John 21: The Epilogue

I know this is going to sound a lot like the conclusion to the last chapter, but it really is the best way to transition the chapters. By the time the reader gets to the end of chapter 20, at John 20:31, it would seem as if the book of John has come to its end. Everything has finished fully and completely. Jesus finished His ministry, died to pay for the sins of the world, and then rose again 3 days late to defeat sin, evil and death. Many witnesses saw and heard Jesus, coming to faith in Him. There are no loose ends, plot holes or cliff hangers. John has both inductively and deductively brought the reader to the conclusion that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. He even states in the last verse of John 20. You almost even want to put a big “THE END” at the end of the chapter to give it that complete fulfillment feeling. But that’s not the end. John has one more story to give the reader. After going through the story, hopefully we’ll be able to see why John included with that chapter.

Before we go into the story itself, let’s go into a little textual criticism. I’m not the only one who thinks that John 20 ends well. A lot of scholars believe it’s a good ending for the chapter. But some scholars say it ends too well. They believe that was the intended ending, and John 21 was attached to the book later. This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered that problem. We encountered with the first 11 verses of John 8. If you read my overview of the whole book of Mark, the same problem was encountered with the last chapter. Sometimes these accusations come up because the text doesn’t seem to fit. But most of the time, the reason the accusations come up is because the earliest manuscripts of the book do not have the section, or the ancient witnesses do not attest to it (that pretty much means the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers do not quote it). This is not true for John 21. All the manuscripts, even the earliest manuscripts, have John 21 in it. There have been writings from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century that have quoted this story. So both the manuscripts and ancient witnesses support this story. On top of that, it has the same writing style as all the other 20 chapters of John. There is enough proof to say John wrote this chapter and fully intended it to be the last chapter of his Gospel.

Let’s set the scene. The book opens with the Greek words Meta tauta, which, when literally translated, is “after these things,” but dynamically translated “afterwards.” There is no clear time frame on how much time as past since Jesus appeared the 11 disciples, including Thomas, on that second Sunday. But I believe a good amount of time has passed, and I’ll explain that later. The location is a beach on the Sea of Tiberias, or as we know it better, the Sea of Galilee. Our list of characters are Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, John, James, and 2 other disciples. The book of John does not mention who these two disciples were, but if I had to take a guess, it would be Andrew and Philip. Why? Well, Andrew would could simply say that it would make sense he stayed with his brother Peter. But I think there’s a bigger picture to look at. The technical term is chiasmus, but it has also been called mirror imaging and reflective parallelism. In a chiasmus, a story ends in a reflective or opposite way, kind of like a mirror reflects the opposite of what you actually see. If this is true, I see John 21 as a chiasmus to John 1. John 21 is going to parallel John 1. We already see it in the setting. John 1 takes place in Galilee, and John 21 takes place in Galilee. In John 1, Jesus called 5 disciples: John, James, Andrew, Simon Peter and Philip. All 5 of those disciples are there (if you go along with my assumption the other 2 are Andrew and Philip). If John 1 was the calling of the disciples, this is the “re-calling” of the disciples. Some Bible translations even call the second half of John 21 “The Reinstating of Peter.” I also believe that is why Thomas is there, too. Thomas doubted that the Lord Jesus was alive. He needs continual proof and forgiveness to get him back on track. Also, notice Nathanael is there. Yes, this is the same Nathanael as in John 1, once more, showing the chiasmus. Although it can’t be found in the Bible, I believe that Nathanael must have been one of the greater crowd of followers. After all, he’s still hanging around with the disciples. So the setting has 6 disciples and 1 follower at the Sea of Tiberius at an unknown time.

While we don’t know the time frame exactly, I do believe that a good amount of time has passed. Why? Just look at the disciples’ situation. They went back to their hometown in Galilee, and they went back to their old occupations of being fishermen (I do believe those 6 disciples were all fishermen). Enough time went by since the last resurrection appearance, they must have said to one another, “Well those years following Jesus around on His ministry was a fun learning experience. And I’m glad we got to see he survived that whole crucifixion thing. But he’s probably moving on to bigger and greater things. So we better stop slacking off and get back to our homes, our families and our jobs.” That must have been what they thought because that’s what they did. But still, after reading the first 3 verses of John 21, I almost feel like the men are still daydreaming about that life, because to me, they seem bored to death. They have nothing better to do with their lives but to fish. Oh how they should have remembered what Jesus taught them. Luckily, Jesus is there to remind them.

Out of boredom, Peter decides to pass the time by fishing. The other disciples, and Nathanael, with nothing better to do, decide to join Peter out on the boat fishing. They sit there all morning (and possibly the night before) and they catch nothing. In the morning, Jesus appears out of nowhere. At first, they do not recognize Jesus. Perhaps they thought Jesus was just another fisherman. Maybe it was just an issue of bad lighting or he was too far away. Or, as we kind of understand from other resurrection accounts, it’s possible the disciples still had problems recognizing Jesus in His resurrected form. Jesus calls out to the men on the boat, “Friends, do you have any fish. The NIV chooses to use the word “Friends,” but a more literal translation of the Greek word is more like “children” or “little ones.” It is suggested Jesus is using a term here to show the close love between and teacher and his followers. I can imagine all the disciples giving each other a stupid look, and then pulling a Bill Engvall “Here’s your sign” moment, like, “No, Jesus, we thought we would just hang our nets over into the sea to give them a good washing. Here’s your sign!”

