John 13:10

13:10 Jesus referred to an ultimate cleansing through his sacrifice which makes a person clean all over.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 13:10. Ὁ λελουμένος) λούω (whence comes λουτρόν) is said of the whole body; νίπτω of a part of it.—οὐ, not) Jesus brings back the feeling of Peter to due bounds.—πόδας, feet) which are the last in being washed, and the first in being soiled.—ὅλος, all over) when the feet have been washed.—καθαροί, clean) ch. Joh 15:3, “Now ye are clean through the word, which I have spoken unto you.”

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_13:10-11. Jesus sets the disciple right, and that by proceeding to speak of the washing in question according to the spiritual sense of which it is to be taken as the symbol, in order thereby to lead the disciple, who had misunderstood Him, to the true comprehension of the matter. According to the mere verbal sense, He says: He who has bathed needs nothing further than to wash his feet (which have been soiled again by the road); rather is he (except as to this necessary cleansing of the feet) clean in his entire body. But this statement, derived from experience of the sensuous province of life, serves as a symbolical wrapping of the ethical thought which Jesus desires to set forth: He who has already experienced moral purification in general and on the whole in fellowship with me, like him who has cleansed his whole body in the bath, requires only to be freed from the sinful defilement in individual things which has been again contracted in the intercourse of life; as one who has bathed only requires again the washing of his feet, but in other respects he is clean as to his whole moral personality. This necessity of individual purification demanding daily penitence, which Jesus here sets forth in the λελουμένος by τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, how manifest it became in the very case of Peter! E.g., after he denied his Lord, and after the hypocrisy exhibited at Antioch, Galatians 2. To illustrate the entire spiritual purification[127] by Ὁ ΛΕΛΟΥΜΈΝΟς, however, suggested itself so very naturally through the very feet-washing, which was just about to be undertaken as its correlate, that an allusion to baptism (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Ruperti, Erasmus, Jansen, Zeger, Cornelius a Lapide, Schoettgen, Wetstein, and many others, including Olshausen, B. Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet), perhaps after 1Co_6:11, cannot be made good, while it is not even requisite to assume a reference to the by no means universal custom of bathing before meals. The word is to be thought of as the purifying element represented in ὁ λελουμένος; as also in the simile of the vine, which is analogous in regard to the matter of fact depicted, the ΚΑΘΑΡΟΊ ἘΣΤΕ, Joh_15:3, is referred back only to the word of Christ as the ground thereof. But the notion of ethical purification must, in the connection of the entire symbolism of the passage, be also strictly and firmly maintained in οὐ χρείαν … νίψασθαι; so that the latter is not, as Linder, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 512 ff., thinks, intended to suggest that the clean man even may undergo the feet-washing,not, however, for the object of purification, but as a token of love or humble subjection.

καὶ ὑμεῖς καθαραί ἐστε] Hereby Jesus now makes the application to Peter and his fellow-disciples of what was previously said in the form of a general proposition: Ye also are clean, as I, namely, have just expressed it of the λελουμένος; you also have attained in your living fellowship with me through my word to this moral purity of your entire personality; butso He subjoins with deep grief, having Judas Iscariot in viewbut not all! One there is amongst you who has frustrated in his own case the purifying influence of this union with me! Had Peter hitherto not yet seized the symbolical significance of the discourse of Jesus, yet now, on this application καὶ ὑμεῖς, κ.τ.λ., and on this tragical addition ἈΛΛʼ ΟὐΧῚ ΠΆΝΤΕς, its meaning must have dawned upon his understanding.

Ἤ] gives a comparative reference to the absolute expression ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ ΧΡ.: has no need (further) than. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 9; Herod. vi. 52: οὐ δυναμένους δὲ γνῶναι ἢ καὶ πρὸ τούτου (better than even formerly); Soph. Trach. 1016; Winer, p. 473 [E. T. p. 638].

τὸν παραδίδ. αὐτόν] His betrayer, Mat_26:48; Joh_18:2.

