PASSOVER – By Darryl Henson

A Critique is given here


By: Darryl Henson Date: 3/15/03 Tape 712

Passover transcript by Darryl Henson
16-03-2004 (30 PAGES)


There has been some consternation and difficulty since last Passover when we
changed the order putting the foot washing after the bread and the wine for that service.
Some of you have done some study on that and I finally got around to making a study
myself to try to determine what is correct and what is biblical, what is God’s word on the
matter as opposed to our feeling, emotions or traditions. I want to go into the subject
today and see if we can make some sense of it in terms of scripture. Considering this subject, Matthew, Mark and Luke talk about the bread and the wine but do not mention the foot washing at all. John, on the other hand, speaks of the foot washing, but doesn’t mention the bread and the wine in the Passover service. How to do put all these together?

Let me give you the traditional thought or idea or the way we have been doing it
so that we know where we are coming from to begin with here. It was originally thought,
and I don’t know how Mr. Armstrong came up with this or who came up with this or how it was come up with, the foot washing should come at the very first of the service.
Perhaps it was due to the foot washing custom people had when someone came to their
house. They had sandals on perhaps and dirty feet so, the host would have someone wash their feet or the host himself or herself would wash their feet when they came into the house. It may have been assumed with that simple a situation that the foot washing
should come first and it may have been instituted in the modern Church on that basis and that basis alone.

I have a paper in my possession at the moment that I have been studying through
which argues for the traditional way we have been doing it. That paper presents it in this
form: they had the supper, the supper was finished, then they had the foot washing, when that was done Judas left and then they had the bread and wine without Judas there. After that they went on through the rest of John.

There are some major problems with this in the scripture itself. There are some
things that are hard to correlate when you read the scriptures. We are going to go through the scriptures so we have the Bible itself firmly in mind. I think part of the problem; if you will remember past years in which we had had the Passover service, is that we start out by reading in John. We might read some other scriptures first about Christ and His sacrifice etc. from Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 and various ones, but when we got down to the formal part of the Passover service itself, traditionally, we have gone to John 13.

That is where it starts talking about the foot washing. Then we do the foot washing and
from there we go to Matthew 26:26 and we read about the bread and then the wine and
we do those. Then we go to John again and read parts of Chapters 13 through 17, which
was Christ’s instruction to the disciples after the Passover service was done. That is the
way we have done it.

Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their accounts and it appears that it was
somewhat more like thirty (30) years later that the Apostle John wrote the book of John.
So, he is writing in retrospect, perhaps adding additional information the others left out.
We won’t know for sure when he wrote, but from what research I have done it appears to be about thirty years later.

If you were starting to read the Bible for the first time and let’s say you just had
the first five books of the Bible because you wanted to start at the beginning. Would you
read Deuteronomy first before Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus? I ask that for this reason;
you start reading in Deuteronomy about Israel and read about various things that
happened to the nation of Israel, what comes into you mind? Who is this Israel? Where
do these people come from? Who are they? You have these questions because you
haven’t read Genesis that talked about Abraham. You haven’t read the beginning of the
book because actually the first five books of the Bible are one book. You started at the
end and you have all kinds of questions. Did you ever read the last page of a novel first
or watch the last ten minutes of a movie first? If you come half way through or toward
the end of a movie or a novel you suddenly have all kinds of questions. Because they talk
about Joe, Bill and Amanda and you ask, who are they? You have no background to
know. I think this is self evident, we don’t have to explain a whole lot. I think the same
thing is true of the Gospel story. If you read John, who wrote thirty years later and
obviously needed to add something to the story the others had left out, you read what he
wrote first, then you are coming in in the middle of the story and it is confusing. What I
want to do it start with Matthew and proceed through in the order in which God wrote the Bible, in which it was canonized and set forth for us, Matthew, Mark, Luke and then
John. This will clear up a lot of problems.

Let’s go to Matthew 26:17 to start with.
“Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to
Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the

“Day of and feast of” are in italics, but is it speaking of first part of unleavened
bread or when the unleavened season was coming. The disciples came to Jesus and said
to him, where will you that we should keep the Passover? Let’s keep things in
perspective. What is the main event? The main event is the Passover, not the foot
washing. They didn’t say, where should we prepare for the foot washing? The subject is
the Passover.
“And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master
saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the
passover.” (Matthew 26:18-19)

He uses several verses to explain this. Why, in all of these gospel accounts do we
have a sketchy story of the Passover itself when there quite a complete explanation of
where they are going and what they are doing? I think that becomes important; that the
major emphasis here is the Passover.
“Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.” (Matthew

