Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 13:8
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
8. Thou shalt never wash my feet ] The negative is the strongest form possible; ‘thou shalt certainly not wash my feet for ever.’ See on Joh 8:51, and comp. Mat 16:22.
no part with me ] The Greek is the same as in Mat 24:51 and Luk 12:46. The expression is of Hebrew origin; comp. Deu 10:9; Deu 12:12; Deu 14:27. To reject Christ’s self-humiliating love, because it humiliates Him (a well-meaning but false principle), is to cut oneself off from Him. It requires much more humility to accept a benefit which is a serious loss to the giver than one which costs him nothing. In this also the surrender of self is necessary.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Thou shalt never wash my feet – This was a decided and firm expression of his reverence for his Master, and yet it was improper. Jesus had just declared that it had a meaning, and that he ought to submit to it. We should yield to all the plain and positive requirements of God, even if we cannot now see how obedience would promote his glory.
If I wash thee not – This had immediate reference to the act of washing his feet; and it denotes that if Peter had not so much confidence in him as to believe that an act which he performed was proper, though he could not see its propriety – if he was not willing to submit his will to that of Christ and implicitly obey him, he had no evidence of piety. As Christ, however, was accustomed to pass from temporal and sensible objects to those which were spiritual, and to draw instruction from whatever was before him, some have supposed that he here took occasion to state to Peter that if his soul was not made pure by him he could not be his follower. Washing is often thus put as an emblem of moral purification, 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:5-6. This is the meaning, also, of baptism. If this was the sense in which Jesus used these words, it denotes that unless Christ should purify Peter, he could have no evidence that he was his disciple. Unless by my doctrine and spirit I shall purify you, and remove your pride Mat 26:33, your lack of constant watchfulness Mat 26:40, your anger Mat 26:51, your timidity and fear Mat 26:70, Mat 26:74, you can have no part in me (Grotius).
Hast no part with me – Nothing in common with me. No evidence of possessing my spirit, of being interested in my work, and no participation in my glory.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.] Thou canst not be my disciple unless I wash thee. It is certain Christ did not mean to exclude him from the apostolic office, if he should persist, through the deepest reverence for his Master, to refuse to let him wash his feet: this act of his was emblematical of something spiritual; of something that concerned the salvation of Peter; and without which washing he could neither be an apostle or be finally saved; therefore our Lord said, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. There is a mystical washing by the blood of Christ, 1Jo 1:7; and by his Spirit, 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:5-6. It was the common custom of our Lord to pass from sensible and temporal things to those which were spiritual and eternal; and to take occasion from every thing that presented itself, to instruct his disciples, and to raise their souls to God. If the discourse was of bread, water, leaven, father, mother, riches, c., he immediately changed the literal sense, and under the figure of these things, spoke of matters altogether spiritual and Divine. I have met with many good persons who have attempted to imitate our blessed Lord in this, but I never knew one to succeed in it. The reason is, it requires not only very deep piety, but sound sense, together with an accurate knowledge of the nature and properties of the subjects which, in this way, the person wishes to illustrate and very few can be found who have such deep, philosophical knowledge as such cases require. The large folio which a good-intentioned man printed on the metaphors is, alas! a standing proof how little mere piety can do in matters of this kind, where the sciences, and especially practical philosophy, are totally wanting. Jesus Christ was a consummate philosopher: every subject appears grand and noble in his hands. See an ample proof in the preceding chapter, Joh 12:24.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Peter rashly replies, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Here was a seeming reverence for his Master, but (like the Jewish zeal mentioned by Paul, Rom 10:2) not according to knowledge. Christ tells him, that except he washed him, he had no part with him; that is, he should never be saved. But will some say, Was not this too severe, for our Saviour to threaten Peter with an exclusion from a co-inheritance with him in heaven, for modestly refusing to suffer him to wash his feet?
Answer.
1. The least disobedience not repented of, is enough to exclude a soul from the kingdom of heaven.
2. But Christ seems to take an advantage here, from this ceremony of his washing their feet, to discourse to him the necessity of his washing his soul with his blood, from the filth of sin and corruption; and of this washing it undoubtedly is that Christ here speaketh, the necessity of which is very often inculcated in holy writ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Peter saith unto him, Thou shaltnever wash, &c.more emphatically, “Never shalt Thouwash my feet”: that is, “That is an incongruity to which Ican never submit.” How like the man!
