Why did Jesus tell us in John 13:34-35 that the final apologetic by which this world would recognise that Jesus was sent by God the Father was the demonstrable love-relationship that would be seen in the lives of His disciples? As we have seen in the last 8 issues of TFT, there are any number of philosophical, theological, scientific and historical reasons on the basis of which one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is exactly Who He said He was – the Eternal God, the Second Person of the Trinity now come in the flesh. Why is it that this fact can be conclusively understood by the world only in a living, verifiable community called ‘The Church’? Why is it that of all the methods that the devil could invent out of his evil genius to thwart the purposes of God, none would succeed so spectacularly as the disruption of relationships among the members of the body of Christ through divisions, schisms and partisanship?
For all the above questions, there is only one simple but profound answer: Ultimate Reality (God) is a Being in Relationship and any truth pertaining to Him, in the final analysis, stands attested only if accompanied by exemplary relationships among His creatures. Inorganic and organic (both animal and vegetation) creation were designed for and held together in a finely-tuned ecological balance. But humans were to realise their relationship with the Creator and among themselves in voluntary mutual submission. This was because they were made in the image of God with the capacity for free voluntary action so that relationships could be necessarily wilful and not instinctive or programmed. (We often fail to notice that all that is enjoyable in our relationships beginning with intimate ones such as marriage to the most causal acquaintances is due to the freedom exercised in forging them.) Our rebellion against God and the consequent fall have vitiated this Divine order and the symmetry of relationships at all levels of creation. The redemption offered to the human race by our Creator in the Lord Jesus Christ has to necessarily produce a lifestyle which would indicate redeemed relationships as the reality of salvation. Our individualistic theologies have substituted ‘personal’ and ‘private’ holiness (which are hallmarks of ascetic religions) for true inter-personal holiness among God’s people, and by implication with all other levels of creation. In the Scripture under consideration, Jesus seeks to redress this misunderstanding. Philosophical speculations, theologisations and debates cannot argue against a society of God’s people who in their corporate life demonstrate the reality of the god whom they worship. If this dimension of the reality of God cannot be truly and vitally demonstrated, there could be reasons to doubt the truth affirmations regarding God.
To the clever lawyer who questioned Him (Matt. 22:34-40) about the greatest commandment, Jesus significantly refrained from giving religious or ritualistic requirements; instead, He had only two simple relational injunctions to offer: ‘Love you God’ and ‘Love your neighbour’. By placing these two at the same level, Jesus brought relationships into focus. Thus, worshipping God was not mere observance (in whatever sense) but to relate to Him in love; He is the One Who would liberate the individual from the ‘ego’ (self) to love others. The first commandment (obedience to which is essentially secret) thus becomes foundational and makes the second obeyable. But by the same token, obedience to the second (which is necessarily public) becomes the evidence that the first has been obeyed. The brilliance of this summation would take some time to soak into our conscious mind because of the distractions of the pluralist cacophony assaulting us at every turn.

I may be permitted to digress a bit and delineate the spectrum of beliefs by which fallen humankind has sought to avoid confrontation (which is also one of the facets of a relationships!) with an Infinite-Personal God. Starting with God-denying polemics, this exercise has taken us far a field to the possibility that we ourselves could be the extension of the divine essence, which is considered to be impersonal. The atheist, for whom nature is all that there is and evolution is all the intelligence that is needed to direct it to Utopia, would still describe these two forces with Capital ‘N’ and ‘C’, thus betraying his unconscious grope for meaning in an impersonal universe! At the other end of the scale, the Advaita Vedantist, would deny the ultimate validity of all existential and moral questions by appeal to maya, the impersonal force which gives the illusion of reality to all of life’s struggles and yearnings. Thus the central issue of relationship to the Infinite personal God of the Bible is carefully skirted.
Also, some religions prescribe rituals and observances as indicators of piety and devotion. Many of these have laudable motives and a fair amount of theological justification. What they fail to indicate is the need for the inner reality of a sacred relationship to God. Very often, in all religions – and I willingly include Christianity among them – the prescribed religious duties do represent an earnestness but often could become a substitute – and a dangerous one at that! – for a true and meaningful relationship. One could therefore be religiously devoted without in any sense being acquainted with the God of that devotion.
Other philosophies (such as Advaita Vedanta) pooh-pooh such efforts as childish and rudimentary, and suggest as alternatives, sadhnas and techniques by which one could hope to achieve self-realisation. Such a state is expected to bring the devotee to a purported mystical union with the Impersonal Infinite Brahman or Cosmic Consciousness. This, it must be noted, is however a state of mid rather than a relationship. The pluralist spectrum thus has nothing to contribute to a satisfactory resolution of the inner tensions within humans for a significant framework for true relationships. It is in the context of this scheme of things that the Church finds herself entrusted with the onerous responsibility of speaking about the relational nature of her God. What better way could there be to communicate this blessed reality than by a model which would uncompromisingly demonstrate it before a watching world!
