Judas’ Last Chance

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. [1]

An Exposition of John 13:18–30

Introduction

Our previous study [2] showed that our Lord’s ministry of footwashing, designed to inculcate humility, worked in Peter’s case. Peter writes to the strangers scattered abroad in Asia, “Be clothed with humility” (1 Pet. 5:5). The verb that Peter used, translated in the Authorized Version by “be clothed,” is one built upon a root related to the way in which slave’s garments were made. It just might be that the apostle was thinking of the incident in the upper room when he wrote, “Be clothed with humility.” It was our Lord who had taken the slave’s place and had done the slave’s work of washing their feet. So Peter’s word to the strangers, and his word to us, might be rendered, “put on the apron of humility.” There is a strong overtone in this to follow our Lord’s example. This He exhorted the eleven to do, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14–15).

In the section to which we have now come we shall see that His example did not work on Judas, although his feet were also washed by the Lord. Against the background of Judas’ actions our Lord’s shine more brightly. One thinks of a young couple buying an engagement ring. The jeweler, who wishes to sell the ring with its stone, will usually set the ring on a black or dark background, often black velvet, in order to accentuate the size and beauty of the stone through the contrast of the diamond with the velvet. Thus John has drawn a picture of the secret, diabolical purpose of Judas over against the loving humility of the Lord Jesus, who will soon finish His redemptive work in a dramatic, atoning death.

There is an incidental insight that this section gives to one of the difficult passages of the Old Testament. Psalm 109, one of the imprecatory psalms, contains some very strong words spoken against an adversary of the psalmist. [3] In the New Testament it is said that this psalm has to do with Judas (cf. Acts 1:16–20). Many find it impossible to believe that the psalmist could have said the things that he said with the approval of a God of love. For example, he writes of his adversary:

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few: and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out (cf. Psa. 109:6–13).

Strong words, indeed. Could God approve their application to any man? If these words refer to Judas (no doubt, in a typical way), then one can begin to understand the validity of the imprecations.

But, let us now consider the account as it continues following the description of the washing of the disciples’ feet.

The Lord’s Modification of the Evaluation of the Disciples

The Suggestion of Betrayal (John 13:18)

In the preceding account Jesus had said that the disciples were “clean, but not all of them” (v. 10). Now in John 13:18 He says, “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.” It is clear from these words that Jesus has all along known that there was a basic difference between the eleven and Judas. They were clean (13:10; 15:3). By this He referred to the fact that they had believed on Him in a saving way. Judas He had previously known to be a devil (6:70).

Now this fact becomes clearer, and He contends that Judas’ actions in betraying Him are prophesied in Psalm 41:9. Again the passage from the Old Testament is treated typically, this time by our Lord. In the Old Testament text it is David who speaks of his betrayal by Ahithophel, who was the trusted adviser of both David and Absalom. The irony of the betrayal is heightened by the words that were spoken of Ahithophel, “And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of God” (2 Sam. 16:23). But David’s stab in the back from Ahithophel finds its antitype in the Greater David’s betrayal by Judas, one of that body of twelve apostles who were closest to the Lord.

Some have wondered how our Lord could find Judas in Psalm 41, for his name, of course, is not there. Judas is in Psalm 41 typically. The experiences of David and his friend are dramatically similar to the experiences of our Lord with His apostle. David is the king, and our Lord is the Greater David, the Messianic King. Ahithophel was David’s close friend and confidant, while Judas had a similar relationship to our Lord. It is, however, striking that our Lord does not cite the part of Psalm 41:9 in which it is said that David had trusted in his familiar friend, “in whom I trusted.” Our Lord, of course, knew that Judas was not to be trusted (cf. John 2:24–25). Finally, if David is a type of Christ, and Bible students admit this, then is it not to be expected that David’s enemies and Christ’s enemies have similar typical relationships? Is it not a striking fact that Ahithophel hanged himself, reaching the same end that Judas did (2 Sam. 17:23)? These are the only men described this way in the Bible. Our Lord’s use of the Old Testament is truly remarkable.

