Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly "that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea." It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.
When the other disciples entrusted themselves to Jesus and offered no resistance, [Peter], by what he says (although he seemed well intentioned) not only accuses Jesus of beginning to wash the disciples’ feet without a reason but also accuses his companions. For if he acted properly (which he thought he did) when he wanted to hinder Jesus, but the other disciples did not see the propriety in his actions, then he accused those who presented their feet to Jesus, contrary to what was proper at least in his mind. And if he thought that one must not resist what is reasonable and supposed that what happened when the disciples’ feet were washed by Jesus was reasonable, he would not have resisted what happened. He appears, therefore, to have assumed rashly that Jesus’ desire to wash the disciples’ feet was not reasonable.
Since Peter’s answer was disadvantageous for him, Jesus, who in a manner appropriate to his own goodness prevents those things from becoming true that would prove harmful to the one who speaks them, does not permit Peter’s answer to become true.
(Hom. lxx. 2) Though Peter was the first of the Apostles, yet it is possible that the traitor petulantly placed himself above him; and that this may be the reason, why our Lord first began to wash, and then cometh to Peter.
(Hom. lxx. 2) Some one will ask why none of them prevented Him, except Peter, this being a sign not of want of love, but of reverence. The reason seems to be, that He washed the traitor first, and came next to Peter, and that the other disciples were checked by the reply to Peter. Any of the rest would have said what Peter did, had his turn come first.
(Hom. lxx. 2) i. e. How useful a lesson of humility it teaches thee, and how directly this virtue leads to God.
(Hom. lxx. 2) He does not say on what account He performs this act of washing, but only threatens him. For Peter was not persuaded by the first answer: Thou shalt know hereafter: he did not say, Teach me then that I may submit. But when he was threatened with separation from Christ, then he submitted.
(Hom. lxx. 2) Or thus: When He calls them clean, you must not suppose that they were delivered from sin before the victim was offered. He means cleanness in respect of knowledge; for they were now delivered from Jewish error.
"Then cometh He to Simon Peter and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?"
"With those hands," he saith, "with which Thou hast opened eyes, and cleansed lepers, and raised the dead?" For this (question) is very emphatic; wherefore He needed not to have said any more than the, "Thou"; for even of itself this would have sufficed to convey the whole. Some one might reasonably enquire, how none of the others forbade Him, but Peter only, which was a mark of no slight love and reverence. What then is the cause? He seemeth to me to have washed the traitor first, then to have come to Peter, and that the others were afterwards instructed from his case. That He washed some one other before him is clear from its saying, "But when He came to Peter." Yet the Evangelist is not a vehement accuser, for the "began," is the expression of one implying this. And even if Peter were the first, yet it is probable that the traitor, being a forward person, had reclined even before the chief. For by another circumstance also his forwardness is shown, when He dippeth with his Master in the dish, and being convicted, feels no compunction; while Peter being rebuked but once on a former occasion, and for words which he spake from loving affection, was so abashed, that being even distressed and trembling, he begged another to ask a question. But Judas, though continually convicted, felt not.
"He saith unto him, What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shall know here after."
That is "thou shall know how great is the gain from this, the profit of the lesson, and how it is able to guide us into all humblemindedness." What then doth Peter? He still hinders Him, and saith, "Thou shall never wash my feet." "What doest thou, Peter? Rememberest thou not those former words? Saidst thou not, 'Be merciful to Thyself,' and heardest thou not in return, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan'? Art thou not even so sobered, but art thou yet vehement?" "Yea," he saith, "for what is being done is a great matter, and full of amazement." Since then he did this from exceeding love, Christ in turn subdueth him by the same; and as there He effected this by sharply rebuking him, and saying, "Thou art an offense unto Me," so here also by saying, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me."
What then saith that hot and burning one? "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head."
