Tag: jesus

‘He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.’ John 13:4-5


Greek – λέντιον (lention)

Latin – linteum

English – towel


Although the writer’s name is not given, authorship of the Fourth Gospel is usually attributed to the Apostle John. We learn from the book itself that the writer was a disciple (21:24) and that he had seen the glory of the Lord (1:14). This gospel records details of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus Christ with the stated purpose of convincing its readers of the deity of Christ; so that by believing in him they can have eternal life (20:31). John’s Gospel falls into two main parts, conveniently labelled by scholars the Book of Signs (chapters 1-12) and the Book of Glory (chapters 13 -21). The first twelve chapters include a Prologue/introduction (1:1-18) and seven main miracle stories (2:1-11, 4:43-54; 5:1-18; 6:1-14; 6:15-21; 9:1-41; 11:1-45). The word for miracle (sémeion) means ‘sign’.


The final nine chapters contain a long farewell discourse by Jesus to his disciples (chps. 13-16), his ‘high-priestly’ prayer to the Father in chapter 17, followed by an account of his arrest, trials, crucifixion and resurrection. The book ends with an Epilogue/conclusion (21:1-25). Thus chapters 1-12 concentrate on the Lord’s ministry and chapters 13-21 on his departure. Chapters 1-12 focus on some three years of Christ’s ministry, chapters 13-17 concentrate on about three hours at a meal.


The first division of the gospel ends with Jesus bringing his public ministry to a close (12:36) and the second commences with him spending private time with ‘his own’ (13:1). Towards the end of the first division Mary anoints the Lord’s feet with ointment and wipes them with her hair (12:3), at the start of the second division the Lord washes his disciples’ feet and wipes them with a towel (13:1-17). In this passage the word ‘lention’ for towel occurs twice (13:4-5).


This account of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet is recorded only in the gospel of John and falls naturally into two parts. In 13:1-4 the author gives the time-frame, says that what takes place occurs after the supper (modern versions say ‘during’) and informs us that Jesus knew that his mission had reached its climax. In 13:5-17 Jesus washes their feet and tells his disciples how they are to behave once he has gone.


THE SETTING

The opening verses of chapter 13 set the scene for the entire farewell discourse (chapters 13-17) as well as the foot-washing demonstration. John says nothing about the location but tells us that there was a supper (13:2) which was held before the Passover (13:1). This information, it must be acknowledged, throws up a problem that has been debated for centuries but has never been satisfactorily resolved. It relates to the nature and timing of the Last Supper.


Was the Last Supper a Passover meal? Mark 14:12 places the Last Supper and the Passover meal on the same day. Luke, in 22:15, 54, clearly states that it was a Passover meal and that Jesus had already eaten it with his disciples before his arrest and trials. John, on the other hand, informs us that the meal was eaten ‘before the feast of the Passover’ (13:1) and that after Jesus’ arrest and trials the Jews were still waiting to eat the Passover (18:28).


Over the centuries several solutions have been proposed in an attempt to reconcile the conflicting statements. The most plausible, but not entirely satisfactory, is that John was using a different method of reckoning time to that used by Matthew, Mark and Luke. It has been suggested that John used the official Jewish lunar calendar and that possibly the other evangelists went by a solar calendar; such as that used by the Qumran community and described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The timing of the Last Supper is an ongoing matter of debate so perhaps we should concentrate instead on the Lord’s act of service and his advice to his disciples.


Jesus had gathered in a borrowed room (Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13) with his disciples; a band of men who had been with him since the wedding at Cana in Galilee (2:2). They had listened to his teaching and had seen his miracles during his public ministry but still had a limited grasp of who he was and what he was about. It was therefore necessary for him to spend time (chapters 13-17) preparing ‘his own’ for the shock and grief they would experience as a result of his violent death and subsequent absence.


