J. L., ESPINEL MARCOS, Gospel according to Saint John.

Introduction, translation and

commentary, Edibesa , Salamanca 1998, pp. 295-296.

Preview of topics from chapters 13-17

If in 12, 47-48 there was talk of hearing and not keeping his word, in the farewell
chapters, specifically in 14, 1-24, there will be talk of keeping the word of Jesus: his
disciples are those who keep his word . Upon them will come the Defender, the Defense
Attorney. The test of love, it will be seen, consists in keeping his word. Perhaps the
most significant advance is the one given in 12, 45: «Whoever sees me sees him who
sent me». Indeed, in 14.9 that theme returns and concludes with the manifestation of
Jesus to Philip: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." The next verse, 14.10 gives
an explanation. The Father lives in Jesus and configures him, in addition to suggesting
his words.

to. Farewell Speeches ( Jn 13-17)

The cc. John 13-17 are devoted to Jesus' farewell actions and speeches during the Last
Supper. It is not possible to speak of a parallel in the synoptic gospels. Only Le 22, 21-
38 has, within its brevity, some resemblance.

These speeches by John have the precedent of the farewell speeches of the patriarchs.
Jacob says goodbye to his sons in Gen 49; Moses says goodbye to his people in Dt 1,
1.5; 4, 46.47, 27. 2.4.12; 32, 49; Joshua says goodbye in Jos 24-25; Samuel solemnly
bids the people farewell in 1 Sam 12; David says goodbye to Solomon in 1 Kings 1-10
and 1 Chron 28-29. There are similar stories in Jewish extra-biblical literature:
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Moses and The Jubilees.

The content of these biblical or Jewish discourses is different from that of Jesus in Saint
John, coinciding only in the exhortation to follow the path undertaken, without fear, and
in that both mention, although in different ways, the future of the group .

John has wanted to reserve part of the historical material about Jesus, and also material
from the experience of faith in the risen, and thus compose a speech". It seemed good to
this prophet of Jesus, that the historical Jesus, and above all, the Jesus glorious, could
speak to his Church from the experiences of the early Church.
But Juan presents in these doctrinal discourses the Christology, the ecclesiology and the
pneumatology that he has known and experienced, the one that his community is
hearing and living. J. Blank rightly warns : «The washing of the feet and the
accompanying farewell speeches are falsely interpreted when they are understood as
pious speeches, which aim at interior edification. What it seeks rather is to show the
theological-ontic structure of the community of Jesus» Its Christian contents , which
constitute the specificity of this highly thought-out after-meal, cannot but be
differentiated from the farewell speeches of the Old Testament or of Judaism.

The farewell speeches include chapter 13, which contains much narrative material: the
washing of the feet, the betrayal of Judas, the announcement of Peter's denial, and also
exhortations. We can present a scheme of the set of farewell speeches, which will be
developed later:

Thematic scheme of the c. 13-17

A 13, 1-38: The washing of the feet reveals Jesus; Glorification of Jesus (denial and
betrayal)

B 14, 1-31: March of Jesus. Exhortation to disciples. The Spirit sent by the Father

C 15, 1-11: The immanence of Jesus in the disciples

D 15, 12-17: The mandate of love

C' 15, 18-27: The hatred of the world towards the disciples

B' 16, 1-33: March of Jesus. Exhortation to disciples. The Spirit sent by the Father

A 17, 1-26: The intercession says the love of Jesus: Glorification of Jesus (the son of
perdition)

Outline of chapter 13

Introduction, vv. 1-3

Washing of the feet (prophetic action), vv. 4-11

Sense of the action, vv. 12-17

Jesus, Judas and the Beloved Disciple, vv. 18-30

The glory of Jesus. The command of love, vv. 31-35

Jesus and Peter, vv. 36-38

Introduction ( Jn 13, 1-3)

1 Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus saw that his hour had come to pass from
this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to
the end,

2 And dinner started. the devil having already inspired the heart of Judas, son of the
Father into his hands, and seeing that he had come from God and towards Simon
Iscariot, to deliver him up,
3 Seeing that everything had been put by God, he was marching. It is not only plausible
that Jesus knew the proximity of his death, it is something proven, even if he was
knowing it little by little. Many of his parables contain the idea that the kingdom of
God, although effective in saving, is defenseless, small, seems like a loss, has suffered
violence since the time of John the Baptist. He got an idea of his position as Messiah, as
a servant of the world, as the Son of man who one day or another would be handed over
and claimed by God.