Jesus then instructs the disciples to throw their nets on the other side. Now it doesn’t matter if you are a career fisherman who goes out on a big ship and catches fish with a large net, or if you are a fisherman by hobby who goes out on a small fishing boat and catches fish with a fishing pole. Either way, you know it’s not going to make a big difference what side you are fishing on. Those disciples on the boat were professional fisherman, and they knew with both their “book smarts” and their “street smarts” (or should I say “sea smarts”) that it didn’t matter either way. But they decide to throw their nets on the other side anyway. I don’t know if they did it as an act of faith, or if it was just a “why not?” move. The Bible doesn’t explain. It’s a good thing they did, for when they did, they got fish, a lot of them! 153 to be exact (please don’t try to give it an allegorical meaning; it’s a detail in a historical fact, that’s all). And these weren’t small, measly fish. These 153 fish were so large and heavy that the men could not bring the nets up into the boat. What a miracle!

Indeed, it was a miracle. Once again, I apologize for not being more specific when I said there was only 7 miracles. There were only 7 miracles during Christ’s ministry. If we count Christ’s own resurrection as a miracle (and a lot of people do) and we were to count this large catching of fish as a miracle, this is the 9th miracle. It is another miracle where Jesus shows his authority over nature. It clearly reveals Jesus to be the Son of God, for only God could manipulate nature like that. Indeed, it was enough proof for John. When John realizes this is a miracle, he knows the only man to have miraculous power like that is the Lord. So with a cheerful cry, John explains, “It’s the Lord!” Everyone is excited to see Jesus again, especially Peter. Peter is so excited that he jumps from the boat and swims a hundred yards to see Jesus. The rest of the men follow behind in the boat, going slowly because of all the fish.

When Peter and the rest of the men reach shore, they see Jesus has prepared a fire and some bread. Jesus asks for some fish to cook so they can have breakfast together. John 21:12-14 paints a beautiful picture of fellowship between friends. Over a breakfast meal, the disciples and Nathanael enjoy eating and chatting it up with their Lord and friend Jesus. There was no need to question who the man was or to question Jesus about any teaching. With absolute certainty, they were assured they were eating with Jesus, and this allowed them to eat in peaceful, friendly fellowship with their God. John records this as Christ’s third appearance after dying on the cross (at least recorded in the book of John).

Before we move onto the second half, I want to throw in an application piece here. I drew up the picture painted in John 21:12-14 because I want it to teach a lesson on fellowship with God. I think a lot of Christians think that appearing in the presence of God is one of solemn and reverent worship. When they worship God in His presence, they are to be bowed down, softly speaking in fear, as God talks to them in a monotone and boring voice. Or maybe Christians picture it like a traditional church worship, where we orderly sing hymns, chant liturgy and pray, and then quietly leave. I do believe that there is time and place for that. It shows our reverence and admiration for a holy God, who is willing to extend his love to a sinner. But I also believe that if we do that too much, we lose that picture of Jesus as our brother and our friend. I truly believe there are sometimes that Jesus just wants to sit down with us and be our friend. Sometimes Jesus wants to go on a walk with us and have a good conversation. Say, that’s a perfect segway into the second half of John…

Even though this isn’t written down in John, I think what Jesus said to Peter after breakfast was, “Hey, Peter, let’s go for a walk and talk.” Peter answers, “Um, sure Lord. Where are we going?” Jesus answers, “Oh, just around the sea.” Peter replies, “Yeah, sure, Lord, let’s go.” And the two get up and begin walking. Now John knows what’s going on. Remember, John was 1 of the 3 disciples who Jesus pulled aside for special events, such as special miracles and special teachings. So when John sees Jesus pull Peter aside, he can’t help but wonder what’s going on and what Jesus might be telling Him. So he follows close behind to eavesdrop. I know this won’t make sense as of now, but this will make more sense as of verse 20.

As Jesus and Peter are on their walk, Jesus asks Peter 3 times, “Do you love me?” Each time, Jesus starts with the phrase, “Simon, son of John…” Remember back in Bible times, especially among the Jewish custom, your last name was “Ben-[Father’s name]” or “Bar-[Father’s name],” “Ben” and “Bar” both being suffixes for “Son.” In short, your last name was pretty much. “Son of [Father’s name].” Remember when you were a kid, and you really knew you were in trouble when your parents called you by your full name? I think that’s what Jesus is doing here. Jesus is trying to get Peter’s attention and draw him to the seriousness of the conversation.

