John 13:6

Joh 13:6. Ἔρχεται, 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 ἀπεριεργία [artlessness], the obedient simplicity of believers.—Κύριε, 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.—σύ μου, thou my) He takes it indignantly, as though a thing unworthy of the Lord.

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

Joh_13:6-9. Ἔρχεται οὖν] 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.

σύ μου, κ.τ.λ.] ἐκπλαγεὶς εἶπε τοῦτο καὶ σφόδρα εὐλαβηθείς, Euth. Zigabenus. The emphasis lies, in the first instance, upon σύ; not afterwards, however, on μου, as if ἐμοῦ had been used, but on τ. πόδας: Dost Thou wash my feet? The present νίπτεις, like λιθαζέτε, Joh_10:32, and ποιεῖς, Joh_13:27.

Joh_13:7. Note the antithesis of ἐγὼ … σύ. 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 σημεῖον of the morally purifying, ministering love.

μετὰ ταῦτα] 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. γινώσκετε, Joh_13:12), and would have been expressed, as in Joh_13:36, by the antithesis of νῦν and ὕστερον.

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 (τοὺς πόδας σου 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 Lords 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; καὶ ἐν τῇ παραιτήσει καὶ ἐν τῇ συγχωρήσει σφοδρότερος, ἑκάτερα γὰρ ἐξ ἀγάπης, Cyril.

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα] while eternity lasts, spoken with passion. Comp. 1Co_8:13.

μέρος ἔχειν μετά τινος] denotes the participation in the same relation, in the like situation with any one, Mat_24:51, Luk_12:46, after the Hebrew תֵלֶק אֶת (Deu_12:12), and תֵלֶק עַם (Deu_10:9; Deu_14:27; Psa_50:18). The expression in the classics would be οὐκ ἔχεις or μετέχεις μέρος μου. It is the denial of the συγκληρονόμον εἶναι Χριστοῦ, and thus the threatening of exclusion from the ζωή and δόξα of the Lord.

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 13:6 . ἔρχεται οὖν , 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, Κύριε , σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας ; The σύ μου are brought together for the sake of the contrast.

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

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. Οὖν, 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 σύ, thou, and μού, 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 ἐγώ and σύ (I—thou) in Joh 13:7, answers to that of σύ and μού (thou—me) in Joh 13:6. The expression μετὰ ταῦτα, hereafter, signifies according to Chrysostom, Grotius, Tholuck, Reuss: by the light which the experiences of thy future ministry will give. But the relation between γνώσῃ, thou shalt know, and γινώσκετε,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, ἔχεις, thou hast). The ἔχεις may perfectly well be a present of anticipation and may refer to the blessedness to come. The phrase μέρος ἔχειν μετά, 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).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Peter saith . . . Lord, dost thou wash my feet?--Our language cannot bring out the intensely vivid contrast between the "Thou" and the "my," which, by bringing them together, the original expresses, for it is not good English to say, "Lord, Thou my feet dost wash?" But every word of this question is emphatic. Thus far, and in the question itself, there was nothing but the most profound and beautiful astonishment at a condescension to him quite incomprehensible. Accordingly, though there can be no doubt that already Peter's heart rebelled against it as a thing not to be tolerated, Jesus ministers no rebuke as yet, but only bids him wait a little, and he should understand it all.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

(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. Peter’s 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 Lord’s life that of John the Baptist at its commencement (Mat_3:14-15).

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

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 Peter’s 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.

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

Lord, dost thou wash my feet? My master, my Lord, the true Son of the living God, wilt thou wash the feet of me, thy servant, thy disciple, a poor vile sinner? this must not be. (Witham)

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).

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.

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

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.

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

It cannot be determined with whom our Lord commenced the feet-washing. Some of the older expositors have said it was with Judas. The oun might denote that several of the disciples, in awestruck wonder, had submitted without a word, and then (oun presumptive) he cometh to Simon Peter. But the great bulk of ancient and modern expositors suppose that Peter was the first to whom this great grace was offered. At all events, in his impulsive manner always rushing forwards, and ready to give his Master advice, and to be the mouthpiece of otherwise unuttered feelings, Peter was the first to exclaim, (and) he saith unto him, and with strong emphasis on the Su and the mou , Dost thou wash my feet? The protest was natural. It corresponds with many another scene in Peter"s life; as when he said, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man," or cried, "That be far from thee," and later on in this chapter, "Why cannot I follow thee now?" or, "I have never eaten anything common or unclean." This trait in Peter"s character is wonderfully accurate, and corresponds with the portraiture of the same man in the synoptic narrative (see Introduction, p. 115.). There is here an analogous blending of reverence and self-will, of outwardness and forwardness a new illustration of one who would distinguish himself by the greatness of his humility.

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

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? The language of Peter is that of confusion, of astonishment and of remonstrance. The emphasis is on the word thou.

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.

Lord, are you going to wash my feet?

Peter's question shows that he is not willing for Jesus to wash his feet. AT: "Lord, it is not right for you to wash the feet of me, a sinner!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

If I do not wash you, you have no share with me

Here Jesus states two negatives to convince Peter to allow him to wash his feet. Jesus implies that Peter must let him wash his feet if he wants to continue being a disciple. AT: "If I wash you, you will always belong with me" (See: Double Negatives and Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

Peter

lord

understand

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

6. Omit καί before λέγει, and ἐκεῖνος before Κύριε.

6. ἔρχεται οὖν. 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 his supremacy, which cannot be proved at all. The order of his words marks the contrast between him and his Master, Σύ μου ν. τ. π.; Tu mihi lavas pedes? Strong emphasis on σύ: comp. σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με (Mat 3:14).

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.

6.] And (the οὖν taking up the narrative again at the ἤρξατο, 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.

νίπτεις] 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 μου is enclitic, not emphatic, in which case it would be ἐμοῦ. The having his feet washed is a matter of course: it is the Person who is about to do it that offends him.

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

6. Jesus tells John the beloved disciple that the traitor is the one to whom He will give the sop from the dish (Joh 13:25, Joh 13:26; cf. Mar 14:20, Mat 26:23; not in Lk.).

6. After Σίμωνα Πέτρον, the rec. adds καί, with אAWΓΔΘ; but the conjunction is omitted by BDL, and this suits the abrupt style of the narrative. After λέγει αὐτῷ, in like manner, ἐκεῖνος is added by rec. text, with אcADLWΓΔΘ, to make the sense clear; om. א*B.

κύριε. Peter does not say “Rabbi,” as in the early days; see on 1:38, and cf. vv. 9, 36.

σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; “Dost Thou wash my feet?” both pronouns being emphatic, and special stress lying on μου, as following another pronoun directly. Peter, we may suppose, drew his feet up, as he spoke, in his impulsive humility. There is a pseudo-reverence which is near akin to irreverence.3

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

Dost thou wash [συ μου νιπτεις] ? The two pronouns Thou, my, stand together at the beginning of the sentence in emphatic contrast. Dost thou of me wash the feet ?

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