Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 13:6
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
6. Then cometh he ] Better, He cometh therefore, i.e. in consequence of having begun to wash the feet of each in turn. The natural impression is that S. Peter’s turn at any rate did not come first. But if it did, this is not much in favour of the primacy of S. Peter, which can be proved from other passages, still less of a supremacy, which cannot be proved at all.
dost thou wash my feet? ] There is a strong emphasis on ‘Thou.’ Comp. ‘Comest Thou to me?’ (Mat 3:14.)
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Dost thou wash my feet? – Every word here is emphatic. Dost thou – the Son of God, the Messiah – perform the humble office of a servant – toward me, a sinner? This was an expression of Peters humility, of his reverence for Jesus, and also a refusal to allow him to do it. It is possible, though not certain from the text, that he came to Simon Peter first.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. Lord, dost THOU wash MY feet?] Every word here is exceedingly emphatic. Peter had often seen the great humility of his Lord, but never saw his condescension so particularly marked as in this instance.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Christ in the performance of this ceremony cometh to Simon Peter; whether first, or last, it is not said; and therefore the papists argue ill from hence, to prove the primacy of Peter over the rest of the apostles. Peter looks upon it with a modest, but sinful and superstitions, indignation. Samuel of old determined, that obedience to God is better than sacrifice; it is then certainly better than a compliment. Peter in this case ought not to have contradicted his Master out of a compliment to him, but to have suffered him to go on in this act of ministration. There may be a voluntary humility, and pretended reverence to Christ, which is indeed but superstition, and can be no other, if contrary to any revelation of the Divine will.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6-11. Peter saith . . . Lord, dostthou wash my feet?Our language cannot bring out the intenselyvivid contrast between the “Thou” and the “my,“which, by bringing them together, the original expresses, for it isnot good English to say, “Lord, Thou my feet dost wash?”But every word of this question is emphatic. Thus far, and inthe question itself, there was nothing but the most profound andbeautiful astonishment at a condescension to him quiteincomprehensible. Accordingly, though there can be no doubt thatalready Peter’s heart rebelled against it as a thing not to betolerated, Jesus ministers no rebuke as yet, but only bids him wait alittle, and he should understand it all.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then cometh he to Simon Peter,…. After having washed the feet of some of the disciples, as is thought by some interpreters, and particularly the feet of Judas, without any repulse; though others are of opinion that he began with Peter, who modestly, and out of reverence to him, refuses to be washed by him:
and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet! he speaks as one surprised and astonished that Christ should offer to do any such thing to him; that he, who was the Son of the living God, should wash the feet of such a sinful man as he was; that those hands, with which he had wrought such miracles, as the opening the eyes of the blind, cleansing lepers, and raising the dead, should be employed in washing his defiled feet, the meaner and inferior parts of his body; this he thought was greatly below his dignity and character, and too much to be done by him to such a worthless creature as he was.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
So he cometh ( ). Transitional use of and dramatic present again ().
Lord, dost thou wash my feet? (, ;). Emphatic contrast in position of (away from ), “Dost thou my feet wash?” “Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility” (Bernard).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Dost thou wash [ ] ? The two pronouns Thou, my, stand together at the beginning of the sentence in emphatic contrast. Dost thou of me wash the feet ?
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then cometh he to Simon Peter:- (erchetai oun pros Simona Petron) “Then he comes by choice to Simon Peter,” the more impulsive speaker of the twelve apostles, apparently as Jesus was washing the disciples’ feet in order, as He came to them, Joh 13:5.
2) “And Peter saith unto him, Lord,” (legei auto kurie) “He (Peter) says directly to him, Lord,” in honest disapproval; He said it at first with strong emphasis of protest, reflecting a distinct trait of his normal character.
3) “Dost thou wash my feet?” (su mou nipteis tous poclas) “Do you (intend to)wash my feet?” or do you think I would let you wash my feet? You do not, do you? He asked emphatically. This is much as John the Baptist first hesitated to baptize Jesus, Mat 3:14. Apparently Peter drew back his feet when the Lord came to him, Mat 20:26,28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? This speech expresses strong dislike of the action as foolish and unsuitable; for by asking what Christ is doing, he puts out his hand, as it were, to push him back. The modesty would be worthy of commendation, were it not that obedience is of greater value in the sight of God than any kind of honor or service, or rather, if this were not the true and only rule of humility, to yield ourselves in obedience to God, and to have all our senses regulated by his good pleasure, so that every thing which he declares to be agreeable to Him shall also be approved by us, without any scruple. We ought, therefore, above all, to observe this rule of serving God, that we shall be always ready to acquiesce, without delay, as soon as he issues any command.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) Then cometh he to Simon Peter.Men who have come to these words with minds full of opinions with regard to the position of St. Peter have, of course, understood them to express that he had precedence of the other Apostles; while others have formed the opinion that Judas Iscariot was first. It is a point of no importance, and cannot be determined. The natural impression from this verse, however, is that St. Peters turn came after that of at least one other, and the impression from Joh. 13:24-25 is that St. John himself, being nearest to his Master, was that other.
Lord, dost thou wash my feet?For the title, comp. Mat. 16:22. The word Thou is to be strongly emphasised, but the common error of reading my as an emphatic word is to be avoided. The act is in itself natural; perhaps is even one that he had expected from some of the less prominent in the apostolic band. What he cannot understand is that his Master should do it. Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? Comp. with this feeling of the Apostle at the close of our Lords life that of John the Baptist at its commencement (Mat. 3:14-15).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Cometh he to Simon Peter The language implies that he had washed several without opposition until he comes to Peter. Peter, therefore, clearly, was not the first washed; but he is the first and only one whose impulsive nature prompts a refusal.
