The Order to Be Pursued in the Administration of the Ordinances.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
As some difference of opinion seems to exist among those who accept the ordinance of feet-washing as one which rests on Scripture authority, respecting the question of precedence in administration between it and the Lord’s supper, I have thought that it might not be unprofitable to discuss the matter in a brief article.
The record from which it will be necessary to draw our data is exceedingly meagre, and in order to attain to the desired end it will be required that we proceed with care, comparing at every step the statements bearing upon the subject, which are made by the different evangelists.
It is not a little remarkable that those who mention the Lord’s supper make no allusion to the ordinance of feet-washing, while the one who makes mention of feet-washing does not refer in any way to the administration of the eucharist.
This latter fact is accounted for on the hypothesis that John’s Gospel was supplementary in its nature, and designed principally to supply facts which the other evangelists had omitted in their productions; and, therefore, as they neglected to mention the ordinance of the Lord’s humiliation, he supplied the omission without repeating the account of the Lord’s supper, the details of which they had given so fully. Should it be objected to this supposition that John also speaks of a “supper,” we reply: The one to which he adverts was that of the passover which preceded the partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s death, and must not be confounded therewith. The term “Lord’s supper” is applied to the eucharist but once in the New Testament. This use of the term is found in 1 Cor. 11:20, and did not occur until A. D. 59; i. e., about twenty-seven years after the death of Christ.
The expression usually employed when referring to the matter seems to have been that of “breaking of bread.”
That the supper to which John alludes is that of the passover is manifest both from the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and from the fact that there was on the table a dish into which the Lord dipped the sop which he gave to Judas. Had it been merely the “Lord’s supper” no such dish would have been necessary, since the bread and wine required nothing of the kind when used as a sacrament.
Having premised thus much, we come now to the real work in hand, i. e., that of deciding which of the two ordinances was first participated in.
For the purpose of reaching our conclusion with ease and certainty, we will make the account as given in the thirteenth chapter of John of the events which transpired on the evening of the passover, the basis upon which to construct a table which, we think, will enable any person to reach a10safe conclusion in the matter under consideration.
If the reader will now turn to the narrative by the beloved apostle in the thirteenth chapter of his Gospel, he will find that the events transpired on that evening as given below:—
1. Passover supper (John 13:1, 2); 2. Jesus arose from the table and washed the disciples’ feet (John 13:3–11); 3. Sat down again to the table and conversed (John 13:12–17); 4. Designated the one who should betray him (John 13:18–26); 5. Said to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly” (John 13:27–29); 6. Judas went out to betray him (John 13:30); 7. Jesus discoursed to the disciples (John 13:31 to 14:31); 8. He goes out to the Mount of Olives (John 14:31).
As remarked above, the table is based on the account of John, because it is more full than that of any other evangelist.
The reader will observe that he mentions eight transactions in consecutive order, and that we have given to each one of them its proper number. He will please turn in his Bible and carefully read all the verses which we have quoted in order to verify the citations which we have made. Having done this, he will be ready to enter with us upon an examination of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke have recorded in their gospels as having transpired on the same evening to which John makes reference. When this shall be accomplished, he will readily perceive that as each one of them understood in his own mind the order of events as they occurred, and gave them without confusion of statement, it will be possible for us to harmonize their accounts when we get the proper clue.
That is, when Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of the breaking of bread, they all have reference to the same event, and that event must have stood related in their minds to the other transactions of the evening in the same way that it did in the mind of John; since all were present on the occasion of which they write.
In other words, if in tracing their accounts we shall find that both they and John speak of what Christ said about the betrayal of himself by Judas; they on the one hand locating the breaking of bread in immediate connection with such saying of Christ, and John, on the other hand, speaking of “feet-washing” as having been attended to before the saying of Christ to Judas, then we must understand that the “washing of feet” did precede the breaking of bread, although the three evangelists fail to mention the same, and although John neglected to allude to the Lord’s supper at all.
The first evangelist whose account will be examined is Luke. As it is brief, we shall give it nearly in full, as follows: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined; but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed.” Luke 22:14–22.
A glance will reveal the fact that Luke’s testimony is of the highest importance in our investigation. He, unlike John, makes mention of the breaking of bread. This transaction he connects with our Lord’s designation of Judas as the betrayer. His words are: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”
By this declaration two points are settled. The first is, as stated above, that the breaking of bread and passing of the cup took place in immediate connection with what Christ said to Judas about his betrayal of him; and the second is, that they preceded that event; transpiring in immediate connection therewith.
Do you ask how this will assist us in deciding which preceded in the order of events, feet-washing or the Lord’s supper?
I answer, that, as Luke has linked these two things together, we ascertain that the feet-washing could not have transpired between them, and therefore, it must either have preceded both of them, or followed both of them, and, consequently, that we have found a clue which will lead us to a settlement of the whole question; since John, though he does not speak of the breaking of bread, does—as seen in the above table of the order of events, Nos. 2 and 3—locate the conversation between Christ and Judas after the washing of feet. But as we have seen that Luke connects the breaking of bread and the designation of Judas as the betrayer, as having taken place at the same moment, and as John places the feet-washing before the time that Christ pointed out Judas as the betrayer, he also proves that the feet-washing must have preceded the breaking of bread.
To restate the proposition that all may understand it: John’s account shows that Christ washed the feet of the disciples, then sat down to the table again and told Judas that he would betray him; while Luke’s account shows that Christ made this declaration about Judas while passing the emblems of his broken body and spilled blood, and, therefore, after the washing of feet; else it could not have taken place in connection with what Christ said to Judas; since John shows that the declaration of Christ to Judas was made after the washing of feet.
Should it be objected that Luke’s account is not necessarily consecutive in the order of its presentation, we should reply that it must be, so far as it relates to the Lord’s supper and the pointing out of Judas as the traitor; since Luke gives, not his own words, but those of Christ, just as the Lord spoke them. That is, he represents Christ as saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Now the use of the conjunction “but” as thrown in by Christ between what he said about the cup and about Judas, would not be admissible in such a connection, unless it was found in a connected conversation. This, however, would not be true of the conversation under consideration if the view which we are combating be correct; since as John shows beyond all controversy that Judas was not identified by Christ as the betrayer until after the washing of feet, then (the position of our opponents being true) Luke must have taken words which Christ spoke about the bread and wine before the washing of feet and the long discussion which accompanied it, and related them, in the use of the conjunction “but,” as though they were in the same discourse; whereas, at least, half an hour intervened between the two declarations. But such a supposition would be absurd in the extreme, and consequently, cannot be entertained for a moment so long as the other view offers no difficulties whatever, and is consistent both with the laws of language and the probability that Luke’s representation of what Christ said is just what it appears to be,—a connected conversation.