The Washing of Feet

John 13:1Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.2 And [a]supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. 5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.” 8 Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.” 12 So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, “Do you [b]know what I have done to you? 13 You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

As we approach this text there are a couple of things we need to keep in mind.

1.) John is a writer who is rich in connecting his writings to the Old Testament. Indeed one misses a good deal of what John is doing in his writings if one is not aware of how influenced John’s thought world is with the thought world of the OT.

Right out of the gate with John’s “In the beginning” there can be little question that John’s Gospel finds linkage with the prior Revelation of God. As one moves through John’s Gospel one reads of the Patriarchs and the Prophets,

In John Moses and the Prophets wrote about Jesus (Jn. 1:45, 5:46) Abraham saw his day and was glad (8:56) Isaiah saw a Heavenly vision of the pre-incarnate son high and lifted up (Is. 6 w/ Jn. 12:41). In John, there is a recurring reference to the festivals and the feasts, (Passover [2] Purim [5:1, 17] Passover [6:4] Tabernacles [7] Great Day [7:37] Dedication [10:22] Passover [11:55] and the Old Testament History in General … For example, Jesus is the Manna come down from Heaven. Jesus is the water from which one can drink and never thirst.

These few sentences draw together some of the major connections between John’s Gospel and the Old Testament. Sometimes these connections are very clear and directly cited. In other parts of the Gospel, the Old Testament allusions are more indirect and less obvious. With the passage of time, many of the allusions do not immediately strike us and one of the challenges we face is to pose the question – what might these things have meant to the first-century reader, to the author’s initially-intended audience?

This explains in part why we need to be familiar with the whole of Scripture in order to understand the whole of Scripture. John writes out of covenantal world and life view and He labors to demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament spoke of.

We find that here also in John 13 and that is what we want to reference in beginning this morning.

As we begin we note that this section of Scripture in John 13-17 is referred to as the upper room discourse. Jesus here concentrates on preparing His disciples and is especially investing time with them. It is a block of Scripture that is its own sub-unit. We see that this sub-unit fits with John’s theme that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah of God. In these five chapters, the Deity of Christ is put forth time and time again.

In order to understand the dynamic of what is going on w/Jesus’ donning of the towel, we need to turn to Dr. Luke for some immediate context. Luke tells us that

22:24 there was also a dispute among them (the Disciples), as to which of them should be considered the greatest.

With the Cross now in sight gathering for their last meal together the Disciples were still contending about matters of precedence and prestige among them.

It is quite possible that this was the conversation going into this upper room. Understand that the roads of Palestine were very 1st century. In the best of weather, they were inches thick in dust, and in rainy weather they could be a mud bath. Of course, the shoes were sandals with a leather strap that attached the sandal to the foot. The foot was therefore obviously exposed.

Because of this there was always kept at an entry to a home large water pots as well as a servant with a pitcher and a towel to wash the dirtied feet of the guests. Apparently, in this situation, there was no servant to perform this menial labor and you can bet that if the disciples were arguing about who would be considered the greatest none of them would be bowing to this service.

But before we get to the actual washing itself let us consider briefly this Passover reality that John gives us. Of course, the Passover was the highest Hebrew Holy Day of the Year. It was the day that remembered the Exodus and how God required the slaying of the lamb and the application of the blood in order that the Angel of the Lord would Pass by that God’s wrath would not visit the homes covered by the blood. Passover also marked the Exodus or departure of God’s people out of the Egyptian world that would eventually find them journeying to the promised land.

We need to keep this in mind to hear the allusion that Jesus is giving here in Chapter 13. Jesus says here during this Passover time that He knew that His hour had come and that He should depart from this world to the Father.

I believe that John uses this language purposely to communicate that Jesus is on the cusp of His own Exodus … a Departure that would find Him entering into His return to the Promised land. Inasmuch as the idea of Departure is connected with returning to the Father the word departure suggests not only the Crucifixion but also His resurrection and ascension. About His glory, and authority. Jesus is starting a new Exodus … a fulfillment of what the earlier Exodus only anticipated. Jesus is leaving this world into a new world that is the reality of which the new land flowing with milk and honey was only the precursor. We need to keep in mind that when Jesus says He is departing this world to the Father He has before Him not only the humiliation but the exaltation as well.

To underscore this we remain mindful of how John uses the word “world,” in His gospel. Jesus is departing this “world.” Yes, of course, there is a literal reference here inasmuch as Jesus will be departing this physical universe but if we scratch just a bit we might insist that there is a double reference here. Remember for John the word “world” can also mean this present evil age – this World system – as it lies under the influence of the evil one.

The World System

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me…

John 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Is this departure not only a departure from the physical universe but also an Exodus from the World system as it lies under the Evil One? Is Jesus departing this World much the way God’s Son – Israel in the Old testament – departed the World system that was Egyptian bondage?

I think that is very likely.

But if we scratch just a bit more we could honestly say that Jesus is departing the whole Old Covenant world order. With Jesus’ departure not only is Pharaoh’s bondage of the evil World system being left behind but in Christ’s return to the Father the whole Old Covenant world order is likewise being left. With Jesus’ departure to the Father, it is the end of the Temple system… the end of the Jewish world order the end of the ceremonial law.

So, when John tells us that Jesus is departing from this world, I would submit that there is a good deal going on in that statement. In Jesus departure, the whole Old Covenant world is being nailed to the cross and God’s people with Jesus departure Exodus out of that world with Jesus.

My friend and Biblical Theologian Kim Burgess put it this way,

“Jesus departure from this world IS how things “changed” from the Old Cov world order to the New Cov world order — namely, via the death and resurrection of Christ for Christ Himself had been born under and had died under that Old Cov order (Gal 4:4) and so was taking it down with Him in order to replace it. Thus Heb 10:9 — “He takes away the the first [or old covenantal world] in order to establish the second [or new covenantal world]”.

One more piece before we return to that pitcher of water. John says that Jesus knew His hour had come. We need to remember that this whole idea of “Jesus Hour” is a literary tool that John has been using throughout His Gospel.

The Gospel of John has an intentional focus on “the hour” of Jesus. Before his first miracle, Jesus said that “My hour has not yet come” (2:4). During his early life and ministry, we are twice told that “his hour had not yet come” (7:30 and 8:20). Toward the end of his life, Jesus realized that the hour was at hand, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (12:23). He recoiled from the horror of it, but knew that this hour was the fulfillment of his mission, “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say – ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour” (12:27). The forward momentum of Jesus’ hour in the Gospel of John reaches a climax at the Cross, “Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father” (13:1). “After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you” (17:1).

We see here then that when Jesus says “His hour had come” He is epistemologically self-conscious about the Work that He came to do. All of His life was preparatory to what He was about to accomplish. This bespeaks that Jesus was self-conscious His whole life about His calling. He knew He was born to be God’s pass-over lamb. He knew He was headed for a particular Hour. He knew all about the hour and because of this knowledge He could say of His life in John 10

18No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”

Now we have set the table and we return to the matter at hand.

Whereas traditionally those feet would’ve been washed before the meal they all set there through the supper with grimy feet each preferring to be uncomfortable rather than taking up the servant’s towel.

Here we see the Master serving His people.

This foot washing of course is an illustration of what Jesus is about to do. He is about to serve His people by dying for them and so cleansing them from Sin. The lamb of God is cleansing His people from that which soils them. This foot-washing is prelude to the Cross.

We might note here we see the theology of the Cross as we will see in boldness in a few chapters further. We tend to expect the flashy, the expansive, the glorious. But John gives us what Luther called “a theology of the Cross.” Yes… it is true that the resurrection and ascension are in the future but before that what we get is a theology of the Cross. God bowing down and serving His people. God showing that if one really wants to be “the greatest” one must deny Himself.

What I find marvelous here in this narrative is that Jesus washes not only Peter’s feet but also He washed the feet of Judas as well. This is truly a picture of what Scripture means when it says to love your enemies.

God serves His people with the purpose that they might be better equipped to serve Him. Here God is serving His people that they might glorify Him in the future by serving one another (14). Jesus ends all this contention about who will be the greatest among them by giving them a model that disallows shoving and pushing to the front as a way to get to the front.

The servant of God has need to, as much as possible, just forget themselves. Forget the chasing of position and accolades. Forget the rush to be seen and recognized by an army of groupies. The servant of God realizes the first shall be last and is content just washing feet in God’s kingdom.

The Church is full of glory hounds in the ministry. What the Church needs are people who know their stuff but who are content just washing people’s feet. As John, the Baptist said … “I must decrease but He must increase.” This is all theology of the Cross material.

One more word before we move on. We need to understand that this serving is Leadership. God doesn’t call leaders to abandon Leadership. There are times when Leaders must Lead in every sense of that word. What this passage teaches is that part of Leadership is donning the towel when necessary.

So, here we have seen that God condescends to man. The incarnation of Jesus was itself a condescension of God to man. In the foot washing, we see Jesus taking to Himself no reputation and being a servant.

As we said this foot-washing is prelude to His cleansing work on the cross.

Let us be precise in application

1.) We are most like Christ when we serve one another

The Church often has friction because everyone wants to play the leader. It is amazing how much can be done if no one is concerned about being served.