Further, what has been said of an anti-Petrine aim in this passage, in spite of Joh_1:43, Joh_6:68-69 (Strauss, Schwegler, Baur, Hilgenfeld), by which the desire for an Ebionitic lavation of the whole body has actually been ascribed to Peter (Hilgenfeld), is altogether imaginary.

[127] Calvin well remarks: Non quod omni ex parte puri sint, ut nulla in illis macula amplius haereat, sed quoniam praecipua sui parte mundati sunt, dum scilicet ablatum est regnum peccato ut justitia Dei superior sit.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 13:10 . Ὁ λελουμένος … ὅλος . “He that has been in the bath has no need to wash save his feet, but is all clean.” His feet may be soiled by walking from the public bath to the supper chamber, and it is enough that they be washed. “Ad convivium vocati solebant prius in balneo lavari; in domo vero convivatoris nonnisi pedes, quibus in via pulvis aut sordes adhaeserant, a servis abluebantur, ne lecti, super quibus accumbebant, macularentur.” Wetstein. He supports the statement by many references. The added clause discloses that a spiritual sense underlies the symbol: ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε , ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ πάντες , “ye are clean, but not all”. All had been washed: the feet of Judas were as clean as those of Peter. But Judas was not clean.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He that is washed--in this thorough sense, to express which the word is carefully changed to one meaning to wash as in a bath.

needeth not--to be so washed any more.

save to wash his feet--needeth to do no more than wash his feet (and here the former word is resumed, meaning to wash the hands or feet).

but is clean every whit--as a whole. This sentence is singularly instructive. Of the two cleansings, the one points to that which takes place at the commencement of the Christian life, embracing complete absolution from sin as a guilty state, and entire deliverance from it as a polluted life (Rev 1:5; Co1 6:11) --or, in the language of theology, Justification and Regeneration. This cleansing is effected once for all, and is never repeated. The other cleansing, described as that of "the feet," is such as one walking from a bath quite cleansed still needs, in consequence of his contact with the earth. (Compare Exo 30:18-19). It is the daily cleansing which we are taught to seek, when in the spirit of adoption we say, "Our Father which art in heaven . . . forgive us our debts" (Mat 6:9, Mat 6:12); and, when burdened with the sense of manifold shortcomings--as what tender spirit of a Christian is not?--is it not a relief to be permitted thus to wash our feet after a day's contact with the earth? This is not to call in question the completeness of our past justification. Our Lord, while graciously insisting on washing Peter's feet, refuses to extend the cleansing farther, that the symbolical instruction intended to be conveyed might not be marred.

and ye are clean--in the first and whole sense.

but not all--important, as showing that Judas, instead of being as true-hearted a disciple as the rest at first, and merely falling away afterwards--as many represent it--never experienced that cleansing at all which made the others what they were.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 10. He that is washed] That is, he who has been in the bath, as probably all the apostles had lately been, in order to prepare themselves the better for the paschal solemnity; for on that occasion, it was the custom of the Jews to bathe twice.

Needeth not save to wash his feet] To cleanse them from any dirt or dust that might have adhered to them, in consequence of walking from the bath to the place of supper. The washing, therefore, of the feet of such persons was all that was necessary, previously to their sitting down to table; The Hindoos walk home from bathing barefoot, and, on entering the house wash their feet again. To this custom our Lord evidently alludes.

If these last words of our Lord had any spiritual reference, it is not easy to say what it was. A common opinion is the following: He who is washed-who is justified through the blood of the Lamb, needeth only to wash his feet-to regulate all his affections and desires; and to get, by faith, his conscience cleansed from any fresh guilt, which he may have contracted since his justification.

