Jesus Washing Disciples' Feet

All bolding, italicizing, and coloring of words or phrases have been added by Leigh Mackenzie for quickness and clarity. Places where ellipses are used (…) are where I omitted text that seemed to be off-topic or outside of parameters for the research. Info included in parentheses are my thoughts or explanations or places where I thought it would make it easier for you to understand without skipping back and forth. ~LM

Scripture: NIV

Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet

13 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Holman NT Commentary (HNTC): John

13:1. We have talked often about key words in John’s Gospel. The thirteenth chapter opens with three of them appearing in the first verse. The time had come, and Jesus would soon leave this world. The word kosmos appears 185 times in the New Testament; 8 times in Matthew; 3 times in Mark, 3 in Luke; but 78 in the Gospel of John. And if we add John’s epistles and Revelation, 105 of the 185 New Testament uses come from John’s pen. The other two key words are time and love. …the latter part of this verse (“he loved them to the end”) where full extent translates the Greek word eistelos that means “to the limit.”

Some interpreters have noted a change in John’s vocabulary beginning with this chapter. The life and light words that dominated the first half of the Gospel appear in some form a total of 82 times in chapters 1 through 12. But in chapters 13 to 17, life words occur only six times and light words not at all. The key word for the next five chapters will be agape (love).

13:2. Judas typifies a society in rebellion against God, but the Lord’s treatment also demonstrates God’s grace and compassion with that society. Though the disciples never grasped Judas’ true nature until after the betrayal in the garden, Jesus knew it from the beginning. Yet he gave Judas every opportunity to turn from his wicked ways, repent, and follow his Lord. (Doesn’t this make you want to just CRY?)

John pulled no punches in his description of the betrayer and his evil master. In a few more verses (v. 27) we read that “Satan entered into him.” But even at the beginning of the meal the concept of betrayal had already been thrown (ballo) into Judas’s mind. There is some grammatical argument over the text, but the plain intent indicates a willing perpetrator whose assassination plot originated with supernatural sources.

13:3–5. Verse 3 reminds us that Jesus was the omnipotent God. Rather than zapping Judas immediately, he allowed the full scenario to play out as the errant disciple made choice after choice leading to his ultimate suicide.

***: Some interpreters take these words symbolically, making the water equal to the Word, the towel demonstrating righteousness, and so forth. That hardly seems necessary in light of the culture of the first century. Luke 22 tells us about this event of physical humbling in light of the arrogant attitude still maintained by the disciples after the night of the crucifixion. An old proverb says, “Actions speak louder than words,” and the Lord’s willingness to wash the feet of his disciples, even Judas’s, reflects servant leadership at its best.

***: People who are familiar with first-century culture will immediately recognize how socially inappropriate this behavior was. Never in Jewish, Greek, or Roman society would a superior wash the feet of inferiors. As Carson observes, “The reluctance of Jesus’ disciples to volunteer for such a task is, to say the least, culturally understandable; their shock at his volunteering is not merely the result of being shame-faced, it is their response to finding their sense of the fitness of things shattered. But here Jesus reverses normal roles. His act of humility is as unnecessary as it is stunning, and is simultaneously a display of love (v. 1), a symbol of saving cleansing (vv. 6–9), and a model of Christian conduct (vv. 12–17)” (Carson, pp. 462–63).

{You could cross-reference passage here. Also, see . re: widows shows this practice was talked about and done by women after this. However, there is no mention of any man every doing it again in the NT...)

Love Demonstrated

13:6–7. Little discussions with Peter fill the synoptic Gospels, and John enjoys recording them as well. (I LOVE how John constantly throws Peter under the bus, don’t you?) Shocked by the cultural reversal as he literally looked down at his Lord, Peter said in effect, “What’s going on here?” And Jesus replied, “You have no idea, but some day you will.” Presumably Jesus began the foot-washing with Peter, so he was the first to be shocked. Tasker picks up on the meaning of the moment: “Peter resists the attempt of Jesus to wash his feet, precisely because he failed to associate what his Master was doing with His death, but regarded it merely as an act which any slave might perform before a banquet. In making this protest Peter was in fact displaying the pride of unredeemed men and women, who are so confident of their ability to save themselves that they instinctively resist the suggestion that they need divine cleansing” (Tasker, p. 155).

13:8–9. Peter was too humble to have his feet washed but not too humble to command the Lord. As soon as Jesus emphasized that this symbolic act united the disciple with the Lord in some significant way, Peter took the full plunge. Let us not miss the practical theology of these verses. There is no place in the body of Christ for those who have not been cleansed by the Lord. Washing in this symbolic context cannot refer to baptism, but the atoning cleansing of sin.

