Article

Journal for the Study of

‘You shall not wash my feet εἰς

the New Testament
2019, Vol. 41(4) 458­–477
© The Author(s) 2019
τὸν αἰῶνα’ (John 13.8): Time and Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Ethics in Peter’s Interactions DOI: 10.1177/0142064X19832202
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X16XXXXXX
https://doi.org/

journals.sagepub.com/home/jnt
with Jesus in the Johannine
Narrative

Olivia Rahmsdorf
Faculty of Protestant Theology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz,
Saarstraße 21, 55122 Mainz, Germany

Abstract
In search of ‘timeless’ norms or behavioral examples, the Gospel of John seems to offer
few options. The principle of brotherly love exemplified in the act of foot washing is
often considered as the only example of ethically significant material in the Johannine
narrative. However, by taking a closer look at the ‘tempo’ of actions and the characters’
orientation in time, we can understand that Peter’s protest against the foot washing is
not only in favor of norms that secure existing hierarchies, but is driven by temporal
norms, i.e. his genuine fear of death. Peter’s protest (Jn 13.8) indicates his desire for the
eternal life promised by Jesus (Jn 11.25-26) and at the same time it serves as a defense
against the foot washing as pointing to his own burial, which he infers from Jesus’ earlier
interpretation of the anointing of his feet (Jn 12.7). Starting from this vantage point, a
multitude of other interesting (time) conflicts and behavioral patterns come to light,
revealing both Jesus, through his act of foot washing, and all of those who encounter
him in their own actions and reactions, as instructive moral agents.

Keywords
John 13.1-20, time and ethics, Johannine ethics, Peter, laying down one’s life

Corresponding author:
Olivia Rahmsdorf, Faculty of Protestant Theology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Saarstraße 21,
55122 Mainz, Germany
Email: o.rahmsdorf@gmail.com
Rahmsdorf 459

The Foot Washing: A Timeless ὑπόδειγμα?

Many New Testament ethicists demonstrate an unfortunate tendency to use the
foot-washing scene in Jn 13.1-20 and the subsequent commandment of brotherly
love (vv. 34-35) as the sole supporting pillars of their (re-)construction of
Johannine ethics.1 They do so because they cannot find any ethical material
within the otherwise riddling arabesque2 of the Johannine text. They have good
reasons for adopting this more restricted approach. To begin with, the foot wash-
ing is marked as a behavioral example (ὑπόδειγμα … ἵνα … ποιῆτε) by Jesus
himself (v. 15). The act of foot washing is also, even in its literal sense, rather
easy to imitate. Not much adaption or translation to ‘our time’ is needed. In fact,
it is the one action attributed to the Johannine Jesus that continues to be imitated
in the life of churches today. A very prominent example is the annual foot wash-
ing carried out by the Catholic Pope on Maundy Thursday, as when Pope Francis
washed the feet of twelve inmates at Rome’s central prison in 2018. In this very
act of foot washing, the only explicit ethical commandment provided by the
Fourth Gospel – brotherly love (vv. 34-35; 15.9-17) – is genuinely performed
and demonstrated for the benefit of later generations. The foot washing can
therefore serve as a solid, time-independent code of conduct and as a precise
example of brotherly love.
However, is time really irrelevant as far as the ethical significance of the
Johannine foot-washing scene is concerned? To address this question, the pre-
sent article will demonstrate how the temporal circumstances of the actions
described in the Fourth Gospel function as an important parameter for measuring
their significance in ethical terms. The article does so by taking a closer look at
the concrete scene of the foot washing, the ‘tempo’ of the interactions, and how
the characters orient themselves in relation to different notions of time. Particular
attention is given to Peter’s peculiar reaction to having his feet washed by his
master.
Before offering a close examination of this Johannine scene, a critical assess-
ment is offered of what has already been undertaken in Johannine scholarship on
the topics of time, ethics and narrative. Based on major currents in Johannine
research, the article argues that bringing together time, ethics and narrative opens
up new possibilities of mutual understanding and enrichment.

1. See Hays 1996: 138-57; Lohse 1991: 166-71, 228-29 (while Lohse’s ethical collection is not
divided by NT books but by topics, one can see in the index of references that John is cited
with a focus on Jn 13–15; quotations from the Fourth Gospel are primarily found in Lohse’s
chapter about the ‘New Commandment’); Sanders 1975: 91-100; Schnackenburg 1954: 224-
34; Schnelle 2006: 309-27; Schrage 1989: 295-314; Schulz 1987: 314-19.
2. This metaphor of an intricate, artistic ornamental design to describe the unique, sometimes
paradoxical, narrative style of the Gospel of John is used by Attridge 2015: 40-44.
460 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

Looking back: Past Perspectives on Johannine Time,

Ethics and Narrative
Johannine Time
The history of research on time in the Gospel of John tends to be as manifold and
variable as time itself. In current research we can discern four different strategies
for analyzing the temporal composition of the Fourth Gospel: historical quest,
contemporary contextualization, literary analysis and symbolic-theological
interpretation.
1. The historical quest seeks to discover historical truth about the life of Jesus
behind the chronology of events offered in the Fourth Gospel. This approach is
pursued by Folker Siegert, who relies heavily upon classic historical-critical
tools to sanitize John’s gospel of its chronological ‘defects’ in order to restore it
to its original state (2008: 27). The SBL ‘John, Jesus and History’ project
renounces old methods like source and redaction criticism and rather seeks to
find traces of the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel in the text in its pre-
sent form. Paul Anderson in particular critiques the ‘De-Historicization of John’
and the ‘De-Johannification of Jesus’, claiming that there is ‘a good deal of (his-
torical) plausibility in the Johannine ordering of Jesus’ ministry’ (2009a: 381).
Yet, because of this method, Anderson is occasionally forced to sacrifice the
historical validity of the synoptic tradition in order to retain or promote the valid-
ity of the Fourth Gospel.3
2. The embeddedness of Johannine writings in the contemporary situation of
a post-resurrection Christian community is of particular importance for Klaus
Wengst (1992), who argues that it is not the time of Jesus’ ministry but the time
of post-Easter communal life that can and should be observed through the ‘win-
dow’ of the Johannine writings. The Anglo-American equivalent of this approach
finds an early representative in the work of Louis Martyn (2003), who empha-
sizes the post-resurrection refraction and reflection found within the Johannine
text.
3. A literary approach to Johannine time is found in Alan Culpepper’s study,
Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. He explores the narratological and dramatic fea-
tures of Johannine time modulations and attempts to discover the Gospel’s prag-
matic purpose, which is ‘to enclose the reader in the company of faith’ (1987
[1983]: 98). Likewise, Douglas Estes observes the ‘Temporal Mechanics of the