If I wash thee not, thou hastno part with meWhat Peter could not submit to was, that theMaster should serve His servant. But the whole saving work ofChrist was one continued series of such services, ending with andconsummated by the most self-sacrificing and transcendent of allservices: THE SONOF MAN CAME notto be ministered unto, but TOMINISTER, AND TO GIVE HISLIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY. (See on Mr10:45). If Peter then could not submit to let his Master go downso low as to wash his feet, how should he suffer himself to beserved by Him at all? This is couched under the one pregnant word”wash,” which though applicable to the loweroperation which Peter resisted, is the familiar scriptural symbol ofthat higher cleansing, which Peter little thought he was atthe same time virtually putting from him. It is not humility torefuse what the Lord deigns to do for us, or to deny what He hasdone, but it is self-willed presumptionnot rare, however,in those inner circles of lofty religious profession and traditionalspirituality, which are found wherever Christian truth has enjoyedlong and undisturbed possession. The truest humility is toreceive reverentially, and thankfully to own, the gifts of grace.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Peter saith unto him, thou shall never wash my feet,…. Before he had behaved with modesty, but now with obstinacy and perverseness; and though these expressions might arise from great reverence to Christ, yet they were wrong and rashly spoken. Peter ought to have been satisfied with Christ’s reply, and have submitted, since though he then did not know the reason of such surprising conduct, he should hereafter. In order therefore to bring him to a compliance,
Jesus answered him, if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me; he does not say, if I wash not thy feet, but thee, meaning not with water, but with his blood, and by his Spirit; for Christ uses the word wash here, not literally, but in a mystical and figurative sense, and takes an occasion, as he sometimes does, from things natural, to discourse of things spiritual: moreover, he does not say, thou hast no part “in” me, but thou hast no part “with” me, that is, no fellowship and communion with me; see 2Co 6:14; and it is as if he should say, Peter, if I had not washed thee with the washing of regeneration by my Spirit, and if I should not shed my blood for thee, and wash thee in it from thy sins, sad would be thy case; thou couldest have no communion with me in this world, nor any part and portion with me in the heavenly inheritance hereafter. Hence it may be observed, that unless a man is washed by Christ, he can have no part with him in this, or the other world. God’s elect have a part, an interest in Christ through eternal, electing, and covenant grace, and in consequence of this are washed by Christ both with his blood, and with the washing of regeneration: and this is done in order that they may have a part with Christ, spiritual fellowship with him now, and possess with him the undefiled inheritance, when time shall be no more.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou shalt never wash my feet ( ). Strong double negative with first aorist active subjunctive of with (for ever) added and (my) made emphatic by position. Peter’s sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt.
If I wash thee not ( ). Third-class condition with (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. “The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender” (Westcott). So “Jesus, waiting with the basin” (Dods), concludes.
Thou hast no part with me ( ‘ ). Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter’s real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Never [ – ] . A very strong expression. Literally, thou shalt by no means wash my feet as long as the world stands.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Peter saith unto him,” (legei auto Petros) “Peter responded directly to him,” in fervent, emphatic protest, with a sincere heart, though wrong.
2) “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” (ou me nipses mou tous poclas eis ton aiona) “You shall by no means, ever wash my feet,” at all, under any circumstances, not knowing the meaning of what he was really saying. He refused to take the disciples’ place, as a learner, for a moment, not realizing that in his protest he was trying to be master to his Lord.
3) “Jesus answered him,” (apekrithe lesous auto ean me nipso se) “Jesus replied to him, unless I wash you,” cleanse you, Tit 3:5; Exo 30:17-21. Unless I wash you in the higher, spiritual sense, of which this is only symbolic, 1Co 6:11; Eph 5:26.
4) “Thou hast no part with me.” (ouk echeis meros met’ emou) “You have no part with me;” Only at this point did the symbolic meaning of redemptive cleansing, in this act, dawn on Peter, 1Jn 1:7; Rom 3:24-25; Heb 9:22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8. Thou shalt never wash my feet. Hitherto Peter’s modesty was excusable, though it was not free from blame; but now he errs more grievously, when he has been corrected, and yet does not yield. (42) And, indeed, it is a common fault, that ignorance is closely followed by obstinacy. It is a plausible excuse, no doubt, that the refusal springs from reverence for Christ; but since he does not absolutely obey the injunction, the very desire of showing his respect for Christ loses all its gracefulness. The true wisdom of faith, therefore, is to approve and embrace with reverence whatever proceeds from God, as done with propriety and in good order; nor is there any other way, indeed, in which his name can be sanctified by us; for if we do not believe that whatever he does is done for a very good reason: our flesh, being naturally stubborn, will continually murmur, and will not render to God the honor due to him, unless by constraint. In short, until a man renounce the liberty of judging as to the works of God, whatever exertions he may make to honor God, still pride will always lurk under the garb of humility.