Jesus is attentive to his surroundings and knows the death of the Baptist and the
persecution that he himself suffers from Herod and from the leading groups of Jews.

He is accused of magic, of being attached to Beelzebul , of forgiving sins, of breaking

the Sabbath, of speaking against the temple, of teaching against the Law of Moses. All
this carries the death penalty. Jn 11, 53 quotes the condemnation is decided. Also Mc 3,
6. Judaism does not like his messianism, he is not political, he is not strong, or armed. A
Messiah like this is of no interest and it is better to leave things as they are. Jesus is
aware of all this. You have to admit. He was given enough human insight to see this
clearly, if one does not want to grant him prophetic knowledge, with which he saw that
his messianism is of service.

We cannot deny that Jesus knew the intentions of Judas, "the one who eats with me",
the friend, whose idea of messianism would differ greatly from that of Jesus and
perhaps was the cause of his betrayal.

His time has not come (2, 4, 7, 30; 8, 20) His time has come (12, 23)

For this I have come at this hour (12, 27)

Seeing Jesus that the time had come to pass from this world to the Fathers (13, 1)

The death of Jesus is the greatest display of his love. That is why John says: Having
loved ( complexive aorist, meaning: throughout the past life) his own who were in the
world, he loved them to the end (indicating the end of life and the height of love). The
washing of the feet will signify the life and death of Jesus as a service. It is verified that
this love was already being intense.
The entire verse two is devoted to the contrast created by Judas's attitude. In Juan there
are no exorcisms. The Devil appears above all in the betrayal of Judas. The event is thus
described as diabolic. Jn 6, 70: Did I not choose the twelve of you? And one of you is a
devil» agrees with this idea, because that chapter has materials from the Last Supper. It
cannot be said that John was unaware of the Eucharist because he does not mention it at
the Last Supper. John has transferred traditions of the Supper of Jesus to other places
that have seemed more apt, for example, for the controversy that he maintains with
Judaism.

Perhaps uniting the diabolic and taking life is due to the fact that the devil was a
murderer from the beginning, deceiving the first parents, taking away their immortality
(cf. Jn 8:44).

c. Prophetic action of the washing of the feet ( Jn 13, 4-11)

4 He got up from Supper, took off his clothes and took a towel and wrapped it around
him, 5 then he poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to
dry them with the towel with which he was wrapped. 6 He goes , then, to Simon Peter.
He says to him, Lord, do you wash my feet? 7 Jesus answered and said to him: What I
do, you do not know now; you will meet him later. 8 Peter says to him: You will never
wash my feet. Jesus answers him: If I do not wash your feet, you will have no part with
me. 9 Simon Peter said to him: Lord, not only the feet, but the hands and the head, 10
Jesus said to him: Whoever has bathed does not need to wash more than his feet, but he
is all clean . And you are clean, but not all. 11 He knew who was going to deliver him.
That is why he said: Not all of you are clean.

The prophetic action is a re-enactment of a message, followed by a few brief

explanatory words. I will only refer the reader to the actions of Jer 13, 1-11; 27; 32, 1-
15 and Ez 4,1-5,5 The prophets used a lot of this language at the last minute, of
exhortation when it seemed that words no longer made a dent. us. These are prophetic
actions of his, among others, the commensality Jesus also dusts off that language
forgotten by the rabbis - with sinners, the choice of Twelve apostles, the lamentation
over Jerusalem, the entry of Jesus on a donkey into Jerusalem, the expulsion of vendors
of the temple, the washing of the feet Specifically, this action is carried out during the
Last Supper, the Easter dinner. All Israelites must eat this anakeiménol dinner ,
reclining, as the disciples are (cf. Jn 13, 23.25; Mc 14, 17 par .). This is how they
symbolized the exit from Egypt, freedom had been recovered after slavery.
Reclining on couches, like the great ones of the earth, or on carpets, or on mats,
depending on the possibilities, the Jews celebrated their independence from Egypt and
that Yahweh had set them free. At this dinner even the poor had to eat lying down."