3. Concerning the itinerary details of Jesus’ mission, Anderson writes: ‘Here one must choose
between the Synoptic and the Johannine renditions of Jesus’ ministry itinerary; one cannot
have it both ways. Either Jesus visited Jerusalem several times during his ministry, or he vis-
ited only once – when he was arrested, tried, and crucified … On this point, many scholars
believe that John’s presentation is closer to a realistic rendering of what an observant Jew
would have done before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.’ (2009b: 108).
Rahmsdorf 461

Fourth Gospel’ and focuses on the remarkable capacity of the text to link differ-
ent scenes together thematically and to generate overlapping networks between
them. Estes is fascinated by the ‘complex molecularity’ (2008: 252) of the scenes
narrated in the Fourth Gospel, which resist being enclosed within a linear and
absolute chronology.
4. In a predominantly symbolic-theological interpretation of Johannine time
one can, for instance, focus on the christological meaning of time modulation. In
surveys of this kind, ‘the hour’ of Jesus is usually identified as the most impor-
tant motif and often becomes the primary focus of analysis. From a christologi-
cal perspective, the hour is usually construed as Christ’s sovereignty and
supremacy over time and is observable through its close connection to the event
of crucifixion and glorification. The christological interpretation often lacks any
reflection on the purpose of the time portrayed within a concrete scene or in the
interactions between characters (Barrett 1958: 357-58; Neyrey and Rowe 2008:
313-15; Schnackenburg 2000 [1965]: 334).
Time in the Gospel of John is, of course, closely linked to eschatology. A
highly comprehensive and multi-perspectival view of the Fourth Gospel’s tem-
poral system can be found in Jörg Frey’s three-volume work on eschatology. A
large-scale collection of Johannine tenses, temporal terms and chronological
markers allows Frey to take into consideration much more than the symbolic-
theological meaning of Johannine time, but also to reflect on the text’s dramatic
features and to offer significant insights into the historical context and composi-
tion of the text.
Nevertheless, one perspective in particular has been missing from previous
studies of Johannine time. Frey has already acknowledged an interesting pendu-
lar movement between immediacy and distance, between particularity and gen-
eralization, in the temporal structure of John’s gospel (1998: 276). This article
argues that the oscillation between these two poles in fact holds an ethical poten-
tial that has not, up to now, been sufficiently recognized.

Johannine Ethics
By calling Johannine ethics an ‘oxymoron’, Wayne Meeks notably deprived the
Fourth Gospel of any serious consideration by NT ethicists for a considerable
length of time (1996: 317). His reluctance to grant John any ethical significance
is underpinned by a rather narrow definition of ethics. His objections are form-
critical (there are no ethical genres present in the Fourth Gospel, such as virtue
and vice catalogues, parenetical texts or explicit commandments apart from the
call for brotherly love), materialistic (no concrete moral issues, such as marriage
and divorce, taxes and charity, are discussed in the Fourth Gospel), conceptional
(there is no rational discourse on ethical material, Johannine characters possess
no mimetic features, and the gospel’s worldview is highly deterministic) and,
462 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

last but not least, scopal (John contains no universal principles, but rather an
exclusionary mode of ethical thinking, which can only claim validity within the
confined space of the Johannine sect; Meeks 1996: 318-20).4
Meeks’s objections indicate that, for him, ethics are only apparent in an
explicit, logical and rational argumentation for a universal and timeless norm (or
value or principle) that distinguishes a good from a bad action. It is obvious that,
if we apply this narrow definitional filter to the Fourth Gospel, not much will
come to light. On the other hand, if the filter is opened, the results will become
more abundant.
This article therefore argues for a definition of, and ‘search filter’ for, ethics
that:

1. goes beyond the genre limitation of parenetical texts and systematic ethi-
cal treatises in order to be able to include metaphorical, doxological,
mimetic and narrative forms of ethical reflection (Horn, Volp and
Zimmermann 2016),
2. exceeds the focus on single deeds in order to observe in a comprehensive
fashion the different ways of living that may also integrate passive or intu-
itive behavior as well as the narrative identity of a moral agent,
3. goes beyond the small spotlight placed on rational discourse and plain
imitation of prototypical characters in order to cast a broader light on ethi-
cal reflections comprising of emotional arguments, bodily sensations or
spiritual testimony,
4. exceeds universal principles and timeless norms in order to invest in a
more holistic view on ethical decision-making. Every norm or value,
however universal it may be in theory, requires interpretation, application
and adaption to the concrete situation in which it is performed.

These proposed extensions allow us to define ethics more broadly as the reflection
of different ways of living and of guiding norms. Moreover, every ethical
reflection undertakes the complex task of moderating between a concrete situa-
tion that demands our ethical decision/action and some coherent value system
that serves to offer guidance and orientation.
This broader filter has many benefits. Specifically, it enables us to draw out
the ethical significance of the rich plethora of Johannine imagery, prayers and
religious devotions, the behavior, identity and growth of Johannine characters,
and the development of the Johannine plot. It also enables us to acknowledge the
rational as well as the emotional, the bodily and the spiritual, arguments

4. A concise summary of Meeks’s objections with reference to the subject of Johannine ethics
can be found in Zimmermann 2012: 46-47, whose categories have influenced those used in
this article.
Rahmsdorf 463

presented in the story. Further, it enables us to immerse ourselves in the concrete

situations depicted within the narrative and at the same time to interpret them,
occasionally with the help of the narrator’s comments. In accordance with this
extended definition of ethics, Ruben Zimmermann employs the notion of implicit
ethics for analyzing NT writings (2009: 398-422).5 Implicit ethics are not to be
found on the very surface of the gospel, i.e. not only in explicit principles and
moral statements. Rather, implicit ethics are interwoven (lat. implicere) with the
narrative style, with concrete interactions and with different ways of depicting
those interactions.

