Skip to main content

Jesus Explains the Foot-Washing (John 13:12-20)

 Jesus put all his garments back on, and then he sat back in his place. He asked them if they knew the meaning of what he had just done. According to the wording here, Jesus didn't wait for an answer; it was a rhetorical question. They called him, "Teacher," because that is something the students of a rabbi might call him in this time. "Lord" is more interesting, because when one of the disciples of Jesus uses this word in the Gospels, it tends to be a divine title. The ruling authorities at the time didn't miss this meaning, because it kept getting the members of the Church in trouble. The Romans thought their emperors at the time were divine, and they used the same word. On the other hand, in certain places in the Gospels, the word could mean simply, "Sir."

So Jesus takes all this, and says that if he is God, and King of Israel, and he nevertheless takes the place of a slave in order to serve them, that they should serve each other in the same way. This is another one of those times when the message of Jesus is one of radical equality, and without the background, we could completely miss it. Even those of us in the Church called to be ministers and preachers are not too important to sometimes take the very lowest place for the good of us all. In the end, we are a family. Even Jesus takes a lower place in relation to the Father, at least as it relates to the plan of salvation.

Jesus tells them he knows which of them will betray him, not to scare them, or trouble them, but to point out a prophecy about it, in the book of Psalms. The Psalm it comes from is ascribed to David, the great King of Israel, who ruled during the best times of Israel's history. The Psalms are his diary, in many ways, and they tell the story of what he felt, thought, and prayed, at the most difficult times of his coming to power, or being in power. Jesus is reminding them of David, because he wants them to understand that like David, he is a man after God's own heart, as David was described. And he will be the greatest of all Kings, in Israel, and for all of us. Also, Jesus says again that anyone who receives him receives the Father, who sent him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un