Their Wisdom Is Perished.
By W.
The subject of the International Sunday-school Lesson for August 15 was “Christ Teaching Humility,” the text being John 13:1–17. We do not design in this article to consider in detail the subject of feet-washing as a Christian ordinance, for that ground was thoroughly canvassed in the “Notes” in the SIGNS of that week; but we wish to call attention to some of the “expositions” of the text that are given in the various religious journals. First, we pick up the Christian Union. It says on verses 12–16:— “Feet-washing seems here to be as explicitly commanded as the Lord’s Supper. Yet there is no evidence that it was practiced in apostolic times, nor is in general use in the Christian church to-day. It is practiced in some Greek convents, by the Pope once a year on Maunday Thursday, and by some minor Baptist sects, chiefly confined to Pennsylvania. This apparent disregard of Christ’s seemingly explicit command can be defended only on the general ground that no ceremonial is of the essence of Christianity; that what Christ prescribes is not the symbol, but the spirit symbolized.”
Then we think it would be well for “the Christian church” to learn the meaning of these words which are found in this connection: “The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” If Christ gave an explicit command (as he did in this instance), and “the church” has taken it upon itself to decide that compliance with that command is not necessary, then certainly the servant has, in his own estimation, got quite a distance above his Lord. “No ceremonial is of the essence of Christianity.” Very true; but that is no reason for disregarding the ceremony if it is commanded. We should not refuse to follow certain ordinances because those ordinances may be performed in a mechanical manner, but should see to it that we perform them with the spirit. We all know that love is shown by obedience to the expressed wishes of another. We also know that a child may mechanically or from necessity obey any given command, and that then the obedience indicates no love. That is, love is manifested, not by the mere performance of any act, but by the spirit with which that act is performed. Now recognizing this fact, a boy will say, “It seems quite plain that my father told me to care for this garden; but since the essence of love and obedience is not in any form, nor in outward acts of obedience, I will pay no attention to what he has said, but will be sure to have a strong feeling of love in my heart.” The father would quickly decide that such a son was too “progressive.” It is not true that feet-washing was not practiced in apostolic times, as is shown by 1 Tim. 5:10. But even if the Saviour’s command had never been obeyed, that would not be the shadow of a reason why we should not obey it. Next we pick up the Methodist Recorder. On verse 14 it has the following:— “The command will rather find its fulfillment in all kinds of mutual condescension and help than in any literal observance.”—Alford.
Oh, yes; that settles the matter. Mr. Alford’s dictum is sufficient. To be sure Christ said, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” but Dean Alford says that he didn’t mean what he said, and so we need not trouble ourselves over the matter any more. This is a sample of the pernicious use of commentaries, and of the perniciousness of nine-tenths of the comments that are written. When a man gives a scholarly criticism on the meaning of some terms in the original, or when he compares several texts bearing on one point, and shows the necessary conclusion therefrom,—that is legitimate comment; but when he ventures to give his own opinion of a text, unsupported by any authority, it were better for that man if he had never written a commentary; and people who implicitly trust any commentator who will even once give his own opinion as to the meaning of a text, are willingly walking into darkness. The Christian at Work has a comment very similar to that of the Christian Union. It says:— “Finally the application of the entire transaction comes out in the words: ‘If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.’ This is not to be literally understood; for neither the apostles nor the members of the early church, though acting under the direction of the Spirit, ever actually practiced feet-washing as a religious rite.”
To this we would say, (1) That because a public record of the performance of an act is not kept, that is no evidence that the act was not done. The thing having been commanded, we naturally conclude that it was practiced, except when the church was not led by the Spirit; for obedience to known requirement is an evidence of being led by the Spirit. (2) In 1 Tim. 2:10, feet-washing is mentioned by Paul as a well-known Christian duty, and one entirely distinct from acts of hospitality and relieving the afflicted. (3) Obligation to perform any deed can rest only on an expressed commandment, and not on the action of any other persons. When a thing is commanded, it is our duty to do it, even if everybody else disregards it. But the Christian at Work overthrows its own theory when it says concerning the Saviour’s command:— “It means that as the Lord found it not inconsistent with the highest dignity and glory to minister in all lowliness unto the weakest, so we must find exaltation and happiness by doing likewise.”
Just above it said that feet-washing is not to be practiced, because (as it claims) the apostles and the members of the early church did not do so. Then by the same “reasoning,” ministering unto the weak and lowly is not to be done unless “the church” in all ages has done so. Now the veriest tyro in history knows that the great apostasy began in the very days of the apostles, when there were many in the church who loved to have the pre-eminence, and that for hundreds of years the members of the church, instead of finding exaltation and happiness in serving the weak, found it in building themselves up at the expense of others. And so according to the popular exposition of John 13:1–16, it is now every man’s duty to look out for himself, regardless of others. When one begins to “explain away” the Bible, he may as well throw it away. The Sabbath Recorder, however, caps the climax of absurdity in the following extract:— “In company with a traveling companion, we reached the house of another friend about noon, after a long journey on foot, under a hot sun, and over a dusty road. We had barely passed the customary greetings, and taken our seats in the back room, when the good woman of the house asked us to take off our boots. Seeing that we hesitated, she repeated her request in a manner which plainly showed that she was not joking. We accordingly took them off, and she took them out of the room. Presently she returned them as neatly blackened as they had been for some time. When she set them down she said, ‘And thus I have fulfilled my Lord’s command to wash the disciples’ feet.’ And who shall say that she had not done so?”
Everybody ought to say that she did not. In the first place, even if our Saviour’s command had reference only to acts of hospitality, it would not be fulfilled by performing such acts and then calling attention to it. True hospitality, as well as true obedience, is unostentatious. But the idea of saying that for one person to black another’s boots is a fulfillment of our Lord’s words, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” is too absurd for serious comment. According to this exposition, the Saviour’s words should be read thus: “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to black one another’s boots! For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” The simple statement of the case refutes it. Besides, the reader will notice that the act of feet-washing is to be reciprocal: “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” Now, allowing that to wash feet means to black boots, in order to have the command fulfilled in the case under consideration, the editor of the Recorder ought to have turned around and blacked the good woman’s shoes. The very absurdity of such an exposition as the above is, after all, the most serious thing about it; for it is sad to think that men will thus sport with divine commands. It is nothing less than making void the commandments of God. On the same principle men rest on Sunday, and say that they are thus obeying the Lord’s command to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” With as much reason others are sprinkled with a few drops of water, and say that they are obeying the injunction to be baptized. On such a principle of interpretation there is no conceivable act that may not be construed into obedience to some divine command. It is sad to think that because of such evasions of plain precepts, men are losing their power to comprehend the simplest truths; but so it is. The Lord says: “Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precepts of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” Isa. 29:13, 14. When a wise man turns aside from the plain commandments of the Lord, he becomes the most dangerous of counselors.