Johannine Narrative
In the field of literary criticism as applied to the Gospel of John, Alan Culpepper
is certainly the great pioneer. With his Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (1987), he
succeeds in his endeavor ‘to contribute to understanding the gospel as a narrative
text, what it is, and how it works’ (1987 [1983]: 5). Notwithstanding high appre-
ciation for his work, it is interesting that he and some of his successors have
somewhat oscillated to another ‘extreme’, opposing the hermeneutical and meth-
odological principles of historical criticism, which is to assign less validity to the
distinctive shape and structure of the Johannine narrative. Their reluctance to
invest in historical speculations about the life of Jesus and their fear of getting
involved with the seemingly lost battle of finding something behind the text has
made them focus almost exclusively on what takes place in front of the text.
Narratological approaches restrict their analysis to the markers within the text
that affect the reader, thus concentrating on the deeper meaning, for readers, of
characters, dialogues and interactions. They focus on the deeper meaning of nar-
rative styles for the reader, who sits in front of the text and responds to it. So
again, the focus does not fall on the story itself but on the effect it exerts on the
reader. In the analysis of the foot-washing dialogue, for instance, Culpepper
comments on Peter’s reaction by asking: ‘What is its impact or effect on the
reader?’ And he later concludes: ‘The foot-washing scene, therefore, functions
metaphorically and proleptically in relation to Jesus’ death’ (1991: 139). He is
interested in what response ‘would be readily appreciated by first-century read-
ers’ (1991: 138) rather than in the genuine reasons why Peter – whether for
rational or rather impulsive reasons – rebuffs his master’s service.6 We will later

5. For implicit ethics in the Gospel of John, see van der Watt and Zimmermann 2012; for a
comprehensive methodology to access implicit ethics in New Testament writings based on the
example of 1 Corinthians, see Zimmermann 2016.
6. Similarly, Labahn states in his character study of Simon Peter: ‘Of course, his misunderstand-
ing of Jesus’ actions is not to be taken as a historical reminiscence, but is rather a narrative-
rhetorical strategy that leads readers into a Johannine understanding of Jesus’ (2013: 156).
464 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

see how the focus on the effect upon the reader, rather than on Peter as a (possi-
bly) fictive but realistic character, impacts on the ethical interpretation of his
actions.
In the same way as Culpepper does not deny ‘any historical core or matrix of
the gospel’ (1987 [1983]: 11) nor deprive historical-critical scholarship of any
legitimacy (1987 [1983]: 4), this article does not regard Culpepper’s reader-
focused approach as dispensable. Quite the contrary, his methodology plays an
essential role within a holistic interpretation of the Johannine narrative.
Nevertheless, there is the need to add one methodological step that should pre-
cede Culpepper’s inspection: a closer look at the ‘what’ (not the ‘how’) of the
story, an analysis of the story world in and of itself without immediately blending
it with the (historical) world behind the text or the world of the reader in front of
the text. This story world may be informed by the historical world behind it,7 and
it may be designed to communicate with the world of the reader in front of it, but
it is sufficient and coherent in and of itself and therefore worthy of scrutiny.

Looking Forward – the Mutual Elucidation of Time,

Ethics and Narration
Before we proceed to the concrete narrative scene, that is, to the ‘what’ of the
foot-washing narrative, we will draw insights from having ‘looked back’ to iden-
tify a new interconnection between the phenomena of time, ethics and narrative in
John. As we build upon the remarks made in the previous paragraph of this study,
we can observe a striking helix8, or spiral, of interconnecting reflection and deeper
understanding. They fit together perfectly due to their relational character.
Time is never perceivable in and of itself. We may see time on our watches,
but it is only observable because the hands of the watch are moving in a circle.
Thus, we see time in relation to movement. Furthermore, what can create the
impression of an extraordinary slow reading pace is if one simply cannot relate
to the topic under consideration. A topic may be found tedious. Time is perceived
in relation to neurological stimuli that are triggered by the reading process.
Ethical thinking seeks to reflect on interactions and on their guiding norms/
values. Our ethical reflection, however, is never that of a human being who finds
himself or herself in an isolated room. Ethics always reflects on the behavior,

7. In Ricœur’s threefold mimesis, the ‘real world’ informing the ‘world of the text’ is classified
as the mode of ‘prefiguration’ (mimesis I), whereas the effect of the text on the reader is con-
sidered as ‘refiguration’ (mimesis III). Mimesis II, in between these two stages, is marked by
Ricœur as ‘configuration’. By configuring the prefigured material in a text, a fictive, albeit
still realistic, textual world is brought to life (Ricœur 2009: 46).
8. My choice of the word ‘helix’ is determined by the accompanied diagram which can be found
on page **.
Rahmsdorf 465

action or the way one human being lives in relation to other human beings, or in
relation to other creatures or nature. Ethics, at its very heart, is a relational
endeavor.
Finally, stories are one of the most appropriate means to depict relations in
their manifold forms. Stories can present several different perspectives and opin-
ions without being self-contradictory. A story can simply ascribe different opin-
ions to different characters, even to different stages in characters’ lives. In this
way, stories are an easy way to articulate complex relations, such as the relation-
ship between God and humankind.
Another way to describe the fruitful alliance between time, ethics and narra-
tion is to highlight the fact that they all seek to reconcile two distinct poles:
objectivism and subjectivism, concrete situations and abstract reflections, indi-
viduality and universality, description and prescription, the things that are
assigned to us and things already pre-designed for us by the creator. Within this
pattern of reconciliation, time always ‘happens’ somewhere between subjective
perception and objective measurements; narratives, at least to some extent,
depict concrete situations and interactions in a default form. They are, to some
degree, loyal to a genre template while also depicting unique situations. Finally,
ethics are obliged to moderate between a concrete situation demanding our deci-
sion or action and a coherent value system.
This close relationship between time, ethics and narrative is especially true for
the Gospel of John. It oscillates between immediacy (e.g., in the detailed descrip-
tion of the foot washing in 13.4-5) and distance (especially in the ‘unworldly’
speeches of the Johannine Jesus);9 it moves between particularity and generali-
zation, between exact time and date (e.g., Jesus’ crucifixion on the day of prepa-
ration for Passover around the sixth hour, 19.14) and unspecific time references
(e.g., the characteristic μετὰ ταῦτα). It also varies between the dialectical realms
of above and below (or spirit and flesh; see 3.6: τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς
σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν) (Parsenios 2012:
14-15) and a dynamic spectrum that allows movement between both realms as
well as moral growth (Attridge 2015: 44; Parsenios 2012: 24-25).

