Jesus' forgotten command

It has always been my purpose to present Biblical truths as clearly as possible, so that anyone could understand them, or as the prophet Habakkuk famously put it: "Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it.” (Habakkuk 2:2b)

In this article I want to re-examine in context what I consider one of the most overlooked and misrepresented scriptures in the whole Bible. Jesus’ forgotten command. In my view it is an unequivocally clear instruction of which himself Jesus said:

"Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 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.” (John 13:12b-15)

Given the directness of Jesus’ words you might suppose that this would be a widespread practice throughout the church today, but of course, it is not. In this article we shall look at some of the reasons why this is so and why Jesus’ clear instruction is arguably the most flagrantly ignored command he ever gave, and also at what he had in mind when he gave it.

In so doing, we shall adhere to what I call the first law of exegesis, let the Bible interpret the Bible, in which regard let us read the whole account in context.

 

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.

 

During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, 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, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. 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.

 

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?"

 

Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand."

 

Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me."

 

Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

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." For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "Not all of you are clean."

 

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 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.

 

“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. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

 

“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.'

 

“I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."

Reading most commentaries on this passage is like reading a long list of excuses as to why Jesus did not mean what he said with regard to emulating the central act of this drama: washing one another’s feet.

Many argue that he is speaking allegorically, the intent of which is fulfilled by any act of Christian service or manifest show of humility. Well, I agree that such is the richness of the Word of God that its significance is often multilayered, so I would not discount such an interpretation out of hand, but I consider it a mistake to spiritualise so clear an instruction. I’ve even heard it suggested that it symbolises baptism. Give me strength! A symbol to symbolise a symbol. Now that really is clutching at straws.

I have also heard it said that Jesus commanded that his disciples 'also should do just as I have done to you’, and not literally to ‘do what I have done to you’. Again, this is a disingenuous interpretation of the Greek, in which ‘as’ is kathos, which according to Strong’s Concordance can mean ‘just (or inasmuch) as, that: - ‘according to’, (according, even) as, how, when’. So, I would counter that approach by suggesting that it can just as easily connote ‘just as’ or ‘how’, which is precisely the sense preserved in the Contemporary English Version, which is the translation I chose to use above. - So we have a stalemate!

Still others argue that this is the sole instance of foot-washing being performed in this way in the New Testament which indicates it did not become a widely practiced observance. However, this is an example of what theologians and philosophers term ‘arguing from silence’, and proves nothing. The fact is, the taking of bread and wine in what we call the Lord’s Supper or Communion, is seldom mentioned again outside the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) except to correct its mis-observance, so it could equally be argued that the early church was so adept at foot-washing correctly that the practice attracted no further mention. Or, to use a modern expression, it was ‘taken as read’.

There are any number of rationalisations that may be found as to why Christians no longer widely observes the practice of foot-washing, and many of them have some ring of credibility. However, I think the simplest reason is that, unlike taking bread and wine, answering an ‘altar call’, listening passively to a message, or singing a few praise and worship songs, asking church-goers to wash one another’s feet involves a degree of inconvenience sufficient to deter most modern believers from doing so.

It’s that simple. We disobey the clear admonition of Jesus Christ because we can’t be bothered to obey. It’s too inconvenient.We like our religion 'over easy’, with a glass of chocolate milk on the side - but don't ask us to chew at all, even though Jesus once commanded exactly that, in John 6:54,

“But if you do eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have eternal life, and I will raise you to life on the last day.”

What is not apparent in English is blatantly obvious in Greek, where Jesus consciously changes the word he uses from phago (eat) to trogo (chew).

But that still leaves the question of why Jesus told his disciples to observe it, which I shall explain in more detail just shortly, but before doing so I’d like to take you on a journey of discovery down the winding road of revelation, where we will ask some surprising questions and discover some interesting answers.

There’s a question I’ll bet you didn’t expect, although it might be found pleasing to America’s former President George W. Bush and Britain’s ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, who went to such great pains only a few years ago to court favour with Muslim regimes by widely insisting that Christians and Muslims ‘worship the same God’.

