Why I believe Feetwashing Signifies the Incarnation
There are two reasons. One has to do with the general message of John and the other with the way John presents the feetwashing story in chapter 13.
First, John doesn’t present Jesus in the way Protestants have normally seen Him.
Protestants have always presented Jesus as the One who made atonement for the sins of the world--as a savior who came to fulfill Old Testament prophecy and to save His people from their sin through His death on the cross.
That Protestant image of Jesus in not John’s image of Jesus. In John’s Gospel, Jesus is the Word who became flesh and made His dwelling among us. He is a savior who lived in the world. And, then He died for His people. The difference between the Jesus we were taught (or, at least, the one I was taught) and John’s Jesus is an important one. John's Jesus is the Man of the Incarnation, at least as much as He is the Means of the Atonement.
Consider this: In John 3:16, at the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus speaks of God’s gift of His Son in the past tense. You know the words. “For God so love that world that he gave his one and only son….” According to Jesus, God’s gift of His Son had already been given when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus. The giving of God’s Son is not a reference to His death on the cross. It is a reference to John 1:14, “…the word became flesh.”
And, consider this: In John 14:6, Jesus speaks in the present tense, not in the future tense. We most often hear this verse quoted for the words, “No one comes to the father except through me.” However, the first sentence in the verse is the one that is truly powerful. Jesus says, “I AM (present tense—before the arrest and crucifixion) the way and the truth and the life.” As John recounts Jesus’ words, Jesus had already, at that time already become the way, truth and life. There is no reference to the crucifixion here.
So, first, in a general sense, in John’s Gospel, it is the incarnation of Jesus that is the focus.
Second, think through John 13.
In my opinion, the key verse in the feetwashing account isn’t in the description of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. The key verse is Jesus’ commentary on it that doesn’t appear until verse 34. Jesus says, “A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
Again, the reference isn’t to the crucifixion. Jesus doesn’t define His love in terms of the atonement. He defines in terms of an action that was already accomplished. Now, in the most specific sense, the ‘have loved you’ part refers to what Jesus had just done. He’d just washed their feet. Jesus actually defines the feetwashing, not as an act of humility, but as an act of love.
But, it’s easy to see that in John 13, John’s incarnation-focused message is present. John 13:3 says, “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God….” John says that, in Jesus’ mind, it was the totality of His incarnation—from the moment He became flesh to the moment that He would return to God—that was what was in His mind. And, it was at the precise moment He was reflecting on the incarnation that He got up from the table and took off His outer garments to wash the disciples’ feet.
So, from the description of feetwashing in John 13:1-17, there can be no doubt: Feetwashing signifies the incarnation: The fact that Jesus had come from God and that He was returning to God.
And, from the constant references to the incarnation in John 3:16, John 14:6 and John 13:34, it is clear that, in all of John, the incarnation of Jesus is the major theme John.
Bottom line: I think the CGGC has this one correct.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:15 AM
13 Comments:
Thanks Bill,
I am still curious though why nothing has been said concerning the Jewish understanding of the passages that are being used. The understanding of a Jewish audience would have imediatly thought of the Isaiah 52 - 53 imagery of the suffering servant. here Isaiah uses perfect past tense in Hebrew to illustrate that in the eyes of God "It is finished" 500 years prior to Christ ever becoming flesh. Therefore, God so loved the world that he "gave" his one and only Son was no problem for them to fathom.
Also in John 14 if I were Jewish I would have no problem agreeing wit the words of Jesus "I Am" is the way and the truth and the light. Translated into the mind of the audience (Remembering that the audience that received this gospel was Jewish) "God is the way the truth and the light" is very true to the word. I am was the name of God given to the Jews through Moses and the Burning Bush in Exodus.
What I have been finding so unfortunate, is that we have seperated the text from the original recepiants and have "Christianized" the text so much, we are missing the richness that was evident to the people in 1st century Christanity.
I truly agree with the idea that the feetwashing was an act of love, but I see love as being humble. Paul gives us a wonderful word picture of love in 1 Corinthians 13. love is humility and therefore Jesus demonstrated that love through the humbling himself to be a servant. (Philippians 2 5 - 8)
To have a better understansing of what Paul was saying here about the nature of Christ we need to understand the culture of the Philippians.