Observing the Dramatic Present – a Farewell Situation

(John 13.6-10)
While observing the concrete scene of the foot washing, the aim is not to focus
primarily on how the narrative steers the reader’s perception, but rather to

9. See Frey 1998: 261: ‘Die Zusammenschau der beiden Horizonte (des temporalen und sachli-
chen Horizonts) ermöglicht es dem Evangelisten, die Geschichte Jesu in ihrer raum-zeitli-
chen Konkretheit festzuhalten und sie doch auszuweiten und fruchtbar zu machen für das
Selbst- und Weltverständnis seiner Adressatengemeinde’.
466 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

Figure 1. Helix of time, ethics and narration

concentrate on the characters and their interactions with each other. We will
focus in particular on Peter’s reaction to Jesus’ act of foot washing and on the
time conflict that emerges between him and his master. Commentaries on the
foot-washing scene usually fail to recognize one facet of Peter’s reaction that is
closely related to his orientation in time. The reason for this blind spot might be
the focus on how the narrative works instead of closely observing Peter.
The foot washing takes place during a supper that Jesus shares with his disci-
ples before the feast of Passover. Jesus knows that the hour has come for him to
depart to his Father, and he is ready to love his own until the end (v. 1: εἰς τέλος).
He knows that the Father has given all things into his hands. During the supper
he stands up (v. 4: ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου), puts away his garments, takes up a
linen towel, wraps it around himself, pours water into a basin and starts to wash
his disciples’ feet and then wipes them with the towel which he had wrapped
around himself. When he comes to wash Peter’s feet, Peter interrupts him and
says: κύριε, σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας; (v. 6: ‘Lord, you are washing my feet?’).
Clearly Peter is discomforted with his master washing his feet. But what is the
reason for his discomfort? Commentaries usually point to norms of ancient social
hierarchy (Bultmann 1986: 355; Brown 1978: 565; Culpepper 1991: 138; Keener
2003: 908-909; Labahn 2013: 157; Mathew 2018: 388; Thyen 2015: 585-86;
Zumstein 2016: 487-88); Peter would feel uneasy about Jesus washing his feet
because it amounts to inappropriate behavior between a master and a servant.
This explanation is indeed plausible from a sociological point of view10 as well

10. See Keener 2003: 904: ‘But whereas well-to-do hosts provided water and sometimes servants
to wash a guest’s feet, they rarely engaged in the foot washing themselves. Washing feet was
a menial task, and one who sought to wash another’s feet normally took the posture of a
Rahmsdorf 467

as from a narratological angle, given that Peter is using the term ‘sir/lord’ (κύριε)
to address Jesus, who later talks about this precise issue of the relationship
between master and servant (vv. 12-17).
Still there might be another, more sincere, and so far overlooked, reason for
Peter’s discomfort. If one imagines, for a moment, this very scene of a supper
whereby Jesus and his followers sit or lie around a table shortly before the
Passover festivities commence in Jerusalem. There is some noticeable tension
because Jesus has recently predicted that the light will soon be replaced by dark-
ness (12.35-36), he has taught that whoever holds dear his life will lose it (12.25)
and that whoever does not believe in his name will be judged on the last day
(12.48). All of these predictions add up to an atmosphere of doom or at least an
atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the things to come.
In the middle of the supper, Jesus stands up and starts to wash the feet of his
disciples.11 An attentive reader might recall another scene where, in the middle
of a supper, a Johannine character stands up to attend to the feet of another per-
son: the anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary in 12.2-3.12 For Peter this situational
resemblance must have struck him even more intensively and obtrusively, since
we can assume he was present at the supper at Bethany and was an eye-witness
to the anointing by Mary.13 At the supper in Bethany Mary had taken care of
Jesus’ feet with fragrant ointments until Judas had intervened (vv. 4-6). In
response to Judas, Jesus had explained the necessity of this act: Mary has kept
this for the day of Jesus’ burial (v. 7: ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταϕιασμοῦ μου). Her
anointing is an early preparation for and forecast of Jesus’ burial.
In the middle of the second supper, shortly before the important Passover
feast, this time in Jerusalem itself rather than Bethany, Jesus stands up and begins

servant or dependent. From an early period Greek literature depicted servants washing the
feet of strangers as an act of hospitality, as well as washing their masters’ feet. Foot washing
could be performed by free women (1 Tim 5:10), who might compare their role with that of
servants (1 Sam 25:41; Jos. Asen. 13:15/12; 20:4). In both early Jewish and Greco-Roman
texts, foot washing frequently connotes servitude.’
11. Bultmann finds no particular relevance in the unusual timing of Jesus’ foot washing during
the middle of the supper (v. 4: ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου). For him the inversion of hierarchy
alone is important: ‘Denn das Absurde der Fußwaschung liegt darin, daß sie vom Meister
vollzogen wird, nicht in der befremdlichen Wahl des Termins’ (1986: 355 n. 2).
12. On a diegetic level (for the reader) the overlapping semantics within the descriptions of the
respective deeds of Mary (12.3) and Jesus (13.4-5) are revealing: both take up (λαμβάνω) the
ointment/towel, anoint or wash (here the action admittedly differs) the feet (τοὺς πόδας), and
then, in what is particularly startling, both dry the feet (ἐκμάσσω) with the hair/towel.
13. Peter’s presence at the supper in Bethany can be gathered from the presence of another disci-
ple, Judas, who performs a prominent role in this scene. Keener is one of few commentators
to compare the foot washing to the anointing by Mary, but he does not explore what Peter
might have learned from this incident, namely that the treatment of feet can be a precursor to
burial (2003: 909).
468 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