Dost thou wash my feet? The emphatic words here are thou and my. Dost thou, my God incarnate, wash my feet, who am unholy? Peter, therefore, means to exhibit humility before his Lord. But it is a noisy, self-sufficient humility, inferior to and less than the silent submission of the other disciples to their Lord. But Peter must display his humility, and so deteriorates it.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Then he comes to Simon Peter. He says to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not now perceive, but you will know fully later”. Peter says to him, “Under no circumstances will you wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me”. Simon said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head”. Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed only needs to wash his feet (or ‘needs not to wash except his feet’) and then is completely clean. And you are clean, but not all of you”. (For he knew the one who would betray him, that is why he said “You are not all clean”).’
This incident reveals Peter’s typical ambivalence, which the Gospels draw attention to again and again, and John clearly remembers it vividly. But its repetition was not in order to draw attention to Peter but to draw attention to the significance of the words that passed between him and Jesus. Peter’s question seems to confirm that this was not the usual run of the mill feet-washing.
Humanly speaking Peter rightly felt that it was not fitting that ‘the Lord’ (we must give the word its full significance here) should wash his feet. But he had overlooked the fact that this was something outside the human, and that what Jesus was doing had a spiritual significance. It indicated that He was beginning His unique time of voluntary submission, which began with the washing of the feet, would continue in His prayers in Gethsemane, and would reach its final fulfilment on the cross of shame. And it was all for them – and for us.
‘He who is bathed needs not to wash except for his feet’. The picture here is of a guest who, having bathed at home only requires to wash his feet to remove the stains of the journey. Here Jesus was saying, ‘I have already in the past bathed you so that you are clean, but now I am preparing you for your part in what lies ahead’. The bathing refers, of course, to the work of the Spirit by which Peter had been born of the Spirit and forgiven his sins, the ‘washing of regeneration’ (Tit 3:5). Now by the washing of the feet He was pointing to a further work of the Spirit which they would enjoy continually as a result of His death. Without that they would be ineffective.
There may, however, be in mind that as the priests ministered in the Tabernacle they had to wash their feet when they moved in and out of the Sanctuary or when they approached the altar (Exo 30:18-21). Having been cleansed and purified they needed to be kept constantly clean. If so the lesson is the same. But in that case we might also have expected hand washing as well, although it might be argued that they had already washed their hands preparatory to the meal. Jesus always seems to have followed the Pharisaic principles of washing (they never criticised Him for not doing so) even if he did not full subscribe to them.
They were also being reminded that even the forgiven sinner becomes defiled and needs daily forgiveness, and that this was something that was freely available to them from the Lord. And in view of what was to come they especially needed it at this moment. Peter above all needed to be prepared in heart, for ‘Satan has desired to have him’ to test him out (Luk 22:31).
By this we know that Jesus will continue to minister to us so that we can daily be made clean. But only if we are willing to receive it. Compare here John’s words in 1Jn 1:7-10. It is a comforting thought that our daily sin does not put us right back where we were before. It is a humbling thought that daily Jesus stoops to ‘wash our feet’ as the One Who is Lord of all.
‘Except his feet’ is omitted in a large number of old manuscripts, but it would appear to be required, or must be understood, for the sense. Perhaps it dropped out because it was not felt seemly that God’s ‘washing’ should be insufficient. Alternately Jesus may have left it to be assumed – ‘He who is bathed does not need a full wash’ and a discerning writer have added it as a note. But Jesus’ statement and action only really make sense with the contrast described. Otherwise Peter’s request for a full wash would be reasonable.
Some argue that Jesus’ action was intended to symbolise a full washing and they therefore agree with the omission. But this ignores the fact that the disciples had already been ‘born of water and Spirit’ (Joh 3:5), and that this was the final touch. The central purpose of Jesus’ act was twofold. Firstly so that they would recognise their participation in His final work and secondly to bring home the lesson of humble service and the need to minister to one another, something He makes clear in the context. The symbolic lesson comes out especially because of Peter’s words.
‘You have no part with me’. In order to stand at Jesus’ side through what lies ahead, and to have a part with Him in what was to come, Peter, (and we as well), must submit to His ministrations, both in the short term and in the long term, for without His daily ministration we would be lost. And we must especially learn the need for humility.
To use theological language Jesus was saying, ‘You have been washed (made clean) once for all through My word, you have been sanctified (set apart as holy) once for all by My calling, you have been justified (declared in the right) once for all, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God’ (1Co 6:11). But now you need to recognise the basis on which all this comes to you and go on being continually sanctified by a daily dealing with sin and daily forgiveness and purification (1Jn 1:7). By being bathed they had been perfected for ever in God’s eyes. Now they needed continual sanctification. ‘He has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified’ (Heb 10:14).
Many lay great stress on the idea that Jesus had baptism in mind here. But once John had been put in prison (when it was the baptism of John), baptism is never mentioned during the time of Jesus’ ministry, and there is nowhere any indication that all the disciples had been baptised even with John’s baptism. It would thus not at that time have been prominent in the minds of the disciples. John has rather given the impression throughout his Gospel that any washing was of the Spirit. Indeed it is very questionable whether baptism did signify washing to the early church. Such an idea became prominent later, but in the New Testament letters baptism appears rather to have indicated dying and rising again, and new life through the Spirit (not the putting away of the sins of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God – 1Pe 3:21).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The objection of Peter:
v. 6. Then cometh He to Simon Peter; and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?
v. 7. Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.
v. 8. Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash, my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me.
v. 9. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
v. 10. Jesus saith 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.
v. 11. For He knew who should betray Him; therefore said He, Ye are not all clean. It is a most realistic picture which the evangelist here draws: the Lord In the role of the humblest of servants, performing the work of the house-slave; the disciples sitting around in silent stupefaction, really unable to make anything of the entire matter. But Jesus went right on down the line, omitting none. When He came to Peter, however, He met with opposition. With his usual impetuousness, Peter declared, half in the form of a question, half in that of an emphatic statement: Lord, surely Thou shalt not wash my feet! It was a mixture of relevance and self-will which prompted Peter to make this declaration; he still lacked the true understanding of his Master in many respects. The Lord tells him, in return, that he did not know, did not understand at that time, what the real significance of Christ’s humble task was. But the time would come when the meaning should be brought to him and the full realization given him. A part of the meaning Jesus explained to His disciples that very evening, but the full enlightenment did not strike them until after Pentecost. Note: This word of Jesus finds its application to the many and various vicissitudes of a Christian’s life, when there is a tendency to stand in helpless confusion before some words and works of the Lord which are at the time beyond one’s understanding. But there is always the comfort: whatever is not revealed and made clear to us in this life will be fully explained in the great hereafter, 1Co 13:9-12.
