The Lord washes the feet of the disciples "at supper" (v. 2). Some details require our attention. First of all, the ablution itself. Not forming part of the Old Testament Paschal ritual, it is sometimes referred to as a work of love (1 Tim. V. 10, cf. also Lk. VII. 44). This is how it appears in our case: an image of service in love and humility. Next is the image of girdle. It is expressed in the New Testament by various verbs from the root ζώννυμι (in our case, διαζώννυμι). In Luke. XVII. 8 is περιζώννυμι. We are talking about a slave returning from the field, whom his Master calls to serve: "... prepare me to dine and, girded up, serve me." Like ablution, <it is> a form of service. The verb ζώννυμι can have the same meaning in the words of the Lord to Peter Jn. XXI. 18: "When you were young, you girded <έζώννυες, a simple verb> and went where you wanted." Also service or even physical labor. And in our time, in the East and in the South, manual workers tighten themselves for work with a long tight belt. In the light of these parallels, the image of the girdle emphasizes more strongly the idea of service in the image of ablution. But in the same verse, Jn. XXI. 18 The image of girdle, expressed again simply by the verb ζωννύμι, occurs secondarily and refers to the Apostle Peter not in his youth, but in his old age: "When ... when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you <ζώσει> and lead you whither you will not" (v. 18b). And the evangelist explains: "This he said, making it clear by what death he would glorify God" (v. 19). The image of the girdle is not only the image of service, but also the image of death, and, what is especially important, in Jn. [69]. It is permissible to think that when the Lord washed the feet of His disciples, He thought not only about service, but also about death: about the ministry that is realized in death. In the hour of the Passion, this service carried out in death is difficult to understand in any other way than the service of the Passion.

If for Jesus the washing of the disciples' feet is an image of His Passion, the question arises, what significance did it have for the disciples themselves? The first answer to this question is a negative answer. The washing of the feet was not the cleansing of the disciples, or, to be sure, the cleansing of the disciples was not the main purpose of the washing. Here we encounter the critical problem of v. 10, which has come down to us with many variant readings, and Codex N and some other sources do not have the words ει μή τους πόδας ("except his feet"). Without these poems, it would sound in Russian translation: "... there is no need to wash the washed[70]." This would deny any purifying significance for the washing of the feet. But objective data (to which the evidence of ξρ66 has now been added) do not permit us to give preference to this brief form. To some extent, the washing of the feet has the meaning of purification. But the Lord limits him with only his feet. Why is not explained. Is it because the dust of a hostile world sticks to your feet? In this case, it would be a Johannine parallel to the synoptic shaking of the dust from the disobedient city (cf. Matt. X. 14; Mk. VI. 11, etc.). And if the image of water would make you think about purification in the first place, the very use of water in our case raises a number of questions. And first of all, if Jesus came by water, then the testimony of John the Baptist as a testimony by water has already come to an end. This was shown to us by the analysis of X. 40-42. Since the washing of the feet was not part of the Jewish Passover ritual, the use of water in Jn. XIII could not have had the significance of the abolition of the Old Testament system as it had in other cases of the mention of water in Chapter 1-X. For some reason, the Evangelist needed the image of water. But the story of ablution does not give an answer to this question. An analysis of the Farewell Talk will open up some possibility of an answer. Now we must return to the disciples.

A positive answer to the question of the meaning of the washing of the feet for the disciples can lead us to the interpretation of certain details of the symbolic act. And first of all: that the washing of the feet took place during the supper. As we know, the supper in both the Old and New Testaments is an image of the Kingdom of God. This includes the image of reclining in the Kingdom (Matt. VIII. 11; Lk. XIII. 29), and such a parable as the parable of the Great Supper in Lk. XIV. 16-24, about the wedding feast of the king's son in Matt. XXII. 2-14, of the ten virgins in Matt. XXV. 1-13 and much more. In Jn. The XIII disciples recline with Jesus at the supper, which the Lord interrupts for washing and continues after washing. Second, when Peter tries to restrain Jesus from washing his feet, the Lord retorts: "What I am doing you do you do not know now, but you will understand later" (v. 7). This "later," μετά ταΰτα, requires comparison with such passages of John as II.22 and XII.16, which were discussed in due time: the understanding of the misunderstood in the experience of the Passion. Peter continues to resist and the Lord says to him: "If I do not wash you, you have no part <μέρος> with me" (v. 8). Parts – in what? Obviously, in the way Jesus is walking. This is the path of the Passion that leads to Glory. Washing the feet of the disciples means communing them with the Passion of Jesus. For the Synoptics, this communion is achieved by their participation in the Eucharistic Meal. John does not narrate the institution of the Eucharist. But he gives the doctrine of the Eucharist in the Capernaum Discourse, Chapter VI, and introduces into the story of the Last Supper the narration of the ablution, which in the context has the same significance as the institution of the Eucharist has in the synoptic tradition. This idea of the disciples' communion with the Passion of the Teacher is not expressed by the Evangelist: it is the reader of the Gospel himself who comes to it, delving into the individual details of the symbolic act.

