Washing One Another’s Feet

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. [1]

An Exposition of John 13:1–17

John’s Gospel has been regarded by many as the paragon of the gospels, particularly in the spirituality of its teaching. Clement of Alexandria is often quoted as saying that John was moved by the entreaty of his intimate friends and inspired by the Spirit to compose a “spiritual gospel.” This sentiment may, perhaps, be traced to the nature of the Upper Room Discourse which is found in chapters 13–17.

Many years ago I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, say in a chapel message to students, “The Upper Room Discourse contains the purest Christian teaching that we have anywhere in the New Testament.” [2] This may be something of an exaggeration. Dr. Chafer was occasionally guilty of using the “shock technique” in his teaching methodology. But he properly underscores the purity and significance of the teaching found in this discourse. He also called this discourse “the seed plot of all grace teaching,” containing “in germ form every essential doctrine.”

It is helpful to note the place of this passage in the unfolding process of thought in the Gospel of John. Seven signs of the Lord Jesus are used by John in the first eleven chapters to present the revelation of God’s Son. This revelation is complete in chapter eleven with the seventh sign and its effects, the raising of Lazarus. The reaction of the people and the little flock of believers to the ministry of Christ is described in chapter twelve (cf. 12:37–50). It now remains for the Lord to prepare the apostles for the time when He will no longer be physically present with them. This is the purpose of the teaching in the upper room (chapters 13–16) and the high-priestly prayer which follows (chapter 17).

It is not surprising, then, that our Lord should spend some time with His apostles preparing them for the future. It originally required months of preparation to ascend Mount Everest. Roger Bannister, the British physician who broke the barrier of the four-minute mile run, prepared for his accomplishment for years. So the Lord prepares His disciples for His death and departure from them.

His message is essentially very startling. Even though He is going away, He will be with each one of them individually and permanently through the ministry of the coming Spirit whom He and the Father will give to them. Thus, while He shall leave them physically, He shall be with each of them intimately and eternally by the indwelling of the Spirit of God. What a magnificent and comforting fact for despairing men!

The Historical Situation

The Introduction to the Discourse (John 13:1)

There are three divisions in this section of John’s Gospel.

1. The preparation for the instruction (13:1–30).
2. The discourses (13:31--16:33).
3. The prayer (cf. 17:1–26).

The divisions are clearly marked at 13:31 with, “Therefore, when he was gone out,” and 17:1, with, “These words spake Jesus.” A change of location in the giving of the discourse is marked by the words, “Arise, let us go hence,” in 14:31.

The first verse introduces the discourse, “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (13:1). Since His love is not developed completely in the opening chapter, it would seem that these words are spoken with the entire discourse in mind. In addition, Verse two appears to contain a second and more particular beginning. [3]

The expression, “his hour was come,” refers to the time when He must suffer on the cross. This hour has been anticipated several times in the gospel (cf. 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23). Till this hour His enemies are powerless (cf. 7:30; 8:20). But when it comes, He recognizes it and submits to it. [4]

The verb, “should depart,” [5] is probably significant. It means to pass over from one place to another. It is found in John 5:24 (cf. 7:3) and 1 John 3:14 of the believer’s instant passage from death to spiritual life. It is, therefore, well-suited to express the passage from life here to life there. We simply transfer our location of life, or “go to the Father.” And also, as Barrett points out, the word is equally applicable to the thought of death as a departure, and to ascension into heaven. [6] The tense of the verb looks at the departure as an event. It is harmonious with the idea of His instantaneous, or momentary, passage from the cross to the Father, or our momentary passage to Him, either through death or His coming again for us. There is for us no layover in purgatory!

The phrase, “out of the world,” together with the phrase, “in the world,” give the clue to the viewpoint from which these chapters are written. As Pink says, “What we have here anticipates that which was in view in Christ’s return to the Father. He graciously affords us a symbolic representation of His present service for us in Heaven.” [7]

The participle, “having loved,” a complexive aorist in its tense, [8] gathers up into one word the many expressions and evidences of the Son’s love during His incarnation (cf. 15:19).