Still Peter was not satisfied. He asserts: To all eternity nevermore shalt Thou wash my feet! His love for his Master was apt to show itself in peculiar ways. But Jesus sternly rejoins: If I do not wash Thee, thou hast no part with Me. The evidence is clearly pointing to some connection with Christ not conditioned by the mere external washing. The act of Jesus was symbolical and represented the close union and communion between Christ and those that are His. Only he whom Christ washes and cleanses from sins can have part with Christ. See Psa 51:4. This great benefit and blessing of the Lord, the cleansing from sins, the disciples did not realize and appreciate fully till after Pentecost. But Peter immediately became over-enthusiastic and violently eager, desiring to have more than his share of the Lord’s service, thinking it depended upon the extent of the outward washing, how close and certain the inward union and communion with Christ would be. But Jesus curbs his eagerness about having also his hands and his head washed. Since the washing was symbolical only, it was not necessary that the whole body be washed with water. He whom the cleansing and sanctifying power of Jesus in His redemption has touched is altogether clean and holy in the sight of God. His disciples were clean; they had, by faith, accepted the redemption in His blood. They were justified from their sins. And the sanctification of their lives must continue, as the washing of feet indicated; they must ever wash away and remove the filth of the sins that would persist in clinging to them and in soiling their flesh and their conscience. All believers have daily need of this cleansing from sins, it is necessary for them all, to lay aside the sin which does so continually beset them, Heb 12:1.That is the significance of the washing of feet. And in making the declaration, Jesus deliberately makes one exception. One there was, the man that would betray Him, who was not clean, who had spurned the redemption and sanctification of his Savior, who had denied the faith completely by planning to deliver his Master into the hands of the unbelievers.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 13:6. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: The word rendered then, does not imply either that Jesus came first to Peter, or that he had washed any other person before him; but is used in the same sense as the English particle now, without any respect to time or order, and only to imply that a minute detail was going to follow. There is great emphasis in the word Thou in this verse. Lord, dost THOU wash My feet? “THOU, who art the Son of God, the Messiah, and consequently the King of the Jews, shalt thou wash my feet, who am but a poor fisherman, who am thy disciple, and, what is still more degrading, an unworthy sinner?”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 13:6-9 . ] So that He then made a commencement with another disciple , not with Peter himself (so Augustine, Beda, Nonnus, Rupertius, Cornelius a Lapide, Maldonatus, Jansen, and other Catholics in the Romish interest; but also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg). With whom (Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus point to Judas Iscariot, whom, however, Nonnus makes to be last) is left altogether undetermined.
, . . .] , Euth. Zigabenus. The emphasis lies, in the first instance, upon ; not afterwards, however, on , as if had been used, but on . : Dost Thou wash my feet? The present , like , Joh 10:32 , and , Joh 13:27 .
Joh 13:7 . Note the antithesis of . What He did was not the external work of washing (so Peter took it), but that which this washing signified in the mind of Jesus, namely, the of the morally purifying, ministering love.
] namely, through the instruction, Joh 13:13-17 . To refer this to the later apostolic enlightenment and experience (Chrysostom, Grotius, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Ewald, and several others) is not justified by the text (comp. , Joh 13:12 ), and would have been expressed, as in Joh 13:36 , by the antithesis of and .
Joh 13:8 . Peter, instead of now complying, as became him, refuses with definite and vehement decision. But Jesus puts before him a threat connected with the necessity of this feet-washing, which could only have its ground and justification in the higher moral meaning of which the act was to be the quiet symbolic language. Thus He intends what He now says not of the external performance as such in and by itself, but of the ethical contents which it is symbolically to set forth, after He had already indicated, Joh 13:7 , that something higher lay in this act. It is precisely John who has apprehended and reported in the most faithful and delicate manner how Jesus knew to employ the sensuous as a foil to the spiritual, and thus to ascend, first enigmatically, then more clearly, and ever higher, towards the very highest. He says: If I shall not have washed thee, thou hast no part with me . Thereby He undoubtedly means the feet-washing which He intended to perform ( was to be understood as a matter of course, according to the connection, against Hofmann, II. 2, p. 323), yet according to the ethical sense, which it was to set forth symbolically, and impress in a way not to be forgotten. Washing is the old sacred picture of moral purification. Hence the thought of Jesus divested of this symbolical wrapping is: If I shall not have purified thee , just as I now would wash thy feet, from the sinful nature still adhering to thee, thou hast no share with me (in the eternal possession of salvation). When Hengstenberg here takes the washing as the symbol of the forgiveness of sins (according to Psa 51:4 ), this is opposed to Joh 13:12 ff.
Peter, as Joh 13:9 shows, did not yet understand the higher meaning of the Lord’s words; he could but take His answer in the external sense that immediately offered itself ( if, in disobedience to me, thou dost not suffer thyself to be washed by me, thou hast , etc.). The thought, however, of being a man separated, by further resistance, from Jesus and His salvation, was sufficiently overpowering for His ardent love to make him offer forthwith not merely His feet, but also the remaining unclothed parts of His body, His hands and His head, to be washed; , , Cyril.
