New Thoughts (12/3/11-12/9/11)
Before I jump into the things I have noted for consideration, I do want to note something about the construction of this passage. There is something of a habit John has of dropping into what is described as the historical present. This presents the reader with a very conversational style, one that would be pretty familiar to anybody who has ever listened to a friend relaying some event he witnessed. “So, we were going out to the airport, and my friend says, ‘Hey, would you look at that!’ And I looked, and there’s a moose by the side of the road.” It’s a pretty common mannerism, this shifting between past and present as the tale is told. Indeed, it is somewhat indicative that one is telling something from personal experience, although that’s not necessarily a strong correlation. At any rate, it’s a favorite device of John’s, and many translations, opting for proper English over literal accuracy, eliminate that device.
Here, it is in effect from verse 4 right on through verse 10, where many but not all of the verbs take on this historical present cast. For example, in verse 5, John writes, “He pours the water into the basin, and began to wash and wipe.” Here, the pouring of the water takes on that immediacy of the present, while the things He did with that water remain past tense. And so, throughout. Peter says … Jesus answered. Peter says … Jesus says. This whole tendency towards immediacy not only gives one the feeling of being there watching the whole thing unfold, but also suggests the personal memories upon which John is drawing, as if he is himself revisiting and reliving that scene he writes about.
A second bit of a side trip that I feel the need to consider before I really get going considers one of the questions I found in mind as I read this. Bearing in mind that in the previous study, we were already told of the apparent discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists as to the schedule of what happened, it is still somewhat disorienting to see the apparent change of schedule that is suggested here. One possibility that comes to mind, although I don’t give it any great credence, is that perhaps there were two suppers in view, that perhaps what John is describing is a different event than that which the others write about.
The question arises primarily because I am looking at the narrative in relatively small portions. And perhaps it has quite a bit to do with wanting things to line up better than they seem to. But, it had occurred to me that John does not really make any firm connection between what he said in verse 1 as to the general time of year, and what follows about the supper. Yet, in reality there is very little reason to suppose a disconnect. Difficult though the structure is at the beginning of this chapter, in that there seem to be a series of almost unrelated interjections leading up to the action, it would be all the more unnatural to suppose that the first verse had nothing to do with the second and beyond.
Further, by the time we reach John 13:19, we are very clearly back to the same events the others are covering, sitting at the same dinner with the same twelve, hearing the same conversation that precipitates Judas’ departure. Finally, the real problem lies with the arrest of Jesus, not with this dinner. For it is there that John makes note of the rush job getting Jesus to Pilate before their visit to his office might cause them to be defiled for the Passover (Jn 18:28). This would rather require that the supper we are viewing was either not the Passover supper at all (which John does not suggest it is, saying that this was before the Feast), or that there is some discrepancy in the calendar he is following as compared to that which the others note.
It could be argued, I suppose, that John was writing at an old age and from a greater distance from the events, and may therefore have misremembered the timing of things during this particularly chaotic period. Yet, I should think that the upshot of this period would have pretty well seared the events in memory such that there could be no confusion of that sort. Add to this the inerrancy of Scripture as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we must, I believe arrive at some other solution. The other Evangelists have clearly marked this out as the meal celebrating the Passover, yet John has more or less skated by that fact, given that he has the Passover meal demarked as coming after the delivering of Jesus to Pilate.
There is the attempt made, as I explored in the previous study, to suggest that because the proper observance of Passover fell on a regular Sabbath that year, the Pharisees would observe a day early so as not to wind up violating the Sabbath, while the Sadducees would stick with the regular schedule. But, that schedule seems problematic as well, given that Jesus was hurried down off the cross after His death to avoid profaning the Sabbath. That would seem to require that there were now three Sabbaths that week, the which simply doesn’t seem to fit at all.
So, I read back through what John writes here, seeking for some seam that might divide the account into two consecutive evenings before it joins back to the accounts the others have provided, but it’s not there to be found. Likewise, Matthew’s account clearly sets this dinner as being at the end of the first day of Unleavened Bread (Mt 26:17-20). As Luke relates the dinner, not only does he reiterate what Matthew pointed out as to the date, but also notes Jesus specifically speaking of His desire to eat “this Passover” with them before He suffered (Lk 22:15). So, then, it is very clearly the Passover meal that we are observing, and yet it is after supper, late in the night, when Jesus is arrested and hustled before the Sanhedrin. That council was already in violation of its own rules in that it was meeting at such an hour, but to have that meeting also during the Passover night? This would require a dropping of every last pretense of piety! Or it might just have been a bit of infighting between the Pharisees and the Sadducees on that council, if the theory of two dates holds.
In short, the answer to my original question is an emphatic no. One cannot produce two separate dinners to explain the apparent discrepancy. The split observation theory also seems a bit suspect to me, I confess, but it at least provides a possible answer. I shall, for the present, have to set this problem aside, and await such clarifications of insight as God may choose to provide as I continue my studies of this final meal together with Jesus.
John draws attention to Judas at the outset of his account of dinner. The contrast could not be starker. Jesus, he has just finished saying, was in the act of loving His disciples to the uttermost extent because He knew His time among them was short. Then we have Judas the betrayer, already thinking about that prospect as he receives the expressions of Jesus’ love. One could ask why John even bothers to mention Judas at this point. The natural flow of the narrative would be to note the extent of Jesus’ love and then move directly into the account of His act of service to His disciples. But, instead we have this interjected clause about Judas. Why?
