John 13:27-30

Vv. 27b-30. “ Jesus therefore said to him: What thou doest, do quickly. 28. But no one of those who were at table knew why he said this to him. 29. For some thought that, as Judas had the bag, Jesus meant to say to him, Buy the things which we have need of for the feast, or that he bade him give something to the poor. 30. He therefore, having taken the morsel, went out immediately. Now it was night. ”

The words of Jesus to Judas are not a permission (Grotius); they are a command. But, it is said, Jesus pushed Judas into the abyss by speaking to him thus. Jesus had no longer any ground to spare him, since from this decisive moment no return was possible for Judas. The evening was already far advanced (John 13:30), and Jesus had need of the little time which remained to Him to finish His work with His own. Judas in his pride imagined that he held the person of his Master in his hands. Jesus makes him understand that he, as well as the new master whom he obeys, is only an instrument. The word τάχιον signifies: more quickly; the meaning is therefore: “ hasten thy begun work.” John says: no one of those who were at table (John 13:28). Perhaps he tacitly excepts himself. Weiss thinks not. He believes also that John did not understand the import of the injunction of Jesus. From the words: for the feast, some infer that this evening could not be that on which the people celebrated the Paschal supper. For how could purchases be made on a Sabbatical day, such as that was? And if the Paschal supper, the essential act of the feast, was already finished, there were no more purchases to be made for the feast. But, on the other side, it may be said that if this evening had been that of the 13th-14th of Nisan, the entire day of the 14th would still remain for making purchases. And how could the disciples have supposed that Jesus sent Judas out for this purpose in the darkness of the night (Luthardt, Keil)? This passage, therefore, does not seem to us fitted to solve the difficult question which is in hand. Nevertheless it appears to me that the for the feast is more naturally understood if it was yet on the evening which preceded the day of the 14th, the first of the feast of the Passover (see on John 13:1). We are amazed at the skill with which Judas had been able to disguise his character and his plans. Even at this last moment, his fellow-disciples were entirely blinded with regard to him. On His part, Jesus could not without danger unmask him more openly than He does here; with the impetuosity of a Peter, what might have occurred between him and the traitor? This whole scene, described in John 13:27-29, was an affair of a moment. For this reason the words: having taken the morsel, John 13:30, are directly connected by οὖν with John 13:27: and after having taken the morsel. It is between the participle having taken and the verb he went out, that Hengstenberg wishes to place the institution of the Lord's Supper. But the εὐθέως, immediately, too closely connects the second of these two acts with the first. The last words: it was night, make us think of Jesus' words in Luke 22:53: “This is your hour and the power of darkness.” They complete the picture of a situa tion which had left on the heart of John ineffaceable recollections. The Johannean narrative is studded throughout with similar incidents, which are explicable only by the vividness of personal recollection. Comp. John 1:40; John 6:59; John 8:20; John 10:23, etc. Augustine (see Westcott) adds to these words: Erat autem nox, this gloss: Et ipse qui exivit erat nox.

At what time in the meal is the institution of the Lord's Supper to be placed? We adopt the view, as we propose this question, that this meal is in fact the one in which, according to the Synoptics, Jesus instituted this ceremony. Bengel, Wichelhaus and others, it is true, have tried to distinguish two suppers: the first, that of John 13, took place at Bethany; John 14:31 indicates the moment when Jesus departed from that place to repair to Jerusalem; the second, that of the Synoptics, took place on the next day at evening, at the time of the Israelite Paschal supper. But the prediction of the denial of Peter, with the words: Even this night, in both passages, renders this supposition inadmissible. We hold, moreover, that, if the author of the fourth Gospel does not mention the institution of the Lord's Supper, it is not because he is ignorant of it or that he would deny it, but because this fact was sufficiently well known in the Church, and because there was nothing to lead him specially to recall it to mind in his narrative (see on John 13:20). If the case stands thus, where is the institution of the Lord's Supper to be inserted in our narrative?

According to Kern, after John 14:31, as the foundation of the discourse in John 15:1 ff.: “ I am the true vine,” etc. But, at this time, Jesus rises and gives the order to depart: is this a suitable situation for such a ceremony? According to Olshausen, Luthardt, after John 13:38 (prediction of Peter's denial) and before the words: Let not your heart be troubled. This opinion would be admissible, if the Synoptics did not agree in placing the prediction of the denial after the institution, and even (two of them) on the way to Gethsemane. Lucke, Lange, Maier and others: in the interval between John 13:33 and John 13:34, because of the connection between the idea of the new commandment and that of the new covenant in the institution of the Supper. But the direct connection between the question of Peter: Lord, whither goest thou? (John 13:36) and the words of Jesus: Whither I go, ye cannot come (John 13:33), make it difficult to insert so considerable a ceremony between these two verses. Neander, Ebrard: in the interval between John 13:32 and John 13:33. There is, indeed, between John 13:31-32 and John 13:33-34 a certain break of continuity.