Jesus interrupts dinner, gets up from it (v. 4), takes off his clothes that identified him as
Master, as it is known those condemned to crucifixion were stripped of them, and
dresses in servant's clothes. Then he begins to wash the feet of his disciples, uses the
servant's utensils and his gestures (washes, washes) the feet, dries). According to the
rabbis, a Jew could not force another Jew his servant to wash his feet". Jesus is staging a
hard service that puts him at the feet of everyone. In the explanatory words he will say
that it is not a mere act of humility, rather, he is revealing in depth what his life and
death are: a service.
Pedro suspects a danger, perhaps he thinks of humiliation and opposes it. Jesus affirms
the impossibility of having a part with him if he does not accept that he washes his feet.
Having part with' (v. 8) is hereditary terminology.

Both opposing the washing of the feet, as speaking practically of a bath (even of the feet
and of the head), as well as the fact of the betrayal of Judas, as well as the denial of
Peter are due to misunderstandings, to undercomprehensions of messianism . of Jesus.

Jesus does not speak of the ritual bath before Easter, the disciples had already done that
(cf. 11, 55). Now he is trying to make the disciples understand the departure of the
Messiah. A prophetic action is stronger than a linguistic metaphor.

d. Meaning of the prophetic action ( Jn 13, 12-17)

12 When he washed the feet of his disciples, he took their clothes and sat down again at
the table and said to them: Do you understand what you are talking about?
13 you call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for I am.
14 then, if I have washed your feet being Lord and Master, it is also necessary that you
wash one another's feet. 15 I have given you an example, so that, as I have done, you
also do. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is an
envoy greater than the one who sends him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you
if you do them.

The washing of the feet stages and explains the meaning of the life and death of Jesus.
When everyone is celebrating their freedom, Jesus highlights their bondage. Already in
the anointing in Bethany he had prophesied a death of a servant counted among
criminals and not judged worthy of anointing. Mk 10, 45: "The Son of man did not
come to be served, but to serve, that is, to give his life for the many", contains a
teaching similar to that of the

foot washing. To serve is to give one's life in favor of others. But the imitation of Jesus
who, being Master and Lord, humbled himself should not be reduced only to humility
(cf. Jn 13, 14), it is mutual service, and that is what Jesus asks for after his action. It can
be seen that in the primitive church washing the feet of the saints» (1 Tim 5, 10), those
consecrated to Christ, was not only an act of humility, but of service.

Jesus has left a hypodeigma , an example, like the martyrs of the Old Testament (2 Mac
6, 28.31). If the prophetic action is Christological, soteriological, the directly derived
explanation is moral. It was thought for some time that a moralization of humility was
introduced. Today it has been seen that they are the explanatory words of the prophetic
action, that the washing of the feet has a single message: Jesus is a servant in an act of
service who says to his disciples: you also ofeilete, you must, with theological
necessity , wash feet, serve, give to each other. In Lc 22, 27 there is a passage with a
certain environmental resemblance to the washing of the feet. Jesus and his disciples are
at the Last Supper and Jesus asks: Who is greater, the one reclining at the table or the
one serving? Isn't that the one lying down? For I am in the midst of you as the one you
serve. This text enters to be part of those who try to convince the disciple that serving is
the greatest honor within the kingdom, so that one cannot be something without
generous service to others. As Jesus has alluded to his service, he also speaks of the fact
that he disposes of the kingdom in favor of the disciples (v. 28), as if recalling that,
without service or death, on the part of Jesus, neither Peter nor any disciple would
obtain the kingdom.