THE SAVIOUR

‘His own’


The disciples referred to here are not the ‘his own’ of chapter 1. That reference is to the Jewish people, emphasizing their rejection of Jesus Christ. In chapter one we learn that the world in general was indifferent to him (1:10) but ‘his own received him not’ (1:11). That is: Jesus was brought up in a Jewish home but his own people wanted nothing to do with him. From then on John’s gospel uses the expression ‘The Jews’ (e.g. 1:19; 5:16; 19:7) as a representative term for Israel.


‘His own’ here in 13:1 describes a new category made up of those who accept him and receive his teaching (see also 10:3). In the last half of the gospel several expressions are used to refer to this group of believers:


‘his own’ (13:1)

‘children’ (13:33)

‘friends’ (15:15)

‘those whom you gave me’ (17:6)

‘my brethren’ (20:17)

‘little children’ (21:5)


Jesus knew that in a few hours and days many of the disciples would forsake him. He knew that Thomas would doubt him, Peter deny him and Judas Iscariot betray him. In spite of their failings, Jesus, aware that he would soon be leaving, had a special love for them. Chapter 13:1 says that ‘having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end’. This expression ‘unto the end’ could mean either ‘to the end’ or ‘to the utmost’; either ‘love up to the end of his life’ or ‘love to the uttermost’. The reference is either to time or intensity.


‘His hour’


According to 13:1 ‘Jesus knew that his hour was come.’ The ‘hour’ is a motif in John’s gospel (2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 16:32; 17:1). This verse confirms that the Lord Jesus was working to a specific divine timetable. ‘He knew’ that ‘his hour’, of suffering and humiliation, had come.


Here (13:2) the previously predicted (6:70-71) betrayal is mentioned; bringing out the contrast in vv. 1-2 between love and hate, between the Saviour and Satan, between ‘his own’ and Judas. There is a further contrast in vv. 3-4 between the evil of Judas and the nobility of the Son of God. Even though Jesus was fully aware of his divinity (13:3) he behaved with humility and love in the foot-washing that followed, and it would seem that he even washed the traitor’s feet (v.12).


THE SERVANT

Given the unpaved and dusty condition of most roads, washing one’s feet was a significant aspect of daily hygiene in that part of the world (2 Sam 11:8). For centuries foot-washing had also been a feature of hospitality (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judg 19:21; 1 Sam 25:41;1 Tim 5:10) and failure to offer this courtesy to guests was regarded as bad manners (Lk 7:44). A good host would have extended this courtesy to a welcome guest, but he would not have washed the visitor’s feet himself. Such a menial job belonged to the lowest ranking person in the home; often a woman (1 Tim 5:10). In a wealthier household it would have been performed by a slave. None of the disciples present volunteered to wash the feet of their colleagues and thus have the lowest status. In fact, according to Luke 22:24, that same evening they argued about ‘which of them was considered to be greatest.’ Feet were normally washed before a meal began but that evening the disciples reclined to eat with their feet still unwashed. Either during (‘ended’ can have the sense of prepared and set out) or after the meal Jesus himself undertook the task of washing their feet.


Verses 4-5 give a vivid description of the event. John builds the drama by use of the historical present tense i.e. he uses verbs in the present tense to highlight actions that happened in the past. In everyday English:


‘He is going back to God’ (v.3)

‘He gets up from supper’ (v.4)

‘He lays aside (takes off) his garments’ (v.4)

‘Taking a towel he wrapped himself’ (v.4)

‘He pours water into a basin’ (v.5)

‘He began to wash his disciples’ feet…’ (v.5)

‘And Peter says to him’ (v. 6)


Note the exceptions, which I have aligned to the right of the page! Here the aorist tense (which is used to denote an action in the past) is employed at the two points in the description where Jesus’ actions are characteristic of a slave. That, it would seem, is the point that John seeks to emphasize.


There must have been a stunned silence and great embarrassment when Jesus rose from the table and stripped down to his inner tunic. A rabbi undressing in the presence of his disciples would have been unheard of and this action would have seemed very strange. Several garments were worn by males of the time. A ‘chiton’ (Mk 6:9) was an undergarment or inner tunic worn next to the skin. It was usually knee-length and gathered in by a girdle (belt) around the waist. Over that a rich man might wear a long ‘stola’ (Mk 12:38) or robe. The outer garment was a ‘himation’ (12:38; Mk 6:56); a poncho-like mantle that could also be used as a blanket. According to v. 12 this was the garment that Jesus removed and later put on again: ‘…and had taken his garments (himation).’ Wearing only his inner tunic (chiton) and having a towel wrapped around his waist like an apron, Jesus would have looked exactly like a slave.