Ye are clean, but not all] Eleven of you are upright and sincere; the twelfth is a traitor. So it appears he had washed the feet of all the twelve; but as no external ablutions can purify a hypocrite or a traitor, therefore Judas still remained unclean.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. He who is washed needeth not to wash more than his feet, but is altogether clean. First, he says that believers are altogether clean; not that they are in every respect pure, so that there no longer remains in them any stain, but because they are cleansed in their chief part; that is, when sin is deprived of its kingly power, so that the righteousness of God holds the superiority; just as if we were to say, that a body was altogether healthy, Because it was not infected with any universal disease. It is by newness of life, therefore, that we must testify ourselves to be the disciples of Christ, for he declares that he is the Author of purity in all his followers.

Again, the other comparison was also applied to the case in hand, that Peter might not set aside the washing of the feet as foolish; for, as Christ washes from the head to the feet, those whom he receives as his disciples, so, in those whom he has cleansed, the lower part remains to be daily cleansed. The children of God are not altogether regenerated on the first day, so as to aim at nothing but the heavenly life; but, on the contrary, the remains of the flesh continue to dwell in them, with which they maintain a continued struggle throughout their whole life. The term feet, therefore, is metaphorically applied to all the passions and cares by which we are brought into contact with the world; for, if the Holy Spirit occupied every part of us, we would no longer have anything to do with the pollutions of the world; but now, by that part in which we are carnal, we creep on the ground, or at least fix our feet in the clay, and, therefor are to some extent unclean. Thus Christ always finds in us something to cleanse. What is here spoken of is not the forgiveness of sins, but the renewal, by which Christ, by gradual and uninterrupted succession, delivers his followers entirely from the sinful desires of the flesh.

And you are clean. This proposition may be said to be the minor in the syllogism, and hence it follows that the washing of the feet applies to them with strict propriety.

But not all. This exception is added, that every one may examine himself, if Judas may perhaps be moved by a feeling of repentance; though he intended by it to take an early opportunity of fortifying the rest of the disciples, that they might not be perplexed by the atrocity of the crime, which was soon afterwards to be made known. Yet he purposely abstains from naming him, that he may not shut against him the gate of repentance. As that hardened hypocrite was utterly desperate, the warning served only to aggravate his guilt; but it was of great advantage to the other disciples, for by means of it the Divinity of Christ was more fully made known to them, and they likewise perceived that purity is no ordinary gift of the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(10) He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet.—Better, He who has bathed . . . St. Peter’s words have implied that he was wholly unclean, and needed for feet, and head, and hands, for the whole man, a moral cleansing. Christ answers that this was not so. The man who has been bathed is clean, but his feet coming in contact with the dust of the road need to be washed. It was so morally. They had been cleansed; their whole moral life had been changed, but they were liable to the corruption of every-day life through which they walked, and needed to be cleansed from the pollution of it. That day had furnished an example; their pride and self-seeking was of the spirit of the world, and not of the spirit of Christ; His act was a cleansing from that, but it did not imply that they were not clean. The lesson is that all, from Apostles downwards, need the daily renewing of the grace of God; and that none should find in failure, or even in the evil which clings to his daily path, reason for questioning the reality of the moral change which has made him the child of God.

And ye are clean, but not all.—This is the moral application, accompanied by the mournful thought that it was not true of all. One there was among those who had been bathed who had allowed evil to enter into his heart and pollute it. For him cleansing had been neglected, and the daily corruption of the world had remained; evil thoughts had been harboured, until at length they had made corrupt the whole man. (Comp. Note on Joh_15:4.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. He that is washed] Rather, He that is bathed (comp. Heb_10:22 and 2Pe_2:22). In the Greek we have quite a different word from the one rendered ‘wash’ elsewhere in these verses: the latter means to wash part of the body, this to bathe the whole person. A man who has bathed does not need to bathe again when he reaches home, but only to wash the dust off his feet: then he is wholly clean. So also in the spiritual life, a man whose moral nature has once been thoroughly purified need not think that this has been all undone if in the walk through life he contracts some stains: these must be washed away, and then he is once more wholly clean. Peter, conscious of his own imperfections, in Luk_5:8, and possibly here, rushes to the conclusion that he is utterly unclean. But his meaning here perhaps rather is; ‘If having part in Thee depends on being washed by Thee, wash all Thou canst.’ S. Peter excellently illustrates Christ’s saying. His love for his Master proves that he had bathed; his boastfulness (Joh_13:37), his attack on Malchus (Joh_18:10), his denials (25, 27) his dissimulation at Antioch (Galatians 2), all shew how often he had need to wash his feet.

