FEET-WASHING | AdventAI

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 24, 1859

FEET-WASHING.

In the Advent Herald of Aug. 7, and the World's Crisis of Sept. 8, 1858, we find articles against the custom of feet-washing as a church ordinance: the former by J. Litch, and the latter by B. Mathewson. These articles we have endeavored carefully to examine, to ascertain if our opponents had any valid ground of opposition to this practice. It is hardly necessary to state that the position they take is, that it is not a church ordinance but an act of hospitality. Nor are they quite willing to rest it on this ground alone; for the act being very humble as well as hospitable, it seems impossible to separate it from humility. Humility is therefore joined to the hospitality; and to these some also add equality. The sum of their position then, is this: That the transaction of our Lord, as recorded in John xiii, was simply designed to teach a lesson of hospitality, humility, and equality among the brethren; but the different mode of dressing the feet at the present day, and in this part of the world, from that anciently practiced in the East, now renders this act unnecessary as an expression of hospitality.

All then that need be done to disprove the position of those who object to this practice, is to show that the act of our Lord in washing his disciples' feet, and his teaching to them on the subject, had no connection with physical uncleanness, nor with the hospitable customs of those times. This fact being established, no other signification can be given to the Saviour's act and language, but that he set an example which he designed his disciples to follow in all coming time.

1. It is claimed, first, that, in the East, where people went for the most part with bare legs, and with the feet protected only by sandals, it was the custom for individuals to wash the feet of their guests; and that on this custom, our Lord's act of feet-washing was based. In this our friends mistake. So far as we can learn from the sacred record, this was not the custom; but the custom was for the host to present his guests a basin of water and let them wash their own feet. Not such a ceremony as this took place in that upper chamber where Jesus and his disciples were assembled on the eve of the paschal sacrifice. "Abraham," it is said, "washed the feet of the angels who came to him in human form; and this is the first example of feet-washing we have in the Bible; and if we are in doubt in reference to any phrase or act, we may expect to find relief by looking to see how it was first used." But by turning to Gen. xviii, 4, we find that Abraham did not wash the feet of his guests, but only requested them to let a little water be brought that they might wash their own feet. Precisely so was it with Lot when the angels came to him. Gen. xix, 2. He besought them to turn in to his house, and wash their feet; not that he would wash them. So with Abraham's servant: water was given him that he might wash his feet. Gen. xxiv, 21. So with Joseph's brethren. Gen. xliii, 24. See also Judges xix, 21. Our Lord's act, then, was not based upon the customs of those times.

2. Whenever the Saviour, while on earth, sought to enforce by some act, a great moral lesson upon his disciples, he took occasion to do it when surrounding circumstances called for such an exhibition. We read that on one occasion he took a little child and set him in the midst of his disciples, and told them that except they should be converted and become as little children, they could not inherit the kingdom. By this act he forcibly taught them a lesson of humility and equality; and there was an occasion for this lesson; for we find that the disciples had been disputing among themselves concerning who of them should be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But look at the transaction recorded in John xiii, as designed to teach a lesson of hospitality, and what circumstances, we ask, were there to call it forth? Had the disciples been inclined to be inhospitable, that a lesson of this kind was necessary; or were they in need themselves of some hospitality's being shown them? Nothing of the kind. Viewed in this light it becomes a strange digression from the course of events then transpiring.

3. Had the washing of the disciples' feet been in accordance with the customs of those times, they would of course have understood it; for it cannot be supposed that they were ignorant of the usages of hospitality then existing. But it seems they did not understand it. It was to them surprising and unexpected. Peter rose up in opposition and refused to have the ceremony performed on him; and Jesus expressly said to him, "What I do thou knowest not now." Surely, in view of this fact, those who regard this a mere act or lesson of hospitality, are not the ones to talk about "quintessence of absurdity," "incongruity," and "inconsistency." These epithets recoil with tenfold power upon their own heads.

4. The washing mentioned in John xiii, has no reference to physical uncleanness. When Jesus made to Peter the startling declaration that unless he washed him he had no part with him, then Peter in his usual zealous manner, was ready to submit, not his feet only, but also his hands and his head. But Jesus replied that he that is washed (or, as some translate it, has been bathing) "needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." This necessity of washing the feet comes, says Mathewson, from the fact that they were liable to be "soiled in walking from the bath." Then we must understand Christ to say to Peter that unless he washed his feet from the dust, &c., that might adhere to them while walking from the bath, he could have no part with him! That is, Peter's salvation depended on his having his feet washed from whatever it might be, by which they were liable to be soiled while walking from the bath! Does the reader perceive no "quintessence of absurdity" in such a position as this?

"Ye are clean," said Christ to his disciples, "but not all." In what respect were they not all clean? The next verse explains: For he knew who should betray him; THEREFORE, said he, ye are not all clean.

5. It is argued that feet-washing cannot be an ordinance of the church; for all ordinances "typify something which is calculated to lead the mind to the great Author of our salvation." We answer: Who could perform this ordinance, as instituted by our Redeemer without having his mind called to him? It is as effectual a remembrancer of his humility, though he was Lord of glory, as is the supper of his death, or baptism of his resurrection.

6. It is said that a sense of propriety would separate the sexes in the performance of this ordinance; and that this is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. We reply that confining ourselves strictly to the example set us in the sacred record involves no breach of propriety. We have the example of females washing the feet of males, but not vice versa. This example may be followed without impropriety by any who may be conscious of a duty in this respect.

7. Feet-washing, it is said, is enumerated in the catalogue of good works; it cannot therefore be a church ordinance; for had it been, Paul would not have enumerated this one, to the exclusion of other ordinances, among good works. See 1 Tim. v, 10. Those who make this claim, in order to sustain it, must show that what might be a good work on one occasion, might not on another occasion, and under different circumstances, be a religious ordinance. This they have not shown, nor attempted to show.

8. It is objected again, that feet-washing is never mentioned as an ordinance, whereas we have frequent mention of the breaking of bread. In answer, we inquire, Is not the partaking of the cup, equally imperative with the breaking of bread? Certainly. But have we not frequent mention of the latter, without a specification of the former? We have; and the omission can be accounted for only on the ground that it is an inseparable branch of the ordinance, and is therefore included under the general name of breaking of bread. So with the washing of feet. If it was instituted at the same time, and in connection with the supper, and is enjoined in as express terms as the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine, why is it not also an inseparable portion of the ordinance, and likewise understood when we speak of the breaking of bread? With our present light we must so regard it.

9. Finally, say some, it is only an act on the part of the Saviour to show us that we must be humble. Very well: how can we better show our humility than by the example which he has set us? Said Jesus to his disciples after he had washed their feet, "Know ye what I have done to you?" And in his explanations he says: "For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done unto you." We shall ever look with distrust upon the boasted humility of that man, who is unwilling to bring it to the test the Saviour has here given us.

In conclusion, we invite the honest inquirer after truth on this point, to study carefully the testimony of John xiii. In the articles above referred to, there is, throughout, a manifest evasion of this portion of Scripture, which, of all others, ought to be kept in view in examining this question. We say, then, keep in mind the testimony of Jesus on this point. Weigh well his language; study its bearing and its import. We are confident, if you do this, there is but one conclusion to which you can arrive. It is best expressed in the Saviour's own words: "If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." We are equally confident, that, in your endeavors to follow this example, you will share largely in that blessing which his holy lips pronounced: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."