] while eternity lasts , spoken with passion. Comp. 1Co 8:13 .
] denotes the participation in the same relation, in the like situation with any one , Mat 24:51 , Luk 12:46 , after the Hebrew (Deu 12:12 ), and (Deu 10:9 ; Deu 14:27 ; Psa 50:18 ). The expression in the classics would be or . It is the denial of the , and thus the threatening of exclusion from the and of the Lord.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Ver. 6. Then cometh he to Peter ] He came first to him (for the former verse sets forth his intent rather than his act of washing). And yet St Chrysostom tells of some that would needs have it, that he began with Judas. Like as the Papists say that our Saviour appeared first, after his resurrection, to the Virgin Mary; though the text be plain that he first showed himself to Mary Magdalene. These are like him in Aristotle, that thought that everywhere he saw his own shape and picture going before him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. ] And (the taking up the narrative again at the , q. d., ‘in pursuance of this intention’) He comes to Simon Peter; not first , as some have maintained, both with and without reference to the primacy of Peter: for that would be hardly consistent (see on the preceding verse) with the context, which seems to require that the washing should have begun and been going on, before He came to Peter.
] art Thou washing (intending to wash) my feet? He thinks the act unworthy of the Lord; even as many think that great act of Love to have been, which was typified by it.
Notice that is enclitic, not emphatic , in which case it would be . The having his feet washed is a matter of course: it is the Person who is about to do it that offends him.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 13:6 . , apparently in the order in which they happened to be sitting, and having first washed some of the other disciples, He comes to Simon Peter, who draws up his feet out of reach and exclaims, , ; The are brought together for the sake of the contrast.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Then. = Therefore.
Simon Peter. App-141. Peter. No word for Peter. Some substitute ekeinos (he, – emphatic), but L T Trm. A WI R reject it.
Lord. Greek. kurios. App-98.
thou . . . my. The pronouns are emphatic.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6.] And (the taking up the narrative again at the , q. d., in pursuance of this intention) He comes to Simon Peter; not first, as some have maintained, both with and without reference to the primacy of Peter:-for that would be hardly consistent (see on the preceding verse) with the context, which seems to require that the washing should have begun and been going on, before He came to Peter.
] art Thou washing (intending to wash) my feet? He thinks the act unworthy of the Lord; even as many think that great act of Love to have been, which was typified by it.
Notice that is enclitic, not emphatic, in which case it would be . The having his feet washed is a matter of course: it is the Person who is about to do it that offends him.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 13:6. , He cometh) He seems to have come to Peter not absolutely before all the rest, but, however, among the first; and from his case the other disciples learned that they ought not to oppose the proceeding of the Saviour. A lovely grace is [artlessness], the obedient simplicity of believers.-, Lord) Peter on this occasion speaks thrice: in the first and third instance he calls Him, Lord: the second address is as it were a continuance of the first.- , thou my) He takes it indignantly, as though a thing unworthy of the Lord.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 13:6
Joh 13:6
So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?-With whom he began it is not certain. It may mean, in beginning to do the work, he came to Peter first. If he did not begin with Peter, the one with whom he began seems to have made no remonstrance. This question of Peter, with the reply of Jesus, seems to show that he came first to Peter with water before he had washed any others.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Peter: Gr. he
Lord: Joh 1:27, Mat 3:11-14, Luk 5:8
Reciprocal: Gen 19:18 – General Exo 18:17 – not good 2Sa 6:20 – glorious Jer 13:2 – according Mat 3:14 – John Mat 8:8 – I am Mat 16:22 – began Mar 8:32 – Peter Joh 13:8 – If
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6. The mere act of having his feet washed would not seem strange to Peter, but he was astonished that his Lord was going to do that for him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The verses we have now read conclude the story of our Lord’s washing the feet of His disciples, the night before He was crucified. It is a story full of touching interest, which for some wise reason no Evangelist records except John. The wonderful condescension of Christ, in doing such a menial action, can hardly fail to strike any reader. The mere fact that the Master should wash the feet of the servants might well fill us with surprise. But the circumstances and sayings which arose out of the action are just as interesting as the action itself. Let us see what they were.
We should notice, firstly, the hasty ignorance of the Apostle Peter. One moment we find him refusing to allow his Master to do such a servile work as He is about to do:-“Dost Thou wash my feet?” “Thou shalt never wash my feet.”-“Another moment we find him rushing with characteristic impetuosity into the other extreme:-“Lord, wash not my feet only, but my hands and my head.” But throughout the transaction we find him unable to take in the real meaning of what his eyes behold. He sees, but he does not understand.
Let us gather from Peter’s conduct that a man may have plenty of faith and love, and yet be sadly destitute of clear knowledge. We must not set down men as graceless and godless because they are dull, and stupid, and blundering in their religion. The heart may often be quite right when the head is quite wrong. We must make allowances for the corruption of the understanding, as well as of the will. We must not be surprised to find that the brains as well as the affections of Adam’s children have been hurt by the fall. It is a humbling lesson, and one seldom fully learned except by long experience. But the longer we live the more true shall we find it, that a believer, like Peter, may make many mistakes and lack understanding, and yet, like Peter, have a heart right before God, and get to heaven at last.
Even at our best estate we shall find that many of Christ’s dealings with us are hard to understand in this life. The “why” and “wherefore” of many a providence will often puzzle and perplex us quite as much as the washing puzzled Peter. The wisdom, and fitness, and necessity of many a thing will often be hidden from our eyes. But at times like these we must remember the Master’s words, and fall back upon them:-“What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” There came days, long after Christ had left the world, when Peter saw the full meaning of all that happened on the memorable night before the crucifixion. Even so there will be a day when every dark page in our life’s history will be explained, and when, as we stand with Christ in glory, we shall know all.
