Book Summary/Review: Day the Revolution Began (NT Wright)

 This is not an official book review—more of a summary of key points. Others have done much more in depth reviews (usually to point out their own critiques and complaints), but one of my goals here is to try to wrap my head around what NT Wright was saying (including his main ideas, implications, other systematic questions that are affected, etc)

I definitely enjoyed reading Surprised by Hope better, since I sort of knew what to expect, the main premise was obvious, I agreed with where he was going the whole time. I think perhaps some of my confusion regarding The Day the Revolution Began (DTRB) stems from the phenomenon of the atonement in general. So many theories, ideas, uncertainties, and pieces to fit together. No one can do it justice. In fact, his opening few chapters comment on how the cross is such a central symbol throughout history, and even if people don’t understand the story fully or can “explain” it, they are affected by it somehow. 

Ok, here we go. What’s the main premise of the book? Many of NT Wright’s critics accuse him of denying penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I have now read the book, watched at least ten YouTube videos of various conversations/lectures, and read articles on his website. I don’t see how that’s the case. He talks about substitution, representation, Jesus taking sins for the people all over the place. He, of course, answers his critics, but he more focuses on why he words things the way he does. Why he emphasizes these themes. 

One of my favorite paragraphs of the book was the epitome of NT Wright. He uses a C chord as an example (sorry if you don’t know music). The C and G are naturally significant, but that middle E makes the chord. He says if you move the E down just a half step, it’s a minor chord and sounds completely different. The E doesn’t give the whole picture but it’s an essential component. (This is PSA to NT Wright). However, if you stop playing the C and G, and only hammer on the E or even make a new chord from it, you miss everything.

So, NT Wright loves the themes more of Jesus conquering the enemies of God’s people, whether physical or (more importantly) spiritual. He frees them from bondage, rescues them from extended exile. Forgiveness of sins is certainly part of this, since wickedness is how they got into exile in the first place. But the overarching narrative of redemption through the people of Israel is Wright’s bread and butter. And he’s going to focus on Jesus being their representative, to do “what Israel could not,” and be established as king over all things. Then in new creation, those who are in Messiah fulfill their mission and purpose all along. Rule and reign with God in their midst.

To be clear, my response to this book was about like everything else by NT Wright. 70-75% I fully understood and agreed, though I may have had to reword thing in my own biblical/theological categories. 10-15% I mostly understood but was begging for more clarification, even though he repeated himself multiple times throughout the book. My questions were not being answered, so it doesn’t mean I disagree but need to do more digging to reach his conclusions. 5-10% were a bit of an overstatements. Maybe caricatures that he’s attacking or conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the passage. These may not be detrimental to his argument.

His repeated caricature (some would call it straw man) of PSA is that we sinned; therefore God has to punish everyone; He’s full of anger and wrath and sin has to be “dealt with”; Phew, Jesus gets in the way of all that punishment; we get to go free with forgiveness of sins and a “home in heaven” (see Surprised by Hope for why Wright hates this so much. It’s clear from this book why eschatology and soteriology are so closely connected. More on that below).

Those who have been raised in church and have heard sermons on the cross a million times would probably be confused by Wright’s presentation. So what’s so wrong with that? Sounds pretty biblical. He has several pages pointing out logical and biblical fallacies (some incredible, some could go either way, some not so persuasive). His big critique is emotional. Yes, God must confront sin, wickedness, etc., but how we speak of God’s wrath should not give us joy. Wright famously misquotes John 3:16 as the broad public must be hearing it: “God so hated the world that he killed his only son Jesus.” A story of a hateful and angry God presents a whole different story than what Wright sees playing out from Gen - Rev. And adding the words “he did all this out of love” may be true, but if it’s tacked on a story that misrepresents the truth, people may find this God weird, unstable, or even abusive.

So here are some questions that Wright’s view requires answers. Some were answered in the book. Some I’ve done more research. These are his thoughts, not mine.

What is the fundamental problem of humans? This was when I realized the fundamental difference in Wright’s train of thought. PSA proponents will say mankind has sinned. They cannot approach God’s holiness. They are disobedient and wicked, and from Adam they inherited this sin nature. Spiritual death/separation from God resulted/results, and we obviously cannot save ourselves.

Wright calls that the “works contract.” Do good things/be perfect and see God. Fail to obey and be punished. The fact that Jesus was perfect only shows that a “works contract” remains in tact. He just doesn’t see this as the story Scripture is telling.

Wright: Humans were made in/as the image of God, a royal priesthood, to reflect God’s glory and dominion over the world. Likewise they were to reflect the praise of creation back to God. They chose idols and other things to worship. The main problem is idolatry, which grants power to the idols and gods behind them. This naturally leads to all sorts of wickedness and breaking of relationships. Wright doesn’t say God requires perfect obedience. 

