John 13

 Washing Feet (John 13)

​The previous passage contained more emphasis on the proper response to Jesus’ teaching and ministry, but the other two texts for this paper provide helpful insight as well. In John 13, the author records a unique account, in which Jesus takes the position of a slave and washes the disciples’ feet. The text (v. 1) states this was before the Feast of the Passover, and Jesus performed this act during and after supper (vv. 2-4). Though the problems of Johannine chronology are well documented, it seems clear that this event occurred in the upper room the night of Jesus’ betrayal and trial. The Lord desired to teach the disciples the importance of humble service, and He used this opportunity to exhort them to love others likewise (vv. 15, 17). After these things, Jesus indicated Judas would betray him and dismissed him from dinner. Jesus foretells of Peter’s denial and then begins a lengthy discourse (ch. 14–17) on His imminent death, the coming of the Paraclete, the mission of the disciples, and a prayer on their behalf.

​The dual nature of Christ’s act of service must be mentioned here in order for the reader’s response to surface. On the surface, Jesus taught His disciples to “wash the feet” of fellow disciples as a representation of Christ’s love among them. In fact, to love is classified as the “new commandment,” by which all will know Christ’s disciples (13:34–35). However, the author includes several linguistic features to prompt the reader to recognize a deeper meaning. First, the chapter begins by claiming Jesus loved His own even “to the end” (εἰς τέλος). This phrase could be taken adverbially, indicating the extent of Jesus’ love (i.e., “completely”). On the other hand, the noun is a cognate of τελέω, which the author repeats during the death of Christ (cf. 19:28, 30). In John 19:28, Jesus knows (εἰδώς; cf. 13:1) all things have been fulfilled (τετέλεσται) in order to fulfill (τελειωθῇ) the scripture and declares, τετέλεσται (19:30). The similar phrasing of Jesus’ recognition of the time and of a focus on completion causes most to see an intended connection between the two passages. In addition, John 13:4 says Jesus rosefrom the dinner, placed His garments aside (τίθησιν), and took up (λαβών) a linen cloth. The same sequence of verbs is used in John 10:18, when Jesus claims He has the power to lay down His life (θεῖναι) and to take it back again (λαβεῖν). This parallel is imperfect, though, because Jesus’ resurrection (i.e., taking His life back again) does not resemble the linen cloth of a slave who washes feet. However, it does seem clear that the author makes a subtle correlation between Jesus’ washing feet and dying for the sins of men. 

​Two final observations render this conclusion plausible. First, verse seven contains Jesus’ claim that Peter (and probably the others) would not understand Jesus’ actions until later. Yet, foot washing was a very common practice, and the disciples surely felt gratitude for Jesus’ extravagant portrayal of humility. They probably understood the importance of seeing their Lord and Teacher washing their feet, but they did not comprehend the full significance of Jesus’ death until after the resurrection. Second, when Jesus comes to Peter, and he refuses, Jesus comments, “Unless I wash you, you have no part in me,” (13:8). The response imagery implied from this verse is discussed below, but one should note the significance of accepting Jesus’ “washing.” If Peter had refused to have his feet cleaned, would he have been eternally banned from a relationship with Christ (and eternal life)? In addition, at this point, it seems that Judas may have had his feet washed. Does he have a “part” or “share” in Christ merely on the basis of clean feet? Both answers are a resounding no. Thus, it seems the author (and Jesus) are using this event to represent the effect of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The exhortation of loving one another gains a heightened force, for which the reader is directed below.