but not all] This is the second indication of the presence of a traitor among them (comp. Joh_6:70). Apparently it did not attract much attention: each, conscious of his own faults, thought the remark only too true. The disclosure is made gradually but rapidly now (Joh_13:18; Joh_13:21; Joh_13:26).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus saith to him, he that is washed,.... Not he that is baptized; for every such person is not wholly clean, but he who is regenerated by the Spirit of God, or rather, who is washed in the blood of Christ: such an one "is clean every whit"; is all over clean; not that he has no sin in him, nor commits any; but as he is washed in the blood of Christ, and justified by his righteousness, he is wholly and entirely clean in the sight of God; for he is justified from all things he could not be justified from by the law of Moses; all his sins are pardoned, and he is perfectly righteous before God; and so is perfectly clean through the word or sentence of justification and absolution pronounced on him, which must be understood in a forensic or law sense. And such an one

needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; the feet of his life and conversation, which are continually gathering dirt, and need daily washing in the blood of Christ; and therefore recourse must be constantly had to that fountain to wash in, for sin and for uncleanness. The allusion is either to persons washed all over in a bath, who have no need to wash again, unless their feet, which may contract some soil in coming out of it; or to travellers, who have often need to wash their feet, though no other part, and such is the case of the children of God in this life; or rather to the priests, who having bathed themselves in the morning, needed not to wash again all the day, except their hands and feet, on certain occasions (x).

And ye are clean, but not all; which shows, that justifying and regenerating grace are common to all the true disciples of Christ; they are equally born again, alike justified, and are as clean one as an other in the sight of God; not only Peter, but all the apostles, were clean, excepting one; there was one of them, Judas, who was not clean; and therefore he says, but not all: whence it may be observed, that among the purest societies, there are some unclean persons; there was a Judas, an unclean person among the pure disciples of Christ; there are chaff and tares among his wheat, goats among his sheep, and foolish virgins along with the wise ones.

(x) Misn. Yoma, c. 3. sect. 3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Ver. 10. Needeth not, save to wash his feet] For though bathed in that blessed fountain, Zec 13:1, and fully justified, yea, and freed from the stain and reign of sin, yet not from the relics, to keep us humble; that when we look upon our feathers, we may withal look upon the feet still defiled, and so be still cleansing ourselves "from all filthiness of flesh and spirit," 2Co 7:1. The inwards and the feet in a sacrifice were to be washed above the rest; because the entrails contain the excrements; and the legs, because they tread in the dirt. Answerable whereunto, we are called upon to wash our hearts, Jer 4:14, and our feet, here. The comparison seems to be taken from those that are washed in baths; for though their whole bodies besides are washed; yet going forth, they touch the earth with their feet, and so are fain to wash again.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He that is washed - This is a difficult passage, and interpreters have been divided about its meaning. Some have supposed that it was customary to bathe before eating the paschal supper, and that the apostles did it; Jesus having said, “he that hath bathed his body is clean except in regard to his feet - to the dirt contracted in returning from the bath, and that there was need only that the feet should be washed in order to prepare them properly to receive the supper.” They suppose, also, that the lesson which Jesus meant to teach was that they were really pure Joh 15:3; that they were qualified to partake of the ordinances of religion, and needed only to be purified from occasional blemishes and impurities (Grotius). Others say that there is not evidence that the Jews bathed before partaking of the Paschal Supper, but that reference is made to the custom of washing their hands and their face. It is known that this was practiced. See the Mat 15:2 note; Mar 7:3-4 notes. Peter had requested him to wash his hands and his head. Jesus told him that as that had been done, it was unnecessary to repeat it; but to wash the feet was an act of hospitality, the office of a servant, and that all that was needed now was for him to show this condescension and humility. Probably reference is had here to internal purity, as Jesus was fond of drawing illustrations from every quarter to teach them spiritual doctrine; as if he had said, “You are clean by my word and ministry Joh 15:3; you are my followers, and are prepared for the scene before you. But one thing remains. And as, when we come to this rite, having washed, there remains no need of washing except to wash the feet, so there is now nothing remaining but for me to show you an example that you will always remember, and that shall complete my public instructions to you.”

