Jesus Washes Peter’s Feet (13:6-11; 1 John 1:9)

At the point of my conversion, when I repented of my sin, embracing Jesus as my Lord, and believed in my heart that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again, was I not completely and forever forgiven – of all my sin? Why then, do I need to continue to confess? I’m already forgiven.

Peter stumbles into (maybe more likely plowed into) a brief secondary discussion during Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet. Amid Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, Peter bluntly rejects Jesus’ act of service and love. In so doing, Jesus touches on an important ongoing practice for every believer. As believers, we are in continual need of having our feet washed – or practically, having Jesus deal with the filth of our ongoing sinful walks.

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.” ().

Peter goes from perceived confusion to arrogance. His question is equivalent to, “so, you think that you’re going to wash my feet? I don’t think so!” Jesus responds to Peter by saying, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter” ().[1] Even after Jesus mildly rebukes Peter, Peter remains bold and still refuses to let Jesus wash his feet. “You shall never wash my feet” (). Following Jesus reaction to Peter the second time, Peter has a typical unrestrained reaction, “Wash my hands and my head!”

Jesus clearly desires to make a point by washing the disciple’s feet, yet Peter’s interruption offers Jesus the opportunity to make a secondary point while using the same washing analogy. For the most part, this little side trail Peter pulls Jesus down offers little challenge for the reader, but one phrase has historically offered a lot of challenges.

Except for his feet (13:10). Carson outlines how most modern expositors omit this Greek phrase.[2] This would make this discussion easier, but we choose to wrestle with the phrase. Therefore, assuming John intended to place the phrase as we read it in our English translations, to what might these two different washings refer?

Bathe and wash. (1) Some conclude that the first cleansing refers to baptism (if not the baptismal font) and the second cleansing as having “the daily defilements of his worldly life wiped away.” [3] (2) Michaels offers a second option, an option held by a significant number of other commentators. The first cleansing refers not to baptism, but a cleansing by means of The Word. [4] (3) Others reject the presence of the phrase except for his feet. As a result, a second cleansing involving the feet is precluded. (4) And finally, others conclude that the initial bath refers to the forgiveness initially experienced through belief in Christ’s death and resurrection, whereas the second washing refers to the need for “constant cleansing from their repeated defilement by sin in order that the fellowship they have with the Father and with the Son might not be broken.” [5]

While scholars, pastors, and commentators offer a myriad of varying interpretations, a large percentage of them share one perspective in common. Jesus references two types of cleansings. The first cleansing (whether baptism, acceptance of the Word, etc.) results in a permanent position of forgiveness. However, a second, less significant ongoing cleansing is necessary and appropriate. Belief in Christ and His death will bring permanent eternal cleansing to anyone, but people will still “get their feet dirty” as they walk through this life. The need for ongoing forgiveness seems to be Jesus’ secondary point.[6]

Carson. the initial and fundamental cleansing that Christ provides is a once-for-all act. Individuals who have been cleansed by Christ’s atoning work will doubtless need to have subsequent sins washed away, but the fundamental cleansing can never be repeated. . . . The interpretation of affirmed here also fits the theology of 1 John, which, assuming common authorship, is not to be ignored. In his first epistle, addressed to Christians, to people who have already believed () and received eternal life (2:25), John insists that continuing confession of sin is necessary (1:9), as is continued dependence upon Jesus Christ, who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (2:1, 2). The thought of is not dissimilar.[7]

Lenski. As the body is clean altogether when it is washed and needs only a laving of the feet when we have walked in the dusty road, so we are spiritually clean when Jesus has washed away our sin and guilt; we need only a minor cleansing when we move about in this sinful world with its impure contacts.[8]

In including this brief interaction between Jesus and Peter, John offers a secondary insight into the need for forgiveness. While the passage in John’s gospel hazily touches on ongoing forgiveness, John outlines a concise but more thorough explanation of this need for ongoing forgiveness in his first epistle.

