The Meaning of λελουμένος in John 13:10 and John’s Soteriology

By Seung-In Song

[Seung-In Song is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Ezra Bible Institute for Graduate Studes, Goyang, South Korea.]

Abstract

John 13:10 involves two major exegetical issues: confirming the text, and interpreting λελουμένος and νίψασθαι. For the first issue, I propose that the reading with εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας is the original. As for the latter, I suggest that λελουμένος (the bathing) means spiritual cleansing by faith in Jesus’s words, and νίψασθαι (the footwashing) refers to spiritual cleansing by Jesus’s cross. These observations lead me to see Johannine soteriology containing the dual requirement of belief in the word and the cross for salvation.

* * *

Textual Criticism Of John 13:10

Because of its assorted variants, early church writers to recent scholars have attempted numerous textual studies and exegetical interpretations of John 13:10.[1] Six variants appear in the Greek manuscripts.[2] These six divide into two groups according to whether they include the phrase εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας or not. Both the shorter reading (א, vg, some old Latin texts, and Origen) and the longer reading (B, W, P66, D, θ) have early and wide distributions. The former can be translated “one who has bathed does not need to wash.”[3] The latter can be rendered as “one who has bathed does not need to wash except for the feet.” In my opinion, the longer reading seems original.[4] The main reason for supporting the longer reading relates to the internal evidence: the foot has been mentioned throughout 13:5–9 and the reading with εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας coheres well with the narrative flow. When Peter heard that the footwashing was related to having a share with Jesus (v. 8), he asked Jesus to wash his hands and head as well as his feet (v. 9). Jesus informed him that he had already washed his hands and head through the expression ὁ λελουμένος (he who has bathed), and the person who takes a bath only needs to wash his feet. Since the washing of the hands and head (v. 9) was replaced by ὁ λελουμένος (v. 10), it is more natural to see the phrase μὴ τοὺς πόδας μου μόνον (v. 9) rephrased by εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας (v. 10) and it has the effect of emphasizing Jesus’s word. Recently, based on new archaeological discoveries, Giurisato also suggested that the longer reading is original. About forty ritual baths have been found at the south gates of the temple.[5] Olsson, based on these discoveries, reconstructed the washing system in Jerusalem in the first century CE: “At the beginning of the steps that go down to the immersion bath there is a basin with a bulge at the center, used as a footrest when one washed his feet, with three holes for the water to flow through.”[6] As this portrayal indicates, Jewish people in Jesus’s day performed two ritual washings: footwashing and immersion bathing. These archaeological findings led Giurisato to see the washing language in John 13 as two washings for the feast of Passover.

The Meaning Of Λελουμένος And Νίψασθαι In John 13:10

Jesus said to Peter that a person who has bathed (ὁ λελουμένος) does not need to wash except for the feet (εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι), because the bathing makes him completely clean (καθαρὸς ὅλος). There are three different words for washing in Greek. Hauck notes, “For the Greek πλυνειν applies to the washing of inanimate objects, νιπτειν to the partial washing of living persons, and λουειν or λουεσθαι to full washing or bathing.”[7] The term λούω is used only once in the entire Gospel. In the New Testament, this word is used four times (Acts 9:37; 16:33; Heb 10:22; 2 Pet 2:22). Three of the uses (not Acts 16:33) refer to washing the whole body.[8] In John’s Gospel, νίπτω is used thirteen times in total.[9] It occurs only in chapters 9 (the incident in Siloam) and 13. Since use in John 9 involves washing the eyes and in John 13 washing the feet, they both involve washing only a part of the body.

The term νίπτω is used eight times in John 13:1–17 (vv. 5–6, 8 [2x], 10, 12, 14 [2x]) primarily to refer to footwashing (hands and head in v. 9). Regarding the meaning of footwashing, various suggestions have been proposed (e.g., an example of humility, the Eucharist, baptism, ritual purification, salvation through Jesus’s death).[10] Olsson proposed that this footwashing has multiple meanings including salvation through Jesus’s cross, an example of humility, confessing sins, and ritual purification. He bases this on his understanding of the Gospel’s genre. Olsson characterizes it as “a literary compilation of different interpretations,” and he proposes to see this Gospel “not primarily as a report of a historic event” but as “Johannine dialogues with several meanings.”[11] However, as Wiarda has persuasively demonstrated, one should exercise caution when assuming multiple meanings, which can create tension between the meanings—especially between literal and symbolic readings.[12] Carson thinks the footwashing earlier in the passage (vv. 6–8, 10) refers to Jesus’s death and the forgiveness of “subsequent sins” after conversion, respectively.[13] However, it is more convincing to assume that the meaning of the footwashing remains consistent throughout the pericope.