"Truly, truly, I say to you in Jn 13

«Truly, truly, I say to you: The servant is not greater than his Lord 13, 16 (Both
governed by love) «Truly, truly, I say to you: Whoever receives the one I send, receives
me 13 , 20 (Jesus leaves)
«Truly, truly, I tell you: One of you will betray me 13, 21 (betrayal disturbs him)
"Truly, truly, I tell you: the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times"
(13, 38) (irony about Peter's love)

The formula: Truly, truly, I say to you», with its oracular tone, has an unusual
density in chapter 13 and marks each of its moral themes.

and. Jesus, Judas and the beloved disciple ( Jn 13, 18-30)

18 I am not saying this for all of you. I know the ones I chose. But, the Scripture that
says: "He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me" must be fulfilled. 19
From now on I tell you, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that
I am he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me;
Whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.
21 Having said this, Jesus was troubled in his spirit and testified Truly, truly, I tell you
that one of you will betray me. 22 The disciples looked at each other, not knowing who
he was talking about. 23 One of the disciples was reclining next to Jesus. the one that
Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter signaled to him to find out who it was he was talking about.
25 lying on the chest of Jesus says to him: Lord, who is it? 26 Jesus answered: He to
whom I dip a morsel of bread and give it. Dipping a piece, he gave it to Judas, the son
of Simon Iscariot. 27 And with the morsel, then, Satan entered into him. So Jesus said
to him: What you are going to do, do it quickly, 28 No one reclining knew why he was
saying this. 29 Some, however, thought that since Judas had the bag of money, that
Jesus told him to buy what we need for the festival, or to give food to the poor. 30
Taking therefore the morsel of bread, he went out at once. It was night.

In Mc 14, 18 Jesus knows that the betrayal is going to take place. What hurts Jesus is
that he is dealing with a friend, one with whom Jesus had discovered his spiritual
intimacy, one who regularly ate with him, to put it more dramatically. The disciples'
reaction is sad: «They began to be saddened and to say one after another : Is it me? (Mk
14, 19). It is the correct way to react.
The death of Jesus is something already decided by the Jewish leaders, according to the
Gospel of John. Judas' betrayal is painful for Jesus and the rest of the apostles, but it is
only occasional. The Jewish chiefs, or perhaps Judas, have sought a contact to facilitate
the arrest at night. But with Judas and without Judas, the death of Jesus was already
calculated in the spheres of Jewish power, and later it would occur in Roman power.
We cannot give in on this, we are not going to see in Judas any necessary instrument for
the death of Jesus. The New Testament never presents it as such. Judas' betrayal is due
to Judas' lack of understanding of Jesus' messiahship, and his non-acceptance of what he
knew of Jesus as the Messiah Son of man.

We can describe the action of Judas as diabolic, as is done in 6, 70; This comparison is
biblical, it is traditional because the devil deceived the death of the human being (cf.
Gen 3.1-19).

This case has an aggravating circumstance; is a friend the c to against mf his heel. Such
a scandal should not disturb the disciples, nor should Peter's denial, nor the flight of the
other disciples. They are weak, they have not prayed (cf. Lk 22, 46). Jesus had warned
them of this. From his memory, from his warnings and exhortations they must learn to
know who Jesus is , who he is in depth (cf. v. 19). The phrase Then you will know that I
am is in the mouth of Culpepper . a key to the identity of Jesus as interpreted throughout
the gospel.

It is necessary to remove the morbidity of Judas's betrayal that many authors see,
imagining that it was already predetermined and Judas was a toy in the hands of God.
Scripture speaks simply, and in a general way, not with messianic prophecy, of the
betrayal made for a friend, for the intimate whom one trusted Psalm 41 is not messianic.
It talks about a rare event, but one that sometimes happens: the man who eats your
bread, who has a place at your table, betrays you. This case, which Scripture makes
possible in the life of the just, of any just, has also happened in the case of Jesus,
although it was not necessary, because the Jews had already decided on his death and it
was extremely easy for them to get rid of him. .

This is how the Scripture is fulfilled here, as if it were said: What Psalm 41, 10 says
about the just betrayed by his friend, has also come to pass with respect to Jesus.
Let us not think, then, that Judas is subject to inexorable prophecies, nor that his
betrayal had to occur to fulfill a divine decree without which there is no redemption.