What about original sin? Not going to get into Augustine’s mistranslation here or working with Latin vs. Greek text. This is a major question that deserves books, and there’s deeper questions whether we share Adam’s guilt or whether we inherited “sin nature” or whether Adam just introduced sin into world and now we are all sinners. There’s a “5 views” book on it. 

I know this is not NT Wright, but he would agree with Pete Enns, who was the first to make it obvious to me that whatever we say of Adam, it’s clear that the only two passages that talk about Adam again are Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Important passages nonetheless, but it’s interesting that as we read Scripture the assumption is that people can obey. When Cain kills Abel, his defense isn’t, “Well, what did you expect me to do—I was doomed to be a sinner because of daddy?” Prophets existed for a reason—to call Israel to obedience. They were supposed to follow commands (even if we know they were really sinners). So original sin is one of those topics that really depends on how you define it. NT Wright doesn’t really use the term in his writings. Perhaps because the Bible doesn’t focus on the how or the origin, or the mechanism. It’s more of the current situation: all are inclined to sin. The world is a mess. And those Romans and 1 Corinthians passages probably start with the solution (Jesus offers life for all) and argues back to Adam…if the solution is for all, then the problem must be just as grand).

What’s the relationship between Old and New Covenants? This is where NT Wright focuses on the metanarrative. He doesn’t like the individualism of “I’m a sinner. I’m separated from God. Jesus died for me. Repent and go to heaven when I die because Jesus died in my place.” All of that may be true. But it misses so much of the story. When humans ruined their place in God’s world, His mission was to restore them and it back to its original state (and even better). He longs to dwell with humans. Adam failed to complete his given tasks, so God chose Israel to display His glory as a light to the nations. To be “image bearers.” They also failed. But One would come to be the perfect Israelite, to purify the people, to bear their sins, to cleanse the meeting place between God and man, so that the idols could be conquered, and all could have access to God. 

Gentiles could then be brought into the family of God. Israel would fulfill her mission. And eventually, God would live with humans in a perfect state. There’s much more to fill in the gaps, but this is the story that NT Wright sees. It’s much more cosmic in nature. 

What metaphors surround Jesus’ death? I don’t have the line in front of me, but his repeated statement is that when Jesus tried to explain His death to the disciples, He didn’t offer theories, seminars, lectures, etc. He gave them a meal. And it wasn’t so much a redefinition of the Passover as filling it with new meaning. Thus, the Exodus from Egypt is interwoven in the passion narrative. The evil oppression of Pharaoh is seen not only in Pilate and Herod but in the demons, devil, and “powers” that have oppressed Jesus throughout His ministry. Yes, Israel has been in extended exile since the 6th century BC, but there are spiritual forces that overwhelm them even more. So Wright sees this as a freedom narrative.

But they went into exile because of their wickedness. So forgiveness of sins must play a role in their redemption. Jesus even says this at the meal. Cup = my blood for remission of sins. There are several interwoven themes in the gospels, and piecing them together can be difficult.

How does forgiveness of sins work in this line of reasoning? Wright relies heavily on Isaiah 40-55 (including of course, ch 53). This is the section that talks about the redemption of Israel, mentioning new covenant, restoration after exile, some servant songs, etc. Identifying the Servant is difficult, and I have another post on that. Wright seems to agree with my conclusions—identified with Israel sometimes, but also as opposed to Israel sometimes. Regardless of its/his identification, rescue will come from suffering. This quite clearly is substitution or at least representation. One will suffer instead of many. And instead of conquering, receiving glory or power, the path to victory is suffering and disdain.

Furthermore, this suffering brings forgiveness of sins. We still don’t get exactly how this works. We still don’t see “law court” imagery—imputation and all that. But we at least see forgiveness coming through suffering. All sin is gathered in one place and cleansed. The people are purified.

What was the purpose of sacrifices in OT? I had read about this before, but it was a good review. If we go back through Leviticus, etc, we see that sacrifices didn’t cleanse people but cleansed tabernacle/temple. Sins weren’t “forgiven” per se, but because these building were where God came to meet people, He could not come to a polluted meeting place. Particularly, He could not “sit” on a mercy seat (Ark of Covenant) that was stained. So many sacrifices were given to purify the tabernacle and the mercy seat.

When we think of Passover, most point to the lamb as sacrificial instead of killing the firstborn son. Well, maybe, but it’s not like Jewish fathers were going to kill their sons. God did require sacrifices and the tribe of Levi as the “firstborn,” but that’s a stretch to think these lambs during the 10th plague were true sacrifices. And even if so, there’s never any “sin” connected with Passover Lambs. 