XIII. 12-20.

But the Lord does not limit Himself to this. At the end of the ablution, He Himself explains to the disciples the meaning of His last actions. He draws a practical conclusion from ablution. In the washing of the feet, He, the Lord and Teacher, gave the disciples an example of love. If He has washed their feet, they must also wash one another's feet, for "the servant is no greater than his master, and the messenger <άπόστολος> no greater than the one who sent him" (cf. vv. 12-17). Jesus' subsequent speech is interrupted again by a warning to the disciples about the presence of a traitor in their midst. Jesus knows whom He has chosen, and the Scriptures must be fulfilled, and He is telling them now, before they come, "that you may believe when it is fulfilled that I am," believe in His divine dignity (vv. 18-19). But the example of love that Jesus gave to his disciples must be realized in the union of the disciples, which Jesus thinks of as a union of love, which multiplies in history: "... if I send anyone, he who receives Him receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent me" (v. 20). The term "Church" is nowhere given, just as it was not given in the parable of the Sheepfold and its interpretation (Chapter X), and how it will not be given until the end of the Gospel. But the union of love of the disciples around the Teacher is the union of the Church.

XIII. 21-30.

In v. 21, Jesus again speaks of the presence of the betrayer among the disciples. The union of love is opposed to the traitor. The students are perplexed. Peter asks the disciple whom Jesus loved. The disciple, falling on the chest of Jesus, asks him a question and receives the answer: "He to whom I dip and give this piece." Jesus gives it to Judas. "And then after that piece, Satan came into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are doing, do quickly." The disciples do not understand these words, and Judas, taking the piece, went out immediately. "It was night" (vv. 29-30).

The problem of Judas.

Judas is contrasted with the union of disciples. This contrast is sharpened as the contrast between Judas and the disciple whom Jesus loved. He alone can ask Jesus who we are talking about. The special love that the Lord has for him presupposes a great love for Jesus on his part. His boldness is the boldness of love. The special emphasis of the Beloved against the background of the union of the disciples with the new power emphasizes the importance of their union as a union of love. Judas's opposition to the union of love, and in the union of love to the one whom Jesus loved, is the opposition of love.

The problem of Judas in this context reaches the utmost acuteness. We see with what gradualness the Evangelist prepared his readers for the understanding of this terrible mystery. For Matthew (cf. XXVI. 14-16) and Mark (cf. XIV. 10-11), Judas's betrayal was fully explained by his greed. Luke was also aware of his avarice, but he also saw the direct influence of Satan (cf. XXII. 3-6). John's text was indicated in due time. But even within the limits of chapter XIII, v. 2 says that the devil planted in his heart the intention of betraying Jesus, and in v. 27 it is said that "Satan entered into him" when Jesus gave him a piece. Much speculation has been made about this piece. Some thought that it was a piece that the head of the meal gave to the guest of honor. In that case, it would have been Jesus' last attempt to keep Judas from betraying. There is no indication of this in the Gospel. There is still less reason to regard this piece as a Eucharistic piece, in John which does not speak of the institution of the Eucharist! Another thing is striking. After giving him a piece, Jesus said to Judas: "... what you do, do quickly" (Matt. 27), and "taking a morsel, he went out immediately" (v. 30a). We cannot get rid of the impression that Judas is sent to the work of betrayal by the Lord Himself. The problem of Judas reaches its utmost acuteness at this point.

Ways to solve it must be sought in context. In Chapter XIII, the union of the disciples around the Teacher is presented to us as a union of love. And the opposition of Judas to the union of love and in the union of love to the disciple whom Jesus loved, is an opposition on the basis of love. It can be said that in absolute Christian monotheism, all human activity has its beginning in God. But she must follow the path of love. If it deviates from this path, a kink occurs and good turns into evil. Such a break in evil is the path of Judas. It is understandable only in comparison with the covenant of the disciples as a union of love and in union with the one whom Jesus loved.

In the context of Chapter XIII, the fate of Judas reveals by contrast the essence of the Church as a union of love.

XIII. 30b.

When Judah went out, it was night: ήν δε νύξ (v. 30b). For the Evangelist John, this was not only a night in the physical sense, but also a night of the world epoch — the night of the Son's ascent to the Father, which replaced the day of the previous zone, after which the day of the new zone was to come.