In this series of articles, we have alluded to various theological, philosophical and existential reasons for the necessity of ultimate reality to be a plurality. These celebrations would still remain in the domain of God being a good and great idea but for the fact that the God Whom we worship is a real Tri-Personal Being. No contemplation of the beauty and glory of the Triune God can therefore be complete without some understanding of the dynamics of relationship between the Three Persons of the Trinity.
Thankfully, the Scriptures give us more than a glimpse into the outworking of God-as-Community. In this context, we shall be referring often to the writings of John to whom more about the truth of the Trinity has been sovereignty entrusted by the Holy Spirit. Even this fact has a probable reason in John as the most relational of the disciples, his ‘arrogating’ to himself the position of being ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ being a rather unique example. We could be sure that Jesus showed no favouritism in dispensing His love to any of His disciples, having washed the feet of Judas along with the others’. It was John who appropriated and reciprocated this love more forthrightly than any of the other cared to do. It is not surprising that more of the God of relationships was revealed to and through him of all the writers of NT Scriptures.
The equality of the status of the Father and the Son is strikingly portrayed in this discussion between Jesus and Jewish leaders following the healing of the paralytic at Bethesda (Jn. 5:19-30). At the same time, we should not fail to notice an amazing paradox – the Father does not hold on to any of His prerogatives as the First Person of the Trinity but loves the Son and shows Him all that He does (v.20), entrusts all judgement to the Son (vv. 22,27) and has granted the Son to have life in Himself and to give life to others (vv. 20,26). On His part, what is the attitude of the Son to the Father? He does only what He sees the Father doing (v. 19) confesses that by Himself, He could do nothing (vv. 19,30) and seeks to please the Father (v.30). And what about the Holy Spirit? He is the One the Father sends upon His Church in the Name of His Son (Jn. 14:26), the One Who goes out from the Father (Jn. 15:26) and is an equal (and even better) replacement for the physical presence of the Son among His people (Jn. 16:7). There is no doubt about the eternal divinity of the Holy Spirit as co-equal with the Father and the Son. Yet, He will testify (not about Himself, but) about Christ (Jn. 15:26), He will not speak on His own but only what He hears (Jn. 16:13) and He will bring glory to the Son by taking what is the Son’s and making it known to us (Jn. 16:14). Please note that the Son is careful to testify that all that He has is the Father’s (Jn. 16:15).

What do we have here? – Three co-eternal, co-equal Persons of the Trinity giving Themselves to One Another in eternal Self-effacement! Are we able to discern the faintest outline of why servanthood and relationship-building is no longer optional extras for the Christian but essential to reflecting the glory of the Triune God? I would make bold to assert that the glory of our God is essentially not the thunder-and-lighting aspect which is so appealing to our base instincts but rather the Self-giving love within the Trinity (Jn. 17:20-24). Jesus’ prayer for His disciples (and us) is that the same glory of the Trinity may be given to us that we ‘may be one’ even as They ‘are One’.
What then are the practical implications of the commandment in Jn. 13:34,35? Does this necessarily mean that the individual members are in themselves perfect representations of God? In a world society which is being increasingly fragmented and individualised, it is easy to develop a theology of the Church as a collection of perfect individuals. A right understanding of the relationships within the Trinity would militate against such an interpretation. I believe that the story in John 13 has a moral which fails to speak to us as a Church today because our thinking on interdependent inter-personal life has strayed so far from the Biblical model. We have been thoroughly programmed by the world to think individualistically and our autonomy from God has made us autonomous from one another. Even in Christian work, these are the days of the ‘independent’ worker who is in every sense independent of God and fellowman! Because of bad experiences in Church or organisation, good leaders sometimes advocate being on ‘one’s own’ as if that would somehow solve the problem of relationships. In family and social circles, because of real hurts suffered in some relationships, we tend to retreat into a ‘shell’ and refuse to go out of our way to relate to others. Without being unrealistic- even Scripture (Rom. 12:18) attests that good relationships are bilateral – we can ensure that our side of the deal is blameless. All the same, I would make aver that relationships lie at the heart of our testimony to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. We will do well to remember that the Scripture under consideration occurs in the context of the powerful acted parable of the washing of the disciples’ feet. The feet of all the disciples were dirty, but as they would submit themselves to cleansing by one another, they would emerge as a perfect community (Jn. 13:14). We may fundamentally have no difficulty to have ourselves cleansed by Christ, (although Peter had a problem even there because the Master insisted on touching his feet) but to submit to ablutions by another is virtually unthinkable. Jesus, rightly, did not require others to wash His feet to signify that the cleansing was not a reference to external physical ‘dirt’ (in which sense, Jesus’ feet would also have been dirty), but to inward moral purity. The disciples (and we as well!) would have been very happy to wash the feet of Jesus, but His injunction was that they should wash one another’s feet (Jn. 13:14). In so insisting, Jesus was demonstrating a deeper reality about relationships which we may fail to notice in the context of this amazing chapter.
