In this, a late work, Origen elaborates on the symbolic meaning of feet, walking and the way, that he set out decades earlier in the Commentary on Lamentations and Book 1 of the Commentary on John. Here Jesus’ footwashing represents the divine pedagogy by which, as the incarnate Logos, he transforms rational beings so as to make them like himself. This is a ministry in which human teachers, women as well as men, participate. As in Book 1.44–5, where Origen speaks of the need for the New Testament to be transformed into the spiritual gospel, and in Book 13.27–35, where he discusses things above Scripture to which Scripture provides only a meager introduction, so here Jesus’ taking off his clothes before he washes the disciples’ feet symbolizes his laying aside Scripture’s “fabric of passages joined with passages and sounds joined with sounds” (45).
The translation is from Origène, Commentaire sur S. Jean, vol. 5, ed. Cécile Blanc = SC 385, Paris, Cerf, 1992, pp. 188–248.
Text
I Helped on the way by God through Jesus Christ, let us proceed on the way of the gospel, which for us is great and living, as long as it is known and traveled by us through to the end. 2 Now of course, we shall try to make the thirty-second encampment, as it were, in our discussions, and may the column of glowing cloud, Jesus, accompany us, leading us where we need to go, and stopping us where we need to halt (see Ex. 14:19–20), until, Ambrosius, holy brother and man of God (see 1 Tim. 6:11), by the dictation of those things in the gospel, we traverse the whole gospel, neither quailing at the length of the journey nor being discouraged by our own weakness, but forcing ourselves to proceed in the steps of the column of truth (see 1 Tim. 3:15). 3 Whether or not God wishes our interpretation to complete through dictations the journey through the whole Gospel according to John, God knows. 4 Only – both remaining present in the body and leaving it and being present with the Lord (see 2 Cor. 5:6, 8) – let us not proceed beyond the gospel, so that we may also enjoy the deeds (see Jn 13:17) and words affording blessedness in God’s paradise of delights (see Gen. 3:23–).
During the dinner, the Devil having already pierced the heart of Judas Iscariot with the intention to betray him, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God, he arose from supper and put aside his garments and taking a towel he girded himself. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them off with a towel with which he was girded (Jn 13:1–5).
II In the Homilies on Luke, we have compared the parables, and have sought what “breakfast” signifies in Scripture and what “supper” means. 6 Suffice it to say that “breakfast” is the first meal, appropriate for beginners, before the completion in this life of the spiritual day, but that “supper” is the final meal offered with reason to those who have already made considerable progress.
One might also say that “breakfast” is the sense of the ancient Scriptures, but “supper” is the mysteries hidden in the new covenant. 8 This is said to preface our discussion of how, during the supper, Jesus arose and, pouring water into a basin, began to wash the disciples’ feet. 9 I suppose that those who sup with Jesus and, in the last day of his life, participate in a meal with him, need some sort of cleansing, not indeed a cleansing of one of the foremost parts of the soul’s body, so to speak, but, if I may say so, they require washing for their furthermost and last parts, those necessarily in communication with the earth. 10 The first cleansing can be done only by Jesus and him alone, but the second can also be done by his disciples, to whom he says: “And you ought to wash one another’s feet, for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, you ought to do to one another” (Jn 13:14–15).
It seems to me that here the evangelist, directing our mind to the intelligible reality of these things, has abandoned the order of events in which a bodily washing would occur, because it is before the supper and before reclining to eat that those who need their feet washed have that done. Neglecting that moment in his account, it is, on the contrary, when Jesus had already reclined for the supper that he has him arise from the supper so that he, their teacher and lord, might begin to wash the feet of the disciples who were already eating. 12 In fact, they had already bathed before the supper, and they had become entirely clean according to the words: “Wash yourselves, become clean, lift evil-doing from off your souls and from before your eyes,” and so on (Isa. 1:16 LXX), but after this bath they needed a second for their feet only, that is, for the lowest part of the body. 13 For I suppose that it is impossible for the soul, in its furthermost and lowest parts, not to be soiled, even in the case of someone who would appear to be perfect among men. 14 Therefore the majority are covered with the dust of sins, even after washing, from the head, or a little below it, all the way down, but those who are genuinely Jesus’ disciples, who can even sup with him, need to have only their feet washed by the Word. 15 Considering the differences between sins, and recognizing what are sins in the accurate and strong sense of the word, which the many do not even consider to be sins, you will see what those things are from which the feet require Jesus’ cleaning. 16 And if such is indeed the case with smudges on the feet, what are those to do who have never been able to sup with Jesus, who do not have only their feet soiled? For Jesus had said to Peter, who did not know, but who would understand later (see Jn 13:7) the mystery of the washing of feet cleansed by Jesus, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” (Jn 13:8).
