Identifying the Traitor (John 13:21-31)
This passage is one that we may find difficult to consider. How could a disciple of Jesus, one who had been selected by Jesus as a disciple, betray him? Nevertheless, it contains important lessons for us. So I will consider five that I have identified, and no doubt there are many more.
1. Good followed by bad
An obvious lesson from the episode described in this passage is that a good experience can soon be followed by a bad one. In this section of the gospel, both the good experience and the bad experience were surprises. It was a surprise for the disciples when they saw Jesus washing their feet and it was a surprise for the disciples when Jesus indicated that one of them would betray him.
Looking back on this evening, the disciples would have recognised that the good experience was followed by a bad one. Of course, they would also know that this order had been seen in other events. The feeding of the five thousand was followed by the crowd rejecting Jesus. Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Son of God at Caesarea Philippi was followed by him objecting to the intention of Jesus to suffer on the cross.
2. Sin and its consequences disturb Jesus
Connected to this episode is also the fact that Jesus clearly identified who the betrayer was. Judas had had plenty opportunities to repent over his intentions, but on each occasion he had refused to desist. Even here, he was trying to hide his sins, but that is impossible to do in a prolonged sense in the presence of Jesus.
Nevertheless, although he identified the betrayer, we can see that the incident disturbed the Saviour – he ‘was troubled in his spirit’. This response by Jesus informs us about the reality of his emotional life. The obvious deduction from his response to the treachery of Judas is that Jesus always responded appropriately to every situation. His feelings were involved. Depending on the situation, he would rejoice, or he could express astonishment, or he could lament and weep.
Jesus was compassionate towards sinners, but he was never comfortable in the presence of deliberate sin. We can see his rebukes of such sin in numerous places in the Gospels. On this occasion, an appalling sin was about to be committed, and the prospect of that disturbed his spirit greatly.
3. Negative signs of assurance
The first detail that we can observe from the response of the disciples is that they accepted as true the statement of Jesus about one of them being a traitor. They had no idea who the traitor was, but they had become so aware of the accuracy of the words of Jesus that they did not doubt his words. In itself, this is a sign that they were true disciples because a true disciple always accepts as truthful the instructions and teachings of Jesus.
A second details from their response is that they did not assume that they could identify who the person was. Jesus had used the language of a solemn oath when he stated that one of the disciples would betray Jesus. The disciples recognised that it was a very serious situation, one that could not be dealt with by shallow suggestions of accusation about others.
4. Degrees of love by Jesus?
John is the only Gospel writer who refers to himself by this unusual title. What did he mean by this description?
Was it the love of a cousin? From the statements connected to the women who gathered at the cross, it is possible to argue that the mother of Jesus and the mother of John were sisters. Inevitably, if that were the case, there would be affection between them as relatives. Of course, we would then expect Jesus to have the same degree of affection for James, the brother of John. Since James is not described in that way, it is likely that the affection between Jesus and John was for another reason.
Another possibility is that Jesus could have shown special love for John because he was very young. We know that John was going to live for at least another sixty or seventy years, until the AD90s. This could mean that John was only a teenager when Jesus was crucified. There are two reasons against this. First, John had property in Jerusalem, and it is unlikely that a teenager or young person would have such assets. Second, it is not likely that Jesus would have entrusted his mother to the care of a youngish person, which he did when he was on the cross.
A third possibility is that it was the love of friendship. We may know that there are different words in the Greek language that can be translated as love, and there is one that usually means brotherly love. But that is not the word that is used here, although it is used when the phrase appears in John 20:20. Instead, here it is the word agape, and this verb is used when the phrase appears in John 13:23; 19:26-27 and 21:20ff.
A fourth possibility is that John’s self-description is the language of personal recollection. He probably wrote the Gospel of John sixty or so years after the incident took place. As he wrote the Gospel, he resolved to hide himself as he told the story. Yet he had to call himself by a title, and the title he chose was ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. In a sense, he was saying that every contact between them was one in which Jesus expressed his love to John. He could recall with deep gratitude numerous occasions when he realised the great love that Jesus had for him.
We should not assume that John meant that he had a higher relationship with Jesus than the other disciples had. To claim that would an indication of self-importance, the very sin that the disciples were guilty of in the Upper Room. Probably, if he had wanted to draw attention to himself, he could have called himself, ‘The disciple who loved Jesus.’ After all, he seems to have been the only disciple that showed loyalty to Jesus when he was on the cross. But he does not stress his love for Jesus, but he does stress Jesus’ love for him.
Of the four possibilities I mentioned, I suspect the fourth seems best. I don’t think John is suggesting that a special place had been reserved for him alone. Instead, he is saying that we should aim to enjoy the love of Jesus because such a pursuit will make us love Jesus more and increase in our discoveries of the love of Jesus.
5. The identifying of Judas
The response of Peter here to John is interesting because it reveals that Peter was further away from Jesus than John. It may be that Peter was next to John, but we don’t know if that was the case. I suppose the question could be asked, ‘Why did Peter not ask Jesus the question rather than asking John to do so?’ After all, Peter usually did not wait to say something. Was he convicted about his own lack of devotion? Did Jesus often tell things to John first? Who can say? Yet something caused Peter not to be his usual fearless self.
John asked Jesus whom he had in mind. It is evident that the other disciples did not hear the interaction of Jesus and John because they were unaware of the significance of the sop. They heard the instruction to Judas, ‘What you are going to do, do quickly.’ But they did not realise that Judas had been identified as the betrayer to John.
John tells us that when Judas had received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. I suspect that this means that Judas had allowed the devil to have even more control of him that he previously had given. Perhaps he had space in his heart before this which had some response to Jesus. Now, there were no empty spaces, but all were under the influence of the devil.
It is likely that John was placed on one side of Jesus and Judas on the other side. Both of them were physically close to Jesus. Yet as James Boice put it, ‘Both were near Jesus, but John was close to his heart.’
What was the significance of the sop? Bruce Milne says that ‘The gift of a titbit by the host at such a meal was a mark of special favour. Thus even as he unmasks the traitor Jesus reaches out to him in a final astonishing act of loving friendship and appeal.’ It looks as if Jesus gave one final gesture of friendship to Judas, but it was rejected by him, and he went out into the night.
Applications
How do we respond to the love of Jesus? The way John did, the way the disciples did, or the way that Judas did. We could say that John revelled in it, the disciples, recognised it, and Judas rejected it.
How do we respond to intended sin, whether against us personally or near us in a general sense? Sin should appal us, should cause our emotions to be affected. Why? Because all sin is an attack on God.