We should notice, secondly, in this passage, the plain practical lesson which lies upon its surface. That lesson is read out to us by our Lord. He says, “I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
Humility is evidently one part of the lesson. If the only-begotten Son of God, the King of kings, did not think it beneath Him to do the humblest work of a servant, there is nothing which His disciples should think themselves too great or too good to do. No sin is so offensive to God, and so injurious to the soul as pride. No grace is so commended, both by precept and example, as humility. “Be clothed with humility.” “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”-“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself.” (1Pe 5:5; Luk 18:14; Php 2:5-8.) Well would it be for the Church if this very simple truth was more remembered, and real humility was not so sadly rare. Perhaps there is no sight so displeasing in God’s eyes as a self-conceited, self-satisfied, self-contented, stuck-up professor of religion. Alas, it is a sight only too common! Yet the words which John here records have never been repealed. They will be a swift witness against many at the last day, except they repent.
Love is manifestly the other part of the great practical lesson. Our Lord would have us love others so much that we should delight to do anything which can promote their happiness. We ought to rejoice in doing kindnesses, even in little things. We ought to count it a pleasure to lessen sorrow and multiply joy, even when it costs us some self-sacrifice and self-denial. We ought to love every child of Adam so well, that if in the least trifle we can do anything to make him more happy and comfortable, we should be glad to do it. This was the mind of the Master, and this the ruling principle of His conduct upon earth. There are but few who walk in His steps, it may be feared; but these few are men and women after His own heart.
The lesson before us may seem a very simple one; but its importance can never be overrated. Humility and love are precisely the graces which the men of the world can understand, if they do not comprehend doctrines. They are graces about which there is no mystery, and they are within reach of all classes. The poorest and most ignorant Christian can every day find occasion for practicing love and humility. Then if we would do good to the world, and make our calling and election sure, let no man forget our Lord’s example in this passage. Like Him, let us be humble and loving towards all.
We should notice, lastly, in this passage, the deep spiritual lessons which lie beneath its surface. They are three in number, and lie at the very root of religion, though we can only touch them briefly.
For one thing, we learn that all need to be washed by Christ. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me.” No man or woman can be saved unless his sins are washed away in Christ’s precious blood. Nothing else can make us clean or acceptable before God. We must be “washed, sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1Co 6:11.) Christ must wash us, if we are ever to sit down with saints in glory. Then let us take heed that we apply to Him by faith, wash and become clean. They only are washed who believe.
For another thing, we learn that even those who are cleansed and forgiven need a daily application to the blood of Christ for daily pardon. We cannot pass through this evil world without defilement. There is not a day in our lives but we fail and come short in many things, and need fresh supplies of mercy. Even “he that is washed needs to wash his feet,” and to wash them in the same fountain where he found peace of conscience when he first believed. Then let us daily use that fountain without fear. With the blood of Christ we must begin, and with the blood of Christ we must go on.
Finally, we learn that even those who kept company with Christ, and were baptized with water as His disciples, were “not all” washed from their sin. These words are very solemn,-“Ye are clean: but not all.” Then let us take heed to ourselves, and beware of false profession. If even Christ’s own disciples are not all cleansed and justified, we have reason to be on our guard. Baptism and Churchmanship are no proof that we are right in the sight of God.
==================
Notes-
v6.-[Then cometh he to Simon Peter.] Whether our Lord began with Simon Peter, is not quite clear from the words before us. The word “then,” however, certainly does not mean “then,” in the sense of “in order.”
Chrysostom and Theophylact hold that Jesus washed Judas Iscariot’s feet, and then came to Peter. From the subsequent action of dipping and giving a morsel to Judas, it certainly seems probable that he sat very near our Lord.
Augustine holds that Jesus began with Peter. Bellarmine eagerly grasps at this, and gives it as one of twenty-eight alleged proofs that Peter always had a primacy among the Apostles!
[And Peter saith unto him.] The word “Peter” is not in the Greek text here, but simply “he,” or “that man.” Our translators seem to have inserted it to make the meaning plain.
[Lord, dost thou wash my feet?] The English language here fails to give the full emphasis of the Greek. It would be literally rendered, “Dost Thou, of me, wash the feet?” Such an one as Thou art, wash the feet of such an one as I am! It is like John the Baptist’s exclamation when our Lord came to his baptism: ”Comest thou to me?” (Mat 3:14.)
v7.-[Jesus answered and said, etc.] The famous saying of this verse stretches far beyond the literal application of the words. Primarily, of course, it means, “This action of mine has a meaning which in a few minutes I will explain and you will understand, though at present it may seem to you strange and unsuitable.”-But in every age true Christians have seen a higher, deeper, broader meaning in the words, and a pious mind cannot doubt that they were intended to bear that meaning. It supplies the key to many things which we cannot understand in the providential government of the world, in the history of the Church, in the events of our own lives. We must make up our minds to see many things happening which we do not know and understand now, and of which we cannot at present see the wisdom. But we must believe that “we shall know hereafter” the full purposes, the why and wherefore and needs-be, of each and all. It is a golden sentence to store up in our memories. God’s eternal counsels, the wisdom of the great Head of the Church, must never be forgotten. All is going on well, even when we think all is going on ill. When we cannot see it we must believe. In sickness, sorrow, bereavement, disappointment, we must summon up faith and patience, and hear Christ saying to us, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.”
Musculus has some happy remarks here on the applicability of this expression to infant baptism, which are most just and true.
v8.-[Peter saith…thou…never wash my feet.] Here, again, the English version fails to give the full strength of the Greek words. This sentence would be rendered literally, “Thou shalt never wash my feet for ever,” or unto eternity.
We may note here, in Peter’s language, that there is such a thing as “a voluntary humility,” which runs into extremes.