You seek what this reveals, whether it means: “unless I wash you who are supping with me, but have not been washed by me, you have absolutely no good part” or “not with me, your teacher and lord, but with those lesser than me, those who, after having been bathed, have neither supped at my supper nor had their feet washed by me.”
Because of “See, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens the door to me, I shall enter in to him and sup with him and he with me” (Rev. 3:30) I ask if Jesus never has breakfast with anyone – for such a person does not need an introduction or first teachings – nor does anyone breakfast with him, but anyone who eats with him must sup, “Indeed,” he says “a greater than Solomon is here” (Mt. 12:42), concerning whom it is written: “And this was Solomon’s breakfast” (1 Kings 2:46 LXX), as recounted in Third Kingdoms.
As a consequence of “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” (Jn 13:8), I would dare say that he did not wash Judas’s feet, because the Devil had already pierced his heart with the intention to betray his teacher and lord, finding him not girded with the whole armor of God and not having the shield of faith, with which one can quench all the fiery darts of the evil one (see Eph. 6:13–16).
For our passage, “The Devil having already pierced,” I hear teaching about this in the same way as the passage in Psalm 7, namely that the Devil is an archer, working his will with fiery darts on those who do not guard their hearts with all diligence (see Prov. 4:23). 21 Here is the text of the Psalm: “If you do not turn around, he will flash his sword, he has strung his bow and prepared it, in it he has prepared his implements of death, and he has fabricated his darts for those who burn. See, he has groaned at injustice, he has conceived travail, he has given birth to lawlessness” (Ps. 7:13–15 [7:12–14]). 22 Everyone recognizes that “See, he has groaned at injustice, he has conceived travail, he has given birth to lawlessness” can be referred to the Devil, but it is absurd to suppose that they are not spoken in the same sense as “If you do not turn around, he will flash his sword, he has strung his bow and prepared it, in it he has prepared his implements of death, and he has fabricated his darts for those who burn.” No one else has prepared implements of death on the bow which he has strung except the one through whose envy death entered the world (see Wis. 2:24).
From these arrows, then, which he had fabricated for those who burn, the Devil pierced the heart of Judas Iscariot, who was already pierced at the supper, with the result that it displeased him. This was because the food and wine in this supper could not enter the heart of someone pierced by an arrow of the Devil intended to betray the one who was perhaps offering the meal – in this passage it is not actually clear who it was who was responsible for the meal, as it was in the preceding passage, “They prepared a supper there, and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those reclining with him” (Jn 12:2). 24 Concerning Judas it is written: “the Devil having already pierced the heart of Judas Iscariot with the intention to betray him.” Following this one could say of each of those wounded in the heart by the Devil that the Devil had already pierced his heart – in one, so as to fornicate; in one, so as to steal; in one, so as to accept, out of insane vainglory, the idolatry of those who seem to be advanced in dignity; and in the same manner with regard to the rest of the sins with which the Devil pierces the heart not protected by the shield of faith – by the shield of faith one can quench, not just one or two, but all the darts of the evil one (see Eph. 6:16).
III As the plan of the passion was approaching – in view of which Judas Iscariot, wounded by the Devil, was going to betray him – after the supper has already started, “knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God, he arose from supper.” 26 What, therefore, had not previously been in Jesus’ hands was given by the Father into his hands, not some things but not others, but all things, the event concerning which David, seeing in the Spirit, said: “The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet’ ” (Ps. 109:1 [110:1]).
Indeed, even Jesus’ enemies were part of the “all things” concerning which Jesus knew, in so far as he depended on foreknowledge, that they had been given to him by the Father. But so that we may contemplate more clearly what is meant by “the Father had given all things into his hands” let us pay attention to “Just as in Adam all died, so also all shall be made alive” in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:22).
But if the Father had given all things into his hands, and in Christ all shall be made alive, neither God’s justice nor his saving plan for each person according to merit is invalidated, as is apparent from the words following “so all shall be made alive in Christ,” however, “each one in his own order” (1 Cor. 15:23).
Again concerning the different orders of those who are to be made alive in Christ when “The Father has given him all things in his hands” is fulfilled, you will understand it by discerning the meaning of “Christ is the first-fruits, then those who belong to Christ at his advent, then the end” (1 Cor. 15:23–). The “end” is established with Christ at his advent, when “He will hand over the kingdom to his God and Father” having first “brought to naught every dominion, authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24). 30 It is these beings, I think, with whom there is contention (see Eph. 6:12). He does this so there may be no more dominion, authority, and power against which to have a contention, and therefore no contention will exist, since all dominion, authority, and power will be brought to naught. 31 What moves me to believe that the contention is against every dominion, authority, and power that is being brought to naught is what is added by Paul, namely, “He must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). Then “the last enemy is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). 32 This agrees with “the Father had given all things into his hands,” which the Apostle expounds more clearly, saying: “When it is said that everything will be subjected to him, it is evident that this does not include the one who has subjected all things to him” (1 Cor. 15:27).