13:10–11. Here we have a beautiful picture of forgiveness and one of the most important theological texts of the New Testament. How often does a person need to be saved? Once? Every time he or she sins? Just before death to make sure? These verses tell us that a person who has been completely cleansed once will only require regular washings after that.

The first verb (louo) appears in the perfect tense, indicating completed action, obviously union with the Lord through salvation. The second (nipto), rendered wash, means precisely the kind of rinsing Jesus demonstrated on this occasion. A full bathing depicts initial regeneration; the repeated washings symbolize forgiveness of ongoing sinful behavior.

What’s Love Got To Do With It?

The washing not only demonstrated humility and servanthood to the disciples but also laid an experiential foundation for the teaching of verse 10. When the foot-washing ended, Jesus taught an important lesson about the relationship of believers—you also should wash one another’s feet.

As Mother Teresa has shown us, perhaps more than anyone else in the twentieth century, if our teacher and Lord does not hesitate to wash our feet, how can we fail to wash one another’s feet? Certainly there can be no harm in the literal practice of foot-washing, but the symbolism of first-century behavior seems more appropriately replicated in the way we serve people in a variety of ways.

Incidentally, the only other reference to foot-washing appears in 1 Timothy 5:10, so we have scant evidence that the New Testament church actually practiced this as a regular ordinance.

Jesus emphasized the words Teacher and Lord in contrast with the way they had behaved toward him. The Lord reminded them that he washed their feet as their leader. Morris says, “Jesus proceeds to endorse this way of speaking. He commends the disciples, for these expressions point to his true position. But precisely because of this there are implications. His repetition of ‘the Lord and the teacher’ (a reversed order may be significant) emphasizes his dignity. This exalted Person has washed their feet. They ought, therefore, to wash one another’s feet” (Morris, p. 620).

13:15–17. Throughout the New Testament we learn the importance of example, never more so than when Jesus refers to himself. But here we are not focused on some great spiritual reality or doctrinal truth; the passage deals with how we treat other people. As Francis Schaeffer often observed, love is the ultimate mark of the Christian. Since Jesus loved his disciples and loves us in the same way, we need to do for others what he has done for us.

In verse 16 we find John’s only use of the word apostolos, the common New Testament word for “apostle,” here translated as messenger. Interesting that no church office or spiritual gift comes to view here. The context remains one of foot-washing as an example of how Christians treat one another. If we would be Christ’s messengers in any capacity, we must behave toward others the way he behaved toward his disciples.

We receive God’s joy by acting on the principles of conduct that Jesus taught. First we ought to pray, “Lord, wash me”; then we need to pray, “Lord, help me wash others.” And let us not forget that the word blessed can also be translated “happy.” We can be happy as Christians by acting on the principles of these verses, conducting our lives in such a way that we forgive, serve, and love the brothers and sisters in Christ. When we avoid criticism, complaining, and conflict, harmony and unity gain strength in the body. (perhaps because criticism, complaining, and conflict are the pollutors of the body!)

Hughes calls this kind of behavior, “ ‘people of the towel’: When Jesus said, ‘Do you know what I have done to you?’ he might have added, ‘and do you know who you are, as heirs to the towel?’ The power, the impetus, and the grace to wash one another’s feet is proportionate to how we see ourselves. Our Lord saw Himself as King of kings, and He washed their feet.” (Hughes, p. 38).

College Press Commentary: John

13:1. John notes the time of the next event as just before the Passover Feast. According to ancient Jewish reckoning, the Passover Feast day would have run from sundown Thursday until sundown on Friday. This has caused some scholars to take the position that John understands the “Last Supper” to have taken place on Wednesday evening, just before Passover. This cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic accounts, which clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g., Luke 22:15). But this is an easily explained contradiction. John does not say “the day before Passover” but “just before.” The episode he relates next, Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, is done immediately before the meal really begins. This symbolic act of humility was a preliminary way for Jesus to demonstrate the full extent of his love. The complete demonstration will come on the cross.

John alerts the reader to a coming painful reality: Jesus will leave this world but his believers remain in the world. As stated already the world for John is sinful humanity alienated from God. The term “world” (κόσμος, kosmos) is a very significant one in the Farewell Discourses, occurring 35 times in chapters 14–17, nearly half of the occurrences for all of John.5 In these chapters Jesus discusses thoroughly what it will mean for his disciples to be left behind in a world where sin still has a powerful grip on humanity.

