My attention has been called to an article under the above heading in the Herald of Gospel Liberty.
That article purports to be a conversation between a minister and a layman respecting the ordinance of feet-washing.
I conclude that the author selected this method of presenting his views, simply because it was more convenient and forcible than direct statements would have been.
Let this be as it may, however, it seems to me that the Reverend who participates in the discussion—whether he be a real or fictitious character it matters not—reasons in a manner entirely unworthy one bearing his title; and, as I am deeply interested in the question to which the hypothetical conversation relates, I will examine in as brief a manner as possible what seem to be the real points in his argument. In doing so, for the sake of brevity I will state them in substance and in numerical order, offering such suggestions as may occur to my mind.
1. Feet-washing does not follow the communion, because John alone mentions it and does not speak of the communion.
It is true that John does not mention the Lord’s supper in connection with the account which he gives of feet-washing. This, however, is by no means proof positive that the two ordinances were not celebrated on the same evening. It has been stated, and seems to be generally accepted by scholars as true, that the definite purpose that John had in writing his gospel was that of supplying certain things which the authors of the other three gospels had failed to record. This being true, it is manifest that in giving an account of the events which took place in the upper room on the evening preceding our Lord’s betrayal, it was unnecessary that he should repeat the account of our Lord’s supper, which had been given in full by the other three.
It was, also, in the highest degree proper that he should do, just as he has done in giving a full description of the washing of the disciples’ feet by the Master, as this was the main deficiency in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
What he says in detail respecting the passover supplies some items not mentioned by the others, and is of value in locating the time at which the feet-washing took place. To say, therefore, that because he does not mention the communion in the connection it is thereby proved positively that it did not take place, is an assumption altogether unwarrantable.
To illustrate: It is agreed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did all of them give an account of the fourth passover supper. It will be agreed, also, that two of them speak of the circumstance connected with the supper which relates to the bearing of the pitcher on the part of the individual owning the room where the passover was celebrated, and that a third evangelist does not allude to it at all.
It will also be conceded, that, whereas Matthew and Mark both refer to what the Lord said in reference to Judas as dipping with him in the dish, Luke makes no mention of this circumstance whatever. But shall we therefore conclude that they were giving an account of two or three different suppers which occurred on different occasions, simply because each one does not make mention of all the events to which the others have called attention? Even the writer of the article, himself, would not admit that this would be a safe course, since he agrees with us that they all did write of the same time, place, and circumstance.
What, then, is the proper rule to be followed in such cases?
The answer is obvious.
It would not be safe to insist that all the particulars should be brought out by each evangelist; but simply that they should agree in a sufficient number of them to make it unreasonable to suppose that they could refer to different occasions.
Following this rule, we will hereafter show that the feet-washing and the Lord’s supper did transpire on the same evening.
2. “The supper eaten in connection with the washing of feet could not have been the paschal supper, because the disciples understood the Lord to instruct Judas to purchase things for the feast; whereas the supper was already ended.”
The gist of this argument seems to be that supper being ended, it could not be that the disciples understood the Lord to refer to anything to be purchased for it, inasmuch as being past already nothing could be needed for its purposes.
To this we reply:—
a. There was evidently a confusion of mind on the part of the disciples; as it is declared that while some thought that the language of the Lord had reference to the purchase of articles for the feast, others thought that it related to the giving of alms to the poor. It would not be at all singular, therefore, if, during the excitement produced by the declaration of Christ that one of the twelve should betray him, some of the number, hearing the words, “That thou doest, do quickly,” might give them a wrong and inconsistent application for the time being, not recalling for the moment the fact that they were already in possession of everything which they needed.
Again, as the occasion differed somewhat from an ordinary passover supper, and as Christ’s plans were larger than their plans, they might have for the moment fancied that he possibly had in his mind the purchase of something to be connected in some way with the balance of the weekly feast, not pausing to inquire whether this would be either legitimate or necessary. After a few moments, however, the confusion was all dispelled, and the real meaning of the Master was explained, and they found that the “doing” which he had in his mind was related to the betrayal.
Before any great weight can be rested upon a point of this nature, it must be shown, either that the apostles took the right view of the subject, and that the Lord did direct Judas to purchase something for the feast, or that it was not possible for them, in a moment of extreme excitement, to form an unsound judgment in regard to the import of an obscure declaration.
3. The writer states that he was no prouder years ago, when he carried out the ordinance of feet-washing, than he is now that he has given it up.
Possibly this statement is correct. We trust, also, that the reverse may be true; viz., that he is no prouder now than he was then. But be this as it may, we think that it will not be denied that participation in the ordinance is calculated to develop humility.
4. “After washing their feet, ‘he sat down’ (verse 11) and talked a long time to them, as recorded in John, chapters 13 to 16, whereas, after the communion he talked very little, but they sang a hymn (Matt. 26:30), and went out to the Mount of Olives.”
The conclusion drawn from the foregoing is that the conversations must have occurred at different times, and therefore that the washing of the feet, and the partaking of the Lord’s supper, with which they stand connected respectively, must have transpired on different evenings.
But does not the reader readily discover the lameness of the argument?
Mark you; it is not John who says he talked long in the one case, and Matthew who states that he conversed but a brief time in the other; but it is the writer himself who makes the declaration.
But how is he enabled to arrive at this conclusion?