Judas' betrayal is framed as a link, certainly not necessary, in the chain that leads Jesus
to Calvary. In the same way that Jesus tells Pilate, who has much more influence in the
death of Jesus than Judas, that those who have handed him over, the Jewish leaders, are
more guilty (cf. Jn 19, 11b), so Judas finds death already plotted of Jesus (cf. Jn 11, 53),
being able to collaborate only by making the nocturnal arrest a little easier. That does
not take away gravity from Judas, which is what impresses

If in 13, 20 Jesus speaks unexpectedly that whoever receives the disciple receives Jesus
and the one who sent him, it is because Jesus is arranging his apostles for his succession
and subsequent apostolate.

The phrase, sometimes magnified: «What you have to do, do it quickly (13, 27b) is an
irony, a sad reaction to an absurd situation. Judas can betray because none of the
disciples have understood Jesus' gesture, nor the Beloved, nor Peter would have
prevented it. The v. 28 says it clearly: "No one leaning back knew why he said this."

Jesus, however, was troubled in his spirit when he declared that one of them was going
to betray him (v. 21). The verb tarasso used is the one used by John when he describes
the disturbance before his dead friend Lázaro (11, 33). This is how his soul is troubled
at 12:27 when he thinks of his time, of his death. In Me Jesus makes a lamentation for
Judas: «Woe to that man by whom the Son of man will be betrayed! It would have been
better for him not to have been born (Mk 14, 21b). The "Ouch!" it is regret; the phrase:
Better not to have been born, is a sad and anguished assessment of betrayal. It is a well-
known phrase from La uses I Enoch ( Ethiopic Enoch ), 38, 2 that uses it for those who
have denied God: «It would have been better for them not to have been born.

In Sifra Leviticus 26, 3 it has this variant: "He who learns the Law without putting it
into practice, it would be better for him not to have been created." Jesus is assessing a
crime, as when he assesses a scandal, the obstacle that someone places in the straight
path of the weak towards God, as when he said: It would be better for him if a millstone
were tied around his neck and thrown into the sea (cf. Mk 9, 42).

«The sentence: 'it would be better...' is not a threat, but the sad verification of the
facts»". Jesus is terrified, overwhelmed by the disciple's reaction, as when he lamented
for Jerusalem, as when he made a counter-lament to the women who lamented for him
on the road to Calvary.

It is possible to think that Jesus tells the administrator of the group to give something to
the poor. Although that night dinner is at midnight, there are lights in the city, and the
poor are up, like everyone else. It is also a religious prescription to help them at that
time. Jesus continues to offer the morsel to Judas, continues to hold out his hand. Judas
goes out at night.
It is a fact, but it is also a symbolism. John will say in 1 Jn2. 11: He who hates his
brother is in darkness, and walks in the dark, not knowing where he is going, because
the darkness blinded his eyes

The glory of Jesus. The mandate of love ( Jn 13, 31-35)

31 When Judas came out; Jesus says : Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is
glorified in him 32 If God is glorified in him. God will also glorify him in him and will
soon glorify him . 33 Little children, I will be with you for a little while, you will look
for Me, and as I said to the Jews, 'where I am going you cannot come, I also tell you. 34
A new commandment to both of you that you love one another, as I loved you, so that
you also love one another. 35 By this you will all know that you are my disciples . Is , if
you have love for one another

1.º The glory of Jesus

The death of Jesus in the eyes of the Jews was an ignominy, a curse ( Dt 21, 22-23; Gal
3, 13). In Corinth some Christians came to call Jesus "anathema", curse (1 Cor 12, 3).
Such a dead Messiah was a scandal for Jews, madness for Greeks (cf. 1 Cor 1, 23). For
John, the fact that Jesus exposed himself and accepted such an ignominious death
reserved for him by the leaders of his people is something that glorifies him. It is also
something that glorifies God who has seen fit to send his defenseless Son, very capable
of these sacrifices throughout the world.