to take care of his disciples’ feet. What might Peter possibly have in mind when
Jesus approaches him? ‘Sir, you are washing my feet?’ This article argues, in this
respect, that his reaction is not only based on sincere humility toward his master,
but shows a genuine fear of the dreadful events that this act of foot washing
might signify for the near future of those who are washed. Jesus does not quite
alleviate Peter’s anxiety when he responds in v. 7: ‘What I am doing you do not
understand now (ἄρτι), but you will understand after these things (μετὰ ταῦτα)’.
Jesus maintains the uncertainty of what will happen and postpones any offer of
relief about a certain future.
Peter’s reaction is again revealing: ‘You shall not wash (οὐ μὴ νίψῃς) my feet
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα’ (v. 8). In English translations εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is usually rendered as
‘never (shall you wash my feet)’. Literally it means ‘in/until eternity’. On the one
hand, Peter’s use of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα contrasts with Jesus’ willingness to love his
own εἰς τέλος (v. 1), but this willingness is only assigned to Jesus through a nar-
rator’s comment and is not uttered aloud by Jesus himself, at least not until he
later proclaims on the cross: τετέλεσται (19.30). Thus, no direct cognitive con-
nection can be discerned between Jesus’ willingness to love until the end and
Peter’s temporal orientation toward eternity, although it still remains a striking
opposition. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, on the other hand, appears throughout John’s gospel as
an outwardly articulated idiom of Jesus’ teachings. He talks about the fountain of
water springing up εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (4.14) and about the bread that gives life εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα (6.51, 58); the son is also said to abide with his father εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (8.35),
and the believers in Jesus will not see death εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (8.51). In 10.28, Jesus
promises that the sheep who receive the eternal life from him, the Good Shepherd,
will not perish εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. However, the most prominent occurrence of εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα is located in the ἐγώ εἰμι-saying in 11.25-26, where Jesus is talking to
Martha about life and death.14 Martha has recently lost her brother Lazarus. He
died when Jesus was late arriving at their hometown of Bethany. In the middle of
this tragic course of events, Jesus proclaims: ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή· ὁ
πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ κἂν ἀποθάνῃ ζήσεται (‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who
believes in me, will live even if he dies’). He goes on to say: καὶ πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ
πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (‘And everyone who lives and
believes in me, shall not die until eternity’).15

14. The presence of Peter during this conversation can again be gathered from 11.8-16, where
Jesus discusses with the disciples their joint departure to Bethany; after the event in Bethany,
they all abide together in the desert city of Ephraim.
15. The metaphorical network, which Jesus spins in the ἐγώ εἰμι saying in 11.25-26, can be con-
sidered as an example of what the German philosopher Blumenberg calls an ‘explosive meta-
phor’: ‘it draws intuition into a process in which it can keep up at first (for example, by
mentally doubling and then continuously redoubling a circle’s radius), only to be compelled
to give up – and that is understood as meaning to give itself up – at a certain point (for exam-
ple, by thinking a circle with the greatest possible radius, a radius of infinite magnitude). The
Rahmsdorf 469

Observing Peter’s reaction along with its temporal structure (οὐ μὴ νίψῃς μου
τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) reveals his close alignment with the temporal structure
of Jesus’ phrase οὐ μὴ … εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, which, as we noted earlier, is very closely
connected to the notion of life in the face of death.16 Peter uses this phrase in his
protest against Jesus’ service to wash his feet, as if he is trying to repel the deadly
implications of this performance. Previously, in Bethany, Jesus clearly directed
Mary’s foot service εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταϕιασμοῦ μου (‘until/toward the day of
my burial’). Peter obviously does not want his feet to be washed εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν
τοῦ ἐνταϕιασμοῦ αὐτοῦ; he wants to receive a share in this eternal life that Jesus
promised earlier and is not ready to lay down his life just yet.
As if Jesus senses what truly lies behind Peter’s unease, he replies: ἐὰν μὴ
νίψω σε, οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (v. 8: ‘As long as I do not wash you, you have
no part with me’). Peter will have no part with him, who is the resurrection and
the life, unless he receives the foot washing from Jesus. When Peter learns about
this causal link, he impulsively presses forward and requests Jesus to wash not
only his feet but also his head and his hands (v. 9), whereas Jesus defines the foot
washing alone as sufficient. Peter’s reactions in this scene are what one would
call inopportune.

aim is to make transcendence something that can be ‘experienced’ as the limit of theoretical
apprehension, and eo ipso as a challenge to heterogeneous apprehensive modes’ (Blumenberg
2010: 123). The continuous redoubling of a circle’s radius toward infinity would eventually
deprive the circle of its circular characteristics; it will eventually become a line in the think-
er’s head. We simply cannot carry this metaphor to its end before it explodes. John frequently
uses these explosive metaphors. He starts with an easily imaginable picture, but then suddenly
introduces a twist which causes us to squint, because we cannot follow the lines anymore. In
this way he can depict phenomena that transcend our categories of space and time, while still
depicting them through the categories of space and time. In fact, the whole crucifixion appears
to be a huge explosive metaphor. If one imagines a human being enduring the end of his or
her life, so far this imagination does not cause any problems. But if one thinks of a trans-
temporal, eternal God who experiences the human end of time, then the image explodes. The
same thing happens in the explanation of the I-Am-Saying in ch. 11: Imagine living, even if
you die. That seems to be feasible, given that the afterlife/resurrection was a common vision
in early Judaism as well as in Christianity. But if one thinks about this afterlife without having
to die, one’s notion of finitude and eternal life explodes. The common notion places eternal
life after death. But how is it possible to have eternal life now if one must still face the end of
one’s time? That is what the explosive metaphor in 11.25-26 teaches us to imagine, although
we fail to imagine or think it through to the end. To put it in the words of Attridge’s instructive
analysis of Johannine imagery: ‘What disturbs also tantalizes’ (2006: 50).
16. From van der Watt (1989: 217-28) we learn that the characteristic Johannine concept of life is
very closely related to the adjective ‘eternal’. Where ζωή occurs without this adjective, αἰώνιος
κτλ. it is either found in the closer context or ζωή is used with reference to God or some other
noun (εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς in 5.29; ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς in 6.35, 48; ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή in
14.6 etc.).
470 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