One might have thought that, since one of His apostles was to prove faithless, Jesus had made a mistake in electing him. But one should remember that He prayed all night before He chose the twelve (Luke 6:12–16). There was no mistake made. Judas was to serve a biblical and historical purpose (cf. Matt. 26:24; John 17:12), just as Pharaoh did in the Old Testament.

One does learn from Judas’ betrayal that the powers of evil often penetrate the Lord’s own circle of loved ones. “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say” (1 Cor. 10:15).

Sholem Asch, the Jewish author, in The Nazarene offers an interpretation of Judas that underlines the inability of the natural man to understand spiritual truth. In part based upon this chapter, Asch suggests that Judas was the only one who understood that in the purpose of God Jesus was to offer the atoning sacrifice. So Jesus chose Judas to accomplish the purpose by delivering Him to the authorities. Judas, therefore, really fulfilled the divine will in betraying Him. [4] Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 2:14 describe Asch and his futile view. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The Significance of the Prophetic Suggestion (John 13:19-20)

Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me. And he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jesus now points out that He is speaking of Judas’ betrayal before it comes to pass, in order that, when it does, they will realize that He is the Messiah. They would, no doubt, be encouraged to see that He is One who is able to foretell the future and that He was not crushed by circumstances and powers over which He had no control.

He also encourages them by telling them that they will represent Him in their ministry. In receiving them the world will be receiving Him and the Father. What a privilege, then, will be theirs.

The Lord’s Plain Declaration of His Betrayal

The Revelation of It (John 13:21)

One notices a progression in the unfolding of the truth of the betrayal here (13:11, 18, 21). Then comes the climactic announcement, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” One thinks of a murder mystery and of the time near the end of the novel when the detective gathers all of the suspects into one place, such as a living room of a mansion. In a tension-filled atmosphere he calmly and deliberately says, “The murderer is in this room.” How shocked and disturbed the disciples must have been. Notice that John says that Jesus, too, was “troubled in spirit” in saying what He had to say.

The Response of the Disciples (John 13:22-24)

The response of the disciples to our Lord’s startling announcement was perplexity. Around the table they went, asking, “Is it I, Lord?” until they came to Judas. He asked, “Is it I, Master?” His reply reminds the reader of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 12:3, “No man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Of course, Paul is not speaking of saying the words, “Jesus is Lord.” No doubt, Judas could say that, but Paul is speaking of a genuine confession of His Lordship. That can be done only by the Holy Spirit, and He only comes to believing men. Thus, only believing men can genuinely confess Jesus is Lord. This is just another of the many texts that teach the inability of the natural man to believe in Christ. Faith is the gift of God, given to His chosen ones (John 6:44, 65). Judas’ words reveal that he is only a professor, although an apostle of Jesus Christ. As we have said, the powers of evil penetrate the Lord’s own inner circle.

(This confession of the Lordship of Christ is not related by John, but is given by Matthew in his gospel [Matt. 26:22–25]).

Is it not interesting that, so far as we can tell, the twelve did not suspect one another. They seem to be more concerned about themselves,. This reveals not only an appreciation of the others, but also an admission of lack of confidence in their own fidelity. They knew that they were weak in the faith. That is not a bad attitude, if it leads to a greater cleaving to Him.

The attitude of our Lord to Judas is also revealing. In His ministering and pleading He exhibits His affection for Judas, even though He knows that His “familiar friend” is really a “familiar fiend” all along.

Peter’s particular response was that of curiosity. Beckoning to John across the table, the disciple who was leaning on the Lord’s bosom, he asked him to ask the Lord of whom He was speaking. John accommodated him by saying to the Lord, “Lord, who is it?” (13:23–25). The room was filled with tension, and Peter acted characteristically.