The words, “His own,” in view of their use in 1:11 regarding the nation Israel, are instructive. In spite of the refusal of the nation to turn to Him, the Father did give Him a people, a little flock which became His own. In a sense, the words strike the keynote of the discourse. It is designed for “His own,” those who are His, not by race, but by redemption. These words, “His own,” always remind me of the infinite price necessary for the consummation of this relationship. One remembers Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 6:19 that “ye are not your own,” and rejoices in the fact that we are His own, not our own, His own by redemption.

The last clause of verse one is not easy to understand. The difficulty lies in the words “unto the end.” The Greek phrase may mean completely, or utterly, an adverbial sense (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16). One grammar suggests the sense of fully and, as a paraphrase of the clause, the rendering, “He gave them the perfect love token.” [9] The words, then, would lead right into the washing of the disciples’ feet. This act was the beginning of the evidence for His love.

On the other hand, the phrase may also mean “unto the end,” as the Authorized Version has it (cf. NASB, “to the end”; NIV, “showed them the full extent of His love”). The temporal sense is retained by this translation (cf Luke 18:5). The phrase would then anticipate the supreme expression of His love in the gift of Himself on the cross. It is the cross which is the ground of all the blessings set out in the discourse which are soon to be theirs. The reference to “his hour,” which refers to the cross, causes me to lean to this view of the words. Jesus’ love knows no limits, encompassing the supreme self-giving sacrifice of the atoning blood.

“His love no end or measure knows
No change can turn its course;
Eternally the same it flows
From one eternal source.”

The Introduction to the Foot-washing Incident (John 13:2-3)

The introduction to this section of the gospel is followed with something of an introduction to the specific incident that John now describes, the washing of the disciples’ feet.

The background of the supper is found in Luke 22:24–27. Apparently in their squabbling over who should be the greatest, they had forgotten to take turns in the washing of one another’s feet before the supper. With ruffled tempers they had trooped into the upper room like a gang of sulking schoolboys.

The AV’s “And supper being ended” reflects a variant reading which has the aorist tense. Most recent translations prefer the variant with the present tense and render similarly to the New International Version’s, “The evening meal was being served” (NASB, “And during supper”). It is possible, however, to take the aorist to be that which John wrote and to translate, and supper having been served, which would preserve the past tense force and also the supper’s continuation. [10]

The AV’s rendering, “the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,” is probably not correct. The Greek construction and text are more plainly rendered, “the devil having already put it into his heart (the devil’s) that Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, should betray him.” The devil, in other words, had already made up his mind to use Judas as his tool. The tense of the verb “put” suggests that the evil desire to betray the Lord was sown in the heart of Judas by Satan sometime previously and that it has now taken root (cf. v. 27; Luke 22:3). Ryle comments, “It was the last and final heading up of his apostasy.” [11]

The Symbolical Action

The Lord’s Action (John 13:4-5)

What follows is an acted parable, like those of the Old Testament prophets, in which our Lord’s past and present ministry are pictured. The laying aside His garments suggests His death (cf. 10:15), and the washing represents His present ministry to His own. The former is clear from the words in verse three which contain the backdrop of His incarnation and exaltation. Further, the word “laying aside” renders one of His favorite words for His death (cf. 10:11, 15, 17–18; 13:37–38). In true prophetic style He asks for an interpretation of the action in verse twelve. The remainder of the discourse enlarges on the meaning of the action.

The action of our Lord is described in verses four and five, and it is simple enough. The action represents the prophecy of verse three in pointing to the work of salvation and purification. We are reminded of the great passage on the personal union of the two natures in Christ found in Philippians 2:5–11. In both John and Philippians there is the background of a slave, and in both there is a lyric note. [12] Strachan comments, “All the great New Testament utterances about the person and work of Christ are not merely dogmas. They began as doxologies.” [13]

The Lord’s conversation with Peter (John 13:6-11)

The Lord begins with Peter, who was probably sitting just across from him at the foot of the table (Perhaps he took the lowest place, since the Lord had just said that the greater was the one who served!). When the Lord came to him, Peter’s response was, “Lord, are You trying to wash MY feet?” My rendering is an attempt to give the verb its conative sense (“are you trying”) and the pronouns their emphatic sense. Through Peter’s blunders we shall see more clearly the truth in the action of our Lord.

Our Lord’s reply in verse seven is, “What I (emphatic) am doing, you do not know at this moment, but you shall know after these things.” These are the things that follow, that is, His death, resurrection, and particularly the coming of the Spirit. Cf. 7:39; 14:26; 16:13; 12:16. [14]

Peter, however, assumes that he knows all there is to be known about the matter and replies, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” He corrects and improves upon the intentions of the Lord Himself, in effect affirming that he does not need the ministry of cleansing love.

