Except where noted this was translated by Qwen.
Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on John 13:1–17
Introduction: The Timing and Purpose of the Narrative
From the harmonious narration of the evangelists, it is established that Christ celebrated the Paschal supper on Thursday and suffered death on Friday. However, this Friday was not the solemn feast day of the Jews themselves. This is clear from our Evangelist [John], and must be altogether gathered from the narration of the passion in the Synoptics as well. John chiefly wove together the description of those things which are not reported by the Synoptics; he passes over in silence those things which they had consigned to letters. Thus, in him there is nothing concerning the eating of the Paschal lamb, which he supposes to be sufficiently known by the mention of the supper; nothing concerning the institution of the Eucharist, concerning which he had narrated the promise and preparation made a year before in chapter 6. These things, as already known, not being commemorated, he brings forth other matters most worthy of knowledge, and indeed in such a manner as to show that Jesus, who had always loved His own, exhibited to them before the passion the greatest signification and testimony of love.
He consigns this plan of his in so many words in verse 1: "Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come," i.e., that hour was now imminent of which speech was made before (7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27), "that He should depart out of this world unto the Father." Augustine, Rupert, Thomas, Bonaventure, Lapide, and others note that Pascha in Hebrew signifies a passing over (transitus); whence they say the Evangelist, as it were interpreting that word, says "that He should depart," etc.
"Having loved His own who were in the world," whom He was about to leave in the world, passing out of the world Himself, amidst dangers; whence, moved by compassion, He showed greater love toward them than before (Maldonatus, Lapide). "He loved them unto the end" (in finem / εἰς τέλος):
i.e., He exhibited a more vehement love (σφοδροτέραν τὴν ἀγάπην) to them (Chrysostom, Theophylact);
"εἰς τέλος τὸ σφόδρα δηλοῖ" (Euthymius);
He exhibited perfect love (τελειοτάτην ἀγάπην) (Cyril);
Likewise Ammonius in the Catena;
And they explain it in the same way concerning an exemplary specimen and indication of love (Bonaventure, Maldonatus, Barradas, Patrizi, Corluy, Schanz, Fillion, Weiss).
The sentiment therefore is this: Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus exhibited to His own an exceptional love. Whence "before the feast of the Passover" is to be joined with "He loved His own unto the end." Two causes are added by two participles why He exhibited that greatest document of love: knowing that the time was imminent when He would leave them, and because He had always loved them. These two causes are most aptly suited by which that greatest signification of love is explained and commended. For the love of a friend is usually best increased and exhibited if it is necessary to bid farewell to friends, and if one has always loved a friend, this love reveals itself with a more fervent affect in the time of separation. Jesus, however, had a truly human mind, most loving of His own. Whence at this time of departure, He pursues His own with a tenderer love also.
This love, exhibited in an exceptional way, you will not perceive in the washing of the feet alone, but with Barradas, Corluy, Fillion, and Weiss, in all those things which Jesus did and said at that time, and principally, besides the institution of the Eucharist, in those things which are reported in chapters 13–17. For who will be able to deny that in the sermons of Jesus (14:1 seq.) an exceptional love of Jesus for His own is unfolded? Whence it will already be easily established that the Evangelist, when speaking here of the excellent love of Christ, did not think of the washing of the feet alone, but enunciated that which is to be especially looked to and considered in the following [chapters]. If therefore you name verse 1 as it were the inscription or summary of the argument of chapters 13–17, certainly you will not stray from the truth of the matter.