But if all things are subjected to him, it is equally evident that “this does not include the one who has subjected all things to him” and that he concerning whom it is written “Before the Lord Almighty he has bent the neck” (Job 15:25 LXX) is among those who are subjected to him, having been vanquished so as to yield to the Word and to be subjected to God’s image (see Col. 1:15) and to become the footstool of his feet. 34 Seeing then that the plan was already advancing toward its beneficial conclusion because the Devil had already pierced the heart of Judas Simon Iscariot with the intention to betray him, he knew that the Father had given all things and had given them into his hands which hold everything, so that all things might be subject to him – or that “the Father had given all things into his hands,” that is, into his deeds and redemptive acts – indeed he said: “My Father works up to now, and I work” (Jn 5:17).
He departed from God for the sake of those who had departed from God – and he who would not initially depart from the Father came to be apart from God – so that what had departed might come with method and order into the hands of Jesus, and so that their return to God, following him, might be planned, so that, by following him, they might be with God (see Jn 1:1). 36 For it was once said to Peter “Where I go, you cannot follow me now, but you can follow me later” (Jn 13:36), because Peter still had something that prevented him from following the Word at that time. 37 It is to be understood that the same thing may be said, according to a fair analogy, concerning each one of the “all things” which the Father has given into the hands of the Son, for to each one of the “all” it could be said “You shall follow me later”. 38 But if they do not all follow together, the “later” in “You shall follow me later” does not refer to the same time in the case of each of those who will follow. 39 And it means this to me also concerning all those who are being set at naught, when he shall set at naught every dominion, every authority, and every power (see 1 Cor. 15:24), that is, “until he puts all his enemies under his feet, and the last enemy to be set at naught is death” (1 Cor. 15:25–6). 40 Jesus therefore “knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God” and knowing how much and by what things we are moved, as we have explained in presenting our statement on the passage from “He had come from God” to “He was returning to God,” “he arose from supper,” which we shall explain after this, in what follows. 41 See if you can say with regard to these matters that he was enjoying a carefree supper with his disciples, but that with care and under duress he arose from the table because of his disciples and interrupted the supper for a moment, until he cleansed the disciples’ feet, because they could have no part with him unless he washed them.
IV Let us consider what is said after “He arose from supper.” He “put aside his garments,” it says, “and taking a towel he girded himself.” 43 To those who do not wish to go beyond statements and to understand intellectually the nourishment offered to the soul in this passage, we would say: “What prevented him from washing the disciples’ feet while fully clothed?” 44 But if somehow we see in a manner worthy of Jesus the clothing that he wore as he was supping and enjoying himself with his disciples, shall we not consider with what sort of adornment the Word made flesh was clothed (see Jn 1:14)? 45 This adornment – consisting of a fabric of passages joined with passages and sounds joined with sounds – he lays aside, and became more bare, with a servile posture, which is evident in the words “taking a towel he girded himself.” He does this so as not to be entirely bare and so that, after the washing, he may dry his disciples’ feet with a more appropriate fabric.
Consider in these things how the great and glorious Word diminishes himself in becoming flesh, so that he may wash the disciples’ feet, for it says: “he poured water into a basin.” 47 Thus when Abraham, “lifting up his eyes, looked and, see, there were three men before him, and seeing them he ran ahead to greet them from the door of his tent and prostrated himself on the ground and said ‘Lord, if I have found grace before you, do not pass by your servant’ ” (Gen. 18:2–3), he did not himself take water or promise to wash their feet as guests coming to him, but said: “Take water, and wash their feet” (Gen. 18:4). 48 Neither did Joseph take water and wash the feet of his eleven brothers, but it was the man in charge of Joseph’s household “who brought Simeon to them and brought them water to wash their feet” (Gen. 43:23–4). 49 But he who said: “I come not as one sitting at table but as one who serves” (Lk. 22:27), who justly said: “Learn from me, because I am meek and humble of heart” (Mt. 11:29), himself poured water in the basin, for he knew that no one else could so wash the disciples’ feet so that, through this washing, they might have part with him.
But as far as the water is concerned, it was, according to me, a word of such a sort as to wash the disciples’ feet as they came before the basin which Jesus had offered to them.
I shall now seek why it is not written that he “washed the disciples’ feet, but he “began to wash the disciples’ feet.” 52 Is such an expression a Scriptural usage, when it seems irrational, according to ordinary usage, to add he “began”? Or did Jesus at that time begin to wash his disciples’ feet but not finish washing their feet? 53 Indeed he washed and later finished the washing, since they were soiled according to “You will all stumble because of me this night” (Mt. 26:31) and what he said to Peter: “The cock shall not have crowed before you deny me three times” (Jn 13:38).