Is clean - This word may apply to the body or the soul.

Every whit - Altogether, wholly.

Ye are clean - Here the word has doubtless reference to the mind and heart.

But not all - You are not all my true followers, and fitted for the ordinance before us.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He that is washed, &c. The feet are always apt to contract some dust or dirt; and in the mystical sense, he that is washed by the sacraments of baptism, or penance, from greater sins, must still endeavour to cleanse, and purify his affections from lesser failings of human frailty. And you, my apostles, are clean from greater offences, but not all of you, meaning the traitor Judas. (Witham) --- It is impossible that the extremities of the soul (if we may be allowed the expression) should not, as long as we tread upon this earth, receive some stain or other; although in the opinion of men, the soul appear just. Many indeed after baptism, are covered with the dust of sin, even to the head, but those who are disciples indeed, need only to wash their feet. (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.) --- The foulness of the feet, when the rest is clean, signifies the earthly affections, and remains of former sins remitted, which are to be cleansed by devout acts of charity and humility. (St. Ambrose, lib. iii. de Sacram. chap. 1; St. Bernard, de cæn. Dom. ser. 1.) --- Though his disciples were clean, still he washed their feet, comformably to that of the Apocalypse, chap. xxii. "He that is clean, let him be cleansed still." (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Look as it is with persons that have been washing themselves in a bath, when they are washed, yet walking abroad barefoot, or with thin sandals or coverings for their feet, will be again subject to pollute and dirty their feet, so as they will have frequent need to wash them again; but they need not soon again wash their whole bodies: so it is as to souls that are washed with my blood; washed, and sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God, (as the apostle speaketh, 1Co 6:11), their state is not to be renewed; they need not be justified a second time; but they will have need to have their feet washed, in regard of their remainder of sin and lust that is in them, and will be so while they are in the world, and the temptations which every where he in the world, as snares for their feet; they will have need of a daily washing by repentance, and fresh applications of their souls to my blood, by the repeated exercises of faith, according to their renewed and repeated acts of sin.

Ye are clean; you, who are my apostles, are clean; you are washed, you are justified, I have forgiven your sins, accepted your persons.

But not all; the most of you are so, but not all.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. Needeth not save… his feet—For in this act of washing the feet, which, being the lowest part of the body, are the emblem of our entire impure nature, the cleansing away of our entire impurity is symbolized.