Therefore, two of the great themes for the following chapters are introduced here: “leaving” and “love.” Jesus’ disciples, both his supper companions and the future church, must understand that his “leaving” was necessary and resulted in the presence of the Holy Spirit among believers. They must also understand that “love” is the controlling ethic for Jesus’ disciples. Everything that happens in the community of believers is governed by love.

13:2. The NIV introduces unnecessary confusion into the text by saying the evening meal was being served (emphasis added). A literal translation would be “dinner was taking place.” The event has begun, but the eating has not necessarily started. The unexpected washing of feet comes first.

John tells us that Judas Iscariot has already made the decision to betray Jesus (see comments on Judas under 6:71). John does not include an account of Judas’s meeting with the high priests to agree to the terms of Jesus’ betrayal (see Luke 22:1–6). This meeting has already taken place. John is more interested in the spiritual forces at work. Judas did not concoct the idea for betrayal by himself. It was “put into [his] heart” by the devil (NRSV). Yet John does not imply that Satan somehow was able to override Judas’s own will in this matter. He has already portrayed Judas as a money-hungry thief (12:6). His love of money is the overriding factor, negating any loyalty he may have felt for Jesus.

13:3. John takes care to remind the reader that Jesus has no insecurity when it comes to his status or his future. He has all things under his power, a remarkable statement of the omnipotence given to Jesus (cf. Matt 28:18; Phil 3:21). We are to remember that Jesus is not a victim in the events that follow, but a willing participant.

(***: CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE TO FOLLOW:)

13:4–5. Jesus’ secure relationship with the Father allows him to assume a very submissive role: that of the foot-washing servant. Because washing feet is not considered a normal feature of hospitality today, it is difficult for moderns to understand exactly how humiliating this act would have been. It was a necessary job, but one normally done by a household slave or servant. Jesus not only does the task, he assumes the full “costume” of a servant, stripped to his undergarment with a towel tied around his waist. One can imagine the drop-jawed disciples silently submitting to Jesus’ scrubbing. It goes without comment that one of those having his feet bathed was Judas the betrayer. For the reader this lurking threat continues to hang over the scene.

13:6–9. There is one disciple, however, who finds his voice. Initially Peter sees nothing symbolic about the foot washing. His view is only of Jesus strangely and inappropriately acting the part of a slave, so he blurts out, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus’ response seems cryptic to us on first hearing, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” But this pushes Peter (and us) to a deeper understanding of the entire episode. We must admit that while Peter is impulsive and stubborn at times, he is no blockhead. He immediately recognizes what Jesus is offering, and he cannot get enough of it.

13:10–11. Jesus’ answer to Peter is that only his feet need washing. Guests normally bathed before they came to dinner so only their feet would need washing once they arrived at the home of the host. Jesus is playing upon this social reality to provide a lesson for his disciples. The “cleansing” he is really concerned about is spiritual cleansing (cf. 15:3). Jesus can make them completely, utterly clean and pure (KJV, “clean every whit”). In this Jesus is referring to his atoning work on the cross, “the blood … [which] purifies us from every sin” (1 John 1:7). Believers will wear “white robes” (i.e., perfectly clean) which have been “washed in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 7:14, cf. 22:14).

Yet, in the midst of this excellent lesson and promise, the plot continues. And the terrible fact is that Jesus must admit that not every one of the disciples is clean. While Peter actively resists the washing of Jesus at first, Judas passively rejects it without a word. Judas may have feet without a speck of filth upon them, but his heart is still dirty. (This could be a powerful teaching point depending on your audience and purpose.)

13:12–17. As we will see in chapters 13–17, the time for semicryptic comments from Jesus is past. Now he takes special care to ensure that his disciples understand his actions and words. His teaching point in the foot washing is an example of the relationships he expects in the future community of his believers. If he, the greatest of them, willingly serves them, then there is no excuse for any of them to disdain service. It is the same lesson as the Synoptic Gospels teach: “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43–44). This attitude of service must be based in love, and that will be the next teaching topic (v. 34, cf. v. 1).

(***: CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE TO FOLLOW:)

But some will object that this message is out of date. How can we expect people to act as humble servants when our world honors the rich and the powerful? Service takes time and effort, and it requires an attitude of humility. In the Roman Empire power and wealth were idolized, pity and humility were signs of weakness. Jesus’ demand for a servant’s heart is never outdated nor inappropriate. Our reward does not come from the world’s adulation or from our control and mastery of other people. Our reward comes from having an obedient heart and in the confidence that we will be blessed by God.

