The FG has been described as both the most philosophical and the most emotional among the canonical gospels. From the perspective of Hellenistic philosophy, Platonic or Stoic, this appears a contradiction of terms. As the hour approaches, Jesus succumbs several times to emotional upheaval, and the prospect of death causes him to feel anger and fear. Similarly, among the disciples. The gospel singles out Peter who, in spite of his sincere wish to follow Jesus, ends up paralyzed in the high-priest’s courtyard neither fleeing nor following. The FG thus appears to be guided by a worldview foreign to Hellenism. However, although apatheia remained the goal in ethical thinking, Hellenistic philosophers developed a growing interest in progressing persons, who were neither wise nor evil, and whose actions were neither good nor bad. For these people, moral growth was usually followed by ‘progressor-pains’, i.e. emotions derived from the awareness of past or present evils. As ‘true’ and ‘appropriate’ these emotions weren’t to be characterized as passions, but also not as the eupatheiai of wise persons. The tears of Alcibiades in Socrates’ lap became paradigmatic in discussions of how teachers should handle their students’ emotions: should these emotions be curbed or enhanced? A balance between consolation and frank speech was recommended. Philo, who had to come to terms with Moses’ tears and the Israelites’ remorse, used this tradition to promote remorse to the status of the fourth Stoic eupatheia (the missing counterpart to lypê). Taking Peter’s case as a starting point, the paper examines the Farewell Speeches and their promise of another Paraclete in the light of the philosophical discourse of intermediary emotions and progressor-pains. Attention is given to the parable about the woman in birth-pangs. The conclusion is that neither Jesus’ emotions nor those of his disciples make John any less philosophical.