The only sacrificial lamb that takes sins from people is on Day of Atonement. There’s two lambs. One is killed, and the blood is sprinkled in the sanctuary like normal. Then the priest places “sins of the people” on the other lamb. It’s not killed. It’s released into the wilderness. 

So it’s weird to think about sacrifices as not really forgiving sin. They cleanse the meeting place. 

What is propitiation/expiation/mercy seat? From Romans 3:21-26 and others. The word is translated as one of the three options above. Wright and the NET favor “mercy seat.” Other translations favor interpreting what the “mercy seat” was there for, as in the blood on the mercy seat “satisfied God’s wrath.” But putting Jesus forth as a “mercy seat” means that He is the new “meeting place” for God and humans. And sprinkling His own blood on the mercy seat means humans have access to God.

What is the “righteousness of God” (see Rom 3:21-26 and other passages)? Wright and Piper famously wrote back and forth books on this. Wright is much more New Perspective on Paul. Piper is much more traditional/forensic. Wright goes to Romans 1:16-17, saying “righteousness” is what God reveals in the gospel, basically that He is “righteous/just” and that “He has been just/fair/faithful.” He has done what He said He would do. Romans is not how someone gets saved. Romans is about how God has been faithful to His plan all along, including the family of promise (Israel). 

So Wright translates “righteousness” as “covenant justice,” showing that God has used Abraham’s family to extend blessings to all nations. Ultimately this meant the perfect Jew Jesus. And these blessings affect all (Romans 5:12-21). 

Faith in Jesus vs. Faithfulness of Jesus. Obviously another NPP issue, but even the NET says Wright and others are likely on track here. The Greek construction could be taken either way. We clearly need to have faith in Jesus for salvation, but our faith is meaningless if Jesus was not obedient and faithful to His mission. So it comes down to what the author is emphasizing in the passage. In many texts, “faithfulness of Jesus” is perhaps the better choice.

What was the point of the resurrection? From Romans 1:3-4, Jesus was declared to be the “son of God with power.” Without resurrection, we have nothing (1 Corinthians 15). Resurrection conquered final enemy of death. It proved Jesus was not a liar. It established the kingdom. It enabled the enthronement of the king in the ascension. Obviously an essential event.

What is the gospel message? Wright starts with 1 Cor 15:3-4 “Died for our sins and buried and rose again ‘according to Scriptures.’” But he goes back to Romans 1:3-4, where Paul says in v. 16 he’s not ashamed of the gospel and vv 3-4 probably show some of the themes of the gospel. Jesus died and rose in power. Wright laments that when we discuss the gospel or atonement we jump straight to Paul or Hebrews and leap over the Gospels. The story should enlighten our understanding of the event. 

The title over Jesus on the cross “King of Jews” was satire but all important. This is the message. The king has come. He is Lord. The kingdom is here. God’s new creation is expanding. Forgiveness of sins is possible and rescue can be found. God is restoring His world. Join Him. 

When does wrath of God come or did Jesus face God’s outpouring of wrath? This was one of the aha moments of the book. Paul says “Having been justified by faith we will be saved from wrath.” This seems to suggest wrath is future. Call it hell. Call it ultimate judgment. Call it whatever you want. Those who are not in Messiah face wrath. Condemnation. Damnation. All the verses we want to fit into that category. And we will not face that. That time or place or situation is where God unleashes wrath, or vindicates justice on the world’s corruption. (And we could tidy up the language to account for more views of wrath but I digress). 

But if the outpouring of wrath is future, what did Jesus endure? In the converse, if Jesus endured the outpouring of God’s wrath (so that we could be justified), what wrath is future? 

This requires an understanding of justification, in that the final verdict is at the end. We know this. We will stand before God. We will be justified, yet Paul says we “have been justified,” in that the final verdict has come early through faith. We are quite confident of God’s decision because of our faith. So we will be saved from wrath.

What then did Jesus “endure”? We can’t say separation from Father. That’s Trinitarian heresy. Could still be some punishment on our behalf, but this just shows the intricacies of the atonement. Wright would say He was cleansing the mercy seat, per se. He was opening access to the Father. No punishment. Suffering on our behalf. Taking away sins. Through suffering comes victory.

Why say soteriology and eschatology are linked? From Surprised by Hope and DTRB, it’s clear Wright’s main theme in writing is to prove that God’s mission is not to grab some souls, clean them up, and rip them out of this world. It’s to renew and restore all creation (i.e., this world) by rescuing humans and restoring them to the place of dominion and reign they had in the beginning. If we teach the former, then a gospel of I’m separated from God, God has to punish me, Jesus died for me, believe and go to heaven makes sense. And again, none of that is necessarily wrong. But if we understand that latter “gospel” story as more correct, we will emphasize the global church, the unity of the church, the restoration of all things, the mission of the church to rule and reign now, etc.  

