20)
We are struck by the contrast of 13:12. "When, therefore, he washed their feet", the text begins. Using the aorist form of the Greek word nipto (wash), John's account stresses the completion of the action. Some translations pick up on this with the words "When he finished washing…", a perfectly acceptable handling of this verb form in the context. There comes a point, John seems to be saying, when the reality of this symbol "is finished", and when it is, Jesus puts on his outer garment once again and takes his place. This seems to continue the imagery of the footwashing action: Jesus, having completed the work of salvation, once more takes up the clothing of his pre-earthly glory, and sits down at the Father's side. These are themes he will develop more fully in chapters 14 and 17 to follow. Nor can we forget his words in John 10, spoken earlier:
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-- only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father" (John 10:17-18).
Power to lay down his garments and wash the disciples' feet; power to lay down his life. Power to take up his garments when the washing is done; power to take up his life again in the resurrection. Could anything be more clear to the reader of John's Gospel?
What follows in 13:12-17 some scholars see as yet a second application of the footwashing event. We would suggest that Jesus is simply working out the important implications embedded in his teaching about the cross, dramatized in the footwashing. Jesus opens this part of the conversation with a question: "Do you understand what I have done for you? (13:12b)" The question alone is worth pondering in its own right! Might we not argue that the whole of one's life as a Christian is spent answering that question? Did not someone as committed to Jesus as Paul once write: "That I might know him…" (Philippians 3:10), and then go on to say that he had not yet completed this task, but made it his life's work to do so? (see the previous series on Philippians for a detailed analysis of this Philippians' passage). By posing the question, Jesus throws down the challenge of being a disciple, namely, discovering the truth contained in the cross of Jesus. What does Jesus have in mind for the disciples on this occasion?
It is not enough, Jesus declares (13:13), to simply use words to frame a relationship with him; words like "Teacher" (didaskolos) and "Lord" (kurios). Nor does Jesus deprecate the disciples' use of such language to speak about him, for he then adds, "…and rightly so, for that is what I am." The Greek is instructive: kalos legete, eimi gar, literally, "well, you speak, I am indeed!" "Fine words, and true! " Jesus is saying. But they are, after all, "words", something you "call" me (Greek: phoneite, "make the sounds"). Religious language is both enlightening and seductive. The disciples who follow Jesus might speak "well", and use all the correct vocabulary, but Jesus seems to be ill at ease with his disciples' present spiritual life. Jesus now drives to the point of his question ("Do you understand?"). When he uses the Greek word ginoskete, John stresses the "experiential" meaning of this common word for "know", using the present tense of the verb. "Are you, right now, continuously experiencing the meaning of what I have done (pepoika, perfect tense, completed action, continuing results) to you?"
"Let me show you how", Jesus tells them. What follows are a series of rhetorical arguments, each building on the previous one, and offering insight into what Jesus did for them in the footwashing.
1. (13:13-14). He argues from the greater to the lesser. "If it's true for me, 'The Lord and Teacher' (the Greek repeats the definite article before each noun) who washed your feet, how much more (implied by the sequence) you ought (opheilete, again in the present tense) to wash (present tense) each others' feet (allelon…podas)."
2. (13:15). He has given (dedoka, perfect tense, again, showing the completion of the action) them an example (Greek: hupodeigma). The Greek word is actually a bit stronger and has the force of "token" or "pattern". It comes from the verb form hupodeiknumi which means "to show by placing under or before the eyes; to show by words and arguments; to teach; to show by make known future things." Could these disciples soon forget the images, burned into their eyes, by Jesus' symbolic actions that night? Indeed, Jesus is telling them, let these actions become for you deeply etched patterns of conduct, shaping how you live.
3. (13:16). Jesus then uses one of his signature phrases: "Truly, Truly" (Greek: amen, amen, lego humin, "Amen, amen, I say to you…"). Here is the language of solemn oath, testifying to the truth. John's Gospel is full of such "oath" references on the lips of Jesus (see this long list: John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24f; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20f, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18). Repeating a word twice underscores the veracity of what follows, and makes the saying an authoritative teaching of Jesus in an exceptional way. Felix Just offers this helpful overview of this usage through the Bible:
In the Hebrew Bible, the word “Amen” connotes agreement, certainty, faithfulness. It was simply transliterated amen in Greek and thus also “amen” in most modern languages. It is used at the end of some psalms, curses, blessings, prayers, and prophecies to allow the hearers/readers to say, “So be it!” or “Yes, I agree!” (Deut 27:15-26; 1Kings 1:36; 1Chron 16:36; Neh 5:13; Ps 106:48; Jer 28:6). Sometimes it is repeated twice for emphasis (Num 5:22; Neh 8:6; Ps 41:13; 72:19; 89:52).
Similarly in the NT, “Amen” is used 28 times at the end of doxologies, blessings, and other prayers (Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; 16:27; 1Cor 14:16; 2Cor 1:20; Gal 1:5; 6:18; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1Thess 3:13; 1Tim 1:17; 6:16; 2Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1Peter 4:11; 5:11; 2Peter 3:18; Jude 1:25; Rev 1:6, 7; 3:14; 5:14; 7:12 [twice]; 19:4; 22:20). It is also used 101 times in the four Gospels. The only person who says "Amen" in the Gospels is Jesus himself (with the exception of the "shorter ending" of Mark--usually added just after 16:8); in Matt 25:12, 40, 45, the characters in the parables who use this expression clearly represent Jesus. Jesus uses the phrase, "Amen, I say to you...," at the beginning of his own statements, rather than in response to what someone else said; thus, it is not an expression of agreement, but a literary device for emphasizing what he says subsequently. In the Synoptic Gospels, this expression is used a total of fifty times by Jesus and the parabolic characters (13 in Mk; 31 in Mt; only 6 in Lk); it is translated "Verily I say unto you... (KJV); "Truly, I say to you..." (RSV); "Truly, I tell you" (NRSV); etc. In the Fourth Gospel, the expression is used 25 times, again only by Jesus, but always with a doubled "Amen, Amen" for extra emphasis; this is like saying "Hear Ye, Hear Ye" - as used by royal messengers or town criers in medieval England. It is sometimes translated literally: "Verily, verily, I say unto you." (KJV); "Truly, truly, I say to you" (RSV); "Amen, Amen, I say to you..." (NAB); but other English Bibles render it more colloquially: "Very truly, I tell you" (NRSV); "I tell you the truth" (NIV), etc.