To comprehend Peter’s reaction, it must be borne in mind that all of this hap-
pens in the intimidating and tense atmosphere evolving from the topic of election
(v. 18) and the foretelling of Jesus’ betrayal (vv. 21-29). Earlier in 6.68, when
Peter declared that Jesus has the words of eternal life (ῥήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου) and
confessed that Jesus is ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ (‘the Holy one of God’), Jesus, not overly
encouragingly, replied, ‘Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is
the devil?’ This early incident might have raised at least some sorrow and uncer-
tainty in the Johannine Peter about his status in terms of election. Thus, it is Peter
who asks the Beloved Disciple to inquire about the identity of the betrayer
(13.24), because he himself is not sufficiently courageous to ask the question.
Peter continuously appears to be out of time. After the foot washing, he asks
Jesus where he is going. Jesus replies: ὅπου ὑπάγω οὐ δύνασαί μοι νῦν ἀκολουθῆσαι,
ἀκολουθήσεις δὲ ὕστερον (v. 36: ‘Where I am going, you cannot follow me now,
but you will follow later’). Peter again rushes forward and declares his willing-
ness to follow Jesus now (ἄρτι) and to lay down his life for him (v. 37: τὴν ψυχήν
μου ὑπὲρ σοῦ θήσω). Why is he poised to lay down his life now? Maybe because
he realizes that he does not have to fear death as long as he has a share with Jesus.
Maybe because he cannot live in the uncertainty of his life’s ending. Jesus again
responds with sovereign skepticism: τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ θήσεις; (‘You will
lay down your life for me?’), virtually mocking Peter’s initial question in v. 6:
‘You are washing my feet?’ He goes on to solemnly predict (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι)
Peter’s imminent denial in the early hours even before the cock will crow. By
means of this prediction, Peter finally obtains some certainty about his future: He
will not lay down his life, but rather his integrity.
In fact, it becomes evident that after this dialogue Peter continues to fear
death, not only in his denial of Jesus (18.15-18, 25-27), but also during the arrest
(18.1-11): Jesus willingly hands himself over to save his disciples’ lives, and yet
Peter rashly draws out his sword to defend the group. Jesus holds him back ask-
ing: τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό; (v. 11: ‘The cup which the
Father has given to me, shall I not drink it?’). He teaches Peter to remain passive
and to receive what has been given to him by God, just as it was necessary for
him to receive the foot washing from the Son of God.
On the day after Jesus’ trial and crucifixion, Peter demonstrates his rather
offbeat timing once again. He races with the Beloved Disciple to the tomb.
Although he is slower to arrive there than his competitor (20.4), Peter is still the
first to enter the tomb while the Beloved Disciple stands back. Peter recognizes
the strange arrangement of linen clothes but does not know what to make of it.
The Beloved Disciple sees and believes (v. 7: καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐπίστευσεν), but no
such belief is attributed to Peter, because ‘they did not yet know the scripture,
that he must rise from the dead’.
This temporal pattern of Peter – first acting in a slow manner, then rushing
forward, always against the tide – is again demonstrated in the last, probably
Rahmsdorf 471

secondary, chapter, although it corresponds well with the rest of the gospel.
Again, it is the Beloved Disciple who first recognizes the risen Jesus, while Peter
has no clue about the identity of the man standing on the shore. However, once
the Beloved Disciple has revealed his discovery, Peter girds himself and abruptly
jumps into the water to swim to the shore (21.7).
The following encounter between Jesus and Peter (21.15-19) repeats this pat-
tern. Jesus speaks to Peter, this time after breakfast (v. 15: ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν) and
asks him the same question three times, as though he has to counter Peter’s ear-
lier threefold denial when he was next to the fire (see 18.18; 21.9): Σίμων
Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; (‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more
than these?’). It has been widely debated whether the alternation of verbs for
loving (ϕιλέω and ἀγαπάω) simply serves a stylistic function (Barrett 1958: 486;
Moloney 2013: 151 n. 51) or has a deeper significance. Taking up this debate,
David Shepherd has detected an intriguing connection between the first encoun-
ter between Jesus and Peter after the resurrection in ch. 21 and their last encoun-
ter before the resurrection in 13.6-10, 34-38. Shepherd states that the alteration
between the apparent synonyms ‘is best understood as a crucial part of Jesus’
effort in ch. 21 to remind Peter of the kind of love (ἀγάπη) that Jesus had
demanded of him on the night he was betrayed (ch. 13–17) and that Peter subse-
quently failed to grasp or express (ch. 18)’ (2010: 792). What makes this love
unique is that it is labeled by a willingness to perform it until the end (εἰς τέλος;
see 13.1), which Jesus poignantly demonstrates in his crucifixion (Shepherd
2010: 788). As Peter continuously declares his ability to love (vv. 15, 16, 17:
ϕιλῶ σε), though not in the way it is requested (vv. 15, 16: ἀγαπᾷς με), Jesus
gradually tries to make him see the difference. In his repeated commands, ‘Feed
my lambs!’, ‘Tend my sheep!’, ‘Feed my sheep’ (vv. 15, 16, 17), he refers to the
imagery of the earlier discourse about the Good Shepherd (10.1-21, 26-29)
(Shepherd 2010: 789-90). The first command (βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου) has no direct
semantic connection to the discourse in ch. 10 but it touches on the same general
Bildfeld (see also 1.29). In the second question, Jesus changes his command to
ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου, which blatantly alludes to his earlier speech through
clearly overlapping semantics. In 10.11, Jesus describes himself as ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ
καλὸς, who τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων.17 Shepherd accurately
analyses the use of the shepherd metaphor in this scene and states:

Indeed, given the clear intent of Jesus’ question in v. 15 to help Peter grasp and
embody the αγάπη that lays down its life, an evocation of the shepherd discourse can

17. Besides 10.11 the word ποιμήν occurs 6 times (10.2, 11, 12, 14, 16) and the word πρόβατον 15
times (10.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 26, 27).
472 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

only be intended to remind Peter of the primary responsibility of the Good Shepherd
… the shepherd lays down his life for his sheep (2010: 791).18