Notice it says “even” not night. That will become important later on. They sat
down at even. We all understand, I think, that the Passover was to be at “Ben Ha
Arbayim” in the twilight right after sundown and before dark. So, it was at the correct
time they sat down.
“And as they did eat, …” (Matthew 26:21)
They are now eating the Passover lamb. They were doing this according to the
way it had been done since Exodus 12. They all sat down and ate the unleavened bread
and the Passover lamb just as they had done before they came out of Egypt. This was a
meal that they were sitting down to eat.
“And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray me.
22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say
unto him, Lord, is it I?
23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish,
the same shall betray me.” (Matthew 26:21-23)

He is not singling out an individual here, as we shall see in the account in Mark.
He says, He sat down and one of the twelve would be the one who betrayed Him.
Matthew does not add that detail, Mark does. We will see that when we get there.
“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had
not been born.” (Matthew 26:24)

I want to interject a thought here and that is that the disciples, at this point, still
did not believe, did not grasp, and could not understand that Jesus Christ was going to
die. That becomes evident later on when Peter drew the sword and tried to fight so that
He couldn’t be taken. They just had not grasp, they did not get it that He was going to
die. They thought He would be there. There are other scriptures that show that.
So, He brings up a matter of betrayal. He says, I’m going to be betrayed. What is
He about to do? He is about to give them the bread and the wine, which represent His
body and His blood shed for mankind, for all of us. He is prefacing His remarks and the
institution of the new symbols for Passover by saying; I’m going to be betrayed. In other
words, once I’m betrayed, I’m going to die. That was His purpose here and that one of
them would do the betrayal.
“Then Judas, which betrayed him, (Who ultimately went ahead and did the
dirty deed) answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast
said.” (Matthew 26:25)

We will see later on that the rest of the disciples didn’t get it. They still didn’t
know who it was even though Judas had made this comment. There were a lot of things
that sort of went over their heads. Have you noticed that when you read through the
Gospels? Christ would say a lot of things and they would go completely over their heads.
They just wouldn’t get it. That happened a lot of times. Now Verse 26:
“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it,”
There is an important point that you need to get here. As I said, the paper I have
in hand says that they ate the Passover meal, and then He picked up some more bread and wine and had the change of symbols. Now is that what you Bible says? Read it
carefully. “And as they were eating” eating what, the Passover supper, that is what they
sat down to eat. Jesus took bread, and blessed it and broke it and gave it to the disciples
and said,
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
So, as they were eating He changed the symbols. It wasn’t afterward. It is
argued, from human logic, that they wouldn’t have gotten the point if He had done it
during the meal, so He had to have done it afterward as a separate thing. That is just
human reasoning. What does the scripture say? It says, “As they were eating” the
Passover supper, He took the bread, broke it and said, “this is my body” and also the cup.
Scripture says that occurred while they were eating not afterward. I don’t see that is a
problem with them not getting it. In fact, it makes sense to me that if they are eating
along, they are having some wine they drank with Passover, they were having unleavened bread, they were eating the lamb that Christ takes a piece of the bread and says, Look, I’m going to die. This bread will represent My beating and My body that is going to be beaten for you. Then He took the wine and says, this wine, from now on, is going to represent My blood that is going to be shed and I am going to die for you. Now, He may not have said it in those words. I think if I had been eating the Passover since I was a child with my Hebrew family and maybe I was thirty/forty years of age, so I had eaten the Passover many many times, I think if the Master, the Teacher, had stopped in the middle of that meal and said, Look this represents My body and My blood, I don’t think I would have missed that. I think I would have recognized this is something different.

This isn’t the normal Passover meal I have had for the last forty years; this is something
different. They obviously got the point, regardless, because it is written in the gospel that
that is what they would henceforth.
Let’s go on, Verse 28,
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s

He says, I’m not going to drink wine again until then. He hasn’t had any since.
“And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of
Olives.” (Matthew 26:30)

Matthew doesn’t give us a great deal of detail does he? We have picked up some
things here. The Passover is the main thing and that He changed the symbols during the
meal. Remember that, it is important.
Let’s go to Mark 14.
“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his
disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou
mayest eat the passover?
13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into
the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow
14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The
Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with
my disciples?
15 And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there
make ready for us.
16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had
said unto them: and they made ready the passover.” (Mark 14:12-16)

They made the arrangements to be done in a guest chamber; a large upper room
and they got everything ready for the Passover service.
“And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.”
Here again it is evening, not night. He comes with the twelve.
“18 And as they sat and did eat,…”
They were sitting down. They were eating the Passover meal as they always had
done all through their lives and as Christ had done.
“ Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall
betray me.”

They betrayal had not yet occurred. He is saying this a something that is a future
event. He says, One of you sitting here, one of you twelve will betray me.
“19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one,
Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
20 And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth
with me in the dish.” (Mark 14:17-20)

As they were eating and dipping their bread in the dip, He said it would be one of
them, one of those twelve. This again is happening as they ate.
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.” (Mark 14:21)

Now, emphasized again, Verse 22,
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and
gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.”

