New Thoughts (12/13/11-12/16/11)
It appears that my comments on this portion of Scripture shall fall primarily under two heads, the first considering the reasons Jesus enumerates for emulation, and the second considering the stated result. As for verse 18, I am not entirely certain why I decided to attach it to this passage rather than later, but it is here, and I shall let it stand. However, while it contains something of an ancillary support for the doctrine of sovereign election, I shall leave commenting on that point aside for this study.
Let us, then, get to the meat of the matter, focusing first upon verses 13-16. As Jesus explains His actions to these men, He begins by noting their own stated views regarding His person. Here, He does not note the fullest such statement that Peter had made, identifying Jesus as the Son of God. He settles for their more commonplace, day to day titles for Him. “You call Me Teacher and Lord.” What we dare not miss in this statement is the particular significance of these titles. Interestingly, Jesus does not opt for the Hebrew Rabbi in this, but utilizes the Greek didaskalos. While the KJV translates this term as Master, the real meaning is that of an instructor, particularly an instructor of religion, at least in Hebrew usage. To call one a teacher, then, or to take one as his own teacher, is to express the view that this one is fit to teach.
Note that the term is applied with particular fervor to John the Baptist and to Jesus, both of whom had quite a following of not merely students, but disciples. To fully grasp the power of the title of Teacher, we must observe what it means to declare oneself a disciple, a matheetees. This indicates a pupil, to be certain, but really something far more. It is one who follows a particular teacher’s teachings, an adherent. Borrowing from Zhodiates, it is one who makes that teacher’s instructions the rule for his own conduct. I find one occurrence which the NASB translates as disciple in the OT, the Hebrew term being limmuwd [OT:3928]: taught or accustomed to a particular thing. Understand the implications. What one has been taught, one has become accustomed to, has made one’s own customary behavior. To willingly become a disciple of particular teacher, then, is to take that one’s teaching and make it one’s custom; as Zhodiates indicated, to make it the rule of life for oneself. All of this ought to be understood when Jesus says, “You call Me Teacher.”
Then, we come to the term Lord. While that term can mean little more than we would mean by calling somebody mister, it is clear that in this context more is intended. It’s another acknowledgement of office, a granting of those rights belonging to that office. In short, it is assigning Jesus the right of command. If, as Scripture tells us, He is Lord of lords and King of kings, there are a few things that can be said right away. First, those two concepts are intended as parallel thoughts, the one explaining the other. Thus, we are drawn to the equating of lord with king. This, in turn, ought to inform us as to the degree to which His command is binding upon us. There’s this to the office of king that we have little grasp of here in America, that the king’s word is final. It is final in a fashion that even a Supreme Court decision is not. That decision might be overturned in subsequent years with a different bench and the right case presented. The king’s word, however, is subject only to himself. His command, then, is to be obeyed on penalty of death.
Now, then: If an earthly king has such authority, how much more the King of all kings? How much more that One Who sits enthroned in heaven, Ruler over all Creation? Even last night, we were discussing the Lord’s Prayer, with that most freighted of clauses, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Well, how is His will done in heaven? It is done without question and without hesitation. If we are earnestly praying for such a response to His will on earth, surely it ought to start with ourselves! Surely, we who call ourselves His are the most immediately bound by the responsibility of obedience to His will as it is responded to in heaven.
This drives us right back to the point Jesus is making to His apostles here: You acknowledge Me as a Teacher, as one worthy of emulation and the very model for your own lives. You proclaim Me Lord, with the right to command, and the right to command with full expectation of immediate obedience. Well, then, here is that thing I am commanding. Indeed, I have set you the example that you may set about emulating Me. But, understand: Emulation is not just due to admiration. Emulation is mandatory.
With all our sensitivity to charges of legalism, this may strike our ears as thoroughly inappropriate. How can Scripture be thought to promote such an authoritarian stance? But, God is Authoritarian. God is Authority! A King who need not be obeyed unless it suits us is not much of a king. A God Whose will is not like iron, Whose will is not absolutely binding upon us, is no god whatsoever. But, Jesus is God, and He is King of all kings. Think upon that. He is that King which even the kings of the earth have no choice but to obey. Presidents and Premiers and whatever other titles they may take upon themselves, as rebellious against His rightful reign they may be, (and most are rebellious indeed), they shall obey because obedience is not optional.