Can anyone tell me what is so significant about the city of Philippi in 1st century history? I think that it sheds a great deal of light on what and why Paul penned the words the way he did.
I believe that John had an agenda for what he wrote and the main point that he was getting to had to deal with the start up of what was to become the gnostic movement in 2nd century. John was seeing the beginning of the gnostics and wanted to refute their teachings. This sheds some light onto why his focus was with light and darkness and the incarnation. If you were to ever read any Gnostic history the beauty of John's Gospel is much clearer and powerful.
Was the feet washing symbolic of the incarnation, yes I think so in the aspect that it was about the love of God being demonstrated in such a way that was very powerful and practical. For God to stoop as low to wash feet, what better way to demonstrate how much He loved his disciples. This job was reserved for the lowest house servant or the wife of the host in these days (many people know how people thought about women in those days)
But, I'm still having a hard time believing that John was using the concept of removing his outer garments as a symbol of the incarnation. Maybe, I'm just stubborn :-)
I'm probably swimming in water too deep and far from shore for my skill level by making a comment here, but I'll take the risk and plunge in, as the Advent season always makes me ponder the Incarnation and what it really means.
Something that struck me as I read through your post, Bill, is that we (Evangelicals) do tend to limit the significance of Christ to his death and resurrection, rather than seeing all of his life and actions on earth as examples of who he is/was/will be. While I am not trying to minimize the necessity or power of the Atonement, I wonder if we focus on it because death is the ultimate fear for many people. The cross communicates a hope that this fear can be overcome. On the other hand, the Incarnation has become Christmas-card cute, rather than a powerful action meant to show us who this God we worship really is.
And yet, the fact that Christ came in the first place can be just as compelling as his sacrifice in drawing us to him. If we really think about it, it can make us sit back and say, who is this? Why would he do this? I wonder if it is not more or less important, but simply another part of who Christ is. I wonder if this is why I sometimes find myself longing for something more...knowing more of Christ, as if facets of who he is have been turned away from me either because of ignorance, an inability to comprehend or more likely because it’s easier to stand in that one place I’ve always been and not walk around to see more, in case one of those new discoveries might actually make me have to drop to my knees and wash a pair of smelly feet I never want to know about let alone touch.
Not sure I’ve added anything to the discussion, but you’re thoughts have been intriguing and have made me think...
Sherri
Rob,
Don’t get me wrong. I am in complete agreement with you that the only way to accurately interpret these passages is with an awareness of how they would be understood by a first century Jew. The difference between us here, apparently, is that you and I have different ideas about how a first century Jew would read John’s material.
I’d caution you not to read John like you would Matthew. Matthew’s intent is to present Jesus to a first century Jew to show that Jesus is the Messiah whose coming was predicted in the Old Testament. It’s strongly apologetic. John is not. John’s message is much more revolutionary.
So, read John 1 as a Jew would. Here’s some of what I come up with. Right up front John clarifies Who Jesus is. He is an eternal being who existed in the beginning. He was with God in the beginning. He Himself was God. He was present at creation. And, in fact, He created what is. He was life and light.
John the Baptist was not the One. He was a witness to that One.
The world didn’t recognize Jesus. Even God’s own people didn’t recognize Him. But, to those who did receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God.
Now, rob, all of those realities are clarified in John’s first words. They answer questions about Jesus that would have been critical to his Jewish readers. And, then, John concludes this introduction to the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus with this statement, which I believe a Jewish reader would understand to be the core truth to the remainder of the Gospel:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John was saying this in a way that had meaning to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, but it would have special meaning to first century Jews, “The Promised One was God and we know two things about Him. First, He took on humanity. And, second, He didn’t merely make an appearance as a human being, He lived where we live and how we live.”