Hutcheson remarks, “Men may have much seeming humility in the matters of God, which is yet but preposterous and sinful, and learned from carnal reason.” Rollock compares with Peter’s conduct here the Romish worship of saints and angels, under the pretense of deep humility and unworthiness to approach God.
[Jesus answered…If I wash…not…no part…me.] We need not doubt that this sentence was meant to bear a deep and full meaning, and to reach far beyond the primary application. It would be a very cold and tame exposition to say that our Lord only meant, “Unless thy feet are washed by Me to-night, thou art not one of my disciples.”-It means a great deal more. Our Lord seems in effect to say, “Thou wilt not be wise to object to the symbolical action which I am performing. Remember no one can be saved, or have any part in Me and my work of redemption, unless I wash away his sins. Except I wash away thy many sins, even thou, Simon Peter, hast no part in Me. I must wash every saved soul, and every saved soul must be washed. Surely, therefore, it does not become thee to object to my doing an instructive and figurative act to thy feet, when I must needs do a far greater work to thy soul.”
The sentence is one of wide, deep, and sweeping application. It is true of every Christian of every rank and position. To each one Christ says, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me.” It is not enough that we are Churchmen, professed communicants, and the like. The great question for every one is this: “Am I washed and justified?”
The common assertion that this “washing” here spoken of is baptism, seems to me unwarrantable. Our Lord never baptized any one, so far as we can learn from Scripture. Where is it said that He baptized Peter? Moreover, if baptism were meant, the past tense would have been used: “If I had not washed thee, thou wouldest have no part in Me.” The washing here spoken of is something far above baptism.
v9.-[Simon Peter saith, etc.] The exclamation of Peter in this verse is highly characteristic of the man. Impulsive, excitable, zealous, ardent, with more love than knowledge, and more feeling than spiritual discernment, he is horrified at the very idea of “having no part in Christ.” Anything rather than that! Not seeing clearly the deep meaning of his Master’s words, and still sticking to a carnal, literal interpretation of the word “washing,” he cries out that his Master may wash him all over, hands and head as well as feet, if an interest in Christ depends on that.
Great zeal and love are perfectly consistent with great spiritual ignorance and dullness, and great slowness to comprehend spiritual truth.
Rollock remarks that Peter erred as much in one extreme now, as he had erred before in another.
Stier remarks that the passionate, strong expression of Peter in this verse, is just the language of a warm-hearted but dull-minded disciple, just beginning to understand, as if light had suddenly flashed on him.
v10.-[Jesus saith to him, He that is washed, etc.] This sentence of our Lord’s conveys a latent rebuke of Peter’s spiritual dullness. It is as though Jesus said, “The washing of head and hands whereof thou speakest is not needed. Even assuming that a literal washing is all I meant in saying, ‘If I wash thee not,’ it is well known that he who is washed needs only to wash his feet after a journey, and is accounted clean entirely after such a partial washing. But this is far more true of the washing of pardon and justification. He that is pardoned and justified by Me, is entirely washed from all his sins, and only needs the daily forgiveness of the daily defilement he contracts in traveling through a sinful world. Once washed, justified, and accepted by Me, ye are clean before God: although not all of you. There is one painful exception.”
The great practical truth contained in this sentence ought to be carefully noted and treasured up by all believers. Once joined to Christ and cleansed in His blood, they are completely absolved and free from all spot of guilt, and are counted without blame before God. But for all this they need every day, as they walk through this world, to confess their daily failures, and to sue for daily pardon. They require, in short, a daily washing of their feet, over and above the great washing of justification, which is theirs the moment they first believe. He that neglects this daily washing is a very questionable and doubtful kind of Christian. Luther remarks pithily, “The devil allows no Christian to reach heaven with clean feet all the way.”
“Every whit,” in this verse, means literally “the whole man.”
The deep mine of meaning which often lies under the surface of our Lord’s language is strikingly exemplified in this verse, as well as in Joh 13:7-8. There is far more in many of His sayings, we may believe, than has ever yet been discovered.
It is striking to observe that even of His poor, weak, erring disciples Jesus says, “Ye are clean.”
Bullinger observes that the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses,” are a daily confession of the very thing here mentioned,-viz., the need of daily washing of our feet..
Casaubon remarks that those who come out of a bath, as a matter of constant experience, only need to wash their feet, which, stepping on the ground as they come out, must needs contract some defilement. In Eastern countries, where bathing was very common, all could see the force of this.
Hengstenberg remarks, that “the expression, ‘but not all,’ was intended to pierce the conscience of Judas, whom the Redeemer did not give up until the last good impulse died within him.”
The common idea that the “washing” here spoken of refers to baptism, seems to me quite untenable. He that is washed must mean only “washed in a spiritual sense from his sins;” as Psa 51:2. Hengstenberg’s discussion of the point is worth reading.
Burgon observes, “The traitor, Judas, though washed by the hands of Christ Himself, was filthy still.”
v11.-[For he knew…betray him, etc.] Our Lord’s perfect foreknowledge of His sufferings and the manner of them, and His thorough discernment of the real characters of all His disciples, are alike shown in this verse. He did not suffer because He did not fore-see it, and was taken by surprise. He walked up to death knowing every step He was about to tread.
The sentence is an example of the explanatory glosses which are so characteristic of John’s Gospel.
The Greek words rendered “who should betray Him,” are literally, “the person betraying Him,” in the past participle.
v12.-[So after…washed…feet.] After the conversation between our Lord and Peter, the washing seems to have gone on without interruption. The disciples were accustomed to see their Master do things they did not understand, and they submitted in silence.
[And had taken…garments…set down again.] This refers to His putting on again the long loose outer robe, which was laid aside on performing any action requiring exertion in the East. Then our Lord took His place once more at the table, and commenced a discourse which seems to have ushered in the Lord’s Supper. Whether the washing of the feet was meant, among other things, to teach the need of special preparation for that blessed ordinance, is an interesting thought, and worth consideration. It certainly seems our Lord’s last action before He gave the bread and wine.