We will see, when we get to Luke, that Judas was still there. They were eating
and He broke the bread during the eating. It doesn’t say it here, but we will see it in Luke
that Judas was still there when the bread and the wine, as the new symbols of the
covenant were given. Verse 23
“23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to
them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is
shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until
that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of
Olives.” (Mark 14:24-26)

That is the end of Mark’s explanation of the order of what happened. He made
the same important points Matthew had made.
Now, let’s go on to the book of Luke. (Luke 22)
Luke is somewhat different. He goes through again with the explanation of
getting ready to do the Passover. Verse 14,
“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover
with you before I suffer:”
He explained again that He is going to suffer. He is going to die.
“For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled
in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it
among yourselves:” (Luke 22:16-17)

Notice He does not mention someone there going to betray Him as yet. He
mentions it further on down. He did not mention it in the same places that Matthew and
Mark had mentioned it. The writer of this paper that I have, assumed that Luke must
have gotten things out of order. That he didn’t get the order correctly because it
apparently contradicts Matthew and Mark. If I see something in the Bible that looks to
me like a contradiction, what am I to do? Am I to assume that the Bible is written
incorrectly? Or, should I begin to examine my thinking and my theories and find an
answer that will make all the scriptures come together and fit? Scripture cannot be

This author said the foot washing had to come first before everything else and that
Judas was gone by the time they did the bread and the wine. So, when he found Luke
said something different. He came up with a theory that Luke was not an eyewitness and
he had to get his story from someone else because Luke wasn’t there, Mark was not there
either, just Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of this event this night. The assumption
was made that Luke must have gathered this information and got his facts backward.
That he gave the right events but got them all garbled up in sequence. I have a serious
problem with that kind of thinking. When someone says that Paul wasn’t fair or he was
unbalanced or Luke got his facts all garbled up, what am I to do? How am I to think?
How can I trust Luke about anything now? If he garbled this up, what else did he mess
up, anything else in the book of Luke? He wrote the book of Acts also apparently. What
did he get all garbled up in there? Can I trust the book of Acts or is it correctly written?
Once we begin to question the authors of the Bible; we begin to question God.
Do you remember what God told Samuel? They don’t question you Samuel, they
question Me. It is Me they have the problem with. God says in Psalm 12:6 that the Bible
is purified seven times. His Word is true; the scripture cannot be broken and we have to
live by every word of God. I submit to you there has to be a different explanation. Luke
could not have gotten the sequence wrong or God would not have included that in
scripture. This is a problem that is apart from translation errors. You had the Hebrew.
You had the Greek. There may have been a few things added to the scriptures
somewhere and we have to sort those out because they weren’t part of the original
scripture. Or, perhaps translating into English or Spanish, from the Hebrew or the Greek
someone may have made an error. You can to back to the Hebrew or the Greek and find
out. But, to say that Luke was a poor researcher and talked to different people, since he
wasn’t an eyewitness, got a garbled story about what happened to me throws that right in the face of God. If there is one error like that, then how many more are there? The first
thing you know you simply cannot trust God’s Word. I stake my life on this book. I
have to believe God wrote in here what is right. Therefore, I cannot say I have my theory
on how this all was and since Luke seems to disagree; Luke must have gotten his facts all
backward. I don’t buy that; I don’t buy that at all.

Let’s go here in Luke. He sat down to eat the Passover in Verse 14 and in Verse
16 He says,
“16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be
fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it
among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the
kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of
me.” (Luke 22:16-19)

He mentions the cup twice here. I think what He is doing the first time He
mentions the cup is to say, Here we have this wine and drink the wine, but I won’t do it
again until I drink it again with you in my kingdom. He said that in Matthew and Mark
too, but a little more detail is added here. That is separate from, I will agree, to changing
the symbols because He does that right afterward here. But, that does not mean that the
meal is finished because Matthew and Mark clearly said it was as they were eating. As
they were eating He said, here have some of this wine. I won’t drink it again until I come
back. So, it was a general drinking of wine in that sense. It shows the meal was still
going on and wine could still be had. In Verse 19 then He changes gears and gives the
symbols the same as He did in Matthew and Mark.
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto
them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance
of me.”

He is saying this is something you are to do from now on in remembrance of me
because I am going to die.
“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)

The King James says, “likewise also the cup after supper”. The word translated
supper here is meta. It is actually a verb. It is not a noun “supper”. It is a verb in the
Greek, which means, “eating”. So, He says, Likewise also the cup after eating the bread,
because “the bread” here is the antecedent. He has just given them bread and changed
the symbols. Now, after eating the bread, He likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. So, they ate the bread
and He likewise gave the wine.

