Untitled article by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 30, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 29.

The Church. No. 14.

By Editor

IT is a fact to be lamented that a profession of faith in Christ does not always cure people of prejudice against some things contained in the Bible. We call it prejudice, for what but prejudice could lead a professed follower of Jesus to stand in opposition to the plain words of Jesus himself? In presenting the subject of washing the feet of the saints as an ordinance of the Christian church, we are well aware that we shall meet this prejudice. But we cannot forbear on this account, for nothing in the Scriptures is made more plain than is this duty in John 13. The mere reading of the text must satisfy every one on this point. Yet, as some things for which there is no warrant in the Scriptures, are received into the church by general consent, so some things which are plainly enjoined in the Scriptures, are doomed to general neglect; and it seems easy to satisfy the conscience with the acceptance of one or the rejection of the other, while walking in the broad way with the multitude. On no other principle can we account for the apathy which exists among the church people in regard to our Saviour's precept.

Omitting for the present the first three verses of the chapter, we begin to read with the beginning of the action of Jesus. "He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter; and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter." To this declaration of the Saviour we call especial attention. As a simple matter of fact, of open and evident occurrence, Peter did know what his Lord was doing. But there certainly was something connected with this transaction which he did not know—which he did not understand. What was this? We must await the Saviour's explanation.

"Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet." This was a very natural expression, which any heart having even a moiety of sensibility can appreciate. But no refusal is accepted by the Son of God; the lesson which he was to give must be given. "Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 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. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 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?" Now he is prepared to give them the information which they had not. He first reminds them of his exalted position and authority, and then announces what he had done: "Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; 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."

Here was his explanation; now they knew what he had done; he had given them an example to be followed by them.

But human nature shrinks from the lesson given; it seems repulsive to the natural heart; the pride of man recoils from such an example as this. Yes; and no one can know this better than the Son of man himself. "For he knew what was in man." He met this feeling with a reply from which there is no appeal: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

But human nature is full of evasions. We have heard individuals say that this scripture teaches us to be humble, and this object may be gained without our doing exactly as our Saviour did. But Jesus met this with these words: "If ye know these things [if ye have learned the lesson], happy [blessed] are ye if ye do them." There is more in an example than a lesson to be learned. The lessons of the gospel are practical. "For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet." How does any one know that the lesson of humility has been learned by him—that the example of the Saviour has made its impression on his heart—if he refuses to follow the example which the Lord and Master set for us? The proof is found only in obeying that which ye ought to do, even as the blessing is not in learning the lesson—not in knowing these things—but in doing them.

As a question of precept, no duty is more plainly given in the Scriptures. Let the reader for a moment compare the evidence of these explicit words of the Saviour with the evidence claimed for keeping the Sunday instead of the Sabbath. The merest inference is seized upon—the example of the apostles is eagerly sought for—and it is earnestly avowed that their example is a sufficient warrant for our action; although there is no declaration that they ever kept Sunday, and no declaration that they ever set any example of the kind, and no declaration that we ought to follow any one's example in this respect. Now let us suppose there is a chapter in the Bible that reads as follows:—

"After the Sabbath was past, Jesus called his disciples together on the first day of the week, and taught them. And at even, when the sun did set, Jesus said unto them, Know ye what I have been doing? Behold, I have rested and worshiped on the first day of the week. If I then, your Lord and Master, have kept the first day of the week, ye ought also to keep the first day of the week. For I have given you an example, that ye should observe the first day even as I have observed it."

Think you, reader, that this would be satisfactory to the advocates of Sunday keeping? Would they, or would they not, consider it a sufficient warrant for Sunday observance? There can be no doubt upon this matter. With avidity would they seize upon any manuscript which purported to come from past centuries, if it contained such words as these. By some means Sunday keeping has become popular, and it takes but little evidence—nay, no evidence is needed—to satisfy the minds of the people that it is a pious act to keep the Sunday. But here is a scripture of undisputed authority, in which are recorded the words of the Son of God, given in no parable, of no doubtful meaning, which plainly declare what his disciples ought to do, saying that he set them an example that they should do as he had done, pronouncing a blessing upon them if they did so, and yet, because it has become unpopular, the great body of professed Christians reject it from their practice with no apparent compunction. But from this evidence and from this duty, made so plain by the Saviour, we dare not turn away.

Having now briefly given our reasons for regarding this as an example and a precept to be regarded by the disciples of Christ, it remains to give the order of its observance, or the relation which it sustains

to other observances. It was at the last passover attended by our Lord that he washed the feet of his disciples, and it was at this time also that he instituted the supper, called "the Lord's Supper." There has been considerable question with some as to which was instituted first, and which should have precedence in the order of observance. This is a material point as it affects the practice of the churches, and should be well understood. It is a matter of gratulation, however, that there remains but little if any question among us in regard to their order. It is quite generally conceded that the Master washed his disciples' feet at an early stage of the passover supper, and instituted "the Lord's Supper" afterward. On this point we give an extract from a valuable paper by "E. J. W.," published in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES in December, 1883:—

"Before going further we must harmonize an apparent discrepancy in John's narrative. In verses 2 and 4 we read: 'And supper being ended. . . . he riseth from supper,' and then follows the account of the feet washing. Thus the idea generally obtains that the passover supper was entirely finished before the feet washing was performed. But in verses 12, 23-30, we again find them at supper. The question now arises, What relation, in point of time, does the feet washing sustain to the passover supper? We reply, It took place at the beginning of the supper, and offer the following proof: The original for, 'And supper being ended,' is, kai deipnon genomenon, which may be translated, 'And supper being ready.' The Revised Version renders it, 'And during supper.' Greenfield's Lexicon has it, 'During supper.' Robinson's Lexicon, on the verb alone, says: '(f) of any occasion, e. g. a repast, to be prepared, made ready, John 13:2.' The emphatic Diaglot: 'While supper was preparing.' Speaker's Commentary: 'During supper.' Clarke's Commentary: 'While supper was preparing.' Campbell: 'While they were at supper.' Barnes says on this text: 'This translation expresses too much. The original means, while they were at supper; and that this is the meaning is clear from the fact that we find them still eating after this. The Arabic and Persic translations give it this meaning.' Other good authorities give this meaning also. It may then be considered as settled that John's account is consistent with itself, and that the feet washing took place during, or near the beginning of, the meal. If supper were ready, and they were already sitting down when this event occurred, it would be perfectly consistent to say that it happened during supper.

"We will now consider a circumstance mentioned only by Luke—the strife among the disciples. It is recorded in Luke 22:24, after the account of the supper and the pointing out of the traitor. But there is very strong evidence to show that Luke's account is not chronological. And here we would remark that although Luke is very minute in his description of many things, he seems in general to have made no attempt to follow the order of events. His account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is a case in point.

"We first notice that the language of Luke 22:27 is similar to that of John 13:16. Christ's reproof and instruction in Luke 22:25-27, are evidently the same as his remarks in connection with the ordinance of feet washing. It is most natural to conclude that this humiliating ordinance was given immediately in connection with the strife of the disciples as to who should be accounted the greatest. It is impossible to think for a moment that any such strife could have taken place after that lesson on humility. But we have seen that the feet washing took place at the beginning of the supper. Then the strife (Luke 22:24) must have preceded the supper, and is recorded by Luke out of its proper place.

"Again, concerning what would the disciples be most likely to contend at that time? we answer

They would naturally contend as to who should have the precedence at table. Among the ancients the distinctions in age or rank were clearly defined, and at table the oldest or most honorable had certain seats assigned them. An instance of this is found in Gen. 43:33. Among all people, even at the present time, there is a difference, in point of precedence, in the seats at the table, and table etiquette is very clearly defined and strictly observed. The same point is brought out in Matt. 23:6; Mark 12:38, 39; Luke 14:7-11, where Christ reproved those who chose the chief places. There is certainly nothing else concerning which they could strive for the precedence on this occasion. And this strife furnished an occasion for Christ to give them the most impressive lesson on humility. But this again shows that the ordinance of feet washing took place at the beginning of the meal.

"Some may object, and say that their strife was as to who should be greatest in the kingdom of Heaven, and that it did not refer to their place at the table. But the disciples still looked for a temporal kingdom, which they thought Christ was soon to set up; and they would naturally expect that their rank in the kingdom would be determined by the position they occupied previous to its being set up. With this view their place at table was to them a matter of great importance.

"That we may keep the subject clear in our minds, we will now state in their order the events that occurred up to the present point of investigation. 1. Supper being ready, Jesus sat down. He was the host, and of course took the first place. 2. A strife arose among the disciples as to who should have the place of honor, that being, doubtless, the one nearest to Jesus. 3. To rebuke this unseemly strife, he arose from supper and proceeded to wash their feet, teaching them by precept and example that humility was the only ground of preferment in his kingdom. 4. Having completed this ceremony, he resumed his garments and sat down again to supper."

It is not necessary to add anything on this subject, as all will see that it was after he sat down again that the Lord's Supper was instituted.