Once these sins had occurred, the soiled feet of the disciples, which he began to wash when he arose from the table, required washing again, and he finished washing them by cleansing them so that they would not again become soiled. 55 In the same way he began at that time to dry the disciples’ feet, but he finished drying them, when he had finished washing.
He therefore went to Simon Peter, who said: “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered and said to him: “What I am doing you are not aware of now, but later on you will know.” Peter said to him: “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus replied to him: “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.” Simon Peter said to him: “Not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” Jesus said to him: “He who has taken a bath need only wash his feet, but he is entirely clean, and you are clean, but not all of you.” For he knew who was to betray him, therefore he said: “You are not all clean” (Jn 13:6–11).
V We shall use the words spoken by Peter as a timely example, if needed, that someone can, with the best intentions, ignorantly say something utterly to his own disadvantage. 57 If indeed having one’s feet washed by him had the advantage of giving him a part in Jesus, Peter, nonetheless, ignorant of this advantage, initially said, as if he were trying to discourage Jesus, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” and then “You shall never wash my feet,” words which would have prevented an action which would have enabled him have part with the Savior. Clearly, then, even if he said this with a healthy, reverent attitude toward his teacher, he spoke in a manner injurious to himself. 58 This kind of mistake fills the life of believers who ignorantly say or even do things that frustrate their excellent intentions. 59 Such, for example, are those who say, about each thing that is perishable and destined for human use, “do not take, do not taste, do not touch” (Col. 2:21–22), according to a teaching much inferior to “you shall die as a man” (Ps. 81:7 ([82:7]). 60 What is there to say concerning those who are tossed about and carried away by every wind according to human trickery (see Eph. 4:14), calling destructive things salvific and holding false opinions about Jesus as if they revered him?
Often Scripture has indicated this about Peter: that he was too ardent to prefer what seemed best to him, as when he impetuously contradicted Jesus’ prophecy concerning the disciples: “You will all stumble because of me tonight” because: “Indeed it is written, ‘I shall strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered’ ” (Mt. 26:31; see Zech. 13:7). Concerning this he impetuously said, contradicting Jesus’ assertion, “Even if all should stumble because of you, I shall not stumble” (Mt. 26:33). 62 And this impetuousness in his soul became, I think, the reason why he stumbled more seriously than the others, when he denied Jesus three times before cock crow (see Jn 18:25–7). 63 Therefore, since he was aware of how impulsive he had been earlier, he derived the greatest benefit, becoming the most steadfast and patient. This character manifested itself when Paul said to him, before all, “If you, a Jew, exist as a gentile and do not live as a Jew, why do you compel the gentiles to act like Jews?” (Gal. 2:14), and so on. He remained steadfastly silent and with great forbearance restrained himself from asserting his reasonable position on the matter (These things will be discussed more opportunely in a work on the Epistle to the Galatians.) 64 In the Acts of the Apostles (see Acts 15:7–11) also his resoluteness – “having been transformed into his image” (2 Cor. 3:18) – will appear to all who examine and observe each detail.
VI Here, then, Jesus got up from supper, having put aside his clothing he was girded by a towel that he had taken up. Pouring water in a basin, he was beginning to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them off with the towel with which he was girded. The disciples were all presenting their feet to him, perceiving, according to their opinion of Jesus, that one so great would not wash their feet irrationally out of the desire to embarrass them, as ordinary people would say, but rather – reflecting that he must be acting symbolically – that he would accomplish something useful to them that would be apparent to them later. Only Peter – not looking beyond the immediate situation and applying to it no further consideration – out of reverence for Jesus did not present his feet to be washed, but first tried to discourage him by saying “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Even after he should have been persuaded by “What I am doing you are not aware of now, but later on you will know,” he said: “You shall never wash my feet.” 66 Even though the other disciples placed their confidence in Jesus and avoided contradicting him, Peter, in spite of apparently good intentions, implicitly censured Jesus for acting irrationally in starting to wash his disciples’ feet and also implicitly censured his fellow-disciples. 67 For if he, in trying to stop Jesus, was actually acting in the proper way, and they had not realized this, he was censuring them for having behaved impertinently in presenting their feet to Jesus. If it had occurred to him that one must not oppose what is reasonable and if he had considered reasonable Jesus’ action in washing his disciples’ feet, he would not have opposed what was taking place.
Apparently, then, he uncritically considered unreasonable Jesus’ desire to wash his disciples’ feet.