Brief context for . In the first chapter of his first epistle, after having clearly articulated the fact that God is light “and in him is no darkness at all” (), John outlines three lies embraced by those still in the darkness. Intermingled within these three lies, John also offers two characteristics of those who are in the light. The three lies: (1) Those in the darkness claim to have fellowship with God but continue to walk in the darkness (), (2) those in the darkness claim to have no sin (), and (3) those in the darkness claim to have not sinned ().

Varied ways to understand verses 8 and 10. (1) Those in the dark, refused to acknowledge that they possessed a sin nature (1:8), and they also claimed to not have committed sin (1:10). [9] (2) The expressions in verses 8 and 10 are synonymous. They, together, reveal that those in the dark either claim to not have sinned at all or are not guilty of any sin. [10] (3) Barclay offers a slightly different understanding. Those in the dark justify their sin and refuse to claim any fault for their sin.[11]

Nestled amidst these three lies, John contrasts these three lies of the dark with two realities of those in the light. In verse 7 John declares, “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” ().[12] Let me draw your attention more deeply to the second reality outlined in , “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Acknowledge sinfulness. A confession of sin implies an awareness and acknowledgment of sin, an awareness and an acknowledgment absent within those in the dark. Regardless of one’s understanding of sin in verses 8 and 10, the contrast remains clear. Those who are in the light acknowledge their sinfulness. They acknowledge both their inherent propensity to sin (their sin nature) and the fact that they continue to perform acts of sin (whether by omission or commission).

Confess sin. This acknowledgment and awareness reach further to the more humble and transparent point of confession. Those in the light, unlike those in the darkness, acknowledge their sinfulness, and continue to confess their sin, receiving the forgiveness that comes from a faithful and just God ().

John speaks to believers. (1) John consistently uses the first-person plural, referring to himself and his recipients as those who have heard and seen and proclaimed. (2) He refers to the recipients as his “little children,” hardly a phrase employed to describe unbelievers.[13] (3) The action of confession describes those in the light.

Defining Confession. Confession involves our saying the same thing about our sin as God does.[14] Confession extends beyond simply admitting the presence of sin or a sinful action, it includes an awareness and acknowledgment that our sin is an affront to the character of God, hurtful to those impacted, and personally corrupting.

Glasscock quotes Joel Beeke, “Confession of sins makes us see ourselves in light of the living God and his holy law. We stop comparing ourselves to others. We stop commending ourselves. We stop excusing ourselves, or blaming others. Instead, we confess that we are sinners and deserve to be punished.”[15]

Confession is ongoing. Similarly to “walking” (1:7), John uses the present tense for “cleansing” (1:9). In some sense, believers continue to be cleansed from sin. Christ’s blood once and for all purifies believers and restores them to God at the point of belief and repentance (1:7). However, this ongoing cleansing seems to point to the reality of ongoing sin in a believer’s life. While a believer, in one sense, has been completely forgiven, they continue to sin, and the blood of Christ continues to perform its cleansing work. Unlike their darkened opponents, these believers are very aware of sin in their life. They as well are taking purposeful steps in dealing with their sin.

The public nature of confession. Only a few New Testament authors discuss confession of sin, even though many discuss confessing Christ in varied contexts. Four other authors refer to “confession of sin.” (1) “they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (, cf. ). (2) “many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices” (). (3) “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” ().

Note the public nature of each of these instances. While we may not be able to conclude that the confession of sin mentioned in John’s first epistle mandates some type of public confession, we would be wise to consider whether there should be an element of public confession, more than is now typically experienced within the church.

Confession should extend as far as the impact of the sinful action. Our confession may need to extend beyond those aware of the sin because quite often our sin unknowingly impacts and hurts others. In these cases, our confession needs to extend to those impacted. [16]

Receive the forgiveness through Christ and rooted in God’s faithfulness. God displays his faithfulness in that his promise to provide an eternal sacrifice materialized in the person of Jesus. God faithfully provided the necessary sacrifice, but he also faithfully forgave those who come to him in belief as he has promised. As well, God displays his justice in that he no longer holds sinners responsible for the sin that was atoned for through the death of Christ.