Notice Verse 21,
“But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”
The bread and the wine symbols have just been changed in Luke’s account. Then
He says, the hand of him that betrays me is with me, present, present tense, on the table.
Judas was still there after the bread and the wine in Luke’s account. It is in scripture,
therefore it is inviolate and cannot be broken and has to be. Then He says,
“And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto
that man by whom he is betrayed!
23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that
should do this thing.” (Luke 22:22-23)

Do you think it was possible it is possible Christ may have mentioned this twice
during that supper? That as Matthew and Mark said, when He sat down He said
somebody was going to betray Him. They questioned who? Then as dinner went on, as
they were eating, He changed the symbols and may have made mention of it again.
Because He knew they didn’t get it, they didn’t understand. He said, the man who is
going to betray me has his hand right here on the table. He may have brought the subject
again. That being the case, Matthew and Mark are right and Luke is right. Maybe Luke
didn’t mention the first time Christ brought this because it was in Matthew and Mark.
When he wrote his account he mentioned something that was part of the conversation
perhaps. Now that is speculative to some degree, I realize it doesn’t say in here that He
mentioned it once and then He mentioned it again. But, that would clear up any
discrepancy and any so called contradiction in the scripture. Then Luke adds,
“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be
accounted the greatest.” (Luke 22:24)

I suppose it might have gone something like this, there is one of you going to
betray me. They all began to wonder, who is it? Then someone said, I can’t be me, I’m
faithful. In fact, I’m the best one here. Somebody else said, No you are not, I am. We
know they were prone to do this kind of thing, to politic who would sit on the right hand,
who would sit on the left hand of Christ. This wasn’t strange and unusual. They had a
lot of competition between and among themselves.
“And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called
26 But ye shall not be so:…” (Luke 22:25-26)

Then He went on to explain how they were to govern. That is the kind of talk that
would lead to Christ saying, Wait a minute let’s all pull our shoes off here and I’ll wash
your feet to humble Himself and show them that they needed a lesson in humility.
Would Christ have gotten His priorities all messed up? Ask that question.
All right, you have been keeping the Passover for years. The food is prepared, the
food is hot, the food is ready to be eaten and you are going to get into an argument about
who is the greatest before you ever even eat? I don’t think so. I have been to many
Thanksgiving dinners with family. I have been to many dinners where things got out of
hand and relatives started fighting with each other. In most cases, we wait until after
dinner to do that don’t we? How many people start fighting before Thanksgiving dinner?
No, you come and everybody is kind of keeping it in check, all the old animosities and
jealousies that are in a family, and they wait until the pumpkin pie is served. They get
their bellies full before they start to fight usually. Maybe if somebody comes to the party
drunk it starts off right away, but normally we wait until we get our tummy full because
we like to eat and then we start to fight, not before. That is just the way things go.
Maybe that has no impact on this at all, but I do not believe Christ is one who would ever
get His priorities mixed up. He came there to eat the Passover and very specifically that
one night to change the symbols of Passover forevermore. They would no longer eat the
Passover lamb, but they would take the bread and the wine. I can’t for a moment fathom
that He would have tolerated anything interrupting that. That was the main purpose.
That was the main event. That is what they were there for. He would not have allowed
the strife and confusion to start. If they had started He would have said, wait a minute we have something more important here to do. Would He have allowed things to get out of control to the point that He would have had to stopped what He was doing and done a
foot washing and then gone back to the Passover meal and to explaining the new
symbols? I don’t think so. You and I often do C and D before we do A and B. We stay
away from A because it is the most difficult and the one that needs to be done the most.
We will fool around with D or C and finally get around to A when we have to quit
procrastinating. But, Christ isn’t like us. He would have gone in, sat down at that
Passover, started eating and then during the meal before anything else got out of hand, He would have said, “this is My body, this is My blood”. He would have taken care of the A priority first. Later on He would have dealt with wrong attitudes. We will see that
symbolism now more clearly as we go on.

We have seen Judas was still at the table in Luke’s account after the bread and the
wine. Is that clear? It is just a simple statement of fact. It is not a translation problem or
anything else, just a clear statement of fact.