In between the 10 verse of John 21:15-25, Jesus asks 3 times if Peter loves him, and Peter 3 replies 3 times that he does love him. In English, this looks like a perfect parallel, but not so in the Greek. The Ancient Greek language had 3-4 words for love. In this passage, Jesus uses two of them. The first and second time, Jesus uses the Greek word agape. The third time, Jesus uses the Greek word phileo. All 3 times Peter uses the word phileo. Some scholars have tried to argue there is theological significance in the choosing of the different words for love, but other scholars have simply dismissed it by saying in this context they are synonyms. I would have to agree with the other scholars. To understand, I will have to state the difference between the two words. The Greek word agape is most of the time meant to mean a love that unconditional, sacrificial, and devoted, as between a God and his worshipper. The Greek word phileo is love that is emotional drive and is just as conditional as it is unconditional, like the love between brothers or other family members. If there was a deep significance in the difference, it would seem as if Peter was dodging the question by offering a weaker answer. It would be like Peter saying, “Well, Lord, I don’t love that much, but I do love you.” If you look at the way Jesus responds, I don’t think Jesus took it that way. If Jesus did take it that way, He would be the one getting more upset every time Peter replied with his answer, not vice versa. On that note, if there was a difference, it would not Jesus who would go from agape to phileo, but rather Peter. Jesus would keep asking Peter “Do you love [agape] me?” until Peter stopped saying “I love [phileo] you” and started saying “I love [agape] you.” Instead, the opposite happens. So I must conclude that there is no difference, but they are all synonyms.

On the same note, do not try to make any specific theological differences between “sheep” and “lambs.” Although they are two different Greek words, they are to be treated like synonyms. Also, do not try to make any specific theological differences between “feed” and “take care” of my sheep. They too are synonyms. In fact, the Greek word that the NIV translates into “take care” is a verb form of the noun “pasture.” Why does a shepherd take his sheep out to pasture? The number one reason is to give it fresh grass to eat, which is feeding it.

But all my ranting about making the differences in language a difference in theology should not make you think there is some good exegesis we can pull out of this passage. First of all, what does Jesus mean by “these” when he says to Peter “Do you love me more than these?” I think “These” incorporates his occupation of fishing, his friendship with the other disciples, his family, his hometown, and everything that use to be dear to Peter. Once Jesus went out of Peter’s presence, Peter went back to his old life. Jesus wanted to know if Peter loved his old life better or if he loved the life Jesus gave him better. For if Peter loved his old life better, he wasn’t really fit to become the church leader Jesus wanted him to be. It’s a good thing Peter said he loved Jesus more! Indeed, Jesus did need Peter to love him more than family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, his home and his job for the mission He was to call Peter into (see Luke 14:25-27).

While I am not one for trying to distinguish theological differences between synonyms, and I am usually oppose unnecessary numerology (trying to find allegorical significance of numbers) in the Bible, I do believe there is a significance in why Jesus asked Peter 3 times if Peter loved Him. It does have to do with how many times Peter denied Jesus. If you remember correctly, I proposed in John 13 that a possible reason Peter denied Jesus 3 times was because Peter said 3 times that he would stick up for Jesus. Now in a bigger picture, the 3s are bunched up to make a bigger 3. Peter first says he will stick up for Jesus 3 times, then Peter denies him 3 times, so Peter has to confess his love 3 times. It’s like Jesus is saying, “Just making sure you love me, Peter. Because last time I checked, you pretended like you didn’t even know me.”

Like I said, Jesus really needed to know Peter loved him, and the prophecy about Peter in John 21:18 explains it. If I may take I guess at what the Bible doesn’t have written down, I think Jesus said something to Peter along of the lines of, “Peter, I just really needed to know that you love me. Because, Peter, you will face the same persecution I faced. You too will be falsely accused and falsely condemned. You too will be thrown into prison. You too will be persecuted and tortured, and you too will be martyred for your beliefs. And when you go through all this, I can’t have you doubting me, I can’t have you denying me, I can’t have you disowning me, and I can’t have you recanting. For I want you to be the leader of the church. If you’re the leader, they are going to look up to you, as they look up to me now. And when they look up to you, they need to see Me. I need you evangelize to the non-believers and disciples the believers at any cost, and the only way to do that is to love Me and My will for you more than anything in the world. Can you do that for Me?”

That’s just my paraphrasing. If we were to look at the text, Jesus prophecies Peter’s fate by using an analogy between a young man and an old man. A young man is independent enough to dress himself and go wherever he wants, but an old man is dependant on everyone for everything, from getting dressed to moving about. Jesus predicts that Peter in the near future will still have his independence to go and preach wherever the Holy Spirit leads him. But in the distant future, Peter will be arrested, and an arrested man is dragged to where his captors want him to go. Ultimiately, this prophecy talks about his death of crucifixion, where the crucified person’s hands were stretched across the beam. Early church tradition states that Peter was arrested in 64 A.D. and later crucified within the same year. In one way, we can see Peter’s death glorifying Jesus by dying by the exact same method. In another way, Peter’s death glorifying Jesus because, like Jesus, He was willing to die for the exact same gospel message his Lord died for.

