Coincidence 5: Why Did Jesus Wash His Disciples’ Feet?
The Alleged Coincidence
In John’s account of the Last Supper, Jesus washes the disciples’ feet. Afterward he tells them:
“Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” (John 13:12– 15) 1
McGrew “cannot help wondering why he washed their feet and drew the moral from it just then” (original emphasis). 2 She acknowledges that it’s “possible that Jesus did this on that particular night for no special reason”, or that “he simply wanted to teach this lesson about mutual service and humility before his death”.
But for her a more “interesting and satisfying” explanation can be found in Luke. In his account of the Last Supper, “a dispute also arose among [the disciples] as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Luke 22:24). Jesus tells them:
“The kings of the gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, the greatest among you must become like the youngest and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” (Luke 22:25–27)
Now we supposedly have better explanation of why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. As McGrew puts it, “In response to their dispute, Jesus rose from supper and served them by washing their feet as a servant would do.”
The passages coincide, therefore, because the disciples’ dispute, recorded in Luke, explains why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, recorded in John.
First Failure: Coincidence Is Not the Best Explanation
McGrew thinks there’s a coincidence here because the disciples’ dispute can explain why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. 3 But in order to be convincing evidence that the dispute and foot-washing are connected, it’s not enough that the dispute can explain the foot-washing; it needs to best explain the foot-washing.
McGrew, of course, thinks it does:
In this case, while we could envisage Jesus as washing the disciples’ feet “out of the blue,” simply to teach a lesson, the further information that they had been bickering fits together in such a satisfying way with Jesus’ action that the conclusion that the bickering explains the foot-washing on that particular night is quite well-supported when all the data are taken into account. (Original emphasis)
McGrew is wrong on two counts here.
First, McGrew’s description of the foot-washing as “out of the blue” and “simply to teach a lesson” is misleading—and possibly purposefully so. By describing the foot-washing in such deflationary terms McGrew can make it appear as though the foot-washing needs an explanation not already provided by John’s account. But even if Jesus acted “out of the blue”—that is, spontaneously and unprompted by someone else’s actions—that doesn’t mean he didn’t have sufficient reasons to wash the disciples’ feet. 4 In fact, he had very powerful reasons: Jesus washed the disciples’ feet in order to demonstrate his love for his disciples (John 13:1) and to teach a lesson in loving and serving one another (John 13:15, 34–35). 5 Furthermore, “simply to teach a lesson” is reason enough to do something—especially when teaching lessons is kind of Jesus’s thing, and especially when the lesson is as significant and meaningful as Jesus’s was. Therefore, Jesus didn’t need any other reason to wash the disciples’ feet, and we don’t need the dispute in Luke to explain his actions.
However, the second and fatal problem with McGrew’s explanation of the foot-washing is that it is not “satisfying” and it is not “well-supported when all the data are taken into account”. Specifically, it cannot explain why the foot-washing is missing from the three earliest Gospels, and it cannot explain why none of the Gospels records that Jesus washed the feet in response to the disciples’ dispute about greatness.
McGrew’s explanation entails that the eyewitness sources behind the Synoptics Gospels or the authors themselves either forgot about the foot-washing or thought it was unimportant. Both suggestions are hugely implausible. Such an extraordinary and poignant act as dressing as a slave and washing feet is something eyewitnesses and the Gospels’ authors are not going to forget about or consider unimportant. It’s far more plausible that the foot-washing is missing from the earliest Gospels because it was a later tradition unknown to the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
McGrew’s explanation also cannot explain why none of the Gospels records Jesus washing the disciples’ feet in response to a dispute among the disciples. Only Luke says the disciples argued about greatness that night, and he says Jesus’s response is a short speech (Luke 22:25–27), not washing feet. McGrew suggests that Luke interviewed an eyewitness who “might have mentioned the dispute but not the foot-washing”. However, the suggestion that an eyewitness would remember the dispute but not Jesus’s extraordinary response to it is ridiculously implausible. If Jesus did wash the disciples feet that night, and if Luke interviewed eyewitnesses, they would have certainly told him about it, and he would have certainly included it.
Thus, McGrew’s explanation is not a satisfying explanation of all the data. A far more plausible explanation of the data is that Jesus didn’t really wash the disciples’ feet, that it was a later tradition, and that it was unrelated to the disciples’ dispute about greatness.
Second Failure: No Evidence for Reliability
As we’ve just seen, McGrew has provided no convincing evidence that the dispute recorded in Luke is the reason Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Therefore, there’s no coincidence here to serve as evidence for reliability.