As far as John 3 is concerned, I don’t believe that a Jewish reader would think about the suffering servant. The key thought here is that no one can see God’s kingdom without a second birth. The Jewish reader would see this in terms of the question, “Who is and who is not a true descendant of Abraham?” Jesus’ point, as read by a Jew is that no one is a descendant of Abraham by virtue of physical birth. A spiritual birth is required for one to see the kingdom and to inherit God’s promises to Abraham. “The Spirit gives birth to Spirit.”
John 3:16 would not throw a Jew into thoughts of the suffering servant. Instead, a Jewish reader would see this as Jesus' explanation of the personal action that would manifest the reality of that second, spiritual, birth. "One is born again when one believes in Me," Jesus says.
The use of the past tense of the verb ‘to give,’ would, I believe, take a typical Jewish reader back to what John has already said about Jesus, the bottom line of which is that He was God in human form. And, don't ignore verse 17, which speaks of God SENDING His Son. In verse 17, Jesus continues the idea that His coming--His incarnation--is the key theme in John.
As far as John 14:6 is concerned, I agree with you. Clearly Jesus is drawing the Jewish reader to the moment Yahweh revealed His name to Moses. The very real tension in a Jewish mind that is described in John 8:58—when Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I am,” when the Jews wanted stone Jesus for blasphemy—that powerful tension certainly would have filled even the disciples when Jesus said, “I AM the way and the truth and the life.” I’m with you on that point. Here’s the thing that strikes me as being powerfully important about Jesus’ statement in its context in John:
Jesus spoke those words before the arrest; not after the crucifixion and resurrection.
As I attempt to read John with the eyes of a first century Jew, I see a striking, even haunting reference to the incarnation, which was introduced as the central truth of Jesus back at the beginning of the Gospel in John 1:14.
All that to say, Rob, that my conclusion that central theme of John and the significance of feetwashing is incarnation has not been divorced from our shared conviction that the meaning of the text is found in what a first century Jew would see in the text.
In fact, I reach that conclusion specifically by searching for the most likely meaning to a Jew.
Bill,
I'm with you on every point! I do not look at Matthew as I would John. There is definitely a difference between the two approaches and their messages.
I see where I errored on my statement about John 3. I wasn't trying to say that it would remind them of Isaiah's Suffering Servant but that it was written in the same manor, as though it had already been accomplished (Meaning the death and resurrection). I also see that this use of the past tense would take the reader back to chapter 1. Thank you for clarifying my thoughts for me. :-)
I do want to make it clear that I do see the incarnation in all of John. what I also see in, especially in the feetwashing, that the incarnation was to show us the way that God intended us to live and to love one another, to serve and not desire to be served, to love and expect nothing in return.
the only caution that I was mentioning about the feetwashing was not to read too much into the text, but to allow the text to be read for what it was. Like I mentioned earlier I see that there could be a beautiful imagry in the removal of the outter garments of Jesus, but I'm not sure that is the case. I think, as one that grew up in the farm country of Lancaster County PA, that Jesus didn't want to have manure and dirt over the clothes he was going to sit down and eat wearing.
As for the incarnation, I would be heritacal for trying to deny that was John's main point to his text!
God came as one of us to show us the way to live and to love. What a great Christmas gift for everyone to receive!
Rob,
I also grew up in Lancaster County. In Elizabethtown. My wife was a farmer's daughter who grew up between Elizabethtown and Manheim.
In what community did you grow up?
I was raised in Lancaster city untilI was about 12 then I moved outside of Strasburg. After I was married to Cheryl we moved to Elizabethtown for a few years and then to Hershey before movig out here to the flatlands of Ohio! So I lived in almost every corner of LAncaster county :-)
sherri,
(I just figured out who you are. How are you guyz?)
Very well said! You've caught the spirit of what I believe and said it better than I could have in my dreams!
I believe that if we are to present Jesus in a way that makes Him relevant to the emerging postmodern culture, we will have to show that He became one of us. His life before the cross was much more than time wasted waiting for His crucifixion.
I'm not so certain that we need a 'generous orthodoxy.' I'm convinced that we need to show the real Jesus, who was much more than a sacrifical lamb.
Sherri
That is an awesome comment about feetwashing/incarnation. Thanks! Can I use that?