Jesus closes this section in John 21:19 by giving the command, “Follow me!” Once again, we see another parallel back to John 1, as this book began with Jesus calling disciples, including Peter, to follow him (John 1:43, cf. Matthew 4:18-20 & Mark 1:16-18). The NIV calls this section “Jesus Reinstates Peter.” In one sense, we can see Christ’s command to Peter to follow him as making him a disciple again. If Peter legitimately recanted being a disciple by disowning Jesus, he needed to be made a disciple again. In another sense, maybe Christ’s command for Peter to follow him was a greater calling than when Jesus first called Peter to follow Him. The first time, Jesus called Peter to be His disciple, His student. Now Jesus was calling Peter to a greater mission. Peter was now called to be His apostle, His messenger of the good news and a leader to His believers. Either way, Peter is being called to stick with Jesus, even when Jesus is not present with Him.

By this time on their walk, Jesus and Peter know John is following close behind. While Jesus is giving prophecies about the future, Peter might as well ask about John. I don’t see this as Peter being nosy into the life of other people. Think all the way back to my introduction on John. In my introduction, I talked a little about the character of John, who he was. Remember that I said it’s possible that John’s father Zebedee and Simon Peter’s father John were partners in fishing, so it’s possible that Peter and John were co-workers all their adult life, and maybe even childhood friends. During the ministry of Jesus, Peter and John were 2 of the inner 3 disciples, so they had unique bonding time with Jesus. Even after this book, John is always seen with Peter in Acts. When you put all this evidence together, I really think Peter and John were best friends. Being best friends, naturally Peter wants to know what happens to his best friend.

Before we get into what Jesus didn’t mean, let’s talk about what Jesus did mean. I think it would be helpful to put another paraphrase of mine. Pretty much, Jesus said, “Don’t worry about it. Don’t focus on what’s going to happen to him or my relationship with him. You need to focus on your relationship with me and what I called you do. Focus on that.” There’s some good application there. Too often Christians will meddle into other people’s spiritual life before they take care of their own. They will call out other people’s sins before confessing or repenting of their own sins. They will try to spiritually discipline someone while their spiritual walk is far from disciplined. They compare and contrast their spiritual life with others, only to come out feeling that they are better than everyone else. The worse part is when they think they are in the right to do so, even calling it accountability! The problem is they end up doing what Jesus warned us no to do: we try to take the speck out of someone else’s eye before taking the plank out of our own eye! Now Jesus doesn’t say to leave the speck in their eye and leave the plank in our own eye, but simply that we should make sure we remove our own plank first before removing the speck. Before we meddle into other spiritual lives, we need to straighten out our own lives.

Now onto what Jesus didn’t mean. Apparently the witnesses who heard this took the words “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” to mean that John was going to live until Jesus came again (and I can see that mistake even being made in the modern era, if it wasn’t for the following verses). The thought Jesus was saying, “He will remain alive until I return.” John clearly understands Jesus to mean, “Even if I suggest something as crazy as him living on earth until I return, that shouldn’t affect you.” Context also helps the misunderstanding. First of all, a lot of 1st century Christians, including the Twelve Apostles (especially them) really thought that Christ’s second return would happen within their lifetime. So at first, this idea wasn’t too far-fetched. This idea meant Jesus was coming back in half a century, and all 12 of the Apostles would escape martyrdom until Christ’s return. The idea was quickly shot down by the time John wrote his Gospel. If John truly wrote the book of John either in the late 80s or early 90s AD, most of the Twelve Apostles have died martyred deaths. It’s even possible John is the only original Apostle still alive. Yet some of the 1st century Christians are holding on to this idea that Jesus was returning soon. Why? They remembered the words Jesus spoke to Peter in John 21:22. John was still alive. He was even dodging persecution pretty when. When tried for his faith, he was not martyred, but exiled to the island of Patmos. Even then, John finished his sentence and left the island. He was still alive. So some Christians still thought Jesus was coming very soon because Jesus promised that John would not die. John quickly kills the rumor and gets everything straightened out. Indeed, tradition states John simply died of old age.

The real, true last 2 verses of the book do not parallel any passage in John 1, but I do kind of see them parallel the last 2 verses of the previous chapter, John 20. Let’s put them both up.

John 20:30–31-
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21:24–25-
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The overall message both pairs of verses have is that the book of John is just a sampling of what Jesus. But even adding the Synoptic Gospels, that too only seems like a sampling of what Jesus did. It may seem like John is using a hyperbole in John 21:25, but maybe it’s really an understatement. Jesus did do a lot in his 35 years of life on earth as a human being. Heck, Jesus did a lot in just the 3-4 years of his ministry. If ever single second, or every single minute of the life of Jesus was recorded, it would take a lot of books and scrolls to get it all down. But it brings up a good point. Why didn’t the Gospel writers put more down than just the 89 chapters written between the 4 Gospel writers? It goes back to the purpose statement in John 20:31. The Gospel writers only wrote down the information that proved their message. And that’s why the last 2 verses of John 21 (which are the last 2 verses of the book) also carry the overall purpose in them. Jesus did many other things as well, and John witnessed a lot of them, but John only wrote down 21 chapters worth because that’s all needed to prove Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God.

One more thing to note about these 2 conclusions. Both conclusions mention one or more disciples present to bear witness. John 21 says it explicitly in verse 24, and John 20 says it implicitly in verse 30. Simply put, John is saying that the reader can be sure all of the recorded events are true because there was at least one disciple who saw them all, and that disciple was John. I do find comfort that this Gospel is not merely an editor putting together an anthology of stories, or an interviewer writing down a news report from witnesses. Rather, this information is first hand from John himself. (Maybe that’s why John didn’t put down a birth story. He wasn’t there to witness it.)

