Showing posts with label John 13. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John 13. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 04, 2013

Another Look at the Upper Room—Part 5—Concluding Comments

This series began with the question of what Jesus' "example" in the Upper Room pointed to. Was the example the specific act of washing his disciples' feet? Or was it something else, of which washing feet was yet a smaller illustration?

 

In Part 1 I discussed my personal background as it relates to these questions, and then framed a broad trajectory that I saw in response to them.

 

In Part 2 I provided some Ancient Near East cultural background from Kenneth E. Bailey to help place the story of the Upper Room in better context to help us understand how surprising, radical, and truly disturbing Jesus' actions were to the disciples.

 

In Part 3 I discussed the actual event of Jesus washing his disciples' feet and how this action undermined all human concepts of hierarchies and power. I suggested that the point of washing feet wasn't merely about humble service but a lesson on how Jesus' friends are to continue his work of destroying all power structures that place one human being above another.

 

In Part 4 I discussed how Jesus reconstructs what true, God-sanctioned power looks like, in opposition to the false power that human beings crave and admire. God's power is not found in might, force, or threats, but in humble, self-sacrificing love that honors the choices each individual makes. (Note: honoring choice does not mean agreeing with or approval.) This power is "weak" in the eyes of humans because it cannot coerce or manipulate. It can only persuade through genuine actions founded in integrity of character.

 

The story of the Upper Room is about power, but not the kind that pops into our human minds. It is about the power of the gospel to redeem, restore, and transform individuals and communities. Part of the power of the gospel is the power to deconstruct and dismantle existing, human power structures. The other part of the gospel is the power to reconstruct communities based on mutual love and respect, without hierarchies, where no one is above another in authority or power. The only leader is Jesus, working through his Holy Spirit. Apostles, teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc. are not to be understood in terms of authority and leadership structure, but of function. There is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free.

 

All too quickly the Christian church derailed by setting up structures and systems. In our (limited human) minds we cannot conceive of a situation in which a mission can go forth and perpetuate without some kind of system in place. We set up committees and appoint leaders, all for very good reasons. But what if the miracle of the gospel's power and endurance, if humans had let it be, was that it didn't need any systems or structures to continue and finish its work?

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Another Look at the Upper Room—Part 4—What Is Glory?

What images come to your mind when you hear the phrase "God's glory?" Power, might, majesty? Maybe it's more literal: brightness, shining, blinding light?

 

John 13:31-32 records Jesus' words:

 

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once." (ESV)

 

This is the prelude to Jesus giving the command to his disciples -- gathered in the Upper Room -- to love one another, and by doing so to reveal to the world that they are his disciples. From this a conclusion can be inferred that God's glory and love are somehow related. The narrative surrounding these verses provide the rest of the context that we need to determine "God's glory" of which Jesus speaks here.

 

First I find the double occurrence of the phrase "truly, truly" within this section to function as sort of bookends: one at the beginning and one at the end. The first text deals with Jesus' knowledge of Judas. The latter text, with Jesus' knowledge of Peter. The first is betrayal, the second is denial; but for the purposes of this text, the actions should be seen as equivalent -- a failure to keep trust in Jesus' way of doing things.

 

The reader of the story, of course, would only find this out about Peter at the end of the narrative. In the first part of the Upper Room story, Jesus loves and serves Peter. In the second part, Jesus loves and serves Judas. Both will turn their backs on him, and he knows it, but that knowledge doesn't change his attitude nor actions toward them.

 

In verse 27 we find the words, "Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him." Judas takes Communion. He takes the Bread of Life. But in him this morsel has a different effect than is expected. Instead of giving life, it ultimately takes life. What are we to do with this text?

 

First, it speaks out against ritual having any kind of saving grace. If participation conferred any kind of salvation, receiving bread directly from Jesus' hand ought to have been it. But we are clearly told that was not the case. Rather, it had the exact opposite effect.

 

That brings us to the second point to consider. The gospel writer of John speaks quite a bit about judgment, but does not spell out exactly what that looks like. Readers are left to their own preconceived ideas, perhaps based on other parts of the Bible. I believe verse 27 illustrates that kind of judgment that is spoken of in John. It is not about Jesus or God coming down in might, power and authority to condemn and punish, but rather, judgment is about a decision for or against the "way of love" that Jesus trail-blazed. For Judas, taking in (a metaphorical consumption of the bread) Jesus' acts of love in the Upper Room resulted in his rendering judgment against Jesus. Thus the gospel author writes, "So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night" (verse 30). Jesus did not cast Judas out into the night. Jesus did not judge. Judas cast himself out. Judas judged himself.

 

It is after Judas leave the room that Jesus speaks of his glory. The Jews, including the disciples, expected the power and might kind of glory. It's the kind of glory that people today often want to see from God. We want a God who will use force to overcome evil, to forcibly bring about righteousness and justice. This picture of God infects how we relate to others socially, religiously, and politically.

 

The message of Jesus in the Upper Room remains just as undesired and unheard today as it was then. God's glory, made flesh in Jesus, is not about power, might, force, coercion, but about a kind of love that is "weak" according to the world's standards. Jesus tries to redefine "glory" for his disciples. He tells them that God's glory is found in self-sacrifice, in serving one's enemies, and in treating even the very ones who would murder you as human beings worthy of respect. God's glory is found in the kind of love that sees the good in every being, in hoping for redemption of even those that might appear beyond redemption, and acting in ways that will bring about redemption. God's glory is found in the kind of love that respects the freedom of all to reject love.

 

Jesus tells his disciples that "they cannot come" (verse 33). This is often interpreted as pointing to Jesus' ascension and the inability for his disciples to go to heaven with Jesus at the present time. But I believe it is pointing to the "way of love". I think this is the better interpretation because of 13:7 where we find, "Afterward you will understand", and 13:36, "You will follow afterward." In the washing of feet Jesus was attempting to demonstrate the way of love. In his explanation immediately afterwards, he was trying to explain love. In this current part of the chapter, Jesus explicitly instructs on the way of love. I also believe this is the basis for 14:6, "I am the way." It is not Jesus, the historical person, who is the way, but his nature that is "the way." After declaring, "I am the way," Jesus explains his oneness with the Father as the way. Then Philip asks to be shown the Father. In response Jesus points to his actions as revealing the Father.

 

It is at this point that Jesus gives his disciples the roadmap to his kingdom.

 

34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

 

Jesus continues,

 

35 "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

 

I think we need to read this in conjunction with verse 20,

 

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."

 

Taken together verses 20 and 35 speak of how Jesus' authority will be manifest in his disciples. It is not about power or might, or about force and coercion. Jesus' authority is found in how his disciples look after one another, how they handle differences, in how they respond to difficulties, trials, and even betrayals.

 

At the end of the Upper Room narrative Peter once more takes center stage.

 

36 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered him, "Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward."

 

This has usually been taken to mean that Peter cannot follow Jesus to the cross at this time, but he will end his life in that manner. That works, but Jesus has been speaking metaphorically throughout this story. Why suddenly switch to historical literalism now? I think Jesus' statement can be seen as saying to Peter (though he doesn't understand it), "You don't yet understand the path of self-sacrificing love. You will even reject it for the moment. But (unlike Judas) you will discover that the glory of God is found in this path, and you will come to embrace it."

 

Peter is thinking in literal terms and objects to Jesus' statement.

 

37 Peter said to him, "Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." 38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times."

 

Why can't Peter follow now? Because he doesn't yet get that Jesus' glory is about self-sacrificing love. Peter's concept of "glory" is the same as Judas' - power that will forcibly work its purposes. There is no doubt Peter is willing to die for Jesus (c.f., 18:10). As long as it appears Jesus will be victorious as Peter imagines it, Peter will stick with Jesus to the end. But as soon as Jesus makes it clear that his way is not the way of forcible strength, Peter loses faith in Jesus' mission and loses his motivation to die for Jesus. The twist of this chapter is that all throughout, Peter has been depicted as zealous and strong for Jesus, but in the end it is revealed Jesus knows Peter will respond much like Judas, to the readers' surprise.

 

If God fails to meet your expectations and desires of Jesus as a conquering king, will you still trust and follow him?

Friday, August 02, 2013

Another Look at the Upper Room—Part 3—Washing Feet

In Part 2 we examined the Lucan parable of the serving master. We identified some of the parallels it has with the story of the Upper Room found in John 13. As we return to the Upper Room I think it is important to keep in mind the unprecedented nature of Jesus' actions. In the modern society, as much as there are divisions of wealth, privilege and status, it is not altogether astonishing when we hear of people high in human-based hierarchies to serve those lower in rank; we expect a type of human equality at some level. Not so in the time and place where Jesus walked. Kenneth Bailey writes, "I know of no incident in contemporary life or in story out of the past in the Middle East where such an incredible reversal of status appears." (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, 373) Where appearances counted for everything in order to maintain status and honor, Jesus' actions could be interpreted to bring shame not only to himself but also to his disciples - his community - whom he served.

 

John 13 begins:

 

13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. (ESV)

 

In John the phrase "to depart out of this world" includes Jesus' passion, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. In other words I see this verse as setting the theme for the rest of this gospel account. And what is the theme? It is the second half, "Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end." The stories, the prayers, the instructions - all can be seen as different ways in which Jesus "loved them to the end." The washing of feet and breaking of bread are merely two of the examples of Jesus' love.

 

I also want to pause to examine the word translated as "to the end." This comes from telos which has the connotations of fulfillment and completion. What John is telling his readers is not only that Jesus loved his disciples to the end of his time here on earth, but he fulfilled all that love means and completed the demonstration of love.

 

In present day use, love often has much to do with feelings: romantic, filial, brotherly/sisterly, kindness. Even when the term is expanded beyond feelings, it often stops at "being nice to one another." The examples that Jesus gives, as John describes them in chapter 13ff is much more than just being nice, even to one's enemies. I can "be nice" to people I don't like because it's what I'm supposed to do and in the hopes that they will eventually go away and leave me alone. But that isn't love. Love is genuine concern for the well-being of others, even for people who I don't like and who might turn around and betray me and stab me in the back. And not just concern, but actions that genuinely improve the lot of the other.

 

I read the next four verses as a summary of the Upper Room story:

 

13:2 During supper, when the devil had 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 back to God, 4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

 

Verse 2 reveals a critical piece of information for the readers. Jesus already knows who will betray him (c.f., verse 11). Why Judas betrays Jesus is not made clear, but given the cultural norms of honor and shame, I concur with other scholars who conclude that Judas became disillusioned with Jesus because he refused to act the expected part of the Messiah. What would transpire in the next few minutes would cement his betrayal. But that knowledge does not change Jesus' actions. His kingdom is not based on position and power, but on love and service, even if that means one of his own will betray him.

 

Verse 3 gives the readers reasons why Jesus could ignore status, honor, and shame originating from men. Jesus knew the hearts of men but he also knew something far greater - his belonging to God and all belonging to him. A single betrayal would not break the community and fellowship he has with his Father and with "his own."

 

Jesus is setting up a different kind of community - not one based on status or honor, but on love and service. So Jesus rises from his place, sets aside his cumbersome outer garments, girds his loose-fitting undergarment with a towel around his waist and gets ready to go to work. He fills a basin and goes to the first disciple and begins washing his feet.

 

As noted earlier, an act like this is unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the disciples' memory. Perhaps later, with clearer thought, they will be reminded of the Lucan parable. Their first thought is astonishment which quickly gives way to horror. More than one probably is trying to figure a way to stop Jesus. He is the master so he, theoretically, is allowed to do anything to them. But this? They could protest, but that would shame Jesus, even more than he is doing to himself. So they keep silent.

 

Until Jesus gets to Peter. Quite likely to be about midway around the table.

 

Jesus must be stopped. Peter indirectly protests by asking Jesus a question, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" (v6) Maybe Jesus will take the hint and at least pass him by and stop this whole business. Both can still save face.

 

But Jesus will not be deterred. Jesus tries to allow Peter the choice to continue with the washing. "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand." (v7)

 

Peter think Jesus didn't get the hint. He must resort to open and direct protest. "You shall never wash my feet!" (v8) There, what needs to be said has been said. There is no ambiguity; no question. His position is firm. The Greek is even more emphatic: "You will never wash my feet forever."

 

Jesus' reply to Peter is just as emphatic. "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." (v8)

 

Peter doesn't understand what is happening, but there is one thing he cannot fathom: to be separated from Jesus when his kingdom is inaugurated. That's what he hears Jesus saying. Peter becomes emphatic in the exact opposite position now. "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" (v9)

 

13:10 Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

 

At this point we can begin to discover the significance and meaning of the washing of feet. Some opinions see the washing of feet as a disgusting act that requires abject humility. In this line of thought the streets of Jerusalem were filthy with dirt, mud, and animal droppings. To wash feet was a physically disgusting task; therefore, only slaves at the lowest rung of the social ladder would perform it. For Jesus to do that was to do a truly disgusting task and likewise his disciples ought to be willing to do the most menial and disgusting tasks. It's a line of thought that seems to make sense and is quite pious.

 

Except that it isn't entirely accurate. Many excellent commentaries today make it a point to note that the streets of Jerusalem weren't filthy and disgusting in the matter described above. Especially for Passover, the high Sabbath of the Jewish year. Sure, feet would get dusty, but truly dirty in a disgusting way? No.

 

In fact the Greek text of verse 10 does not contain the phrase, "does not need to wash, except for his feet." In other words, the significance of Jesus washing the feet is not about washing the feet. The service is not in how disgusting or menial the task is. Many commentaries note that the disciples would have come to the Upper Room only after properly bathing to cleanse themselves to be ritually purified to celebrate Passover. There was no essential need for the disciples' feet to be washed. It was, however, an expected gesture of hospitality (c.f., Luke 7:44). And all except Judas were already spiritually clean, whether or not their feet were washed (particularly if Peter was seated about halfway around the table, half the disciples' feet wouldn't be washed). The washing isn't representative of some type of cleansing of sins after initial conversion. (Don't laugh or roll your eyes. In my childhood, I recall being taught that the ritual of washing feet was a kind of "mini-baptism" whereby sins committed after baptism and after the last feet washing would be washed away with this most recent washing. So to skip the ritual--very, very bad and dangerous for one's eternity.)

 

It isn't the washing that is significant, but what this act means. The act isn't a mere act of humility or service, though we shouldn't dismiss those application. I see something much more revolutionary and one that Christians and our churches need reminding. Jesus explains his actions over the course of the next verses.

 

After washing Peter's feet, Jesus continues with the rest of the disciples. With the washing complete, Jesus removes the towel girding his undergarment, places his outer garment back on himself, and returns to his place at the table.

 

13:12b … he said to them, "Do you understand what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, 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 also should do just as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me. ' 19 I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. 20 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."

 

And some of us get hung up on verses 13-14, reading them as a command to literally wash one another's feet.

 

Surrounding this command is teachings, not specifically about humility or service, or of sin and salvation, but of hierarchy, positions, and responsibilities. In the middle of all this is another reminder of Judas and his problem.

 

The crux of the mystery of meaning of the washing of feet is around Judas and Peter. The entire social fabric of the time was built around hierarchies of privilege, power, roles, wealth, and position. Permeating the hierarchies was the concept of honor and shame. Appearances mattered. A lot. More than a lot.

 

As I wrote toward the beginning, Jesus' actions in the Upper Room destroyed all of that. Jesus was telling his disciples that hierarchies and the game of shame and honor meant nothing in his kingdom. In Jesus' kingdom all will belong to God and God will belong to all. No one will have "more of God" and God will not favor one person over another. Appearances don't matter. Position, wealth, birthright… all of that goes away.

 

Peter may not have understood it at this time, but his heart and mind was malleable to begin learning the lesson. So Jesus could declare Peter clean.

 

Judas, unfortunately, was hardened in his tradition. Judas was not clean and could not be cleansed, because he would not let go of the cultural and religious traditions that taught something different about God than what Jesus was demonstrating.

 

All the disciples wanted a God who would come in power to change the world by force. Peter represents the eleven who were open to at least contemplating a God who failed to meet that expectation. Judas could not even imagine a God who would not force his ways, however righteous, onto people.

 

We become like the God we picture an think about. If our image of God is one who employs power to subdue and control, we will feel justified in forcing our ways on others. If instead our image is of one who would allow himself to be betrayed, reviled, despised, tortured, and killed, we will never collaborate with the powers of manipulation and coercion; the end will never justify wrong means.

 

Jesus' command is not to literally wash one another's feet, but for his people to continue the work he started of destroying hierarchies and systems that keep people enslaved to one another--both the controllers and those who would submit for promises of power and status; or submitting through appeals to tradition, propriety, shame, and guilt.

 

To wash one another's feet means the destruction of systems of oppression that prevent people from becoming the human beings that God has made each of us to be.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Another Look at the Upper Room—Part 2—Lucan Parable of the Serving Master

Before I explore John 13 in more detail, I'd like to take a look at a parable recorded in Luke 12:35-38. Why this parable? Because in it the master of the house is depicted serving his slaves/servants. This post is based on chapter 29 of Kenneth E. Bailey's Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, in which he discusses this parable.

 

[Luke 12:35] "Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, [36] and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. [37] Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. [38] If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! (ESV)

 

Without going into a large amount of detail, the literary structure supports ending the parable with verse 38. Luke 12:39-48 is a new unit. (For those so inclined, compare parables in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, and also see Dr. Bailey's discussion of corresponding text in Poet and Peasant dealing with the "Jerusalem Document" and parable boundaries, p. 80-81, 108-109).

 

From Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Figure 29.1

1-a

Let your waist be girded

Servant (prepared)

b

And your lamps burning,

Servant (prepared)

2-a

And be like people who are expecting their master

Servant (alert)

b

    when he withdraws from the wedding banquet,

    Master (comes)

b'

    so that when he comes and knocks,

    Master (comes)

a'

Immediately they may open to him.

Servant (alert)

3-a

Blessed are those slaves

Slaves - blessed

b

    who coming, the master finds awake.

    Master - comes/finds

c

        Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself

        Master - serves

d

            and cause them to recline [to eat],

              "               "

c'

        and come to them and serve them.

              "               "

b'

    If (in the second or third watch),

    he comes and finds thus,

    Master - comes/finds

a'

Blessed are those slaves.

Slaves - blessed

 

The choice of English words used to translate the passage and the phrase ordering become important so I have reproduced Dr. Bailey's translation in the table above.

 

The rhetorical style is important in identifying the main point of the parable. What we can see is that the parable consists of three stanzas. The first stanza sets the scene. The second stanza expands on the first by incorporating new material in the middle two lines. The third stanza repeats the motifs of the first two stanzas but expands the parable with an astonishing climax in its center.

 

A brief outline of the parable's rhetorical structure is as follows (from Bailey, c.f., third column of above table):

 

Stanza 1

Servants prepared

Servants prepared

Stanza 2

Servants alert

Master comes

Master comes

Servants alert

Stanza 3

Servants blessed

Master comes/finds

Master serves the servants

Master comes/finds

Servants blessed

 

Stanza One sets the initial scene. Girding one's waist with a belt indicates that the person is ready to work and/or travel. It tightens the loose-fitting robes around one's self so that it does not get in the way of strenuous activity. A directive to keep lamps burning places the scene in the evening, as darkness begins to fall.

 

Stanza Two adds more details. We learn why the servants are directed to be ready for activity. We also note two key translation differences between common English translations and the words Dr. Bailey has selected.

 

The first alternate translation is found in the first line of stanza two. The difference may appear trivial but it connotes a significant change in feeling. The ESV reads, "And be like men who are waiting for their master." Bailey translates this as, "And be like people who are expecting their master." Waiting conveys a passive feeling, something that is simply routine and ho-hum, a sense that the servants are sitting around looking at the clock. Expecting conveys a much more active feeling, a sense of great anticipation, and the servants are preparing for an imminent return.

 

The second alternate translation is found in the second line of stanza two. The ESV reads, "The master to come home from the wedding feast." Bailey translates this line as, "When he withdraws from the wedding banquet." The ESV translation conveys the image that the wedding feast is done and as a result the master is returning home. Bailey's translation (based on Syriac and Arabic texts) paints a picture where the wedding feast is still in progress and the master has temporarily and quietly taken leave of the feast to come to the servants. Bailey writes,

 

"I find this translation more authentic to the larger world of New Testament images into which this parable must be placed. This often-neglected option [to use "withdraw" rather than "come home"] brings added nuances to the story. If the master returns home after the party is over, then the reason for his return is obvious. The party is over -- of course he returns home. But if he withdraws from the party while it is in full swing, the reader wants to know why is he doing so?" (370)

 

We get to the third line in stanza two where the master comes and knocks. Bailey writes that in the Middle Eastern culture, only strangers knock on doors at night. Normally a person known to the house would vocally announce their presence. Those inside, upon hearing a familiar voice would open the door. They generally would not open the door to a stranger knocking.

 

Here again our images of the parable are challenged. We have typically interpreted the wedding feast occurring at some other location, separate from the master's house. But what is actually happening is that the wedding feast is taking place at the master's house. The master is knocking on an inside door. The servants are in a secure location. It is not a stranger on the outside coming unannounced. They can safely open the door. The master knocks (quietly) rather than announcing himself because he does not want to alert the other party-goers to his temporary withdrawal.

 

The third stanza reveals why the master has withdrawn from the feast to come to the servants, now identified as slaves (in the first two stanzas, the precise standing of the 'servants' are still unclear). So the master has come to the lowest of the low (according to the social standings of the time).

 

First it is said that the servants are blessed. The word 'blessed' is makarios (most famously in the Beatitudes), a state that is not in the future, but a condition that is already present. In other words these slaves are not blessed because they have kept awake, lamps burning, and opened the door. The slaves do these things because they are already in a state of makarios. They are expecting their master to come to them, even in the middle of the night, even while the wedding feast is going on in another part of the house.

 

The surprise and the main point of this parable is found in the center of this third stanza (3-cdc'). The servants/slaves are expecting to serve the master upon his return, but in a dramatic twist the master immediately girds up his robes in preparation for doing work -- lowly work such as scrubbing the floor. Bailey writes, "Only lower-class servants and slaves, belt their robes [in preparation for work]." (372)

 

The master commands the servants to recline at the table [triclenium]. They cannot refuse. The slave is no longer a slave. There is only one reason why they have been ordered to recline at the table. It is for a meal. But from where is the food to come? It is the duty of the slaves to prepare the food, but the master had been at the feast. The slaves had no reason to expect the need to prepare food.

 

We now discover the reason the master slipped away from the wedding feast. Amid the celebration he thought about his servants, allocated portions from the feast itself, and took these portions to them. He then proceeded to serve the servants. The master did not call upon another servant to take the food out, but he himself did all the work, even going so far as to do it quietly so as to not draw attention to himself. Such an action would be utterly inconceivable and against the entire culture of social hierarchy and honor.

 

Why did I choose to spend so much space discussing this Lucan parable? Because I believe it informs and provides details that can guide our interpretation of the Upper Room event of John 13.

 

In the Upper Room event Jesus girds himself just as in the parable. Jesus is making himself a slave, one lower than the lowest disciple. The astonishment of the disciples (exemplified by Peter's protest) at Jesus' action is understandable. Jesus does not order angels or other human beings to do his work, but comes to the disciples himself, just as the master did in the parable. The disciples are called blessed (makarios) in John 13:17, as were the servants in the parable. The Upper Room event is a taste of the wedding feast that is going on now. We are already blessed. Jesus' actions changes our standing. We are no longer slaves, but partners and friends of Jesus (John 15:15). We do not know precisely when Jesus will return, but we know that he will return. And so we wait, not sitting around and staring at the clock, but in expectant activity.

 

The gospel writers are different, but the parallels between the parable and the Upper Room event are far too many and related to be given over to mere coincidence. Jesus taking on the position of a slave in order to serve and elevate the standing of his disciples (even knowing the ones who would betray and deny him) appears to be the theme of the Upper Room story.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Another Look at the Upper Room–Part 1–Introduction

This is a short series where I take another look at what happened in the Upper Room immediately preceding Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion. In part 1 I provide a little personal background as to why this is significant to me.

I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist faith tradition. Adventist churches followed a general rule that Communion be held once a quarter, for a total of four times a year. In many churches, Communion Sabbath, as it was called, would often see attendance diminish. This may seem strange and inexplicable to those outside Adventism. Why would people stay away from such an important observance?

There are at least two reasons that I believe contribute to this phenomenon.

The primary reason is that in the Adventist tradition, the bread and juice portion of Communion is preceded by a foot washing service, called the Ordinance of Humility, where church members would separate by gender (though some churches also have "family" rooms) to wash one another's feet. This can be cause for considerable discomfort for nearly all involved.

Why, if it is the source of so much discomfort continue to do so? Why do people participate in spite of the discomfort? First, it is one of the official services of the church (c.f., Church Manual). Tradition ascribes to this ritual the preparing of one's heart, through a reminder of forgiveness of sins implied by the act of washing and the proper attitude of humility through participation, to partake of the bread and juice in a worthy manner (c.f., 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). Non-participation, then, induces a sense of guilt.

Thus some who would rather not participate choose to skip the service altogether.

The second reason is that all this adds up to what is frequently a lengthy service. It isn't always predictable as to how much time the whole thing will take. With kids, lunch, afternoon plans it's much easier to just skip this once-a-quarter ordeal.

The primary basis in the Adventist church for practicing washing feet as part of Communion is derived from John 13:14-15 where Jesus is recorded saying,

"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." (ESV)

A secondary basis (though some might argue, this is the primary basis) is found in the writing of Ellen G. White where she expounded greatly (c.f., Desire of Ages) on the meaning of this act by Jesus.

The Adventist church is one of the few denominations to take a very literal interpretation of these two texts. It hinges on the phrase "you also should do just as I have done to you" and the interpretation that the referent of "example" is "washed your feet."

Lest you might think otherwise, I don't intend any of this as a disparagement of Adventist tradition or beliefs. As I've participated in Communion at quite a few non-Adventist churches over the last several years, I've found that Communion is not regarded as an almost-dreaded experience in these churches. (I hasten to add that this is my personal experience and observation. I write this based on a sample size of one, which means the margin of error is rather high.) I find the difference curious and intriguing. What did Jesus intend when he said, "You also should do just as I have done to you"?

I was reading John 13 a few days ago and noticed that John 13:34 contains words and phrases that are very similar to John 13:15.

John 13:15
For I have given (δίδωμι [didōmi]; "commanded") you an example, that you also should do just as (καθώς [kathōs]) I have done to you.

John 13:34
A new commandment I give (δίδωμι [didōmi]) to you, that you love one another: just as (καθώς [kathōs]) I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

That got me thinking: what if the "example" of verse 15 is not the washing of feet, but what is underneath it—love? One commentary points out that Jesus did not say "do what I have done" but rather "do as I have done," a subtle but, possibly, significant difference.

What clinched for me the conclusion that the "example" Jesus commanded was not the washing of feet but love comes at the very beginning of the Upper Room episode in John:

John 13:1
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. [emphasis mine]

This sets the stage and the theme of John's recounting of the Upper Room story. It is a story that describes what "loving to the end" looks like. So it should not be surprising that the command to love one another as Jesus loved them is given twice: in the center and once more at the end of the story.

In support of this line of thought is that the two named disciples who interact with Jesus are Judas Iscariot and Peter—the first, a betrayer, and the second, a denier.

With these broad thoughts in place I'd like to take a closer look at John 13: another look at the Upper Room.

Every commentary and study Bible has outlines and thematic groupings of verses in this chapter. Here is how I chose to organize the chapter:

  1. Jesus loves to the end (John 13:1)
  2. Scene 1
    1. Jesus knows his betrayer (13:2)
    2. Example of love (13:3-11)
    3. Command to love (13:12-16)
    4. Result of loving (13:17-20)
  3. Scene 2
    1. Jesus reveals his betrayer (13:21-26a)
    2. Example of love (13:26b-30)
    3. Command to love (13:31-34)
    4. Result of loving (13:35)
  4. Jesus knows who will deny him at the end (13:36-38)

Notice how the arrangement of the story seems to revolve around Jesus' knowledge of what some of his closest disciples will do, yet he continues to love them. I believe that is the theme of this story.

Here is my posting plan for this series on the Upper Room:

  1. Introduction [this post]
  2. Lucan parable [Luke 12:35-38]
  3. John 13, Part 1 [A & B]
  4. John 13, Part 2 [C & D]
  5. Concluding Comments