Simply by inferring that Matthew reports all that he said at the time in question. But such an inference is altogether unwarrantable in the absence of any declaration to that effect on the part of the evangelist. The most cursory reader of the gospel knows that such a system of interpretation could not stand a moment when put to the test.
Nothing is more common than for the sacred writers to vary materially in the particulars in their accounts of the same transaction. One often presents a single point or two in a discourse or interview, and then passes directly to the consideration of other matters; while perhaps another, in recording the same event, will bring out additional facts and declarations which the other did not see fit to mention at all. This statement is so obviously true that the intelligent reader need not be furnished with instances illustrating its correctness.
5. “Here in Matthew is a plain account of the institution of the communion, and Jesus was betrayed the same night. But on the other night Judas sought opportunity to betray him—went to the priests, fixed the price, etc. (See Matt. 26:14–16.) So I saw that feet-washing could not have been the same evening of the last supper.”
It has seldom been our fortune to witness a more egregious blunder in any controversialist than the individual styled “Rev.” has made in the foregoing quotation.
His error consists in confounding two meetings which were separated in both time and place.
The meeting from which Judas went out to bargain for the betrayal of Christ was the one where the head of the Lord was anointed by the woman with the expensive ointment of spikenard. This took place some time before the period of the passover had been reached, and transpired in the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany, a little town outside of Jerusalem (see Matt. 26:6–16); whereas, the supper eaten in connection with the washing of feet which is spoken of by John in the thirteenth chapter of his gospel, was partaken of in the city of Jerusalem itself, on either the 14th or 15th of Nisan. (See the five coincidences mentioned below.) When the writer shall discover this fact, he will perceive that there is no inconsistency in the statement that Judas went out on the occasion of the administration of the Lord’s supper, as spoken of by Matthew, for the purpose of betraying the Lord, agreeably to the bargain which he had previously made at the time of the gathering spoken of in Bethany, where nothing occurred in any way resembling feet-washing.
6. “There is no account in the Scriptures, either that the woman spoken of by Paul in Corinthians had partaken of the Lord’s supper in connection with the washing of feet, or that any of the early Christians did so.”
To this we reply in a word that we shall not be held responsible for what God has not caused to be recorded, but simply for that which is written.
When the Master said, “Ye also ought to wash one another’s feet,” the presumption is that the faithful apostles, and with them the early Christians, carried out the injunction of the Lord. That presumption cannot be broken by the absence of an historic statement; for God has never promised that such a statement should be made, and it was not important that it should be made, since the record of examples is unnecessary where positive precept is at hand. To illustrate: The gentleman himself will admit that the Sabbath was binding and was kept by the Jews from Moses’s time to that of David, a period of five hundred years; and yet it is not once mentioned in all the history of that period.
7. “I conclude that feet-washing is a work of love, and teaches general kindness and acts of humanity in serving one another.”
Such, in substance, is the admission of the writer, and surely it ought not to be construed into antagonism to the ordinance itself; for an institution which is humanitarian in its character, and calculated to demonstrate to the world the love which the disciples of Christ have for one another, is worthy of the highest commendation.
Our friend is mistaken, however, as we have shown in another place, in supposing that it was administered by our Lord at the time in question for the purpose of cleanliness. The grand idea which it was calculated to illustrate was the humility of the Master. He sought an occasion for its administration when, according to the Jewish custom, the disciples had already been in the bath. He commanded us to follow his example, not for the sake of physical purification, but that we might demonstrate before our own eyes as well as before the eyes of others, the great condescension of our Lord, thereby being impressed as we could be in no other manner, with the humility which should mark our lives and conduct toward all men.
Finally, as the whole discussion turns with the gentleman upon the point whether the Lord’s supper and the feet-washing were administered on the same evening, and as we have shown that his reasons for supposing that they did not were altogether unsatisfactory, we now turn to contemplate the subject from the positive standpoint, affirming that they did.
In confirmation of such an assertion we offer the following coincidences in circumstances and place:—
5. At the supper which was eaten in connection with both, he pointed out Judas as the one who should betray him. John 13:26; Matt. 26:23; Mark 14:20.
Here, then, we have five specifications, all of which go to prove that the passover supper partaken of by the Lord just before his crucifixion was the one at which he originated the sacraments of the communion and feet-washing.
To reason otherwise, and to insist in the face of these facts that the supper mentioned by John was different from the one mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would make it necessary for the individual so doing to bring himself to the point of believing that the Lord and his disciples partook of two suppers at the time of the passover, in the city of Jerusalem, on the night of the betrayal, and that at each of these suppers he declared that one of the twelve should betray him, and pointed out Judas as the individual who should accomplish the work in question.
But the candid reader will readily perceive that such a conclusion is too violent to be entertained for a moment. He will immediately decide that it is in the highest degree improbable that the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have referred to any other occasion than the one of which John also speaks, since it is altogether incredible that the same persons should have been present at the two suppers, in the same city, on the same night, and that on both occasions the same words, in substance, should have been spoken, and the same things enacted over again.
Having reached this decision, he will find that all the arguments which the gentleman whom we are reviewing has brought forward against the perpetuity of one of the most solemn and impressive ordinances left by the Lord to his church, have been disposed of, and that it now only remains75for him, as an individual, to decide whether or not he will carry out the duty imposed upon him by the divine Son of God when he said, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”