This is really and truly the end of the Gospel of John. Yet I just don’t feel right ending my commentary here. Even though this chapter can be seen as an epilogue to the book of John, for my devotional commentary, I’m going to write my own epilogue. My epilogue will be like an overall summary of the book. I plan to try to find some way to outline the book, as well as connect all the chapters to show you how John in consistent in carrying out the theme of Jesus as Christ and God the Son.

John 13: A Betrayer and A Denier

Last chapter focused around the events of Palm Sunday, as well as other surrounding events. John does not see any important events happening in the Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday following, so he skips right to Thursday evening, in which traditional Christians call Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday. The Jews know this meal to be Passover, but Christians know it to be the Lord’s Supper or the Last Supper. Interesting enough, John does not mention the Last Supper at all. He must have assumed his readers read about it in the Synoptic Gospels, and with nothing more to add, he leaves it out. Instead, John decides to add a lot of the last teachings of Jesus, which the Synoptic Gospels do not give. John 13-17 are all the last teachings of Jesus, given at the Last Supper. Right now we’ll just focus on John 13, and I want to focus in on Jesus predicting both his betrayer and denier.

Since Jesus talks about the betrayer before the denier, let’s start off with the betrayer, since that’s who Jesus started off with. There’s no need to be hidden with the identity of the betrayer in John. It’s clearly Judas Iscariot. John has been foreshadowing a lot. In John 6:70,71, Jesus calls one of the disciples the devil, which John reveals to be Judas Iscariot. In John 12:4-6, Judas calls out Mary for wasting money. John interprets this to be Judas Iscariot exposing his evil heart. In John 13:2, John tells the reader the devil had prompted Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. This could simply be interpreted as Judas Iscariot making the deal with the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus. Even in John 13:10, while John does not specifically mark Judas as the betrayer, John remembers Jesus saying not everyone was clean, and John interprets it to mean that the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, was not the clean one. So clearly both Jesus and John have been foreshadowing what Judas Iscariot will do in the whole book, but now it will come fully out in a prediction in John 13:18-30. Interesting enough, John, along with Matthew, are the only 2 who specifically and explicitly mention Judas Iscariot as the betrayer by name. Mark and Luke do not mention Judas Iscariot by name in the prediction. Only when he actually betrays Jesus is his name used. Between Matthew and John, Matthew is more specific and more explicit, as Matthew records Judas Iscariot asking if he’s the betrayer, to which Jesus affirms.

It might be obvious to us, but it wasn’t obvious to the disciples. The only reason John makes it so obvious is because he is writing this after the events went down (also, since he’s assumed his readers has read the Synoptic Gospels and know who the betrayer is, instead of keeping a surprise, he shows how it could have been foreshadowed). But John, as well as the rest of the disciples, has no clue. They are lacking a clue so much, that in the synoptic Gospels, each disciple asks Jesus if he himself is the betrayer. Yes, each disciple accused himself before anyone else. Despite all the foreshadowing that made it obvious to the reader, in the mind of the disciples, Judas Iscariot is probably the least likely candidate. He was the treasurer of the group, and a treasurer is a highly valued position in any group. The job, in theory, shows that the group trusts you with their money and their finances. If the disciples were mostly unaware of the embezzlement Judas Iscariot was guilty of, they trusted him with their money and finances, so they saw Judas Iscariot as a trustworthy man. Later on, the text will show the reader that Judas Iscariot was within arm’s reach of Jesus. When it came to seating guests at the table during Bible times, the closer the person was to the host, the more honored the guest was. If Judas was within arm reach of Jesus, he was one of the higher up guests. The disciples must have thought Judas Iscariot was an honorable man. Already we have described (at least, by outward appearances) Judas Iscariot as trustworthy and honorable, which are not the qualities of a betrayer. Although a weak argument, we can even use an argument from the silence to show Judas wasn’t a suspect. Quickly skim through all your Synoptic Gospels. Besides when the Twelve Disciples are called, you’ll notice Judas isn’t mentioned until the Last Supper or the Betrayal. From the Gospels, he doesn’t seem to have an active role in the ministry of Jesus. Besides the words of Jesus, which are only mentioned in John, nothing seems to stick out with him. If you were one of Twelve Disciples in the 1st century, you wouldn’t have suspected Judas Iscariot either. The disciples are so unaware, they have to ask Jesus who it is.

To reveal the identity of the betrayer, Jesus dips a piece of bread in a dish and gives it to the betrayer. This was to fulfill the Scriptures, but also in irony of the custom of the day. In Biblical times, “sharing bread” or “breaking bread” (better translation) was an act done between two close people, like family or best friends. When it was done among 2 strangers, it was to acceptance and welcoming. It’s so ironic because here it represents the opposite. Jesus is not saying Judas Iscariot is a friend or a brother to him. Jesus is not welcoming Judas Iscariot, nor is He showing acceptance of Him. Instead, Jesus breaks breads with him to reveal a betrayer, a enemy or an antagonist. The action of breaking bread also fits very well with the context of the fulfilled Scriptures. Most Bibles will say that the Scripture Jesus is referring is Psalm 41:9. Most scholars will tell you that Psalm 41:9 is about Ahithophel, David’s trustworthy and honorable table companion, who betrayed David and then hanged himself for doing so. The parallels fit very well between Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot. Both betrayed a close companion, and both committed suicide over the guilt of the betrayal.