It’s possible that this is just an evidence of the antipathy John feels towards Judas the betrayer. It could also be that he wanted it understood that Jesus acted with full awareness of the snake in their midst. Whatever his motivation, as he has injected Judas into the account at this point, we may as well stop for a moment to consider the man. One thing that might deserve a bit of notice is that Judas was apparently a Judean. His surname, Iscariot, identifies him as being of Kerioth, which is a Judean town. Fausset, in discussing Judas, supposes him to have been drawn to Jesus on much the same basis as the others had been. In other words, he arrives at the idea that Judas had heard John the Baptist’s witness about Jesus, and this combined with his own Messianic hopes. This is possible, of course, but it seems to me that we have John’s account of that witness, and while four of the apostles came from that background, no mention is made of others having come by that route. Further, that particular event was clearly set in Galilee, and here we are dealing with a Judean. The general disdain that the Judeans had for their northern brethren seems well enough documented, although this may have been more of an urban attitude than something that spread through the more rural areas.
At any rate, it seems that Judas’ Judean roots would have set him apart as somewhat distinct from the others among the twelve. It may have been cause for a touch of mistrust between himself and the others, and that may well have been a mutual distrust. The picture we have of the man overall is one of a self-serving, profit seeking individual. If he was attracted to Messianic movements, it seems unlikely that the attraction was on a patriotic or religious basis. Rather, it would seem to fit his character that his interest in a conquering Messiah lay more in being close to that conqueror that he might profit thereby. This is of a piece with the attitude we are shown in the man as regarded charity. His concern was not for helping the poor so much as helping himself to the funds set aside for that purpose. Religion was, then, a means to an end for this man.
As to what John says of him in this present account, the key point we are to take away is that the devil had already lodged the plan for this betrayal in Judas’ heart. I use that term ‘lodged’ advisedly. While the NASB settles for the more generic ‘put’, the term being translated really does carry distinct connotations of force. The same term might be rendered ‘smite’ if we were contemplating a battle scene. Were we to have just a bit of sympathy for Judas, we might well suppose that there had indeed been a battle, that his heart was not such that he had spent his entire time with Jesus in readiness to turn on the Man.
It’s worth considering. Much of our perception of Judas is, rather like John’s comments about him, colored by what we know of his final actions. But, notice what John does here: Those final actions have a root cause that lies outside of Judas. Not that this lessens the man’s guilt in any significant way, but the real blame lies with that one who lodged the idea in Judas’ thinking, the devil, the great enemy of God and man. As I say, this does not provide Judas with any excuse for running with that idea, but it does at least suggest a degree of realization on John’s part. It may not have been enough to produce any real sympathy for Judas, but it does demonstrate a certain recognition, perhaps even a sense of, “It could have been me.” That is something we would do well to take away from Judas’ example: It could well be any one of us. We have no grounds for feeling superior to this poor man, no grounds whatever.
So, then, John stresses the point that before they had even started supper, the devil had already infiltrated, had already poisoned the ground of Judas’ heart. Now, John does not directly associate this meal with the Passover meal, but we have that association from the others. Recalling the sense of Passover, the meaning of the term itself, this little aside becomes more significant. Remember that the passing over that is referred to here is not a skipping, but a protective interposing of self. In other words, the thing commemorated in the Passover meal is that God interposed Himself about Israel to protect her. In light of that, perhaps John felt it important to note that what had happened with Judas happened prior to that interposing of God’s protection. There is a certain symbolism, I think, to this mention. If there is, it would also serve as evidence of a sort that John rather assumed his readers would already be aware that this meal had come as observation of the Passover.
What may seem a bit confusing is that John later declares that after Jesus had identified Judas as the one who would betray Him, only then did Satan enter into him (Jn 13:27). Which was it? Had he already infiltrated before dinner, or was it only after Judas was fingered that he was lost? Well, clearly it was both or else John would not have written both points into his account. The idea, the infiltration of thought and purpose, was already done, had been in the works for some time now. What, between that wasteful display of Mary’s that Jesus had not only accepted but even praised, and then His repeated intimations as to His own death and defeat, whatever hopes of profit Judas may have had were fading fast. No point staying attached to this loser. May as well look to how he can make a buck off of the whole affair before it self destructs completely. So, yes, the idea was in place and fermenting nicely. But, it was only as the thoughts of his heart were exposed to the air of Jesus’ clear knowledge that the process of corruption really exploded.
Pardon the thickness of the prose there. I seem to have two images in mind. The first is that of a seed which has been planted for some time. It has been germinating, slowly taking shape. But, it is only after the shoot pushed into open air that growth really takes off. Sin is like that in us, as it is here in the case of Judas. The seed of thought, being planted, may be slow to germinate and take on form. If we do not apply the herbicide of the Gospel early in this process, then that seed may begin to take root. We ponder the sin, contemplate how we might go about it and how we might get away with it. Then, the first shoot breaks the soil. Having so long thought about the deed, action becomes all but inevitable.
The second image I had in view was that of the fermentation process, but I think the seedling image serves better. So let’s leave it there and take our lesson from what we see here. The devil is forever seeking to lodge sinful intentions in our thinking. He has many assistants. Advertisers, artists, pretty much the whole of the modern media experience collude with him to seed us with sinful thoughts and sinful opportunities. We are in a battle whether we know it and acknowledge it or not. The enemy of your soul and mine is constantly firing off these seed thoughts, smiting us with flaming darts, as Paul describes it (Eph 6:16). That’s not describing some frontal assault, some outrageous abuse suffered at the hands of the infidels. No! We’re dealing with the sneak attack of temptation, the psy-ops attack that gets us battling ourselves from within. The shield of faith that Paul advises us to utilize in that passage is the means of shutting down those temptations. We shall either deploy that shield and reject those thoughts on first recognition, or we will give them fertile ground to grow in until they have burst forth into full flower and we find ourselves powerless before the urge to sin. And, let’s face it: every sin is a betrayal of Christ. Let us also face the fact that our Lord and Savior is fully, keenly aware of every such betrayal.