Clean, but not all—Clean, not merely by this act of washing, but clean by the forgiving power of my blood; clean even in spite of their just previous contention for the precedency. For, in spite of that imperfection, there was in their heart a predominant faith in and love to him their justifying Saviour. Yet not all clean; for there was one in whom that faith and love were overborne, neutralized, and destroyed by a supreme purpose of treason.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus saith to him. Christ"s answer here undoubtedly shows that he is speaking of something far more important than the foot-washing. He goes back to the spiritual meaning which Peter attributed to his words. He that has been bathed (leloumenov) is indeed washed from head to foot, hath no further need than to wash his feet, but is altogether clean. By personal communion with the Lord and belief in him, by the word which he had spoken to his disciples, they were (kayaroi) clean. (Joh_15:3) They had been washed from the defilement of their old nature, they had undergone a thorough moral and spiritual change, by moral union with Christ. They were reconciled and cleansed; they therefore did not need a fundamental change to be wrought daily in head, hands, and life. Just as a man who had thoroughly bathed only requires the removal of the soil contracted in the daily walk; so a regenerated and forgiven man is clean, and, like Peter, should not need, being kayarov , more than the foot-cleansing which Christ in Divine condescension had then granted. It was inevitable that some of the Fathers (Augustine, Theodore) and many modern expositors (Hengstenberg, Godet, and Wordsworth) should see here a reference to baptism, and speak of Peter"s having overlooked the grace of his baptism. When it is remembered, however, that nothing but John"s "baptism unto repentance" had been administered to the disciples, and that this cleansing is, in Joh_15:3, distinctly referred to the word of Christ, it is a very unnecessary trifling with the text to find in this leloumenov baptism or any sacramental or symbolic act. Lampe and Cocceius, in rendering leloumenov , substitute for baptism, the regeneration of the Spirit, and treat the washing of the feet as equivalent to the daily forgiveness of sins of infirmity. Archdeacon Farrar, "Early Days of Christianity," vol. 1. p. 126, suggests that this intensely interesting scene may account for Simon Peter"s picturesque expression, (1Pe_5:5, ekombwsasye) wherein he enjoins on Christians to "tie on humility like a dress fastened with knots;" and also for the apostle"s "insight into the true meaning of baptism, as being, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God." And ye are clean; and therefore these words and this principle apply to you. Dr. Westcott finds in this phrase a reference to the purity of the visible Church, notwithstanding, i.e., the presence of Judas in the group; but the exception itself which follows shows that the Lord did not regard Judas as leloumenov or kayarov . The suggestion of the passage is precisely contrary to that so often drawn. But not all. This reference to Judas may have been one more warning to the man who was plotting against his Master"s life.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And so ye, having been already cleansed, need only to wash your feet - That is, to walk holy and undefiled.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

needeth

The underlying imagery is of an oriental returning from the public baths to his house. His feet would contract defilement and require cleansing, but not his body. So the believer is cleansed as before the law from all sin "once for all" Heb 10:1-12 but needs ever to bring his daily sins to the Father in confession, that he may abide in unbroken fellowship with the Father and with the Son 1Jn 1:1-10. The blood of Christ answers forever to all the law could say as to the believer’s guilt, but he needs constant cleansing from the defilement of sin,; Eph 5:25-27; 1Jn 5:6. Typically, the order of approach to the presence of God was, first, the brazen altar of sacrifice, and then the laver of cleansing Exo 40:6; Exo 40:7. See, also, the order in Exo 30:17-21. Christ cannot have communion with a defiled saint, but He can and will cleanse him.

washed Lit. bathed. The Greek word signifies a complete ablution. "Wash" is another word.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet. We must seek the spiritual meaning. He who is once cleansed by the blood of Christ only needs, after this, to come to Christ for partial cleansing; for the forgiveness of the special sins that make him unclean.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus continues to speak to Simon Peter.

General Information:

Jesus uses the word "you" to refer to all of his disciples.

He who is bathed has no need, except to wash his feet

Here "bathed" is a metaphor that means that God has cleansed a person spiritually. AT: "If anyone has already received God's forgiveness, he now only needs to receive cleansing from his daily sins" (See: Metaphor)

Not all of you are clean

Jesus implies that the one who will betray him, Judas, has not trusted in him. Therefore God has not forgiven him of his sins. AT: "Not all of you have received God's forgiveness" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

clean

betray

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

10. ὁ λελουμένος. He that is bathed (comp. Heb 10:22 and 2Pe 2:22). Νίπτειν (see on Joh 9:7) means to wash part of the body, λούεσθαι to bathe the whole person. A man who has bathed does not need to bathe again when he reaches home, but only to wash the dust off his feet: then he is wholly clean. So also in the spiritual life, a man whose moral nature has once been thoroughly purified need not think that this has been all undone if in the walk through life he contracts some stains: these must be washed away, and then he is once more wholly clean. Peter, conscious of his own imperfections, in Luk 5:8, and possibly here, rushes to the conclusion that he is utterly unclean. But his meaning here perhaps rather is; ‘If having part in Thee depends on being washed by Thee, wash all Thou canst.’ S. Peter excellently illustrates Christ’s saying. His love for his Master proves that he had bathed; his boastfulness (Joh 13:37), his attack on Malchus (Joh 18:10), his d nials (25, 27), his dissimulation at Antioch (Galatians 2), all shew how often he had need to wash his feet.