Note: some Christian traditions have seen verse 14 as a continuing command for the church and, therefore, practice foot washing as a part of their worship activities. No one should object to such a foot washing service, and those who have never participated in one have missed a great lesson in humility and service. Yet it is difficult to make a case for this as an expected continuing practice of the church on the same level as baptism or the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The biggest reason for this conclusion is the lack of evidence that the early church practiced foot washing in this way. There is no evidence in the book of Acts (or any other New Testament book for that matter) that the primitive, apostolic church performed foot washing on a regular basis. For this reason it is seen as an instructive and beneficial exercise, but not a required one.

New American Commentary (NAC)

13:1 The text opens with the striking note that it was just prior to Passover. The discussion should once again, therefore, be understood and interpreted as taking place in the context of a Passover setting. Moreover, the text next relates the Passover notation directly to the arrival of the long-expected “hour” (hōra; the NIV translation here as “time” is surely theologically weak). The hour is that of Jesus’ “departure” (metabē) from this world (cf. the coming of the hour of glorification at 12:23). What is more, this departure is next interpreted by John in the context of the ultimate extent of love (lit., “he loved them unto the end”) evidenced in Jesus’ death for the world (cf. 3:16) and particularly here for those in the world who belong to him.

Accordingly, in the span of three short but incisive sentence segments this verse has spelled out the defining moment in the coming of Jesus. The statement therefore is crucial for understanding the focus of both this chapter and this entire cycle. Thus the turning point has already come (12:23–26), Jesus has been prepared by having dealt with his agony (12:27–28), and has now begun the preparation of the disciples for the death of the Passover Lamb of God (cf. 1:29 and 19:14).

13:2 Although relating temporal markers in John to the Synoptics is often difficult, particularly in the chronology of the Passover events, the time designation at 13:1 is merely the vague “before” (pro) Passover, which by itself supplies little assistance in any comparison. But several matters should give some pause for reflection.

The foot washing depicted in John’s (pre-Passover?) meal event (13:2, “supper”) does not appear in the Synoptics, and what occurs in the Synoptics related to the institution of the Lord’s Supper does not occur here in John. Nevertheless, there is little reason to doubt that the meal experience should be understood to be the same meal in both John and the Synoptics. One reason we can make such an identification is that in both John and the Synoptics, Jesus announced at the meal the presence of the betrayer, which resulted in a sense of uneasiness among the disciples (13:21–22; cf. Matt 26:21–22; Mark 14:18–19; Luke 22:21–23). Moreover, Jesus also identified Judas at the meal through the event of “dipping” (baptein is the verb used in John 13:26; cf. Mark 14:20; Matt 26:23, where embaptein is used). The occasion described here, therefore, must be the so-called “Last Supper” even though the Synoptics do not speak of a “supper,” and John does not speak of an upper room (cf. Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12; Matthew does not use the designation).

The dark side of the story is also introduced in this verse with the mention of the devil (see Excursus 13: “Satan and the Prince of the World”). Although John indicates that the devil had thrown (perfect participle of ballein; the NIV “prompted” is weak) “into the heart” (a nonpersonalized statement) the betraying of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, such an idea in no way is said to excuse Judas. Rather, A. Schlatter’s maxim-like explanation of a Judas-type person seems to catch forcefully the perspective of John—that the heart that is inspired by the devil wills what the devil wills (cf. also 13:18, 21, 27). Some manuscripts read “the heart of Judas” (the genitive Iouda), but the nominative Idoudas here is to be preferred. Following the basic rules of textual analysis, the more difficult reading is to be preferred and thus can explain the others; the harder reading actually turns out here to be theologically significant because it presents Judas clearly as the responsible actor in the betrayal of Jesus and the devil as the one who inspires the evil heart.

13:3 Building upon the statements concerning Jesus’ knowledge of his hour in v. 1, the evangelist expands the idea here to remind the reader that Jesus was clearly knowledgeable about his origin and his goal or destiny. These concerns were epitomized in the two questions of “whence?” (pothen) and “where?” or “whither?” (pou) that brought him into conflict earlier with the Pharisees (cf. 8:14ff.). The Pharisees, like most people, could not understand that Jesus was someone whose very existence defied the limitations of their time and space barriers (cf. 1:1). “Coming from” (exerchesthai plus apo) and “going to” (hypagein plus pros) was the way John here described the broad dimensions of Jesus’ earthly existence and his relationship to the eternal God. But one must be careful not merely to pour these ideas into the human time restraints of past, present, and future. Of course, they are applicable to the incarnation of Jesus, but these statements are also intended to remind the reader of the divine dimension to life as well.