Will this give us a greater desire to reject the temptations that assault us daily? It might if we kept those points before us. But, we are deceptively wicked, are we not? We are at our best when deceiving ourselves. Were it not so, temptation could have no power, for we would recognize from the outset that we are bound to be caught in the act, certain to be observed by the only one who matters, He Who is our only Judge and Jury. It is not even possible that we would walk headlong into sins of commission except we manage to talk ourselves into thinking He’d turned His back for the nonce. We know better. We know better, and yet we fall for it every time. I will not suggest any sympathy for the devil, certainly, nor for his cat’s paw. I would, however, suggest that we recognize our own complicity and seek with all our limited powers to repent and change our wicked ways before we discover there is no further opportunity for change.
Lord, I must confess. I must confess that I, too, have walked the path of a Judas, betraying You at every turn by my sinful deeds. How it is that You can accept me, I may never know, yet I know that You do. I know that You are faithful to forgive me as I come to You seeking to repent of these evil ways of mine. I know myself powerless, Holy God, but I know You irresistibly powerful! I know You are greater in me than he who currently pollutes the world. And, yet I also know the anguish of falling too often, too regularly, and with malice aforethought. Even so, Lord, I come begging Your forgiveness. I come asking that You would so work within me that I would learn to properly wield that shield of faith, that I would choose to do so, rather than to dwell upon those thoughts that are thrust into my head. Teach me, O Holy Spirit, how to reject those thoughts and not return to them, not to mull them over until they feel like my own. Help me to truly repent of these things that have been too long my practice and not just my mistake.
Turning to Peter briefly, it occurred to me to wonder whether he and John might not have been competitors after a fashion. What got me thinking on those lines partly to do with the way John manages to make his opinion of Judas quite clear without ever stating it outright. At the same time, he is the one who most often shows us Peter at his most impetuous, as he has done here. He is also the one, it must be said, who shows us Peter’s redemption. But, even with that, there’s that hint of rivalry between the two. Recall that even as Jesus was taking Peter aside, he noticed John following and made it a point to bring this to Jesus’ notice, as if John had no business following along (Jn 21:20-22). It could also be pointed out that alongside Peter’s well-documented tendency for being a tad over-zealous, we also have record of John gaining the nickname Boanerges from Jesus, for his willingness to call down fiery vengeance upon those who rejected his Teacher (Mk 3:17).
So, then: There at the outset of things, we have the brothers Peter and Andrew who were apparently pretty successful fishermen up there in Capernaum. We also have James and his brother John, likewise fishermen from that place, but working their father’s boats. Luke, it must be noted, does tell us that these men were partners (Lk 5:10). Of course, such a partnership needn’t be thought of as precluding rivalry. I could easily imagine that such partners would be highly competitive in their work, each seeking to show the other up just a bit. It may be ever so friendly a rivalry, and profitable to boot. But, it would be a rivalry just the same.
Coming under the ministry of Jesus, it is clear that this sort of jockeying for position hadn’t gone away. We have the event of James and John coming to Jesus seeking for priority positions in His kingdom (Mt 20:21). Granted, mom is brought out as the instigator of this, but those two must have been complicit in her acts. Then, too, there was that occasion of the twelve debating amongst themselves who was the best. And, it seems pretty clear that when all was said and done, Peter had emerged as something of a spokesman for the group. Where there are remarks attributed to somebody specific from their number, it’s usually him.
If it is indeed the case that there was this rivalry between the two, and it seems reasonable to suppose there might have been, then it becomes the more interesting that Jesus was causing these two to work together more closely as His ministry drew to a close. I had previously attributed this to the fact that John’s older brother James would be martyred before very long, and Jesus wanted another established relationship for John in the aftermath of that event. That may well have factored in. But, it occurs to me that this rivalry that He had been watching amongst these two of His innermost three is a matter He would find it needful to address as well. How better to tamp down that rivalry than to set them on task together, require them to work closely with one another? Particularly, as that task involved preparations for one of Israel’s most holy days, the rivalry would surely fade into the background as they worked. Nor would this be the only occasion for them to team up. If this was the issue Jesus sought to address, later events would bear witness that He had addressed it well. These two were a team nearly inseparable during the earliest days of the church, always seemingly found together.
Therein lies a lesson for us, I should think, particularly for the men among us. While competitiveness may come naturally to us, we must recognize that where there is competitiveness there is assuredly jealousy lurking. Why else do we compete except it be for pride in our own abilities or jealousy of another’s? Why else the need to prove ourselves superior? But, the example Jesus sets forth for us in the case of Peter and John is that we ought rather to strive as a team, labor together to achieve the greatest possible result for the kingdom. We are, as He is exemplifying for us here, to serve. We are to serve not first and foremost, but exclusively. Self interest is to be wholly set aside in preference for kingdom interests. We have that rather annoying cliché that there is no I in team. It’s annoying, but as we serve the King of all kings, it is also particularly true. There’s no place for ego in the Church. There is no room for ego when we have a true perspective on who He is and what we are. When we have arrived at the place that we see clearly as Paul did, that “I am the chief of sinners”, all cause for boastful pride is gone. There is only grateful dependence on the One who died for my sins, and the best effort I can make to obey what He enjoins. If we would compete, Jesus would teach us, compete as to who may best serve the other. Yet, even then, there is no cause for boasting, for you have done no more than your job.