Let’s go on to the book of John 13 and see what John has to say. Remember
again, he wrote this probably about 30 years after the others had written. Why would he
not mention the bread and the wine? It was the most important part of the Passover
service, right? He doesn’t even really talk about that. He goes right to the foot washing.
It is speculated in this paper that I have, that maybe these disciples didn’t get the picture
about the foot washing. They got the bread and the wine change, but for some reason
they didn’t understand that Christ wanted the foot washing to be a part of the Passover
service from then on. This maybe corroborated in I Corinthians 11 where Paul jumps all
over the Corinthians because they were eating the Passover meal and not doing things the way they were supposed to do. He corrects them on that and says, you are not to eat the Passover meal. If you are going to have dinner that night, do it at home. Don’t come
here for Passover dinner. You are here to do the bread and the wine. Paul makes that
very clear. But, Paul does not mention foot washing there either. So, as this paper
speculates and I think that it may a true speculation, they didn’t understand they were to
do the foot washing as a part of the ceremony from then on. Paul was among the Gentile
Churches and he didn’t maybe know it either. But, when John writes 30 years later he is
writing, not to rehearse what has already been written by three Gospels, which were in
hand, but to give additional information they simple did not have. That speculation
makes sense to me. Because, and partly because John picks the story up right where
Luke left off. Luke gave us more detail than Matthew and Mark. John gives us more
detail about something else than does Luke. Let’s read it here in John.
“Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour
was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having
loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.” (John

My King James says in Verse 2 “And supper being ended, “. That is a poor
translation from the Greek. In English we have “past, present and future” as tenses. The
Greek has a lot more tenses and they use the “ariast” (sp.) tense and it has several
different divisions of how it is used. This is the ariast tense here. It should read
something more like, “And supper continuing or supper being in existence or while
supper was taking place”. It wasn’t past, it wasn’t future necessarily and it wasn’t
completely present. It was a continuing action in other words. That is want the ariast
tense in the Greek basically is all about. There is more detail, but that doesn’t concern us.
In other words, to use the words, and supper being ended, is not the answer to this
problem. This is the only place really where the Greek makes much difference. Supper
being ended is not necessarily a correct translation. Many Bibles translate it that way;
others do not. It is a very difficult thing to go from Greek to English when the ariast
tense is involved. It really doesn’t matter and the writer of this paper agreed that you
don’t need this explanation. It is the course of events as written by the Apostles that
determines this, not the Greek on that particular word.

We can read it then as “And supper continuing or being in existence the devil
having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;” (John 13:2)
Now, notice again from Luke that after the bread and wine; Judas was still there. His
hand was still on the table. So, the bread and the wine are done at this point and Judas is
still here.
“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,
and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and
girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’
feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.” (John 13:3-

He rose from supper. At some point here He got up from supper and laid aside
His garments and took a towel and girded Himself. After that He pours water into a basin
and began to wash the disciples’ feet and wipe them with the towel. What caused this?
What spawned it? We already read in Luke 22 they had the bread and wine, Judas was
still there and Luke mentions that a betrayal is going to take place. Then it says there was
also a contention about who was the greatest. I would think that that kind of contention
would be what would indicate to Christ that is was time to teach these fellows a lesson.
So, He began to do a foot washing ceremony. Verse 6,
“Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost
thou wash my feet?
7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but
thou shalt know hereafter.
8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him,
If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and
my head.
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but
is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all
clean.” (John 13:6-11)

Peter was still not getting it. Peter said he wanted to be with Christ, he wanted to
part of him, no question there. Notice He had not been fully betrayed yet. He knew who
would betray Him. And that the betrayer was in the foot washing and we know that
Judas was also there after the bread and the wine from Luke.
“So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and
was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to
wash one another’s feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
(John 13:12-15)

He is telling them here, even though they maybe didn’t get it, that every year they
were to wash one another’s feet. John is adding this because Matthew, Mark and Luke
apparently did not get it, Peter apparently did not get it and later on Paul, who was taught of Christ left it out. Maybe Christ didn’t tell him; maybe He wanted John to correct this later on. That could be like Pentecost in the modern era. It could be like the calendar in the modern era, something He didn’t correct then, but corrected later. John was the one He used to correct it.
“If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” (John 13:17)
I John 2:6 says we should walk as He walked. Do as He did. We will get to the
symbolism here in a bit because it is very important. He doesn’t mention the bread and
the wine at all, but goes right to the foot washing and talks about it because that is
something they may not have been doing. Verse 18,
“I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the
scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his
heel against me. (Quoting Psalm 41:9, speaking of Judas.)
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe
that I am he.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send
receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and
said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” (John

He may have even mentioned it again here. He mentioned it several times. It was
sort of theme through the evening because is was about to happen and they still weren’t
getting it.
“Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus
loved. (John is writing this so he is being tactful about it. It was he.)
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should
be of whom he spake. (Peter was scared to ask at this point, to he said, you
ask Him.)
25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.
And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That
thou doest, do quickly.” (John 13:22-27)

We already know from Luke that the bread and the wine symbols had already
been changed. So, when He gives this sop to Judas, actually hands it to him, that is
Judas’ signal to go do the dirty deed. Satan entered into him then. Satan had been
influencing Judas before hand. Remember Judas had already made a deal with the
government to betray Christ. He just hadn’t done it yet. That becomes important. He
just hadn’t done it yet. He hadn’t turned Him over; he hadn’t gone through with the deal.
“Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.”
(John 13:28)