We are told by a large religious organization that Peter became Bishop of Rome later, and that into his hands and into the hands of his successors there has been given the right to represent the Lord upon the earth during the history of the church on earth. We are also told that we must approach the Lord through His mother and through the vicar of Christ on earth. It is curious in the light of these unbiblical claims to see Peter, the so-called Bishop of Rome, approaching our Lord through John.

The Response of our Lord (John 13:26)

Our Lord’s response is, “He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.” Our Lord’s answer is in the form of an action. He dips the sop into the sauce and hands it to Judas. In order to appreciate the significance of this, it is necessary to understand the custom. In the first place, the sop was a thin wafer-like piece of bread (sometimes of bitter herbs dipped in the sauce [5]), usually used as a sort of improvised spoon. In the second place, it was the custom to give the sop containing a small ball of meat in the wine sauce to the honored guest. In the third place, the sauce was to represent the fruits of the promised land. [6] It seems, then, that the Lord was extending a last opportunity to Judas to turn from his evil design. What a marvelous bit of grace to him in the light of verse eleven. Judas, however, instead of receiving the Son, received Satan (v. 27).

The Final Separation of the Traitor from the Twelve

The Entrance of Satan (John 13:27a)

And after the sop, Satan entered into him.

Here we see Judas as a man possessed. The entrance of Satan into Judas poses a small problem in the light of Luke 22:3, where it is also stated that Satan entered into him at an earlier time. Perhaps the explanation is this: In John we find the phases of the entrance distinguished (13:2, 27), while in Luke we have the simple fact. At any rate, the consummation of the Satanic seduction of Judas takes place here.

Judas, it is clear, preferred money to the Master, sin to salvation, and hell to heaven. Many others make similar choices.

The Command of the Savior (John 13:27b-29)

Our Lord’s reply to Judas’ possession is, “That thou doest, do quickly.” In effect, He tells Judas to finish his work; He is ready to finish His!

Alexander Maclaren has suggested that Jesus’ words indicate several things. First, His words are the voice of despairing love abandoning the conflict. The “then” of verse twenty-seven points to that.

Second, His words are the voice of strangely blended majesty and humiliation. The victim commands the apparent victor to do his nefarious work. But never forget that in doing their work, His foes only accomplish His purpose. Judas in the final analysis is the tool of Jesus to accomplish His redemptive sacrifice. Every Judas is the servant of the One who is betrayed.

Maclaren has a magnificent paragraph that I must cite:

That combination of utter lowliness and transcendent loftiness runs through the whole life and history of our Lord. Did you ever think how strong an argument that strange combination, brought out so inartificially throughout the whole of the Gospels, is for their historical veracity? Suppose the problem had been given to poets to create and to set in a series of appropriate scenes a character with these two opposites stamped equally upon it, neither of them impinging upon the domain of the other--viz., utter humility and humiliation in circumstance, and majestic sovereignty and elevation above all circumstances—do you think that any of them could have solved the problem, though Aeschylus and Shakespeare had been amongst them, as these four men that wrote these four little tracts that we call Gospels have done? How comes it that this most difficult of literary problems has been so triumphantly solved by these men? I think there is only one answer, ‘Because they were reporters, and imagined nothing, but observed everything, and repeated what had happened.’ He reconciled these opposites who was the Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief, and yet the Eternal Son of the Father; and the Gospels have solved the problem only because they are simple records of its solution by him. [7]

Third, His words are the voice of the willing Sacrifice. They are the cords that bound Him to the altar of the cross (Psa. 118:26–29). His sacrifice was, first of all, a penal sacrifice. That is, by it He bore the judgment of sinners under the hand of a holy God (Isa. 53:6). Second, his sacrifice was substitutionary. Jesus bore to the full the penalty of the sins of sinners, so that they, having in Him satisfied the claims of heaven against themselves, can no longer suffer for sin without raising questions about the efficacy of His sacrifice. All schemes of universal atonement fail at this point. Toplady’s stanza is good and sound theology,

Payment God cannot twice demand, First from my bleeding Surety’s hand, And then again from mine. [8]

And, finally, the sacrifice was voluntary, as His command to Judas indicates (cf. Gal. 2:20). What a Savior! What a salvation! What a purchase He did make! And what a thrilling privilege to be among the purchased!