In my judgment, interpreting the footwashing as a symbol of salvation through Jesus’s death on the cross is most convincing. Two words in 13:4 and 13:12, τίθησιν and ἔλαβεν, provide an important clue for this interpretation. The meaning of τίθημι is “to bring something to a place.”[14] Even though ἀποτίθημι is a more natural word for “taking off” (ἀποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ πάντα τὰ ἱμάτιον, “divesting himself of all his upper garments,” Martyrdom of Polycarp 13:2), the evangelist used τίθημι with his own purpose. Throughout his Gospel, the evangelist frequently used τίθημι with ψυχή to mean “laying down one’s life” (10:11, 15, 17, 18; 13:37, 38; 15:13). Jesus foretold that he, as the good shepherd, would lay down (τίθησιν) his life for the sheep (10:11). What gives more credence to this argument is that λαμβάνω in John 13:12, used to refer to Jesus putting his garments back on, is also used in the context of Jesus’s resurrection (10:17–18). It should also be noted, as Hofius argued, that Jesus’s reference to later understanding in 13:7 most likely reflects the post-Easter perspective and implies Jesus’s death, because it is a unique Johannine style to link the disciples’ understanding with Jesus’s resurrection (2:22; 12:16).[15] Thus, it can be interpreted as further evidence for this understanding.

The language of sharing with Jesus in 13:8 also reinforces this interpretation. Unlike the other disciples, Peter resolutely refused his master’s offer, which he did not understand (13:8). Jesus replied to Peter, “If I do not wash you, you have no share (μέρος) with me.”[16] The same “μέρος . . . μετα + group of people” construction in John 13:8 is employed to signify sharing the same eternal fate that God prepared for a certain group of people in the New Testament (hypocrites in Matt 24:51 and the unfaithful in Luke 12:46). Especially in the book of Revelation, μέρος is related to partaking in eschatological events (first resurrection in 20:6; burning lake in 21:8; the tree of life and the holy city in 22:19). Thus, having a share with Jesus means sharing the same eternal fate with him so that the μέρος has an intimate relationship with an eternal blessing.[17]

In addition, according to Chennattu, this term has a close connection with the covenant relationship. She argues that חֵלֶק (share of the booty, share of the property) is translated by this term in the Septuagint. In the Old Testament, this Hebrew word especially indicates a piece of land in the promised land that was given to each tribe of Israel by Yahweh as an inheritance based on covenant relationship.[18] From this Old Testament background of the term, we can assume that footwashing was seen by the evangelist to symbolize a blood ritual of the covenant between Jesus and those who believe in him. The evangelist seems to imply that only through the blood that Jesus will shed on the cross can new covenant people, including the disciples, receive a spiritual inheritance with Jesus. Thus, there are sufficient clues to see the use of τίθημι in John 13:4 as an elaborate design of the evangelist to associate the footwashing with Jesus’s crucifixion.[19]

Regarding the meaning of λελουμένος, taking into account the statement of Jesus that his disciples were clean (13:10), and the authorial comment that Judas was excluded from the clean people (13:11), it is clear this term referred not to physical bathing but spiritual bathing, which the disciples had experienced. Scholars have suggested various interpretations for this word. For example, Brown argues that it connects with baptism because λούω and its cognate words (ἀπολούω and λουτρόν) are closely related to baptism in the New Testament (Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5).[20] However, this proves unconvincing since the evangelist comments that the baptism was performed by his disciples, not Jesus (John 4:2). Even if we assume that Jesus baptized his disciples, this cannot explain why Judas was mentioned as unclean in spite of his baptism.

Many scholars relate λελουμένος to the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7; Titus 2:14; Rev 7:14).[21] However, λελουμένος is narrated as an event that happened before the cross of Jesus. Therefore, I suggest linking λελουμένος and νίψασθαι in 13:10 with the word of Jesus (or the Father) and Jesus’s crucifixion, respectively.[22] As noted earlier, the footwashing most likely refers to Jesus’s death on the cross. In regard to λελουμένος, one should consider John 15:3, where Jesus during the last discourse said his disciples were clean because of his words: “You are already made clean (καθαροί) by the word which I have spoken to you.” In the context of 13:10, καθαρὸς can be understood as a result of λελουμένος, not νίψασθαι, because the cleansing of the whole body is not the result of the footwashing but the bath.[23] Since, in this Gospel, καθαρὸς appears only in John 15:3 and in John 13 (13:10 [2x], 11), it is convincing to connect the bathing language in 13:10 with the words of Jesus in 15:3. Jesus also said in 17:17, “Sanctify (ἁγίασον) them in the truth; your word is true.” As these two references indicate, the power of Jesus’s—or the Father’s—word to make people clean or holy is explicitly stated by Jesus. Thus, it is convincing to infer that Judas was turned out as an unclean person since, even though he had heard Jesus’s word, he did not believe it (6:63). If we combine these references together, we have a picture from the evangelist suggesting two stages for achieving perfect purity. Although his disciples, except Judas, had already obtained spiritual purity by believing in Jesus’s words (λελουμένος/the bathing), his death on the cross (νίπτω in 13:5–10/the footwashing) will complete their salvation.