2.) The Kingdom of God is advanced by God’s servant leaders.

Next we would note here that in this foot-washing we learn of the Cross.

The only thing these men contributed to Jesus foot-washing was their dirt. Jesus does all the cleansing work. This parallels what we know of the Cross. The only thing we bring to the Cross is our sin. Jesus does all the cleansing. The only thing we contribute is our dirt/sin.

Jesus washes them their feet and does not put any pre-conditions on the washing. He knows that Judas will betray Him. He knows that Peter will deny Him. He knows the others will flee in His darkest Hour and yet He washes their feet for they are His people. It is the same with our being washed and cleansed by Christ. We are cleansed and nothing will make us unclean.

In another sense, the foot-washing is a picture of sanctification. Daily we must come to Christ for daily washing away of residual sin. We must constantly return to the laver of Christ. This is why it was said by some of the Reformers that we must be daily converted. It is why John could write his epistle to believers writing,

“If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.”

I wonder if we are surprised by God’s humility, condescension, kindness, compassion, and love. We were nothing but rebels rightfully hell-bound but God came close to us in Christ and provided washing and cleansing for those who would yield to the command to be cleansed from our sin.

Fiction For Young Men That Warn Against Tyranny

1.) C. S. Lewis — Space Trilogy
2.) Richard Adams  — Watership Down
3.)  Walter Wangerin Jr. — The Book of the Dunn Cow
4.) George Orwell — Animal Farm
5.)  Aldous Huxley  — Brave New World
6.) Malcolm Muggeridge — Winter in Moscow
7.) A Tale of Two Cities — Charles Dickens
8.) The White Company — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
9.) Heiland — Franklin Sanders
10.) The Scottish Chiefs — Jane Porter

Religion as an Inescapable Concept … Thank You Atlantic Monthly

“The notion that all deeply felt conviction is sublimated religion is not new. Abraham Kuyper, a theologian who served as the prime minister of the Netherlands at the dawn of the 20th century, when the nation was in the early throes of secularization, argued that all strongly held ideologies were effectively faith-based and that no human being could survive long without some ultimate loyalty. If that loyalty didn’t derive from traditional religion, it would find expression through secular commitments, such as nationalism, socialism, or liberalism. The political theorist Samuel Goldman calls this “the law of the conservation of religion”: In any given society, there is a relatively constant and finite supply of religious conviction. What varies is how and where it is expressed.”

Atlantic Monthly Article
I would only take exception at the notion of “religion finding expression through secular commitments.” Once those putatively “secular commitments” become the person’s or people’s ultimate loyalty the commitment is no longer secular but religious. Overtly religious commitments surrendered are always surrendered for new religious commitments even if those commitments are now sold subverted as “secular commitments.” Kuyper understood this as we see in the quote above. The author of the Atlantic Monthly piece should have stuck with these “new” secular commitments being properly characterized as “sublimated religions.” Kuyper properly noting that these new commitments were all “faith-based” proves that religion as religion never goes away.

This demonstrates that religion is an inescapable concept. When you throw in the observation above concerning “ultimate loyalty” and understand that wherever a people’s “ultimate loyalty” lies there you have identified their God or god concept we learn that God likewise is an inescapable concept for all peoples. The first step in understanding a culture or social order is identifying their God (ultimate loyalty) and their religion (ultimate faith-based commitments). A people’s religion will be consistent with whatever their ultimate loyalty is and their ultimate loyalty will be consistent with their religion.

This means that no person or peoples are “more religious” or “less religious” than other persons or peoples. All people are uniformly religious. It is just a matter of identifying where their God and religion lie. This also means that all persons and peoples have the same religious furniture in their thinking. Universally all people have categories of origin, sin, redemption, destination, nature of man, etc. etc. etc. Now, most people will not be epistemologically self-conscious about what they believe but that does not mean that they are not acting in terms of these un-articulated to themselves categories.

So, for example, the Communist god is the Communist party. Their religion based on their god concept finds them believing that man is basically good (Communist anthropology). Their religion teaches them an origin story that is based on materialistic time + chance + circumstance. Their sin concept is in rebelling against the diktats of the Communist party. Their redemption category is found in the payment of their own sin of rebelling against the party by confessing their guilt and gladly receiving the bullet to the nape of the neck. Their religious belief regarding their telos is a yet unattained Utopia. The most ardent Communist is every bit as religious as your most committed Medieval Monk.

A Few Words on the Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School was endowed by a German Millionaire’s son Felix Weil. The original name for the school was “Institute for Marxism” but upon reflection, the founders decided it would be better to hide their identity and renamed it “Institute for Social Research.” Thus we have proven that Cultural Marxism — that which flowed from the Frankfurt school — was indeed Marxist even if not of the classically Marxist nature.
Those who insist that Cultural Marxism doesn’t exist are either fools or agents of misinformation.

Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian who was a major villain in the short-lived Hungarian Communist Government of 1919, saw the Frankfurt School (Cultural Marxists) as the answer to the question: ‘Who shall save us from Western civilization.’

The views of those who were the animating forces behind the Frankfurt School (Cultural Marxism) were that the Biblically informed culture of Western societies was acting as a block on the Communist Revolution. Their resolution — a methodology differing from Classical Marxism — was to attack the undergirding cultural substructures of Western Civilization hoping to alienate a large percentage of the population from the culture they inhabited having convinced that portion of the population of the putative inherent injustice and wickedness of the Biblical categories that undergirded Western civilization. The goal here was, in the words of early cultural Marxist Willie Munzenberg, “We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink.

The cultural Marxists sought to offer up cultural revolution by means of boring from within. This was revolution by an incremental evolutionary process — a technique the Fabian-Socialists long advocated and practiced. The expectation here was not invasion from without, nor by some kind of political process alone. The Frankfurt school desired to kill the host West as a parasite sucking the life from within. Think of the Sigourney Weaver film, “Alien.” Slowly, surely, incrementally the parasite takes over the host until it kills the host culture by boring within.

Joseph de Maistre, at the beginning of the 19th century, characterized it as follows:

“Until now, nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion. But here an important question arises: can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is?”

This is exactly what has happened to the West via the successful machinations of the Frankfurt school. First setting up their home base at Columbia University the Frankfurt school exercised massive influence by slowly but steadily salting the whole American University system nation-wide as combined with an ambitious publishing agenda wherein previous Western categories of thought were reinterpreted through a Cultural Marxist grid.  Toss in the sexual revolution pushed by the work of Cultural Marxists Ordono and Horkheimer and it becomes clear that the Frankfurt school has been instrumental in successfully making the West stink.

God Owns The Land

“God is cast in the roles of Creator and ‘supreme landlord’ in the Pentateuch. The land owes its existence to Him, and he creates its inhabitants, continually monitoring and supervising their behavior. He allocates land to people: *Adam is placed in *Eden (Gen. 2:8), Canaan is promised to the *Israelites (Gen. 15:16-21) and there are references to the allocation of land to the Edomites (Dt. 2:5), Moabites (Dt. 2:9), and Ammonites (Dt. 2:19). Conversely, He removes people from land when they do not behave in a worthy manner: he expels Adam and *Eve from Eden (Gn. 3:23-24), scatters the tower builders over all the earth (Gn. 11:8), and earmarks the Canaanites for expulsion from their land when the level of sinfulness warrants it (Gn. 15:16).”
 
Dictionary of the OT Pentateuch
Entry under “Land”
From “Who is My Neighbor”

As God does not change this has prompted me to consider;

1.) The fact that each of us lives where we live is not by chance or happenstance. We are where we are physically located by God’s ordained decree. We can find comfort in this truth when we end up in zip codes that we loathe. I remember when we first moved to Charlotte I kept waiting for God to send us an unexpected check in the mail so we could move from what I thought then was a God-forsaken location. I should’ve taken more comfort that God wanted me in Charlotte for reasons that were His own even if inscrutable to me. Saint, you are where you are because God has placed you there.

2.) Of course, there is a macro application here as well. People groups inhabit where they inhabit because of God’s ordination. Further, people groups are removed from their homelands and places often (not always) due to disobedience. Traditional WASP Christians are being removed from their homelands and who could argue that it is not because they have rebelled against God’s Law-Word and sown the wind with their gross covenant violating immorality.

Our removal is internal. By that, I mean God is removing us though we remain in our homeland. God is removing us via the recruit and dilute methodology combined with sub-replacement birth rates.  Western man has sown the wind and now is reaping the whirlwind. We are being slowly genocided and genociding ourselves and so are being removed from the land.  Scripture underscores this phenomenon when God warned Israel that the results of disobedience would be,

43 “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. 44 He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

3.) Overall this reminds us again of that stout Reformed doctrine of God’s exhaustive sovereignty. Our whole lives are structured and ordained by the Omnipotent God. Every breath we take, the very ground we inhabit, the tightness of our family units, the careers and jobs we have; all this is from the hand of a sovereign God. To God’s people, all of it is to our good. To those people who oppose God all of it is for their judgment.

In conclusion, the only way that Western man finds an end to God’s judgment of removal from our lands is to repent of our sin of rebelling against God and His Christ. We have need to repent of rebelling against God’s clear Law-Word. Only National repentance as led by repentance among God’s people will end the sure genocide and so replacement of Western man.