The Departure of Judas (John 13:30)

The section concludes with the words, “He then having received the sop went immediately out. And it was night.” The words “went out” indicate that Judas’ departure was a kind of voluntary excommunication, made necessary by his spiritual condition (cf. 1 John 2:19).

John concludes the section by adding, as Judas went out, “and it was night.” He clearly, it seems to me, in the light of his usual style, intends for his readers to see spiritual significance in the physical departure of Judas from the light of the upper room and the presence of Jesus into the darkness of the outside. It is thus with all who leave the presence of Jesus Christ. Augustine put it thus, “It was, however, night: and he who departed was night.” [9]

One might ask, “How could Judas Iscariot, an educated and cultured Judean who heard all the teaching of our Lord and observed closely His life and doctrine, desert Christ? We might reply with another question, “How could Adam desert God and the garden of Eden?” Such is the nature of the human heart of fallen men. Adam’s case is more difficult, but Judas’ state is the state of us all. We are fallen men, and apart from the efficacious grace of God, we will always desert Him. Paul’s diagnosis in Romans 3:10–18 is a clear answer to the question concerning Judas.

Conclusion

Judas went to his own place, the Scriptures say (Acts 1:25). Men sometimes say with forced bravado, “I am not afraid of going to hell. I’ll at least be with many of my friends.” But Judas, in separating himself from Jesus Christ, separated himself from all true society of men. There is no human fellowship in hell, as God plainly points out (Matt. 26:24, “woe”). As A. B. Bruce said, “He was bad enough to do the deed of infamy, and good enough to be unable to bear the burden of his guilt. Woe to such a man! Better for him, indeed, that he had never been born.” [10]

The practical lesson that emerges from the life of Judas, the thief and betrayer of Christ, is a simple one. Paul expatiates upon it in 1 Timothy 6:6–10.

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and hurtful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (1 Tim. 6:9–10).

His extreme punishment is due to extreme privilege, the privilege of companying with Christ for three years in the closest of relationships.

A warning emerges also from Judas’ life. He was an insider in the spiritual body. He was an apostle, and yet he failed tragically. The message of his life is for insiders, for members of the churches, for elders, deacons, stewards, trustees, ministers, and evangelists. The same essential thing may happen today. And our judgment may be even greater, for we have greater privileges today, with our completed Bibles, with the many biblical teachers we hear, with a friendly government, and with other advantages. May this solemnize all of us, as He extends the sop of favor, saying:

Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matt. 11:28). 

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else (Isa. 45:22). 

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (cf. John 6:37).

Notes

1. Lewis Johnson is a Bible teacher at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas, Texas. He is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and also has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is the second in a series of expositions on The Upper Room Discourse.
2. “Washing One Another’s Feet: An Exposition of John 13:1–17, ” EmJ 1 (1992): 129-137.
3. When one examines Psalm 109, one notices the use of the plural for “adversaries” in verses 1–5 and 20–31. In the middle section the plural becomes a singular, and it would seem from this that David was guided by the Spirit to speak typically of the great adversary, Judas Iscariot (cf. Psa. 41:9).
4. Shilem Asch, The Nazarene, trans. Maurice Samuel (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1939), 595.
5. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 447.
6. Frederick Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated with a preface, introductory suggestions, and additional notes by Timothy Dwight, 2 vols., reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969 [1893]), 2:257.
7. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: St. John, Chapters I-XIV, 2 vols. (New York: George H. Doran Co., n.d.), 2:195–96.
8. Augustus Toplady, “From whence this fear and unbelief, “ Stanza 3.
9. Cited in B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1881]), 195.
10. A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 4th ed. (New York: A. C Armstrong, 1894; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 367.