How much more, then, for His own, for those He has chosen as family and friends of the Court? Surely, there can be no thought of rebellion in us! And yet, we know full well that we are inclined to hem and to haw and to seek delays if not complete rescission from Him. It has ever been thus. Think of Moses, receiving the commission of God to go rescue Israel. Me, Lord? Surely not! I am no eloquent ambassador that I might sway the thinking of Pharaoh. You must be mistaken. Try my brother. He’s pretty sharp. But, me? Nah. I’ll stick with the shepherd gig. Or, choose your hero of Scripture, pretty much at random. All of them have this very human tendency, and it will be on display at one point or another. This does not, to be clear, make the thing right. It only makes it less surprising when we find it in ourselves. It is, if anything, a severe caution against supposing ourselves somehow immune.
At any rate, this is the premise Jesus builds. I AM the Teacher, and I AM such with a capital T, not just a preeminent teacher, but the Teacher to end all teachers. I AM the Lord, and again with a capital T. I am not merely a master you have willingly attached yourselves to. I am Lord even over the kings of the earth, even over the Roman emperor. He rules at My whim, and his end is in My hands. This is the One you have given yourselves over to. This is the One you follow. So, then, if I, with this power, with this authority, set Myself to this lowly act of service, can you do otherwise than to follow suit? Can you suppose there’s really a choice? If you wish to be My disciple, then follow Me. Do as I do. Think as I think.
Oh! The powerful obligation we take upon ourselves when we declare Jesus is Lord! We must, we have got to get to that place where we are mindful of His own warnings to us on that point. I am mindful, given this hard lesson He sets, of the point He made to the disciples so much earlier in His ministry. “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, yet do not do what I say” (Lk 6:46)? Notice the double application of that title. This is not even a mere acknowledgement of His worth. It is an emphasis on His authority. He is not just any old lord. He is not just Lord with the titular implications. He is Lord, Lord! There is the hint of that “King of kings” aspect in it. And yet, we do not do what He says. How can this be? How dare we to tolerate it in ourselves? Emulation is mandatory.
It is mandatory, and it is never more so than when we arrive at the command to serve our brothers. How this is stressed in the disciples’ training. It took awhile, but you know, I think they got it! Consider Peter’s letter, for one data point. “Don’t be lording it over your charges. Instead, serve as a proven example to the flock” (1Pe 5:3). Now, I note that Peter doesn’t even say ‘your flock’. It’s not yours. It’s His. How the minister of God must bear this in mind! How the teacher! They’re not yours. Even in our family groups, we who are parents must be mindful that these children we raise are not really our own. They are His. They are of the flock, and we, in this office of parent, have a responsibility to serve them as a proven example. Phew! That’s some responsibility! That’s responsibility we cannot hope to satisfy except the Holy Spirit be with us constantly, and we be just as constantly listening for His input – and acting upon it!
If we cannot bring ourselves to the point of obedience to Christ, how can we expect to raise up others who will? Whether it’s the family setting or the church setting, the instruction stands: Prove to be an example. Didactic teaching won’t be of any value if it doesn’t match our own consistent practice. A dear friend of mine once told me that we cannot teach the message with any effect until we have lived it. Or, I could borrow from Charlie Peacock, as I so often do, with the chorus, “You can only possess what you experience.” Yes! And you can only impart to others what you possess yourself. This is precisely why Jesus was immediately noted as one who taught with authority, and why this was such a novel experience for those He taught. It was a rarity indeed to find a teacher living what he taught. And it was not something that those observers could fail to notice.
So, then, with these credentials in His possession, the implications, nay the stated obligations are plain. Now, I find it intriguing that the vast majority of translations settle for saying “You also ought to.” That word ought, at least by modern usage, suggests there’s still some wiggle room, that it’s still optional to us whether or not we do so. It goes in that category where we store things like, “you ought to call your parents regularly,” or, “you ought to attend this funeral to support the family.” Yes, these are good things to do. But, they’re hardly mandatory. Even with that rather tired example of the speed limit, we tend to view the matter not as binding, but only as a pretty good idea. Maybe in inclement weather we might think more highly of it, but on a sunny day, it really has no bearing on our lives.