It can be doubtful to no one that "His own" (τοὺς ἰδίους) are understood as His proper Apostles, and it is perspicuous from the following history (says Maldonatus). Nevertheless, some (Cyril, Ammon, Rupert, Salmeron, Caietanus, Schegg) wish "His own" to be accepted in a general notion concerning all the faithful from Jews and Gentiles. But the former acceptance is true. For why does he say "who were in the world"? It is explained because His own are about to be left in the world, He Himself departing out of the world, leaving them in the dangers of the world. The sentiment therefore is plain: before the feast, Jesus gave to His own an exceptional document of love. Thus it is commended by the very words and sense plainly congruent with the following. Wherefore it is useless with Schegg and others to assert that the sentiment is interrupted grammatically and logically, and to construct the period with a parenthesis: "Before the feast, Jesus knowing... when He had loved His own and loved them, unto the end He rises from supper," etc. Nor can that "before the feast" be joined with "having loved" (ἀγαπήσας), as others wish, with detriment to the true sense. There is no difficulty or obscurity in the grammatical construction, provided "unto the end" (εἰς τέλος) is conceived in that notion in which the Greeks explain it.
Obscurity indeed arises if it is accepted "until the end of life" (Lapide, Schegg, Augustine among others), or "in perpetuum" (Toletus), or "unto salvation" (Caietanus). Then it must be asked to what finally that "before the feast" looks. But these acceptances are asserted gratuitously. For "εἰς τέλος" has two notions:
Lastly, until the term placed (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 18:5; Vulgate: in novissimo);
In the highest and supreme degree (cf. 2 Maccabees 8:29; Ecclesiasticus 10:13; sus penitus). Lexicon of Pape, Wahl, Clavis s.v. provides other examples (Weiss).
Who does not see that this latter notion agrees best? Rupert explains: He perfected love toward them to that point beyond which it could not be increased, namely, that He might lay down His soul for them. Similarly Augustine, Bede. But it must be noticed that "before the feast" comes first.
Verse 2: The Setting and the Betrayal
The first document of that love is the washing of the feet. That this may be well perceived, all conditions are accurately described. The Evangelist warns, namely, concerning the betrayal by one of the Apostles now determined, concerning the excellence of Christ, concerning the individual actions in this servile ministry (vv. 2–5).
Verse 2: "And when supper was ended" (δείπνου γινομένου), i.e., during supper, the supper now begun but not yet finished. Thus also the Vulgate text is explained by Augustine, Thomas, Toletus, Jansenius, Salmeron, Barradas, etc. And it is clear it must be so accepted, even if γενομένου is read with others, because He rises from supper (v. 4) and in v. 12 sits down again, the washing having been done. From the reading γινομένου which critics prefer, it can be inferred that the washing of the feet was before the institution of the Eucharist, which indeed was made "after He had supped" (μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, 1 Corinthians 11:25).
"The devil having now put into the heart" that he should betray Him, Judas of Simon Iscariot. That diabolical suggestion had already been made when the woman poured ointment upon the head of Jesus (Euthymius, Ammon), and Judas had already gone away to the chief priests: "What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you?" (cf. Rupert, Caietanus, Matthew 26:14; Luke 22:3–4). As in the Greek text 6:71, so here in the Vulgate text the father of Judas is called Simon Iscariot; otherwise Judas himself is designated by that cognomen, a man from Cariot, a town in Judea (Joshua 15:25). See Commentary on Matthew I, p. 376. Such a one had come to the banquet: an explorer of the Shepherd, an insidiator of the Savior, a seller of the Redeemer. Already such a one had come, and was seen, and was tolerated (Augustine). The Evangelist premits this however that he might commend the greatness of Christ's love and the depth of humility, who did not refuse to wash the feet of him also who had now decreed to betray Him (Toletus).
Verse 3: The Knowledge and Power of Christ
To extol the excellence of the work, the Evangelist adds another point: how great and of what sort is He who did not disdain to undertake such a thing.
Verse 3: "Jesus knowing that the Father had given Him all things into His hands." "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18). "And that He came from God," i.e., generated from the Father, He came into the world through the Incarnation (cf. 1:14; 3:31; 8:42). "And goes to God," namely, that He may sit at the right hand of majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3), and be glorified with the Father with the clarity which He had before the world was (17:5).