Nonetheless, if we ought to be examining even details in Scripture that might be considered trivial, this is a topic for investigation: how it is that, even though Peter came first in the list of disciples (doubtless because of his preeminent worthiness, since Judas, ultimately rejected on account of his bad character, came last), nonetheless, when Jesus started to wash the feet of the disciples and wipe them off with the towel with which he was girded, he did not start with Peter. 69 It should be said in response to this that, just as a physician, serving with his skill a great number of invalids, begins his treatment with those whose case is most urgent and who are most grievously ill, so Jesus, washing the soiled feet of his disciples, began with the more soiled ones, and perhaps came to Peter last, because his feet least needed washing. 70 Perhaps an awareness that his feet were almost clean motivated Peter to contradict Jesus.
VII A consideration of Jesus’ words “He who has taken a bath need only wash his feet, but he is entirely clean, and you are clean, but not all of you” suggests, perhaps, that the disciples had already washed their feet. As a result of this bath, they no longer had any need to be washed by Jesus, and perhaps Peter was already clean, even before Jesus washed his feet. 72 If someone should seek in this regard why Jesus who had said: “He who has taken a bath need only wash his feet, but he is entirely clean” went ahead and washed his disciples’ feet, even though they did not need it, the response is: “To him who has will be given and more will be added” (see Mt. 25:29). 73 Since they were already clean, Jesus added to their cleanness by washing their feet. He would not even have washed them if they had not already taken a bath and become entirely clean, clean enough to say that they were so, for if one is perfect among the sons of men, but lacks the perfection that comes, so to speak, from Jesus, he will not be considered clean.
I shall take up these ideas later, because they are presented to me after having dictated what precedes. But let us keep to the order in which things have come to our attention. In as much as we have already seen that the disciples’ soiled feet needed Jesus’ washing, we now see that he washed their feet because they were clean enough for men, but not for God. Apart from Jesus, no one is clean before God, even if he might otherwise be thought to have worked hard enough to make himself clean. 75 But when they are bathed with the baptism of Jesus and their feet are washed by him, the Holy Spirit is able to dwell in those who have already become clean by human standards, and power from above covers them like a garment (see Lk. 1:35).
But Peter, not understanding Jesus’ intention when he began to wash the feet of the disciples and to wipe them off with the towel with which he was girded, said to him “Lord, do you wash my feet?” He said this out of confusion and embarrassment, but Jesus answered and said to him, teaching that this was a mystery, “What I am doing you are not aware of now, but later on you will know.”
What did Jesus do when he washed the disciples’ feet? Did he not, by washing their feet and wiping them off with the towel with which he was girded, make them beautiful, so that they might be ready to preach the good news? 78 Indeed I think that, when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, the prophecy was fulfilled that had been spoken concerning the apostles: “How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim good news of good things” (Rom. 10:15; Isa. 52:7). 79 If, by washing the disciples’ feet, he made them beautiful, what shall we say about the genuine beauty that comes to those who are entirely immersed in the Holy Spirit and in fire (see Mt. 3:11)? 80 But the feet of those who preach good news of good things have become beautiful, so that, once they have been washed, cleansed, and wiped off by Jesus’ hands, they can proceed on the holy way and walk on the one who said “I am the way” (Jn 14:6). 81 For all those who have had their feet washed by Jesus, and they only, walk to the Father on that living way, a way that is no place for feet which are still soiled because they have not yet been cleansed. 82 For this reason Moses had to remove the sandals from his feet, for the place where he was standing was holy ground (see Ex. 3:5). This was also the case with Joshua the son of Nun (see Jos. 5:15). 83 But the disciples of Jesus, in order to make their way on the living and animated way, must not only not have sandals for the way – this was commanded by Jesus to the apostles (see Mt. 10:10) – but they must also, in order to walk on this way, have their feet washed by the Jesus who put aside his garments, perhaps in order to make their clean feet still more clean, perhaps also to take the stain on the disciples’ feet onto his own body through the towel, by which alone he was girded. Indeed, he bears our infirmities (see Isa. 53:4; Mt. 8:17).
VIII Consider then that it is recounted that Jesus was about to wash the disciples’ feet at the precise moment when the Devil had already pierced the heart of Judas Iscariot with the intention to betray him, and the plan for humanity was about to come about. 85 Beforehand it was not an appropriate time for the disciples’ feet to be washed by Jesus – for who would then wash off the soil that had accumulated in the interval before the passion? – and at the passion it would not have been possible either, since there was no other Jesus available to wash their feet. 86 Nor would it have been appropriate after the plan was accomplished, for that was the time for the dwelling of the Holy Spirit with the disciples once they were clean and their feet had been washed, and they already had their feet ready and beautiful for preaching in the Spirit good news of good things. 87 The meaning of “What I am doing you are not aware of now, but later on you will know” is “Having your feet washed by me is a symbol of the cleansing of the foundations of your souls, so that they may become beautiful, because you are about to preach good news of good things and walk upon the souls of men with clean feet. 88 This is the mystery which you are not aware of now; since you are not yet capable of understanding it, it will be a better time to understand it when I have washed your feet, after that you will know when you understand it, having been enlightened by a knowledge of a reality that is neither contemptible nor insignificant.