[He said…know ye what…done…you.] This question was meant to stir up in the disciples’ minds inquiry as to the meaning of what they had just seen. Understanding and intelligent perception of all we do in religion, should be sought after and valued by all true Christians. There is no real religion in blind devotion. “What mean I by this service?” should be the question often impressed on our minds.
v13.-[Ye call me Master and Lord.] These words would be more literally rendered, “Ye call Me, or speak of Me, as the Master and the Lord.” The expression seems to show that this was the habitual language of the disciples while our Lord was on earth. So Martha says to Mary, “The Master is come.” (Joh 11:28.)
[Ye say well; for so I am.] The word “so” is not in the Greek. It is simply “for I am.” The expression is a beautiful warrant for applying to Jesus especially the appellation “the Lord.” He has Himself endorsed it, by the words, “Ye say well.”
v14.-[If I then, your Lord, etc.] The argument of this verse is one which our Lord very frequently uses: “If I do a thing, much more ought ye to do it.” Literally rendered the meaning is, “If I, the Person whom ye speak of as ‘the Lord’ and ‘the Master,’ have washed your feet, and condescended to perform the most menial act of attention to you, ye also ought to feel it a duty to do acts of the same kind for one another,-acts as condescending as washing one another’s feet.”
The words “Your Lord and Master” in the Greek are literally, “The Lord and the Master.”
“Ye ought” is a very strong expression. It is tantamount to saying, “It is your duty and debt,-ye are under an obligation to do it.”
Paley on Evidences, p. 2, ch. iv., has a remarkable passage, showing the close affinity between our Lord’s conduct here, and His conduct when taking a little child and putting him in the midst of the disciples. In both He taught humility, that rare grace, by action.
v15.-[For I have given you an example, etc.] “I have, in my own person, given you a pattern of what your own conduct should be. The duty I want you to learn is of such vast importance that I have not left it to a general precept, but have given you an example of my meaning.”
Of course the question at once rises,-What did our Lord really mean? Did He mean that we all ought literally to do the very same thing that He did? Or did He only mean that we are to imitate the spirit of His action?
The Church of Rome, it is well-known, puts a literal sense on our Lord’s language. Once every year, about Easter, the head of the Romish Church publicly washes the feet of certain poor persons got ready for the occasion. The absurdity, to say the least, of this view is evident on a moment’s reflection.
It seems absurd to take our Lord’s words literally, and to suppose that the Pope’s literal washing of a few feet at Easter can supersede the duty of all Christians to do the same. Yet it is only fair to remember that the Moravians to this day take a literal view of those words, and have a custom called “pedilavium.”
It is in any case absurd to suppose that our Lord would require His disciples to perform a duty which the young and the feeble would be physically unable to do.
It is inconsistent with the general tenor of our Lord’s teaching to suppose that He would ever attach so much importance to a mere bodily action. “Bodily exercise profiteth little.” (1Ti 4:8.) A formal performance of bodily acts of religion is just the easiest thing that can be imposed on people. The thing that is really hard, and yet always required, is the service of the heart.
The true interpretation of the two verses is that which places a spiritual sense on our Lord’s words. It is a practical illustration of Mat 20:26-28. He wished to teach His disciples that they ought to be willing to wait on one another, serve one another, minister to one another, even in the least and lowest things. They should think nothing too low, or humble, or menial to undertake, if they can show love, kindness, and condescension to another. If He, the King of kings, condescended to leave heaven to save souls, and dwell thirty-three years in this sin-defiled world, there is nothing that we should think too lowly to undertake.
Pride, because we possess wealth, rank, position, place, education, or high-breeding, is condemned heavily in this passage. He who would shrink from doing the least kindness to the poorest Christian, has read these verses to little purpose, and does not copy his Master’s example.
One caution only we must remember. Let us not suppose that an ostentatious attention to the poor constitutes the whole of obedience to the law of this passage. It is easy work comparatively to care for the poor. We are to be ready to do the least acts of kindness to our equals quite as much as to the poor. There is nothing about temporal poverty in the passage. The disciples were told their duty to “one another.” This is a very important point. It is much easier and more self-satisfying to play the part and do the work of a Christian to the poor than to our equals.
How entirely the passage overthrows the claim of mere talking, head-learned professors of sound doctrine, to be accounted true Christians, it is needless to show. Doctrinal orthodoxy, without practical love and humility, is utterly worthless before God.
Bullinger remarks, how singularly full of Christian truth the passage is which ends at this verse. That we are washed clean from all sins, by Christ our Saviour,-that although washed, the remainder of infirmity sticks to us, and obliges us to wash our feet daily,-that the duty of a disciple is to make Christ his example in all things,-these three great lessons stand forth most prominently.
Gurnall observes, “The master here doth not only rule the scholar’s book for him; but writes him a copy with his own hand.”
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Joh 13:6. He cometh therefore to Simon Peter: he saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? If the narrative of the actual foot-washing begins here, and Joh 13:5 is to be regarded as a general description of what is now related in detail, we must infer from the words before us that our Lord began with Peter. If, on the other hand, the washing begins with Joh 13:5, we learn now that our Lord only came to Peter in due course, so that whatever place that apostle had it was not the first. The point is of little moment. It is more important to mark the strong emphasis belonging to thou and my: Lord, dost thou wash my feet? There may be hastiness and self-will on Peters part, but surely there is also deep reverence for his Lord and a spirit of genuine humility. We must bear in mind that as yet he looks at the matter only with the outward eye, and that he can hardly be expected to think of the deeper spiritual significance which the act possesses.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. How Simon Peter refuses to admit of such a condescending act from Christ his Lord and Master, as the washing of his feet. Lord! Thou shalt never wash my feet: it is a sinful humility to refuse the offered favours of Christ, because we are unworthy to receive them. Though we are not worthy of Christ, and of his love; yet Christ is worthy of us and of our faith.