The other lesson we might draw from Peter, particularly as we see him here, is a more familiar one. It’s one of the standard lessons drawn from his example. We might speak of it as the lesson of zeal without knowledge. Paul would later testify of Israel that this was the national problem: They had zeal, but they lacked knowledge. They were absolutely gung-ho for God, but they hadn’t a proper understanding of what He wanted from them (Ro 10:2). There’s Peter in a nutshell! Watch him here. He sees Jesus take on the role of servant, and he’ll have none of that. No way, Jesus! You are the Son of God, the Messiah, God Incarnate. I’ll not have You stooping to washing my feet. It ain’t proper. Now, mind you that before he blurts this out, Jesus has already told him point blank that he doesn’t fully understand what is being done. But, Peter knows better. Indeed, it seems he fails to note the irony in his own reaction. You’re offended because the Son of God would deem to wash your feet. Yet, you somehow feel it would be right for you to tell God He’s wrong? Amazing. Of course, we all do the same thing any number of times a day. We know better than You, Lord. I mean, we’re here in the trenches and You’re up there. We could teach You a thing or two about life. Oops.
Amazingly, Jesus does not rebuke Peter as He did on that other occasion when Peter thought to demand that Jesus not go on this deadly mission. Instead, He settles for pointing out the consequences. If I don’t do this for you, you are not Mine. You have no place in My ministry, no part in My promise. Yow! That got Peter’s attention. Instantly, he’s in full reverse. Never have we seen a politician who could pivot on his opinion so swiftly and so thoroughly. Why, Jesus! If that’s the case, why stop at my feet? Hit all the ritual points: feet, hands and head. Let’s be thorough about it, because I want to be thoroughly a part of You.
Of course, there is this which must also be recognized in what Peter’s doing here: Pride is strong in this one. The way John relates the event, it does not appear that Peter was the first one that Jesus came to with the water and the towel. In other words, He had already stooped to washing His inferior’s feet before he came to Peter. Yet, Peter raises no objection until that objection can show him in a better light than his fellows. Sure, Jesus. You washed their feet and they said nothing. But not me, Sir! No way! I’ll not have you abasing Yourself before me. I know better. And then, when his error is pointed out, that same bluster has him once again trying to lift himself above the rest. Why, then! If it’s a necessity of membership, then give me more! We could also point out that later boast as to his steadfastness, even if everybody else runs off. Even in death, Jesus, I’m right there with you. And Jesus had to squash that one right away. No, Peter, you’re not, really. In fact, you will have denied me thrice before any of the others even balk. Whoa. Of course, I rather doubt Peter really believed that of himself. He still, like us, had that idea that he knew better than God what he was made of. He, like us, was entirely incorrect in that assessment, but he held to it anyway.
What should we learn from this? Well, first off we ought to learn that being instant in obedience is one thing, being instant in reaction is quite another. What do I mean by that? The prayer that Jesus taught us includes the sentiment that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven, and I always take that as including the thought, starting with me. May I obey what You command with instant and unquestioning obedience. This is right and proper. He is the Sovereign Lord and I am His servant as well as His friend. What He says should go and it should go without saying. On the other hand, we often give our obedience even more instantaneously to what we only suppose ourselves to have heard from His throne. It’s just our own viewpoint, opinion, vague feeling, but we jump on it like we had heard God speaking audibly. We act with a zeal unguided by knowledge. And when it all falls apart, where do we lay the blame? Oops.
To be certain, there are any number of matters in which we already know what God’s will requires of us. The majority of moral dilemmas we will face are no dilemma at all, except that we don’t particularly wish to do what we know is right. It’s the enthusiasms we need to be more wary of, those things in which we have convinced ourselves of having certain impressions as to what God requires. It’s the opinions, the inferences drawn. These may have been arrived at by careful reason, or they may have been arrived at simply because they are pretty close to our own predilections anyway. The question that must be answered before we go rushing off on some new course is whether these views are truly Scriptural, truly reflective of God’s will, or just our own desires dressed up in Biblical quotations.
Take the example we have in Peter, and for the moment assume the most innocent of explanations. Assume that his concern with Jesus washing his feet is truly a concern for Jesus’ dignity and not for his own pride. Why does he think this? Well, as we have seen, footwashing was something generally reserved for the lowliest of slaves, and Jesus is clearly establishing that association by His change of attire. There’s also that matter of the act expressing a high degree of devotion when done personally. In neither case does Peter feel himself worthy of such treatment by his Superior. The very thought that the Son of God should bow before him is nearly blasphemous! It should not even enter the mind. Yet, here He is doing just that, and Peter, with his understanding of the matter, cannot allow it. Even though he has been told that his understanding is incomplete as to what is being done, he cannot allow it. His vehemence in rejecting the idea is right there alongside Paul’s “God forbid” comments when discussing perspectives wholly at odds with grace.
Now, when the nature of his error is shown, or the necessary outcome of having things his way, Peter is just as fast to jump so far in the other direction as to be just as wrong. And, isn’t that our tendency under correction? If we have held to a certain perspective which we later discover was just plain wrong, we tend to overreact in changing course. One could bring to mind the old adage that there’s nothing worse than a recovered addict. Nobody will be more vociferous in decrying the evils of that to which he was once addicted. It may very well be something utterly innocuous, but which had occupied to large a space in that one’s imaginations. Now, he will not be satisfied except everybody completely avoid whatever it was, whether it be cigarettes or sugar, alcohol or acid jazz. If I must avoid it, it must be evil, and if it is evil then you must avoid it too! This is where we arrive at arguments over those debatable points that Paul discusses in Romans 14. But, it’s not founded on Biblical understanding, it’s founded on personal experience and opinion.