​What then is the response imagery employed in this passage? Though the concept of foot washing appears first in the passage, the action of “bathing” is referenced as occurring prior to washing one’s feet. In verse ten, Jesus says, “The one who has bathed (λελουμένος) does not have need except to wash his feet (or have his feet washed).” The term λούω was frequently incorporated into religious texts and contexts to discuss ritual acts or purity (e.g., Plut. Mor. 264d; Jos. Vita 11; Lev 15:11). In this sense, BDAG directly links John 13:10 with baptism, similar to the use of the word in Hebrews 10:22. Kittel reflects this viewpoint as well, stating, “He who is baptized is clean (v. 10, cf. 3:6).” After tracing the use of the term through religious and symbolic contexts, including Jewish, Christian, and pagan, Kittel acknowledges that baptism and ritual cleansing in the NT has a distinct purpose. It is drastically different from cleansings of other religions or cults. There is no magical or ritualistic overture; rather, baptism reflects God’s complete act of mercy in forgiving the believer. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to see a reference to baptism in this text because Jesus claims that the disciples are already clean (13:10; cf. 15:3 below). Their only responsibility is to have their feet washed because they are already clean (i.e., have already “bathed”). Surely, some of them were baptized by John the Baptist (cf. John 1:35–42), but the Christian rite of baptism was not instituted until after the death of Christ. At this point, none of the disciples have been baptized to identify themselves with the Lord. “Despite claims often made, it is improbable that any reference to Christian baptism is intended in this passage.” Therefore, the metaphor must refer to something else. 

The term can also reference the use of water ​to clean the body physically, both someone else’s (Acts 9:37; 16:33) or one’s own (2 Pet 2:22, with reference to a pig; cf. Herm. Vis. 1.1.2). In classical Greek, the word meant to wash the entire body, while νίπτω generally referred to washing parts of the body. In the first century, the government funded public baths to which the less wealthy would go for periodic cleansing. Thus, the word could refer to a physical cleansing or an act representing spiritual purity (or both). 

In John 3, Jesus’ tells Nicodemus that eternal life is given to those born “of water and the Spirit.” One could possibly see a reference to a physical birth and a spiritual birth here, but the parallel with Ezekiel 36:25-27 causes others to view one birth characterized by cleansing of the heart and indwelling of the Spirit. Carson particularly sees one referent from these two words, noting that “when water is used figuratively in the Old Testament, it habitually refers to renewal or cleansing, especially when it is found in conjunction with ‘spirit.’” He then points to Ezekiel 36, where water and spirit are explicitly connected to symbolize cleansing and God’s turning of His people’s hearts. In this way, the internalization of the law and coming of the Spirit fulfills to some degree the promise of a new covenant (Jer 31).This still does not fit the metaphor perfectly, because the act of “bathing” still demands “having feet washed.” If cleansing here refers to God’s act of washing an individual’s heart from sin and giving the Holy Spirit, what else does he need? What would foot washing imply? 

Perhaps an exact parallel in modern systematic theology does not exist with Jesus’ reference to “bathing.” John 9, though, tells how the blind man was healed by Jesus healed after putting mud on his eyes and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The text says he left, washed, and was healed (9:7). His action illustrated his internal belief that Jesus was able to heal him. This may aid in finding a parallel for John 13. The disciples were clean in the sense that they believed in Jesus. They were still confused about His mission and His statements about death, but Jesus told them they will understand later (13:7). By following Jesus, the disciples were placing their trust, allegiance, and (in effect) their lives in the hands of their Teacher. “According to the Gospel [of John] the disciples are clean because of their life-association with Jesus (15:3).” Truly, in the sense of John 6, they were ultimately relying on Him for sustenance and life. They were disciples in the full sense, yet Jesus indicates one of them is not clean (Judas; 13:10–11). The fact that Judas is excluded from the “clean” group, although he was a disciple, supports this view that Jesus is referencing those who truly believed He was the Messiah, being sent by God. The question remains: If “bathing” is simply reliance on Christ or believing on Him, what else is needed as implied by the reference to foot washing (νίπτω)?

The important thing to notice in this passage is not that washing one’s feet is emphasized, but the allowance of an act to occur. That is, the responsibility of the disciples was not to wash their feet but to allow Jesus to perform the act of service (13:6–8, 10). Throughout the passage, Jesus explains that He must wash them, and the middle infinitive in verse ten could be a direct reflexive (i.e., “wash one’s own feet”). Yet, I agree with Wallace that this is more likely a permissive middle in light of this context. Thus, the one who has bathed merely must allow his feet to be washed (i.e., by Jesus). The consequence of refusing Jesus’ act is having no part in Him, which resembles an inheritance motif (cf. Luke 15:12). Thus, for one to deny Jesus is to reject association with Him, a right to blessings from Him, and ultimately the life He offers. Yet, these consequences seem awfully stark for not allowing Jesus to wash one’s feet. In addition, how is there any hope for modern believers?