Did I say they still weren’t getting it? They didn’t understand this betrayal and
death or the body and the blood. They didn’t get it.
“For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus
had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast;
or, that he should give something to the poor.” (John 13:29)

They may have discussed it among themselves. Why did He give that to Judas?
He had already said, whomever I give the sop to, it is he. So, He gives him a sop and
says go to what you are going to do and they still didn’t get it. John makes a very clear
point of that, they weren’t getting it. He took the sop and left with no delay.
“And it was night” Verse 30. When Judas is given the sop and leaves it is night.
The word there in the Greek is nuv and it means when people go to bed at night or it can
even mean midnight. It certainly does not mean twilight. If you had the foot washing
first, this presents a tremendous problem. When was the Passover to be eaten? Twilight,
right after sundown until dark. The foot washing in John has transpired Judas is still
there; everything has been done that was done. Remember, from Luke, Judas also ate of
the bread and the wine. So, He didn’t just have the foot washing early and leave because
it would have been twilight. He went through the bread and the wine and all these other
things just as Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us, then he was given the sop and
immediately he left and it was night time. When he left the foot washing had been done
according to John. He left and it was nighttime. So, everything that has to be done in
twilight had already occurred. After the foot washing he was given the sop and left. If he
had left at the beginning of this whole thing Passover wouldn’t at the right time. Do you
follow that? It couldn’t have been at the right time because it was already night when he
left after the foot washing and Passover was still ahead to be done according to the way
we have done it before and the theory in this paper. It couldn’t be that way. Maybe that
is why John makes this point that he left immediately and it was night. If he had left at
the beginning it would have still been twilight. He didn’t leave at the beginning. He left
after it was night after everything had happened.

John was correcting some things and giving some fill in information. If John had
been adding some information that the others had left out, thirty years later, and he was
going to explain that the foot washing should come at the very beginning, don’t you think
that he would have explained that? I think so. He would had to have written this from
the standpoint that they were taking the bread and the wine, but Christ intended for you to do the foot washing before that. But, that is not the way he approaches it. In following
the context, he approaches it right from where Luke left off. The bread and wine were
done, Judas was still at the table and they began to fight among themselves about who
was important, after the bread and the wine were done. John picks it right up there and
goes through the foot washing, which was a result of the fighting they were doing and
then He hands the sop to Judas and Judas leaves in the night time. That is the context as
it follows through John 13.

Now, let’s look at the symbolism. Christ would keep priorities right. From
Exodus 12 up until this time the Passover lamb had represented what? The Christ to
come, the lamb that would be ultimately killed for all mankind. It was a very powerful
thing. Christ had been slain from the foundations of the world. In other words, it had
been set in stone before man was ever created that Christ would have to come and die for mankind because God knew ahead of time they would sin. The symbols were changed during this meal that we are talking about. It was done as they ate to emphasize the importance. Had they finished the meal the lamb had all been relegated to bones and put away then found some bread and drug up some wine from some place and started all over again it would have lost a lot of its power. But, to do it right in the middle of the
Passover meal was the time to do it. It was the subject at hand not something to be done
later. As they were eating that lamb, picking the meat off those bones, He said, this is my
body. This wine is my blood. I am dying for you. They were sitting there with meat in
their hands or on their plate when He said this represents My body. That had to have
been, at that point, a very powerful lesson for them. That is when the scripture says it
happened. So, He changed the symbols during the meal as they ate to emphasize the
importance of it. Because they knew the lamb was the important part of the Passover
meal. It always had been since Exodus 12.

There is a flow in the Bible of everything that is in the Bible that puts God first,
not second. Is there any argument with that? God is always primary. God is always
first. I think you can prove that from thousands of scriptures. Look at the Ten
Commandments for instance. Does it stress the relationship between man and man first?
Get your relationship with man right then you can have a relationship with God. Is that
the way the Ten Commandments are written? No, the first four have to do with our
relationship to God. Get God first, and then the six last ones have to do with our
relationship with man. The same was true of the offerings. Leviticus 1 and 2, the burnt
offering was to God that was followed by a meal offering, which was the relationship of
man to man. Matthew 22:36,
“Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
(Matthew 22:36-40)

Now both are important, but the first and the great is our relationship with God.
That has to be addressed first always. Matthew 10:37,
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of
me.” (Matthew 10:37-38)

In other words, I am first. Your family, your wife, your children and everything
else are secondary to Me. People get a little confused now and then and say, should I be
in subjection to my husband? Absolutely, but remember your first husband is Jesus
Christ. You submit to him and to your human husband second. If there is any question,
you obey God rather than man.