We can have the same reaction on matters of doctrine. We were raised believing one thing and suddenly we come to a different understanding. We can become too extreme in our new understanding and wind up just as wrong theologically as we were prior. That’s sort of where we find Peter. First, he’s too offended by the seeming impropriety of God bowing down to him. Then, he’s overly into the idea of God doing this for him. Why, if a little’s good, a lot should be awesome! Go for it, God! Give me more! And how often do we hear exactly that sentiment expressed? We even have worship songs crying out that exact thought, “Give me more of You.” “Give me more, more, more!” But, God gives you what you need, what you can handle, never more than that. What are we thinking? Are we, like Peter, so swift to suppose our wisdom greater than God’s? Well, yes. Yes, we are. Doesn’t make it any more proper.
The fact of the matter is that much of this misunderstanding, this inappropriate overreaction to what God may or may not be doing in the moment, is really an expression of pride. The distinction between instant obedience to what truly is God’s will, and what is prideful display is a most narrow distinction, and we are quite likely to misinterpret our own motivations, let alone anybody else’s. God knows. We, on the other hand, are just guessing at best, dissembling at worst. It is a question we must ask ourselves over and over again, whether serving or receiving another’s service. Why are we doing this? Why are our reactions what they are? Are we acting in accord with God’s will, truly, or are we being driven by pride? It is pride that wants to reject the helping hand another offers. We can dress it up with whatever piety we might like, but it’s pride. It is pride that wants to make a scene as to how highly we regard God’s glory, particularly as compared with the likes of you.
Let me propose this. Peter may not even be aware of the pride that is powering his reactions here. It may be wholly subconscious. But, it’s pride none the less. If God chooses to act in such and such a way, and we choose to express our offense at what He is doing to one so unworthy as ourselves, what else is that but pride? Who are you to question what God is doing? Who am I? Listen! Whatever else may be said of this situation, Peter understood who Jesus was, that He was not merely some human Messiah chosen by God, He was the very Son of God. He had seen Jesus transformed. He may not have fully analyzed all the implications, but he knew enough to know this was God walking with him. And still he felt himself sufficiently wise to correct the actions this One proposed to undertake. And, you don’t think there’s pride involved?
Pride lies very near the source of most of our zealous actions. It may be ever so well disguised, even to the point that we don’t recognize it in ourselves. After all, we know we’re supposed to be humble, so if our pride were visible to us, surely we would be swift to crush it back out, right? But, pride is a master of disguise, even taking on the very garb of humility to keep from being noticed as it works its poisonous work in our souls. There is no man immune to it. There is no pastor that cannot discover too late and to his dismay that what he had thought was doctrinal certainty was in reality just prideful self reliance. That is not in any way to denigrate concern for sound doctrine. May it never be! Perhaps it is time spent once more in discussions of Romans 14 keep this point fresh in my mind. But, it is entirely possible for men of good faith to have completely divergent viewpoints on many matters of doctrine and still be found children of the Living God. His ways are above and beyond us to fully comprehend. We are none of us so brilliant as to suppose ourselves infallible in our doctrine. There are assuredly many matters upon which there can be no honest doubt amongst Christians, but there are any number of other matters where things are not as clear cut as we may like to pretend they are. We may be right. We may be wrong. We may be corrected only to find ourselves wrong once more, but in the other direction – just like Peter here. What we must do is set aside the pride we have, even in our efforts to understand this One who saved us, and allow Him to teach us, repeatedly if necessary, allow Him to correct us repeatedly if necessary, until we have truly attained to the likeness of His image.
Here, then, is the great juxtaposition that John lays before us: Peter thought he knew what was what. Jesus, on the other hand, actually knew. Peter at best knew in part. He recognized that what Jesus was doing was intended as a ritual cleansing. This is to be seen in his second reaction; “my hands and my head, too, then!” But, he didn’t know in full. Jesus told him so at the outset. And, even with the explanation that follows, it would take awhile for the full significance to really settle in.
At the same time, John stresses the point that Jesus was fully aware. He knew the schedule, that his days were coming to completion. He knew that Judas was to betray him (knew it when he chose Judas as a disciple). He knew that Satan would act upon Judas tonight, had done so in partial form already. He knew, more particularly, exactly Who He was, whence He had come, and with absolute certainty where He would be returning. He knew, in sum, that He was God. John has been pointing this out throughout his Gospel, lest anybody conclude that Jesus developed this conception of Himself only as things came to crisis point; lest anybody think that events had conspired to take Him by surprise. They may have conspired, but there was no surprise. He knew. He knew because He set those events in action. He knew because He set the schedule.
I believe I had taken some notice of this aspect to the verbal sparring between Himself and the Sadducees and Pharisees. Those debates were matters He had largely instigated, and there was a reason for it. His critique of these pious elites had grown more stringent, more blatant in this final week. Why? Because they needed a push. Fearful for their position and prestige, they were still balancing in their minds what course was more profitable for them, and they needed a bit of prodding to anger them to the point of action. This, Jesus had done. Why? Because He knew. The time set in heaven was approaching rapidly, and it required these men to play their part.
It should be understood that really every action Jesus undertook for the duration of His ministry was likewise taken with an eye to this schedule. All must be accomplished. Each individual must be properly prepared to satisfy his part. The disciples needed training. Some of them needed more. Judas needed that stinging rebuke after his complaints about Mary’s actions, because this would serve as the final straw for him. Peter needed that rebuke after trying to dissuade Jesus from His course, because this would begin the long process of change which would eventually transform Peter from a hothead to a pastor. Jesus knew.
