Service and Betrayal
The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31).
In John 13:1-3, John the Evangelist heightened the drama as he began to describe Jesus’ final supper with His disciples and His final exhortations to them. The evening meal before the Passover was ongoing; Jesus knew how all things were in motion which would lead to His suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension: He had loved His disciples to the end, exemplified in all which had been narrated in John 1:1-12:50; He knew He would soon be departing to be with His Father; Satan had already put into Judas Iscariot’s heart to betray Jesus. Everything which has taken place so far was leading to this moment. We do well to understand this intense framing in terms of all which will transpire between John 13:4-17:26: at this pivotal moment, just before everything goes down, Jesus would provide His final instruction to His disciples before His departure. We can tell how much of an impact it made on John the Evangelist, since His narration of these events represents a significant portion of his Gospel.
Yet we can also profitably understand the intense framing of John 13:1-3 as appropriately emphasizing and intensifying what Jesus was about to do for His disciples: as everything was in motion, and it was all going down, Jesus got up in the middle of the dinner, prepared Himself appropriately, and then began washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:4-5).
John the Evangelist focused on Simon Peter’s reaction in John 13:6-10: Peter asked Jesus if He would wash his feet; Jesus explained Peter would not understand now, but would later; Peter protested and refused; Jesus told him he had no share in Jesus if Jesus did not wash his feet; Peter then wanted Jesus to wash his whole body. It has been common to interpret Peter’s behavior at this moment in terms of his propensity toward impetuousness: first Peter did not want Jesus to wash his feet at all, and then, all of a sudden, Peter wants a full bath!
But we perhaps do better to understand Peter’s reactions as perhaps more outward and forceful than the other disciples, but no less in the minds of those other disciples, and as well representing the social implications within the context. In the ancient world it was a custom to have one’s feet washed as part of being welcomed into a home. Ancient people wore sandals or went barefoot; to this day feet can get very dirty if we walk around in sandals all day, and it would have been all the worse in the ancient world when most people would throw out their effluent onto the streets. Foot washing was not a glamorous work: it would normally be reserved for those with the least social status, a slave whenever possible, and even then, the slave with the least standing in the household.
To this end, Jesus’ behavior would have been very troubling and uncomfortable for the disciples. Jesus had gotten up in the middle of the dinner to wash feet; this itself was unexpected, since normally feet would have been washed when the guests would have arrived for dinner. We would not be wrong in assuming they had already had their feet washed earlier; that Jesus would do it again would indicate some kind of deliberate ritual or didactic purpose. Peter may be impetuous, but if nothing else, Peter was always quite aware of the difference in standing between himself and Jesus; Peter knew very well how it was Peter who should be washing Jesus’ feet, not vice versa, and such is why he strongly protested against Jesus washing his feet (cf. Luke 5:1-10). We can easily imagine Peter only reluctantly allowing Jesus to wash his feet after Jesus had thrown down the gauntlet, no doubt feeling very uncomfortable at this violation of every norm and status surrounding foot washing. To this end perhaps Peter wanted Jesus to wash his head and his hands as a way of blunting the shame; perhaps, in his mind, it would have been less shameful for Jesus to wash him thoroughly than just having his feet washed. Or perhaps Peter reconciled himself to the action by thinking Jesus was providing a purifying cleansing, and thus wanted to be more fully cleansed. Either way, John the Evangelist has significantly slowed down the timing and pacing of the narrative so his audience might “sit” in the same awkwardness and discomfort in which the disciples sat.
Jesus would not wash Peter fully, because just like a person whose feet only were dirty and thus only washes their feet, they were clean, but not all of them; John the Evangelist then added the comment of how Jesus thus spoke regarding the one who was about to betray Him (John 13:10-11). We would be unwise to read too much into Jesus’ statement of how the disciples were “clean”: He was speaking about their relationships with Him. It is worth pointing out here how in John’s narration, Judas remained at the dinner at this time, and would only leave after a few moments (cf. John 13:26-30). Thus John strongly implied Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet. Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet while each of them knew what was about to take place: Judas at least already had the idea of betraying Jesus, if not having already made provisional contact and plans to do so; Jesus knew what Judas was going to do (cf. Luke 22:3-6, John 13:2, 11). And Jesus washed Judas’ feet anyway. There is no more compelling example of Jesus’ love, humility, and faithful service than such an act. It also helps to explain how bitterly the betrayal must have felt not only to Jesus but to Judas’ fellow disciples.
Jesus afterward dressed Himself again and returned to the table and explained what had just happened: they called Him Teacher and Lord, and did so correctly, and He just washed their feet; if He, their Teacher and Lord, washed their feet, then they should wash one another’s feet and follow the example Jesus gave them, and they would be blessed if they did so (John 13:12-17). Ever since many have aspired to follow Jesus’ example literally, and some may find some benefit in going about literally washing the feet of others. Yet just as Jesus’ act of foot washing in the middle of the meal was most likely more performative than functional, as a didactic ritual experience, so this kind of foot washing in an assembly context would prove a bit more performative than functional. Paul speaking of worthy widows as having “washed the feet of the saints” in 1 Timothy 5:10 would further reinforce the premise: perhaps those widows actually did wash the feet of fellow Christians, but such would not be the only way they would serve their fellow Christians, and what proved virtuous about the washing of feet was not in the washing of the feet but in its act of service. Jesus’ point, which John the Evangelist made incredibly explicit and thus worthy of our emphasis, was for Christians to serve fellow Christians and others. Not only should Christians serve fellow Christians and others, but they should be willing to do the kinds of acts of service which are generally associated with those of lower social standing without grumbling. There is no job or task which is “beneath” the Christian; if our Lord and Savior washed feet, we have no right presuming we are “too good” for or “above” any given act of service.
John the Evangelist thus presented part of the story of Jesus’ final dinner with His disciples in John 13:1-17 to powerfully and viscerally emphasize the importance of Christian love and humility exemplified in acts of service. Jesus washed feet; go and serve others: it would be hard to make the point as powerfully and succinctly as this. If Christians find anything about the practice of this example challenging and difficult, such is their own problem rooted in an unwise and ungodly sense of arrogance and pride.
Yet Jesus’ instruction was not for all of them. Quoting Psalm 41:9, and distressed in spirit, Jesus confessed how one of the disciples would betray Him in John 13:18-21. The hearer or reader has been well prepared for this moment since John the Evangelist has taken every opportunity to remind the hearer or reader how Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus. But the disciples themselves were not as prepared for this moment. Jesus said these things in advance so the disciples would understand how it had all been foretold and they would believe He was and is the Christ. Judas’ betrayal did not mean God in Christ had to readjust and go with Plan B or Plan C; Judas’ betrayal, and all it would unleash, was in fact Plan A and had always been Plan A (John 13:19; cf. Acts 2:23). Those who accept those Jesus sends accepts Jesus and the Father who sent Jesus; such is why we accept the apostolic witness regarding Jesus and should continue to put confidence in the message of what God accomplished in Christ as faithfully proclaimed through what has been made known by the Spirit in the witness of Scripture (John 13:20).
The hearer or reader of John’s Gospel is neither shocked nor surprised by Jesus’ confession of His imminent betrayal; John the Evangelist has taken every possible opportunity to remind the hearer or reader of how Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus. Yet at this point in the narrative John implicitly confessed how none of this was immediately obvious at any time beforehand. After Jesus declared one of the disciples would betray Him, John did not say, “and everyone looked at Judas Iscariot.” Instead, John reported how the disciples looked at each other, unsure about who would do so. For the first time in the narrative, John spoke of himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” as one reclining at the privileged position next to Jesus; this may well indicate John was the host, or family of the host, of the whole dinner (John 13:23). This detail was given to explain how and why Simon Peter gestured to John to be the one to ask Jesus of whom He spoke (John 13:24). That Peter would ask John to do it should be telling: was it not normally Peter who would be the one to say or ask what everyone else was thinking? Peter had no desire to be the one who asked lest suspicion fall upon him; perhaps this is why John described himself here as the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” as having a sufficiently close relationship to be more above and beyond suspicion.
John then asked Jesus, and Jesus identified the disciple by giving him a piece of bread dipped in the dish; He gave it to Judas Iscariot and told him to do quickly what he was about to do (John 13:25-27). John the Evangelist also provided further editorial commentary: at the time no one understood why Jesus spoke thus to Judas; the disciples thought He was telling Judas to go and buy what was needed for the feast or to give something to the poor since he was the treasurer (John 13:28-29). Judas went out immediately afterward; John indicated it happened at night (John 13:30).
Christians are understandably tempted to demonize Judas Iscariot, and we mean this in a very concrete way: we want to turn him into a kind of demon. We have continually noted how John the Evangelist displayed the sting of the betrayal with every editorial comment he made at every possible point at which the narrative provided him an opportunity to do so. Yet we must understand why the betrayal hurt so badly: Judas Iscariot was a full disciple of Jesus, as much a disciple of Jesus as Peter or John or Andrew or anyone else. For that matter, Judas would not be the only disciple betraying Jesus that night; Peter would deny Jesus three times, and the rest of the disciples would have likely done the same had they been in Peter’s predicament (cf. John 13:38, 18:15-18, 25-27). We all want to understand why, and we can all look at various possibilities and reasons for why Judas betrayed Jesus. But we do ourselves a disservice if we look for those reasons in order to try to tell ourselves how we would never do anything of the sort and we would never betray Jesus. We desperately want Judas Iscariot to be a terrible human being so we do not have to consider the prospect of how we might be the ones to betray Jesus in some way or another. But if Judas Iscariot was a full disciple, as he was, and it was not immediately obvious to the other eleven disciples that Judas would be the one to betray Jesus, as it turned out, and if Jesus did not treat Judas Iscariot any differently even knowing he would be the one to betray Him, as He did not, then the possibility remains that any disciple might betray Jesus, as is indeed the case. We are all more like Judas Iscariot than any of us would like to be. If it had always been obvious Judas Iscariot would betray Jesus, it might have been easier for John the Evangelist to countenance and stomach; its very unexpected nature goes a long way to explain the depth of the bitterness John the Evangelist felt about the whole matter.
We can only imagine what was going through the mind of Judas Iscariot. We can view this scene as a sort of “anti-communion.” Of the four Gospel accounts, only John the Evangelist passed over the establishment of the Lord’s Supper in silence; he likely knew how it was well attested in the other Gospels and wanted instead to focus on Jesus’ foot washing example which the other Evangelists had passed over. But Jesus giving the bread dipped in the dish to Judas Iscariot represented the closest thing to it in John’s account. In no way is Jesus giving Judas Iscariot the Eucharist/Communion/the Lord’s Supper; instead, after Jesus gave Judas Iscariot the bread dipped in the dish and Judas ate it, John related how Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27). Those who would suggest Satan took control of Judas at this point go well beyond what the textual evidence would allow; likewise those who would suggest a contradiction between John 13:27 and John 13:2, as if what John is narrating as a series of actions cannot involve dynamic movement from thought/preparation to action. Instead we suggest John the Evangelist characterized the moment as “anti-communion.” In the Lord’s Supper, Christians eat the bread and the fruit of the vine as the body and blood of Jesus to share in His life; when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he went out to betray the body and blood of Jesus to death. Christians call the Lord’s Supper “communion” because partaking of the body and blood of Jesus represents their shared participation in Jesus, as if Jesus is in them (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17); when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he alienated himself from Jesus, and instead was sharing in participation with Satan, who thus “entered” him. In the Lord’s Supper observed on Sundays, Christians celebrate the death of Christ on the day of His resurrection to honor eternal life; when Judas Iscariot ate the bread dipped in the dish, he committed himself, however unconsciously, to bring death to Jesus and ultimately himself. From this point on, Jesus would speak to the eleven in ways to bring them in to share in life (cf. John 13:31-17:26); by giving Judas Iscariot the bread dipped in the dish, Jesus in a real way cast Judas Iscariot out, and he was handed over to Satan to do his diabolical deed.
Thus John the Evangelist described Jesus’ act of service and announced His betrayal in dramatically powerful ways. As Christians we do well to imagine ourselves as participants in these moments, to consider how our Lord and Teacher has served us, and thus how we should serve one another, and how each and every one of us has it within ourselves to betray Jesus. We do well to thus consider ourselves so that we may commit more fully to Jesus, to share in communion with Him in the Lord’s Supper and through our thoughts, feelings, and actions on a daily basis, and to make sure we never are given the “bread dipped in the dish,” to share in an “anti-communion” which casts us out to the Evil One and to be alienated from life and light. May we faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit and share in eternal life in Him!
Ethan R. Longhenry
The post Service and Betrayal appeared first on de Verbo vitae.