Let us look again at the picture so that we get our theology straight. The washing of the feet was not the offer of salvation – we notice that when Peter insisted that Jesus was his hands and head, Jesus said that that would not be necessary because all of them (but one) were clean – such a bath would have signified salvation (vv. 9-11). But He had still insisted to Peter to have a part (that is, to have fellowship) with Jesus (v.8b). This could only have meant a daily cleansing and forgiveness which would ensure continued fellowship between Christ and disciple. But then Jesus proceeds to imply that such a mutual acceptance is needed among disciples themselves by commanding them ‘to wash one another’s feet’. It was a strange but effective way of communicating the importance of relating to one another by forgiving, cleansing and accepting one another in perfect mutuality. In other words, this was two imperfect individuals synergistically portraying a perfect relationship! – the very antidote so desperately needed to correct our individualistic privatised spirituality!

But look again! Without what attitude was this cleansing to be carried out? Jesus took the position of a Servant and assigned the status of the master to the disciple with the dirty feet! The clean One takes the position of weakness and offers the seat of strength and authority to the one who is dirty! Have not our relationships always suffered because we choose to relate to others from a position of strength? Is this not particularly so when ‘we’ are right and ‘they’ wrong? But we are taught here that the ‘right’ one is to take the position of a servant while offering advice and counsel to the one who is ‘wrong’. Why is it that so often a backsliding believer finds it difficult to come back? – because his counsellor, in his superciliousness, preaches down to him rather than ‘wash his feet’. Our political leaders are called as ‘ministers’ only because the authority vested in them is to be used by them to serve the people. Our administrative bosses belong to the Indian Administrative Service – the connotation of servanthood is essentially Christian where the investiture of authority and privilege is not an end in itself but only a means to serve.
All this is fine-sounding but is it practical? Should we say that this is all right for Jesus but not quite applicable to us? I am afraid that this would have been a good excuse but for two reasons:
1. Jesus, as Son of Man, lived His life in the power and authority of the Third Person of the Trinity and not as the Second Person of the Trinity – F.B. Meyer.
2. Jn. 13:1-3 provide the backdrop for this story and they apply to us as well. Jesus becomes our example (1 Pet. 2:21), only because He, as a Human Being lived His life in perfect obedience to His Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, He is our example in this context of relationships as in other aspects of the Christian life. May we not be found shirking our responsibility of painstakingly putting together relationships under the excuse of Jesus being Divine! There are four fundamental aspects of consciousness (Jn. 13:1-3) which provided the basis for this tremendous act of service of the Son of God:
1. Jesus walked according to the time-table of the Father (v.1a). It was the consciousness that enabled Him to perform this act of menial service to His disciples without a trace of condescension. Very often, a lack of assurance of walking in the will of God makes us reluctant in taking the vulnerable side of relationships.
2. His relationship to His disciples culminated in His work of service to them only because He had consciously decided to love them (v.1b). Jesus shunned shallow sentimentality as a poor counterfeit of genuine wholesome emotion which originated in the will.
3. He consciously refrained from favouritism even when He knew that one of the Twelve would be His betrayer (v.2). Judas also had his feet washed by the Master. I have often wondered what would have happened if Jesus had been partisan in His attitude to the disciples – the first Church of the Twelve might have split equally between Peter and Judas!
4. He could serve His disciples only because of His own Sonship to the Father and the attendant authority that flowed from it. He served His people only because of the security of His Identity. Today, people serve others in their search for identity. When I saw the photographs of Mother Teresa and Diana, Princess of Wales on the same page of India Today, the thought that crossed my mind was this: One woman served others out of the overflow of her fullness in Christ – the other served the poor to compensate for her inner loneliness! It is with this grand introduction that John begins his account of this acted parable. It is surprising that Jesus was now able to ‘[take] off His outer clothing’ (thus divesting Himself to His Divine prerogatives) ‘and wrap a towel round His waist’ (thus ‘taking the very nature of a servant’)? (Jn. 13:4; Phil. 2:6,7).
All relationships involve a servant-attitude. I am told that there are 36 ‘one another's in the New Testament. Each of these involves the one who gives (the stronger, hence the servant) and the other who receives the weaker, hence accorded the status of the master). In each of the 3 pairs of relationships Paul deals with in Eph. 5:22-6:4, one is a stronger partner and the other the weaker one. But the stronger one is, the greater the self-giving that is expected. Thus, for example, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. Headship of the home is thus earned through servanthood and is not a divine patronage which is to be bandied about with not a little chauvinism!
Let me conclude this essay by reiterating the one issue that cannot be overemphasised: The hallmark of the Church of Jesus Christ is a relational testimony which serves as a pointer to the reality of the Eternal Triune God. May we, under God, consciously discern every trap that the devil sets for us to rupture relationships and trust the Holy Spirit of love to breathe His healing and remake our fractured bonds!