This interpretation also fits well with the theology of the Fourth Gospel as a whole. Throughout John 2–17, there are repeated mentions and emphases on the words of Jesus, and these words are related to salvation and eternal life. In 2:1–11, the miracle of changing water into wine was triggered when the mother of Jesus cherished Jesus’s word, and the servants obeyed his word. In 4:41, the evangelist commented that many more Samaritans believed in Jesus because of his word.[24] In verse 50, the official who believed in the words of Jesus experienced a miracle, his son’s healing. In 5:8–9, when the person who was disabled for thirty-eight years obeyed the word, he received healing. In verse 24 Jesus also said, “He who hears my words and believes in him who sent me has eternal life.” In verse 39, Jesus said to the Jews that they were searching the Scriptures because they believed they could possess eternal life from them. This saying reveals the under-standing of the Jews in Jesus’s day (e.g., Hillel’s words in Prike Aboth 2:7). In 6:63, Jesus said that his word is spirit and life. In verse 68, Peter said that Jesus’s word is the word of eternal life. In 8:24, Jesus said to the Jews who did not listen to his word that they would die in their sins, and in verse 25, Jesus introduced himself as the one who had been speaking to them from the beginning. In verses 31–32, Jesus said to the Jews who believed him that if they stayed in his words, they would be free, a synonym for salvation.[25] Here we see Jesus talking to the Jews who believed in him. In this Gospel, the word πιστεύω is complex because it is related to both genuine faith and inadequate faith (e.g., 2:23–25; 6:60–66; 8:30–48); the Jews’ attempt to kill Jesus is the evidence of this binary nature (8:37).[26] In 8:51, Jesus claimed if one kept his words, he would not see death forever. In 10:27–28, the sheep of Jesus heard his voice, and Jesus promised to give them eternal life. We learn from these texts that genuine belief in the gospel can be confirmed through the indwelling of the word of Jesus, that is, obedience to Jesus’s word.

In 12:47–50, Jesus says that those who do not receive his words will be judged. The point made in 8:31–32 is clarified in this passage, because it is said that those who only hear Jesus’s word and do not keep it will be judged. In this overall context, we may interpret 13:10 as Jesus speaking of spiritual cleansing, which Peter already obtained through his faith in Jesus’s word (6:68–69) by using the image of a bath. This emphasis of the evangelist on Jesus’s word continues after chapter 13 as well. In 14:23, Jesus promises to dwell with him who keeps his word. This promise means union with God and Jesus through the Spirit.[27] After Jesus said that the disciples were clean through his word (15:3), he soon proclaimed that the unclean branches (i.e., those who do not believe in his word) would be thrown into the fire, which clearly implies eternal destruction (v. 6).[28] This is the same destiny for those who do not listen and believe in Jesus’s words narrated in 12:47–50. Jesus also says in 17:17, “Sanctify (ἁγίασον) them in the truth; your word is true.” He repeats this statement in verse 19 by saying, “For they also shall be sanctified by the truth.” In this Gospel, the words of Jesus are identical with the words of the Father (cf. 12:49–50; 14:24; 17:8, 14).[29] John 6:63 and 68 seem to give the answer to John’s soteriology. Jesus’s words are spirit, life, and eternal life in this Gospel. If all these references are taken together, we can conclude that the evangelist underlines that Jesus’s word has the functions of judging, saving (including healing), giving eternal life, and cleansing.

This idea that Johannine soteriology requires two things at the same time, the crucifixion and faith in Jesus’s word, is also attested by the fact that where references to the cross appear, there are often references to the word of Jesus. There are many references in which the cross is specifically mentioned or implied in John’s Gospel (1:29; 2:1–11; 3:14; 7:39; 8:28; 10:11–16; 12:16, 23–24, 31–32; 13:31–32; 17:1–5). In four of these references, the cross is mentioned with faith in the word (3:36; 10:3–27; 12:47–48; 17:6).[30] First, in 3:14, Jesus compares his cross to the incident of Moses’s lifting up the snake in the wilderness. Interestingly, at 3:36, he says, “He who believes (ὁ πιστεύων) in the Son has eternal life, and he who does not obey (ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν) his Son does not see life.” The word ἀπειθῶν in this verse appears only here in the Gospel of John; it is not easy to determine its meaning. Most scholars interpret this word as not believing in Jesus.[31] But we cannot rule out the possibility that this word refers to those who are disobedient to Jesus’s word. We should note that where πιστεύων is used in the first sentence of this verse, ἀπειθῶν is used in the second sentence of this verse. Throughout the entire Gospel, common ways for negating πιστεύω are to place negative adverbs (μὴ, οὐδε, οὐκ) before it.[32] Moreover we hear of Jesus speaking the word of God in the context of this verse (“say” in v. 31; “testimony” in v. 32; “the one whom God sent says the word of God” in v. 34). In the Septuagint and the New Testament, ἀπειθέω is often associated with obedience to the word (e.g., Exod 23:21; Lev 26:15; Deut 1:26; 9:23; Heb 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1, 20; 4:17).[33] Thus, if this argumentation is accepted, ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱω in John 3:36 actually means “but he who does not obey the word of the Son.” So we observe that the cross and faith in Jesus’s word are also presented as two conditions for having eternal life in this verse.