While this fact of His knowledge stresses His godhead, it is necessary that we be mindful of His humanity. Think about that, Jesus coming to this Passover meal, knowing Himself the very Lamb of sacrifice, knowing what must necessarily follow. That He felt the weight of His sacrifice is very clear from the agony of prayer He would undergo in Gethsemene tonight. But, the sorrow of that necessity must have been on Him even as He undertook this act of washing. He knew what was coming. He knew that one of these close friends of His had already sold Him out, even knowing what tortures that would mean for Jesus. He knew that bold, blustering Peter would be lying through his teeth within hours. He knew that when the moment came, not one of these dear friends of His for whom He was pouring Himself out would stick with Him. And yet, “He loved them to the uttermost.”
So it is with us, as well. While we were yet His enemies, Christ died for us! Now, you may argue that you and I weren’t even near to being born at the time. Yet, when we contemplate that God had us in mind, had us on the program before the first moment of Creation, then we were there at least in potential. We were represented, and our representatives at the time represented us accurately. We know full well, or come to know, that we deserve nothing but the most righteous wrath of God upon us, and yet we discover ourselves the recipients of His love. We ought to be in chains, cast into the dungeon for our crimes against the state, yet we find ourselves adopted into the family, invited not only before the throne, but in the den! Yet, somehow, this has ceased to amaze us. We’ve come to expect it almost as our due. Would that we could get back to some of the shock Peter felt at the incongruity of it all. Lord, You will never be my servant! I am not worthy to serve You, let alone be served by You. And yet, Thy will be done.
Lord, I do pray that this sense of amazement would return. I miss the awe of discovering Your love for me. I miss the sense of You that was there in earlier years, that You were right there at my shoulder speaking direction, warning me of this, encouraging me to that. Now, while there is often a more matured peace and confidence in Your care for me, there is also a certain carelessness that ill befits me. Dare I say that I have in many ways come to take You for granted? And this is most improper. Forgive me, my Beloved King. With Your help (for without You I can do nothing), may I be restored to that place of desiring You above all things, of desiring to please You above all things, of rejoicing in seeing Your hand in all things. Oh, Lord! Rather than finding it annoying when my darling wife is in such a place, may I be pleased to join her in it, as it is only right and proper.
Turning to considerations of this footwashing that Jesus undertakes, I think it should be noted that this is an action that is working on many levels. At its most basic, this act was an act of common courtesy, of hospitality. It was expected. The roads were dusty, and the sandals typically open constructs. Feet got dirty walking about, and hygiene alone demanded they be washed pretty frequently. Culture made of this necessity a bit of a ceremony. The ISBE notes that this washing off of the dust of the road was even more to be expected when invited to the upper room of the house, which was likely to be the better part of the house, the more well appointed. And this is, after all, where they are: in somebody’s upper room. And they have been walking about on hillside and city street. They have been in the crowds at the temple for sacrifice. Surely, their feet need washing! But, who shall do it? The owner is not here at dinner, for he has his own dinner to attend to. His servants are not here, for they are serving him. That leaves Jesus and His disciples. Yet, there has been no established point of order on this matter.
It is clear that footwashing was seen as a requirement of hospitality. It was to be expected. Recall Jesus’ rebuke of Simon the Pharisee when he was offended at this woman who had come crashing his dinner party. “I came to your house, Simon, and you gave Me no water for My feet. Yet, she whom you despise has wet My feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair” (Lk 7:44). What you ought to have done as host, but neglected due to your low opinion of Me, she has done with such humility as you may never know.
So, then, we can look at Jesus’ action as setting Himself the host, and these disciples His guests. There being no servant present, it would not be that unusual for the host to set himself about washing the feet of His guests. Again turning to the ISBE, it is noted that to voluntarily wash another’s feet was indicative of complete devotion. That is certainly to be found in the act that woman at Simon’s dinner had undertaken, and her use of her own tears and hair in the process only accentuates the degree of her devotion. Here, it would not seem unreasonable to read a certain sense of devotion to His disciples in the act Jesus undertakes. That would also give more sense to that introductory comment as to how He loved them to the utmost. And, here was a visible act to demonstrate that truth.
What marks this out as something more is the way Jesus attires Himself for the act. It were one thing had He simply wrapped the towel about Himself. That would seem like a logical and common thing for the host to do when he was undertaking to serve his guests in this manner. But, to have stripped down to the loin clothe first, as is indicated here, no. No host was going to do that. Why? Because, what Jesus was doing here was attiring Himself as a common slave. That is very significant, and is doubtless the feature of the event that decided Peter in his opposition. You, Lord, servant of mine? I should think not! Not even in jest.
Combine these two aspects, and the picture becomes particularly poignant. Here is the very Son of God, the Messiah to whom all nations must bow, and He has set Himself a slave to these imperfect men (and I see nothing to suggest that Judas was excluded from this act). He as set Himself a slave, and He has undertaken an action that implies the depth of His devotion to these men. He is fully committed to them, fully committed to serve them as only He can. Truly, He will love them to the uttermost.
This thought leads me to yet another, far less obvious aspect of what Jesus is doing here. Thayer’s Lexicon notes that the sort of towel that is spoken of here for the servant’s use may also have been something used on those who were being crucified. I think we typically think Jesus was hung up there with nothing but a loin clothe on, but perhaps a certain sense of decorum advised the towel as well, lest there be an unwanted exposure. Supposing this to be accurate, we can read a certain prophetic perspective into what Jesus is doing here, and that would seem perfectly reasonable. The time is short, the Prophet like Moses is closing out His ministry. The Lamb of God is about to fulfill the Paschal ceremony. What would be more fitting than that there be a certain prophetic air about His actions at this time?