But, this word we have translated as ought is something more. It’s necessity. It may not be necessity in that inevitable, no way it’s not going to happen sense, but it’s necessity in that we are fully obligated to obey. We may find that obligation is due to duty, something in which we would say we are duty bound to comply. It may be a function of debt. You owe it to me to do this! One thinks, for example, of that extraordinary sense of indebtedness we find depicted in those whose lives have been saved by another. Unless there’s opportunity to then turn around and save that other’s life, the sense of indebtedness remains. I owe it to you to do this. You saved my life! Or, maybe it’s but a moral obligation. And what does it say of us that we should think this the least binding of all? Truly, it ought to be the most binding!
I dare say that, given this Jesus Who has spoken, Who truly is the Teacher and the Lord, all of these possible causes for necessity apply! We are duty bound to obey, because He is our final Commander in Chief. We do owe Him such debt as can never be repaid. He did save our lives, and there shall be no opportunity to do likewise for Him Who is beyond death, who is Life in Himself. Yes, and He has laid out the moral code that is to shape our lives as it shapes Him, or as it bears His shape. There really should be no thought of this being optional. I would be perfectly comfortable to render His statement as “you also must wash one another’s feet. I gave you an example that you must do as I did.”
Here, we might arrive at a bit of a question: was it the act of foot washing that Jesus intended us to emulate, or the more general example of humble service? There are at least a few churches that look upon this as the establishment of a rite of the Church, but it is far and away the minority view. It strikes me that if this were the intention, then we would find the event covered by all the Evangelists and not just John. Were the event of such high significance, surely this would be the case. Consider that other particular rite of Christianity which we have in Communion. This is founded upon a matter at this same meal, but one that is noted by all four Evangelists, and by Paul as well. That’s part of what marked it out as being highly important – that and the covenant nature of the thing. Similarly, the early tradition of the shared love feast was built upon something that all four of these men found significant. Come to the foot washing, and there’s only John.
Those who would set this as a rite of the faith will point to 1Timothy 5:10, where Paul is setting out those sorts of good works which served as evidence that a woman was suited to be deemed a widow of the church. Here, amongst many other activities, there is indeed mention of washing the saints’ feet. See? There it is! It was a practice of the early church! Well, yes. It was also a practice of society in general, as we have seen in the Gospel record. This was no ritual. This was a necessity of life in dusty Palestine and other regions where sewage ran in the streets. The significance does not lie in the act’s specifics, but in what the act demonstrated. Again, we recognize that this was a job typically relegated to the least servant of the household. Jesus, in taking up that task, dressed Himself in a fashion to emphasize that aspect of what He was doing. He dressed as a slave to do a slave’s task for His disciples.
The same point is being made about the widow’s qualifications. If one looks across the sorts of good works Paul lists out as marking such a one, they are all in that category of serving others, of putting the needs of others before self. She has brought up children, which any parent will tell you is a matter that requires setting aside one’s own interests in favor of their needs. She has been hospitable to strangers, making her home open to them, cooking meals for them, seeing to their comforts. Surely, after a long day’s labors in the house, rest would have been more in her interest. She aided those in distress. If somebody else was in trouble, she was there, not sitting at home thanking God it hadn’t been her. And, added to this is the note about washing the feet of the saints. Notice, that’s not the feet of the Apostles, not the feet of the pastor, but of the saints. What’s the point he’s making here? She willingly set herself to serve anybody and everybody in the church, however minor the need or however great.
This is precisely the example Jesus has emphasized repeatedly with His disciples. When they were all concerned as to who was the greatest amongst themselves, what was Jesus advice? You want to be considered great in this kingdom of Mine? Then set yourself to serve everybody. God opposes the proud but exalts the humble. The last shall be first. Any number of other bits of Scripture could be added to this. The picture is clear enough. Think, even, of that repeated motif of the shepherd. A shepherd, certainly in that age in which Jesus walked, was deemed a pretty unreliable fellow, unacceptable as witness before the courts, not particularly welcome in finer homes. And what was his labor spent on? Serving sheep, perhaps not even his own sheep! They needed protecting, and the shepherd saw to it that they had that protecting. He spent nights in the open fields, sleeping across the entrance to the fold, lest anything seek to get in, or any foolish sheep seek to slip out. He put his life at risk to slay such predators as might come to assault the flock, for the sheep themselves were defenseless. In short, he was servant to the sheep, counting himself as less valuable than they.
Now turn to what Jesus says of this action of His: “I gave you an example to follow.” That example is not to be found in the specifics of donning a towel and washing feet. It is to be found in the humbling of self to serve the needs of others. That is ever and always there in the ministry of Jesus. It is the very definition of His ministry. Face it. There was absolutely nothing about His incarnation that served His own needs. The entire course of redemption was about serving. The entire course of redemption was an act of humbling oneself to meet the needs of helpless others. The whole message God delivers to us is that He has set our own needs above His own. Were it not the case, we would have been destroyed from out of Creation long and long ago.
Jesus, having made His point, emphasizes the necessity of obedience to His example. Here, we have further hints as to the significance He intends. “The slave is not greater than his master.” Indeed, and He has just laid Himself out there as the slave. Yet, He has also just accepted their attribution to Him of the role of master. For, Teacher is to disciple what master is to slave, and Lord is to subject likewise. If the master, then, sets himself about serving his own servants, how ought those servants to act in their turn? The point is clear.
But, He adds a parallel image, which we find translated as “neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.” This phrase requires a fair number of English words to relate what is said in far less Greek words. “One who is sent” actually translates the word we more commonly see as apostle. That is, after all, what it means to be an apostle. An apostle is one who is sent, commissioned as ambassador, given assignment to represent who? Not self, certainly, but ‘the one who sent him’. Here, again, the Greek has but a single term, in this case pempsantos. This one not only sent the apostle, but marked out the mission, the purpose for which he was sent. He sent with instructions, with defined purpose, with bounding parameters for the mission. And, in all things the apostolos represents the interests of the pempsantos.
Here’s an interesting thing: That term apostolos is far more frequent in the writings of Paul and his associates. It is noted that more than 75% of the occurrences of this word in Scripture are contained in the combined writings of Paul and Luke. Of course, one could say that the vast majority of the New Testament are likewise contained in those writings. However, Paul, particularly because of his unique arrival at being Apostle with a capital A, was more inclined to raise the issue of that office. It’s interesting. Matthew does no more than list the twelve, which included, we must note, Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:2). Mark uses the term more or less in passing, and that only the one time when he is segueing from discussion of John the Baptist’s death. Given that he has just noted how John’s disciples claimed his body and buried it, it may be that he simply wanted to distinguish the followers of Jesus from the followers of John in this instance. But, he notes specifically that the apostles gathered with Jesus (Mk 6:29-30). It is Luke who notes the occasion upon which Jesus selected those twelve Matthew mentions as apostles, and further notes that it was Jesus who gave them this title of apostolos (Lk 6:13).
Why do I stress this point? Well, for one thing, this is one of a very few places where the term is rendered as anything other than apostle. There are a few instances in Paul’s letters where the translators opt for ‘messenger’, but never, anything so awkward as ‘one who is sent’. It seems to me that Jesus, ever a careful man with His words, and singularly apt, chose this word with utmost care and used it pointedly. These twelve at table with Him knew full well the title He had given them. They were quite probably aware that the more common term for an ambassador was presbeuo, as Zhodiates points out, that this title was something unique to the ministry of Jesus, and to His kingdom. Now, the power of what Jesus says here is amplified greatly! “Neither is the Apostle greater than the One Who sent him.” The office of Apostle is nothing to glory in, no point of pride of which to boast. It is a call to serve, to serve as the Lord served, to the uttermost. It is a call to love as the Lord loved, to the uttermost (Jn 13:1). It is a high calling to extreme humility.