Knowing all these things, i.e., although He was most conscious of His power, divinity, and the greatest exaltation of His human nature, nevertheless, in the manner of a servant, He exhibited a servile ministry to His own, among whom was the traitor. Thus Cyril: "καίτοι γὰρ οὐκ ἠγνοηκώς" etc. Similarly Augustine, Jansenius, Barradas, Corluy, Schanz. For being about to speak of such great humility of the Lord, the Evangelist wished first to commend His height (Augustine and others). In those three things, some perceive impelling causes (Toletus, Lapide). Enumerating these most exceptional things, the Evangelist wishes to provoke us that we may admire Christ more, abluting the feet of the disciples like a servant, and that His example and doctrine of humility may adhere more deeply to our minds.
Verses 4–5: The Actions of Humility
Wherefore, enumerating individual things, he subjects the whole action to the eyes as it were to be beheld.
Verse 4: "He riseth from supper," and "layeth aside His garments," i.e., the upper garment (מעיל) and pallium (אדרת); those garments which, the inner tunic (כתנת) being retained, could be put off. "And having taken a towel, He girded Himself."
Verse 5: "After that, He putteth water into a basin." You will easily conceive with what admiration the disciples beheld individual things, thinking with themselves what these things meant for them. Chrysostom weighs well: "See how He exhibits humility not only by washing, but also in another way. For not before He sat down, but after all had sat down, then He rose. Then not only does He wash, but having put aside His garments, nor content with these, He girds Himself with a towel. Nor was this enough, but He Himself filled the basin. Nor did He hand it to another to be filled, but He does all these things Himself." In the whole narration, that simplicity proper to John shines forth, and the most certain index of truth (Patrizi).
"And began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded."
Verses 6–9: Peter's Resistance and Christ's Response
Verse 6: "He cometh therefore to Simon Peter." These words are understood differently by others. For some so conceive them that He did not begin the washing from Peter (Origen, Chrysostom, Barradas, Theophylact, Euthymius, Toletus, Weiss). Others, that it is expressed that He began from Peter (Augustine, Nonnus, Bede, Rupert, Bonaventure, Caietanus, Salmeron, Maldonatus, Jansenius, Barradas, Lapide, Corluy, Schegg, Schanz, Fillion). "When therefore He began to wash the feet of the disciples, He came to Peter, from whom He began" (Augustine). For first He insinuates the whole fact, namely, that He washed the feet of the disciples, and afterwards, if it is asked how it was done, he says that He came first to Simon Peter (Thomas). Therefore, beginning to wash the feet of the disciples, He came to Peter (Rupert).
This can also be gathered from this, that Peter so strongly refuses. For if He had begun from another, that one would have either refused or admitted. If the former, certainly compelled by the Lord he would have obeyed; which Peter seeing, he would not have resisted the washing so acutely. If the latter, Peter would have yielded more easily by such an example. The same is gathered from Peter's stupor and admiration (Edersheim II, p. 499, and other acatholics Baumgarten-Crusius, Hengstenberg, Ewald, apud Schanz, Weiss). Wherefore Weiss could have abstained from the cavil that Catholics establish it was begun from Peter on account of the cause of the Roman Primacy. The Primacy of Peter is so clearly evident from other places that Catholics minimally need that explanation.
Peter therefore, seeing what the Lord was about to do, was terrified, which also any one of them would have been (Augustine), and saith to Him: "Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?" What is "Thou"? What is "my"? They are to be thought rather than said, lest perhaps the soul, conceiving something somewhat worthy from these words, the tongue does not explain (Augustine).
Verse 7: "Jesus answered and said to him: What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter." Namely v. 13 seq., as most explain (Theodoret, Augustine, Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius, Caietanus, Salmeron, Patrizi, Corluy, Schanz, Fillion, Weiss); while others refer that "hereafter" to be received from the institution by the Holy Spirit (Chrysostom, Rupert, Maldonatus, Schegg). What then does Peter still restrain? (Chrysostom). He does not attend to what Christ said concerning the cause; he cares not for the cause; driven by the fervor of his breast, the reverence of the Lord, he bursts forth into negation (cf. Barradas).
Verse 8: "Peter saith to Him: Thou shalt never wash my feet," i.e., I will never suffer this, I will never bear this, I will never allow this. For this is not done "in eternity" (in aeternum) which is never done (Augustine). This word is of vehement affect (Toletus).
"Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with Me." Thus it is said "If I wash thee not" when only the feet were being dealt with, just as it is accustomed to be said "you tread on me" when only the sole is trodden upon (Augustine). "οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ' ἐμοῦ": you have no consortium with Me. As follows from v. 10 and 13 seq., Jesus obtains and bestows upon the disciples that which He wished to be designated by His action, and from the merit of His action. He obtains for them and bestows upon them, namely, who are already washed, i.e., in the state of grace, perfect cleanliness and perfect imitation of His example, by which finally they become worthy to have consortium with Him, as Apostles and functioning by the legation of Christ, both in the Messianic work and in glory. Whence by other words, by this His action and demission of mind, He obtains for them from the Father the grace of perseverance in the dignity of the Apostolate (cf. 17:11 seq.). Wherefore, "If I wash thee not," you will not receive that which by this my action is both signified and bestowed (v. 10, 13 seq.), and consequently you have no consortium with Me, that singular and exceptional part in the Messianic work, in the dignity of the Apostolate. Christ therefore, with threats applied, restrains the zeal of Peter, indiscreet and inordinate.
He refuses indeed out of reverence for the Lord, but after the response of Christ (v. 7), he ought to have known this was done by a most high counsel; he ought to obey Him saying, lest he seem to accuse Jesus as doing a useless thing and minimally consistent (cf. Origen). Commonly it is explained thus: that the action of Christ itself is not said to have a salutary or necessary effect for Peter, but that Peter is said to fall away from the familiarity and grace of Christ if he persists in being disobedient or rebellious; if you do not acquiesce to me in this thing which I as teacher and Lord demand from you, I announce that to you, that in punishment of your disobedience you are to be ejected from my college, and you shall not be about to receive that part of blessed retribution and eternal happiness which I together with mine shall receive in the kingdom of My Father (Jansenius, similarly Toletus, Lapide, Barradas, Natalis, Corluy, Fillion).
Which explanation however does not seem to congrue with the words. For it would be expected: "If you do not obey, you have no part with Me." Nor is any reason seen why Christ should say "If I wash thee not," or why from such a refusal, which rests entirely on love and reverence, that greatest detriment and punishment should follow. The speech of Christ is so conformed that by the action of Christ itself a good is said to be conferred, that by the omission of this action damage exists, not the disobedience of another. Others seem to have sensed this, namely, that the hinge of the matter turns on that "If I wash thee not." But since it seemed difficult how Peter would be excluded from the consortium of Christ by the washing of the feet being omitted, they immediately transferred the washing to the washing of the soul which is made by the blood of Christ. For truly, unless Christ had washed His beloved ones from their sins in His blood, neither Peter nor any one of the rest of men would have had part with Him (Rupert, similarly Cyril, Caietanus, Maldonatus, Calmet, Patrizi).
Verily, this explanation recedes too much from the narration itself and the form of locution. For Christ standing with the basin full of water and towel wishes to wash the feet of Peter. If He now says "ἐὰν μὴ νίψω σε" (if I wash thee not), He cannot wish to signify the remission of sins already conceded to Peter by the merit of the blood which He was about to pour out, so that those words say: "If I had not washed thee spiritually," or "If I were not about to shed blood," etc. Wherefore I explain the matter thus: that the action of Christ effects that also in the Apostles clean, in the state of grace, which from v. 10, 13 seq. it signifies, by which effect they obtain that consortium with Christ, that they may not lose it.
Verse 9: "Simon Peter saith to Him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head." Behold the true character of Peter: vehement in refusing, more vehement in conceding. By the precipitance of his mind, he passes from one exaggeration to the opposite contrary, and at the same time declares with native simplicity what is his fervent love toward Jesus, what desire of consortium.