If I wash thee not. This reply of Christ does not yet explain the reason why he resolved to wash the feet of his disciples; only by a comparison drawn from the soul to the body, he shows that, in washing the feet of his disciples, he does nothing that is unusual or inconsistent with his rank. Meanwhile, the reply points out the folly of Peter’s wisdom. The same thing will always happen to us, whenever the Lord begins to contend with us. So long as he remains silent, men imagine that they have a good right to differ from him: but nothing is easier far him than to refute, by a single word, all the plausible arguments which they employ. As Christ is Lord and Master, Peter thinks it inconsistent that Christ should wash his feet. But the evil is, (43) that, in refusing such a service, he rejects the principal part of his own salvation. There is also a general doctrine contained in this statement, that we are all filthy and abominable in the sight of God, until Christ wash away our stains. Now, since he claims for himself the exclusive right of washing, let every man present himself, o be cleansed from his pollution, that he may obtain a place among the children of God.
But before proceeding farther, we must understand what is the meaning of the word wash. Some refer it to the free pardon of sins; others, to newness of life; while a third class extends it to. both, and this last view I cheerfully admit. For Christ washes us when he removes the guilt of our sins by his atoning sacrifice, that they may not come into judgment before God; and, on the other hand, he washes us when he takes away, by his Spirit, the wicked and sinful desires of the flesh. But as it will shortly afterwards be evident from what follows, that he speaks of the grace of regeneration, I do not absolutely maintain the opinion that he included here the washing of pardon.
(42) “ Neantmoins il ne se deporte pas de contredire;” — “yet, notwithstanding, he does not cease to contradict him.”
(43) “ Mais voyci le mal.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) Thou shalt never wash my feet.For the word never, comp. Note on Joh. 8:51. The incidental touches of character where individual apostles are named in this Gospel are in striking agreement with the more fully-drawn character of the other evangelists, and the value of their evidence for the authorship cannot be over-estimated. They are perfectly artless, but are beyond the most consummate art. We feel that it is the loving, impulsive, but self-confident Peter of the earlier Gospels who is speaking here. He does not wait for that after-knowledge which our Lord promises him. He sees no ground on which our Lords act can possibly be one which he can permit. Note that the emphasis is on the negative. The pronoun my is again not to be emphasised, nor is Thou in this passage. Thou shalt never wash my feet.
If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.Our Lord has already intimated (Joh. 13:7) that His deed was symbolic, and He now refers to the truth underlying the outer act. The key to His meaning is to be found in His own words in Joh. 13:13-17. By the act of washing their feet, He, their Lord, taught the spirit of self-sacrifice and love in opposition to the spirit of self-seeking and pride which ruled even in the Apostles hearts. That lesson every servant and apostle of Jesus Christ must learn, for the servant is. not greater than the Lord, nor the Apostle than the Sender. That lesson Peter was refusing to learn in the pride of his own impulsive will, which seemed to be humility. But unless he learns to accept the love of Christs humiliation, and is so cleansed by its power that he yields his human will wholly to the divine, and learns in self-sacrifice what the spirit of Christ really is, he can have no part in Him. The lesson is a hard one, but it is necessary; the sacrifice of will may be harder than that of life; but the strong man must become as the little child before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
For the phrase, Thou hast no part with me, which is again a Hebrew thought in Greek dress, comp. Mat. 24:51, and Luk. 12:46. It is frequent in the Old Testament. See, e.g., Deu. 12:12, He hath no part nor inheritance with you.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. Peter saith It were wise for Peter, at least now, to be silent and submissive. He has a chance to exercise that profound humility which trusts in God amid the mysteries of life, saying, we know not now but shall know
hereafter. Never wash my feet Peter at last, in his presumptuous humility, is utterly disobedient. He is imperative upon his Lord and Master. He imposes a never, a prohibition to last for ever. Hence now the stern rebuke of Jesus, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. If the reality which requires this symbol be not performed, as thy disobedience will secure that it shall not, thou and I are separate forever. The same pride which in self-deception repels this washing service of thy Lord, rejects the washing of his atonement. Thou wilt not be washed with water in body, and thou canst not be washed with blood in soul; and thy impure nature can have no part with me.
