p. 66 | Feet Washing by Wiley Jones

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 28, 1863

Feet Washing.

By Wiley Jones

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.”—John xiv, 15.

Among other commandments our blessed Redeemer said, “Ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” John xiii, 14. Can language be plainer; if Moses had given a command so plain, would not the Jews have kept it? Shall we, then, hold in less reverence the commands of Jesus than the Jews did those of Moses? Nay, for “He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses,” and there is a “much sorer punishment” for those who despise the law of Christ. Heb. x, 28. If he who broke one of the “least commandments” of Moses shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, will there be much honor for him who breaks one, even admitting it to be the least, of the commandments of Christ, and shall teach men so? Matt. v, 19. Indeed, what shall we think of those in this generation who profess to feed the flock of God, and yet do not treat with as much reverence the sacred commands of Jesus as Joshua did the law of Moses? Of Joshua's faithfulness here is an evidence, “He read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel.” Josh. viii, 34, 35. Now Joshua was Moses' minister, Josh. i, 1, and faithful to his charge, and if any one would aspire to be “a faithful minister of Christ,” Col. i, 7, ought he not to urge upon his hearers all the words of the law of Christ, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in that law, omitting not a word of all that Christ has commanded? Then in the elite company with Paul he might like an echo take up the words of that apostle and say, “I have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you. I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts xx, 20, 26, 27. There are few such faithful ones nowadays, for since the decease of Paul and his fellow-laborers, “grievous wolves” have entered in, not sparing the flock, and so far from endeavoring to root up every plant which our heavenly Father has not planted, they endeavor to root up every plant which he hath planted. But all their worship is in vain, while they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, and denounce as heresies the commandments of God. Matt. xv, 9, 13. Let us beware then of being misled by them, for since the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures daily to see whether what the apostles declared was true, we may well feel it incumbent upon us to bring the teachings of modern times to the same sovereign test. When modern “Doctors” clad in soft raiment and standing in their gorgeous temples tell us, that “Feet-washing is by no means an ordinance of religion, but merely an ancient oriental custom,” we may by searching see that even in the days of Moses it was a religious ordinance. Ex. xxx, 21. And that so far as custom is concerned,

the eating of supper was an ancient oriental custom also, and yet the Master institutes a special supper. So feet washing being a custom he nevertheless institutes a special act of the kind, and commands his disciples to observe it, saying, “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” It is worthy of note that our Lord, unlike the Scribes and Pharisees, (who were accustomed to bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and to lay them on men's shoulders, while they themselves were not willing to move them with one of their little fingers, Matt. xxiii, 4,) does not require of us any harder thing than to follow his example. And what a high privilege that we may “follow his steps,” that we may “suffer with him,” and “reign with him!”

Eating a meal at home does not obviate the necessity of eating the supper instituted on this occasion; for we are commanded, 1 Cor. xi, 34, to first eat at home for the satisfaction of hunger; nor does washing the feet at home for the sake of cleanliness remove the necessity of doing so congregationally in obedience to the divine command.

From the foregoing considerations I conclude, that the feet-washing alluded to in John xiii, is vastly more than “merely an ancient oriental custom.” Nor can the observance of it be called “a voluntary humility,” or “will worship,” since the word voluntary (from the Latin voluntas, the will,) means what is done from one's own will, and not from any divine command; and also since the original word rendered “will-worship,” (Ἐθελοθρησκεία,), is defined by the Greek lexicon in these words—“will or voluntary worship, i. e., invented by men, supererogation.”

It will not suffice to object that the direct command occurs “only once” since a number of prophecies, as Mic. v, 2, occurring “only once,” have nevertheless been most minutely fulfilled. Thus too the exact formula for baptism, Matt. xxviii, 19, though to the best of my knowledge it occurs “only once,” is almost universally admitted to be the only proper one. But what shall we think of that person who can profess reverence for the word of God, and yet raise an objection of this kind?

But some one hints that “feet-washing is indecorous.” Not more so than circumcision, or than some pronounce Christian immersion to be. Where there is first a willingness of mind there can be found a way to do all of our duties “decently and in order.” Moreover, this objection is after the manner of the Pharisees, who affected being very nice, and in order to excuse themselves from obedience, accused John the Baptist of having a devil, and our Lord of being “a gluttonous man, and a winebibber.” Luke vii, 34. Away then with such an objection—the offspring rather of a rebellious heart than a commendable modesty.

Another thinks “It was not intended for modern times.” And why not as much for modern times as anything else on record? Does not the Master say, “I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” This being commanded them and they being commanded to teach “All whatsoever was commanded them to others,” Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, how could they fulfill the terms of the commission without teaching it to their contemporaries, and through them to us?

A third objector says, “It is only an ‘ought’ and therefore we are at liberty to do it or not as we feel disposed.” Let us then find instances of the use of this word, and see if it will bear such a construction. In Matt. xxiii, 23, there is a woe denounced against the Scribes and Pharisees for not doing what they ought to have done. In Acts xvii, 29, the apostle says, “We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven with art or man's device.” Will any one have the hardihood to say that a Christian is at liberty to think this or not, just as he may feel disposed? In truth a merely “ought” from the lips of our divine Master, should be emphatic to Christians.

“But after all,” it is urged, “we can only class it among good works.” Well, what if this assertion be even so; is it not written that our Saviour “gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works?” Titus ii, 14.

In the investigation of this subject I have endeavored to be brief, and to use none but a “Thus it is written” style of argument, not calling in the aid of ecclesiastical history; which the reader is requested to consult. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” See Psa. cxix, 6; Deut. v, 29; Rev. xxii, 14.

WILEY JONES.

Norfolk, Va.

Gospel Banner.