That we do not is abundantly clear from even a cursory glance at the Qur‘an. There are many doctrinal issues that divide Christianity from Islam but none more so than that of the person of Jesus Christ, whose depiction in the Qur’an is very different from that in the Judaeo-Christian Holy Bible.

Unlike the Christian Bible which comprises of 66 books subdivided into chapter and verse, the Qur’an is a single book of 114 chapters called suras, several of which make mention of Jesus (whom they call Isa) and his mother Mary (Marium). This article is not principally about the teachings of the Qur’an, so we will not get sidetracked in a detailed critique. Suffices to say, reproduced below are a handful of verses from a commonly available English translation of the Qur’an that more than adequately present the orthodox Islamic view of Jesus.

In sura 3 (Al-i Imran, or The Family of Imran) verses 59-63 say this:

Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.

(This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers.

But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.

Most surely this is the true explanation, and there is no god but Allah; and most surely Allah - He is the Mighty, the Wise.

But if they turn back, then surely Allah knows the mischief-makers.

Basically, what this passage says is that Jesus was a mere man and in no way the Son of God. Furthermore, anyone (meaning every Bible-believing Christian of whatever stripe or denomination) who disputes with Islam that Jesus is the Son of God is called a liar and subject to the stern injunction to every true Muslim to, “…be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”

In sura 4 (An-Nisa, or The Women), verses 155-159 tell us:

Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: “Our hearts are covered“; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few.

And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny.

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

This passage explicitly denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the Cross and basically says that all who believe otherwise, err; for which sin they will be subject to God’s Judgement at the resurrection.

Sura 5 (Al-Ma’idah, or The Table) verses 17 & 18 continues:

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah - He is the Messiah, son of Marium.

Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things,

And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones.

Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

This is quite a complex passage, directly challenging several fundamental several basic tenets of the Christian faith, including justification by grace through faith, but the one that I would most vehemently object to is its explicit denial that Jesus is the Son of God.

Then in verses 72-75, we read:

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

Once again, Jesus’ divinity is explicitly denied, along with the Trinity which it blithely dismisses as co-heresy.

The question that arises therefore, is not in what respects the Qur’an undermines Church tradition, but in what ways it contradicts the Bible. To answer that we need offer nothing more than the answer which the Bible itself provides, which I once again present unembellished.

1 John 2:20-23 says:

But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

Likewise, 1 John 4:1-3.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Or how about this for size, in 2 John 1:7-8?

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.

I have neither added to, nor subtracted from the Biblical text. What it says is there for anyone who can read and has access to a Christian Bible to see for themselves.

After all that I have just written, my earlier claim that mainstream Christianity shares any belief with Islam may seem all the more extraordinary. Surely, our two faiths have nothing fundamental in common. Well, that is true at the fundamental Biblical level, but historical Christianity has not always done its doctrinal best to adhere to Biblical truth. Rather, much that we call Christian doctrine is in fact little more than a mish-mash of crypto-pagan syncretism. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the common understanding of the Sovereignty of God.

Basically, it goes like this: God is God and as such is totally sovereign and can do absolutely whatsoever he likes. However, not only in this view mistaken, it is actually Islamic, in which religion it is expressed in the term ‘Inshallah’ or ‘insha’Allah’ (if God wills it). This is the central concept of Islam which drives suicide bombers and Jihad, because it is fundamentally fatalistic. Nothing can happen out with the will of God. If God doesn’t will it, it cannot be, so that rules out democracy because democracy is man’s attempt to circumvent God’s will and superimpose his own.

And actually, it’s a doctrine that comes surprisingly close to the hyper-Calvinist model of predestination or election as the settled and immutable will of a God who has already chosen who will be saved and who will not, so it matters not a whit what any of us do. God’s will cannot be defied.

 

The Bible, on the other hand, reveals a totally different God, whose sovereignty in relation to man has a surprising parallel in contemporary Scottish politics. Allow me to explain.

In May 1999, the Scotland Act 1998 came into effect when a Scottish Parliament convened once again in Edinburgh, for the first time in nearly 300 years. Since then Scotland has had devolved governed, with Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the head of the UK Government in London and Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister presiding over an SNP (Scottish National Party) Administration in Edinburgh.

Essentially, Scotland has complete control, among other things, over her justice system, the police, education and health, while Westminster retains authority over taxation, foreign policy and defence. It’s called Devolution, and transpired when the Queen signed the Scotland Bill in 1998, enacting it into law. Hitherto, all power over Scotland’s political affairs rested with the Westminster Parliament. Subsequently, however, the United Kingdom Parliament effectively surrendered a large measure of its own sovereignty over Scotland to the new Executive.

Simple, the very first Devolution Act is actually found in the Bible, in Genesis 1:26-27.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him. He created them male and female.

The thing about God is that he cannot lie nor ever break his Word or any Covenant into which he enters, so when he gave man dominion over the earth and everything in it, he effectively devolved a measure of his own sovereignty to mankind, which he has never yet taken back. Which is one reason that the world is in such a mess, as I explain elsewhere in a number of articles relating to the Fall.

Essentially, mankind dropped the ball when he was duped into selling his sovereignty to Lucifer, who then became Satan. However, being omniscient, God had already foreseen the problem and devised a solution. He would become a man himself - the Son of Man was Jesus’ preferred title by which he referred to himself more than any other. That way, he would adhere to his own covenant, by not interfering as God.

In order to do that required mankind’s co-operation, and over the course of several millennia God found many who would answer the call to prophesy the coming of his Messiah, releasing the Word of god out the mouth of men, thereby maintaining the integrity of man’s pre-eminence on earth.

In the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4) the Logos emptied himself of his divine prerogatives to became incarnate, born to a virgin as Jesus the Christ (Philippians 2:7). As the Son of God, Jesus was free of the taint of Original Sin, and as the Son of Man he qualified to take Adam’s place (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47). When he died on the Cross, he died free of any sin of his own, but fully burdened by every sin committed by the rest of mankind, the full punishment for which was mercilessly poured out upon him as God’s wrath. When that happened all our sin was imputed to him and all his righteousness became imputed to us.

That, in a nutshell, is the Gospel of Grace: the total and complete forgiveness extended - free, unearned and unmerited - to every sinner who would repent and believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as Lord and Saviour.

And this is where foot-washing come in, because what Jesus did at the Last Supper was more than an act of humility on his part; it was also his demand for humility on ours. In the text we read how Jesus, ‘…laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist….poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him.’

John’s detailed description of events is quite deliberate because by the manner in which Jesus behaved he assumed the posture of no mere servant, but the lowest slave. Foot-washing in that culture was more than a mere ablution, it was an intimate act of hygiene so servile that no Jewish slave could be compelled to perform it. It was a task relegated to the lowest underling, so to see their own Rabbi performing it must have deeply disturbed the disciples. Indeed, we see something of Philippians 2:5-8, once again enacted.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

In this much we can see Jesus’ call to humility in the act of foot-washing, but it does not end there because there is much more significance to it than that, as we soon read as the story unfolds:

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?"

Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand."

Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me."

Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

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."

For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "Not all of you are clean."

This is heavy theology, and so often thoroughly missed. Simon Peter, quite understandably, was shocked at the very notion that his Rabbi should literally ‘stoop so low’. As ever, Jesus was fully aware of his disciple’s discomfiture and gently chided: "What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand." But Peter was having none of it. His Lord would not wash his feet…Until, that is, Jesus cautioned, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." That’s when Simon Peter acceded to his Master’s command, when he replied, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

Look at that segment again, and notice how the disciple’s name alters, from Simon Peter, to Peter, to Simon Peter again. This is telling, because the Holy Spirit is always careful in how he relates any account in Scripture and Simon Peter‘s name tells us more about him than is often realised. Simon was a fisherman before he became Jesus’ disciple, and his name in Hebrew means ‘Hearing’. Only later did Jesus call him Peter, which means ‘Stone‘, and throughout the Gospels we see a contrast between the hearing disciple and the hard-headed rebel, whose name sometimes identified him with the Law, which had been inscribed on tablets of stone. It is interesting to reflect that it was the hearing disciple who first questioned but then accepted Jesus desire to wash his feet, but the hard disciple who effectively said, ‘No Way Lord!’

How so? Because Peter was a legalist to down his marrow and always very much focused on his own performance. It was this brashness in Peter that Jesus confronted so resolutely - and still confronts in each of us today, for much the same reason.

Another problem Peter shared with the rest of us was his emotional instability, because after Jesus warned, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me", Peter swung to the opposite extreme: "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" What he didn’t yet understand was the full significance of the Passover Seder the Twelve had just celebrated when Jesus had passed out the broken bread and the wine of the New Covenant, signifying his broken body and shed blood. It was these elements that signified our washing, because it would be by the broken body and shed blood of Jesus at the Cross that all of us, including Peter, would be made clean. That’s why Jesus corrected him thus:

"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." For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "Not all of you are clean."

The latter reference to Judas Iscariot should be a sobering reminder to all of us, because Judas was present throughout. He took the unleavened bread, he took the wine, and he even had his feet washed, the significance of which is that we are not saved by the outward observance of any ritual but by the inward transformation of our heart.

That being said, symbols are important. When I was police officer I carried a warrant card at all times, on and off duty, in uniform and out. It was an essential item called an ‘Appointment’, of which there were three (baton, handcuffs and warrant card) of which the latter was required to be carried by every officer always, enabling him to effect an arrest at any time, should the occasion arise. Nevertheless, I have yet to hear of any criminal being arrested by a warrant card because at the end of the day it is just a laminated piece of card with an officer’s photograph, name, rank number, the Force insignia and the chief constable’s signature.

Yes, it was just a symbol. And yes, my real authority rested not in the card but in the power conferred upon me on 26th February 1979, when I took the oath of office before a Glasgow magistrate and became a police constable. Nevertheless, even though my actual authority was not vested in that card, it was potent symbol that confirmed the reality that lay behind that authority. And so it was that Jesus said:

"Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. 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.

“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. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

Feet are highly significant in the Bible and represent many things:

They are our lowest members, which can symbolise humility;

They convey us as we walk, which can represent our faith and spiritual direction;

They connect us to the earth, which can represent our flesh nature.

All of these things and more are entailed in Jesus Christ’s act of washing his disciples’ feet, because the point the was making was spiritual and multilayered.

You see, our salvation is a done deal because it was accomplished by the finished work of Jesus on the Cross. We cannot buy God’s favour; we cannot earn our salvation, and we cannot perform our way to redemption. And that is what Jesus was reminding his disciples of, even though they didn‘t yet realise it. Washing one another’s feet should be regarded as as much a part of the Communion service as the bread and the wine because, while the latter represent our eternal salvation, the former symbolises our daily walk.

Together, they remind us that it was Jesus who died for our sins and not our own righteousness or ability that earned our salvation. And in re-enacting Jesus washing of the disciples’ feet we are reminded that our daily walk in this world leaves its mark, that needs the constant washing of perpetual repentance - which in Biblical Greek means a change of mind and heart. But, even then, it is Jesus who washes us, through the righteous conviction of the Holy Spirit.

We see those last two points demonstrated by the oblique reference to Christ’s betrayer, Judas, who went throughout the outward motions but not the inward transformation, and the latter mention by Jesus that “…whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me", which I believe actually refers to the Holy Spirit.

Once we recognise the significance of Jesus’ words and actions, a great deal of Scripture comes into focus. For instance, Romans 8:1:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

As I have explained in other articles, walking after the Spirit does not mean performing works, but walking in faith, because the Bible regards the two as synonymous, as can be seen by comparing Romans 8:8 and Hebrews 11:6, which read respectively:

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

And:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

In the sandal-wearing society of Jesus’ day the weary traveller’s feet became dirty very quickly, the spiritual parallel of which is the believer’s walk in this world. So much so, that devout Jews would bathe every time they returned home, lest they defile their homes with the dust of the street, because none of us we have control over who has walked upon it before us, and for a Jew to walk on dust that had been stepped on by a Gentile, made him unclean. They would cross the road rather than risk contact with an unclean person, which is why, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite walked by on the other side of the road, because the injured victim had been left for dead, and touching a dead body would have made them defiled, which they regarded as of more importance to avoid than to check if there was any chance whether the man might still be still alive.

To understand this way of thinking we have to enter into the First Century Jewish mindset with regard to the Torah. For example, in 1 Samuel 25:32-34 we read something that often shocks the casual reader of the King James Bible:

And David said to Abigail, “Blessed be Yahweh God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. For in very deed, as Yahweh God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.”

That latter term is actually found several times in Scripture where the word translated ‘piss’ is shathan. More modern translations tend to tone it down a bit to something like ‘every male’, in an effort to make God’s inspired Word more dignified, but the King James actually has it right because King David intended to be offensive and spoke crudely quite deliberately. The reason is because urine was regarded as an unclean bodily discharge, contact with which rendered anyone defiled. For this reason, and to this very day, in Semitic society, men still sit to urinate, lest they are defiled by any splash-back. Therefore, to ‘piss against the wall’ was a pejorative idiom for an uncouth ruffian.

And another closely related idiom completes the picture, in 2 Kings 18:27,

But Rabshakeh said unto them, “Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

Here the word ‘piss’ is a translation of the Hebrew mayim rehgel, which literally means ‘water at the feet’.

To those who have not really read the Bible in any detail, all these scriptures may seem surprisingly lavatorial, but the Bible scribes were far less coy and much more matter of fact than many Christians today in faithfully recording the words and intent inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which is perhaps why this this passage in Deuteronomy 23:12-14 is often overlooked:

Also you shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out there. And you shall have a tool on your staff. And it shall be, as you sit outside, you shall dig with it, and shall turn back, and shall cover that which comes from you. For Yahweh your God walks in the middle of your camp to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you; therefore your camp shall be holy, so that he may see no unclean thing in you, and turn away from you.

In case you missed it, this is telling the Israelites to bury their poo outside the camp lest they displease the Lord as he walked in their midst. An admonition that I think was probably on one particular rabbi’s mind when he wrote the following in Philippians 3:4-11.

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinks that he has reason to trust in the flesh, I more. I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews. As regards the Law, I was a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; regarding the righteousness in the Law, blameless. But whatever things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. But no, rather, I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them to be dung, so that I may win Christ and be found in him; not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the word translated ‘dung’ right there is the Greek skubala, which is not the polite usage normally found elsewhere, but the much cruder term that is somewhat ruder than ‘crap’. The reason is that Paul is speaking scathingly of his own self-righteous efforts and qualifications, contrasting the worldly acclaim that they might well attract with God’s evaluation of their worth.

In other words, Paul equates his own works of righteousness as the very thing that God finds so disgusting in Deuteronomy 23.

And that latter point rather sums up the point of foot-washing. We don’t do it to demonstrate our own humility or to celebrate our own ability to purify our own walk, but to acknowledge our constant need to be sanctified by God‘s grace through ongoing repentance.

This is summed up by Paul in Romans 6:14-15,

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!

So, foot-washing can even be an antidote to license by reminding us that even though we are saved and forgiven and righteous before God because of Jesus’ finished work at the Cross, we still have to walk in the skubala of this world, for which we need the ongoing washing of the Word and sanctification by the Holy Spirit to stop it sticking. It reminds that repentance is not a one-time requirement, nor does grace end when we are born again, but both are things we need to utilise every single day of our lives.

I would sincerely commend it. But here’s the thing, since we’re 'not under Law, but under grace’, I do not believe it can or should be made a compulsory requirement. Participation in it by any Christian must be left as a matter of conscience to those who have received the revelation of it.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear. And may your walk with God be a sanctified journey.