When Jesus had said these things to Peter, the disciple made an unintelligent response, one giving the appearance, specious in the event, of honoring and revering Jesus. 90 Therefore, because Peter’s response was not appropriate for him, Jesus does not allow it to come true, since, in keeping with his benevolence, he prevents things from coming true in a way that would injure the speaker. 91 For Peter says: “You shall never wash my feet,” meaning that, even though Jesus had decided to wash his feet, they would not be washed by him and would not be washed for all eternity. But he, seeing that it would be more advantageous for Peter to be speaking falsely in this matter than for him to be saying the truth, indicates the advantage to him of not saying the truth in this matter, saying: “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me.” 92 If, therefore, Peter was about to say plainly: “You shall never wash my feet,” and saying the truth in this would entail his having no part in Jesus – but he would have a part by not saying the truth in what he had come to say impetuously – what should he do but not say the truth? 93 Thus saying the truth in this matter would not deprive him of a part in Jesus, who would make him a liar by washing his feet. 94 In any event, it is written: “Every man is a liar” (Ps. 115:2 [116:11]). We shall make appropriate use of this verse in the case of persons who say impetuously and uncritically that they are going to do something which will not be advantageous to them if they persist in their bad judgment. 95 By indicating to them that they would not have part in Jesus, if they kept their impetuous promise, but that they might have hope for a good outcome by repudiating their previous statements, we encourage them to refrain from persisting in their bad judgments, even if, in their great impetuousness, they accompanied them with oaths. 96 And we shall say: “Just as Peter, who said ‘You shall never wash my feet,’ was prevented from acting according to his words so as to deprive himself of a part in Jesus, so you who have been mistaken in some way out of impetuousness and have promised uncritically to do something will do better by abandoning your bad judgment and doing something more reasonable.”
By giving heed to “What I am doing you are not aware of now, but later on you will know” and “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me,” let those who object to a figurative interpretation of this and similar passages be reconciled to such an interpretation of the gospels. If not, let them show how it is reasonable for a disciple who, by their own account, spoke out of reverence in saying to Jesus, “You shall never wash my feet,” to hear from his teacher that he would have no part in the Son of God, because it was a great mistake not to have his feet washed by him. 98 The statement that, if you commit this transgression “you have no part with me” would seem appropriate if they were said in reference to an obviously sinful act, but “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” has no reasonable basis for someone who contends that Peter had not wanted him to wash his bodily feet. 99 In his footwashing, the teacher seems to have responded with extreme cruelty (something we must not say) to a disciple who was honoring him (which is most absurd).
IX Therefore let us offer our feet to Jesus, who even now is arising from the supper table, laying aside his garments, taking a towel, girding himself, pouring water into a basin, and starting to wash our feet, as in the case of the disciples, and wiping them off with a towel with which he is girded, having become like one who serves (see Lk. 22:27) in our midst. 101 If we do not do this, in fact, we shall have no part with him, nor shall our feet become beautiful. Let us do it chiefly because, being zealous for the higher gifts (1 Cor. 12:31), we wish to be counted among those who preach good news of good things.
Nonetheless, because he acted impetuously, Peter – when he heard “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” requesting him to offer his feet to Jesus – wished to exceed the request, and to offer for Jesus’ cleansing not just his feet, but also his hands, which Jesus no longer required to be washed, when they ate bread, despising those who said: “Your disciples do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Mt. 15:2) and, after his hands, his head, which Jesus no longer even required to be covered, for the image of the glory of God was already upon it (see 1 Cor. 11:7). 103 Let it suffice for us, if we come into the same situation as Jesus’ disciples, to offer only the feet for him to wash and dry, for “he who has taken a bath need only wash his feet, but he is entirely clean,” but if someone is not entirely clean, it is because he has not taken a bath.
If it is true that someone “who has taken a bath need only wash his feet, but he is entirely clean” and the disciples of Jesus were clean, because they had bathed, someone may seek how it is that Jesus poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet. 105 We have already partially anticipated this investigation in our response, to which we now add what follows.