​For these reasons, I see a clear parallel between Christ’s humble service and His death on the cross. The connections between John 13 and 19 have been listed previously, and that correlation explains how Christ can say such things in verses seven and eight. Barrett agrees, noting that the upper room discourse is preceded by this humble act. “There stands first a symbolic narrative, the washing of the disciples’ feet, which prefigures the crucifixion itself, and in doing so points the way to the interpretation of the crucifixion.” Allowing Christ to wash one’s feet implies the act of appropriating Christ’s sacrifice on his or her behalf. Belief in Christ as a person (i.e., “bathing”) must be followed by acceptance of His death (i.e., “foot washing”) or “receiving Christ” (13:20). The promise of having no part in Jesus if He does not wash one’s feet “indicates that the washing symbolizes allowing Jesus to serve his followers by embracing his death for them.” One possible difficulty with this parallelism is that the act of foot washing had to occur frequently because of the dirt roads of the first century. Yet, acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice is a one-time event, is it not? Perhaps the decision to begin believing in Christ occurs at a point in time, but the Johannine emphasis is on a constant state of believing in Jesus (cf. John 3:16; 6:47). Just as one must daily “feed” on the flesh of Christ (6:54–56), he must daily acknowledge his need for the death of Christ to cleanse him from his sin.

​Barrett has a slightly different interpretation because he takes the shorter textual variant of John 13:10 as original. The longer reads, “The one who has bathed has no need except to wash his feet,” while the shorter reading says, “The one who has bathed has no need to wash.” He acknowledges that both variants are anciently supported, and contextual factors should decide the original reading. Noting John’s love for synonymous terms, Barrett comments that the two words “bathing” and “washing” are synonyms in this passage, and that Jesus’ action in chapter thirteen (if reflective of His death) is essential to the disciples’ cleanliness. “It is of fundamental importance and indispensable—that is, it is not a secondary ‘washing’ subordinate to an initial ‘bath.’” The issue Barrett is combating is the notion that in religious contexts, purifying washings were common, and Jesus is telling the disciples that subsequent washings are not necessary, because His death both “bathes” and “washes” them. They are completely clean based on His death. With this decision made, Barrett does not need to speculate on the distinct referents, since both “bathing” and “washing” refer to appropriation of Christ’s death.

The problem with this interpretation is two-fold. First, Barrett acknowledges the custom that a guest would bathe at his own home and have his only his feet washed when arriving at the host’s home, and Barrett claims that “knowledge of such a custom as this might have caused the expansion” of the text. However, Barrett never deals with the implication of the custom. If it was known in the first century, then two sequential activities are still mentioned: an initial bath and a subsequent foot washing. In his interpretation, though, Barrett equates the “bathing” with Jesus’ washing feet. This works if Jesus is specifically combating Peter’s request for a full body washing. Yet, it seems unnatural for Jesus to reference a custom of bathing and then washing in order to deny the need to wash later. In addition, using the term νίπτω for an absolutely necessary event (13:8) and subsequent activities that are irrelevant seems problematic. Even with the shorter reading, it is much more likely that the terms λούω and νίπτω refer to different events. 

Second, his interpretation equates appropriation of Christ’s death with both “bathing” and “washing,” but Jesus pronounces the disciples as “clean” in John 13:10. Jesus has clearly not died yet, so the disciples could not have truly accepted the results of His death (i.e., “having bathed”). Furthermore, Jesus asserts the disciples do not understand what He is doing for them, indicating they are not accepting His death at this point. The act is a picture of a future reality, but the disciples have not internalized that reality at this point, allowing them to be “clean.” In addition, when this claim is repeated in John 15:3, the adverb “already” (ἤδη) acknowledges the present state of the disciples. It is difficult to see foot-washing (though it pictures future acceptance of Jesus’ death) as a sufficient component in making the disciples “clean.” On the other hand, the difference between Barrett’s (and Brown’s) view and my proposed interpretation is not too vast. None of us view “washing” as symbolic of baptism or some other ritual, and all acknowledge the supreme importance of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice. However, this is not the only responsibility of the believer mentioned here.

