Foot Washing

JOHN 13: 1 – 17

Why not engage in foot-washing?

It was the custom in the time of Christ for a host to have a servant who would wash the feet of all guests. Before going to a special event persons would bathe. Street sanitation in that period wasn’t what it is today. Persons also wore sandals. In walking to a destination, person’s feet would become dirty. Upon arrival, the servant would wash their feet.

That is the reason for the expression in John 13:10, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet…”

Christ made two connected statements:

“What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this?” (John 13:7).

They knew very clearly He was washing their feet so that obviously wasn’t His reference.

“Do you know what I have don to you?” (John 13:12).

Of course they knew He had washed their feet. There was no question about what He had done physically. Therefore, that wasn’t the reference of the question.

Then Christ commented: “I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15).

If he had wanted them to simply wash the feet of others He would have said, “Do what I have done.” By saying, “do as I have done” He was appealing for a show of humility.

His actions in washing feet were not to get us to go through such a ritual, but to be humble and show humility.

In summary of the moment Christ said, “A new commandment I give you…” (John 13:34). There was nothing new about foot-washing. Humility among this rank-seeking cadre as among many Christians today is indeed new.

Augustine said, “Should I be asked what is the firs thing in Christianity, I would say the first, second, and third thing in Christianity is humility. That is where our Christ started in the upper room trying to summarize His teachings to the disciples in the hours preceding His executive. This is the message He communicates to us today.”

Fear Of Death

Are scared to death of death? Philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote, “Since men could not do away with death, they decided not to think about it.” The fact is we do think about it.

It is said to be one of the three most thought about subjects in America and one of the least talked about. Fear of death has been classified as one of the basic fears.

An ancient inquiry echoes through the ages: “If a man die shall he live again? As certainly as that “if” means “when,” the “shall” means “he will.”

It being inevitable our attitude related to it needs to be proper. The resurrection of Christ put it in perspective. The day He arose from the dead He turned a death dirge into a day of delight, and transformed a funeral into a festival.

For His follower death is the end —-the front end of glory.

Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross described five basic stages through which one goes if confronted with advance knowledge of his or her approaching certain death. These stages are: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

If the meaning of death can be understood the fact can be better accepted. There are only three reasons a Christian dies.

One is the person has finished his or her earthly mission and God allows him or her to come home and get the awaiting reward. A full life cannot be determined by chronology, but by character.

A second reason is martyrdom that advances the cause of Christ.

The third reason is that the Christian has sinned the “sin unto death.” This is not a specific sin but anyone that so impairs the persons witness their death bring more glory to Christ than their continuing to live in a state of rebellion.

In either of the first two there is dignity and honor. A person faced with either of them as well as a family whose loved one has so died can avoid denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, and depression. Thus, death is more acceptable.

A lovely young woman who had just been informed of her impending death spoke cheerfully, “I have lived all my life preparing for this, therefore, I am ready to go home.” She did so in a few weeks rejoicing.

The apostle Paul wrote what is translated, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Were an American teenager translating that Greek text it would read, “The moment you die you are eyeball to eyeball with God.”

The glory that awaits cannot be comprehended. A hint of the superiority of that home would be as though all the fetus in all the wombs of all the women of the world could communicate. At the birth of one of them named Sam, others yet unborn could be heard to say —- “Poor ole Sam passed on.”

The imperative is that a person live prepared for the inevitable. Prepare a will, arrange your finances, be certain of relations with others, and above all be absolutely positive you have established the right relationship with Christ as Savior.

If you haven’t do so at once. There are only two answers to the question of “What will you do with Christ?” They are “yes” or “no.” Some want to say “later.” Because of the “X” factor, death, a “later” is a “no.” Settle it now.

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which the Father has prepared for those who love Him” (I Corinthians 2:9).

Fasting

MATTHEWS 6: 16-18

Jesus Christ was asked by the disciples of John, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?”

He answered: “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the day will come when the bridegroom will be taken away form them, and then they will fast.”

Immediately after His beautiful baptism He fasted 40 days in the wilderness. Fasting was not experientially unknown to Him.

Later He incorporated the principle in His matchless message on the mountain by saying, “When you fast…” In that same sermon He spoke of giving and praying and used the same word: “when.” He did not employ the word “if” but “when.” He did not command fasting but He did commend it.

In this age of fast food when our modern memorials are golden arches feasting is advocated but not fasting. Ours is a “feel good” generation. Self-indulgence is the mandate of the day. We seem to think that we owe it to ourselves to gratify our every appetite and strive to make ourselves feel good. Feasting is fashionable. Fasting is reserved primarily as a means of applying political pressure. It is a way of saying, “If you don’t do what I want I will starve myself.” Rarely is it spoken of in a spiritual connotation. An appropriate question is…

I. SHOULD WE FAST?
Jesus said, “When you fast…” Thus, is indicated the way in which it should be done. He endorsed the idea of doing it. “When” translates the Greek HOTAN, meaning “whenever.”