At the sign, John 13:27 tells the reader that Satan entered Judas Iscariot. Now most scholars will agree (although a few have said differently) that the bread that Jesus gave Judas Iscariot is not what caused Satan to enter Judas Iscariot. The issue is how to define “Satan entered.” The question is how much control Judas Iscariot had. Was Judas Isacariot possessed by Satan, or was he acting upon his own free will, but being tempted by Satan? Scholars have been split 50/50 on the two. A few liberal scholars have taken this metaphorically, simply stating it means that from this point on Judas Iscariot was no longer a disciple of Jesus. While in some contexts it fits, it really denies the evil present in this situation. We can’t go to the Greek, for the best literal translation of the Greek is “Satan entered.” Let’s try the other Gospels. Luke 22:3 does also say that Satan entered Judas Iscariot, but the Matthew and Mark passages paralleling the Luke passage do not mention Satan. In fact, Luke and John seem to be the only ones suggesting that Satan had any kind of hand on this. Since Matthew and Mark do not mention the devil with Judas Iscariot, it would almost seem like the Devil has no role at all. On top of that, in Matthew chapter 26, Jesus calls Judas Iscariot “friend.” It would be odd to call a Satan-possessed person “friend.” Possibly the best answer we can get it combining all the answers in harmony. Yes, Satan did play a role. Yes, Satan did enter him. Yet Satan did not have to put up a fight with Judas Iscariot’s free will. Judas Iscariot did not resist the temptations to betray Jesus. In fact, he entertained them. I think James 1:14 accurately describes what happened to Judas Iscariot. Judas entertained his own evil desires, he was enticed by his evil desires, and his evil desires dragged him into sin. Whether Judas Iscariot intended it or not, I think Judas virtually allowed Satan (“handed over the keys of his body” to Satan, if you will) by giving into sin. Judas Iscariot allowed Satan to use him as a tool, and Satan took full control of the opportunity. Even if Judas wanted to change his mind, it was too late, he was stooped into sin.

But our conversation doesn’t end there. Our next prompt is to ask why. Why would Judas do such a thing? Why would Judas betray a close friend and his messiah and savior? I think this is why many people would simply say “Satan entered him.” Their answer to the question would be, “He wouldn’t and he didn’t. Satan did.” Yet that denies Judas Iscariot’s free will. In the paragraph above, we decided Judas Iscariot’s free will to sin that led him to be controlled by Satan. So now we have to ask what would cause Judas to sin and betray Jesus. There’s been lots of theories on why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, beside that he was Satan-possessed. First, it could be the sin coveting money. John 12 already revealed Judas Iscariot was concerned about his own personal wealth, so much he would steal from the disciples’ money bag. When the chief priests put a price on Jesus, Judas Iscariot was more than willing to hand Jesus over to get richer. Second, Judas Iscariot might simply have been a good Jew, respecting the Jewish leaders. Judas might have believed that Messiah and the Sanhedrin would get along in perfect harmony. When Judas saw Jesus, who he believed was the Messiah, disagreeing with the Jewish leaders, he had to decide whether the Jewish leaders were wrong or Jesus was wrong. He would decide Jesus was wrong. So when the Jewish leaders requested that anyone with information about Jesus should report it to them, Judas, being the good Jew, followed his leaders and handed Jesus over. Third, Judas Iscariot might have been a zealot, disappointed that Jesus was not the warrior Messiah he was expecting, which in turn could 2 results: either Judas handed over Jesus because Judas saw his an antichrist (false Christ), which is blasphemy, or Judas was trying to force the hand of Jesus, hoping to force him to violence. The last option is not a fourth option, but a combination of all of them. Maybe it was multiple reasons, such as the ones above, that led Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus. Yet I can hear people saying that these all excuses to take the blame off of Judas Iscariot and say it’s not his fault.