“We have need” refers to things that are necessary, without which we cannot continue living. Regarding bodily existence, we have relatively few necessities, only those about which Paul says: “If we have food and clothing, that will suffice for us” (1 Tim. 6:8). On the other hand, things pertaining to wealth and luxury, arising from the excess of those who live softly, are not indispensable necessities but superfluities. The same principle applies to more divine matters: we have need for those that introduce us to life and make us exist in him who said “I am the life” (Jn 11:25), but things exceeding these, those concerning which he said: “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you your heart’s desire” (Ps. 36:4 [37:4]) and those comprehended in “the paradise of luxury” (Gen. 3:23) and the wealth and glory in wisdom’s left hand according to “Length of life and years of life are in her right hand, in her left hand are wealth and glory” (Prov. 3:16 LXX) are beyond necessity.
Does not the privilege of having one’s feet washed by such a teacher and savior after one has bathed belong to this category? For the gracious gift of God exceeds necessity, just as does the privilege of being in the glory of the sun or the moon or the stars in the holy resurrection of the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:41–2). 108 Therefore the one who is clean and has bathed has no necessity for being washed, but he is washed, according to our preceding explanation, because to him who has more will be added (see Mt. 25:29), as John said: “Let him who is clean still make himself clean and let him who is holy still make himself holy” (Rev. 22:11).
“[Y]ou are clean” applies to the eleven, to which “but not all of you” is added because of Iscariot. He knew that he was going to betray him, since he was already unclean, first, because he did not take care of the poor, but, being a thief, he appropriated what had been put in the chest, and, second, because, when “[d]uring the dinner, the Devil having already pierced the heart of Judas Iscariot with the intention to betray” Jesus, he did not repel the suggestion. 110 Therefore the eleven, who had bathed and had become clean, now became cleaner by having their feet washed by Jesus, but Judas was already not clean, for “he who is soiled” it says “let him still be soiled” (Rev. 22:11) when, after the morsel, Satan entered into him.
When he had washed their feet, taken up his clothes, and reclined again, he said to them: “[Do you] Know what I have done.[?] You call me teacher and lord, and you do well to say so, for I am. If therefore I, your teacher and lord, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other’s feet, for I have given you an example that, as I have done to you, so you should do” (Jn 13:12–15).
X Perhaps those who perceive the magnitude of Jesus’ power and understand what he had done in washing the disciples’ feet – cleansing what came last and was ordinary in them, by cleaning those things in contact with the ground (the parts of the body functioning symbolically) – would not presume, out of their admiration for what this washing accomplished, to do something like it themselves. If Jesus, on resuming his place to give them this teaching while they dined, had not exhorted them in the words just cited, they would consider themselves too unimportant to wash the feet of “the inner man in secret” (Rom. 7:2, 2:29) of those who have received the same teachings from God. 112 For in a manner that was very disconcerting, intended to exhort them to a comprehension of what had just happened, he said: “[Do you] Know what I have done.[?]” 113 This can be understood as a question, to reinforce the importance of what had occurred, or as a command, to arouse their minds to pay attention to this action so as to understand it. 114 It is in a highly pedagogical manner, even if disconcerting, that he says: “You call me teacher and lord and you do well to say so, for I am. If therefore I, your teacher and lord, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other’s feet.”
Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as their teacher and his servants’ feet as their lord. 116 It is by teaching that the dust that comes from the earth and from worldly affairs– which had touched nothing but the furthermost and lowest parts of the disciples – is wiped off; it is by the lordship of the sovereign who has authority over those who, because they still have the spirit of servitude (see Rom. 8:15), receive whatever pollution may befall them, that he sweeps off what soils their feet. 117 No one with good sense would say that it is as the door, or as the shepherd, or as the physician that Jesus washes the feet of disciples and servants. But I think that the feet of the disciples need to be washed by the teacher, because they have not yet received everything that they need, but still lack what is implied in “Let it be enough for the disciple to become as his teacher is” (Mt. 10:25). 118 And this is the purpose of the teacher – in his capacity as teacher – in relation to his disciple, to make the disciple like himself, so that he may no longer require his teacher in that capacity, even if he still needs him in some other capacity. 119 Indeed just as the purpose of a physician – who is needed by those who are ill even though those who are well do not need a physician – is to relieve those ill of their illness so that they may no longer need him, so the purpose of the teacher is to endow the disciple with the “enough” in “Let it be enough for the disciple to become as his teacher is.” 120 In the Savior, in so far as he is lord, one sees a characteristic other lords do not have, for they do not wish for their servants to become lords like them.
The Son of the goodness and love of the Father is such that, even as lord, he activates in his servants the ability to become like their lord, so that they no longer have “the spirit of servitude that leads to fear, but have received the spirit of sonship, in which they cry ‘Abba, Father’ ” (Rom. 8:15). 122 Before becoming like the teacher and like the lord, they must have their feet washed. This is because they lack certain teachings, so that they still have the spirit of servitude that leads to fear. But when one of them – according to “Let it be enough for the disciple to become as his teacher is and the servant to become as his lord is” – becomes like his teacher and lord, then he can imitate him who washed the feet of the disciples, and wash the feet of disciples in his capacity as teacher, an office which God established in the church after apostles, who have obtained the first place, and after prophets, who have obtained the next place (see 1 Cor. 12:28).