Second, in John 10, Jesus, as a good shepherd, says that he will lay down his life for the sheep (the cross, vv. 11, 15), and, at the same time, he teaches that the sheep should hear his voice (vv. 3–4, 16, 27). Then in John 12, the cross and faith in Jesus’s word emerge together. Jesus, who refers to his cross through the expression “the hour to be glorified” and the image of a kernel of wheat falling to the earth (vv. 23–24), continues his teaching that those who do not receive his word will be judged by his word on the last day (vv. 47–48). Finally, in John 17, often called the High Priest’s prayer, Jesus begins with a petition to the Father to glorify himself, which implies the cross (v. 1). He continues by saying that the people whom the Father gave him out of the world have kept the Father’s word (v. 6). The opinions of scholars differ in interpreting this keeping of the Father’s word. For example, Barrett interprets it as referring to the gospel ministry of the apostles at the end of the first century, which includes their acceptance and proclamation of the gospel.[34] Carson, on the other hand, understands this expression in connection with the disciples who were with Jesus during his public ministry and interprets that they kept the word of the Father (gospel) through accepting Jesus as the Messiah.[35] Carson’s interpretation seems more convincing. As I have examined thus far, the cross and obedience to Jesus’s word are two conditions for salvation throughout the Gospel. Therefore, the picture portrayed as two stages of washing in John 13 (the full washing/bathing and the partial washing/footwashing) coheres well with Johannine soteriology.

The Old Testament, Second Temple literature, Greek litera-ture, and the New Testament also support this interpretation. In the Old Testament λούω and καθαρὸς occur most often in Leviticus (e.g., 14:8–9; 15:5–8, 10–11, 13).[36] These references mention that the unclean can be cleansed through various purification ceremonies and sometimes bathing is listed as one of the procedures they must follow. The Septuagint version of Psalm 118:9 (119:9 in the Masoretic text) and Ezekiel 16:8–9 are significant examples. In the former, κατορθόω and λόγος occur together. In this verse, as in John 15:3 and 17:17, the word of God cleanses and sanctifies. In the latter, Ezekiel explains the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel through the image of marriage. In Ezekiel 16:9, it is written that Yahweh has washed the blood of Israel with water (ἔλουσά σε ἐν ὕδατι). Although many scholars interpret “covenant” in Ezekiel 16:8 as a reference to a marriage vow,[37] as Keil and Delitzsch contend, this word most likely refers to the Sinai covenant established by the giving of the law through Moses.[38] There have been many different interpretations of “washing the blood of Israel with water” in Ezekiel 16:9.[39] It seems persuasive to understand this expression as cleansing impurities caused by sins through purification law. So, both of these expressions (“covenant” and “washing the blood of Israel with water”) are deeply related to the word of God. Therefore, from these two references, we can conclude that the concept that purification is possible through God’s word was already present in the Old Testament.

This connection between God’s word and salvation is also found in other Old Testament passages (Lev 26; Deut 8:3; 27:1–28:68; Ps 1; Prov 6:23; 7:2; 19:16; Hos 4:1–3).[40] Deuteronomy 8:3, for instance, states that a man will live by all the words that come out of the mouth of Yahweh. Psalm 1 contrasts the wicked and those who meditate on the word of the Lord day and night and says that judgment will come upon the wicked (v. 5). Thus it is implied that those who meditate on the word day and night will come upon the opposite of judgment (i.e. justification or salvation). Regarding this notion, Goldingay writes, “The Torah’s instructions thus constitute a canon or ruler, and a criterion for judgment. . . . The promises and warning about blessings and curse (Lev 26; Deut 27–28) . . . indicate the presence of this idea within the Torah itself. Prophets such as Hosea and Jeremiah allude to the Torah as the basis for Yahweh’s judgment on the community.”[41]

Second Temple literature shares this Johannine idea of being saved through God’s word. For example, Tobit (about 190 BCE) connects obedience to Torah (especially almsgiving) with cleansing sins and delivering from death (4:10–11; 12:9).[42] The Epistle of Enoch (91–107) also notes that “those who accept the words of wisdom and understand them and follow the paths of the Most High . . . will be saved” (99:10).[43] In 2 Maccabees resurrection is also promised to those who are faithful to the Torah (2 Macc 7:9, 23).[44] In 3 Maccabees and the book of Judith obedience to the law closely relates to salvation, although the salvation they promise is pictured as this-worldly (3 Macc 3:4; Jdt 5:18).[45] Eschatological salvation is promised to those who keep God’s commandments (7:45).[46] In order to be saved, Jubilees required covenant member-ship by being elected as Israel and obedience to the Torah.[47] This idea also occurs in wisdom literature (Bar 4:1–4; 2 Bar 15:8; Sir 5:7–8; 18:24; 24:8–11, 24; Wis 6:18–19; 9:18).[48] This concept was not strange to the Qumran community either. They thought those who adhered to the Torah and the authoritative interpretation of the community (the Teacher of Righteousness) would be saved (CD 3:13–17, 19–20).[49] For example, 4Q Sapiential Admonitions B says that those who seek God’s wisdom will be protected from the judgment of God’s angels (4Q185 1–2 Ⅱ, 2b-3a, 6) and obtain salvation (יְשׁוּעָה, 4Q185 1–2 Ⅱ, 10, 13).[50] According to the author of 4Q Sapiential Admonitions B, this wisdom can be acquired from the narratives in the Torah (4Q185 1–2 Ⅱ, 10, 13) and by keeping the words of Yahweh (4Q185 1–2 Ⅱ, 3b-4).[51] Obeying Torah is associated with one’s salvation in other Qumran texts as well (1QpHab 7:10–14; 8:1–3; 4QMMT 95–118; 1QS 5:7–9; 1Q14 8–10 5–9).[52] For them, the Messiah(s) must teach them how to observe the Torah properly.[53] Rabbinic literature also shares this basic idea (m. Aboth 6:1; Mekhilta Mishpatim 18).[54] For instance, Mekhilta Exodus 15:26 says, “The words of the Law which I have given you are life for you.”[55] P. Aboth 3:5 (70–130 CE) also claims that study of the law opens the way for being free: “He that takes upon himself the yoke of the Law, from him shall be taken away the yoke of the kingdom and the yoke of worldly care.”[56] The tannaitic literature also shows a similar understanding.[57]