Moreover, these ideas form a foundation for understanding the earlier statement in this verse of the Father committing “all things” (panta) “into his hands.” This idea, as discussed in 3:35, is a testimonial expression for Jesus acting as the agent for God. In the Prologue the logos was active in creation (1:3) and became flesh (1:14). There is a sense in which that special nature of Jesus impacted the way the Johannine evangelist looked at the broad scope of Jesus’ authority. To see Jesus is to see God (12:45) or his agent on earth because he is “from above” (ek tōn anō, 8:23). Moreover, he has life in himself and has the authority to execute judgment because he “is” the powerful Son of Man (5:26–27). But given these divinely oriented attributes, what comes next is absolutely stunning.

***CULTURAL CONTEXT BELOW:

13:4–5 Instead of basking in the glow of power and authority, to use the Pauline image, Jesus emptied (kenoun) or humbled himself and adopted the form (morphē), here the posture or role, of a servant (cf. Phil 2:7). As indicated in connection with the story of the Baptizer (John 1:27), touching feet was regarded as menial slave work and as such was primarily an assignment given to Gentile slaves and women. Students were responsible to rabbis or teachers to perform menial tasks of labor, but touching feet was clearly not expected. In a society that was very conscious of status symbols of shame and honor, such as the touching or washing of feet, was an extremely important matter. John the Baptizer had been unwilling to be categorized in the same context with Jesus, even as his lowest slave (cf. 1:27). He was viewed by the evangelist as an ideal model of a witness. But here the lowly slave was God’s agent, the proclaimer of the key thesis to understanding the message of the Gospel, namely that Jesus is “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (1:29).

But what is startling in this story is the vivid portrayal of the Messiah adopting a shameful/lowly posture in relation to his disciples. I know of no other example in the literature of the ancient world before the coming of Jesus where such a foot washing by a leader occurs. The evangelist makes clear that Jesus intended that he should be viewed in the posture of such a slave by removing or “laying down” (tithēsin, the same verb is also used of Jesus laying down his life, cf. 10:11, 15, 17–18; 15:13) his “outer clothing” (ta himata, the plural is used). Then he tied a towel around himself in the fashion of a slave and actually used that towel to wipe the feet of the disciples once he had washed them. The humbling or dishonoring symbolism is unmistakable.

To get the full impact of this scene one should review the setting again. The text is not unrelated to the issue of ambition among the disciples, who wanted the chief seats in Jesus’ coming “kingdom” (cf. ; see also , where the word “glory” is used instead). And since it was the sons of Zebedee who were making the request, this idea of glory probably left an indelible impression on the evangelist here and on all the disciples. These disciples undoubtedly had evidenced the human trait of ambition. Moreover, Peter was clearly convinced of his own ability to follow Jesus, as is indicated later in this chapter (cf. ). And to complete the picture of the disciples, Judas had apparently already schemed the betrayal of Jesus (13:11; cf. ; ). It was in this very human-centered context that Jesus adopted the totally different example of a humble servant to be the model for discipleship.

***MORE CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING BELOW

The picture is made more intense when one understands that at the meal they were undoubtedly reclining (not sitting) with their heads facing the center and their feet stretched out behind them. They supported themselves on one elbow (primarily the left) and reached for food with the right hand. The participants at the meal could ignore the one washing their feet.

13:6–9 But it was hardly possible for the disciples to ignore Jesus. There is no reason to assume from the text that Peter was either first (Augustine) or last (Origen) in the washing. But it is quite clear that Peter voiced for the disciples the sense of shock by his question, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” (13:6). That was not merely a question. It was more like a challenge based on a confusing set of circumstances. It did not make sense to the disciples. Thus this question is like the questions asked by the Jews when Jesus spoke of their seeking him and not finding him (7:33–36) did not make sense to them, or when he spoke to them about making them free (8:31–33), or when he spoke to them about never seeing death (8:51–59).

Jesus’ response in 13:7 is a direct confronting of Peter’s implied challenge which had been based on his confusion. Peter did not know what was in fact taking place at that time. But Jesus said that he would realize the significance of it later. The “later” here obviously meant that Peter would understand in the post-Passover era.

Jesus’ response was met in 13:8 with a forthright confrontation by Peter. Peter had completely missed the point of Jesus’ words about knowing; and instead of pondering them, he undoubtedly thought he understood that the issue simply involved the code of shame and honor. He was convinced he would “never” (lit. “not forever”) dishonor Jesus by having him wash his feet (cf. his misguided confidence also at 13:37). The contrast between Jesus’ knowledge of what was to come and Peter’s lack of understanding concerning eternity should not escape the reader. Unfortunately, the English translations of “never” here, I believe, actually hide for most readers the interplay of ideas inherent in this text. Jeremias’s note to the effect that Peter’s statement is like an oath certainly moves in the right direction.

Jesus’ response was like a firm courtroom verdict that gave the offender a straightforward alternative that admits no bending. It was a strict either/or that had to be accepted or rejected, and the consequences were clearly evident. Either Peter would be washed or he would be excluded from being an heir of Jesus. The thunderous force of “no part with me” is devastating. The text here has obvious eschatological implications involving ideas of inheritance (cf. related ideas at 14:3; 17:24; cf. also Rev 20:6; 22:19; Matt 24:45–51, and note particularly the same word translated “share” in Luke 15:12).

Peter’s response in 13:9 is almost hilarious. One could imagine a comic strip picture of a lightbulb flashing on over Peter’s head and Peter saying something like: “Wow! If that’s what it means, then do my hands and head as well!” Now he was ready for a shower or a bath! The evangelist makes clear in Jesus’ reply at v. 10 that Peter’s enthusiastic response missed the point completely. It is therefore a nonproductive exercise to try to make any theological distinctions about hands, head, and feet in this verse except to say that Peter was interested in obtaining a “golden blanket” insurance policy to cover any concerns that might arise.

13:10–11 Jesus’ reply, however, requires more attention. The first part of the reply (13:10a) involves an important contrast. Up to this point the conversation had focused on the various forms of the verb niptein, which has here been translated as “wash,” but in this verse the verb louein, “bathed,” occurs first. Jesus’ play on words thus suggests that Peter misunderstood the meaning of the foot washing to be a mere washing of feet, whereas the washing was, in fact, much more. It actually refers to Jesus’ bathing of the disciples with a new perspective (i.e., humble love). Therefore the disciples had actually been significantly bathed in the foot washing experience.

But there is also in this verse an important textual problem. The UBS text and most English translations add to the statement of “not need to wash” the words “except the feet” (ei mē tous podas; the NIV has reworked the words to read “needs only to wash his feet”). Codex Sinaiticus, however, omits this phrase, and the textual history might seem to indicate that the phrase was imported into the text from the eastern churches. The argument would then be that those Christian scribes may have thought that something had to be said about feet here and therefore added the phrase. It is more likely, however, that Jesus was here ignoring the issue of feet because he had proceeded to the real issue of being clean, which is the focus of vv. 10b, 11. Thus the play on the verbs in v. 10a would seem to serve as the transitional statement.

Washing normally makes one clean, and those who have been “bathed” by Jesus, he says, are completely or “wholly” (holos) clean. The NIV misunderstands the sense of the text and stays on the physical level by importing the noun “body” into the text. In so doing it does not allow the reader to sense the double-level meaning that is here once again implied in a Johannine text (cf. the “temple” in 2:19–21 and “born again/from above” in 3:3–4). The disciples may have become “wholly” clean, but the whole group of them (ouchi pantes, “not all”) was not wholly clean because the group included the “betrayer” (ton paradidonta, 13:11).

This statement has been taken by some to suggest that Jesus did not wash the feet of Judas. But that is a misapplication of this verse and is another indication of failing to sense the double-level meaning of Johannine texts. In this case it is important to remember that the “washing” could not mean “bathing” for Judas—the devil man. Besides, one must also bear in mind that Judas did not depart the scene until later in the story (13:30), unless one unnecessarily excises the verses concerning Judas from this story. Moreover, the text itself here indicates that Jesus was not confused about the status of the betrayer who was present at this event (13:11). The Johannine message has consistently been clear on the fact that although people like Peter and Judas may not have understood the implications of events, it is absolutely certain that Jesus understood what people were like (cf. 2:23–25). What surprised people did not surprise Jesus.

Excursus 14: Foot Washings and Sacramental Interpretations (I thought this is interesting!)

Although foot washing has been relegated to a minor role in the worship practice of a large segment of the Christian church, there has been an effort on the part of a number of scholars to show definite links between this event in the life of Jesus and sacraments of the church, particularly baptism. Brown, after surveying the early patristic evidence, concluded that besides a few vague references in Tertullian and a very few other statements elsewhere that the “external support” for foot washing being employed “as a symbol of Baptism” is “minimal.” He nevertheless attempts to make a case for a linkage between foot washing and baptism. In this pursuit he has been joined by others, but the work of von Campenhausen is perhaps the most intriguing. He has argued, somewhat after the pattern of Peter’s statement in 13:9, that early candidates for baptism probably would stand in water up to their ankles (his linkage to foot washing) and then have water poured over the rest of them.

But Cullmann’s probably is the strangest argument. Not only has he sought in several works to use every argument possible to make a case for infant baptism, but in his work on worship he has sought to establish connections between the foot washing and the Lord’s Supper. His reasoning has been that the major washing or bath is related to baptism in which the person is made wholly clean (cf. 13:10) and a follow-up washing cares for sins after baptism. This second washing (foot washing) he related to the Supper, which he thought was supported by the longer reading of v. 10. J. Michl’s critique of Cullmann to the effect that relating the eating of flesh and blood to foot washing is an amazing feat. From my perspective that is about all one needs to say in response.

At this point it is probably well to be reminded of the fact that some scholars like V. Eller have taken the completely opposite approach and not only have practically “demystified” Johannine mysticism but held solidly to the nonsacramental character of the Fourth Gospel.

Yet how is one to interpret the foot washing here? What is its significance to John? Is it about looking for baptism in this reference to water? Hardly! Of course, the act is a picture of servanthood. But in Cullmann’s misguided attempt at linking the foot washing with a cleansing from sin in the Lord’s Supper, there is at least a partial hint of a much more useful direction of thought. The idea of cleansing being related to human sin is certainly a familiar idea that is foundational to the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Even more significant, however, is a text like Ps 51:2, which parallels the washing away of iniquity and the cleansing from sin. Such a text certainly forms a helpful background for understanding the intersection of ideas here in John.

But beyond background texts, one should not forget that an underlying concept for the entire Gospel is the humble Passover Lamb: the one who takes away the sin of the world (cf. 1:29; 19:28–31). Thus it is meaningful and not a mere accident that in this Farewell context a good number of important ideas come together: the preparation for Passover (13:1), the servant-like foot washing by Jesus (13:5), the fact that he is said to have loved his own to the very end (13:1) and to have provided cleansing (13:10), and finally that attention should here be called to the betrayer (13:11), who was to be an instrument in his death (cf. 13:27; 18:2–5). The foot washing, cleansing, and presence of the betrayer are all parts of the integrated message about the Johannine Lamb of God. The foot washing, then, is to be read as the vivid beginning of the preparation of the disciples (not Jesus—that was chap. 12) for the Passover of the Lamb and the traumatic experience of the crucifixion.

13:12–13 Just as the foot washing involved the rising up (egeirein) of Jesus from a reclining position and the laying down (tithesthai) of his outer garments, so in this section in which Jesus interpreted servanthood for the disciples he retook his garments and resumed his central reclining position. From that posture of one in their midst as leader, he began a concerted effort of preparing them. (This just popped into my mind as I was reading through this: Jesus rises up on the cross, goes down into hell, and then sits downs at the right hand of God.) Accordingly, the general tenor of the evangelist’s presentation here shifts slightly to that of Jesus as interpreter or instructor. If one were reading the Gospel of Matthew at this point, one might almost expect to find Jesus sitting down and dispensing wisdom or healing (cf. ; ; ; ; , ). The sitting position in Matthew’s Gospel communicated a sense of authority. Here the evangelist does not employ a physical posture to indicate such authority, but rather authority is indicated in the words of Jesus.

The disciples had called Jesus “Teacher and Lord” (ho didaskalos kai ho kurios, 13:12), but the way Jesus accepted that designation suggests to the reader the sense that the words are to be understood more like a royal acclamation than a mere acknowledgment of a role. Not only did Jesus accept the designation as a correct or well-stated title, but he also provided a significant rationale for this designation by announcing “for that is what I am” (eimi gar). The connection with the egō eimi (“I am”) sayings should seem to be obvious, particularly since the full expression is stated at 13:19 as well. Although one could argue that “teacher” here is merely the equivalent of rabbi and “Lord” here is either a general statement like “sir” or a mere honorific title like “master,” the entire mood of the text would seem to argue against it. It would seem, instead, that this double designation should be interpreted in terms of Jesus’ divinely directed agency in mission and not merely as a reference to an earthly teacher (cf. Nicodemus, 3:1) or to an earthly master (cf. the nobleman from Capernaum, 4:46). Rather, this Teacher is a divine-human revealer/interpreter, and this Master is none other than the one who is one and the same with the Lord God.

Just prior to the acceptance of Jesus’ “acclamation,” he had started the conversation with his disciples by posing a searching question that probed their understanding of what he had just “done” to them (13:12). That question was hardly intended to elicit a factual news report on the circumstances related to the foot washing episode. Rather, one senses here another double-level question in the use of the verb “understand,” namely: Could they merely provide a report on the event, or did they understand the significance of what they had experienced? The way they would have answered such a question would have been extremely revealing of their perceptivity. That this question is not, in fact, answered here does not mean that we are unable to guess the way the disciples would have responded because when they did respond to Jesus in matters related to his departure (14:5, 8), their response indicates a striking lack of such deep perception.

13:14–15 The foot washing of Jesus becomes in vv. 14–15 the model (hypodeigma, “example”) for the disciples to follow. It is precisely because their Lord and Teacher (note the reversal here of the order) was willing to adopt the humbling model of foot washing that Jesus’ disciples cannot treat humility as merely a nice idea that is unrelated to Christian life. The actual practice of foot washing in the church is not observed widely today. The mention of the idea in connection with the enrollment of widows in 1 Tim 5:10 may possibly suggest that some practice could have been observed by the early church, though “washing the feet of saints” in that context of exhibiting hospitality and caring for the weak hardly sounds like a church rite. Rather, it seems a humble, self-giving treatment of other people without regard to shame and honor codes of society.

But the model of Jesus is not merely one of self-giving service to others epitomized in the foot washing. The model is, in fact, one that also represents the dying Lamb of God. Therefore the servant/follower of Jesus should realize that the self-giving washing of feet may be far more costly a calling than merely a matter involving a basin of water and a towel.

To follow Jesus may cost one’s life (cf. 12:24–26; 21:18–19; 1 Pet 2:21), a price Peter rather glibly offered to pay (John 13:37). He soon discovered, however, that he did not realize what that offer had meant (cf. 18:17, 25–27). The scene in Mark 10:32–45, which is set in the context of the third passion prediction and which deals with the ambition of the two sons of Zebedee, evidences some similar elements to this Johannine story. Although that Markan story concerns the request of the brothers for seats of honor next to Jesus in glory, the model Jesus offered them and the rest of the disciples is the cup of death and the way of servant humility (not the way of the Gentile lords of power). Indeed, the purpose for the coming of the Son of Man was not to be served but to be a servant “and to give his life as a ransom” (Mark 10:45). The understanding of self-giving servanthood is basic to the model Jesus established here in John also.

13:16 This verse is another of the Johannine double amēn (“truly”) sayings and is almost maxim-like in its quality. It reminds the reader that the servant does not surpass the master, nor does the “sent one” (apostolos, the only use of this term in this Gospel) surpass the sender. This agency statement here thus provides perspective on the servant’s ability and responsibility in mission. Similar statements are found elsewhere in Gospel settings (cf. 15:20; see also Matt 10:24–25; Luke 6:40), but the force of the statement here is to remind the followers of Jesus that there is no reason to become puffed up over their calling, accomplishments, or spirituality, a problem that plagued the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:6–7; 5:6; etc.) and is not unknown in Christian communities today.

13:17 The foot washing focus of this section is completed by means of one of the two beatitudes in the Gospel of John (cf. 20:29 and also the beatitudes of Matt 5, etc.). The Greek makarioi (cf. Hb. ʾasre), translated “blessed” or “happy” in most English translations, is generally applied to humans in the sense of a positive evaluation or a judgment being rendered upon a person who meets the requirements of a situation. It is to be distinguished from the Greek eulogētos (cf. Hb. bārūk), which is applied as an ascription or benediction concerning God (cf. Mark 14:61; Luke 1:68; Rom 1:25; 9:5; etc.).

In this case Jesus (as Teacher/Lord and indeed Judge) renders a favorable verdict upon his followers who both “know” (oidate) and practice or “do” (poiēte) what he has instructed. In the teaching of Jesus there is no division between head-understanding and life-practice. Moreover, as in the case of most beatitudes the happiness or blessedness is not to be limited to earthly well-being, for the implication is that the blessedness has eschatological ramifications.