In Jn 7, 39; 12, 23; 13, 31-32; 14, 13; 17, 1-5; 17, 24 the term dóxa , glory and doxázó ,
to glorify are related to passion and manifest a saving power, a capacity to save, a moral
category, a mercy. The death and resurrection of Jesus are his glorification because
salvation is produced in them. The glory of Jesus is his generous contribution to the
good of humanity, with ideals that lead him to death.

It is not, then, a halo, majesty, halo, brilliance, fame. Already in Ez 36, 23-24 God is
glorified more than by men for his own saving acts. Miracles show his glory. his mercy
and moral category, but they are still anticipations of his mercy that comes all in his
death (11, 4).

Even in Jn 17, 1-5 where Jesus is seen asking for his glory, what he really asks for is his
ability to save, and thus by saving glorify the Father. That is the meaning of the request
of the Our Father: Hallowed (glorified) be your name. Here God himself is required as
the agent subject, being a passive of Jesus without the explicit subject. The meaning is:
sanctify your name by saving. This is unmistakably seen by many Old and New
Testament formulas.

2. The mandate of love

From the synoptic gospels and 1 Cor 11, 25 we know that Jesus establishes his alliance
in his blood, that is, in his death. Every alliance had some clauses, some mandates, like
that of Sinai . This new alliance also has a commandment nine. It is about something
truly new, eschatological, not possible before. The 40 times that kainos , new, appears
in the New Testament, makes an eschatological sense: a new man, a new heaven , a new
covenant, a new song, a new Jerusalem, a new cloth, a new wine, a new mandate, etc.,
have a sense of reality. achieved by the kingdom of God, of eschatological reality.

It is indeed a new love: «As I have loved you Un 13, 34b) which refers to previous
texts: «Having loved his own (all his life)... he loved them to the end (to the fullness of
love)" (13, 1b). Jesus loved until the end of time and love. Everything is different with
the fact of his love. With him it is possible to practice love, because in him we have
known and believed the love that God has for us (cf. 1 Jn 4. 16). We have to convince
ourselves that God loved first.

It is expressly said “new mandate in Jn 13, 34 and 15. 12.17, but Jesus alludes to it
when he speaks of his commands and keeping his word, v. gr. in 14, 15. If in the first
part of John terms such as "life" and "light" have prevailed, plus the verbs live",
"vivify", "illuminate", now, in the chapters called Book of Glory, the book of glory
stands out. verb to love and the noun love.

The clause of love as a covenant mandate is well placed in the Supper, after the washing
of the feet that signifies the service of Jesus in favor of humanity. It must be taken into
account that he allows this death in favor of men.

The service and love of the disciple are a response to those of Jesus

v.14: If I, being a Teacher, have washed your feet... you must do it with each other

v. 15 I have given you an example so that you may do as done

v. 16a: The servant is not greater than his Lord

v. 16b: Neither the envoy is greater than the one who sends him
v. 34: A new precept... that you love one another, as I have loved

v. 35: By this you will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another

Peter's denial ( Jn 13, 36-38)

36 Simon Peter said to him , Lord , where are you going? Jest replied Where I am
going, you cannot follow me now; Will you follow me later?
37 Peter said to him, Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will give my life for you.
38 Jesus answered: Will you give your life for me? Truly, truly, I tell you, the rooster
will not crow before you deny me three times.
Peter's denial constitutes the demonstration of human weakness before the blameless
love of Jesus. The four gospels record this fact in a similar way. It must have been very
important for the Church to know that very qualified people could deny Jesus.
Repentance was also exemplary and publicized. Peter will even give his life for Jesus
(cf. Jn 21:18), but later, when he has the experience of the Spirit. Now he does not
understand the death of Jesus neither in 13, 36-38 nor when in Gethsemane he cuts off
Malco 's ear (18, 10-11). For this reason, he will say that he will give his life for Jesus.
But this is also an irony of the evangelist (cf. 13, 37b). If Peter in the upper room does
not understand the death of Jesus represented in the washing of the feet, he cannot
understand his mandate of love either, since Christology is linked to evangelical ethics.