There can be no mistaking His point, then: Pride is removed from ministry absolutely. The Apostles, listening to the One Who sent them, are being given the bounding parameters of their mission, and those parameters are simply, “serve others.” Consider your brother as being of greater import to the mission than yourself (Ro 12:10). Devote yourselves to one another with brotherly love. Is there anything you wouldn’t do for your brother? Any limit beyond which you would not go to achieve his rescue, were it necessary? For all that, is there any sense of shame in so doing? No. It’s family. So it is to be with us. We are family. We are not, certainly not in the capital A sense, Apostles. But we are sent, every last one of us, just as we are all counted amongst the saints. We are all here to represent the kingdom of our God and the God of our kingdom. That being the case, we are all to operate within these same bounding parameters: Serve others.
[12/16/11] Before I move on, there is a connection that was brought to mind for me last night as we prepared for worship practice. We were given to contemplate this King who left His throne for our benefit, and this discussion put me back in mind of Philippians 2:7 (probably because somebody brought it up). He emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, made in the likeness of men. Actually, we must back up a verse, mustn’t we? He existed in the form of God, but did not take that equality with God as a thing to be grasped (Php 2:6). Now, marry that point Paul makes with the question that opens this particular passage. “Do you know what I have done to you?” Actually, I would be inclined to change that from ‘to you’ to ‘for you’, which the syntax would, I believe, support. “Do you know what I have done for you?”
You see, it strikes me that this question encompasses far more than the immediate act of having washed their feet. This was but symbolic of the whole of His ministry, in fact, the whole of His life. His entire time upon the earth had been of this nature, stripping Himself of His outer garment in having shed the prerogatives of being God so as to become man, and doing this not for some self-serving whim, but so as to serve us, though we are so infinitely inferior to Him in status. Do you understand what I have done? Do you understand My ministry? Do you realize, even yet, what this is really all about? Probably not. But, by His own word, the final outcome is assured: “You don’t realize now what I am doing. But, you shall eventually” (Jn 13:7).
Bearing the weight of this greater recognition of the degree to which Jesus lived out a life of service to His people, to beings He Himself created, the power of His closing statement in this explanation are the more weighty. “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.” If I hear this in the nature of the way the Ten Commandments are to be heard, I might be inclined to become very concerned when thinking about this in the obverse. If I am blessed if I do these things I know, then the flip side would be that I am cursed if I do not. Holding the reasons for obedience in view: He is the Sovereign Lord of all lords, and He is, by my own confession, the Teacher I know I ought to model my life upon, it would hardly seem unreasonable to hear that negative connotation in the positive admonition given.
Here, it seems wise to stop for just a moment, and consider what it really means to be blessed. As it happens, I had been looking into this term for another reason, because of a question raised in Sunday school awhile back, as to whether there were really any recognizable distinction between happiness and joy. The standard point of preaching is that happiness is an emotion whereas joy is a state, or something along those lines. Thus, when James councils us to count it all joy when we are facing trials (Jas 1:2), it’s not as if we go about laughing at danger, or that we look to these things with all the anticipation we feel when unwrapping a gift from somebody we know gives good gifts (a connection worth exploring in its own right, that!) Indeed, in that comparison I find the cause for joy in the trials. We know that even these trials come as a gift from the One Who gives us every good and perfect gift! Therefore, whatever my visceral reaction to circumstance may be, my spiritual reaction can indeed be one of joy in knowing the One Whose hand is ever upon me.
But, such joy is a matter of chara. And what is happiness? Well, in reality, what many translations take has happy could as well (and perhaps better ought to) be rendered as blessed. Both terms consider the underlying Greek makarios. The fundamental sense of that term is to be well off, fortunate, at least as it is most commonly applied. I should note, I suppose, that this still doesn’t point to an emotion particularly. It points to situation. That, I should think is the distinguishing feature. Makarios reflects circumstance, whereas chara may be in spite of circumstance. Now, Zhodiates offers a bit of further insight into the term, because the actual roots of this matter of makarios point to something more then simply being well off. The original usage would point one towards partaking in those things reserved to the gods, sharing in their experience of existence, or in a more prosaic sense, possessing the characteristic of deity. Thus, this author notes, blessing is not so much to do with being in favorable circumstances, as we might typically think of promoting happiness. Blessedness has to do with being satisfied – satisfied because one is in Christ, satisfaction that comes from God, not from whatever gifts He may happen to bestow upon us. This, it would seem, brings us back around more nearly to joy, to chara.