This was a deliberate act; undertaken only by himself without the involvement or help of others. It brings to mind the famous passage in Philippians 2:5-8 which contains the words: ‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.’ In this connection some commentators, seeing an allusion to Jesus’ death and resurrection, point out that the verbs ‘lay aside’ (v.4) and ‘take’ (v.12) only occur together elsewhere in John’s Gospel in chapter 10:17-18:

‘Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again…’


Having undressed to his basic garment Jesus wrapped a towel around his waist. John calls it a ‘lention’, which is from the Latin ‘linteum’. This was the word for an awning, a sail or a towel. The large linen cloth may have been there so that they could all wipe their hands after eating but, by tying it around his waist like a belt, Jesus left his hands free and the long ends of the towel at either side available for drying the disciples’ feet.


Commenting on the passage the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 CE) observed the following things about a slave/servant:


– he must notice if anything is lacking in the service so he needs to be standing. Therefore, Christ rose from supper.


– he must be unencumbered and ready to serve. So Christ laid aside his garments.


– he should have everything he needs at hand. So, Christ wrapped a towel around himself and, having poured water into a basin, began not only to wash but also to dry the feet of his disciples.


As in the other gospels Peter is prominent in John (e.g.1:42; 6:68; 13:6; 18:10, 16; 20:2, 6; 21:3, 7, 11, 15), and often acts as spokesperson. Here John refers to him by the double name ‘Simon Peter’ (see also 6:68; 13:6, 9, 24, 36; 18:10, 15, 25; 20:2,6; 21:3). The wording of v.6 would suggest that Jesus had already washed the feet of a few disciples who had not protested but when Jesus reached Peter, he refused to have his feet washed. ‘Lord, are you washing my feet?’ There is a strong contrast between ‘you’ and ‘my’ and between ‘Lord’ and ‘feet’. Peter had a very high opinion of the Lord Jesus and did not wish to see him acting as a slave. Since it was the role of a less important person to wash the feet of someone greater, and not vice versa, Peter deemed it inappropriate for his Lord to wash his feet.


Without explaining his behaviour, Jesus matched Peter’s ‘you’ and ‘my’ in verse 6 with the words ‘I’ and ‘you’ in verse 7: ‘What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter’. ‘Hereafter’ is a translation of two Greek words meaning ‘after these things’. The word for ‘these things’ (tauta) occurs again in 13:17 which would suggest that the specific reference is to the foot-washing. Some, however, relate ‘hereafter’ (i.e. ‘later’) to the period after Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension and the advent of the Holy Spirit (2:22; 12:16; 20:9) rather than to the time of explanation just after the foot-washing.


Although Jesus had told him that his understanding was incomplete Peter still strongly resisted, saying: ‘thou shalt never wash my feet.’ ‘Never’ is literally ‘not in/until all eternity.’ Once more Jesus picked up on the ‘you’ and ‘my’ (v.6) and ‘I’ and ‘you’ (v.7) and talked to Peter about ‘you’ and ‘me’ (v.8): ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.’ i.e. no share in fellowship with me. Note that there is an interesting use of this expression in 2 Samuel 20:1 that helps clarify the meaning: ‘…Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: … blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse…’


It seems that here Jesus spoke of washing in symbolic rather than literal terms (see also 15:3) and was saying that in order to have a portion or part with him in eternal life one must be clean. He thus meant that it is necessary to accept, not the literal washing, but what it signified. If, however, Jesus was referring to the literal action of washing his disciples’ feet the lesson for us today is that we ought to obey him without question and not have an à la carte approach to his lordship. We cannot just pick and choose those areas of our lives over which we are willing to allow him control.