​Jesus tells the disciples that they must wash each other’s feet, following the example of their Master. On the surface, this does indicate an attitude of humility when viewing other believers and a willingness to serve them out of love for Christ. Yet, if the parallel between Jesus’ act here and His death is accurate, Jesus is calling for a more serious commitment to one another than the modern church often actualizes. Just as Jesus was willing (and did) lay His life down for the disciples, so also they were instructed to serve one another to the point of self-sacrifice and possible death. This is the deepest form of love (cf. 15:13) and indicates a strong sense of unity and commitment among the followers of Christ. Washing someone’s feet may be inconvenient, but being willing to die for him or her is the greatest example of love.

Role of the Son: Primarily John 13

​The previous pages have attempted to consolidate the role of the believer in the process of sanctification, and the same three passages also enable the reader to see Christ’s responsibilities. Obviously, the foundational act of Christ in any system of soteriology is His willingness to give His life for the world. Through His death and resurrection, redemption and forgiveness is possible. As mentioned previously, the phrasing of John 13:4, 12 probably symbolize the deeper significance of washing the disciples feet and point to the death of Jesus. When comparing other phrases such as εἰς τέλος (13:1) with John 19:28, 30, these connections are almost undeniable. In addition, John 6 mentions the self-sacrifice of Christ multiple times. First, Jesus claims that the “Son of Man” (i.e., Himself) came down from heaven (6:33) to give food that does not perish to the world (6:27). Later, this “food” that does not perish is defined as “life” (6:33). Finally, Jesus identifies His flesh as the bread that came down, and anyone who “eats” of Him will live forever. Clearly, the flesh and blood (vv. 55–56) refer to His death, indicating that the purpose of coming down from heaven was to give His life so that those who believe could receive true life. This constitutes doing the will of the Father (6:38).

​Yet, Jesus promises to perform more responsibilities for those who believe on Him. First, He will not cast out the ones whom the Father gives to Him (6:37; i.e., those who believe); nor will He lose any of them, except for Judas (6:39; cf. 17:12). Rather, those who believe on Him are depending on His “flesh and blood” to sustain them, resulting in a constant “abiding” or “residing” in Christ. Those who believe in Jesus are promised His reciprocated state of “abiding” (6:56). This is how none are lost, because the union between the believer and Jesus is impenetrable (cf. 15:4, 7). Life flows through Jesus (i.e., the vine) to the believer, resulting in fruit, but those who do not bear fruit prove they are not truly abiding in Christ (i.e., believing in Him), and He does not abide in them.

​Within chapters thirteen and fifteen, Jesus provides a powerful example of how believers should relate to one another. John acknowledges Jesus loved His disciples εἰς τέλος (“to the end” or “completely”), and he recounts the event of washing their feet (13:5, 8, 14). This is a humbling act of service, but previously noticed parallels point to a greater act of love: self-sacrifice to the point of death. Further, in chapter fifteen, Jesus says that He has loved the disciples (15:9, 12) and explains that the greatest type of love is laying down one’s life for his friends. Therefore, it follows that Jesus’ love for His disciples peaked in His death on the cross. Through loving the disciples in this way, Jesus kept the commands of the Father (cf. John 6:38-40 for conceptual parallel between the Father’s “will” and the Son’s responsibilities). Therefore, because of His obedience, Jesus has gained authority to command the disciples to love in the same way (15:12, 17) and to commission them to bear fruit (15:16). He has chosen them (15:16) for this specific purpose: to demonstrate Christ’s love to the world through love for one another.

​Finally, John includes in these discourses the notion that Jesus will raise up those who believe on Him on the last day (6:39, 40, 44, 54). This refers to the future resurrection and will conclude the salvation process. John does not discuss theological concepts of glorification or “new bodies,” but these passages (cf. John 11:20–27) comment briefly on Jesus role throughout the process of salvation until it consummates in eternal life with the Father. Thus, Jesus’ primarily responsibility was His willingness to die, but He is involved in the current relationship with believers, which will culminate in life forever.