Our Lord’s answer is, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” The word “part” is important. [15] It refers in this instance, on the analogy of its occurrence in Luke 10:42 and 2 Corinthians 6:15, to fellowship, or communion. The use of the phrase, “with me,” instead of “in me” confirms this. He does not speak, then, of union, but of communion.

It is clear, then, that Peter is taking the position of a perfectionist, contending that he does not need the purifying ministry of the Lord now. But he is not through. He has other heretical tendencies!

In the ninth verse, realizing that he must have erred somewhere since our Lord has replied to him so sharply, Peter responds with, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” John’s use of “Simon” with the name Peter accentuates his weakness. One must admit that Peter’s loyalty and generosity speak here, but it is not faith, but unbelief infected by self-will. Peter has put himself in the position of one who says that the once-for-all bathing (cf. v. 10), already received, is not enough. He wants another bath. In effect, he has taken the position of an Arminian! Impulsive, impetuous Mr. Johnson has zeal, but lacks knowledge. [16]

One is reminded of the testimony of a man in the Salvation Army, known for its Arminian leanings, who said in a meeting, “Thank God, I’ve been saved! I’ve been saved seven times.”

Jesus’ reply to Peter in verse ten is full of significant theological meaning. He said to him, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.” I refer my reader to the commentaries regarding the variant readings here. [17] I prefer the longer reading, found in the AV, the NASB, and the NIV. The last has this, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean.” It is clear from this reading that our Lord is making a distinction between washing and bathing. The Greek uses two words for the cleansing action. The one means to wash the whole body (λούω, louō), while the other means to wash parts of the body generally (νίπτω, niptō). [18]

The bathing to which Jesus refers is evidently the washing of divine regeneration. This occurs only once in our lives. It takes place when we believe in Jesus Christ. The washing of the feet is the present ministry of the Lord which He exercises in heaven in behalf of the present continuing sanctification of the saints.

One thinks of the tabernacle of the nation Israel. The brazen altar, on which the animals were sacrificed, pictures salvation. The brazen laver, at which the priests washed their hands and feet continually as they went in and out of the holy place, pictures continual cleansing (cf. Exod. 30:17–21). In oriental societies the words of Christ would suggest the custom of bathing before visiting friends, and then washing the feet upon arrival at the house of friends for dinner. The one who has been washed by regeneration still needs constant cleansing from defilement in order to remain in communion with a holy God. A muddy child climbing into mother’s lap learns that, although he may be a member of the family union, cleansing must come before the enjoyment of communion!

In the eleventh verse the apostle adds an explanation of our Lord’s words in verse ten, “and ye are clean, but not all.” He points out that our Lord was referring to Judas, who was not among the clean because he was not among the ones in union with Christ.

The Practical Application

The Request (John 13:12)

The application follows, for as Temple says, “The Lord does not leave His acted parable without interpretation.” [19] “Know ye what I have done to you?” he asked.

Sitting down, He had assumed the posture of a teacher. Peter’s lecture was something of a sidelight. The principal lesson, the lesson of responsive love, will be given. In a moment He will express it most plainly and directly when He gives the new commandment (cf. 13:34–35).

The Reasoning (John 13:13-16)

The argument is from the lesser to the greater, or “all the more.” The reasoning is simple. If He, their teacher and Lord, has washed their feet, then they, who are simply pupils of the Sovereign Master, ought to do the lesser thing of washing one another’s feet.

Some have supposed that our Lord was introducing another ordinance, the ordinance of foot-washing which is practiced by some orthodox (and unorthodox) believers. In fact, the Pope has traditionally once a year around Easter washed the feet publicly of certain poor persons picked for the occasion! Bengel remarked concerning this custom, “The Pope would shew a more serious humility by washing the feet of one king, than those of twelve poor men.” [20] It seems plain, however, that the example was not intended to become an ordinance. The bathing referred to in verse ten is not a physical one, and it would be strange for the washing, to which the bathing is related, to be a physical bathing.