Joh 13:8. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. “If thou dost not submit to all my orders implicitly, thou art not my disciple;” or, as it may be also justly explained, “Unless I cleanse thee from the pollution of sin, emblematically represented by the washing thee with water, Thou art none of mine.”
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.
Ver. 8. Thou shalt never wash my feet ] This was an immoderate modesty, a proud humility; so is it in them that refuse gospel comforts, because they are unworthy, Domine, non sum dignus, at sum indigens, said Pomeran. Tibi adest ninia humilitas, Thou hast too much humility, said Luther to Staupicius. So the Baptist was as much to blame in refusing to baptize Christ Mat 3:14 as Peter here to be washed by him. Luther said of Melancthon’s self-denying humility, Soli Deo omnia deberi tam obstinate asserit, ut mihi plane videatur in hoc saltem errare, quod Christum ipse fingat longius abesse cordi sue quam sit revera: Certe nimis nullus in hoc est Philippus. Philip is worse conceited of himself than is fit.
8. ] The rash and self-opinionated Apostle opposes to his . . In interpreting our Lord’s answer, we must remember, that He replies more to the spirit of Peter’s objection, than to his words. The same well-meaning but false humility would prevent him (and does prevent many) from stooping to receive at the hands of the Lord that spiritual washing which is absolutely necessary in order to have any part in Him, Rom 8:9 , ‘ If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me; ’ but the affirmative proposition is not equally true; witness the example of Judas, who was washed, but yet had no part in Jesus. In the spiritual sense of washing, this is not so. Whoever is washed by Jesus, has part in Him. We are here in the realm of another and deeper logic: the act being no longer symbolic, but veritable.
Joh 13:8 . Peter, however, cannot accept the disciple’s attitude, but persists, , “never shalt Thou wash my feet”. The was prompted by the . No future explanation can make this possible. Peter’s humility is true enough to allow him to see the incongruity of Jesus washing his feet: not deep enough to make him conscious of the incongruity of his thus opposing and dictating to his Master. To this characteristic utterance Jesus, waiting with the basin, replies, . Superficially these words might mean that unless Peter allowed Jesus to wash him, he could not sit at table with Him. But evidently Peter found in them a deeper significance, and understood them as meaning: Unless I wash you, you are outcast from my fellowship and cease to share in my kingdom and destiny. Here the symbolic significance of the eating together and of the washing begins dimly to appear. That Peter saw that this deeper meaning was intended appears from the eagerness of his answer.
never = by no means (Greek. ou me. App-105)
unto the age (Greek. eis ton aiona. App-151).
If. Greek. ean, with subj. App-118.
not. Greek me. App-105.
no = not (App-105.) any.
with. Greek. meta. App-104.
8.] The rash and self-opinionated Apostle opposes to his . . In interpreting our Lords answer, we must remember, that He replies more to the spirit of Peters objection, than to his words. The same well-meaning but false humility would prevent him (and does prevent many) from stooping to receive at the hands of the Lord that spiritual washing which is absolutely necessary in order to have any part in Him, Rom 8:9, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in Me; but the affirmative proposition is not equally true; witness the example of Judas, who was washed, but yet had no part in Jesus. In the spiritual sense of washing, this is not so. Whoever is washed by Jesus, has part in Him. We are here in the realm of another and deeper logic: the act being no longer symbolic, but veritable.
Joh 13:8. , saith) A second protestation against it need not to have been added.- , ever at any time) Peter opposes this to the , hereafter, Joh 13:7. An emphatic form of denying: 1Co 8:13, I will eat no flesh , while the world standeth.-, if) We ought to yield to the will of the Lord.-) thee, saith He, not thy feet. This brevity of expression is strictly accurate; for he who has not his feet washed, is accounted as wholly unwashed.- , thou hast not) The necessity for that grace [humility] was shown to them through the washing of their feet. There is no doubt but that the wonderful humility of the Lord very much changed and melted the souls of the disciples. Peter especially was in need of it.- , with Me) Jesus therefore [notwithstanding this act of humiliation] still remains their Lord.