Verse 10–11: Spiritual Cleanliness and the Exception of Judas
Verse 10: "Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly." Jesus responds with an example taken from life. "He that is washed" (ὁ λελουμένος), who having taken a bath returns to his house, does not need except that he wash his feet, to which some dust had adhered through the way. Returning home, he does not wash again with a bath, but at most he washes his feet, and is altogether clean, clean with his whole body. Now by this example He shows He wishes to declare what His washing effects, adding: "And you are clean, but not all." I.e., they are clean similarly, just as that one is clean in body who goes out from the bath; so they are clean in minds, immune from mortal sin, but they need that their feet be washed. Through the way dust adheres to the feet; without defects and lighter sins life is not lived. Therefore, that they may be made altogether clean, Christ by this His action merits and confers upon them; He merits and obtains for them that, aided by divine grace, they may not fall away from the necessary cleanliness in the ministry of the office, and may finally be raised to perfect cleanliness, or may return to it.
And that Christ says they are clean with that spiritual cleanliness necessary, is clear from this, that He adds "but not all." He indicates that they are to be raised to perfect cleanliness by the example adduced concerning the washing of the feet, that one may be altogether pure concerning all things. That the dust of the feet is the filth of venial sins, which no one without singular and altogether divine aid can perpetually avoid, is easily clear (cf. Augustine, Rupert, Toletus, Jansenius, Barradas, Lapide, Patrizi, Corluy, Schanz, Weiss). Jesus, who had wept over the blindness of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), certainly also with great grief of mind added that "but not all." He does not designate the traitor openly that He may spare him, but nevertheless He gives him an occult and useful reprehension, showing He had altogether perceived his mind. Using therefore obscure speech and leaving an acute reprehension to the conscience, He declared the incomparable magnitude of His patience (Cyril).
Verse 11: "For He knew who he was that would betray Him; therefore He said: You are not all clean." The Evangelist adds this. Certainly the clemency of Christ is to be greatly wondered at, who did not disdain to wash the feet of the traitor, but simultaneously it is to be considered to what obstinacy and perversity he can arrive who does not resist the evil cupidities of the mind. Because Judas is touched by no means by such exhibition of love and benevolence and humility, but allowing his feet to be washed by the Lord, he remains immovable in his perversity.
Verses 12–17: The Doctrine of Humility and Imitation
Now He declares the second thing which He wished to be signified by His action, and which He obtained by the merit of His action also for His Apostles.
Verse 12: "After therefore He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, when He was set down again, He said to them: Know you what I have done to you?" By interrogation He excites that He may render His listeners attentive, an orator of grace and truth. For questioned concerning that which we know not, we are accustomed to hear more attentively, as if excited by a hand pulsating (Rupert). I.e., do you recognize, do you understand what this means for you which I have done?
Verse 13: "You call Me Master and Lord; and you say well, for so I am."
Verse 14: "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet." By His example He teaches them to be humble, but He puts the species for the genus. For by the washing of the feet, which is the most humble of all ministries, He understands all examples, all ministries of humility (Maldonatus).
Verse 15: "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." This is, O blessed Peter, what you knew not when you did not allow it to be done (Augustine). Lest we admire His deeds only, He says: "I have given you an example," namely of humility. And He says "καθώς" (as), that we may understand that He admonishes concerning the mode of doing humbly, meekly, benevolently, studiously, etc. (Caietanus). For the precept of the Lord falls not so much upon the sign of the washing of the feet, as upon the thing signified, namely, the offices of charity and humility to be exhibited to neighbors (Corluy, Fillion, similarly Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, etc.).
That this precept is not only equitable but much more its observation is necessary for us, is declared by the proverbial sentence:
Verse 16: "Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him." See Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40. Therefore, much more ought that to be done by you (Chrysostom).
Verse 17: "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them." For it is not to know virtue but to exercise it that is to be opted and laudable (Chrysostom).
It is not improbable that, as Rupert and Bonaventure already estimate, Jesus washed the feet and gave this admonition also for this reason: because the disciples before the supper had contended among themselves who of them seemed to be greater (Luke 22:24), when perhaps they were disputing concerning the order of reclining. Nor does the order of narration in Luke stand in the way, who namely is in that place such that he first reports the Paschal supper, then the institution of the Eucharist, then adds some things which were said either before the supper or between it and after it (cf. Commentary on Luke, p. 576, 578 seq.).