XI If “You shall serve your brother” (Gen. 27:40) refers to those who are inferior and “Become lord of your brother” (Gen. 27:29) refers to those who, like Jacob, are superior, it is evident that the servant, becoming like his lord, washes the feet of those who serve by the teaching received from him, since “You call me teacher and lord, and you do well to say so, for I am” deserves a sense deeper than that perceived by ordinary people, for not to everyone who says “Lord, lord” is told by Jesus: “You call me teacher and lord, and you do well to say so.” 124 For they who will say on that day: “Lord, lord, have we not eaten in your name and drunk in your name and in your name cast out demons and performed miracles” (Mt. 7:22, Lk. 13:26) will not “do well to say so.” 125 But Jesus will say to them: “Depart from me, I have never known you, you workers of injustice” (Mt. 7:23, Lk. 13:27). But if they do say “Lord, lord” well, he will not tell them: “Depart from me”. 126 But also “Not all who say to me ‘Lord, lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 7:21) demonstrates that, unlike the apostles, to whom he is speaking here, not everyone who says “Lord, lord” has his testimony “you do well to say so, for I am.” 127 For truly vices no longer exercised sovereignty over them, but the Word, in effect, their Lord, is complete, animated, and living virtue.
But if indeed “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13) – and we understand what it means to say “Jesus is Lord” – he who says “Jesus is Lord” in the Holy Spirit does well to say so. 129 But you will seek to determine if he who “does well to say so” must speak in the Holy Spirit, by comparing “you do well to say so” to “For the Spirit was not yet, for Jesus had not yet been glorified” (Jn 7:39). 130 It is the task of one who is genuinely serving the Word to do well saying “Jesus is Lord,” and to the disciple who is like him to do well calling the Savior “teacher.” It is to such a person that he would say “for I am,” but this would not be said by the Word to someone who is a servant of sin or a disciple of lies. XII 131 Nonetheless, someone who is holy may need to receive the washing of the feet, since the widow inscribed as such in ecclesiastical honor is examined concerning, among other good qualities, whether “she has washed the feet of the saints” (1 Tim. 5:10). For I think it would be absurd to stick to the letter and to say, for example, that a holy widow who possesses all the other qualifications but this one should not be enrolled in the ecclesiastical honor, even though, in a time when she lived comfortably and had all her needs met, she had often through household servants looked after the needs of strangers and anyone else with a claim to her bounty.
But do not be shocked it you need to seek a higher meaning for “if she has washed the feet of the saints” where, along with the male elders, female elders are commanded to be good teachers (see Titus 2:3). 133 See if it is not also vexatious that all without distinction who are disciples of Christ, wishing to fulfill the prescription “you also ought to wash each other’s feet,” should consider themselves bound to wash the bodily and sensible feet of their brothers, as if believers who happened to be in any station of life whatsoever were to do this, even bishops and presbyters who are apparently in a prominent ecclesiastical position and those who have honorable secular rank. Following this reasoning a master would be required to wash the feet of a slave who was a believer and parents those of their child, something which has never been customary or, if so, rarely and among simple rustics. 134 In this regard, what we said about “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me” should be recalled along with what was said about “Know what I have done for you.” 135 It was appropriate for Jesus to have provided as an example for us a footwashing similar to what is said figuratively by the bridegroom in the Song of Songs: “I have washed my feet, how shall I sully them?” (Song 5:3).
Pay attention to “as I have done to you, so you should do,” comparing it to “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me”.
What if someone should say about this that, even if it is an allegory, the footwashing took place, so that what is actually said must be accepted along with the figurative sense of the text that says “If therefore I, your teacher and lord, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash each other’s feet, for I have given you an example that, as I have done to you, so you should do”? The answer is: “If indeed, when Peter said: ‘You shall never wash my feet’ the reply was ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with me,’ shall we actually speak and dare to say to those who, out of consideration, do not present their feet for us to wash, ‘If I do not wash you, you have no part with me’?” 138 If, at this point, what I say does not disconcert you, what must you say to the question: “Must we observe the text meticulously?”?
That it may sometimes be appropriate to wash the feet of one or another disciple of Jesus, and for that person to offer his feet to be washed – the one performing it and the other receiving it out of love and hospitality – I would admit. 140 But if you say that everyone who is not conscious of having done this (that is, of having thus washed the feet of the saints) is under a strict obligation to obey “You ought to wash each other’s feet,” understand that just about everyone fails to honor this commandment.