It is, in this respect, instructive to observe the development of the love com-
mandment throughout the Fourth Gospel. In 10.17-18 the commandment (ἐντολή)
to lay down one’s life is only attributed to Jesus (the Good Shepherd). The father
loves his son because the son lays down his life and takes it up again (v. 17). At
this stage the disciples at best take up the role of the sheep who simply follow the
voice of the Good Shepherd (vv. 4-5). In ch. 13 the disciples are then assigned
the role of slaves who are not better than their master (13.6) and therefore wash
the feet of each other as a sign of their love (vv. 34-35). In ch. 15 the disciples are
no longer called slaves but friends. However, a friend (and this shows the inver-
sive development of status from following sheep to foot-washing slaves to
friends) is here described as one who lays down his life for the other. The repeti-
tion of the commandment of love in 15.12-15 not only shows Jesus’ initiative
and ‘duty’ to lay down his life for his befriended disciples, but it also indicates
that the disciples are now equally entrusted with the duties of friendship, i.e. the
sacrificial love that reaches – beyond mere succession and foot washing – until
the end (εἰς τέλος) (Mathew 2018: 411). In ch. 21, Peter is even commissioned to
be a shepherd (from sheep to slave to friend to shepherd), but obviously he still
does not grasp the full ramifications of his new status.
Only in his last question does Jesus use the verb ϕιλέω himself, as Shepherd
puts it, to hold up a mirror to Peter so that he might see his own misunderstand-
ing. Still Peter does not recognize his misapprehension, and just as Jesus predicts
Peter’s denial in 13.38, he now articulates another prediction about Peter’s
future, introduced by the very same formula ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι (v. 18). This
time he foretells Peter’s future by first referring to his current misconduct: ‘When
you were younger, you used to gird yourself (see v. 7), and walk wherever you
wished, but when you grow old, you will stretch your hands and someone else
will gird you and bring you where you do not wish to go’. As the narrator com-
ments on this prediction, Peter will eventually praise God by (forcibly) giving up
his life (v. 19). However, he will not do so voluntarily; it will be carried by some-
one else.
Peter was not ready to love εἰς τέλος then (even though, at some point in 13.37,
he claimed to be prepared) and he is not ready now, after all. Even after Jesus has
set another (more forthright) example for the command to love than the foot
washing, namely his crucifixion, Peter still does not comprehend. His failure to

18. Tolmie has furthermore pointed out the close connection between Peter’s proclaimed but
never realized willingness to lay down his life for Jesus (13.37) to the shepherd motif (ch. 10).
Tolmie also describes Peter as ‘promising something without actually realizing what he is
promising’ (2006: 364)
Rahmsdorf 473

understand the meaning of ἀγάπη is not only demonstrated by his inability to

apply the appropriate semantics, but by his failure to simply follow Jesus later
on. When he is commanded by Jesus to follow him (v. 19: ἀκολούθει μοι), he
simply turns around and observes the Beloved Disciple following him (v. 20:
Ἐπιστραϕεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα).19
Jesus must repeat his command to Peter (v. 22), while his brothers discuss the
presumed immortality of the Beloved Disciple (v. 23). Peter is not only incapable
of being the Good Shepherd; he even fails to act like the sheep of the Good
Shepherd, who hears his voice and follows him (10.4) (Tolmie 2006: 365).
Francois Tolmie thus concludes: ‘He can only “shepherd” Jesus’ sheep by doing
himself what is expected of the sheep of the Good Shepherd: following the Good
Shepherd!’ (2006: 367). But the Fourth Gospel ends without depicting Peter fol-
lowing Jesus. We do not know, at least from the Johannine story line, whether
Peter will be able to follow the risen Christ; we only know that eventually he will
involuntarily lay down his life (21.19).
To conclude our observations on Peter’s reactions to the foot washing as well
as in related scenes, we can state that the foot washing is in fact not time-inde-
pendent at all. On the contrary, close examination of the conflict between Peter
and his master has revealed that the love exemplified in the foot washing has a
clear temporal direction (that is, love until the end) that Peter is not able to grasp
or perform. Furthermore, not only Jesus’ action can be considered as a behavio-
ral example, but also Peter and his actions exhibit ethical significance. Peter
serves as an example of the lack of post-resurrection knowledge and understand-
ing. In fact, even after the crucifixion, Peter does not grasp the full meaning of
what it takes to love with the kind of ἀγάπη that Jesus commanded (13.34-35)
and subsequently demonstrated through his crucifixion. Peter is also not merely
an example of how one responds with unease to changing hierarchies, but he is
an intriguing example of a person who acts cautiously in fear of death and whose
actions are badly timed because of his fear of death. He is a good example for
one who does not know what it means to love until the end, or of someone who
is not ready to love because he fears that his time on earth is running out. This
fear – which makes Peter an even more compelling and ethically significant
character – is utterly comprehensible. He knows that he is not free of sin; he is
still inhibited by his past deeds, and he fears eventual conviction. This causes
him to be hesitant when he should be responsive and to rush forward when the
time is not right. Because of his fear of death, he is neither ready to love to the
full nor able to see what is actually happening in the present moment: his master
is washing his feet not to convict him but to purify him. The master is washing

19. The fact that Jesus now requests Peter to simply follow him, after he has tried to install him
as shepherd, might (with great caution) be regarded as a regression: from following sheep
(ch.  10) to a foot-washing slave (ch.  13) to sacrificial friend (ch.  15) to leading shepherd
(21.15-17) to following sheep (21.19, 22).
474 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

away his past deeds so that he might eventually endure the end of life but without
it becoming the end of their relationship.

Conclusion
A closer look at temporal details within the Johannine story world offers new
insights into and opens up fresh ethical reflections on the behavior of its charac-
ters. The above analysis has shown that Peter’s conduct is predominantly shaped
by his fear of death and his desire to live εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. His temporal norms
repeatedly put his actions ‘out of joint’, in that he either acts in a slow-paced
manner or he rushes forward. Jesus, on the contrary, is oriented εἰς τέλος, toward
his hour (13.1). At all times he is poised to lay down his life for others and, at the
end, he alone is truly able to say τετέλεσται (19.30). His future predictions (for
Peter’s life inter alia) are fulfilled. He knows where time goes, because he endures
its restrictiveness up until the end.
Different temporal orientations play a major role in dictating human behavior
and (at times conflicting) ways of living. A closer look at the temporal dynamics
of the Johannine encounters and also the multiple time conflicts that are on dis-
play (to name only a few: the still pending hour at the wedding in Cana [2.1-11];
the incredible destruction and rebuilding of the temple in three days [2.18-22];
the Sabbath controversies [5.2, 18; 9.1-41]; the delayed departure to the feast of
tabernacles [7.2-10]; the delayed departure to the terminally ill Lazarus [11.1-44]
etc.) lend themselves to a fresh look at Johannine ethics. Johannine ethics are not
restricted to parenetical texts or systematic ethical treatises, for they are found
within the broader narrative or the metaphorical structure of the text. Johannine
ethics, therefore, are not restricted to single, imitable deeds, but can embrace
entire ways of living and life orientations. They are not restricted to rational dis-
course, but can also be discovered in their emotional, sensual and spiritual
dimensions. They are not restricted to timeless norms, but offer a holistic per-
spective on ethical decision-making, including aspects of the concrete situation.
The time-sensitive analysis proposed in this study opens up a wide range of ethi-
cally significant material beyond the single, seemingly timeless, act of foot
washing. The interconnected relationship between time, ethics and narration
brings together both the timebound and the timeless, particularity and generali-
zation, concrete situations and distant reflections. An ethical approach to
Johannine time and a temporal focus on Johannine ethics may eventually lead us
to a better understanding of the Johannine way to seize the hour.