Greek philosophers, especially the Stoics, likened human emotions to diseases (e.g., Chrysippus, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 5.2.22–23). Philo of Alexandria thought the human soul had two types of characteristics. The superior characteristics were honor, wisdom, temperance, justice, courage, and virtue, while the inferior characteristics were honor, wealth, reputation, position, and good birth. He viewed the soul as existing in a state of war between these two characteristics and in a condition of incomplete cleanliness (μήπω κεκαθαρμένην), which implied its vulnerability (Abr. 217–223). According to Philo, people live in this condition because they live in willful ignorance and do not live according to reason (λόγος). He also thought that when these diseases (e.g., honoring wealth or reputation) were spread to people, they should be treated through a therapeutic drug (σωτήριον φάρμακον, Philo, Det. 110). He thought this healing (σωτηρία) possible for those who listened to Greek philosophers (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32:10, 18). The idea that philosophers could save people was widespread, and they were often called σωτήρ (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32:17–18). In short, proper education (παιδείαν) and reason (λόγον) were considered to be the source and root of all goodness and healing (Ps. Plutarch, Lib. ed. 6A; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32:15–16).[58]

In the New Testament, λούω primarily relates to baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Rev 1:5).[59] However, there are two references where λούω and the divine word are intimately linked to each other: Ephesians 5:25–26 and Titus 2:11–14. In Ephesians 5:25–26, λουτρὁν (the noun form of λούω) has a deep connection with the word: “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι).” The word λουτρὁν can mean “bath,” “bathing place,” or “water for bathing.” In the case of verse 26, this word seems to refer to bathing because all three uses of this word in the Septuagint have this meaning (Cant 4:2; 6:6; Sir 34:25), and Josephus also uses this word with this meaning (C. Ap. 1.31.282). Regarding the meaning of τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος in this verse, many scholars suggest baptism and understand the phrase ἐν ῥήματι that immediately follows τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος as the word spoken at baptism.[60] However, the expression καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι seems to refer to cleansing through the word of Christ.[61] Even though Hoehner links λουτρὁν to Christ’s death and only connects τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι with “the proclaimed word of Christ’s death,” it is more convincing to link this entire phrase to the word of Christ.[62] All these observations taken together, I conclude that, as in John 13:10, Christ’s sacrificial death and the word are mentioned together as the means with which the church can be sanctified and cleansed (καθαρίσας) in Ephesians 5:25–26.

Regarding Titus 2:11–14, Malherbe has demonstrated how education of the word is closely related to salvation in his analysis on their relationship in the pastoral letters. In interpreting these verses, Malherbe understands the word “salvation” in v. 11, which has been interpreted by many commentators in relation to worship of the emperor, in light of the philosophical background, especially the teachings of the Stoics. Based on this background, he also argues that “the grace of God who gives salvation” in this verse should be linked to “the lesson of God our Savior” in the preceding verse (v. 10). Therefore, according to Malherbe, “the grace of God who gives salvation” should be interpreted as the saving act of God and Christ that can be achieved through their moral lives by those who have received the education of God’s word.[63] Malherbe’s interpretation is compelling because it receives significant contextual support. There are words related to education of the word in its immediate context (“doctrine” in 2:1; “God’s doctrine” in 2:10; “nurture” in 2:12), and these words connect to spiritual cleanness in the context (ἱεροπρεπεῖς, “holy” in 2:3; “deny ungodliness” and “live . . . godly” in 2:12).[64] The importance of hearing and obeying God’s word in relation to obtaining salvation can be seen in other New Testament passages as well (Matt 7:24–27; Mark 10:17–22; Luke 6:47–49; 10:25–37; Rom 7:10; 10:17; Eph 1:13; 2 Tim 3:14–17).[65] From these examples, we see that the connection between the bathing image and God’s word or between God’s word and salvation is not totally unfamiliar in the New Testament. This brief survey clearly demonstrates that this Johannine concept of linking salvation to God’s word in 13:10 actually has a long history, and the evangelist stood on this tradition.

Conclusion

In this section, I want to derive two implications from my previous observations. First, this study contributes to Johannine water imagery. In the Fourth Gospel, water is a complicated image and takes various meanings. In my doctoral dissertation, I have proposed that the Johannine water image closely relates to the Spirit (John 3:5; 4:10–14; 6:35; Rev 22:1–2).[66] One finds a some-what different picture in John 13. In this chapter the evangelist introduces two water images, bathing and footwashing, and they are used symbolically. As we have discussed thus far, the former symbolizes faith in Jesus’s word, and the latter refers to his cross.