So, he dons the towel not only to set Himself forth as a slave, but also as a means of foreshadowing what is about to befall Him. He has told them repeatedly that His death was imminent, and that it would be ignominious. He has told them that He will be betrayed to men, killed, and return the third day. Here, there is at least a hint as to the nature of His death. And, in that same hint, there is hint as to the significance of it. It is done to serve. It is done to achieve that which the footwashing ritual was indicative of.
Here, we arrive at the significance of that exchange between Peter and Jesus. Peter, as I have noted, clearly understood the ritual aspect of what was happening. It is actually contained in the term they are using for washing, niptein. This had particular application to such ritual washings, which would typically involve feet, hands and face, just as Peter spouts in his excitement. Why, if this is necessary, Jesus, let’s do it all! Leave nothing undone! In correcting Peter, Jesus speaks of a bathing which, while not baptizmo, bespeaks a complete washing, a bath.
With that in mind, we can consider what Jesus meant. “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean.” Now, I note that the implication here is that he who has bathed is already completely clean, quite apart from the footwashing. It’s already done. But, the footwashing remains necessary. As has been noted, the meaning most commonly drawn from this is that the cleansing that occurs in the moment of salvation is sufficient unto salvation, and what remains is the necessity for repentance to obtain forgiveness for those sins that crop up day by day, a sort of maintenance program. One can find some evidence from John’s letters that he had such an understanding of the matter. However, it is certainly possible to look at this as speaking of that moment of incipient faith, and the full acceptance of what Jesus was about to accomplish on the cross.
I would also note in passing that this activity satisfies one of the parables Jesus had spoken in regard to the end times. “Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert at his return. Assuredly, he will himself serve them and wait upon them at his own table” (Lk 12:37). True, we are not yet at His return, here, but still prior to His departure. Yet, those at table are indeed men he would find alert in coming years, actively serving the King in His absence. Here, He is after a fashion granting the reward for that service before ever it is rendered! As I said, He knows.
Of course, all of this is of limited value if it is no more than a picturesque historical scene. At the same time, those who seek to make it a ritual in its own right based on what we have here are overactive in their imaginations. The point is not that we ought to all set ourselves about washing one another’s feet. Hardly that! For one thing, the circumstances that necessitated this as a feature of daily life are past for most of us. It would be empty symbol, devoid of any real value. Besides, that rather defeats the actual intent, and is inclined towards poisoning the actor’s hoped for benefit with the bile of pride.
Recall the most basic sense of that act, the sense of being wholly devoted to the one so washed. That is what Jesus is stressing to His disciples when He says, “You also ought to wash one another’s feet” (Jn 13:14). He’s not establishing some point of order for the church to come. He’s indicating an attitude that is to be common amongst His followers, and it is an attitude He has clearly taught about before. If you would be great, serve. Paul would pick this up and relay it to us as having an attitude that considers everybody else to be of more importance than self. If you must be competitive, compete in seeking to outdo one another in serving.
Devotion to God is not enough. Devotion to God cannot but express itself in devotion to our brothers. Jesus, when asked what was the chief of the commandments, arrived at a dual answer, that the chief one was to love God exclusively and wholeheartedly, and the second was to love our neighbors like they were ourselves. He arrived at this dual answer because it’s really one. Those two aspects of love are inseparable. To love God as we are to love Him must include demonstrable, sacrificial love for our neighbors – our brothers first, but really our neighbors without exclusion.
We are called to a life of bondservice to God, every bit as much as the Apostles. Paul reveled in the role, found it perhaps the only aspect of himself to boast about, and that not because he was anything, but because he was nothing. Yet, he was a nothing compelled to act, compelled to serve. He was compelled to serve God, and the service God demanded of him was that he serve others. Friend, that is the same demand made upon all of us who have found ourselves in the house of the Most High God. We are saved to serve, and we serve to save. May we be so wholly devoted to this as were those first twelve!
Finally, I shall consider the significance of this action that Jesus said would not be understood right away. I’ll just offer the World English Bible translation on that point, and skip past Peter’s objection to pick up the conclusion Jesus provides. “You don't know what I am doing now, but you will understand later” but, “if I don't wash you, you have no part with me.” You don’t get it, but you need to accept it. You need to be fully convinced of My intentions toward you in spite of not really having all the logical arguments for action that you might have preferred. If I have commanded it, you need to accept it, even if only on the basis of Who I AM.
This may be as near a call for blind faith as one will approach in Scripture. Yet, that faith is not blind, only ignorant of the details. The convincing argumentation behind that faith lies not in the specifics of the action being commanded, but in the specifics of the One commanding. With Him, we have a history, and that history has more than sufficient evidence of His unwavering goodness and faithfulness. Whatever it is, then, that He is asking of us, we ought to be perfectly comfortable in pursuing. I’ll stress the ought to be part of that.
Here, we are dealing with that action He undertakes with washing the disciples’ feet. And, we must be aware of His followup lesson indicating that they ought likewise to wash one another’s feet. I have already discussed that, however, and noted the limit on how we ought to understand Jesus on that point. What is more interesting to me at present is what it was that Peter did not fully understand, and to ask whether I truly understand it any better now.
It would seem quite reasonable to suppose that the cross is in view in some way in this action. Indeed, as I have explored, one can see certain hints of that in what He is doing, hints of a prophetic sort. But, if the footwashing is symbolic of the cross, what is symbolized by the full bath? The image itself suggests the answer as being the act of baptism. This act takes us back quite nearly to the beginning of the Gospel record, or at least the record of the apostles themselves. Where had those first several men first met Jesus? They were listening to John the Baptist. And wherefore had John his name, if not for his trademark baptism of repentance? Even Jesus, in an action seen as befitting obedience to the Law, submitted Himself to this baptism. It were unthinkable, then, that His followers, being drawn in this case from John’s, had not done likewise. Indeed, John’s whole point was that this One would baptize them with fire. He would complete what the act of repentance had prepared the ground for.