Vehement in deprecation, he becometh yet more vehement in acquiescence; but both from love. For why said He not wherefore He did this, instead of adding a threat? Because Peter would not have been persuaded. For had He said, "Suffer it, for by this I persuade you to be humbleminded," Peter would have promised it ten thousand times, in order that his Master might not do this thing. But now what saith He? He speaketh of that which Peter most feared and dreaded, the being separated from Him; for it is he who continually asks, "Whither goest Thou?" Wherefore also he said, "I will give even my life for Thee." And if, after hearing, "What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter," he still persisted, much more would he have done so had he learnt (the meaning of the action). Therefore said He, "but thou shalt know hereafter," as being aware, that should he learn it immediately he would still resist. And Peter said not, "Tell me, that I may suffer Thee," but (which was much more vehement) he did not even endure to learn, but withstands Him, saying, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." But as soon as He threatened, he straightway relaxed his tone. But what meaneth, "Thou shalt know after this"? "After this?" When? "When in My Name thou shall have cast out devils; when thou shalt have seen Me taken up into Heaven, when thou shalt have learnt from the Spirit that I sit on His right hand, then shall thou understand what is being done now."
"He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who should betray Him."
"And if they are clean, why washeth He their feet?" That we may learn to be modest. On which account He came not to any other part of the body, but to that which is considered more dishonorable than the rest. But what is, "He that is washed"? It is instead of, "he that is clean." Were they then clean, who had not yet been delivered from their sins, nor deemed worthy of the Spirit, since sin still had the mastery, the handwriting of the curse still remaining, the victim not having yet been offered? How then calleth He them "clean"? That thou mayest not deem them clean, as delivered from their sins, He addeth, Behold, "ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you." That is, "In this way ye are so far clean; ye have received the light, ye have been freed from Jewish error. For the Prophet also saith, 'Wash you, make you clean, put away the wickedness from your souls'; so that such a one is washed and is clean." Since then these men had cast away all wickedness from their souls, and had companied with Him with a pure mind, therefore He saith according to the word of the Prophet, "he that is washed is clean already." For in that place also It meaneth not the "washing" of water, practiced by the Jews; but the cleansing of the conscience.
When he heard these words, Peter the leader [of the Twelve] was at a loss as to his answer, saying, “Alas, O Lord, I am thwarted in every direction. Presumption is a burden, but refusal is harmful. To say no deserves punishment, but assent is most difficult for me. Nonetheless, let the command of God and not the opposition of the servant prevail, the Wisdom of God and not the excuse of the servant.”
(Tr. lvi. 2) He did not refuse, because our Lord's act was above his understanding, but he could not bear to see Him bending at his feet: Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt not wash my feel for ever; i. e. I will never suffer it: not for ever is the same as never.
(Tr. lvi. 2) If I wash thee not, He says, though it was only his feet that He was going to wash, just as we say, Thou treadest on me; though it is only our foot that is trodden on.
(Tr. lvi. 2) But he, agitated by fear and love, dreaded more the being denied Christ, than the seeing Him at His feet: Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
"Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." That his fears might not be foolish, but salutary, that his refusal might not be obstinate, but converted into compliance, "Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me." He does not say, If I wash not thy feet, but "If I wash thee not," although all He was proceeding to do was to wash his feet. For why else did He thus speak, save that, in washing the feet, He washes a man? Certainly, were any one asked whether the hands formed part of a man, he would at once reply that they did; and this, although one's hands are not one's self any more than one's feet. Just so, when we speak of any one as treading upon us, the only part of him that actually touches us is his foot, and yet we say, You tread upon me, and not, Your feet tread upon me. But when the Lord says, "If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me," what else did He hold out, so to speak, to our hopes, but the words, "In my kingdom shalt thou have no part with me"?
But when Peter heard Him say, "Thou shalt have no part with me," he was terrified lest he should be denied, not only the washing of his feet, but every part in Christ. And let him now, while distressed with such a fear, endure the application of his Lord's hands, not only to his feet, but even to his head.
Here it is clearly pointed out that this washing of the feet implies the spiritual purification of body and soul without which we cannot arrive at fellowship with Christ.
[AD 220] Tertullian on John 13:8