Liturgical and Historical Notes on the Washing of Feet
The words "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, and is clean wholly" were often referred to baptism. Thus Augustine: "Man indeed in holy baptism is washed not except the feet, but altogether entirely. Nevertheless, when afterwards one lives in human things, certainly the earth is trodden. Those human affects therefore, without which in this mortality one does not live, are as it were the feet, wherefrom we are affected by human things. And thus we are affected that if we shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).
"Of old, to those going out from the font of baptism, the feet were abluted. 'You have ascended from the font, remember the evangelical lesson. For our Lord Jesus in the Gospel washed the feet of His disciples.' St. Ambrose, De Mysteriis, cap. 6 (Migne 16, 398). And why this washing is done, he explains there: "Peter was clean, but he ought to wash the sole. For he had the sin of the first man from succession, when the serpent supplanted him and persuaded error. Therefore his sole is abluted that hereditary sins may be taken away. For our own proper sins are relaxed through baptism." Which perhaps can be rightly understood collated with those things which the same says in the Exposition of Psalm 48, n. 9, whence I reckon the iniquity of the heel is rather the slippery place of delinquencing than the guilt of some delict of ours. And meritously the Lord says: "Let us wash the feet also, that we may be able to remove the slippery place of the heel, by which a faithful station of virtue may be able to exist, and may not fear the slippery place of inheritance." Whence it can be inferred that Ambrose saw in the washing of the feet some aid of grace for repressing concupiscence, which he openly calls the slippery place of delinquencing, the slippery place of the heel, and of inheritance.
The author of the books De Sacramentis, who was once considered Ambrose, also mentions its use, that the feet of the baptized were washed. But he commemorates that the Roman Church does not have this custom. See therefore, perhaps on account of the multitude, the Roman Church declined from that use of washing the feet of the baptized. Even here this author acknowledges some sanctification in this rite, namely, a subsidy against the insidias of the devil and an incitement of humility (De Sacram. 3, 1, n. 4–7, Migne 16, 432 seq.).
To the question at what time especially so great a thing is also taught by fact concerning the washing of feet, Augustine responded: "That time occurs by which itself the commendation might adhere more religiously. But lest it seem to pertain to the sacrament of baptism itself, many were unwilling to receive this into custom; some also did not doubt to remove it from custom. Some however, that they might commend this also at a more sacred time and distinguish it from the sacrament of baptism, chose either the third day of the octaves or even the eighth itself, that they might do this" (Ep. 55, alias 119, 18, n. 33, Migne 33, 220).
St. Bernard calls the washing of the feet a sacrament for deleting venial sins. "For that we may minimally doubt concerning the remission of daily sins, we have its sacrament, the ablution of the feet. But do you wish to know because that is done for a sacrament, not for example alone? Attend to that which was said to Peter: 'If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with Me.' Verily, in the same sermon, n. 5, he immediately teaches it is minimally necessary to use the washing of the feet for that remission. "For those washed by Christ are easily forgiven, indeed and willingly, if only we acknowledge ourselves" (Sermon in Coena Domini, n. 3–5, Migne 183, 272–274).
The feet of the baptized were washed also in the Gallican and Hispanic Church. But the Council of Elvira established canon 48: "Neither are their feet to be washed by priests or clerics." (cf. Heuser in Kraus, Real-Encyclopädie der christl. Alterthümer I, p. 547).