Jobes. Confession is not a magic incantation or a ritual that in and of itself is efficacious. The efficacy of confession of sin lies not in the confessor but in the faithfulness (πιστός) and righteousness (δίκαιος) of God, whose Son’s blood was shed for this very purpose (v. 7).[17]

This faithful and just act on God’s part results in two immense acts of grace extended to the believer. (1) Their sins are forgiven, and (2) they’re cleansed from the negative ramifications of their sins. John Stott concisely explains these two results, “In the first phrase sin is a debt which he remits and in the second a stain which he removes.”[18]

Due to God’s faithfulness and justice, a believer’s confession of sin results in his being released from the debt owed from that sin, but also the believer is cleansed from the natural defilement that comes as a result of sin. Similarly, in the Old Testament, Jews would become unclean as they came into contact with certain unclean objects. This contact resulted in their inability to worship or even be present within the camp of Israel at times. They needed to be cleansed so that their relationship with both God and the community could be restored.

[1] Commentators offer much discussion regarding “You do not understand now, but afterward you will understand” (13:7). The discussion revolves around afterward. After what? I’ll take no room or time to detail this discussion, only to acknowledge that afterward likely is generic, simply meaning later. The disciples would later understand the significance of these events. Jesus likely does not intend to communicate some specific time. However, they likely began to understand the significance of these events following Christ’s death and the coming of the Spirit who would teach them all things.

[2] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 464.

An Example . . . George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1999), 229.

The omission appears to be demanded by the context. (i) V 8 clearly relates to Jesus’ act of washing, and in v 10 that is viewed as a bath (ὁ λελουμένος …) which results in a person becoming completely clean, hence without need of further washing. (ii) It is easier to understand the addition of “except for the feet” than its omission. Scribes did not realize that the act of washing the feet = a bath, and had to justify Jesus’ washing feet.

[3] Joel C. Elowsky, ed., , 93–94. I’m choosing to offer one example (Ancient Church Father) but there are many who draw this conclusion. [Bede] “The person who has been cleansed in the baptismal font and has received pardon for all his sins has no need to be cleansed again. Moreover, he cannot be cleansed again in the same way. He finds it necessary only to have the daily defilements of his worldly life wiped away by the daily forgiveness of his Redeemer. His whole body, together with its actions, is clean, with the exception merely of those things that cling to the mind because of the necessities of temporal cares. For their daily polluting and cleansing we say daily in prayer, “And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.”

[4] Michaels, The Gospel of John, 732. “In any event, the link is confirmed two chapters later when Jesus will remind his disciples that “You are already clean,” not because of baptism nor even because of the footwashing, but “because of the word I have spoken to you” (15:3). While this “cleansing by the word” is doubtless viewed as an ongoing process in John’s Gospel, it seems to have had its beginning in the winnowing out of the doubtful and the consolidation of “the Twelve” at the synagogue in Capernaum. On that basis, Jesus is willing to pronounce his disciples “clean—but not all of you.”

[5] Boice, The Gospel of John, 1011. ““He is explaining that Peter (not Judas) is a justified person and therefore needs only cleansing from the contaminating effects of sin, not pardon from sin’s penalty. The image involved is of an oriental who would bathe completely before going to another person’s home for dinner. On the way, because he would be shod in sandals and because the streets would be dirty, his feet would be contaminated. When he arrived at his friend’s home, his feet would need to be washed, not his whole body. In a parallel way, those who are Christ’s are totally justified men and women, but they do need constant cleansing from their repeated defilement by sin in order that the fellowship they have with the Father and with the Son might not be broken.”

[6] I found this topic to be covered in depth by a great many commentators. Beasley-Murray offered the lengthiest discussion in his commentary on John’s Gospel. I chose to accept Carson’s interpretation for sake of time and practicality. Afterall, this is a secondary point in the storyline. With that said, Kruse disagreed with Carson’s conclusion. Milne agreed with Carson.