The idea of the glory of Jesus (John 13:31-32) may have preceded the institution of the Supper, and the latter have been followed no less naturally by the idea of the approaching departure of Jesus (John 13:33-34). In itself, there is nothing to oppose this solution. Paulus, Kahnis and others decide for the interval between John 13:30 and John 13:31, immediately after the departure of Judas. The words: When therefore he was gone out, Jesus said (see at John 13:31) are not favorable to this opinion, and the words of John 13:31-32 have the character of an exclamation called forth by the departure of Judas. Meyer, Weiss, Keil (the last two, because of the first two Synoptics, who place the institution of the Supper immediately after the revelation concerning the traitor) content themselves with saying: after John 13:30, without attempting to make a more precise statement. But what, in this case, are we to do with the narrative of Luke who, on the contrary, places the revelation of the traitor immediately after the institution of the Supper. If he works on the foundation of Mark's narrative, how does he modify it in so perceptible and arbitrary a manner?

And if he has a source which is peculiar to himself, why should it not have its own value by the side of that of the two other Synoptics? His account of the institution of the Supper is fully confirmed by Paul. The opinion of these critics is, therefore, precarious. The idea of Hengstenberg (at the moment of John 13:30 and before the departure of Judas) is not compatible with the expression: he went out immediately. Stier has decided for the interval between John 13:22 and John 13:23; but the question of Peter in John 13:24 is so closely connected with that of the disciples in John 13:22! Baumlein suggests the interval between John 13:19 and John 13:21, where the quite isolated words of John 13:20 are placed. The idea of receiving Jesus in the person of His messengers, and of receiving in Him God Himself, is indeed in harmony with that of the dwelling of the Lord in His own; thus with that of the Supper. In my first edition, the authority of Luke's narrative and certain indications in that of John led me to place the washing of the feet quite at the end of the meal. The institution of the Lord's Supper must consequently have preceded it, and thus I went back, with Seiffert, even to the beginning of the meal, John 13:1-3, for the locating of the Supper, while seeking an allusion to this last pledge of the divine love in the expression: He ended by testifying to them all his love. I have abandoned this idea altogether: 1. Because there is an improbability in placing the washing of the feet at the end of the meal; 2. Because John 13:26 (the morsel given to Judas) proves that they were still in the midst of the meal, after that Acts 3. Because the indication, Luke 23:24, is very vague: “ There was also a dispute among the disciples. ” It is impossible to draw from this a conclusion with relation to the moment when the dispute occurred.

Beyschlag has brought out an important circumstance; it is that according to the Synoptics the institution of the Supper did not take place at one single time, but that it was divided into two very distinct acts; the one during, the other after the meal (Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25). The first may, therefore, be placed before John 13:18, and the second after John 13:30. Westcott arrives at nearly the same result. He places the act relating to the bread between John 13:19-20 and that relating to the cup between John 13:32-33. If we study the Synoptic narratives, we find in all the three these three elements:

1. The farewell word (I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine); 2. The institution of the Supper; 3. The revelation of the traitor. In the three accounts, the second is placed in the middle; but the first is placed as the third in Luke, at the beginning in the other two, from which it follows that the question of the participation of Judas in the Supper is not so simple as it appears to be at the first glance, and may be resolved at once affirmatively (with relation to the bread) and negatively (with relation to the cup). A second observation which goes to support the preceding is that, according to John, Jesus spoke of Judas not once, but three times, at different moments in the repast. The Synoptics have concentrated these three revelations in a single one, which they have placed, either before, or after, the institution of the Supper. It is very possible, therefore, that the two forms of the Synoptic story respecting this point are not exclusive of each other, and that we may be led to represent the matter to ourselves in this way: First, the word of farewell: This is my last meal (Luke); then, a word relating to the betrayal (Matthew and Mark); then, the institution of the Supper, so far as the bread was concerned (the three); a new word relating to Judas (Luke); finally, his going out and the institution of the cup.

With reference to the conduct of Judas, I will add some considerations to those which were presented at the end of chap. 6. This man had attached himself to Jesus, not for the satisfaction of his moral needs, as one drawn, taught and given by God (John 6:39; John 6:44-45), but by political ambition and gross cupidity. For he hoped for a brilliant career in following Him whom so many miracles proved to be the Christ. But when he perceived that the path followed by Jesus was the opposite of that which he had hoped, he was continually more and more irritated and embittered from day to day. He saw himself at once deceived on the side of Jesus and compromised by his character as a disciple before the rulers of the hierarchy. His treachery was therefore the result at once of his resentment against Jesus, by whom he believed himself to be deceived, and of his desire to restore himself to favor with the great men of the nation. As soon as he realized that this last purpose failed, despair took possession of him. Judas is the example of a faith and repentance which do not have as their origin moral needs.

It is important to notice finally the relation between the narrative of John and that of the Synoptics to the subject of this whole scene. What strikes us is that in the Synoptics the relation between Jesus and Judas in this meal is presented as a particular story, forming in itself a whole, while in John the setting forth of the matter is gradual, varied and in a manner blended with the narrative of the whole of the repast in a life-like way. How can we fail to understand the historical superiority of this second form? Does not Beyschlag rightly say: “By the dramatic clearness of John's narrative the obscurities of the Synoptic story are scattered”?