But let’s say I were convinced by McGrew that the dispute in Luke is the reason Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Is this evidence of reliable reporting?
No. Such a narrative, in which the Jesus washed the feet in response to the dispute, could have been invented by a storyteller. And this hypothesis can explain the coincidence in just the same way as McGrew’s. McGrew speculates that Luke interviewed an eyewitness who “might have mentioned the dispute but not the foot-washing”. But Luke also could have heard about the dispute but not the foot-washing from a storyteller or written source. John, McGrew thinks, was an eyewitness to both events, and he “apparently remembers the story in his own way and chooses to describe the foot-washing but not the dispute”. But John also could have learned about the complete narrative from a storyteller or written source and then “remember[ed] the story in his own way and [chose] to describe the foot-washing but not the dispute”.
Thus, the coincidence can be explained even if the events are not historical. Which means the coincidence isn’t evidence for reliability.
Third Failure: No Evidence for Eyewitness Testimony
We’ve already seen that McGrew’s explanation of the foot-washing is not supported by the hypothesis of eyewitness testimony. No eyewitness is likely to forget or neglect to mention the foot-washing, and no eyewitness is likely to mention the dispute but not Jesus’s amazing act in response. Rather, that the foot-washing is a later tradition that has nothing to do with a dispute among the disciples best explains why none of the earliest Gospels mention the foot-washing and why no Gospel records Jesus washing the feet in response to a dispute.
Conclusion: A Failure in Plain View
This alleged coincidence is a spectacular failure. The disciples’ dispute in Luke cannot explain Jesus’s foot-washing in John. No eyewitness (or storyteller) is going to remember the dispute but not the foot-washing. A far more plausible explanation of why no Gospel records Jesus washing the feet because of the disciples’ dispute is that the stories had nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, the fact that only John includes the foot-washing is evidence that the foot-washing itself isn’t based on reliable eyewitness testimony. Having one’s feet washed by one’s lord and savior is not something an eyewitness (or storyteller) would forget or fail to mention.
But even if the stories were connected, the coincidence wouldn’t be evidence of reliability or eyewitness testimony. The story could have been invented and then, while it circulated, the dispute and the foot-washing could have separated—just as McGrew thinks happened with the eyewitnesses. Luke and John each could have heard about either the dispute or the foot-washing, or each could have decided to mention only one in their accounts—again, just as McGrew thinks happened with the eyewitnesses.
A Fallacious Claim about Independent Testimony
While discussing this coincidence, McGrew claims that the fact that only Luke mentions the dispute at the Last Supper is “evidence of Luke’s independent access to the events”. But this claim is fallacious. McGrew knows that most scholars think Luke used Mark as a source, and surely she also knows that Luke’s account of the dispute is worded very similarly to Mark’s account of the same dispute (see Mark 10:35–45). Although Mark says the dispute occurred while Jesus and the disciples were traveling to Jerusalem, Luke could have copied the dispute from Mark and moved it, with some significant changes, to the Last Supper. Therefore, the fact Luke locates the dispute at the Last Supper is not evidence that Luke had “independent access to events”. (Matthew also copies the dispute from Mark; see Matt. 20:20–28.)
- I use the NRSVue for all biblical translations, unless otherwise noted. ↩
- I’m using the Kindle version of McGrew’s book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017), making page number useless. All quotations from McGrew in this post come from Chapter I, section “5. Why did Jesus wash the disciples’ feet?” ↩
- McGrew is presenting this coincidence in a very specific way: the dispute explains the foot-washing. I argue there’s no coincidence in that sense. However, there is a more general coincidence that I agree with: Luke and John both have stories of Jesus teaching the importance of serving others during his last night with the disciples. This coincidence may be evidence that Jesus did teach such a lesson on his last night, but it’s not evidence that the dispute occurred, that Jesus washed the feet, that the two stories are connected, or that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. ↩
- I’m not sure exactly what McGrew means by “out of the blue”. She could mean “spontaneously”, which I address in the main text. But if she means that Jesus had no reason to do it, then she’s simply wrong. John indicates that he had a least two reasons (13:1; 13:15, 34–35). ↩
- The foot-washing has lots of other meanings, both literary and theological. I’m only highlighting the obvious ones. But the fact that many meanings converge in the foot-washing shows that there’s nothing odd or problematic about John’s portrayal of Jesus washing the feet seemingly unprompted. ↩