Peter, James and John, Page 14

POINT #5: Lazarus/John’s Presence at the Last Supper

As we know, the establishment of the Holy Eucharist took place at the second supper, the one in the upper room in Jerusalem. Lazarus/John was not present at that supper until he entered to carry the water basin for Christ to wash the “Twelve” disciples’ feet. This accounts for the fact that John’s Gospel says nothing of the initial Eucharist.

The context of this foot washing needs to be examined. There were probably at least three events during Jesus’ ministry where disciples expressed a desire to seek individual preeminence among themselves. See Mt 18,1-5; Mk 9,33-37; Lk 9,46-48; Mt 20,20-28; Mk 10,35-45; Lk 22,24-27. Much confusion exists about these events, as is the case with the two suppers and the two anointings. Critical Biblical analysis over the last century and a half, in trying to reconcile seeming discrepancies between the Gospels, has tended to collapse somewhat dissimilar events which nevertheless contain common elements into a single event in order to fit them into predisposed dogma about an assumed chain of events. The practice undoubtedly sometimes produces a proper result but may well often obscure a true portrayal of developments. To some extent, the practice is the illegitimate offspring of the documentary hypothesis which also infects the modern history of Old Testament interpretation. Nowhere has the general tendency been more evident than in the effort, at least since the second century, to squeeze the perplexingly different accounts of “The Nativity” into the birth of a single child.

The self-seeking tendency among the disciples was probably a continuing problem for Jesus. From the cited passages, it appears that one occurrence took place in or around Capernaum “among the disciples” generally; another when the Zebedees asked Jesus for placement at his sides in the Kingdom (which may also have been separately advanced at a different time by their mother, “supposedly” Jesus’ aunt); and still another, the one that concerns us here, during the last supper in the upper room in Jerusalem. Only Luke records this last one, but, as Koenig notes, it fits well the report, made only in John’s Gospel, that Jesus then arose and proceeded to wash the feet of the “Twelve.” The action is well supported by his prior statements about the desire to serve rather than to seek personal honor. Furthermore, the circumstances show that Lazarus/John indeed entered the upper room only at that time. He was not yet one of the “Twelve.” He had been initiated into the higher mysteries of death, had subordinated his former great spiritual wealth in the Mysteries as well, perhaps, as worldly fortune, and already understood the spiritual imperative of being an unsung servant (which is certainly compatible with his masking of his own identity as Gospel writer so as to be understood only by the initiated), yet his Gospel gives no account of the establishment of the Eucharist which it undoubtedly would have done had he been there to take part in it. He does clearly identify (again only for the initiated) that it was he who thereafter leaned upon the bosom of the Lord.

There is immense merit in Koenig’s suggestion that there had been a prearrangement between Jesus and his initiate that the latter would stand by the upper room with a water basin in order to assist Jesus with the foot washing at the proper time. Thus, as the “Twelve” were disputing about their pecking order, Jesus arose and summoned Lazarus/John (as Koenig suggests, but the communication could probably have occurred without any overt act by Jesus) to enter with the basin of water. Not only do the above Gospel accounts give the circumstances clearly supporting this scenario, but Koenig is able to go to the spiritual visions of the illiterate nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich for support (see the record of these in The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations [LJC] as well as the discussion about her in the Foreword and Introduction to Powell’s Chronicle of the Living Christ [CLC]). In fact, Koenig sees the foot washing, while addressed to all the disciples, as being especially for the benefit of Lazarus/John, who was to serve as one of the “Twelve” only for a limited time, thereafter to separate as a particular servant for the Gospel message. Koenig buttresses this suggestion by a most incisive and provocative observation, namely, that only Lazarus/John could have understood the esoteric meaning of Jn 13,18, reported only in his Gospel, citing Ps 41,9, “He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.” We will look at that meaning in the Commentary; here I will only cite the places where Steiner gives insights into it, namely, GSJ, Lect. 7, pp. 113-115; ASJ, Lect. 6, p. 118; Theosophy of the Rosicrucian (TR), Lect. 14, pp. 158-159; Reading the Pictures of the Apocalypse (RPA), Lect. 4, pp. 60-61; GSMk, Lect. 10, p. 195. From the deep wisdom involved in this esoteric understanding has come the oft ridiculed doctrine of “transubstantiation,” another of the traditions preserved by the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches without the source of its meaning being comprehended by many.

The posed question about who would betray the Lord has also been a point of confusion due to collapsing two different events. It has been generally heretofore assumed that the passage (Jn 13,21-26) where the Beloved Disciple asks (vs 25), “Lord who is it?” is the same event set out in the synoptics where Jesus, in response to the question of the betrayer’s identity, indicates that it is one who has or is in some manner eating with him. But a careful inspection of all the passages (Mt 26,20-25; Mk 14,17- 21; Lk 22,20-23; Jn 13,21-30) will indicate that the inquiry in the synoptics is during the meal, before the Eucharist (and in Luke’s Gospel before the dispute), whereas in John’s Gospel it appears that the meal is over, or substantially so, and one may reasonably infer that the Eucharist has previously been celebrated and that the dispute triggers the timing of the foot washing. The identification in the synoptics is not such as to demonstrate to all of the “Twelve” that it is Judas Iscariot, but merely that it is one eating with Jesus. John’s Gospel does not say this, but rather that it is the one to whom Jesus “shall give this morsel when I have dipped it,” thus clearly identifying Judas, and Jesus then tells him to do his deed quickly, whereupon he actually arises, completely confirming the identification. The accounts are quite different and should be understood as indicating two different events, one before the Eucharist and the foot washing and one after; Lazarus/John is present for the latter but not the former.

There is a meaningful relationship between Jn 12 and 13 in this respect, since both involve a foot washing, the first by Mary Magdalene, an anointing of the Master’s feet to demonstrate his spiritual exaltation, and the second by Jesus to demonstrate the necessarily related imperative of spiritual servitude. Together they present a “now therefore” sequence, a prelude to the immensity of meaning in the Crucifixion itself.