The practice of our Lord on this occasion was intended to illustrate the new commandment soon to be given. The atoning activity of the Lord in our regeneration was intended to be the motivation and justification of the non-atoning activity of ministering to our fellow-believers in love (cf. 1 John 3:16; 4:11).

This matter of loving service as an obligation rising out of our reception of His love is tellingly discussed by Archbishop Temple.

This is an argument that appears elsewhere in the Johannine writings. “If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John iv, 11). What gives cogency to the argument is the revealed character of God. It is not cogent argument to say, “If A loves B, B ought to love C,” unless A loves B and C equally. But the test of my love to God is the question whether I love my neighbour; for I know that God loves him as He loves me, and love of the loving God must shew itself in love of all whom God loves. “If a man say ‘I love God’ and hateth his brother, he is a liar” (1 John iv, 20). [21]

The reference to the love of God for believers is obvious.

The Reward (John 13:17)

The point our Lord makes here is very clear. Happiness comes with the knowledge of the truth of God and appropriate responsive action.

Conclusion

The account of the event was preceded by a dispute over greatness, and our Lord’s actions make the point that true greatness is seen in lowly, humble service (cf. Luke 22:26–27). A consecration to the Lord without a similar consecration to the Lord’s own is in the final analysis an illusion.

Did Peter learn the lesson? His later comments leave the impression that he did. In his first letter he wrote, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5). The verb ἐγκομβόω (engkomboō), rendered here by “be clothed with” was used with two meanings. The root of the verb meant a knot. Thus, the word came to be applied to a garment fastened to an undergarment with a knot or a bow. Thus, the ἐγκόμβωμα (engkombōma) was an apron which the slave tied on over his undergarment. It is, then, suggestive of the slave’s position. Where, then, did Peter come upon this idea? The easiest solution is to find the source in John thirteen and in this incident of the footwashing. It is interesting that the Greek word came to be associated also with royal garments because they were attached in a similar manner. Beare writes, “Hesychius, however, gives στολίσασθαι (stolisasthai) as a synonym; this would suggest rather the donning of a beautiful apparel [a στολή (stolē), a robe or garment]--’robe yourselves in humility.’“ [22]

Perhaps Morgan is correct when he writes, “It seems to me that possibly Peter saw the knotted garment of slavery on Jesus, and before he was through, he saw that it was the knotted garment of royalty.” [23] May we follow this marvelous example of lowliness, love, and humility!

Notes

1. Lewis Johnson is a Bible teacher at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas, Texas. He is the former chairman of the Department of New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and also has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This is the first in a series of expositions on The Upper Room Discourse.
2. The date was September 20, 1950.
3. 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]), II, 244.
4. B. F. Westcott The Gospel according to St. John, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1881]), 189.
5. μεταβαίνω (metabainō)
6. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 438.
7. Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 2nd ed. of 3 vol. set, reprint, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956 [1945]), II, 294.
8. Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, 2 vols., (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966–1970), II, 550. The aorist tense in Greek simply indicates the fact of the action without indicating its duration or frequency. The complexive aorist regards the fact of the action as a whole without consideration of the number of times it occurs.
9. F.Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and revised by Robert W. Funk, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1961), 112.
10. I tend to think that the aorist is correct here, contrary to the view of the editors of the Bible Societies edition of the Greek New Testament. The aorist is certainly the lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading), and the manuscript testimony is strong and sufficiently widespread. The context is harmonious with the idea that the supper had been served, and the guests were in the process of eating it (cf. vv. 4, 26).
11. John Charles Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St. John, 3 vols. (New York: Fleming H. Revell, [1873]), III, 8.
12. Cf. R. H. Strachan, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment, 3rd ed. revised and rewritten (London: SCM, 1941), 266. Cf. Blass-Debrunner, 242.
13. Strachan, 266.
14. Cf. Brown’s comments, II, 552.
15. μέρος (meros)
16. His name was Simon bar Jona, or Simon, son of John, or Johnson. You see, I follow in apostolic succession!
17. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 618.
18. (Cf. Heb. 10:22; Acts 9:37; 16:33; Mark 7:3; Matt. 6:17; John 9:7).
19. William Temple, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, First and Second Series (London: Macmillan, 1945), 213.
20. Cf. John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 5 vols., trans. by Andrew R. Fausset et al., 6th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866 [1742]), II, 420.
21. Temple, 214. Italics mine.
22. Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947), 176.
23. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to John (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 234.