However, in light of the passage at hand, and also thinking upon that earlier lesson of the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12), it is that idea of sharing in what God partakes of that really captures my thoughts. If you are poor in spirit (humble), if you are gentle in your dealings with others, if you are merciful, a peacemaker, one pure in heart whose greatest desire is for righteousness, then indeed do you share in the very character of the Godhead. To be clear, it is not the essence you share, but the character. You have taken on a strong resemblance to your Father in heaven, which is only as it should be for a son of heaven. Here, in the command Jesus imparts by His example, we get the same sense. If you do this, you are shaping yourself upon the character of God. You are sharing in His experience.
Again, I must contemplate the darker negative of this. If you do not, you are not shaping yourself upon His character, and you do not have any share in His experience. Yikes! Of course, this is of a piece with the whole of His message, isn’t it? And, it is very clearly of a piece with what the Apostles came to understand quite well. If I am not willing to serve with that same unlimited commitment that led Jesus to serve even unto death, then I have no part in Him. OK. So, am I finding that phrase ‘you have no part in Me’ resonating simply because it’s part of the story of the foot washing, or is it because it really does have a connection to the issue of being blessed or not?
Well, let me consider a couple of verses from James in view of that question. Near the beginning of his letter, he considers this matter of knowing only and of doing what one knows to do. One who hears the word with understanding but neglects to do as the word implies is but looking at his face in the mirror, and will forget what the mirror showed him just as soon as he looks away again. By way of contrast, the one who, upon contemplating that perfect law of liberty sets about to live by it, not hearing it negligently but actively and intentionally putting it into practice, that man (here it is again) shall be blessed in what he does (Jas 1:23-25)! Yes, by doing as God indicates He Himself does, that man whose character is shaped by the example shall be experiencing in himself the life that God lives. He shall have in his measure the character of God, and shall taste, in measure, the things that God enjoys.
But, we must go back to James 1:22 to see the corollary point. There, James is admonition his readers to be doers of the word, and not just hearers thereof. And it is at the close of that admonition that the negative reinforcement comes in. For those who merely hear without doing, “delude themselves”. They can go ahead and call themselves saved, bear themselves about as children of God, but it ain’t necessarily so. To be God’s is to be possessed of His character. To be a son to the Father, a huios son and not merely a child of His creation, to which all could lay claim, is to be of like character to Him, to share the same mindset, the same lifestyle, the same goals as He. If, then, this vital evidence is not in the offing, to think ourselves counted amongst the elect nonetheless is a most deadly delusion indeed!
If you understand, you will be blessed if you do. If you don’t understand, does that provide you with an excuse? Not really, no. For if you don’t understand, then Jesus has seen to it that we have One Who will lead us into all understanding. To not understand, then, is to ignore the Teacher, and dismiss the Lord. It is in the same nature as hearing and refusing to do. The stubborn student who refuses to learn the lesson taught is as guilty as the student who has ‘learned’ with an eye only to getting through the exam, but has no intent of putting those lessons into practice. Ignorance of that perfect law of liberty can never be an excuse because there is no excuse for such ignorance! Certainly, amongst those who would think to call themselves believers, there is absolutely no excuse. We have the example of creation, we have the simple message of the Gospel, and we have the infinitely valuable training material of Scripture as a whole. What excuse, then, could we possibly offer for not understanding? It would only indicate that we didn’t care enough to learn, that we didn’t even grasp the first principles that study of and meditation upon His word is crucial, is even a first evidence of respect for Him. But, to learn and learn without ever putting into practice? There is no value in it. It’s but a puffing up of pride.
For my own part, I feel a certain need to hear that point made a tad more bluntly: “You get it. Now do it.” No excuses. No procrastination. No nothing. You call me Lord, then pursue My commands. Exclusively. Leave no room for any other master, for I shall brook none. Our God is an awesome God. He is also a Jealous God, by His own statements. He will not share His glory with another. Neither will He share our allegiances with another. We are His alone or we are not His at all. It’s time we lived the fullest implications of that reality. If you know it, live it.
