The Ordinance of John 13 by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 7, 1884

The Ordinance of John 13.

By Uriah Smith

IS THE washing of the saints' feet a church ordinance? This point must be settled by the testimony of John 13:1-17. The argument usually employed to prove that it is not to be observed as a church ordinance is, that it is only an act of hospitality, a household duty, a lesson of humility, and lastly, a duty well understood to be binding upon the disciples, and not a new ordinance, because Jesus uses the word "ought" in the expression, "Ye also ought to wash one another's feet."

We have not yet seen any argument in this direction which was not fully met by the words of our Lord in verse 15: "For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." This confines the whole significance of the act to the occasion and the circumstances under which our Lord performed it. Whatever it can be shown that the act was, as performed by him, that will be the measure of what it was designed to teach; nothing more, nothing less.

We then inquire, Was this act as performed by the Lord to his disciples, an act of hospitality? If it was, then its object doubtless was to teach hospitality; if it was not, it was not done for the purpose of conveying any such instruction. And the proposition we lay down here is, that neither the act as performed by the Lord, nor the circumstances under which it was performed, had any connection whatever with the requirements of hospitality.

1. Those who endeavor to prove it an act of hospitality, refer to such passages as Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 34:32; and Judges 19:21. But these are against them, as they show the custom of those times to have been simply a provision of water that the guests might wash their own feet. But, says the objector, then why did Abigail propose to wash the feet of David's servants? 1 Sam. 25:41. We answer that no one surely will claim that she proposed to do this as an act of hospitality, but only to show her subjection to David; she was willing to become a servant of his servants. But no instance can be found where the master of the house ever, as an act of hospitality, either washed, or proposed to wash, the feet of his guests. No aid nor comfort can opponents derive from these texts.

2. Our Lord ever took occasion to give his instruction when circumstances were such as to call it forth: Jesus had traveled with his disciples, and tarried at their homes; and if he had discovered any lack of hospitality on their part, he would have reproved them, as the occasion required. He did at one time teach them a lesson of humility by setting a little child in the midst, and enjoining upon them to become such as he. Matt. 18:3, 4. And what was the occasion of this? They had been contending about the question who should be greatest; and Christ, in an appropriate manner, rebuked the wrong as soon as it presented itself. He also on a certain occasion rebuked a Pharisee for a lack of hospitality; but it was when there was something to call it out. As he sat at meat with the Pharisee, a woman came and began to wash his feet with her tears, and to wipe them with the hair of her head. When feelings rose up in Simon's heart at this act, the Lord said to him, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head." Luke 7:36-44. The Lord did not say to him, You did not bring water and wash my feet for me; nor, why? Because that was not the custom of the times, and no such action was expected; but he did reprove the lack that there was, namely, his failure to set before him water; and he did it when the occasion called it forth. But there was no occasion for any such reproof or instruction at the time of the institution of the Lord's Supper, when he gave such explicit and plain directions in regard to their washing

each other's feet. It was not, therefore, designed to teach a lesson of hospitality.

3. The disciples were of course familiar with the customs of the times, and if our Lord had designed to reprove them for a failure to comply therewith, they would at once have understood it. He never gave lessons concerning the practical duties of life in such a way that those for whose benefit they were designed could not understand his design. But the disciples were at first utterly at a loss to determine what the Lord intended by washing their feet; hence he told Peter, "What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter."

4. The custom of the times was to wash before eating. Jesus performed the act after the paschal supper was ready, and he had sat down. This still farther removed it from any connection with the customs of the times.

5. Peter, seeing no propriety in the Saviour's act, refused to be washed. Jesus then told him that if he washed him not he had no part with him; then Peter, with his usual impetuosity, exclaimed, "Not my feet only, but my hands and my head." Was this an act of hospitality? But the Lord proceeds to correct Peter's extreme here, and says, "He that is washed [or as some read, He that has been bathing] needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit;" that is, he that has been bathing is physically clean; it is not for this purpose that I now apply the water; hence there is no necessity for my washing your hands and your head; I only propose to wash your feet, the significance of which you will understand hereafter; and if you refuse this, you have no part with me. What! If you refuse to receive instruction concerning hospitality, you have no part with me? Is this our Lord's position? No; he never used such language in reference to such things. But his declaration brings up the practice of feet-washing to equal importance with partaking of the bread and wine, concerning which he makes a similar expression: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John 6:53.

In view of all this, it is utter folly for people to talk of this being a lesson of hospitality, or of household duties.

We then inquire further, Was it designed simply to teach a lesson of humility? If so, we submit that the very best way a person can show that he receives the instruction is to put into practice the directions given.

But what can be said of the use of the word "ought"? We have this to say, that a person must be hard pushed to offer such an argument as this. Our Lord bases the whole of the requirement on the act he had just performed. "If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet." Because I have done this to you, ye ought to do it to one another. Not because the custom of the times or the claims of hospitality require it, but because I have done it. This is the reason he assigns.

"If I, then, your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to [what? be humble, be hospitable? No; but] wash one another's feet." This is what the Lord says. This is the specific act he points out, and says we ought to do it. Now ought we to do it, or ought we not? Who knows our duty best—Christ, or these modern interpreters?

But strong as this is, the Lord does not leave it here. He continues, "For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." What had he done to them? Performed an act of hospitality as such? Nothing of the kind. He had washed their feet, and says we should do as he had done; or, as expressed just before, wash one another's feet. Nothing could possibly be plainer. Let any one who doubts this, tell us how it should read, if the Lord did really wish to enjoin upon us to wash one another's feet. Then, shall we do as he did, and has told us to do? or shall we not? These people who get beyond the apostles and beyond the Lord, and set up a way of their own, will excuse us if we cannot put much faith in their teaching, nor esteem them very highly, at least, for their doctrine's sake.

Oh! if this scripture only enjoined something which they would love to do, some popular performance, or something that would be agreeable to their pride, ambition, or love of ease, how easy it would be to understand it just as it is. But there is a cross here, and they think to dodge it, and yet, more fortunate than Peter, have an abundant part with Christ in his exaltation and glory.

Do you ask what the ordinance does signify? We answer, It is a memorial of the humility of our "Lord and Master," the Prince of glory, just as the bread and wine is a memorial of his death, and baptism of his burial and resurrection.

And in view of the plain instruction given in John 13, it is not surprising that the ordinance was practiced in the earlier and purer ages of this dispensation, as we learn that it was, until Rome laid its polluting hands on the ordinances of the church, and either abolished or perverted them in establishing its miserable mongrel of Christianity and heathenism.

Kitto's Encyclopedia says: "Feet-washing (pedilavium) became, as might be expected, a part of the observances practiced in the early Christian Church. The real signification, however, was soon forgotten, or overloaded by superstitious feelings and mere outward practices. Traces of the practice abound in ecclesiastical history, and remnants of the abuse are still to be found, at least in the Romish Church."

But the time has come when this age is to close with as pure a gospel as that with which it begins; the perverted or neglected ordinances of the church must be restored, and this link must occupy its appropriate place in the golden chain. U. S.