With that in mind, I think we could take that bath as being not that initial baptism of repentance, but that later baptism which belonged to Jesus, the baptism of fire. But, then, we would need to understand the significance of that phrase, as well. There I am inclined to see the act of conversion, the imparting of saving faith. This is, after all, what John’s baptism of repentance prepared us for, was for the King’s acceptance of us. Yet, His acceptance remains wholly on account of His mercy, not because that first baptism somehow made us truly righteous. No. It would take His baptism, that act of salvation to achieve true righteousness on our behalf.
This is what Paul tells Titus. “He did not save us because of our righteous deeds, but on account of His mercy. By the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, He did this” (Ti 3:5). Now, the term Paul uses there is taken from the term Jesus uses here for the full bath, and has a shared significance. It points back to baptism, full immersion. What was that bath, according to Paul? It was the regeneration. This is, I would suggest, the baptism of fire that belongs to Jesus. This is also that washing He speaks of in this present passage as having already made us completely clean. In that moment of regeneration, the work was marked down as complete in the books. We certainly feel it otherwise, are painfully aware of the slow progress of renewal in our lives, and how much remains to be done. But, the legal standing is that of completion. The reality is that of Jesus’ cry upon the cross, “It is finished!” How I love those words! Indeed, if there is anything that fully expresses the point John made in opening this chapter, that Jesus loved them to the utmost, it is encapsulated in those three words, “It is finished!”
Now, then, if it is finished in the moment of regeneration, what remains for us to accept from His hand? If it is finished, what need can there be to add to it? I would submit that what Jesus is alluding to here is indeed His act upon the cross which, for these men, remained future. The work of regeneration, from the heavenly perspective, could be marked as having been complete since the dawn of Creation. But, in a very real sense, there remained a scandal, a stumbling block for these men to endure. They would have to see their Savior die, and die in most horrible fashion. They would have to endure, if vicariously, the full depths of His humiliation. They would have to suffer their own faith shaken to the core.
The way we see Peter reacting to Jesus’ self-humiliation here indeed foreshadows how the disciples as a whole would react to that greater humiliation to come. But, like the act Jesus undertakes here, they would have to accept that humiliation for what it was: an absolutely necessary part of the mission for which Jesus came. Without this concluding act, the opening scene of regeneration would be in vain, would be an empty symbol devoid of meaning. It required the payment made in His blood, the fulfillment of the entirety of the sacrificial system. It required the acceptance of that payment by God Himself, witnessed to in His resurrection and ascension. If they would truly have Christ as their King, they must accept the path by which He attained to the throne.
There is a reason this whole thing is spoken of as a skandalon, a stumbling block. It is utter foolishness to the intelligentsia, whom Paul would represent by the Greeks. It was shame beyond bearing to the proud, whom Paul would represent by the Jews. Yet, it was absolutely necessary to that faith which could truly mark one out as having passed from death into life. If one would not accept the willing death of Life, one had not been accepted from death by Life. There, then, is the footwashing by Christ, the which if we will not accept, we have no part in Him.
I should note, in closing, that this sentence does not imply a cause and effect relationship. To say it differently, to accept the reality and significance of His action does not thereby ensure the possession of saving faith, anymore than having been there among the twelve to receive this symbolic act from Jesus actually ensured that one was His. After all, Judas was there, was he not? I dare say if he had excused himself from this business, it would have been noted. In fact, given the significance Jesus attaches to it, it’s unthinkable that Judas, still hiding his treachery, would refuse it. We could lay along side this the point Paul makes, that the demons in hell are quite clear on Who Jesus Is, what He accomplished, and how. Yet, they are no nearer salvation for knowledge. Knowledge does not save. Faith saves.
How shall I say this, then? There is a necessity on our part to accept the scandal of the cross, the shared humiliation of entrusting ourselves to this humiliated King. “If you are ashamed of Me in this life, I shall be ashamed of you before My Father” (Mk 8:38). Yet, at one and the same time, there is nothing in our act of acceptance by which we can lay claim to having the final say over our salvation. There is nothing in that acceptance of which to boast, for even this we could not and would not have done except God Himself had already moved upon us, willing and working within us that we would will ourselves. We would not have believed in the first place except He had instilled that belief, except He had worked that mystery of regeneration upon us. Jesus was not kidding when He said that none could come to Him except those the Father gave Him. It is the Father giving that controls, not some willingness on our part to take the first step. Negative! We were bondservants before and we remain bondservants after. The only real change has been a change of ownership. It remains our owner calling the shots, and ours is but to obey. We may not like that idea. We may think it demeans our humanity somehow, makes us less than men. But, the reality is that it is only because God has taken ownership of us that we have any hope whatsoever of becoming truly human. It is only as He regenerates us, renews us as new men that we take on the perfection of the perfect Man, Jesus the Christ of God. It is only in rebirth that we begin to live, and only in that new life that we begin to live to anything like our potential. And all of this is impossible, utterly impossible, apart from God.
Let us, then, praise God from Whom all blessings flow, particularly in this season of Advent. As we contemplate the Christ child, come into existence with one mission and one purpose; as we consider that He fulfilled that mission with absolute perfection; as we consider the depths of humiliation and suffering He willingly faced for the likes of us, let us indeed fall on our knees in adoration. Let us find full cause to worship the Lord of all Creation as best we may, as completely as He deserves. Let us do so not only with words and in stolen moments, but in all we are and say and do. Let us strive the more fully to live a life that is in some small way worthy of the enormity of His love for us.