Many Bible personalities did it. Moses fasted before receiving the Commandments. David, the King fasted. Elijah the prophet. Daniel, the visionary. Paul, the missionary. Christ and His disciples did.

Great church reformers did, such as, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. Evangelists D.L. Moody and Billy Graham also.

Question number two deserves an answer…

II. WHAT IS FASTING?
First, it is not a means of divine arm twisting. It is not a means of manipulating God. It is a means by which to demonstrate to God your humble obedience. It is a discipline by which go show to the Lord the submission of your body as an indication of the yielding of your spirit.

It is not intended to be a showy display of inordinate spiritual pride. Jesus instructed His followers to avoid the overt display that would call attention to itself. It is a personal spiritual venture. It is to call our attention to the Lord not the attention of others to our self.

While dining in a lovely ancient home in Bethlehem the sister of our host entered the dining room. The feast had just begun when she seated herself in the corner of the room. Our host told us she was engaged in a 30 day fast. Then he asked and answered his own question: “Do you know why she is fasting?” I expected some spiritually profound reason. He said, “It is pride. She is showing off, and besides she is cheating after we go to bed and eating.” That is the wrong motive and method.

Physically the most common form of fasting is abstaining from food for a period of time. A person in poor health should not try it without a doctor’s exam and consent. Most fasts are one day in length. When considering the 40 day fast of Moses and Christ remember these were rare and exceptional.

The Hebrew word for “fast” helps our understanding of the meaning. ANAH means “to afflict or humble one self.” Basically it is the denial of the body something for a specific spiritual purpose.

King Darius denied himself the pleasure of entertainment as he fasted for Daniel’s well-being when Daniel was in the lion’s den (Daniel 6:18).
Paul spoke of a fast that calls for abstinence from sexual relations for a brief period of time for purposes of prayer (I Cor. 7:5).

Fasts can be categorized in three ways:

FORMAL – the O.T. Levitical laws established such on the day of atonement. These have been done away with.

RITUAL – these were instituted to commemorate special events. They were practiced diligently by the Pharisees and became an exercise in egotism. Christ had little use for ritual fasts.

INFORMAL – this was the spontaneous response to a situation. David’s spontaneous fast for his dying son is an example. Helplessly and humbly he fasted. Such touches the heart of God.

III. HOW DOES THE SCRIPTURE CATEGORIZE FASTS?
Scripture presents at least three distinct reasons for fasting:

A – To express sorrow. Nehemiah fasted to express sorrow over the decay of the walls and decadence of the people of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:4).

B – To make a request of God. Ezra fasted in request for a safe journey to Jerusalem. Esther fasted to request protection before going before the king. Jesus fasted in a time of asking deliverance from satanic power.

C – To indicate repentance. In Joel 2;12 the Lord instructed the people to demonstrate their repentant hearts by fasting. Repentance is the reality. Fasting is the symbol.

Now question number four…

IV. WHY SHOULD WE FAST?
IN this day of microchips and microwaves let’s not make this a soul-kill ritualistic law. In considering it don’t ask yourself what you will get out of it but rather what does God want of you. Our principle purpose should be to give our self completely to God so He can freedom to do with us what He would. It is a call to self-denial so He may have our full attention. Then “why fast?”

A – It creates a sense of oneness with the Lord. Physical hunger that might result calls our attention to Him after whom we spiritually hunger.

B – It is an occasion for purging our spirit while physically purging our body. The Psalmist (69: 5, 10) said, “My foolishness and my sins are not hid from thee…I wept in my soul with fasting…”

C – It stimulates our search for God’s will. When Daniel was having difficulty understanding the words of the prophet Jeremiah he fasting (Daniel 9:3). It allows God to alter our will.

D – It aids in getting a spiritual freedom. If you try to fast you will find how much your body is a slave to food. This will call your attention to other areas of life that need to be yielded to Him.

E – It gives occasion to express your wholehearted dependence on and commitment to the Lord. Joel 2:12 exhorted, “Says the Lord, return to me and with all your heart and fasting…”

Falling From Grace

The words “Christ is become of no effect unto you,” must be understood in their context to refer, not to their justification but to their spiritual lives as Christians. The apostle is not here speaking of their standing but of their experience. The words “become of not effect,” are from KATERGEO which means “to make ineffectual,” and which used with the word APO (from) as it is here, means “to be without effect from, to be unaffected by, to be without effective relation to.” The word is applied to any destruction of growth or life, physical or spiritual. Joined with APO (from), it speaks of the loss of some essential element of life by the severance of previous intimate relations. The subject of the verb here is the Galatian Christians. One could translate “You have become unaffected by Christ.” or, “You have become without effective relation to Christ.” The idea is that the Galatian Christians, by putting themselves under law, have put themselves in a place where they have cased to be in that relation to Christ where they could derive the spiritual benefits from Him which would enable them to live a life pleasing to Him, namely, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ has no effect upon them in the living of their Christian lives.

In depriving themselves of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the living of a Christian life, they have fallen from grace. The words “fallen from” are from EKPIPTO which means “to fail of, to lose one’s hold of.” The Galatian Christians had lost their hold upon the grace for daily living which heretofore had been ministered to them by the Holy Spirit. God’s grace manifests itself in three ways, in justification, sanctification, and glorification. The context rules. All through Galatians Chapter five, Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit’s ministry to the believer. Therefore, grace here must be interpreted as the daily grace for living of which the Galatian Christians were depriving themselves.

But because they had lost their hold upon sanctifying grace, does not mean that God’s grace had lost its hold upon them in the sphere of justification. Because they had refused to accept God’s grace in sanctification is no reason why God should withdraw His grace for justification. They had received the latter when they accepted the Lord Jesus. That transaction was closed and permanent at the moment they believed. Justification is a judicial act of God done once and for all. Sanctification is a process which goes on all through the Christian’s life. Just because the process of sanctification is temporarily retarded in a believer’s life, does not say that his justification is taken away. If that were the case, then the retention of salvation would depend upon the believer’s works, and then salvation would not depend upon grace anymore. And we find ourselves in the camp of the Judaizers, ancient and modern.

The Evolution Of Evolution

Suppose, just suppose human life as we know it were to end on planet earth today. While your imagination is working imagine creatures with superior intelligence to us do exist in deep outer space. On one of their space voyages they visit the late great planet earth in what would be our year 4001. Their landing sight is Manhattan.

Not only is there one space mission in 4001 to earth but two. The second lands in the deepest part of the Amazon jungle inhabited today by a primitive tribe willfully cut off from modern society.

Can you imagine their consternation when they return to their home base and report on how humans lived on planet earth in the 21st Century? With only those two samples they would have conflicting concepts. Press the issue further. Suppose the sample specimens were of Homo Sapiens and a bonobo chimpanzee. What conclusion might they reach as to which form of life was superior? What the norm?

Presently there are paleontologists at work experiencing similar conflicts. Since 1974 when a partial skeleton called “Lucy” was found by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia, it has been generally accepted as the oldest known human ancestor by evolutionists. Now Richard’s widow, Meave, has found Kenyanthropus platyops. Mrs. Leakey has concluded her find, not that of her late husband, is the true ancestor on mankind. However, she goes even further and says neither her find nor Lucy is necessarily “the one.” She asserts, “I and many others believe Lucy needs to be replaced, but I’m not sure Kenyanthropus is the one,” says Rick Potts of the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural History. He further concluded, “What is clear is that human evolution is much more complicated than we thought.”

Science often changes. If you don’t believe that read a science text book written in 1940, or for that matter 1990.

Now play “What If” and project into the future. Suppose within a few years it is verified that carbon dating is valid up to about 7000 years but no more, as many believe. Contributing to this conclusion are specimens within specimens that are carbon dated as younger than the outer ones. What if, at that time a new specimen is found that looks exactly like modern New Yorkers? Rewrite!

Whole theories have been concluded from an artists concept based on a fragment of a skeleton. That is not science. A number of these theories once taught as scientific fact have been disputed by more current paleontologists. Many of the new breed are still evolutionists but they have better more recent data and are honest enough to correct the errors of their predecessors.

The science is young and susceptible to error. Many in the field know that the science itself is evolving. The grief is that some second or third echelon of educators pick up on these inconclusive evidences and teach them as the ultimate fact. The jury is still out on the subject. Leakey and Potts are to be commended on consenting to this in their statements.

All concepts of origins are faith based. A rule of science is for a principle to be acceptable as a science it must be observable and reproducible. Neither creationists nor evolutionists can do either. Both are faith based. That is why many persons with advanced scientific degrees still hold to the concept of creation as viable.

What if in 4001 a space ship lands and its occupants read a 1922 science text. That sampling would be evidence too limited to reach a valid conclusion related to the advanced culture on earth in 2004. The same principle is applicable in the field of paleontology today. As they keep digging there will be many rewrites and perhaps ultimately conclude:

“In the beginning God…”

[Source of some of this data: USATODAY.com, March 22. 2001, Tim Friend]