Joh 13:8
Joh 13:8
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet.-Peter with his impulsiveness and promptness, in deciding and acting, told Jesus he could never submit to so dishonoring Jesus as to permit him to wash his feet. [He is stupid. He does not realize that Jesus must have a lofty reason. He only sees the humiliation of the Master he loves and he cannot bear it.]
Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.-This response of Jesus may have a deeper and more far-reaching meaning than we are in the habit of seeing in it. If I wash thee not, if I cleanse thee not, thou hast no part with me. [Your part is submission to my will. It is not for you to question-only to obey. Make your choice, submission or exclusion.] The reply of Jesus had a double meaning. The question of purification was brought out again: If I purify you not, you have no part with me. While this literal washing was primarily referred to, the deeper significance of a spiritual purification was implied. (Rev 1:5-6).
Thou shalt: Gen 42:38, Mat 16:22, Mat 21:29, Mat 26:33, Mat 26:35, Col 2:18, Col 2:23
If: Joh 13:6, Joh 3:5, Isa 4:4, Eze 16:4-9, Eze 36:25, Zec 13:1, Act 22:16, 1Co 6:11, Eph 5:26, Tit 3:5, Heb 9:22, Heb 9:23, Heb 10:4-10, Heb 10:22, Rev 1:5, Rev 7:14
Reciprocal: Exo 29:4 – wash them Exo 30:19 – General Lev 8:6 – washed Lev 11:25 – and be unclean Lev 13:6 – wash Lev 17:16 – General 2Ki 5:13 – Wash Psa 108:9 – Moab Eze 16:9 – washed Mat 10:36 – General Joh 6:53 – Except Joh 13:5 – to wash Joh 19:34 – came
8
Still seeing only the lowly service of hospitality in the act, Peter protested having Jesus wash his feet. This statement opened the way for Jesus to begin the lesson he intended by the performance. He introduced it by the assertion that such a protest was equivalent to rejecting the partnership with Him.
Joh 13:8. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Peter is too much amazed to comprehend at once the lesson of the previous words of Jesus. He does not even heed them; and his impulsiveness, checked for a moment, leads him to break over the barrier that has been opposed to it with greater force than before: Thou shalt never wash my feet.
Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Now, our Lord begins to unfold the true spiritual meaning of what He is about to do. We must carefully mark the words,first, the word wash, not cleanse or bathe, referring to the whole body, but simply wash, referring to the act which Jesus has immediately in hand,the washing of the feet alone; secondly, with me, not in me, referring, not to the entire dependence of the believer upon his Lord and his completeness in Him, but to his share along with Him in a work of self-sacrificing love, triumphant over the world and crowned with glory. If we keep these two points in view, it will be at once seen that the words of Jesus before us have little reference to any mere spirit of self-will, for which Peter must substitute the childlike disposition that alone can enter into the kingdom of heaven, and also that they relate as little to our first cleansing from sin in the atoning blood of Christ. They refer to something different from either of these two great truths, and express, what we shall have to explain more fully (on Joh 13:20), that unless Peter enters into the spirit of that self-sacrificing work of love which Jesus performs, makes that spirit his own spirit, sees the beauty and owns the glory of the Masters becoming the servant for His peoples sake (comp. Mat 20:28; Luk 22:24-27), and becomes in like manner ready to sacrifice himself if he may thereby help the humblest member of the flock of Christ, then he is going his own way, not the way of Jesus; he is choosing his own portion, not the portion of his Lord; he must be content to separate from One whom he loved with all his heart, and to have no more a part with Him either in His sufferings or His reward. It is this thought, even though it may be as yet imperfectly apprehended by the apostle, that leads to the sudden revulsion of feeling in the following verse.
13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast {d} no part with me.
(d) Unless you allow me to wash you, you will have no part in the kingdom of heaven.
This promise did not satisfy Peter who objected to Jesus’ act in the strongest terms. Peter viewed the situation as totally unacceptable socially. Jesus’ replied on the spiritual and symbolic level. He was speaking of spiritual cleansing, as the context clarifies. Peter understood Him to be speaking on the physical level. If failure to submit to Jesus’ washing meant the termination of their relationship, Peter was willing to submit to a more thorough cleansing. Peter’s words reflect his impetuous nature and his high regard for Jesus as well as his failure to understand and his self-will.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)