When that custom and rite of washing feet was received into the liturgy of Thursday of Holy Week is not constant. Isidore De Ecclesiasticis Officiis 1, 28 does not yet make mention of it. The Seventeenth Council of Toledo (694 AD) established a penalty upon bishops and priests who on that day omitted to wash the feet of subjects. The most ancient Roman Orders do not commemorate that custom. In the Roman Order of Cencius (13th century), a double washing occurs: another which was done after the Mass of the Pontiff for twelve subdeacons; another after supper for thirteen poor. This alone was afterwards retained and joined with the ecclesiastical office (cf. Heuser, l.c.). And Toletus notes that in many churches that custom prevails, that on Thursday, which they say in Coena Domini, superiors wash the feet of the poor or subjects. Which is not done as if by these words (vv. 14–15) the Lord commanded this, but that they may renew the example of so great humility of Christ and devoutly cultivate it, and exhort all to humility. Which custom is also accustomed to be observed in monasteries by the abbot, and indeed also by Catholic kings and emperors. In the Ceremoniale Episcoporum it is prescribed that on that day either feet be washed for thirteen canons or for the same number of poor. Which custom, since it is so ancient and universal, it is not understood why Weiss accuses the Roman Pontiff of arrogance because he imitates this action of Christ.
In this action of Christ, humility is commended to us, and a mind prone and prepared for offices and services. But by this, the imitation of the washing of the feet itself is not excluded. Let Augustine be heard: "We have learned, brothers, humility from the High One; let us make ourselves humble to one another. What the High One did humbly. This is a great commendation of humility. And brothers do this to one another even by the visible work itself, when they receive one another in hospitality. For among very many there is a custom of this use of humility up to the fact by which it is seen expressed. Whence the Apostle, when he commended a widow well-meriting: 'If she has received hospitality,' he says, 'if she has washed the feet of the saints'" (1 Timothy 5:10). "And among the saints, wherever this custom is not, what they do not do by hand, they do in heart, if they are in that number to whom it is said in the hymn of the blessed three youths: 'Bless, O holy and humble of heart, the Lord'" (Daniel 3:87). "Much however is it better and without controversy truer that it be done also by hands, nor does a Christian disdain to do what Christ did. For when the body is inclined to the feet of a brother, even in the heart itself either the affect of humility itself is excited, or if it was already in there, it is confirmed" (Tract. in Joan. 58, n. 4).
Feet were accustomed to be washed for those approaching a banquet, which Jesus warns the Pharisee was intermitted (Luke 7:44). But that the supper itself of Jesus was not the occasion is gathered because He rises from supper, etc. (v. 4). Merely most judge this washing to have been a certain prelude and preparation for the Eucharist. They wish Christ to have done this on account of the spiritual cleanliness of the disciples, which is sufficiently proved by those words: "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet," and "You are clean," by which He declares He speaks concerning the spiritual cleanliness which He effected in His disciples by such washing, and that cleanliness signified by us ought to be procured, that we may approach worthily to the Eucharist (Toletus). Luculently concerning these things treats Gretser in Pedilavio, in the latter part of the fourth tome of his works, especially p. 191 seq., Ratisbon 1734, many noble examples of men and women being added.
Response to Rationalist Criticism
The following was translated using ChatGPT. Critics maintain that this account of the washing of the feet was invented and composed by the Evangelist out of various elements found in the Synoptics. For they suppose that he discovered in Luke 22:24–27 the narrative concerning the dispute about which of them was the greater, and in it the words of Christ:
“But I am in your midst as one who serves”; and thus that these words were transformed by him into a certain event and, as it were, dramatically represented. At the same time, they think that he also made use of that saying in Luke 12:37,
“Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself,” applying it to his purpose (John 13:4–5).
Moreover, that Peter in verse 8 refuses to be washed is said to have a similar precedent in the case of the Baptist (Matthew 3:14). And so the conclusion is drawn that this narrative is derived in this way—a derivation common to the whole critical school (diese der ganzen kritischen Richtung gemeinsame Ableitung des johann Berichtes, Handcommentary, p. 176).
They also maintain that, since the Evangelist had already treated the notion of the Eucharist in chapter 6, he placed this narrative here in place of the institution of the Eucharist itself, which, in their view, could in no way and by no literary device be made to agree with the text of John or be inserted into it.
That is to say, they refuse to understand that the Evangelist might select certain things from many events and discourses and omit others; rather, they consider each narrative and the sequence of events, both in the Synoptics and in John, as though it were a chain whose individual links are so tightly connected and bound together that nothing further could be inserted or added.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment