Holy Thursday Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper (A, B, C)

Readings:

1. Exodus 12.1-8, 11-14
   Psalm 116.12-13, 15-16bc, 17-18 Response:  “Our blessing cup is a communion with the blood of Christ.”
2. 1 Corinthians 11.23-26
3. John 13.1-15

Reflections on the Gospel Reading

The passage of St. John’s Gospel read at the Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper is rich in meaning at many levels.  Although John’s Last Supper narrative does not contain an account of the institution of the Eucharist, it brings out the implications of the Eucharist in terms of mutual love among the disciples of Jesus that is manifested in mutual service.

The Love Commandment

Maundy Thursday takes its name from the Latin word “mandatum,” which means “commandment.”  In John’s Gospel it refers to the great commandment of love, which Jesus gave to his disciples at the Last Supper:  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.  Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13.34-35 NRSV)

To indicate that Jesus’ love is central to the meaning of John’s account of the Last Supper (Jn 13-17) and Passion (Jn 18-19), the evangelist crafts a grand literary inclusion.  The clue to this inclusion is the Greek word télos (meaning “end” or “conclusion”) and its verbal form teléo (meaning “end, finish, complete”).  The first element of this inclusion is found in the very first verse of the combined narrative, which stands at the beginning of today’s gospel reading.  John tells us that Jesus loved his disciples “to the end” (Greek:  eis telos), that is “completely, finally, and forever;” “until the end of his life;” “to death;” or “in a way that surpasses all imaginable loving.” (See Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998, 219; Brown 1970, 550; and Moloney 1998, 373-374.)  The second element of the inclusion is found in John 19.30 where Jesus’ dying words are “it is finished” or “it is ended” in the sense of brought to completion. (Greek:  tetelestai).

These two references bracket the great love commandment.  They point to the centrality of love in John’s narration of the last day in Jesus’ life – both the love that Jesus showed for his disciples and the love that his disciples should have for one another in imitation of him.  However, John goes further and brings out the implications of that love in his account of the footwashing.

Footwashing

It is hard for twenty-first century Americans to understand the symbolism of footwashing, since the practice itself is so remote from our lived experience.  It was, however, a common practice in the Mediterranean world of the first century.

It was an onerous and demeaning task because it meant washing off human and animal waste.  Human waste was emptied out of windows onto the city streets each morning, while animal waste was ever-present.  Therefore, no matter how well a person bathed, sandals and feet inevitably became smelly and dirty in the process of walking to a meal at another’s house.  Footwashing was thus a courtesy offered meal guests, though the task itself was performed only by persons of low-honor status. (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998, 219-220)

In the absence of slaves, these low-honor persons were very often women.  Footwashing might possibly have been one of the duties of the order of widows in some of the Pauline churches. (See 1 Timothy 5.9-10; Weiss 1992, 2.828.)

Raymond Brown observes that, at the time of Jesus, footwashing was a sign of devotion that disciples would occasionally render to their teacher.  (This practice seems to be implied in Jesus discourse after he reclined again at the table.)  Footwashing could also be seen as a traditional act of love, as illustrated in an ancient Jewish story in which a bride-to-be washes the feet of her husband-to-be, rather than letting a servant girl perform the task, saying:  “Your feet are my feet . . . another shall not wash your feet.” (See Brown 1970. 564-565.)

What actually happened?

The absence of any mention of the footwashing in the synoptic (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) accounts of the Last Supper leads contemporary westerners with our peculiarly rationalistic historical consciousness to ask whether Jesus actually washed his disciples’ feet or whether John’s narration is a fictional story illustrating the meaning of Jesus’ love command.

Some think that John’s narrative is an imaginative reconstruction of traditions found as sayings in the synoptic Gospels.  For example Luke 12.37 reads:  “Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them.”  Also, in Luke’s account of the Last Supper in response to the disciples’ dispute about which one was greater, Jesus says:  “[T]he greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves.  For who is greater, the one who is at table or the one who serves?  Is it not the one at the table?  But I am among you as one who serves.” (Luke 22.26-27 NRSV) (So C. K. Barrett and D. F. Straus cited in Brown 1970, 568.)

Others consider it more likely that the footwashing was a prophetic action not at all out of line with the Israelite prophetic tradition or even with prophetic actions reported in the synoptic Gospels such as the cursing of the fig tree.  (See Mark 11.12-14, 20-25)  Although John the Evangelist may well have shaped and embellished the tradition he received, it is altogether possible that Jesus actually performed this arresting prophetic act during the Last Supper. (See Brown 1970, 568.)

Whatever the case, John invests his account of the footwashing with rich symbolism and different interpretations of its meaning.  The rather straightforward narrative of Jesus’ taking off his garments, washing the feet of his disciples, and then putting his garments on again, is interrupted by a dialog with Peter.  Once Jesus has reclined again at table, he speaks to all the disciples.  There are, then, two different but intimately related explanations of the meaning of Jesus’ act of washing his disciples’ feet.

1. The Act of Footwashing

It is important to note that the slaves or women washed the feet of the guests before a formal meal as each man reclined at table.  John’s depiction of Jesus’ rising during the meal gives rise to one symbolic interpretation of this text, namely that it is an image of the incarnation.  Jesus knowing that he had come from God, rises from the meal, “lays down” his garments, and takes on the clothes of a slave.  This is parallel to the imagery in John’s prologue where we are told that the word who was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1.1-14)

Others see an echo of John’s tradition in Paul’s language in his letter to the Philippians where he holds forth the example of Christ who “though he was in the form of God . . . emptied himself, taking the form of a slave ” and “humbled himself . . . to the point of death . . . .” (Philippians 2.6-8.  See Dodd 1968, 401.)

Still others see the symbolism of death and resurrection when John describes Jesus as “setting aside” (Jn 13.4) and “taking up” (Jn 13.12) his garments in the Last Supper narrative. John uses the same Greek verbs in chapter 10 of his Gospel where the Good Shepherd “lays down” his life (Jn 10.11, 15, 17, 18) and “takes it back” again (Jn 10.17, 18). (See Moloney 1998, 378.)  “The washing of the feet, therefore, is a ‘sign’ of the incarnation of the Son of God, consummated by His self-oblation in death.” (Dodd 1968, 401-402)

Skipping the dialog with Peter in Jn 6-11, Jesus returns to the table and presents his action as an example of the quality of love that should exist between his disciples.  “So if I . . . have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” (Jn 13.14-15 NRSV)  The graphic imagery of washing excrement off someone else’s feet is a symbol of loving service of one follower of Jesus to another – even unto death.

2. The Dialog with Peter

The interchange between Jesus and Peter interrupts the more straightforward account of the footwashing and serves as still another example of a Johannine inclusion.  It is the central element that interprets the deeper meaning of the episodes that surround it.

It is a typical Johannine dialog where misunderstanding and different shades of meaning play a pivotal role.  As John tells it, Jesus knows that his hour to depart from this world by death has come and that Judas has already decided to betray him.  In other words, he knows that his death is at hand.   This becomes the occasion for one last instruction to his disciples.

By humbling himself before his most devoted followers and serving one of their most basic needs, Jesus is providing them with a way of understanding and appropriating his death.  At this point in John’s narrative Jesus has not commanded Peter (or the other disciples) to do anything.  He is asking Peter to receive his (Jesus’) services.

The key saying in this episode is:  “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.” (Jn 13.8 NRSV)  Since earliest times commentators have seen this as a reference to baptism where we have a part with Jesus – are incorporated into the group of his disciples – by entering into the mystery of Jesus’ death.¹

Perhaps Brown summarizes it best:  “The simplest explanation of the footwashing, then, remains that Jesus performed this servile task to prophesy symbolically that he was about to be humiliated in death.  Peter’s questioning, provoked by the action, enabled Jesus to explain the salvific necessity of his death:  it would bring men [sic] their heritage with him and it would cleanse them of sin.” (1970, 568)

The Footwashing and the Sharing of Bread and Wine

It seems that early Christian communities, especially the Johannine ones, adopted the practice of foot-washing both as a ritual in their liturgical celebrations and as part of their regular communal meals. (See Weiss 1992, 2.828-829.)  It is not at all clear why this practice died out in the Church with the sole exception of its ritual re-enactment in the Holy Thursday liturgy.

There is no denying the fact, though, that Jesus’ example of footwashing brings out the deepest meaning of the Eucharistic celebration.  Those who are joined at the table of the Lord are called to commit themselves to service to one another after the example of Jesus himself.

This is illustrated in the macarism (blessing saying) that occurs just after today’s gospel reading.  “If you know these things (Greek: taúta), you are blessed if you do (Greek:  poiéo) them (Greek: taúta).” (Jn 13.17) Compare this to the words of Jesus over the bread in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, the second reading of today’s Mass.  “Do (Greek: poiéo) this (Greek:  toúto) in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor 11.24.  See also Luke 22.19) Both the sharing of bread and wine and the washing of each others’ feet are rituals of imitation, remembrance, and appropriation of Jesus’ love for us until death.

Application

The love sayings in John’s Gospel are very specifically directed to Jesus’ disciples, not to the whole world. (See Meier 2009, 4.558-565)  This does not mean that we cease to care about the world outside the Church.  It does mean that we have to get our own house in order before we can be enabled to reach out to others. How can we reach out as a church to serve the world if we don’t serve one another?

Today’s gospel reading poses an enormous challenge to those of us who have entered into the mystery of Baptism and the Eucharist and who have committed ourselves to be followers of Jesus.  It raises questions about our relationship to our fellow Christians and about the quality of our love for our sisters and brothers in the faith.

In the twenty-first century what sort of humble service appropriates the symbolism of footwashing in Jesus’ time?  How do we differ with other Christians, for example our church leaders, and still make it evident that we care deeply for our counterparts in the dispute?  How does our caring and sharing build up the community called Church?

The standard by which our love for one another is evaluated is very demanding; the bar is very high.  If we, like Judas and Peter, have fallen short of that standard, we should acknowledge the fact and seek forgiveness.  However, relying on the prayer of Jesus and nourished by the bread of life, we should never abandon the ideal of self-sacrificing love for one another even to the point of death.

---

In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:

Brown 1970 – Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel according to John (xiii-xxi), Volume 29A of the Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970)

Dodd 1968 – C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel  (Cambridge:  The Cambridge University Press, 1968 [originally published 1953])

Latin Vulgate 1994 – Roger Gryson and Robertus Weber, Editors, Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart:  Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994)

Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998 – Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John  (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998)

Meier 2009 – John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew:  Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume Four:  Law and Love (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 2009)

Metzger 1994 – Bruce M. Metzger, A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testiment, Second Edition (Stuttgart:  German Bible Society, 1994)

Moloney 1998 – Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B. The Gospel of John.  Sacra Pagina Series Volume 4, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press1998)

NRSV = NRSV 1994 – New Revised Standard Version – Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Editors, The New Oxford Annotated Bible [with the Apocrypha] containing the Old and New Testaments.  New Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1994)

Weiss 1992 – Herold Weiss, “Footwashing” in David Noel Freedman, Editor-in-Chief, The Anchor Bible Dictionary.   Six Volumes (New York:  Doubleday, 1992), 2.828-829.

---