τὸν παραδιδόντα. Him that was betraying or delivering over: the participle marks the work as already going on (Joh 18:2; Joh 18:5). In Luk 6:16 Judas is called προδότης, ‘a traitor;’ but elsewhere παραδιδόναι, not προδιδόναι, is the word used to express his crime.

οὐχὶ πάντες. The second indication of the presence of a traitor (comp. Joh 6:70). Apparently it did not attract much attention: each, conscious of his own faults, thought the remark only too true. The disclosure is made gradually but rapidly now (Joh 13:18; Joh 13:21; Joh 13:26).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10.] Reference appears to be made to the fact that one who has bathed, after he has reached his home, needs not entire washing, but only to have his feet washed from the dust of the way. This bathing, the bath of the new birth, but only yet in its foreshadowing, in the purifying effect of faith working by love, the Apostles, with one exception, had; and this foot-washing represented to them, besides its lesson of humility and brotherly love, their daily need of cleansing from daily pollution, even after spiritual regeneration, at the hands of their Divine Master. See 2Co 7:1: Jas 1:21: Act 15:8, Act 15:9: 2Pe 2:22.

On καθ. ἐστε, see note, ch. 15:3.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10. Jesus predicts His impending Passion in the words, “I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mar 14:25, Mat 26:29, Luk 22:18; not given thus by Jn., but cf. Joh 13:31-35 and 15:1-13).

10. B om. ὁ before Ἰης., ins. אACDWΘ. For the rec. order οὐ χρείαν ἔχει, אABC*W have οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν.

א omits the words εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας, possibly, as Abbott (Diat. 2659e) suggests, by homoioteleuton. א sometimes writes ει as ι, and Abbott thinks the archetype may have been

ουκεχιχρειανι

μητουσποδασνι

ψασθαι

However that may be, BC*L retain εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας, Act_3 having ἤ τοὺς πόδας, while E2 has τοὺς πόδας only; D expands and gives οὐ χρείαν ἔχει τὴν κεφαλὴν νίψασθαι εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας μονον.

If the words εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας are omitted (א, with Origen and some O.L. authorities), the answer of Jesus is clear, “He that has been bathed needs not to wash,” thus indicating that His words and actions have had nothing to do with cleansing, as Peter supposed; the pedilauium was an illustration only of the dignity of ministry. But the variants show that τοὺς πόδας was probably in the original text, and that the omission of the words is due either to homoioteleuton or to the difficulty of reconciling εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας with the words ἀλλʼ ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος which follow.

ὁ λελουμένος κτλ. λούειν is frequently used of bathing the whole body (e.g. Lev 14:9, Lev 16:4, Lev 17:16, Num 19:7, Deu 23:11, Act 9:37). Guests were accustomed to bathe before they went to a feast (Wetstein gives many illustrations of this); when they arrived at the house where they were to have dinner or supper, it was only necessary that their feet should be washed (see on v. 4). There was no need for the head or the hands to be washed. And so Jesus reminds Peter, who has been wrong in thinking that the washing of his feet by his Master was for the purpose of bodily cleansing. The man who has bathed before the meal is καθαρὸς ὅλος, and Jesus adds, of the disciples who were present, ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε.

καθαρός is often used of external cleanliness, as at Mat 23:26, Mat 27:59, and cf. Heb 10:22 λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, where καθαρός refers to the purity of the water to be used in baptism; but in the only other place where it occurs in Jn. (15:3) the word is used of spiritual purity. To this other meaning of καθαρός Jesus reverts here; then to the words “ye are clean” He adds, “but not all,” Judas being the exception. As far as bodily cleanliness was concerned, no doubt Judas was on a par with the rest; but not in a spiritual sense.

ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ πάντες. This, according to Jn., is the first hint given by Jesus that one of the Twelve would be a traitor; although Jn. has stated (6:64) that He had known this ἐξ ἀρχῆς, and repeats the statement here (v. 11).

In this verse a new idea emerges, sc. that of spiritual purity, being suggested by the double meaning of καθαρός; and we have to inquire if (as some have thought) Jn. sees a deeper symbolism in the feet-washing than the lessons of humility and of the dignity of service. In v. 8 we had, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” This, apart from its context, would naturally refer to the spiritual cleansing which is needful before the disciple can be Christ’s partner, and perhaps (see on v. 9) Peter understood it thus. But in the narrative this is not the interpretation of His action furnished by Jesus Himself (vv. 13-16); although it has been thought that Jn. tells the story in terms which imply it.

Yet (1) if the cleansing be the spiritual purification which is the issue of Christ’s atonement, then we have an idea introduced which is foreign to the context and which does not appear again in c. 13. It is worth adding that the conception of Christ washing away sin in His blood is not explicit anywhere in the N.T. (In Rev 1:5 the true reading is λύσαντι, not λούσαντι, and Rev 7:14 refers to man’s part in redemption, “they washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”)

(2) More plausible is the interpretation which finds in the pedilauium the symbol of baptism. This goes back to Tertullian (de bapt. xii.), but Tertullian is inclined to find a fore-shadowing of baptism in any N.T. phrase which alludes to water. The washing of Christian disciples in the water of baptism is, however, a familiar image in the N.T.; cf. 1Co 6:11, Eph 5:26, Tit 3:5, and Heb 10:22 λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ.

Holtzmann suggested1 that Jn. in this passage is giving an account of the institution of Baptism as a Christian rite, and that he gives it here instead of narrating, as the Synoptists do, the institution of the Eucharist, because he wishes to call attention to the high dignity of baptism. “In doing so, he at the same time very plainly offers the suggestion that washing the feet should be allowed to take the place of complete immersion.” The last sentence is not only an anachronism, for baptism by affusion rather than by immersion is, so far as we know, a concession much later than the latest date that can be assigned to the Fourth Gospel;1 but no baptismal rite has ever been known which substituted the pouring water on the feet for pouring it on the head or the body. The pedilauium, indeed, is prescribed in some early Gallican “Ordines Baptismi” and also in the baptismal offices of the Celtic Church. But it was no part of the actual baptism; it was a supplementary ceremony, intended to illustrate for the new Christian what manner of life his should be—humble and ministerial, as was his Master’s.

If there be any allusion to baptism here, it must lurk in the word λελουμένος, “bathed,” and this is specially contrasted with the “washing” (νίπτειν) of the feet. The esoteric meaning of v. 10 would then be that, as baptism cannot be repeated, the baptized person needs but to have regard to the removal of the occasional defilements of sin with which he is troubled. Even this seems over subtle.

The simplest explanation is that provided in vv. 13-16; the sudden turn of the argument in v. 11 being due to the ambiguity of the word καθαρός, which suggests the introduction of the saving clause “but not all.”

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He that is washed - wash his feet [ο λελουμενος - νιψασθαι] . The A. V. obliterates the distinction between louw, to bathe, to apply water to the whole body, and niptw, to wash a part of the body. Thus, when Dorcas died (Act 9:37) they bathed her body [λουσαντες] . The proverb in 2Pe 2:22, is about the sow that has been bathed all over [λουσαμενη] . On the other hand, he who fasts must wash [νιψαι] his face (Mt 6:17). Both verbs are always used of living beings in the New Testament. The word for washing things, as nets, garments, etc., is plunw. See Luk 5:2. All three verbs occur in Lev 14:11 (Sept.).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.