Christ is our bridegroom to be and our first allegiance, as it shows here is to Him, not to man, not to family, not to anybody in our family. Luke 14, you may not see how this fits yet, but I will show you.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple.
27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my
disciple.” (Matthew 10:37-38)

A better translation is “love not less by comparison”. It is pretty clear that our
relationship with God has to come before our relationship with man. That is a pattern
that is throughout the Bible. There is no way of getting around it. In other words,
without God nothing has meaning.

Let’s use an example of perhaps Mother Teresa. I don’t know what all the ends
and outs of her relationships were, but apparently she was a woman who gave of herself
to others and her relationships with people apparently were pretty good. What good is
that going to do her in the first resurrection? Absolutely none, she is not going to be in
the first resurrection. She never had a relationship with God; therefore her good
relationships with people will do her no good because she didn’t have a relationship with
God. She will have an opportunity to develop a relationship with God in the second
resurrection. It doesn’t matter how good things are with men on this earth or with our
family. There are good Mormons who are good family people and good Methodists that
are good family people. What good does it do them in the resurrection? None, because
they do not have a relationship with God. Only after a relationship with God is
established do our relationships with men mean anything. That we have to understand.
The bread and the wine are primary in our relationship with God, for healing, for
forgiveness of sin, for eternal life. What is more important that eternal life? Let’s look
around at each other, you cannot resurrect me and I canoe resurrect you. Only God can
resurrect us when the trumpet sounds, only God. So, our relationship with Him is far
more important than any of our relationships here.

I submit to you that the foot washing was added because of transgressions.
Remember, God had His law and men transgressed. Jeremiah 7 tells us the sacrifices
were added because of transgression.

Christ had humbled Himself mightily before these disciples. He said, this bread
and this wine represent my body and my blood shed for you. I am going to die for you.
How much more humble can you be than that? You don’t get any more humble than that.
I’ll die for you. I think it is important the Judas was there for that. The reasoning has
been that Christ would not have offered Judas the bread and the wine. I say why not?
Did He come to save the righteous or did He come to save sinners? Was His blood shed
for the righteous or for sinners? It was shed for sinners. Judas was contemplating a very
major sin and had already set in motion. In fact, he just hadn’t carried through. One of
the most important lessons you and I can ever learn is that Jesus Christ died for sinners of whom you and I are some, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Therefore, this lesson to Judas by including him with the bread and the wine is precious
to you and me because we have betrayed Christ. We have sinned and the penalty of sin is
death. I killed Christ just as much as those Jews did. I just did it later. Every sin I sin is
another drop of His blood on the ground. He is willing to forgive Judas, you and me, so
He included him. He didn’t give him His spirit that wasn’t being offered yet. But, He
was saying my blood is being offered even for you a sinner, you are not all clean because
He knew of Judas. He also had him there for the foot washing. How humble can you get
when you have your enemies sitting there who is about to betray you and you kneel on
your knees before him and wash his feet. That is pretty humble. He humbled Himself
first before His Father by saying Father I will die for these people. Then He humbled
Himself before those people secondarily and said I am dying for you and I will wash your feet. Powerful symbolism! God always comes before man, but man always tries to put himself before God doesn’t he? We in our reasoning would reason we need to humble ourselves before each other first and then go to God. It doesn’t work that way. When you first come into the Church, what do you start learning? When you first come into the Church do you develop a relationship with man first or with God first? When you got booklets from Herbert Armstrong from Pasadena twenty, thirty or forty years ago, were they all about how to love your neighbor? No, they were all about defining who God is, what God wishes of us and when God’s Sabbath is. All the truths we learned from the Bible were about God. Once we understood those basic doctrines and began to have a relationship with God we were invited to Church. We got our relationship right with God first and were baptized so that we received His Holy Spirit and then we began to develop relationships with people. We didn’t learn about people ahead of time; we learned about God first. Then when we came to Church we began to meet the people, we began to know them. That is the symbolism all the way through the Bible. When it comes to the Passover service, we get it right with God, Jesus Christ and His sacrifice first, and then we have the foot washing, which represents our relationship with men. We do it in the same order the Ten Commandments are written. If you do it the opposite of that you get the symbolism of the whole rest of the Bible backward. Somebody might bring up
Matthew 5, so let’s go back there.
“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to
thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24)

Does this mean we get all human relationships right before we ever approach
God? That would be against what I have just discussed as being the symbolism that is
the flow of the Bible.

Let’s go back and look at that more carefully. “Therefore if you bring you gift to
the altar” this implies that you already have a relationship before God. That you already
go before the altar of God that you have been there before. Then He says, while you are
there you remember you have a problem with a brother, He says, go resolve that. It is
clear in Matthew 25 where it says if I am blind or naked or in need and you have done it
to others you have done it to me. He shows that our relationship to each other is
important to our relationship with the Father and the Son. But, our relationship with the
Father and Son comes first. In I John 1:3, “That which we have seen and heard declare
we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us and truly our fellowship is with the
Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” He says you can have fellowship with us, but
truly, most importantly, primarily your relationship is with the Father and His Son.
Verse 7, “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another”. You have to be walking in the light of God’s way before you can have
fellowship one with another. There again it shows the order of symbolism here. This is
written by John who wrote John 13. The relationship with God comes before the
relationship with man.