The present study also sheds light on John’s soteriology. Until recently, scholars have not given much attention to this subject. However, recently, many studies have been conducted.[67] Past studies, such as those of Bultmann and Forestell, have primarily described John’s soteriology in terms of God’s revelation. For them, the notion that Jesus is the manifestation of the invisible God and a mediator who can deliver God’s salvation to mankind lies at the heart of Johannine soteriology (e.g., 4:42; 10:9–10; 17:6).[68] However, they have neglected the importance of belief in the word in obtaining salvation. Interestingly, even though many scholars have enumerated various conditions or means of salvation such as belief in Jesus or God (1:12–13; 3:16, 36; 20:31), the cross, knowledge (17:3), and the work of the Spirit (3:3–5; 7:39), they have remained silent about belief in the word. Even when they treat faith in Jesus’s word as a condition of salvation, they only mention it briefly by considering it as one of the objects of faith (with faith in Jesus and his acts).[69] More emphasis should be given to the importance of the belief in the word in John’s soteriology. Furthermore, in John’s Gospel, staying in the word of Jesus (i.e., obedience) has been repeatedly presented as a token of salvation that has greater priority and significance. This is especially true in 8:31–32 because here Jesus told believing Jews that if they stayed in his word, they would become true disciples and be free. As noted earlier, there is genuine belief and inadequate belief in John’s Gospel (e.g., 2:23–25; 6:60–66; 8:30–48). The evangelist often characterizes genuine belief as a retention of the word—obedience.[70] It should also be noted that no one has paid particular attention to the fact that Johannine soteriology contains the dual requirement of belief in the word and the cross for one’s salvation. As I examined earlier, the evangelist seems to suggest two steps for achieving perfect purity: one is spiritual purity through belief in Jesus’s words (λελουμένος in 13:10/the bathing) and the other, Jesus’s death on the cross (νίπτω in 13:5–10/the footwashing). Through the bathing and footwashing language in John 13, the evangelist appears to suggest that Jesus’s disciples, except Judas, have already obtained spiritual purity through their belief in Jesus’s words (6:68–69), and his death on the cross completes their salvation.

Notes

1. For a history of this verse’s interpretations, see N. M. Haring, “Historical Notes on the Interpretation of John 13:10, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951): 355–80.
2. These are the six: (1) οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι; (2) οὐκ χρείαν ἔχει εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι; (3) οὐ χρείαν ἔχει ἢ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι; (4) οὐκ χρείαν ἔχει εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας μόνον νίψασθαι; (5) οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν νίψασθαι; and (6) οὐκ χρείαν ἔχει τὴν κεφαλὴν νίψασθαι εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας μόνον. For textual criticism of this verse, see J. C. Thomas, “Note on the Text of John 13:10, ” Novum Testamentum 29.1 (1987): 46–52.
3. The majority of modern scholars prefer this reading, e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 441; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary 36 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 229; Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 106; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John XIII–XXI: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible 29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 552; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 470; H. Thyen, “Johannes 13 und die ‘kirchliche Redaktion’ des vierten Evangeliums,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Festgabe für Karl George Kuhn, ed. G. Jeremias (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 348; Jean Zumstein, Das Johannesevangelium, Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 490.
4. This reading has wide support. Johannes Beutler, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 353; E. Haenchen, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Berlin: Evangelische, 1968), 457; René Kieffer, “John,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 985; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 240.
5. Giorgio Giurisato, “John 13:10: An Archaeological Solution of a Textcritical Problem,” Liber AnnuusStudii Biblici Franciscani 58 (2008): 73–80.
6. Birger Olsson, “The Meanings of John 13, 10: A Question of Genre?” in Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology: Festschrift Gilbert van Belle, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Geert van Oyen, Michael Labahn, and Reimund Bieringer (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 322.
7. F. Hauck, “νίπτω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:946.
8. In Acts 9:37, Hebrews 10:22, and 2 Peter 2:22 this word refers to washing the whole body. In Acts 9:37 a dead body is washed. The body is washed with clean water in Hebrews 10:22. The washed pig returns to the dirty pit in 2 Peter 2:22. Acts 16:33 (washed their wounds) might be an exception because the wounds could be some parts of the body.
9. 9:7 [2x], 11 [2x], 10, 12, 15; 13:5, 6, 8 [2x], 10, 12, 14 [2x].
10. Francis J. Moloney linked it to baptism (The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4 [Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1998], 376). John Christopher Thomas proposed that the footwashing refers to the cleansing of sins that Christians have committed after conversion (Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 61 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 11–18). R. A. Culpepper argued that it is an example of humility for the disciple to follow (“The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13:1–38, ” Semeia 53 [1991]: 133–52). D. Gibson and O. Hofius claimed that it refers to salvation through Jesus’s death (D. Gibson, “The Johannine Footwashing and the Death of Jesus: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 25 [2007]: 50–60; O. Hofius, “Die Erzählung von der Fusswaschung Jesu: Joh 13, 1–11 als narratives Christuszeugnis,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 106.2 [2009]: 156–76). Arland J. Hultgren contended that it is an act of hospitality; Jesus invites his disciples to have an intimate relationship with him in the Father’s house (“The Johannine Footwashing [13.1–11] as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality,” New Testament Studies 28.4 [1982]: 539–46).
11. Olsson, “The Meanings of John 13, 10, ” 322–23.
12. Timothy Wiarda, “Scenes and Details in the Gospels: Concrete Reading and Three Alternatives,” New Testament Studies 50.2 (2004): 167–84.
13. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 465. See also Thomas, “Note on the Text of John 13:10, ” 46–52; Haenchen, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 457; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Basingstoke: Pickering & Inglis, 1983), 282–83; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, vol. 2, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 580. Joachim Jeremias suggests that this word refers to ritual purification. It was customary for Jews in Jesus’s day, when invited to a meal, to take a bath before leaving home and to wash their feet when arriving at the host’s house (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966], 49). O. Cullmann argues that the bathing refers to baptism and the footwashing refers to the Eucharist (Early Christian Worship [London: SCM, 1953], 108–9). Herbert Braun insists that this bathing was designed to oppose the washing practice of the Qumran sect (“Qumran und das Neue Testament: Ein Bericht über 10 Jahre Forschung,” Theologische Rundschau 28.2–3 [1962]: 192–234). J. Michl argues that this footwashing is a symbol of the Eucharist (“Der Sinn der Fusswaschung,” Biblica 40.3 [1959]: 697–708).
14. Christian Maurer, “τίθημι,” in Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 8:155. From this basic meaning diverse meanings such as “to put,” “to bury” (Mark 6:29), “to invest money” (Luke 19:21), “to bend” (Mark 15:19), and “to intend” (Luke 1:66) were derived.
15. Hofius, “Die Erzählung von der Fusswaschung Jesu,” 175.
16. The term μέρος has two basic meanings, “share” and “part.” The term occurs three times in John (13:8; 19:23; 21:6). This word is used in the sense of “share” in this verse and in the sense of “part” in the other two cases (a part of a garment in 19:23 and the side of a ship in 21:6).
17. J. Schneider, “μέρος,” in Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4:595–96.
18. R. M. Chennattu, Johannine Discipleship as a Covenant Relationship (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 94–96.
19. Maurer, “τιθημι,” 8:152–56; Culpepper, “The Johannine Hypodeigma,” 137; Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003), 11.
20. Brown, John, 566.
21. Zumstein, Das Johannesevangelium, 490; Carson, John, 465–6; Von Wahlde, John, 2:587; Gary M. Burge, John, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 370.
22. Bultmann, John, 472; A. Fridrichsen, “Bemerkungen zur Fusswaschung Joh 13, ” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 38.1 (1939): 94–6; Barrett, John, 442; Beasley-Murray, John, 234; Michael Labahn, “Überzeugende Ethik mündiger Jüngerschaft: Christologische Bildersprache als Fundament johanneischer Ethik (Johannes 15, 1–8),” in Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology, 407. Craig S. Keener argues that this word has two levels of meaning. Literally, it refers to the ritual purification that was practiced before the eating of Passover, and symbolically, it refers to cleansing through Jesus’s word (The Gospel of John [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003], 2:909–910).
23. Λούω often appears with καθαρὸς in the Septuagint (Lev 11:40; 14:8, 9; 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13; 2 Kgs 5:10, 12, 13; Isa 1:16; Heb 10:22; Tob 2:5, 9; 7:9).
24. Robert Tomson Fortna, “From Christology to Soteriology: A Redaction-Critical Study of Salvation in the Fourth Gospel,” Interpretation 27.1 (1973): 41.
25. Barrett, John, 345.
26. See Christopher Seglenieks, “Untrustworthy Believers: The Rhetorical Strategy of the Johannine Language of Commitment and Belief,” Novum Testamentum 61.1 (2019): 55–69.
27. Carson, John, 504; Barrett, John, 466.