To fully understand the imagery of Christ's incarnation in feetwashing, we need to see that the whole thing in John 13 hinges off the comment in 13:3, "Jesus knew that...he had come from God and was returning to God"...so he got up and washed the disciples' feet. That's the foundational statement that is the key to understanding the whole thing. Christ's awareness of His incarnation is explicitly tied to feetwashing through this statement. The whole clause is a explanatory comment to the feetwashing, as indicated by the word "so" in :4 (NIV); "so he got up from the meal...." The Philippians 2 passage--esp. :7 "He made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant" makes this even more clear.
Remember that an "ordinance" as we define it must indicate a deep theological truth--not something relatively mundane such as that we ought to do good by serving one another. That's true, of course, but not the main point. If that was all that feetwashing signified it would not be worthy to be considered as an ordinance. But the passage indicates that it clearly indicates much more: the incarnation, Christ's life. Pretty foundational stuff; worthy of remembrance in an ordinance, which is why Christ emphasizes so many times in this passage that we should wash one another's feet. (By the way, Christ's command for us to practice this is far more clear than it is for either of the other two ordinances!)
I think that the widespread misunderstanding of the significance of feetwashing (i.e., "that we should serve one another") is the reason why most churches/Christians don't recognize it as an ordinance. I was in that camp myself for many years. I am grateful to the CGGC for helping to open my eyes to the real signficance of feetwashing!
A couple of thoughts:
As I read, I wonder if emerging doesn't describe the emergence beyond the culture we were once contained. There is talk of from a Protestant perspective or from an Evangelical perspective. This is both dangerous and wonderful all at the same time. It is no wonder that it scares people, and rightly it should. But as Sherri said, "We long for more facets of Christ." We should take this time to remind ourselves to be careful as we tread, so as not to stumble.
Second, maybe Bill said this, but it struck me that when Jesus said, "You must be born again," there is a sense that He is saying "You must become incarnate." You must do the same as Jesus, strip off the honor and power that you possess and become a servant, which due to the nature of the world can provide no other course except to be taken advantage of. Your incarnation will lead to your death.
Treading carefully, I'll point out that it was Jesus incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection that opened the door for us to follow.
The painful part is that you know what it feels like to sacrifice and not have that sacrifice returned. There comes a sense of loneliness and depression. Is that what Jesus felt near the end?
This is where as a preacher I want to jump in with the good news... SWEEPING IN AND SAVING THE DAY, THE BAD GUY DIES AND I GET THE GIRL. What? No? I die in the end?
Brian,
"...maybe Bill said this, but it struck me that when Jesus said, "You must be born again," there is a sense that He is saying "You must become incarnate." You must do the same as Jesus, strip off the honor and power that you possess and become a servant, which due to the nature of the world can provide no other course except to be taken advantage of. Your incarnation will lead to your death."
Bill didn't say that. But, he wishes he had.
In my opinion, being 'born again' in John is a metaphor for repentence, which is mentioned so frequently in the Synoptics. No form of the word 'repent' appears in John. Your description of becoming incarnate is an apt description of repentence.
Right on!
Brian said:
The painful part is that you know what it feels like to sacrifice and not have that sacrifice returned. There comes a sense of loneliness and depression. Is that what Jesus felt near the end? This is where as a preacher I want to jump in with the good news... SWEEPING IN AND SAVING THE DAY, THE BAD GUY DIES AND I GET THE GIRL. What? No? I die in the end?
Yeah, I can really relate to your thoughts here Brian. And, you know, I think there is a huge segment of people who could use just this view of Christ and/or Christ-followers.
Don't you think most people look at loneliness and depression as really bad things; and all they want to do is get over them? I think this is where we have an opportunity to help people see that loneliness and depression are not necessarily negatives though. And that it's moving "through" these things (emerging) that takes away their "sting".
I'm a little late responding--had to take a couple of days away from the computer...
Bill, we're doing well--keeping warm and only about a foot of snow on the ground. :-)
Dan, if what I wrote is helpful to you, please use it.
Sherri T.
Post a Comment
<< Home