As a loyal follower of Christ, Peter wanted a share with him in the future and, willing to do whatever was necessary to secure this, he immediately moved from one extreme to the other, saying: ‘Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head’ (v.9). Displaying a continued lack of understanding Peter changed the symbol from foot-washing to a full wash, shifting the focus from daily cleansing for service to salvation/regeneration/justification. Peter asked for a fuller cleansing than that which he had already received. That, of course, was impossible as he had already been cleansed, and it is a once for all act.


In v. 10 Jesus responded to the idea of an all-over wash that Peter had raised and contrasted a complete bath with daily foot-washing: ‘he that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.’ This conversation was taking place at Passover season when Jews were scrupulous about personal hygiene and ritual cleanliness. Those invited to a Passover meal would bathe before leaving home, on arrival at the venue they did not need to do that again but just had to have their feet washed. ‘Washing’ is often used in the New Testament (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22) as a metaphor for salvation. The point for Peter and the other disciples to grasp was that they had been washed all over. That did not have to be repeated; they needed just their feet cleaned. Judas was the exception; he had not been washed. He was the only one there who lacked the spiritual equivalent of a complete bath. As believers we have experienced the once for all act of salvation (forgiveness of sin) but must now allow Jesus to serve us by cleansing us from daily sins: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 Jn 1:9).


Having carried out the foot-washing (dramatizing what Luke 22:25-30 tells us he taught that same evening), Jesus put on his outer garment (himation) again and returned to his seat at the table. Once more assuming the posture of a rabbi (they sat to teach) he began to explain the significance of what he had just done. He opened the follow-up session with a question (‘know ye what I have done to you?’), and gave the answer in verse 15.


THE SOVEREIGN

Jesus declared that he ranked superior to the disciples: ‘Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am’ (see 4:31; 6:68). The contrast this time is between ‘you’ and ‘me’ (‘you call me…so I am’). He reminded them that as their Lord and Teacher his status was greater than theirs. The reason he washed their feet was not because he was of lower status, and he did not lose status as a result of washing their feet. He was stressing that even while he washed their feet he remained the pre-eminent person. By doing for them what was not normally expected of someone more important he was demonstrating the extent of his love and giving them an example of humble service. As their Lord and master, he ought to have been receiving service from them but instead he served them.


THE STANDARD

‘If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.’


As those who were less important the disciples ought to have been prepared to wash feet. He therefore instructed them to wash one another’s feet. There was to be no inequality, it was a reciprocal action; every one of them was to wash everyone else’s feet.


There has always been some debate as to whether the command to practise foot-washing is to be taken literally or symbolically. Did the Lord introduce an ordinance of foot-washing? The prevailing view has been that foot-washing is symbolic of an attitude that Christians ought to display towards one another (Gal 5:13; 6:2; Phil 2:3-4; 1 Tim 5:10), rather than a literal physical ceremony to be enacted. The command is to do ‘as’ Christ did, not ‘what’ he did. The word ‘example’ or ‘pattern’ (hupodeigma), occurs also in Heb 4:11; 8:5; 9:23; Jas 5:10 and 2 Pet 2:6. The command to model Christ’s attitude in dealings with others was taken up and encouraged by the apostles in their writings:


Paul: ‘Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.’ 1 Cor 11:1


Peter: ‘For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:’ 1 Pet 2:21


John: ‘He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.’ 1 Jn 2:6


The section ends at v. 17 with the first of two beatitudes in John’s Gospel (see also 20:29): ‘If ye know (understand) these things, happy (blessed) are ye if ye do them.’


SUMMATION

This passage emphasizes that the One who knew who he was, who knew what would happen, who knew where he was going and had all things under his feet, was willing to strip down to his inner tunic and wrap a towel around his waist. Taking the humble position of a slave he washed and dried the feet of his disciples as an expression of his love for them. This foreshadowed a greater demonstration of his love at the cross for later, in the same discourse, he reminded these disciples that ‘greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (15:13). As his friends (15:14-15) let us also love him, keep his commands, and serve one another (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12)!


‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ Mk 10: 44-45