John 14:1-4

Many Dwelling Places

“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. And you know the way where I am going.”

— ‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭1‬-‭4‬‬ 

One of those passages that make me like John’s gospel a little more. Of course, we usually hear this at funerals—almost exclusively at funerals, unless a pastor is preaching through John (or an end times study). But John LOVES double meanings and word plays.

Distress is actually a recurring theme towards the latter half of the book. This is the same emotion Jesus feels in 11:33; 12:27; 13:21, all of it revolving around the effects of sin/death and leading to the cross. Once He dies, the disciples would be “alone,” especially if they didn’t understand the plan. 

The mood of “believe” in v. 2 is debated (both occurrences). They could be statements or commands. Though we may want them both to be the same, see the NET note for extensive discussion on why it makes sense for the first to be a statement and the second to be a command (there’s even an option of their being questions, but that’s least likely). The point is that the Jews/disciples had no problem with YHWH. Committed followers. Yay, law. But the purpose and mission of Jesus was throwing them off. He is reminding them that belief in YHWH is identical to following Him. The two cannot be separated.

Oh, the mansions. Thank you, Latin. This may be one of the greatest mistranslations or misleading translations in the Bible. (I digress). Still some debate about monai. Some point to temporary resting places and make theological arguments out of that idea (whether purgatory or something else). But John’s favorite word is “abide” (meno). This word for dwelling place is the noun form of the verb, so Jesus is going to prepare many places to live/abide. There’s no reason to comment on the temporary/permanent nature of the abiding based on the word alone because either one is possible. Context will show this is probably a more permanent situation.

Father’s house: John has already redefined this term in chapter 2. Anytime we see “house of God” in Bible, it’s the temple. That’s where God lives. In ch 2., Jesus argues with leaders about making “Father’s house” a horrible place. They get offended by His words and say something about building the temple in 46 years. Jesus says, “Destroy this house and I will rebuild it in 3 days.” And then John defines the “house.” “He was talking about His body.

So Father’s house is code for Jesus’ body in John.

I.e., all of those times that Jesus says “abide in me” (it’s a lot), that’s described here in ch. 14 as “living spaces in the Father’s house”. Same concept. If you love Paul more, it’s the phrase “in Christ” all over the place.

I go to make a place—John uses the word “place” in Revelation 12:8 to talk about a place in heaven, so perhaps same concept. Wait, I thought this wasn’t heaven, but Jesus’ body.

This is where John’s double meanings come in. Jesus says throughout these 3-4 chapters “I’m leaving.” Coming/going are very common ideas. The question is, “Where is He going?” John 12:32; 13:33 answer that He is going to the Father. But the path He takes—His “way”—is the cross. So He’s also coming/going to the cross and returning to the disciples.

They can’t go with Jesus to the Father until He “returns.” Well, this could be the ultimate 2nd coming, but it’s also His return after resurrection. After He’s prepared the “way” and built many dwelling places in “Him”. 

They know the “way.” His way is the cross. Their way is in v. 6 after Jesus talks to Philip. “I am the way.”

Romans 8:1-4

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭1‬-‭4‬‬

 

8:1 does not connect directly to 7:14-25 but to 7:6. Otherwise, Paul is saying, “I am under sin, therefore, I am not condemned.” The thoughts do roughly connect to the end of chapter 7, though, because for Paul the  future deliverance in Jesus has been brought into the present reality because of the Spirit.

We love the idea of no condemnation. This is the future verdict brought in the preset. Ch 7 is all about living life in flesh—can’t be done. Ch 8 is living in Spirit. 

V. 2 Schreiner sees both uses of “law” as Mosaic. It is either applied by the Spirit or by sin and death. In ch 7 it is the latter; here it is the former. Most scholars disagree. They think the law is metaphorical in the first case, because Paul has just said the law cannot bring life in chapter 7.

The inability of the law has nothing to do with itself, but the weakness of human flesh.

God condemned sin by sending Jesus in human flesh (he did not sin obviously, but he was identified with all things human). “In the flesh” is probably a reference to the crucifixion. NT Wright says sin was drawn into one central location, i.e., the body/flesh of Jesus, as our representative

Likeness of sinful flesh—proper doctrine will say Jesus was fully human, but did not have sin. 

V. 4. Often taken forensically, that we do not have responsibility or role to play. God did everything for us objectively. Schreiner opposes this, saying Paul envisions actual obedience of Christians. This does not happen on their own, but they must still obey. Supported by 8:4b.

John 13

 Washing Feet (John 13)

​The previous passage contained more emphasis on the proper response to Jesus’ teaching and ministry, but the other two texts for this paper provide helpful insight as well. In John 13, the author records a unique account, in which Jesus takes the position of a slave and washes the disciples’ feet. The text (v. 1) states this was before the Feast of the Passover, and Jesus performed this act during and after supper (vv. 2-4). Though the problems of Johannine chronology are well documented, it seems clear that this event occurred in the upper room the night of Jesus’ betrayal and trial. The Lord desired to teach the disciples the importance of humble service, and He used this opportunity to exhort them to love others likewise (vv. 15, 17). After these things, Jesus indicated Judas would betray him and dismissed him from dinner. Jesus foretells of Peter’s denial and then begins a lengthy discourse (ch. 14–17) on His imminent death, the coming of the Paraclete, the mission of the disciples, and a prayer on their behalf.

​The dual nature of Christ’s act of service must be mentioned here in order for the reader’s response to surface. On the surface, Jesus taught His disciples to “wash the feet” of fellow disciples as a representation of Christ’s love among them. In fact, to love is classified as the “new commandment,” by which all will know Christ’s disciples (13:34–35). However, the author includes several linguistic features to prompt the reader to recognize a deeper meaning. First, the chapter begins by claiming Jesus loved His own even “to the end” (εἰς τέλος). This phrase could be taken adverbially, indicating the extent of Jesus’ love (i.e., “completely”). On the other hand, the noun is a cognate of τελέω, which the author repeats during the death of Christ (cf. 19:28, 30). In John 19:28, Jesus knows (εἰδώς; cf. 13:1) all things have been fulfilled (τετέλεσται) in order to fulfill (τελειωθῇ) the scripture and declares, τετέλεσται (19:30). The similar phrasing of Jesus’ recognition of the time and of a focus on completion causes most to see an intended connection between the two passages. In addition, John 13:4 says Jesus rosefrom the dinner, placed His garments aside (τίθησιν), and took up (λαβών) a linen cloth. The same sequence of verbs is used in John 10:18, when Jesus claims He has the power to lay down His life (θεῖναι) and to take it back again (λαβεῖν). This parallel is imperfect, though, because Jesus’ resurrection (i.e., taking His life back again) does not resemble the linen cloth of a slave who washes feet. However, it does seem clear that the author makes a subtle correlation between Jesus’ washing feet and dying for the sins of men. 

​Two final observations render this conclusion plausible. First, verse seven contains Jesus’ claim that Peter (and probably the others) would not understand Jesus’ actions until later. Yet, foot washing was a very common practice, and the disciples surely felt gratitude for Jesus’ extravagant portrayal of humility. They probably understood the importance of seeing their Lord and Teacher washing their feet, but they did not comprehend the full significance of Jesus’ death until after the resurrection. Second, when Jesus comes to Peter, and he refuses, Jesus comments, “Unless I wash you, you have no part in me,” (13:8). The response imagery implied from this verse is discussed below, but one should note the significance of accepting Jesus’ “washing.” If Peter had refused to have his feet cleaned, would he have been eternally banned from a relationship with Christ (and eternal life)? In addition, at this point, it seems that Judas may have had his feet washed. Does he have a “part” or “share” in Christ merely on the basis of clean feet? Both answers are a resounding no. Thus, it seems the author (and Jesus) are using this event to represent the effect of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The exhortation of loving one another gains a heightened force, for which the reader is directed below.

​What then is the response imagery employed in this passage? Though the concept of foot washing appears first in the passage, the action of “bathing” is referenced as occurring prior to washing one’s feet. In verse ten, Jesus says, “The one who has bathed (λελουμένος) does not have need except to wash his feet (or have his feet washed).” The term λούω was frequently incorporated into religious texts and contexts to discuss ritual acts or purity (e.g., Plut. Mor. 264d; Jos. Vita 11; Lev 15:11). In this sense, BDAG directly links John 13:10 with baptism, similar to the use of the word in Hebrews 10:22. Kittel reflects this viewpoint as well, stating, “He who is baptized is clean (v. 10, cf. 3:6).” After tracing the use of the term through religious and symbolic contexts, including Jewish, Christian, and pagan, Kittel acknowledges that baptism and ritual cleansing in the NT has a distinct purpose. It is drastically different from cleansings of other religions or cults. There is no magical or ritualistic overture; rather, baptism reflects God’s complete act of mercy in forgiving the believer. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to see a reference to baptism in this text because Jesus claims that the disciples are already clean (13:10; cf. 15:3 below). Their only responsibility is to have their feet washed because they are already clean (i.e., have already “bathed”). Surely, some of them were baptized by John the Baptist (cf. John 1:35–42), but the Christian rite of baptism was not instituted until after the death of Christ. At this point, none of the disciples have been baptized to identify themselves with the Lord. “Despite claims often made, it is improbable that any reference to Christian baptism is intended in this passage.” Therefore, the metaphor must refer to something else. 

The term can also reference the use of water ​to clean the body physically, both someone else’s (Acts 9:37; 16:33) or one’s own (2 Pet 2:22, with reference to a pig; cf. Herm. Vis. 1.1.2). In classical Greek, the word meant to wash the entire body, while νίπτω generally referred to washing parts of the body. In the first century, the government funded public baths to which the less wealthy would go for periodic cleansing. Thus, the word could refer to a physical cleansing or an act representing spiritual purity (or both). 

In John 3, Jesus’ tells Nicodemus that eternal life is given to those born “of water and the Spirit.” One could possibly see a reference to a physical birth and a spiritual birth here, but the parallel with Ezekiel 36:25-27 causes others to view one birth characterized by cleansing of the heart and indwelling of the Spirit. Carson particularly sees one referent from these two words, noting that “when water is used figuratively in the Old Testament, it habitually refers to renewal or cleansing, especially when it is found in conjunction with ‘spirit.’” He then points to Ezekiel 36, where water and spirit are explicitly connected to symbolize cleansing and God’s turning of His people’s hearts. In this way, the internalization of the law and coming of the Spirit fulfills to some degree the promise of a new covenant (Jer 31).This still does not fit the metaphor perfectly, because the act of “bathing” still demands “having feet washed.” If cleansing here refers to God’s act of washing an individual’s heart from sin and giving the Holy Spirit, what else does he need? What would foot washing imply? 

Perhaps an exact parallel in modern systematic theology does not exist with Jesus’ reference to “bathing.” John 9, though, tells how the blind man was healed by Jesus healed after putting mud on his eyes and telling him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The text says he left, washed, and was healed (9:7). His action illustrated his internal belief that Jesus was able to heal him. This may aid in finding a parallel for John 13. The disciples were clean in the sense that they believed in Jesus. They were still confused about His mission and His statements about death, but Jesus told them they will understand later (13:7). By following Jesus, the disciples were placing their trust, allegiance, and (in effect) their lives in the hands of their Teacher. “According to the Gospel [of John] the disciples are clean because of their life-association with Jesus (15:3).” Truly, in the sense of John 6, they were ultimately relying on Him for sustenance and life. They were disciples in the full sense, yet Jesus indicates one of them is not clean (Judas; 13:10–11). The fact that Judas is excluded from the “clean” group, although he was a disciple, supports this view that Jesus is referencing those who truly believed He was the Messiah, being sent by God. The question remains: If “bathing” is simply reliance on Christ or believing on Him, what else is needed as implied by the reference to foot washing (νίπτω)?

The important thing to notice in this passage is not that washing one’s feet is emphasized, but the allowance of an act to occur. That is, the responsibility of the disciples was not to wash their feet but to allow Jesus to perform the act of service (13:6–8, 10). Throughout the passage, Jesus explains that He must wash them, and the middle infinitive in verse ten could be a direct reflexive (i.e., “wash one’s own feet”). Yet, I agree with Wallace that this is more likely a permissive middle in light of this context. Thus, the one who has bathed merely must allow his feet to be washed (i.e., by Jesus). The consequence of refusing Jesus’ act is having no part in Him, which resembles an inheritance motif (cf. Luke 15:12). Thus, for one to deny Jesus is to reject association with Him, a right to blessings from Him, and ultimately the life He offers. Yet, these consequences seem awfully stark for not allowing Jesus to wash one’s feet. In addition, how is there any hope for modern believers?

​For these reasons, I see a clear parallel between Christ’s humble service and His death on the cross. The connections between John 13 and 19 have been listed previously, and that correlation explains how Christ can say such things in verses seven and eight. Barrett agrees, noting that the upper room discourse is preceded by this humble act. “There stands first a symbolic narrative, the washing of the disciples’ feet, which prefigures the crucifixion itself, and in doing so points the way to the interpretation of the crucifixion.” Allowing Christ to wash one’s feet implies the act of appropriating Christ’s sacrifice on his or her behalf. Belief in Christ as a person (i.e., “bathing”) must be followed by acceptance of His death (i.e., “foot washing”) or “receiving Christ” (13:20). The promise of having no part in Jesus if He does not wash one’s feet “indicates that the washing symbolizes allowing Jesus to serve his followers by embracing his death for them.” One possible difficulty with this parallelism is that the act of foot washing had to occur frequently because of the dirt roads of the first century. Yet, acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice is a one-time event, is it not? Perhaps the decision to begin believing in Christ occurs at a point in time, but the Johannine emphasis is on a constant state of believing in Jesus (cf. John 3:16; 6:47). Just as one must daily “feed” on the flesh of Christ (6:54–56), he must daily acknowledge his need for the death of Christ to cleanse him from his sin.

​Barrett has a slightly different interpretation because he takes the shorter textual variant of John 13:10 as original. The longer reads, “The one who has bathed has no need except to wash his feet,” while the shorter reading says, “The one who has bathed has no need to wash.” He acknowledges that both variants are anciently supported, and contextual factors should decide the original reading. Noting John’s love for synonymous terms, Barrett comments that the two words “bathing” and “washing” are synonyms in this passage, and that Jesus’ action in chapter thirteen (if reflective of His death) is essential to the disciples’ cleanliness. “It is of fundamental importance and indispensable—that is, it is not a secondary ‘washing’ subordinate to an initial ‘bath.’” The issue Barrett is combating is the notion that in religious contexts, purifying washings were common, and Jesus is telling the disciples that subsequent washings are not necessary, because His death both “bathes” and “washes” them. They are completely clean based on His death. With this decision made, Barrett does not need to speculate on the distinct referents, since both “bathing” and “washing” refer to appropriation of Christ’s death.

The problem with this interpretation is two-fold. First, Barrett acknowledges the custom that a guest would bathe at his own home and have his only his feet washed when arriving at the host’s home, and Barrett claims that “knowledge of such a custom as this might have caused the expansion” of the text. However, Barrett never deals with the implication of the custom. If it was known in the first century, then two sequential activities are still mentioned: an initial bath and a subsequent foot washing. In his interpretation, though, Barrett equates the “bathing” with Jesus’ washing feet. This works if Jesus is specifically combating Peter’s request for a full body washing. Yet, it seems unnatural for Jesus to reference a custom of bathing and then washing in order to deny the need to wash later. In addition, using the term νίπτω for an absolutely necessary event (13:8) and subsequent activities that are irrelevant seems problematic. Even with the shorter reading, it is much more likely that the terms λούω and νίπτω refer to different events. 

Second, his interpretation equates appropriation of Christ’s death with both “bathing” and “washing,” but Jesus pronounces the disciples as “clean” in John 13:10. Jesus has clearly not died yet, so the disciples could not have truly accepted the results of His death (i.e., “having bathed”). Furthermore, Jesus asserts the disciples do not understand what He is doing for them, indicating they are not accepting His death at this point. The act is a picture of a future reality, but the disciples have not internalized that reality at this point, allowing them to be “clean.” In addition, when this claim is repeated in John 15:3, the adverb “already” (ἤδη) acknowledges the present state of the disciples. It is difficult to see foot-washing (though it pictures future acceptance of Jesus’ death) as a sufficient component in making the disciples “clean.” On the other hand, the difference between Barrett’s (and Brown’s) view and my proposed interpretation is not too vast. None of us view “washing” as symbolic of baptism or some other ritual, and all acknowledge the supreme importance of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice. However, this is not the only responsibility of the believer mentioned here.

​Jesus tells the disciples that they must wash each other’s feet, following the example of their Master. On the surface, this does indicate an attitude of humility when viewing other believers and a willingness to serve them out of love for Christ. Yet, if the parallel between Jesus’ act here and His death is accurate, Jesus is calling for a more serious commitment to one another than the modern church often actualizes. Just as Jesus was willing (and did) lay His life down for the disciples, so also they were instructed to serve one another to the point of self-sacrifice and possible death. This is the deepest form of love (cf. 15:13) and indicates a strong sense of unity and commitment among the followers of Christ. Washing someone’s feet may be inconvenient, but being willing to die for him or her is the greatest example of love.

Role of the Son: Primarily John 13

​The previous pages have attempted to consolidate the role of the believer in the process of sanctification, and the same three passages also enable the reader to see Christ’s responsibilities. Obviously, the foundational act of Christ in any system of soteriology is His willingness to give His life for the world. Through His death and resurrection, redemption and forgiveness is possible. As mentioned previously, the phrasing of John 13:4, 12 probably symbolize the deeper significance of washing the disciples feet and point to the death of Jesus. When comparing other phrases such as εἰς τέλος (13:1) with John 19:28, 30, these connections are almost undeniable. In addition, John 6 mentions the self-sacrifice of Christ multiple times. First, Jesus claims that the “Son of Man” (i.e., Himself) came down from heaven (6:33) to give food that does not perish to the world (6:27). Later, this “food” that does not perish is defined as “life” (6:33). Finally, Jesus identifies His flesh as the bread that came down, and anyone who “eats” of Him will live forever. Clearly, the flesh and blood (vv. 55–56) refer to His death, indicating that the purpose of coming down from heaven was to give His life so that those who believe could receive true life. This constitutes doing the will of the Father (6:38).

​Yet, Jesus promises to perform more responsibilities for those who believe on Him. First, He will not cast out the ones whom the Father gives to Him (6:37; i.e., those who believe); nor will He lose any of them, except for Judas (6:39; cf. 17:12). Rather, those who believe on Him are depending on His “flesh and blood” to sustain them, resulting in a constant “abiding” or “residing” in Christ. Those who believe in Jesus are promised His reciprocated state of “abiding” (6:56). This is how none are lost, because the union between the believer and Jesus is impenetrable (cf. 15:4, 7). Life flows through Jesus (i.e., the vine) to the believer, resulting in fruit, but those who do not bear fruit prove they are not truly abiding in Christ (i.e., believing in Him), and He does not abide in them.

​Within chapters thirteen and fifteen, Jesus provides a powerful example of how believers should relate to one another. John acknowledges Jesus loved His disciples εἰς τέλος (“to the end” or “completely”), and he recounts the event of washing their feet (13:5, 8, 14). This is a humbling act of service, but previously noticed parallels point to a greater act of love: self-sacrifice to the point of death. Further, in chapter fifteen, Jesus says that He has loved the disciples (15:9, 12) and explains that the greatest type of love is laying down one’s life for his friends. Therefore, it follows that Jesus’ love for His disciples peaked in His death on the cross. Through loving the disciples in this way, Jesus kept the commands of the Father (cf. John 6:38-40 for conceptual parallel between the Father’s “will” and the Son’s responsibilities). Therefore, because of His obedience, Jesus has gained authority to command the disciples to love in the same way (15:12, 17) and to commission them to bear fruit (15:16). He has chosen them (15:16) for this specific purpose: to demonstrate Christ’s love to the world through love for one another.

​Finally, John includes in these discourses the notion that Jesus will raise up those who believe on Him on the last day (6:39, 40, 44, 54). This refers to the future resurrection and will conclude the salvation process. John does not discuss theological concepts of glorification or “new bodies,” but these passages (cf. John 11:20–27) comment briefly on Jesus role throughout the process of salvation until it consummates in eternal life with the Father. Thus, Jesus’ primarily responsibility was His willingness to die, but He is involved in the current relationship with believers, which will culminate in life forever.

Acts 3:12-26

 “When Peter saw this, he declared to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this? Why do you stare at us as if we had made this man walk by our own power or piety? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him. But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a man who was a murderer be released to you. You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses! And on the basis of faith in Jesus’ name, his very name has made this man – whom you see and know – strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all. And now, brothers, I know you acted in ignorance, as your rulers did too. But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets – that his Christ would suffer – he has fulfilled in this way. Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you – that is, Jesus. This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you. Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.’ And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’ God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.””

— ‭‭Acts‬ ‭3‬:‭12‬-‭26‬‬

There’s a lot packed into Peter’s sermon. We could dive into his audience, primarily Jews, and whether their relationship to salvation/“sin” is the same as the wider world. Is Peter’s accusation for the need of their “turning” identical to the broader call for repentance?

What exactly did the prophets foretell? Clearly the people weren’t ready for it. The groundwork may have been laid, but no one was expecting what actually happened, especially a beaten and crucified Messiah, and no one had resurrection on the radar (at least a single person rising before general resurrection). General resurrection wasn’t even developed until late in OT era.

So there’s heavy debate how much is in the OT and how much the NT authors read back into the OT. I definitely think the OT prophets knew of a coming Messiah. They knew of the age of peace. They saw a kingdom. We could look at all sorts of passages of blessings and promises. Looking back, it becomes much more clear what the plan was…which gives us pause when trying to predict our own future based on certain promises.

“Times of refreshing” are the Messianic age, when He reigns. Restoration of all things. Probably part of the already/not yet. We see some of this, but not the full expression. This has begun certainly bc of death/resurrection.

Whoever doesn’t receive Jesus is destroyed/cut off. This is where it’s weird to see if this is Jewish context or not. Cut off is exile language. Destroyed may force us to jump to “hell” language, but Peter may have other options in mind—not so much theologically or terminologically, but as a referent. 

NET focuses on plural “iniquities” twice in passage. Luke has emphasis in Luke-Acts on repentance. Not just the since of rejecting Jesus or crucifying Jesus, but all sins. His suffering conquered powers of death and all evil. 

Still working through own theology of atonement, which Peter touches on here, and crux of Christian hope, which is bodily resurrection. Occurs when Jesus appears. Peter mentions He it is necessary for Him to be in heaven (wherever that is, for now). But He will appear when all things must be restored. That is our hope. All things, including our bodies, restored, and Jesus’ reign finally experienced in full as king.