References
Anderson, Paul N.
2009a ‘Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel: Consensus and Convergences’, in
Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (eds.), John, Jesus, and History.
Rahmsdorf 475

II. Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture): 379-86.
2009b ‘Introduction to Part 2: Aspects of Historicity in John 5–12’, in Paul N. Anderson,
Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (eds.), John, Jesus, and History. II. Aspects of His-
toricity in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 107-15.
Attridge, Harold W.
2006 ‘The Cubist Principle in Johannine Imagery: John and the Reading of Images in
Contemporary Platonism’, in Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmer-
mann (eds.), Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theol-
ogy of Johannine Figurative Language (WUNT, 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck):
47-60.
2015 ‘The Gospel of John: Genre Matters?’, in Kasper Bro Larsen (ed.), The Gospel of
John as Genre Mosaic (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 27-45.
Barrett, Charles K.
1958 The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text (London: SPCK).
Blumenberg, Hans
2010 Paradigms for a Metaphorology: Translated from the German with an Afterword
by Robert Savage (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library).
Brown, Raymond E.
1978 The Gospel According to John: Volume 2 (xiii–xxi) (AB; London: Chapman).
Bultmann, Rudolf
1986 Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Culpepper, Alan R.
1987 Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press).
1991 ‘The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13:1-38’, in Alan R. Culpepper
and Fernando F. Segovia (eds.), Semeia 53: The Fourth Gospel from a Literary
Perspective (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 133-52.
Estes, Douglas
2008 The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Rela-
tivity in the Gospel of John (BibIntS, 92; Leiden: Brill).
Frey, Jörg
1998 Die johanneische Eschatologie. II. Das johanneische Zeitverständnis (WUNT,
110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Hays, Richard B.
1996 The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. A
Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperSan-
Francisco).
Horn, Friedrich W., Ulrich Volp and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.)
2016 Metapher – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchrist-
licher und antiker Ethik (Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik, 4;
WUNT, 356; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
476 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41(4)

Keener, Craig S.
2003 The Gospel of John: A Commentary, II (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Labahn, Michael
2013 ‘Simon Peter: An Ambiguous Character and his Narrative Career’, in Steven A.
Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.), Character Studies in
the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John (WUNT,
314; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 151-67.
Lohse, Eduard
1991 Theological Ethics of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press).
Martyn, James Louis
2003 History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press).
Mathew, Bincy
2018 The Johannine Footwashing as the Sign of Perfect Love: An Exegetical Study of
John 13:1-20 (WUNT, 2/464; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Meeks, Wayne A.
1996 ‘The Ethics of the Fourth Gospel’, in Alan R. Culpepper (ed.), Exploring the
Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press): 317-26.
Moloney, Francis J.
2013 Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Neyrey, Jerome H., and Eric Rowe
2008 ‘Telling Time in the Fourth Gospel’, HTS 64/1: 291-320.
Parsenios, George L.
2012 ‘A Sententious Silence: First Thoughts on the Fourth Gospel and the Ardens
Style’, in Susan E. Myers (ed.), Portraits of Jesus: Studies in Christology (WUNT,
2/321; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 13-26.
Ricœur, Paul
2009 Time and Narrative, I (trans Lathleen McLaughling and David Pellauer; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
Sanders, Jack T.
1975 Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press).
Schnackenburg, Rudolf
1954 Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testamentes (HMTh; Munich: Max Hueber).
2000 Das Johannesevangelium: Erster Teil: Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kapitel 1–4
(HTKNT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Wissenschaftlicher Buchgesellschaft).
Schnelle, Udo
2006 ‘Johanneische Ethik’, in Christfried Böttrich (ed.), Eschatologie und Ethik im
frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag (GTF, 11;
Frankfurt am Main: Lang): 309-27.
Rahmsdorf 477

Schrage, Wolfgang
1989 Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Schulz, Siegfried
1987 Neutestamentliche Ethik (ZGB; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Shepherd, David
2010 ‘“Do You Love Me?” A Narrative-Critical Reappraisal of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in
John 21:15-17’, JBL 129.4: 777-92.
Siegert, Folker
2008 Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstel-
lung und Kommentar (SIDL, 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Thyen, Hartwig
2015 Das Johannesevangelium (HNT, 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Tolmie, D. Francois
2006 ‘The (not so) Good Shepherd: The Use of Shepherd Imagery in the Characterisa-
tion of Peter in the Fourth Gospel’, in Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben
Zimmermann (eds.), Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and
Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (WUNT, 200; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck): 353-67.
Van der Watt, Jan G.
1989 ‘The Use of αἰώνιος in the Concept ζωὴ αἰώνιος in John’s Gospel’, NovT 21.3: 217-
28.
Van der Watt, Jan G., and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.)
2012 Rethinking the Ethics of John: ‘Implicit Ethics’ in the Johannine Writings (Kon-
texte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik, 3; WUNT, 291; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Wengst, Klaus
1992 Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch über das Johan-
nesevangelium (Munich: Kaiser).
Zimmermann, Ruben
2009 ‘The “Implicit Ethics” of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodol-
ogy for Analysing New Testament Ethics’, Neot 43.2: 398-422.
2012 ‘Is there Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus’, in
Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann (eds.), Rethinking the Ethics of
John: ‘Implicit Ethics’ in the Johannine Writings (Kontexte und Normen neutes-
tamentlicher Ethik, 3; WUNT, 291; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 44-80.
2016 Die Logik der Liebe: Die implizite Ethik der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des
1. Korintherbriefs (BThSt, 162; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie).
Zumstein, Jean
2016 Das Johannesevangelium (KEK, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).