Kruse. Some have interpreted 13:8 (‘Unless I wash you, you have no part with me’) and 13:10 (‘A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean’) in terms of the need for Christian baptism and the question of sin after baptism. It is understandable how people might make these connections, but this was not Jesus’ intention in saying these things to Peter, and there is little to suggest the evangelist wanted his readers to see such an allusion here either. (278)

Milne. There is a once-for-all cleansing when we become Christians as all our sins are judged and put away in the cross, but in the course of our ongoing Christian lives sin obtrudes daily. That sin too is to be cleansed through a daily coming to the Lord for his renewed washing. (198)

[7] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 465–66.

[8] Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 921.

[9] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 81, 83. “[verse 8] ‘Sin’ is again in the singular and refers to the inherited principle of sin or self-centredness. . . . [verse 10] We may concede in theory that sin would break our fellowship with God if we did sin, and that sin does exist in our nature as an inborn disposition, and yet deny that we have in practice sinned and thus put ourselves out of fellowship with God. This is the most blatant of the three denials. The heretics maintained that their superior enlightenment rendered them incapable of sinning.”

[10] Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans Pub.; Apollos, 2000), 66. “The expression ‘to have sin’ (echō hamartian) is found only here in 1 John, but it occurs four times in the Fourth Gospel (; , ; ), and in each case it means to be guilty of sins. Allowing this usage to guide us, we would have to say that what the secessionists were claiming was, not that they were by nature free from the sin principle, but that they were not guilty of committing sins, by which they probably meant they had not sinned since they came to know God and experienced the anointing.”

Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 74. “Akin. Verses 8 and 10 are essentially parallel: the heretics argued that the condition for fellowship with the Father is sinlessness. Therefore they claimed to be sinless.”

[11] William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, 3rd ed., The New Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 36. “It may describe people who say that they have no responsibility for their sin. It is easy enough to find defences behind which to seek to hide. We may blame our sins on our upbringing or on our genes, on our environment, on our temperament or on our physical condition. We may claim that someone misled us and that we were led astray. It is a human characteristic that we seek to shuffle out of the responsibility for sin. Or it may describe people who claim that they can sin and come to no harm.”

[12] This ‘fellowship’ is the first of two results of ‘walking in the light.’ Walking in the light conveys a present reality. Those who are presently walking and continually walking in the light share in fellowship with others. It would seem logical to assume (and it is correct to assume) that if you are in the light, you will have fellowship with God. It has already been established that those who walk in the darkness do not fellowship with God, therefore if you are in the light, you will fellowship with God. While this is true, John makes a point to mention our fellowship with others. John does not deny the fellowship with the Father but takes this fellowship one additional step and establishes that all of those who are in the light will as well fellowship with other believers.

[13] Ed Glasscock, “Forgiveness and Cleansing According to ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 662 (April 2009): 218. “John's inclusion of himself (first-person verbs occur throughout 1:6-10) and his addressing his readers as "little children" (τβκνία, 2:1) certainly implies that Christians are the intended audience.”

[14] Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 281. “ὁμολογέω from a basic meaning say the same thing . . . (2) as confessing that something is true admit, agree () . . . of an acknowledgment of sins confess () . . .”

[15] Glasscock, “Forgiveness and Cleansing According to ,” 221.

[16] Glasscock, 223–24; Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Logos Edition, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014), 71.

Glasscock. A believer's confession of sin is to be done within the context of the Christian community, but not to any human with power to forgive or retain the sins of the one confessing. Three appropriate venues of confession are to be noted. First, some sins that are public and detrimental to the testimony of Christ are to be publicly acknowledged. Second, other sins should be confessed to a smaller body of fellow Christians. Third, in one's daily self-examination any sin (of thought, word, or action) that would disrupt one's fellowship with God should be confessed privately to the Lord. . . . As a member of the Christian brotherhood, the confession of any act of sin should be as wide as the knowledge of the sin.

Jobes. John does not specify the setting or scope for confession, but wisdom suggests that the confession of sin should be confined to those with knowledge of the sin.

[17] Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, 71.

[18] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 82.

Jesus Washes Peter’s Feet (13:6-11; 1 John 1:9)

The Need for Ongoing Forgiveness

The Method for Ongoing Forgiveness