The Johannine Footwashing as the Sign for Perfect Love: An Exegetical Study of John 13:1–20

Abstract

Originally presented as a doctoral dissertation to the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Mathew’s study is an analysis of John 13:1–20. Following a brief introduction, she reviews the previous literature. The discussion of John 13:1–20 falls into two categories. Scholars such as Culpepper and Thompson conclude that the footwashing scene is non-sacramental, for the pericope develops theological themes found elsewhere in John. Others, such as Moloney and Thomas, interpret the passage sacramentally, perhaps reflecting the practice of the Johannine community itself.In ch. 2, Mathew provides a text-critical analysis of John 13:1–20. She gives particular attention to the long and short readings of 13:10. Mathew concludes that the longer reading, where Jesus announces that the one who has bathed (λελουμένος) need only wash (νίψασθαι) their feet, is most likely the authentic reading. The former term refers to receiving Jesus’s words, whereas the latter refers to physical washing; in 13:10, to washing one’s feet before a meal. Thus, νίψασθαι contains no reference to purification. A sacramental interpretation of John 13:1–20 is excluded.Chapter 3 contextualizes John 13:1–20 in light of biblical, ancient Near Eastern, and Greco-Roman literature. Footwashing was often performed before meals. Providing water for guests to wash their own feet was considered an important act of hospitality (Luke 7:44). In Exod 30:10–21, footwashing also featured as an element of ritual purity. In these instances, however, water was provided so individuals could wash their own feet. On certain occasions, servants washed the feet of guests, or a person of inferior social status washed the feet of an individual of higher status. There are no parallels to a teacher washing disciples’ feet during a meal.John 13:1–20 also has a specific literary purpose. This function is explored on macro and micro levels in chs. 4–5. The role of the footwashing scene as the introduction to John 13–17 is discussed in ch. 4. Mathew rejects source theories that separate all or part of 13:1–20 from 13:1–38. John 13:1–38 serves as an introduction to the final discourse in John 14–17. While possessing superficial similarities to departure narratives in Greco-Roman accounts of symposia, there are also significant differences between John 14–17 and accounts of symposia. The explanation is that John “bends” the symposium genre in service of his Christology.In ch. 5, Mathew proposes that John 13:1–20 is structured chiastically. Part A (13:1) is understood as describing Jesus’s identity and mission. The corresponding Part A1 (13:20) indicates the identity and mission of Jesus’s “own,” the disciples. Part B (13:2) is described as love denied, where Satan has placed into Judas’s heart the plan to betray Jesus. In conjunction, Part B1 (13:18–19) is understood as affirming love, where the Johannine Jesus expresses his love for all the disciples, despite Judas’s transgression of sacred table fellowship (Ps 41:10 as quoted in John 13:18). Part C (13:3) notes Jesus’s authority. Part C1 (13:16–17) describes the authority of those sent as Jesus’s agents in language reminiscent of Jesus’s own authority. Part D (13:4–11) describes Jesus’s act of life-giving love. In Part D1 (13:12–15) those at the meal are commanded to demonstrate the same love toward one another. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the impact of the language of the Synoptic Gospels on John’s presentation of Jesus’s words (pp. 218–29).Chapters 6–9 provide detailed exegesis of the chiasm. Particularly interesting is Mathew’s translation of the phrase “he loved them to the end” in 13:1 as “he loved them perfectly.” Jesus, who has knowledge of all things (3:3) provides an example of perfect love in the act of footwashing. In the same authority and humility, the disciples of the Johannine Jesus are sent on their mission (13:16–17). However, the recipients of Jesus’s love were all deeply flawed. They included the betrayer, Judas, the denier, Peter, and the remaining disciples who would desert Jesus in his hour of need. In light of these observations Mathew concludes that the Johannine love ideal is not restricted to the community but also extends to outside opponents. John 13:1–20 is, in short, an acted parable of the Synoptic command to love one’s enemies.Mathew advances our understanding of the footwashing scene of John 13. Whether her conclusions that 13:1 refers to Jesus’s perfect love, and that this love is inclusive, will need further investigation. Her observations do challenge those who conclude that the Johannine love ethic is exclusive of those outside the community. Perhaps John 13:1–20 provides a commentary on the tradition reflected in Matt 5:44–48. If so, scholars will need to continue their consideration of the relationship between John and the Synoptic or pre-Synoptic tradition.