FEET WASHING A MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S HUMILITY.
By M. M. OSGOOD
[The following letter was written to a friend of the writer, who asked for reasons for regarding washing feet as an ordinance. The proofs on this important rite have not been exhausted among us, and though this letter may present some considerations somewhat different from the ordinary teachings on this subject, it is well worthy of a careful reading:] Bro. O——, As you requested me to bring nothing but Scripture as proof upon that disputed question, I heeded your request, and began to look up my proof texts. After a careful examination of the subject, I not only believe that it was a rite instituted for us to observe until Jesus comes again, but that it was designed as a memorial of the humiliation of the Saviour in leaving the glory he had with the Father, that he might come to this earth and take a servant's place. Before giving my reasons for believing this, I will notice your objections. 1. You say, “If this rite was practiced by the apostles, why was its observance not mentioned by them in their writings? The breaking of bread, or Lord's Supper, is several times mentioned.” It is true the breaking of bread is several times named, yet I am not certain that it refers to the Lord's Supper every time. See Luke xxiv, 30, 35. Jesus stopped at Emmaus to take supper with the two disciples, and, as he had been wont to do, took bread, gave thanks and broke it, &c., Mark vi, 41; Matt. xv, 36; Acts ii, 46; daily breaking bread from house to house (or, margin, at home), they partook their food with gladness, verse 42, they broke bread in fellowship, had all things common—ate at one table. Acts xxvii, 35. Paul, with the ship's crew, ate the broken bread, and they were not Christians. See Lam. iv, 4. 1 Cor. x, 16, evidently refers to the Lord's Supper; and probably the passage in Acts xx, 7, although I do not see proof positive there. Perhaps you will ask why Paul does not mention feet washing in connection with the bread and wine if they were designed to be observed at the same time? In 1 Cor. x, 16, Paul introduces the bread and cup to warn them against falling into idolatry. He seemed to fear that his Corinthian brethren would join with the Gentiles in eating bread offered to idols, and drinking the wine poured out or offered to demons. See verses 14–31, and chap. viii, 4–13. Christians were to break bread to commemorate the broken body of Christ, They could not share in the Lord's table and the table of demons. 1 Cor. x, 21. In 1 Cor. xi, 20–34, he mentions the Lord's Supper again to correct another fault. They seemed to have forgotten for what the Supper was instituted, and how the rite was to be observed. So Paul enters into all the particulars, that they need not be in the dark about it, and so eat unworthily. Had the fault been in reference to feet washing, we have no reason to doubt that Paul would have been as particular in enumerating all the circumstances connected with its institution, and the design of it, as in the other case. Against the passage in Acts xx, 7, which may, and may not, refer to the Lord's Supper, we may place the one found in 1 Tim. v, 10. Paul here seems to regard feet washing as essential at least to one class of Christians. If to one, why not to all? 2. You say, “They wore sandals instead of shoes, consequently their feet would become soiled, and often swollen, or sore, by walking without protection in the hot sand. For the host to bathe the feet of his guest was merely an act of hospitality, and was generally practiced in ancient times.” Did the Saviour then spend some of the last, most precious moments of his life, before his crucifixion, in teaching them a lesson they each already knew? And would such a lesson be so closely joined to the most solemn rites ever to be observed by his followers? I admit that it would be hospitable to bathe the feet of a weary guest, but I cannot find that it was practiced anciently. The host or servant brought water to the guest, that he might wash his own feet. See Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2; xliii, 24; xxiv, 32; Judges xix, 21, &c. Jesus said to the Pharisees who asked him to eat with him, “Thou gavest me no water for my feet.” 'Tis true Mary washed the Saviour's feet with her tears, but I know of no other instance recorded in the Bible, prior to his own example; and her action will not be claimed for any custom. 3. You say, “The Saviour probably designed to teach his followers to be humble, but it is not necessary to wash another's feet to manifest our humility.” To which I reply, Jesus did not say, If I then your Lord and Master have humbled myself to wash your feet, you ought also to be humble; but, “Ye also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” Example is from the Greek word upodeigma, which Grove defines, example, pattern, copy. Now if I set a copy, I expect my pupils to write the same words, imitating every curve and line, as nearly as possible. Shall we follow our Teacher's copy? (The word “master” is rendered teacher by the Revisor of John.) Jesus saw that his professed followers would shrink from the observance of this rite, because it was humiliating, and by so doing they would in a great measure lose sight of the great sacrifice he made, when he, the Son of God, became the Son of Man. Hence, he urges this plea, “The servant is not greater than his Lord,” equivalent to saying, “If I do this it certainly would become you to.” If this was given as a memorial (as I firmly believe it was), and was understandingly and lovingly practiced, would it not greatly tend to humble our hearts, and make us willing to bear reproach and suffering for his sake? Would it not bring us into nearer sympathy with our blessed Exemplar? It has had this tendency in my own experience, and I, with many others, have found it happy, or blessed, to do these things, after we knew or understood (at least in part,) their significance. I had supposed that Jesus washed the disciples' feet after instituting the Lord's Supper, because it said in John xiii, 2, “Supper being ended,” &c. But I now think it was after the passover, but before the Lord's Supper. My reasons are these: From Matt. xxvi, 26–30, we learn that after partaking of the bread and wine, they sung a hymn and went out. From John xiii, 23–28, we see that, instead of going out after feet washing, they reclined at table, and ate. As the passover Supper was ended before he washed their feet, it must have been the Lord's Supper they ate afterward. In Matt. xxvi, 21, Jesus says, previous to breaking bread as a memorial, “Verily I say unto you, one of you shall betray me.” But from John xiii, 21, we see that this was said after he had washed their feet. They already understood that he had humbled himself in taking upon him man's nature, with all its painful deprivations, &c. He could give them a memorial of that now. John xiii, 1. He knew the hour had come when he was to be exalted again, and have a name above every name. The time when this prayer was about to be answered, “Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” So he proceeds to give them a remembrance of his humiliation, that they, by often observing it, might realize their infinite obligations to him. But, in regard to his sufferings and death, they seemed dull of perception; so he comes out plainly and says, “One of you shall betray me;” and in connection with this avowal, after alluding thus to his death, he proceeds to give them fitting memorials of his broken body, and shed blood. Without shedding of blood there could be no remission or forgiveness of sin (Heb. ix, 22), so Christ's blood was shed. The curse of God rests upon every one who has broken his covenant. Jer. xi, 3. They who have not continued to obey his law, Gal. iii, 10, Christ, by permitting his body to be broken with the nails that fastened him to the tree, bore this curse in our stead; for, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree.” Gal. iii, 13. But, back of all this is another necessity. Christ was the beloved and honored Son of his Father. Whatever the Father did, he showed the Son how to do, that all might honor the Son even as they honored the Father. John v, 19–23. Having an undying nature, he could not lay down his life even to save man. He associated only with sinless ones, and enjoyed all the privileges, the blessings, and the surpassing glory of Heaven. If he could give up fallen man to reap the reward of his sin, then he might ever remain in that blissful home, crowned with glory and immortality. But if he would suffer the penalty attached to God's broken law, he must lay aside all this glory, be made lower than the angels, Heb. ii, 7; make himself of no reputation, and take the form of a servant. Phil. ii, 7. Yes, he was among them as one that served. Luke xxii, 27. But for this unparalleled condescension, this clothing with mortality, we must have perished forever. When deciding to give man life, at the expense of his own, which consideration, think you, cost the greatest struggle, the prospect of a few hours suffering on the cross, or of self-exile from all that was dear and desirable in his Father's home? This willingness to be treated as a rebel to his Father's government, seems to me to be the most perfect index to his loving heart. Is not this worthy a memorial? Once acknowledge it as such, and I do not see how any of Christ's followers could feel at liberty to neglect it. In Phil. ii, 8, we see that he first humbled himself, then became obedient unto death. In the passover instituted in Egypt there was no humiliation connected with the victim's offering. The lamb passively submitted to have its body broken, and its blood shed. So Christ, our passover, 1 Cor. v, 7, was led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. That is, he did not resist them. See Isa. liii, 7, and James v, 6. But our passover differed in some respects. It is not only a better sacrifice, but humiliation of the victim preceded the offering. Hence it must have one more memorial than Israel's passover. That we may love and obey all the precepts is the desire of my heart.