What follows Jesus' use of this authoritative formula? "A servant is not greater than his master (kurios, "lord"), neither an apostle (apostolos, that is, "one sent", "a messenger") greater than the one sending him." These words appear in Matthew 10:24-25 and Luke 6:40, in different contexts, but as part of Jesus' authoritative teaching. In the Matthew context, the words apply to the disciples who will be persecuted just as Jesus will be taken to the cross (Matthew 10:38 for the specific reference to the cross). Of course the disciples would have understand their role as talmidim ("students of a Rabbi") in relationship to Jesus in precisely this way. Though they were not greater than Jesus, they could become like Jesus, an accepted Rabbinic understanding of things. Indeed, the disciples are called to be "like Jesus", not "greater than Jesus". The messenger is not asked to "improve on the message", but to faithfully carry it to its destination. Don't we still say, "I'm just the messenger?" or "Don't kill the messenger"?!
4. (13:17). Jesus offers yet one more way to "understand" what he did to his disciples in the footwashing. He promises a blessing: "If you know (oidate, even in an "intuitive sense") these things, blessed you are (makarioi este, this is the same word used in the beatitudes to describe God's favor in the life of His obedient people; the verb "to be" is in the present tense) if (ean, the conditional form of "if", implying that a person might not) you do them." On the surface, assuming the role of a Gentile slave and serving fellow Christ followers might not strike the disciples as "blessed". Jesus acknowledges that the disciples might "know", in some intellectual way, that this instruction is, in fact, very, very true. They might even entertain fond thoughts about the future when, in the Messianic kingdom, such mutual service and humility might exist. Their prophets certainly taught them that the "lion would lie down with the lamb and a little child would lead them" (Isaiah 11:6). How much more for the followers of Jesus! But that's then, and this is now. To such thinking Jesus responds, "Dear disciples, there is a blessedness even now if you practice my words toward each other." Nor should we miss the connection with the Beatitude teaching: recall its insistence on being "poor in spirit", "meek", and "merciful" (Matthew 5). Laying aside the outer garment, wrapping with the servant's towel, and washing my brother's feet puts into practice all of those qualities. But more significantly, it comes with the moniker "blessed". The way of the cross is the way of the blessed. The life lived in the service to Jesus and his cross is a life lived for others in humble service for them.
We might pause here to get our bearings. These words are spoken in the context of the Last Supper, told in Johannine fashion without explicit reference to cup and bread, without words of consecration or direct Passover allusions. Yet, can we miss the spirit of the Eucharist in all that Jesus did, according to John? How do the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) characterize the Supper? Consider:
Matthew (26:29), Mark (14:25) and Luke (22:16, 18) record Jesus' assurance that he would drink the cup "anew with you in my Father's kingdom". He speaks of his blood being "poured out" (Matthew 26:28; Mark 6:24; Luke 22:20).
Luke, however, incorporates material in his account of the Last Supper, which has the "look and feel" of John's version, especially as it pertains to the footwashing and its application to Christian servant hood. Notice the connections:24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:24-30).
Luke draws attention to the themes of "greater", "serve", and the idea of being "with Jesus" "at my table", and "in my kingdom". Remember John's rendition of the footwashing sign: "unless I wash…you have no part in me." Luke makes plain what that means when he quotes Jesus, "I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me". Luke also makes extremely clear what it means to follow the "pattern" of Jesus, by standing "in my trials". "You are not to be like that", Jesus instructs his disciples, "by not following the ways of the 'Gentiles' in lording over others". John, of course, puts Jesus in the role of a Gentile "slave".
Betrayal (13:18-30)
Revealed by a troubled Jesus (13:18-20)
We arrive at a crux in our text, a turning point that consumes several verses. Jesus offers a disclaimer: "Not concerning all of you do I speak" (13:18), injecting an ominous tone into the scene. Having just called his followers "blessed" if they follow his pattern of servant hood, Jesus concedes not all will, in fact, be "blessed", but instead "cursed". In the words of John 13:18b: "I know the certain ones I chose", as Jesus reflects on events dating back to the very beginning of his ministry. Once again, John uses the word oida, to express an intuitive, logical understanding of things. "It is true," Jesus states, "that I chose certain men to be my disciples". But there is a shift in attitude in what follows, implying that he did not chose them all for the same reasons. He "knows" them in very different ways, though he chose them all. At this point, Jesus reaches for the Scriptures to place his "choice" in its proper context. His choice was not his alone, but resonated with the purposes of salvation history. The Old Testament text he cites is Psalm 41:9, translated by John this way: "The one sharing my bread lifted up against me his heel". Curiously, the word translated "sharing" is really the Greek word trogo which means to "to gnaw, nibble, munch" when applied to plant-eating animals. John's Greek does not follow the Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew word "to eat", but is the same word for "eat" he used in John 6:54, 56, 57,58. This is important, since in that setting it applied to "eating my flesh and drinking my blood", an early reference to the Lord's Supper as we have already noted above.
Let's examine this more closely. Jesus is quoting an Old Testament text which speaks of someone "eating my bread". Although, during Passover, John does not record the words of Jesus, "this is my body" in conjunction with "the taking of bread", still in this text he deliberately uses a word "to eat" which he used in John 6 to refer to the very same thing. In other words, when he refers to "my bread" he intends the Eucharistic bread. Yet its reference is made under tragic circumstances, namely, the sharing of bread takes place with one who "lifts up his heel" against Jesus. This Hebraic idiom actually means "he kicked me", metaphorically, "he was unkind to me". Mitchell Dahood, whose three volume commentary on the Psalms is rich with linguistic treasures, makes several key points about the Psalm 41:9 passage in Hebrew (pp. 251-252).
The one who "eats my bread" is called "my colleague", that is, he who was in compact with me (literally, "in my shalom", shared my "peace").
"Who ate my bread", refers to part of the covenant rite (Genesis 26:30; 31:54; Numbers 18:17-19; especially, Psalm 49:23 and Exodus 24:12).
"Lifted up his heel", means "spun slanderous tales", literally, "spun slander" from the Hebrew word for "weave" (see also Psalm 12:4). The Old Testament figure, Jacob, was named yaqb precisely because he tricked his twin brother during the birth process. The word 'qb means "to malign, traduce, slander" as seen in Jeremiah 9:3. The word deliberately comes from the word for "heel", as a sort of pun on the idea of "kicking up one's heels" in order to slander another.
Drawing on these insights we can see how Jesus, during the covenant meal (Passover, Pesah), consecrates "his bread" (and wine), and then proceeds to share it with all of his disciples. From all outward signs, there sits at the table twelve men in covenant with Jesus, and looking forward to the "kingdom" he is about establish. Knowing the text of Psalm 41:9, Jesus completely "saw" its fulfillment in what was about to happen. That is, the betrayal of Jesus was not some horrible mistake or accident of history. Jesus was not victimized by the presence of a traitor in the midst, whose actions derailed the purposes for Jesus' coming into the world. Jesus is clear: "This is to fulfill Scripture". Even as the footwashing was a "prophecy" of his coming death and resurrection, so the Psalm passage, cited by Jesus on this occasion, is a prophecy of what would happen. In 13:19, Jesus is unambiguous when he says, "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He."
Jesus makes a contrast between the "before" and the "when". It matters what the disciples know "before", just as it mattered that they saw Jesus wash the disciples' feet "before", even though they would not understand "now". Recall Jesus' exchange with Peter in 13:7 in which he used very similar words. The Old Testament was something written down "before" that would come to fulfillment in the events surrounding Jesus "afterwards". This is a strong Johannine theme which runs through his entire Gospel, starting with the important words of 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word…", the prior word and its later fulfillment: "the Word became flesh" (1:14).
13:19 ends with "that you may know 'I am'", from the Greek eimi in translation of the Hebrew expression found in Exodus 3:14 (Hebrew: 'eyeh), an alternate form of Yahweh, the covenant name for God. This is an enormous claim on the part of Jesus. In the fulfillment of the Psalm 41 prophecy about his betrayal by one of his covenant companions, having first been brought to the disciples' attention by Jesus, he is thereby seen as Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God of Israel. After all, Psalm 41 is God's Word, spoken centuries before, now quoted by Jesus, also God's Word, who speaks its fulfillment by his own life and death. In the first case, he is "word in the Scripture"; in the second case, he is "Word in the flesh". Dare we miss the power of this correlation?
Scholars have puzzled over the inclusion of 13:20 in its present location. It would appear, on the surface, as if John should have simply moved on to 13:21 where Jesus circles the wagons around Judas, in anticipation of the coming betrayal. What we do know about 13:20 is that it has parallels with Luke 10:16 and Matthew 10:40, both passages in contexts about either judgment or persecution. In Luke's case, judgment falls on rebellious and sinful cities like Capernaum who lift themselves up to the heavens, but are brought down by God. Perhaps, John, reflecting on Jesus' earlier sayings, places these words in this setting to show how the actions of the betrayer make it even more important for the Christ follower to "accept Christ" and not betray him. In other words, the question of covenant loyalty comes to the forefront, even as Jesus faces his betrayer. In any case, the saying begins with the solemn "Truly, Truly" (amen, amen), putting it into that class of "truthful sayings" taught by Jesus. It may also imply that Jesus, by citing the Psalm, is purposely "sending" the betrayer to his task, a fact to be established shortly by Jesus' own words to Judas. What we have in 13:20 is Jesus' full assurance that what is about to happen with Judas has its signature in the counsels of God, as old as Psalm 41:9.
But John does not miss the human struggle within Jesus. It's one thing to speak with confidence on the basis of sacred prophecy, it's quite another to grapple with the human emotion involved. Jesus was, after all, a human being, though uniquely the revelation of God Himself. That is why 13:21 has meaning. "After he said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, 'One of you is going to betray me.'" At last, the "cat is out of the bag"! No more cryptic prophecies or allusions to the betrayal. It's out in the open, and a full discussion of this saying ensues on the part of the disciples and Jesus. The Greek etarachthe to pneumati involves a verb well-known in Greek literature. This is no ordinary "troubling of the heart", but it runs deeply into Jesus' consciousness. Earlier in John's Gospel, this word appears in conjunction with the "troubling of the water" at the pool of Siloam (5:4, 7), where it seems to mean a "stirring" of the water through some divine activity. In 11:33, it describes Jesus as he weeps at the tomb of Lazarus, while witnessing the unbelief of those in mourning. And, in 12:27, John uses this word when Jesus faces his coming hour of death. Later, he will tell his disciples to "not be troubled" because they believe in him instead (14:1, 27).
What do we learn from this? Jesus did not see the betrayal of Judas in detached ways, but felt it deeply in his own soul. While it was true, that Judas was on a divinely appointed mission, this did not, in the least, minimize how Jesus felt about it. By becoming a human being, Jesus took on himself the paradoxical and often ambiguous perplexities of human existence. Not all things are clear; not all things "come together" seamlessly. When Jesus progresses through the painful stages of human redemption, he encounters all of the human contradictions present there. Did Jesus want to "save Judas"? One can only imagine, as we recall the opening verses of chapter 13 where Jesus loved his own "until the end". Jesus was not troubled on his own account, since he "knew he came from God was returning to God". We can only think he was troubled on Judas' account, for the mission his betrayer undertook was fraught with both divine and human tragedy. Yes, Jesus felt it deeply, he was "troubled in spirit".
Questioned by Bewildered Disciples (13:21-25)
When John describes the disciples' reaction to what Jesus said, he uses the Greek word aporoumenoi, a term that implies "perplexity rather than doubt" (Leon Morris, p.625). Peter figures once more in this scene, though separated from Jesus by the seating arrangements. Scholars have examined the common Passover table assignments, and tell us that the table was shaped like a horseshoe or "U", with Jesus sitting at the base with two people, one on either side of him. The other ten divided between the other "legs" of the arrangement. Who sat next to Jesus? According to John's account, at least one of them was someone John calls "the beloved disciple" (13:23), a man who appears in different settings toward the end of the Gospel.
A great deal has been written about who this was, including the traditional position that its was John himself who wrote "in the third person" when speaking about himself. Others think that it was a literary device referring to "any follower of Jesus who might have been present there, including you and me". Still others, examining texts like John 11:3 ("Lord, the one you love is sick"), 11:5 ("Jesus loved…Lazarus"), and 11:36 ("See how he loved him!"), think that the disciple might well be Lazarus. Of course, we have some challenges with each of these, and this is not the place to hash out the arguments.
For purposes of reading the present text, we will simple call him "the beloved disciple" who sat next to Jesus at the Last Supper. So who was the disciple "on his other hand"? We speculate that is was Judas who sat close enough to receive the bread handed by Jesus to him in 13:26-27. In any case, Peter wants to know "What does he mean?" and in that concern shares the thoughts of the rest. Peter's role has been well-established throughout the Gospel stories. Jesus affirms his future ministry and imagines him "feeding the sheep", that is, nurturing the Christ-followers some time in the future (see John 21:15-21). Here, he no doubt shows reticence about his future actions, taken back, perhaps, by Jesus' earlier correction during the footwashing. Remember, during that conversation, Jesus told Peter "You will not understand now, but later…" Did Peter apply that truth to the present saying of Jesus? Was he asking, "What does he mean?" because he knew how confused he really was about the meaning of many things Jesus was doing?
Intercepting this inquiry, "the beloved disciple (TBD, hereafter)" frames it more intelligently: "Lord, who is it?" This suggests a higher understanding on the part of TBD than we see in Peter. In some ways, he is the type of the "fulfilled disciple", that is, "fulfilled by the perfect love of Jesus". TBD is the disciple made whole by Jesus and able to gain insight into Jesus' words and actions. In this case TBD knows that Jesus is talking about a betrayer sitting at the table, and the only remaining question is "Who is it?"
Before we hear Jesus' answer, a few thoughts on what the disciples expected to hear? And what would they do with the answer?
1. If we read Matthew's account (26:22-25), first we have the disciples asking, each in turn, "Is it I?" Then we hear Jesus offering the "sign of the betrayer", and finally Judas asking the question "Lord, is it I?"
2. Mark follows Matthew in putting the question on the lips of the disciples, but does not focus on Judas' question (14:19-20)
3. Luke does not quote the disciples, but alludes to their wondering which of them it might be. However, this discussion leads to a major argument over who is the "greatest", presumably because the betrayer would be considered a real "loser" in the group (22:21-24).
These responses in the Synoptic Gospels express individual concern on the part of each disciple, and, in Luke's case, resulting in outright fighting over who is the "greatest". Perhaps the seating arrangements at the table disturbed them, since, normally, these would determined by the host, in this case, Jesus. Might we imagine it was not easy "sharing Jesus"? If John and Judas flanked him, it would appear that they held privileged positions, "one on the right hand and the other on the left". Did any of that register with the disciples in light of earlier debates about such matters? What action would the disciples take if they did discover the identity of the betrayer?
Judas and the Sign of Betrayal (13:26-30)
TBD "leans back" from his reclining position in order to engage Jesus in conversation, posing the more specific question, "Who is it?" Jesus, in response, promises to identify the betrayer through an action, a sign. Since the question was posed by TBD, we can only assume he was entrusted with the answer, and that no one else heard, according to the John narrative (see Morris, p.626). Even if all heard Jesus' response, it would not have conclusively given them the "clue", as if the whole scene were some sort of "murder mystery", and Jesus was handing out hints. What Jesus does is an action, a sign, not a clue.
Recall Jesus' citation of Psalm 41:9, and the "sharing of bread"? Jesus dovetails his sign with that passage: "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish" (13:26). Messianic scholar, David Stern, comments about the "bread" that it was a "piece of matzah, Greek psomion, "small bit of bread". We know from Matthew 26:17, 23; Mark 14:1, 12, 20; and Luke 22:1, 7 that the "bit of bread" was unleavened. The phrase "dip it in the dish": perhaps of charoset and/or maror (see Matthew 26:23). Maror refers to "bitter herbs" which in the Passover service recalls the bitterness of Israelite slavery in Egypt, and is appropriate here. Charoset is a sweet paste made of fruit, nuts, spices and wine. Its function in the Passover Seder is to recall by its appearance the mortar which the Israelite slaves made in Egypt. This act of dipping and handing to Judas would have had the appearance of normal friendship when, in fact, it betokened the fulfillment of the Psalm, in which a covenant-friend who had just taken the covenant sign, would betray Jesus.
If Judas sat next to Jesus, then the fulfillment was ready at hand, as Jesus passes the matzah to him. No one suspected, except perhaps TBD who was also at his side. Was not TBD entrusted with a deep secret? Would he tell? And to what purpose? Had he understood the unfolding plan better than the others, he no doubt kept it to himself, vouchsafe for a more opportune time when the plot was passed and the deed was done. Could a "beloved disciple" act in any other way?
John's text reveals (13:27) that no sooner had the sign been executed than "Satan entered into him". We must resist the temptation which has overtaken other scholars to suppose that the "morsel of bread" was some sort of "curse" on Judas, a "satanic sacrament" or "magical morsel". The way Jesus behaved toward Judas was done in good faith, and would have been seen that way by those sitting around. In Beasley-Murray's words:
Jesus gives Judas a sign of friendship, despite knowing the intention of his heart. His statement, "What you are about to do, do quickly," has the effect of setting Judas in the place of decision: he must make up his mind either to respond to Jesus' goodwill, and so repent of his plan to betray him, or to spurn it and carry out his intentions. If this be a correct reading of the situation, no man in all history was more truly "put on the spot" than Judas in that moment. But with the morsel "Satan entered…" Newbigin commented, "The final act of love becomes, with a terrible immediacy, the decisive moment of judgment, which has been the central theme in John's account of the public ministry of Jesus…So the final gesture of affection precipitates the final surrender of Judas to the power of darkness" (173) [238-239].
Not even TBD understood the meaning of Jesus' words to Judas: "What you are about to do, do quickly". The Greek has tachion, as if to urge an action sooner than Judas had intended. Do we not once more see Jesus in control of events, rather than they of him?
Again, the disciples are in no position to "understand" in real-life terms what Jesus meant by this saying, which all heard, in this case (13:28). Of course, this did not keep some from speculating. Perhaps Judas, the treasurer of the group (13:29), was being sent out to fulfill one of two possible post-Seder tasks, namely, to buy additional supplies for the rest of Passover week ("the Feast of Unleavened bread" which lasted for the balance of the week; see Appendix A). or to make a trip to the Temple where commonly the poor gathered for alms. Whatever they theorized, none of it mattered, since Judas "had taken the bread" and had gone out "immediately" (euthus). "And it was night" (Greek: en de nux). The setting is ominous and the villain walks into the night which both shrouds his deadly deeds and reveals his devilish intentions. Having handed himself over to Satan, he has entered the darkness of which John wrote in his first chapter: "the light shines in the darkness…" (1:5). The Gospel of John makes other references to darkness in its overall message:
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil (John 3:19).
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12)
Then Jesus told them, "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 (John 12:35).
I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness (John 12:46).
Similarly, John writes about "night":
As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work (John 9:4).
It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light." (John 11:10).
And so Judas, while acting the part of Jesus' disciple, accepting the bread of fellowship during Passover, now goes into the night.
The New Commandment (13:31-35)
Students of John's Gospel normally refer to John 13-21 as the "Book of Glory", while they refer to John 1-12 as the "Book of Signs". Signs point beyond themselves to a greater reality, and so we come to see John 13-21 as that reality. Something of great importance will now come to light. What was once hidden will be revealed. Or, perhaps better stated, something about Jesus will be glorified.
The "Glory" Saying (13:31-32)
When the betrayer goes off into the night, having taken the outward bread of friendship, something new is about to be revealed to the disciples. It is no accident that Jesus holds back his teaching until Judas leaves. This was the great paradox for Jesus: he had chosen them all, and, for all, he had shown his love until the very end. But in the divine purpose lurked Psalm 41:9 and the moment of choice for Judas. Satan had his man, and, he supposed he had the upper hand. Yet, alone with the Eleven, Jesus utters his "Glory Saying": "Now (nun) is the Son of Man glorified (edoxasthe)". We are accustomed to "Son of God" language in John's Gospel, but surprisingly he is equally comfortable with "son of man" language. The following texts in John use it: John 1:51; 3:13f; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31 (here). No doubt John uses the phrase in ways familiar to a Jewish audience, and the popular understanding believed that Messiah was that person. Interpretations of Daniel 7:13 included the idea of a heavenly figure who came into the presence of God and represented the interests of God's earthly kingdom. The John passages reveal Messianic and Suffering Servant images for this phrase. Yes, God placed his seal of approval on the "son of man", but it was the son of man who would give his life, body and blood, for the world (see the John 6 texts for this).
What does it mean for the son of man to be "glorified"? Jesus will be clearer about that in John 17 where he prays to the Father for his future glorification. But in the present setting, Jesus is simply saying that the process has been set in motion (starting with Judas' mission) for the betrayal, arrest, trial, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is this whole process, not just part of it, which make up the act of "being glorified". "Glory" is a potent word in biblical usage. Referring to the brightness of the sun (Greek idea), it also has the idea of "dignity or weightiness" about it (Hebrew idea). When something is revealed in its true character, its glory is witnessed. By becoming a human being, the divine glory of Jesus was hidden in his humanity, and that was about to change once he passed through death and out the other side in resurrection. But Jesus sees more in this idea: "God is glorified in Jesus", as well as Jesus will be glorified by God. What happens to Jesus reveals something deeper in the character of God than had been seen before. Something of His mercy and grace, and something of His surprising love for sinful humanity. The idea that Jesus reveals the glory of God is found as early as John 1:18. There is something sudden about this glorification of Jesus, as John uses the word euthus, the same word used to describe the speed with which Judas left the table (13:30). Jesus does not imagine a long, protracted process, but something that will take place during a short time. After all, remember the use of the word "hour" (hora) (13:1) in reference to the moment of crisis, the moment of transformational eventuality.
Imminent departure (13:33)
How critical are these final hours? Adopting the stance of a Jewish patriarch, about to bless his children prior to his death, Jesus addresses the disciples as "little children" (teknia). Urgency falls across the scene, and Jesus seems intent on making the most of these last, precious moments. He makes several statements in this regard:
I will be with you only a little longer.
You will look for me.
Where I am going you cannot come.
These themes are merely suggested in this verse. Jesus makes no effort to unpack their meaning in this setting. However, they point forward, rhetorically, to what Jesus will teach his disciples during these fleeting, closing hours of his earthly life. That teaching takes shape in John 14-16 where those themes are developed. Similarly, we come to understand the strangeness of statement #3 in light of John 17, where Jesus prays to his Father, and there reveals the unique relationship Jesus has with Him. Still, the disciples are able to go somewhere in the future, and Jesus will address that concern as well. When he tells them he will no longer be with them, he explains that in chapters 14, 15, and 16 by reference to the Holy Spirit who is their "Jesus replacement" as companion and teacher. We ask the reader to carefully examine those subsequent chapters to understand what Jesus meant by these three, rather stark and puzzling statements. Think of them as "seeds" planted early in the disciples' minds, awaiting illumination during the so-called "upper room discourse" of chapter 14-16.
The Commandment (13:34-35)
What is "new" (kainos) about this commandment? This word occurs only twice in John, here and 19:14 -- "new" tomb. It can refer to something that didn't exist before -- but the command to love one another is not recent. It is found in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:4). It can refer to something that existed previously, but was not fully known or understood; e.g., a "new" understanding.
To understand what is new about this commandment, we first look at other uses of "commandment" (entole) and "to command" (entellomai) in John. Jesus lays down his life in obedience to the commandment from his Father (10:18). Jesus' obedience to God's commands is his witness to the world that he loves the Father (14:31). Jesus' words and actions are in response to the Father's commandments, which result in eternal life (12:49-50).
O'Day ("John", New Interpreters Bible) writes:
...what is new is that the commandment to love derives from the incarnation (see 3:16). The "new" turn in the commandment of 13:34 is that Jesus' "own" are asked to enter into the love that marks the relationship of God and Jesus. Their participation in this relationship will be evidenced the same way that Jesus' is: by acts of love that join the believer to God (cf. 14:15, 21, 23; 15:12). Keeping this commandment is the identifying mark of disciples (v. 35), because it is the tangible sign of the disciples' abiding in Jesus (15:10). [pp. 732-3]
In addition to O'Day's comments, the newness of this commandment is also found in its purpose as our witness to the world. For John, there is to be something unique about the Christian community that sets it apart from the world. One might bring in the picture of the early church from Acts -- the sharing of all resources so that no one would be in need (Acts 4:34-35), but recognize that such a practice was short-lived in the early church. From Galatians 3:28, we have a picture of a united community that transcends races, economic status, or genders.
As Christians, we are called to love all people -- even enemies -- in the name of Jesus Christ; yet there is a special love and relationship we have for spouses, children, and other family members. In a similar way, there is to be a special love we are to have towards our brothers and sisters in the faith. We are to be a family to one another. The words, agapao and agape first of all mean: "to have love for someone or something, based on sincere appreciation and high regard" and, secondly, "to demonstrate or show one's love." (Lowe & Nida). In neither definition is it primarily an emotional word -- that is, having warm, inner feelings.
The little Greek word hina occurs twice in v. 34. It can designate the content of the new commandment: "That you are loving one another." However, the primary meaning of hina is to designate a purpose or a result. So the verse might be understood: the purpose or result of Jesus giving the commandment is that we might (continue to) love one another. The purpose or result of Jesus having loved us is that we might (continue to) love one another. agapao is present tense which implies continuous or repeated actions. It is a command about a continuous way of life rather than occasional events.
The commandment is new because it is now coming from Jesus. We love because, or as a result of Jesus' commanding it, and as a result of being loved by Jesus through his redemptive work. O'Day ("John", New Interpreters Bible) offers these reflections on these verses:
To interpret Jesus' death as the ultimate act of love enables the believers to see that the love to which Jesus summons the community is not the giving up of one's life, but the giving away of one's life. The distinction between these prepositions is important, because the love that Jesus embodies is grace, not sacrifice. Jesus gave his life to his disciples as an expression of the fullness of his relationship with God and of God's love for the world. Jesus' death in love, therefore, was not an act of self-denial, but an act of fullness, of living out his life and identity fully, even when that living would ultimately lead to death.
To love one another as Jesus loves us does not automatically translate into one believer's death for another, nor does it mean to deny oneself for others. Jesus did not deny himself; he lived his identity and vocation fully. Rather, to love one another as Jesus loves us is to live a life thoroughly shaped by a love that knows no limits, by a love whose expression brings the believer closer into relationship with God, with Jesus, and with one another. It is to live a love that carries with it a whole new concept of the possibilities of community. [p. 734]
Ultimately the reason for the word "new" lies in the action of Jesus, already expressed in the footwashing. We are reading about a radical renewal of God's covenant with the remnant of Israel now gathered around Jesus. This is every bit as significant as Moses mediating the covenant renewal which makes up the greater part of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Nor is this a mere "review of the details", but involves Jesus going to the cross and becoming the sacrifice which ratifies this covenant renewal. The commandment is "new" because it is "renewed" by Jesus through the full measure of his love, even to the end (13:1).
The Denial (13:36-38)
The closing verses of John 13 return us to a familiar theme, namely, Jesus' relationship with Peter. That thread will weave its way through the Gospel of John until it finally reaches chapter 21 when Jesus will once more renew his relationship with his estranged disciple. There is a marked difference between Peter and Judas, and we must not miss that contrast. Judas betrayed Jesus and allowed Satan to enter his heart to determine his agenda. While Jesus faithfully offered Judas the bread, Judas took it with respite and duplicity, spurning the love of Jesus in the process. Not so with Peter. Whatever resistance he had to Jesus during his public life was motivated by something more than personal gain. Peter wanted the best for Jesus, but his problem rested with what this "best" really was. Peter thought he knew what it was, and seemed to be "looking out for Jesus" when the "master" was about to make some foolish mistake, however well-intentioned. Even during the footwashing, Peter refuses to have Jesus humiliate himself at Peter's feet. And so when we come to this section, we see Peter in a struggle with Jesus, and Jesus' calm, but firm claim that he knew Peter better than Peter knew himself.
Before we consider the details of this section, examine the following chart to see the noticeable parallel between the earlier dialog between Jesus and Peter and the passage at hand in 13:36-38. The questions, answers, and rejoinders give evidence of a carefully crafted Johannine structure intended to emphasize the points of conflict and the manner of Jesus' handling of Peter.
Two Conversations with Peter (13:6-8, 36-38)
Question Type
13:6-8
13:36-38
Question by Peter
"Lord, do you wash my feet?" (13:6)
"Lord, where are you going?" (13:36)
Answer from Jesus
"What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand" (13:7)
"Where I am going you cannot follow now, but afterward you will follow" (13:36b)
Peter's Boast
"You shall never wash my feet" (13:8)
"Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you" (13:37)
Response from Jesus
"Unless I wash you, you have no part in me" (13:8)
"Will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you have denied me three times" (13:38)
The question of Jesus' "departure" consumes Peter in 13:36, along with his persistent objection to delaying his own accompaniment with Jesus. As we have so often witnessed, Peter will not take "no" for an answer. Still, more is intended by these exchanges. Two large themes wind themselves around both passages: "What are you doing?" and "Where are you going?" They are inextricably connected questions. What Jesus ultimately is doing is "going to his glory" by way of the cross and resurrection. Even the footwashing image underscored that truth. The "doing" is the "going". But, as would be true for any family about to lose its parent, what will happen to the rest of us is the all consuming question. No doubt it was on Peter's mind a man who would not be put off with words like "not now, but afterward". Somehow Peter saw his role as rescuing the imperiled Jesus, as he persistently steps forward to "lay down his life". He will have his chance to "prove his manly valor" in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he brandishes a sword to do mischief to the high priest's servant (18:10-11). Even there, Jesus must "teach" Peter with the words, "Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
But for all his valor and courage, Peter hears painful words from Jesus, namely, his coming denial of Jesus "three times". If that were not bad enough, Jesus introduces his saying to Peter with the same solemn oath he used to offer his other important teachings: "Truly, Truly" (amen, amen). "Has it come to this," Peter must imagine, "that the Master sees my denial of him in the same way he makes authoritative statements governing our lives? Am I to become a byword and example of the quintessential coward?" Such a literary similarity is hard to miss when John so favors it elsewhere in his Gospel.
Had John ended his account of the "Upper Room" here, it might well have seemed depressing and hopeless. We would have had a difficult time making sense out of the "Glory Saying" in light of the betrayal and denial passages. Thankfully the composition of John's Gospel looks quite different than that. Many of the puzzling questions raised in these thirty-eight verses start to find answers in chapters 14-16, the "Upper Room Discourse", climaxed by Jesus' "High Priestly Prayer" of John 17, in which we glimpse the intimacy possible between Jesus and the Father. Once we start breathing the air of these chapters, we come to see what Jesus meant when he told his disciples they would not understand what he was doing now, but they would understanding later. That thought directly parallels Jesus words to Peter here.
And how appropriate that contrast is for the Passion narratives. The meaning of the cross ever remains the wonderfully mysterious center of the Christ-life. Shrouded in shame and scandal, the bare symbol of Roman power would seem to scarcely contain the mercy and grace of God's love for the world. Had we picked another instrument of salvation, it likely would not have been this one. Had Peter picked the means for washing away his sins, he would not have chosen footwashing as the symbol. Had Judas chosen the means for handing Jesus over… Where do we stop? Only where Jesus left off--with words of instruction: "Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."
Glory to God! Amen.
Appendix A: Passover Calendar
The chart below attempts to bring together a number of "Passover" events through a visual presentation. A few basic facts about Jewish time-keeping are necessary. Days of the month begin at sunset (night) and end at evening (before sunset). In the chart below, N, M, and E refer to night, morning and evening respectively. However, it is also possible to refer to Jewish days in the way Genesis 1 does, namely, that they consist of an evening, followed by a morning.
Calendar of the Hebrew Passover "Week": Month of Abib (also called Nisan) during the Following Days
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
E
M
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
N
M
E
Prepare
For
Passover
Lamb
Slain
Seven Days of Unleavened Bread
"Even"
"Feast"
The Passover
Six Days of Unleavened Bread
Lamb
Eaten
Prepare for "High
Day"
Seven Days of Special Sacrifices
Firstborn
Slain
"High Day"
Sabbath
Wave Offering
Lev. 23:9-15
"High Day"
Sabbath
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The following passages provide information on the Hebrew Passover: Exodus 12:1-51, 13:3-10, 23:14-19, 24:18-26, Leviticus 23:4-14, Numbers 9:1-14, 28:16-25, Deuteronomy 16:1-6. In these passages the timing of some events is not precise. This has frustrated many Bible commentators. This appendix attempts to first ascertain what is definite and then interpret the obscure in the light of what is obvious. In the chart above events for which the timing is clearly given and for which the dates are clearly fixed are used to decide where the less obvious fit in.
Passover Certainties
1. As indicated above, for Hebrew days, evening precedes morning.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (Genesis 1:5; also 1: 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
2. Order of Passover events
The Passover was commemorated in the month Abib (also called Nisan)
Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover unto the LORD your God: for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night (Deuteronomy 16:1).
It was to be observed in Jerusalem
You shall therefore sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there (Deuteronomy 16:1).
There was a total of seven days of unleavened bread.
Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses (Exodus 12:19)
It started on the evening of the 14th Abib.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even [lit., "between the evenings"], you shall eat unleavened bread (Exodus 12:18)
It ended at the onset of the 21st of Abib.
You shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at even [lit., "between the evenings"] (Exodus 12:18).
So the total of seven days of unleavened bread were complete by the end of the 20th day of Abib.
The 15th of Abib was a Sabbath "High Day"
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even [lit., "between the evenings"] is the LORD’S Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to the LORD (Leviticus 23:5).
Including the 15th there were six days of unleavened bread.
And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God shall choose: and you shall return in the morning, and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD your God: you shall do no work therein (Deuteronomy 16:7).
This confirms that the total of seven days of unleavened bread terminated before the 21st.
Special sacrifices were made from the 15th Sabbath "High Day" to the 21st Sabbath "High Day".
In the first day you shall have an holy convocation: you shall do no servile work therein. 8 But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: you shall do no servile work therein (Leviticus 23:7).
These were followed by a Sabbath "High Day" on the seventh day.
And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the LORD your God shall choose: and you shalt return in the morning, and go to your tents. 8 Six days you shall eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD your God: you shall do no work therein (Deuteronomy 16:7).
So the 21st of Abib was also a Sabbath "High Day".
Additional Passover Insights
The Passover was to be eaten at night and before daybreak
And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it… 10 And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire (Exodus 12:6, 10).
The angel of death 'past over' on the 14th of Abib and the Egyptian firstborn were slain in the night of the 14th. of Abib.
And so shall you eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’S Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:11).
The 14th of Abib was to be a feast day
And this day shall be for you for a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever (Exodus 12:14).
The words "evening" and "evenings" are imprecise in some translations
In certain passages noted above, the phrase in Hebrew is: beyn ha'aribiym. The Hebrew noun is plural. The Masoretic text has it marked as dual. So a literal translation should be "at the evenings". What were "the evenings"?
The setting of the sun at the end of the 13th of Abib would be the evening of the 14th. However, consider the logistics. Thousands of animals would be brought to the Priests for examination and dipping in the water tanks to be slain by the head of the household before the sun disappeared below the horizon. This could not be done in the short period from the sun beginning its dip below the horizon and total darkness. So this could not be what is meant by "within the evenings". The doors of the Temple faced east. Each day after 12 noon, when the sun passed its zenith, being deprived of direct sunlight, the inside of the temple would rapidly become dark. So the lamps were lit soon after midday, then the officiating priest prepared and offered the evening sacrifice. This was done "within the evenings". So from the lamps being lit to the setting of the sun was known as the evenings. So even though the lamb of the initial "Egyptian Passover" was most likely slain as twilight ushered in the 14th. of Abib, the commemorative Passover lamb was slain after mid-day of the 13th. of Abib as the declining sun progressed towards the night of the 14th. when the lamb was eaten being the commemoration of the night when the Egyptian firstborn were slain and the Hebrew firstborn were spared.
Digger Deeper: 24:The Upper Room, Jesus Transparent
(Bob Brown)
To gain a deeper understanding of 24: The Upper Room, Jesus Transparent, carefully read the selected passages below. To aid you in your study, we invite you to visit the website http://notes.chicagofirstnaz.org, or pick up a copy of the notes at the Connect desk, or from your ABF leader. Now consider the following questions, as you ask the Lord to teach you.
Special Note: The Background Notes are especially useful in working through some of these questions. You are encouraged to secure a copy as you begin.
1. Our primary focus for this study will be John 13:1-38. Take a few moments to read through the entire chapter, and look for section breaks, based on changes in topic.
2. Turn your findings in #1 into a simple outline, offering as much sub-point detail as you want.
3. According to 13:1-3 what is the primary basis for the things Jesus does during the "rest of his life" on earth? Note: there may be more than one.
4. Describe all the actions Jesus took when he washed the disciples' feet (13:4-12). In what ways are these actions symbolic of Jesus larger purpose for becoming a human being?
5. What is Peter's "beef" with Jesus in performing the footwashing? How does Jesus respond to Peter? What's the point of the "wash" versus "bath" discussion?
6. What question does Jesus ask his disciples in 13:12? In what ways does he try to answer it in 13:13-17?
7. What basis does Jesus give for the prediction of his "betrayer" (13:18-20)? Why does he recite this Old Testament passage (Psalm 41:9) to the disciples?
8. What emotion does Jesus reveal in 13:21 and why does he express it?
9. In what way does Peter ask his question differently in 13:24 than in his earlier conversation with Jesus? How does "the Beloved Disciple" pass along the question (13:25)?
10. Discuss the "sign" Jesus offers in 13:26. How do we know that this is a Passover Seder, even though John doesn't give us the "traditional account" found in Matthew, Mark and Luke?
11. What role does "bread" have in John's story, and how does it function differently in the other accounts of the Last Supper?
12. What does it mean for Jesus to be "glorified"? (13:31-32)
13. What major announcements does Jesus make to his disciples in 13:33? Skimming ahead in chapters 14-17, can you see any clarifications of those announcements?
14. What is the "new commandment" and why do you think Jesus calls it "new"?
15. What parallels do you detect between 13:6-8 and 13:36-28, two conversations between Jesus and Peter found in this chapter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud, I am 23 years and I am from Sweden.
By practising Torah non-selectively, just like the historical Jesus did, we make the world a better place to live in!
To realize that one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth – the Messiah - and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi YÓ™hoshua, displaced his original followers (the Netzarim) and redacted the NT); is a step in that direction!
So who then was the historical Jesus? His name was Ribi Yehoshua.
The research of world-recognized authorities (for example Barrie Wilson; www.barriewilson.com) in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT (a Scroll found in the Qumran-caves) practised both written and oral Torah (oral Torah in an unbroken chain since Mosheh (Moses); commanded by Mosheh in Torah; oral Torah is recorded Beit-Din (Jewish Court)-decisions of how Torah shall be applied).. As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.
For words that you don’t understand; se www.netzarim.co.il ; the link to Glossaries at the first page.
Ribi Yehoshua warned for false prophets who don’t produce good fruit = defined as don’t practise the commandments in Torah according to Halakhah (oral Torah; see the above definition). See Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
The research of Scholars in leading universities which implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee necessarily implies that if you want to follow him you need to practise his Torah-teachings.
So you need to start follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – by practising Torah (including oral Torah)!
Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life here on earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Post a Comment