That leads us to an even bigger question: How much responsibility does Judas Iscariot assume in the betrayal of Jesus? This question is usually put in the form of asking about Judas Iscariot’s eternal whereabouts. Most people have put Judas in Hell. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is put in the center and worst part of hell. Very few people will say Judas Iscariot is in heaven. I had a friend who did believe and he explained it to me quite well. To believe Judas is in heaven, you have to have a belief somewhere between Calvinist and fatalist. Judas Iscariot destined, even predestined to be the one to betray Jesus. He had to betray Jesus, for it was the only way for Scripture to be fulfilled and for salvation to be brought along properly. If Judas didn’t do this, then salvation would never come. So why should Judas Iscariot be punished for fulfilling Scripture and helping to bring salvation? Why should Judas be punished for a will predestined to him? He should be rewarded because he did what he was destined to do. May I also add to believe this, you have to have a strong belief in double predestination, the belief that not only does God select people for heaven, but also selects people for hell. While I understand their logic, there is holes in their logic that the Scriptures point out. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus proclaims woe on him, saying it would be better for him to not be born. Some scholars have further contested this view, claiming that while Scripture does say there needs to be a betrayer, it didn’t have to be Judas Iscariot. Other scholars say the sin of betraying Jesus is not an unforgivable sin. What got Judas Iscariot in trouble was that he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. He instead committed suicide. That is why Judas is in hell, not because he betrayed Jesus, but because he did not seek repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation. While I’m satisfied with the Biblical proof, I am not fully satisfied with the logic the scholars give either. I’ll play along with the scholars who say it didn’t have to be Judas, but if it was any of the other 11 disciples, would they have been off the hook for betraying Jesus? And if you ask me, if you read Matthew 27:3-10, Judas does try to seek repentance and forgiveness. When the chief priests do a bad job and condemn him, he believes he is condemned and hangs himself in remorse. I’ve heard a lot of Calvinist scholars, both single and double predestination, say Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, but he still was accountable to his sin of betrayal, so he is in hell. On the other side, Armenian scholars will say that Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot as the traitor, but he did not predestine him as the traitor. Thus, Judas Iscariot is guilty for his own sin, and thus in hell. Both views seem to be compromising, and I’m not comfortable with either.

There are other questions we do have concerning Judas Iscariot. I don’t have the time or space to go over every option, but one more I will throw out is “When Jesus selected Judas Iscariot as a disciple, did he truly select him as a disciple, or did he merely select Judas Iscariot be the betrayer?” I remember a while back watching a movie made for TV on Jesus from the eyes of Judas Iscariot. When it came time for the calling of the disciples, Jesus cheerfully called each disciple by name, giving them a hug. Last, he called Judas Iscariot, in a solemn tone, merely giving him a pat on the back. Did it go down like that? Did Jesus merely drag Judas along to fulfill Scripture, keeping an emotionless relationship with him? (Interesting note: According to this movie, Judas Iscariot could not perform the miraculous the disciples did when sent out. I believe they did the further the idea Judas was not a legitimate disciple.). The New Bible Dictionary suggests that Jesus did choose legitimately choose Judas Iscariot as a real disciple, yet Judas Iscariot never really met the title of disciple and apostle. For example, Judas Iscariot never called Jesus “Lord” but only “Rabbi.” Judas never saw Jesus as anything more than a teacher. Therefore, Judas was never really saved in the first place. For the most part, I like what they are saying, but they do seem to bounce back and forth between Calvinistic and Armenian, predestination and free will.

Here’s my grand conclusion. Judas Iscariot was legitimately chosen as a disciple by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, being God, was just like God and gave Judas Iscariot a fair and honest chance to do the right thing. Judas Iscariot, however, did not meet the expectation of a disciple of Jesus. He got caught up in his own selfish and sinful desires, whether those selfish and sinful desires be coveting money or overthrowing the political system. In accordance to James 1:14, those selfish and sinful desires enticed Judas Iscariot to sin and dragged Judas Iscariot into sin on his own free will. In accordance to Romans 1:24,26, God handed Judas Iscariot over to his own sinful desires and his own sin. Judas Iscariot got so caught up in his sin that no longer he controlled himself, but he was a slave to sin and a slave to Satan. He got in too deep, so deep, it led him to betraying Jesus Christ. But it didn’t stop there. Judas Iscariot was so steeped into sin that even after betraying Jesus, he could not fully repent or forgive himself. He instead committed suicide. Sin left unforgiving only led him to hell.

Back to the Judas Iscariot in the story. After Jesus gives Judas Iscariot the bread, he gives Judas the nod to do whatever he needs to do. Many scholars believe this is Jesus giving Judas Iscariot permission to excuse himself to set up to betray Jesus. Notice how Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before any of Christ’s last teachings. If you have a Harmony of the Gospels, you’ll notice Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot even before Communion happens. I do believe these are signs that go back to our questions about Judas Iscariot, mainly his end whereabouts. Jesus excuses Judas Iscariot before Communion or the last teachings because Jesus knows Judas Iscariot will have no part in either of them. This time of communion and teaching is just for the true disciples of Jesus. What do the rest of the disciples think about this? They think Jesus is excusing their treasurer to do something with the money, either buy more food for the Passover Feast or give money to the poor. Both would fit the customs of the day. It was the treasurer’s job to make sure there was enough food and supplies for everyone at the Feast. To fail to do so would bring embarrassment upon the host and the treasurer. The disciples might have thought perhaps Judas Iscariot had to go pick up more food in case they ran out. Also, it was custom to give money to the poor during the Passover feast. The disciples might have thought that maybe Jesus was giving Judas Iscariot permission to leave the Feast to perform that task. Judas Iscariot’s part of the chapter ends with the sentence, “And it was night.” Scholars think John puts this in here for metaphorical purposes, although the Feast did happen during the dinner hours of the evening. Remember that both John and Jesus called Jesus “the [true] light” and call the ways of the world and the ways of sin “darkness.” John is stating that Judas Iscariot went from the light of Jesus Christ into the darkness of sin.