28. J. C. Dillow, “Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1–6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 147.585 (1990): 53; Seglenieks, “Untrustworthy Believers,” 65.
29. Catrin H. Williams, “Jesus the Prophet: Crossing the Boundaries of Prophetic Beliefs and Expectations in the Gospel of John,” in Portraits of Jesus in the Gospel of John, ed. Craig R. Koester, Library of New Testament Studies 589 (London: T&T Clark, 2019), 106–7.
30. In 1:29, John the Baptist identifies Jesus with “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” In 2:1–11, Jesus transforms water into wine. I propose this wine symbolizes Jesus’s blood, the new purifying means of the new covenant age that replaces the water in the six water jars, which represents the old purifying means of the old covenant.
31. For example, Carson, John, 214; Barrett, John, 227.
32. E.g., ὁ . . . μὴ πιστεύων (3:18); οὐδὲ . . . ἐπίστευον (7:5); and οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (9:18).
33. “If you hear his voice” in Hebrews 3:15; “ἀπειθοῦσιν τῷ λόγω” in 1 Peter 3:1; “even if any of them are disobedient to the word” in 1 Peter 3:1; “made proclamation” in 1 Peter 3:19; “those who do not obey the gospel of God” in 1 Peter 4:17.
34. Barrett, John, 505.
35. Carson, John, 559.
36. See also 2 Kings 5:10, 12–13; Isaiah 1:16.
37. William H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19–19, Word Biblical Commentary 28 (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 225.
38. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Ezekiel and Daniel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 116.
39. See Brownlee, Ezekiel, 225. Brownlee interprets it as “virginal bleeding caused by a first coitus.”
40. John Goldingay, An Introduction to the Old Testament: Exploring Text, Approaches, and Issues (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 102; Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 200–1.
41. Goldingay, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 102–3.
42. Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 39.
43. Gathercole, 49.
44. Gathercole, 54.
45. J. R. C. Cousland, “ ‘God’s Great Deeds of Deliverance’: Soteriology in 3 Maccabees,” in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, The Library of Second Temple Studies 74 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 44; Michael F. Bird, “ ‘Waiting for His Deliverance’: The Story of Salvation in Judith,” in This World and the World to Come, 25–26.
46. Jonathan Moo, “The Few Who Obtain Mercy: Soteriology in 4 Ezra,” in This World and the World to Come, 108.
47. Peter Enns, “Expansions of Scripture,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 1, The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 94.
48. Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 30.3 (1999): 253–76; Ed Condra, Salvation for the Righteous Revealed: Jesus amid Covenantal and Messianic Expectations in Second Temple Judaism, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 56–8; Daniel M. Gurtner, “On the Other Side of Disaster: Soteriology in 2 Baruch,” in This World and the World to Come, 115.
49. Mark Adam Elliot, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 117–18; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 288.
50. William A. Tooman, “Wisdom and Torah at Qumran: Evidence from the Sapiential Texts,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 214–5.
51. Tooman, 217–8.
52. Condra, Salvation for the Righteous Revealed, 194–7; Tooman, “Wisdom and Torah at Qumran,” 225; Alex P. Jassen, “Survival at the End of Days: Aspects of Soteriology in the Dead Sea Scrolls Pesharim,” in This World and the World to Come, 206.
53. Condra, Salvation for the Righteous Revealed, 270.
54. Condra, 50–5; Alan J. Avery-Peck, “Death and Afterlife in the Early Rabbinic Sources: The Mishnah, Tosefta, and Early Midrash Compilations,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 4, Death, Life-after-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity, eds. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 265.
55. Barrett, John, 305.
56. Barrett, 344. See also Josephus, Ant. IV 187; Tg. Onq.; Tg. Ps.-J. on Leviticus 18:5; Sifra Leviticus on 18:1–30; Tg. Neb. on Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21.
57. Philip S. Alexander, “Torah and Salvation in Tannaitic Literature,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, 1:261–301.
58. Abraham J. Malherbe, “ ‘Christ Jesus Came into the World to Save Sinners’: Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology, ed. Jan G. van der Watt (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 340–43. See also John Sellars, The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 66–68.
59. A. Oepke, “λούω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4:295–307.
60. Most scholars support this argument. E.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 375–6; Rudolf Schnackenburg, Ephesians: A Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 249–50; N. A. Dahl, Studies in Ephesians: Introductory Questions, Text and Edition-Critical Issues, Interpretation of Texts and Themes, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 131 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 420–4. However, Harold W. Hoehner suggests Christ’s death instead of baptism. Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 754.
61. Hoehner, 756.
62. Hoehner, 754–7. See also G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 89; Richard A. Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 28.
63. Malherbe, “Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles,” 331–57.
64. Even though καθαρίζω appears in Titus 2:14, it is clearly linked to the death of Jesus (“He gave himself on behalf of us”). Malherbe, “Soteriology in the Pastoral Epistles,” 348; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 431.
65. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? 121–4.
66. Seung-In Song, “Water as an Image of the Spirit in the Johannine Literature,” PhD dissertation (Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2015). See also Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); Wai-Yee Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation, Society of Biblical Literature 15 (New York: Lang, 2001).
67. Jan van der Watt, An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters (London: T&T Clark, 2007) 51–65; Barrett, John, 78–82; Beasley-Murray, John, lxxxiv–v; Carson, John, 97; George Allen Turner, “Soteriology in the Gospel of John,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19.4 (1976): 271–7; Fortna, “Christology to Soteriology,” 31–47; J. W. Dukes, Salvation Metaphors Used by John and Paul as a Key to Understanding Their Soteriologies (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1983); F. D. Tong, Gathering into One―A Study of the Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel with Special Reference to Johannine Soteriology (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1983); M. Morgan, Afin que le monde soit sauvé. Jésus révèle sa mission de salut dans l’évangíle de Jean, Lectío Dívína 154 (Paris: Cerf, 1993); G. van Belle, “ ‘Salvation is from the Jews’: The Parenthesis in John 4:22b, ” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000, eds. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vaneuville (Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2001), 370–400; Van der Watt, “Salvation in the Gospel According to John,” in Salvation in the New Testament, 101–28; Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007).
68. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984); T. Forestell, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974). See also Fortna, “Christology to Soteriology,” 31–47; Van der Watt, “Salvation in the Gospel According to John,” 101–28.
69. E.g., Van der Watt, 125. However, Deborah Forger seems to be a rare exception. She emphasizes the soteriological importance of hearing Jesus’s words in this Gospel. “Jesus as God’s Word(s): Aurality, Epistemology and Embodiment in the Gospel of John,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 42.3 (2020): 274–302.
70. Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading the Fourth Gospel; John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 194–6.