Observe, 2. Our Saviour’s reply to Peter’s refusal. 1. He tells him, That there was more in it than the bare act of washing did at first sight import, and that he should know hereafter what he did not understand now. What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.
Learn hence, 1. That the servants of God themselves are oft-times much to seek, and cannot apprehend and understand at present the actings and dealings of God with them; they understand not either the intent or the event of God’s dispensations.
2. That although God’s dealings with his children and people are for a while in the dark, and are not presently made known; yet there will come a time for the clearing and evidencing of them, when they shall understand that all his dispensations were in mercy to them.
The second part of our Saviour’s reply to St. Peter follows, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me: as if Christ had said, “Peter, this external act of mine in washing thy feet, doth signify something farther, and imports my washing of thy soul from the guilt and defilement of sin, without which thou canst neither have interest in me, nor communion with me.”
Learn hence, 1. That so universal is the pollution of sin, that every soul stands in need of washing.
2. That Christ washeth all that have a part and interest in him, both from the guilt and pollution of all their sins.
Observe, 3. That St. Peter now understanding better what was meant by this outward washing: namely, that it did signify and represent the cleansing of the soul from the defilement of sin, he is so far from refusing that Christ should wash his feet, that he offers hands and head, and all to be washed by him; Lord, not my feet only, &c.
Learn hence, That so thoroughly sensible are the saints of the filthiness and pollution of sin, that they desire nothing more than an inward, thorough, and prevailing purification of their whole man, by the blood and Spirit of the Lord Jesus.
Observe, 4. Our Saviour’s reply to St. Peter’s last request, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet; plainly alluding to the custom of those countries, where going abroad barefoot, or with thin sandals, covering only a small part of their feet, they had frequent occasion to wash their feet, but need not to wash their whole bodies?
In like manner, the saints and servants of God who are already washed and cleansed by the blood of Christ from the guilt of their sins, and have a real work of renovation and sanctifiation begun in them by the Spirit of Christ, they ought to be daily purging and purifying their affections and actions, and labouring daily after further measures and degrees of sanctification.
Learn hence, 1. That the holiest, the wisest, and the best of saints, whilst here in a world of sin and temptation, do stand in need of a daily washing by repentance, and according to their renewed and repeated acts of sin.
2. That all justified persons are in God’s account clean persons; Ye are clean, but not all; that is, you are justified and pardoned, sanctified and cleansed, all of you, excepting Judas, whose heart was known to Christ, though his hypocrisy was hid from the disciples.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 6-11. He comes therefore to Simon Peter, and he says to him, Lord, Dost thou wash my feet? 7. Jesus answered and said to him, What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. 8. Peter says to him, No, thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9. Simon Peter says to him, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. 10. Jesus says to him, He that is bathed has need of nothing except to wash his feet, but he is altogether clean; and you are clean, but not all. 11. For he knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, You are not all clean.
It must be observed, indeed, that this conversation with St. Peter comes upon this scene as an unexpected episode. , therefore (Joh 13:6): when going from one to another according to the order in which they were seated. The natural conclusion to be drawn from thistherefore is that Peter was not the first whose feet Jesus washed; he was not seated therefore beside Him (comp. Joh 13:24). The feeling of reverence which called forth this resistance on Peter’s part expresses itself in the antithesis of the pronouns , thou, and , me, and in the title Lord. Here, as in Mat 16:22, it is respect which produces in this apostle the want of respect. The antithesis of and (Ithou) in Joh 13:7, answers to that of and (thoume) in Joh 13:6. The expression , hereafter, signifies according to Chrysostom, Grotius, Tholuck, Reuss: by the light which the experiences of thy future ministry will give. But the relation between , thou shalt know, and ,know ye (Joh 13:14), shows that Jesus is thinking rather of the explanation which He is about to give at the very moment, after having finished the act which was begun.
The gentleness of Jesus emboldens Peter; he had only questioned (Joh 13:6); now he positively refuses, and even for ever. If this refusal of Peter springs from modesty, it is nevertheless true that, as Weiss says, this modesty is not destitute of self-will and pride. Jesus answers him in the same categorical tone, and there is certainly an echo of Peter’s for ever in the no part with me of Jesus. This relation it is which prevents us from holding, with Weiss andReuss, that these words mean: Thou dost not at this moment share in my feelings, or Thou art not in communion with me (present, , thou hast). The may perfectly well be a present of anticipation and may refer to the blessedness to come. The phrase , to have part with, indicates the participation of the inferior in the booty, the riches, the glory of his leader (Jos 22:24; 2Sa 20:1; 1Ki 12:16). The refusal of Peter to accept the humiliating service which Jesus desires to render him, is equivalent to a rejection of the spirit of His work, to the resolution to persevere in the love of the carnal grandeur from which precisely Jesus desires by this act to purify His disciples. In rejecting the humiliation which his Master imposes upon Himself for his sake, Peter rejects in principle that which he was one day to impose upon himself for the sake of his brethren. The reply of Jesus is in harmony with this meaning; it reproduces with a natural force the warning which He addressed to all the disciples, on occasion of a quite similar dispute among them: Except you are converted and become as little children, not only will no one of you be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, but you will not enter into it at all (Mat 18:1-4).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Most of the disciples remained silent as Jesus washed their feet, but Peter could not refrain from objecting. The Greek construction of what he said stresses the contrast between Jesus and himself. Jesus encouraged Peter to submit to having his feet washed with the promise that he would understand later why Jesus was washing them (cf. Joh 13:12-20). As the disciples did not understand that Jesus would die, they did not understand either the lessons that led up to His death. They would understand after He arose and the Holy Spirit enlightened their minds.