Now Judas Iscariot isn’t the only bad example among the disciples. There’s another highlighted in John 13. Believe it or not, it’s Simon Peter. Let’s take a quick look at him.

Now that Judas Iscariot has exited the building, Jesus wants to get more intimate in his conversation with his disciples. Now Jesus wants to reveal personal and deep secrets about Him and His Kingdom. Jesus makes His disciples aware that He is leaving soon, so he wants to also pass on new, important instruction, as well as remind them of old, important instruction. Jesus emphasizes all important teachings because He knows He will not be with the disciples for much longer, and he needs the disciples to keep following His teachings.

Right here, in John 13:36, I believe is one of those moments where all the disciples are thinking about it, but only one gets the nerve to say it out loud. All the disciples are not listening to the instruction, but rather, they are caught up on the sentence, “Where I am going, you cannot come.” They are in great distress because of this, and if you understand the context, you’ll understand why. These men have left their whole lives behind them 3 or 4 years ago to follow Jesus. They banked their whole lives on following Jesus for the rest of their lives. Most of them have nothing to go back to. If they tried to go back, they’d start all over again. So when Jesus says He is leaving, there is much reason for distress. Some of them might have felt like they threw their whole lives away for nothing. So Simon Peter, as concerned as everyone, speaks up, “Where are you going?” From his tone (as well as verse 37), you can tell he’s trying to figure out a way to go with Jesus.

Now if you have a Harmony of the Gospels, here’s where it gets interesting. Harmony of the Gospel books can be helpful tools to compare parallel passages in the Gospels, however, they are far from inerrant. There is no one right Harmony of the Gospel. All these books will have their own interpretation on the order of events and which passages parallel one another. Such is Peter’s denial. Each Gospel has a prediction of Peter’s Denial: Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:27-31, Luke 22:31-38, and John 13:37-38. These books will disagree whether they parallel one another. There are 2 main camps of thought. The first is all 4 Gospel writers are telling the same story from 4 different points of view. The second is that Matthew and Mark are telling about one prediction, while Luke and John are talking about another prediction. Let’s examine each camp closely, first the one that puts them all together, then the one that separates Matthew and Mark from Luke and John.

The first camp does have good evidence to put all 4 together. All 4 have Peter making a pledge of allegiance to Jesus. All 4 Gospel accounts have Jesus saying that Peter will disown or deny him. All 4 Gospel narratives have Jesus telling the reader the denial will happen before the rooster crows. With so many parallels, it’s easy to see why all 4 described as retelling the same exact event.

The second camp also has good evidence to bunch Matthew and Mark together and bunch Luke and John as a separate bunch. Read Matthew 26:31-35 and Mark 14:27-31 together. They are about 98% to 99% the same thing, even down to Zechariah prophecy. Both Luke and John are nowhere near the same wording. Where they do talk about the same things, notice the small detail differences. In Matthew and Mark, Peter simply says he will never fall away. In Luke, Peter tells Jesus he will go to prison and death for Jesus. In John, Peter claims he will lay down his life for Jesus. While you might say they are small details, I see big differences. In both Matthew and Mark, Peter denies Christ’s prediction, while in Luke and John, Peter does no such thing. Context also helps. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus seems to be talking to all the disciples (minus Judas Iscariot). In Luke and John, Jesus seems to be talking directly to Peter. The biggest evidence, though, would be the location. Matthew and Mark record the events happening at the Mount of Olives, before going into the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke and John record the events happening in the upper room during the Last Supper.

Therefore, despite the parallels in all 4 Gospel stories, the best view is to say they happened at 2 different times. This is not a contradiction, but rather a repeat. Jesus predicted Peter’s denial first in the upper room, when Peter claimed that he would go wherever Jesus went, even if it meant giving up his life. The second time Jesus predicted Peter’s denial was on the Mount of Olives, before the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus told the disciples they will all scatter. In response to the second accusation of denial, Peter once again claims he will never disown Jesus, even if it means giving up his life for him. Perhaps there’s a parallel happening there: Peter declares 3 times he will stick with Jesus, Peter denies Jesus 3 times. Maybe Peter denied Jesus for each time he said he would stick up for Jesus. We’ll talk about that more when we get to the actual event.

In closing this chapter, we know there is a betrayer and a denier among the Twelve Disciples. The betrayer is Judas Iscariot and the denier is Simon Peter. This was no new news to Jesus, as Jesus foreknew Judas Iscariot would betray him and Simon Peter would deny him. But Jesus, being the all-knowing God, knew more than just that. Imagine Jesus at the dinner table of the Last Supper. He looks at Judas Iscariot, and He knows Judas will betray Him. He looks at Simon Peter, and He knows Peter will deny him 3 times before the rooster crows twice. He looks at Thomas (called Didymus), and He knows that Thomas will doubt Him when He rises from the dead. Then Jesus looks at all the rest of disciples, and He knows they will all scatter when He gets arrested. In a sense, they will all betray him, they will all deny him, and they will all doubt him. I wonder if Jesus ever questioned himself to why He was sticking with this sad, sorry bunch. Yet Jesus knew that this was totally worth it, for His disciples, and for all mankind. So He stayed true for His disciples, as well as mankind, to bring everyone salvation.