This whole thing was about the Passover. It was about changing the symbols to
Jesus Christ’s body and blood. Only secondarily does evolve to the relationship between
man and man. You have to get the priorities right. I am sure Christ had His priorities
right. He would have not have reversed the symbolism and tried to straighten their little
problems between themselves before showing that through Him and through His Holy
Spirit ultimately is the only way you are going to solve human problems anyway. These
human problems in the Los Angeles Basin, are they going to be solved without God? No
way on earth. It is going to take Him and His ruler ship and His rod of iron to straighten
this out. God is going to have to come before man can get his problems solved.
That is the order of the symbolism as it should be and as the rest of the Bible is

There are basically two parts to the Passover. The first is Christ’s part. He shows
that by showing that His body was represented and His blood by the bread and the wine.
That He would die for us, that He would bleed. He humbled Himself before His Father
and mankind. Then we have our part in the Passover and that is to humble ourselves
before each other, once our relationship with God is right, by washing each other’s feet.
Judas went through the whole thing. Luke clearly states that he was there after the bread
and wine was done. John is the only one who gives an account of the foot washing. He
pick up where Luke left off and he said when the foot washing was finished, Judas was
given the sop and he left immediately and it was night. Everything had been done to that
point, twilight was over, Passover had been eaten, the bread and the wine had been
changed, the foot washing had occurred and after the foot washing He gave him the sop
and he left and it was night.

I don’t see any other way to do it than to have the bread and the wine and then
the foot washing. Let’s get it right with God and then let’s work on getting it right with
man. That is what the whole Bible is about and that is what the Passover is really about,
getting it right with God. You can’t have right relationships with people that will do you
any good in the long run unless you have your relationship with God right. I truly think
that if you put Matthew, Mark, Luke and John together in the way God has written them
in the Bible you get the whole picture. If you put John first and you get all mixed up
about the foot washing being first, which clearly it cannot be if it was night time when He finished the foot washing, gave Judas the sop and he left. If you get the cart before the
horse, then you have problems going back to the other. If you start with John who wrote
30 years later and then go back to Matthew it is out of sequence and doesn’t work that
way. I feel from the information before me at this point that we actually did it right last
Passover, even though we may have done it for the wrong reason because of an English
translation. I think God wanted it changed and now that we have had a chance to look
into the matter the Bible, apart from that one translation, supports doing it this way. That
is the way we are going to do it this year and probably henceforth unless someone can
show me where this is wrong. I don’t think it can be done at this point because it has
become very clear. If some have a problem with that or conscience with it and they want
to keep the Passover on their own, I don’t have a problem with that if the want to get the
order different. You have to go according to your knowledge and your conscience. But,
to the best of knowledge to this point we have done it wrong for decades just as we kept
the calendar wrong for decades. I kept Pentecost on Monday for decades and did it
wrong. Once it was corrected I started doing it right. I have to admit to you, I did it
wrong all these years. Now it is time to straighten it out and do it right according to the
scriptures. The scriptures cannot lie. Luke did not get his story all fouled up. If you take
in order as it was written, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and add one story to the next
adding detail as you go there simply are no contradictions. If you start in John and go
backward then you start running into contradictions because you have it out of order.
When my theory doesn’t fit the Bible what am I supposed to do? Say the Bible is
wrong or change my theory? In this case, my theory was wrong. Our theory was wrong.
So, I am going to follow scripture because I am subject to human reasoning, to human
logic and sin, but this Word is inviolate. Scripture cannot be broken. God would not
have canonized it this way if it had been wrong and if Luke had gotten his facts all
messed up. That opens a can of worms you and I simply do not want to open because
then you can doubt anything the Bible says because the writer might have gotten it
garbled up. Martin Luther did that with the book of James. He says it says there that we
have to live by faith. He wanted to live by faith alone without obedience so he added the
word “faith alone” to the book of James. He thought James must have left that out. Later
it talks about works and doing in the book of James, so what did Luther do? He said the
book of James is an epistle of straw, throw it out, it is not worth anything because it did
not agree with his theory of religion. When you throw Luke out and say he just didn’t get
his facts right that is why there is a contradiction here you are barking up the wrong tree.

There is no contradiction and if you get your theory right the rest of the Bible fits it. All
four gospels fit together and the symbolism fits the whole flow of the Bible and
everything works.


A Critique is given here


~ by Joel Huan on October 24, 2019.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: