SIN AFTER BAPTISM: A LONG NEGLECTED COMMAND
OF THE
LORD JESUS RECOMMENDED TO BELIEVERS.
By R. GOVETT.
-------
Third Edition.
[The
question has been asked: "What is your aim when
putting it [i.e., the following tract] on your website?" The answer is simple : ‘It is the disciple’s practical
righteousness, which will determine whether or not he/she will be ‘accounted worthy’ of the kingdom; and the only
way in which we can attain this righteousness, is by strict
compliance to the Lord’s commands. "Blessed is the
man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat
of the scornful. But his delight is in THE
LAW OF THE LORD ... The wicked are not so; but are like the chaff which the
wind driveth away. Therefore THE WICKED
SHALL NOT STAND IN THE JUDGMENT [of the
righteous], NOR SINNERS IN THE CONGREGATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS" (Psa. 1: 1, 2a, 4, 5.) R.V.
Furthermore,
there is here implied in Christ’s command to His disciples, a conditional
promise of being with Him. "If I wash thee
not, THOU [Peter] hast no part WITH ME."
It is true that our Lord must do the
washing and not the disciple; but can we disciples [followers of
Him] afford to neglect any of His commands without suffering both present
and future loss? I think not!
A
simple illustration will suffice:
"Some
years ago Mercedes made a TV commercial not shown in this country that showed a
Mercedes crashing into a concrete wall during a safety test? An engineer in a
white lab coat walks over after the crash and kneels down to examine the
damage, which is minimal. A reporter then asks the engineer about Mercedes’
energy absorbing car body.
After
the engineer tells all about the unique design the reporter asks why Mercedes
doesn’t enforce their patent on the design, a design evidently copied by
several other companies because of its success. The engineer replies
matter-of-factly, "Because some things in life ARE TOO IMPORTANT NOT TO
SHARE. How true this is. There are many things in life that fall into this
‘too important not to share’ category. Advances in science,
in medicine, in technology." But all of these pale in importance to
that of OBEYING OUR LORD’S COMMANDS : particularly when He has SHOWN US BY EXAMPLE
WHAT IT IS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING.
"Know ye what I have done unto you ... Ye
also ought to wash one another’s feet. For
I have given you an example that as I have DONE TO YOU, YE ALSO SHOULD DO."]
-------
1 THE ACT
"Now before the feast
of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart
out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the
world, he loved them unto the end. And
while supper was taking place,* the devil having
already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
Jesus - knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that
he came forth from God, and is going to God - riseth
from supper, and layeth aside his garments, and took
a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth
water into the bason, and began to wash the
disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded:" John 13: 1-5.
[*
The participle is indeed that of the Aorist, but it is only equivalent to the
present in this case, as indeed in many others. The very same participle, nay, the very same
word, is rendered as its equivalent in St. Mark;
Matthew 26: 6; Mark 14: 3. Not ‘when day was past,’ but ‘when
day was coming on:’ Luke 4: 42. See also John 21:
4; Acts 12: 18; 16: 35; 21: 40.]
It
appears that the scene presented before us in the preceding words took place
after supper was begun, and before it was ended. For Jesus after finishing the act sits down
again to table, Judas being yet present and alluded to by the Lord as still
unclean; while, after he had received the sop, he at once went out.
The
solemnity of the introduction to this act of our blessed Lord bespeaks it to be
one of no ordinary character.* The Gospel of John, while it gives us no
account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, devotes half a chapter to the
Saviour’s washing His disciples’ feet. And it is the especial glory of this Gospel,
that it presents to us Jesus as the Son of God, (and
therefore the especial pattern for the sons of God,) revealing the Father to
His elect church. The intent of the
introduction appears to be, to lead us to admire the unexampled humility and
grace that was in Christ Jesus. Though
about to exchange this lower scene of trial for the Father’s glory, He did not
forget those whom He was leaving behind. And as friends seek to give especial tokens of
love at parting, He chose the washing of the disciples’ feet as the means of
displaying the constancy of His love. Though
about to depart to "His own that
are in heaven," He would prove that He
was not forgetful of "His own that were in
the world." Not
even the knowledge of Judas’s treason prevented it. Nor did He thus voluntarily abase Himself
through momentary forgetfulness of His dignity. When He stooped to this act of grace, His
original dignity - with the Father before the world was made - His majesty soon
to be restored at His ascension - and the acquired dignity which as Son of man
He was to receive for His meritorious obedience to the Father - all were before
His eyes. But He was desirous to
manifest to His disciples that not the exacting of homage, but lowliness of
service is well-pleasing to the Father, and therefore He bowed Himself to this
deed of condescension.
[*
It is sometimes said, with careless boldness, that it was a customary thing for
the master to wash the guests’ feet, in eastern countries. Not one
instance of it can be found in Scripture. The following are all the passages in which
the thing is spoken of Abraham and
This
first part of the narrative, then, exhibits the action in itself,
as displaying in Jesus the constancy of divine love, the forbearance of
perfect patience, and the lowliness of
heavenly humility.
But
this heavenly condescension and service were not understood by Peter; and the
resistance to the Saviour’s display of unearthly humility presents to us the
second division of the history, which we may call, -
2 THE HINDRANCE.
"He cometh therefore to
Simon Peter, who saith unto him, ‘Lord, dost Tnou
wash my feet?’ Jesus answered and said
unto him, ‘What I am doing, thou knowest not now, but
thou shalt know hereafter.’ Peter saith unto him, ‘Thou shalt never wash
my feet.’ Jesus answered him, ‘If I wash
thee not, thou hast no part with
me.’ Peter saith unto him,
‘Lord, not my feet only but my hands, and my head.’ Jesus saith unto him, ‘He that is bathed hath
no need except to wash his feet, but is entirely clean; and ye are clean, but
not all.’ For he knew his betrayer,
therefore he said, ‘Ye are not all clean:’ ” ver. 6-11.
1. In
pursuance of His design of washing the disciples’ feet, the Saviour, having
begun with some of the others, now draws near to Peter in his turn.* But this act Peter did not comprehend. Was Messiah thinking of washing his feet? Did the King of Israel think to degrade
Himself so? The glory of this lowly
service the flesh did not see. In him
therefore the flesh speaks, ‘Lord, what art thou about to do? To wash my feet? Let
my reason first be satisfied, about the propriety of so singular an act.’
[*
This is the force of the little word ‘therefore.’
"He began
to wash the disciples' feet." "He cometh therefore"
- for whatever He began, that He completed.]
2. But
to this implied demand the Saviour renders for answer, "What I am doing, thou knowest not
now, but thou shalt know hereafter." It is assumed then, at once, that behind the outward act lay concealed
something deeper. The eye might take
in the whole of the action as performed by the Redeemer; but it had a hidden meaning to be seen by faith
alone. Secondly, Jesus would silence reply by the assertion of ignorance. To object where we are ignorant is folly. The Saviour further implies in this His
answer, that we are not released from obedience by partial ignorance. It is enough for us to see any thing to be the
command of our Master: it is not fit ground for refusing to comply, that it
does not seem reasonable, or that the grounds and intent of it are hid from us.
Now is the time of
implicit obedience, subject as we must be more or less to ignorance. Hereafter shall be the time of knowledge and satisfaction. This applies especially to the rite before
us. No objections against its
reasonableness, or because we cannot perceive its intent, will suffice to clear
us from the obligation, if only we discern our Master's command herein. The best trial of the willingness of a
disciple is often the enforcement of a command whose reason is not perceived.
God is not bound to satisfy our
demand of reasons, in order to His just requirements of submission. With Him, in general, knowledge follows
after obedience. "He that will do his will, shall know of the doctrine."
3. But
this reply satisfied not Peter. Doubt
ripens into rebellion. An appeal to our
ignorance is seldom satisfactory, even when knowledge is promised hereafter. "Thou shalt never
wash my feet." But the
disciple must be warned of the sad consequences of such disobedience. "If I wash thee
not thou hast no part with me." None can obtain part of the inheritance
who is not obedient to Messiah. Small
seemingly as was the act of submission required, a wilful resistance would
have shut him out of glory. But
here is somewhat deeper still. Wilful
resistance is in this case wilful uncleanness. The guests at God’s table may not be unclean,
much less willingly and wilfully so: Ephesians
5: 5. For every one that
would sit down at the Father’s table, the Son’s washing is required. Human washing will not suffice, as Job saw.
"If I wash myself with snow-water and make my
hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own
clothes shall abhor me:" Job 9: 30, 31.
But if the Son shall make you clean, ye
shall be clean indeed. And the necessity
of this was revealed to mourning David, after his deep stains of guilt. "Thou shalt purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean, thou
shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow:" Psalm 51: 7. Hence also concerning the Saviour’s washing we
read, "Unto him that loved us and washed us
from our sins in his own blood ... unto him be glory:" Revelation
1: 5. And it is observable, as
showing the Lord’s allusion to the spiritual meaning of the transaction, that
He drops all mention of the feet, and speaks of washing alone.
"If I wash thee
not, thou hast no part with me."
4. The
threat had its due effect, and resistance is removed: but now Peter as much
oversteps his Master’s will, as before he fell short of it. "Lord, not my
feet only, but my hands and my head." ‘If washing be necessary to partaking with
thee in thy glory and inheritance, why cleanse but a part; why not the whole?’ The flesh is ever wrong, both when it darts
ahead, and when it lags behind. Observe
the wisdom of God, beside the most seemingly plausible objection of the
creature. "He
that has bathed needs only to wash his feet, in every
other part he is clean." The
illustration made use of by the Redeemer is simple, as soon as the two
differing Greek words are rendered in their distinct meanings. After any one has come up from the bath, the
impurities which before adhered to his body have been removed by contact with
the water, and he is clean all but his feet, which still necessarily rest upon
the ground. Let his feet then be but
washed, and he is wholly clean.
5. The
application is equally obvious. Jesus takes it for granted that Peter and the
rest had been bathed, and that all he needed was the
cleansing of the feet.* It is
then as if the Saviour said - You were baptized, Peter, once by John, with the
baptism of repentance. **
You submitted to that
rite in token of the remission of sins. Were
I then to do as you desire me, and to bathe you entirely afresh, I should be
teaching you the imperfection of that universal washing which once you
received. And, which is more important
still, I should he giving you to understand that the forgiveness of sins
introduced by the Gospel, is as imperfect as that of
the Law.’ But Jesus does not so. His present washing recognizes the former
universal one as abiding in its effects.
It is not like the many washings of the Law. Baptism is once for all - "One baptism."
[*
It has been noticed that the Saviour’s words run almost in the form of a
syllogism.
Every one that is bathed needs only to wash his feet:
You are bathed: Therefore you need only to wash your feet.
Every one whose feet have been washed after bathing is
wholly clean:
Your feet have been washed after bathing:
Therefore you are wholly clean.
**Hence
observe, that baptism is total immersion. The
necessity of the illustration requires it.]
6. The lessons arising from this statement of
the Saviour are in the highest degree important, especially in the present day.
He takes for granted - 1st.The
entire uncleanness of man by nature. He
who is un-bathed is, as the Saviour assumes, wholly unclean. In order to become clean he must be entirely
washed. This sets forth the spiritual
truth, that before faith, man is in every part defiled and unclean. The soil of all former sin is upon him, and
his evil heart of unbelief is still accumulating evil. Nothing short of entire cleansing can make him
clean. This is effected
by faith in the blood of the Lord Jesus. Then is he totally cleansed. And baptism is appointed to set forth this
complete cleansing of the soul by faith. By faith all "old sins" are "purged" away: 2 Peter
1: 9. And as baptism is the representation of this, therefore of the [regenerate] believer
it is written, "Arise, and be baptized and
wash away thy sins:"
Acts 22: 16. And again, "Let
us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our body bathed in pure water:" (Greek) Hebrews 10: 22. This is the general bathing spoken of. Therefore, Paul having reckoned up some of the
many defilements of sin, and alluding to the baptism of the Corinthians,
writes, "And such were some of you, but, ye
were washed:" 1
Corinthians 6: 11.
7. [Believer’s] Baptism
then is the first and total bathing to which the Saviour refers: it answers to
the total uncleanness of man by nature. It
exhibits in a figure the great and general forgiveness of past sin which is
granted by the Father to all that believe in Jesus. "By him all that believe are justified from all things."
The Saviour’s answer therefore to Peter
is full of consolation to the believer. He would not repeat again the bath. He would do only what was yet needful for the
saint - he would wash him partially. As
if he had said - ‘I am not about to do again what has been done. Your former sins and defilements were
forgiven once and for ever, when by faith you were united to me; and baptism
heralded this truth to yourself and others. That great washing abides in its effects
still. The past is blotted out and
forgiven freely. But you have offended since that day; and fresh sin has
stained your conscience. You need then a second and supplementary
washing, that you may be wholly clean. Such is the washing of your feet. The first washing was total;
for sin entirely possessed you by nature. This second washing is partial,
as your sins now are occasional. You
sinned willingly before, with head and hand. You sin involuntarily now, as the bather
coming up from the bath unwillingly gathers on his feet the dust and dirt that
defile them.’ "That which I do I allow not; for what I would that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I." "Now then it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
"The good
that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do:" Romans 7: 15, 17, 19.
8. Thus,
while the total defilement of man as a sinner is set forth
in the total immersion of the believer once for all; the
partial and unwilling uncleanness of the saint is set forth
in the second and succeeding washing. It is intended to teach that daily sin
demands a daily cleansing, even after our old sins are purged and put away. The intercession of Jesus to this end, and His ceaseless washing are continually needed. The High Priest over the house of God standing
above the leper, pronounces him clean.
9. This
subject then provides us with the true and scriptural view of a question much
agitated in our day - the distinction between sin before, and
sin after baptism. Only,
in order to the clear and true apprehension of the point, it is absolutely necessary first to see that baptism can only rightly
be administered, where there is personal [saving] faith. It is the baptizing of the ignorant and
unbelieving infant which has thrown such obscurity over the whole question of
baptism. "Believe and be baptized," is God’s command, and
God’s order. If you invert that
order, no wonder that darkness follows.
10. How
direct then the contrast between the Saviour’s doctrine and that of Puseyism! "We have no
account (saith it) in Scripture of any second
remission, obliteration, extinction of all sin, such as is
bestowed upon us ‘by the one baptism for the remission of sins.’ ‘Did not the Redeemer
then wash Peter’s feet, and set it forth as a second purification,
exhibiting the removal of occasional sin after baptism? We are then [in baptism] washed once for all in His blood, if we again sin, there
remaineth no more such complete ablution in this life."
This is true when we see that the second
washing is partial. The reason is, that a total cleansing is not needed. "He that is
bathed needeth not save to wash his feet."
How do the succeeding words of the
same party remind us of the Saviour’s words to the Pharisees! "Have
ye never read" the
Scriptures? "There are but two periods
of absolute cleansing, (says Puseyism,) baptism,
and the day of judgment." How then do we hear the High Priest at the
close of the washing of feet, (which is neither baptism nor the day of judgment,) say, "Ye
are clean?" "He that is
bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, and is clean
every whit." Thanks;
be to God for the gentle grace of the Gospel! While Puseyism
would teach us, that a second or third sin after baptism can scarcely leave a
faint hope of forgiveness; and that by a single act of transgression after
baptism, we have forfeited all revealed provisions of mercy to the sinner - how
blessed to turn to the Scripture, and to see Jesus bending in lowly
condescension to remove the impurities from the feet of the baptized believer! The Redeemer discerns the great and gracious difference
between the wilful sin of the unconverted [and disobedient
converted],¹ and the unwilling slips and stumblings of one who is in heart His servant. The sin of the apostate is,
the washed sow to her “wallowing in the mire"
the other is the
involuntary soiling of the washed foot from its necessary contact with earth. If then you are a [regenerate] believer, let nothing call into doubt the past
forgiveness, the entire "purging of your old sins:"
2 Peter 1: 9. If you sin again, you must wash your feet, but
no more. You are not lying under the
wrath of an un-reconciled God. You are
clean except your feet: Jesus will stoop to remove that also,* and has provided
this secondary washing and its accompanying truth as a
gracious consolation to the wounded and galled spirit. "My little
children, these things write I unto you that you
sin not. And if any sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" 1 John 2: 1.
[*
It is worthy of remark, that the disciples did not wash Jesus' feet. In His
passage through the world, no soil or stain had clung to him. The Evil One
came, but could find nothing in him.]
[¹ Note the
severe warning addressed to the Lord’s redeemed people in Heb. ch.
10. It is because of wilful
sin in the regenerate: "For if we
sin wilfully after we have
received the knowledge of the truth, their remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgement
..." Judgement is therefore happening at all times in the life of a regenerate
believer who sins wilfully; and, unless repentance is exercised, the ultimate
outcome will be exclusion from the Millennium. They shall not stand in "the congregation of the righteous". Heb. 10: 26-31; Psa. 1: 5. Let it be realised that repentance is not
lip service; it is a TURNING AWAY FROM ALL KNOWN SIN UNTO GOD - "IF GOD PERMIT" (See Heb. 6: 3 with context.)]
11. Of
this double cleansing, the Law also is a witness to us. The blood of the Passover lamb saved
[* Exodus 29: 4.]
12. We
may hereby also discern the un-scripturalness of the doctrine, that any believers are without sin. He who is the Great High Priest of His church
foresaw, that believers would as surely sin, as the bather collects impurities
on his feet after leaving the bath. In
testimony of the doctrine, that sin yet cleaves to His people, even in their
best estate, He both washed His disciples’ feet, and till His coming again commanded them to wash one another’s feet. Is washing in order to cleanse that which is
clean? As universal then as the command
here given to all saints, so
universal is the partial defilement of every saint. In the removal of the partial uncleanness
contracted in our passage through the world, the saints are to help each other.
They
are to admonish one another, to confess their sins one to another, to bring
gently and lovingly before each other their mistakes, errors, and
imperfections.
Thus
the second part of the narrative brings out the hidden meaning of the
rite, and is intended to display the necessity of the
intercession of Jesus for His saints, because of their frequent sins after
their first pardon and justification before God. We come now to the concluding portion, which
we may call -
3. THE COMMAND.
"When then he had
washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was seated at table again,
he said unto them, ‘Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me ‘the Teacher,’ and ‘the Lord,' and
ye say well for so I am. If I, then have washed your feet, being the Lord and the
Teacher, ye also ought to wash one
another’s feet. For I have
given you an example that as I have done to you, ye also should do. Verily, verily, I say unto you, no servant (slave) is greater than his
lord; and no apostle greater than him who sent him. If ye know these things, blessed* are ye if ye do
them:" verses 12-17.
[*
The Greek word translated, "blessed"
in almost all cases: See Matthew 5.]
1. The
Saviour having appeared for a moment as the servant, now resumes His dress, His
place, and His titles. The act that
had just passed before them was not to be forgotten, either by them, or by the
disciples of Jesus till His coming again. He inquires of them if they had comprehended
the meaning of what they had just seen? He
brings before their eyes the titles by which they commonly addressed Him, and
then takes His stand upon the double authority which they acknowledged in Him. "Ye call me ‘the
Teacher’ and ‘the Lord.’” This is not compliment, not mere empty title. Had it been so, I would have put a stop to it.
But you give me these titles and I
confirm them. "Ye say well, for so I am."
Do you not perceive then the relations
in which you stand to me? These are real
relationships, and duties spring from them. Am I your Teacher? You then are my disciples, bound to
listen to and obey my instructions. Am I your Lord? You are under obligation
then as my servants, to obey me as your Master.’
2. The
Redeemer then having brought into view the double
right and authority over them which they acknowledged, gathers up all this
weight of His authority, the more firmly to fix the command which follows upon
His church. He deals in this as the
mechanic, who takes his heaviest hammer, and sways his arm backward to its full
extent, when he would deal the most forcible blow. ‘Since then,’ He says, ‘you confess in me the
right to teach, I as the Teacher sent from God, require of
you who own yourselves my disciples, that you wash one
another’s feet. Standing as I do in
the place of your Lord and Master, I,
in virtue of this authority, charge you who confess yourselves my servants,
to wash one another’s feet.’ If we
are disciples of Jesus then, the washing of each other’s
feet is to be practised by us as part of His teaching. If we be servants of
the Lord Jesus, the washing of one another’s feet is part of the work
we have to perform. In the preceding
scene the Saviour does not regard the twelve as apostles, for
then some might have devised to escape the command, by supposing that it
applied to the twelve as apostles alone. But the Saviour has cut off this evasion, by
setting those to whom He addressed the command upon the very ground on which we stand, as servants and disciples. And on all who confess these universal and
enduring relationships to Jesus, it is made binding. "If I then, your
Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash
one another’s feet." "WHY CALL YE ME LORD, LORD, AND DO NOT THE THINGS THAT I SAY?"
3. The
command then to believers to wash each other’s feet is rested, first, on their
acknowledgment of the right of Jesus to prescribe to them any ceremony He may
think fit, in His double capacity of a Teacher enjoining His disciples, and of
a Master laying commands on His servants. But it has another ground also. The Redeemer rests the obligation of the precept
on the reality of the fact. Did Jesus wash His disciples’ feet? IF
He did, you are to wash the saints’ feet. Do you believe that Jesus
washed His apostles’ feet? IF you do, you are to wash the saints’
feet in token of your belief. Not to
do so then is argument of unbelief : for Jesus FOUNDS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PRACTICE
ON THE REALITY OF THE FACT. "IF I your Lord and Master, have washed
your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet."
By this simple test, the question
whether the command be intended to be taken figuratively or not, is settled at
once. Did Jesus wash His disciples’ feet
figuratively? IF He did, you may imitate Him
and keep the command by a figurative washing. But if it was real and literal,
nothing but a real and literal washing will suffice. I say again then - Did Jesus LITERALLY
wash His disciples' feet? "Go and do thou likewise!" Confess your Lord and Teacher, though the
world scorn!
4. The
Redeemer has founded this command on His own essential right to obedience, and
on our confession of that right. The
washing of one another’s feet is a positive ordinance, solemnly enjoined by Him
whom all Christians acknowledge as having the right to appoint what ordinances
He wills. The apostles add no
further command on the subject. To so
awfully majestic a foundation, as the whole authority of our Redeemer laid as
the basis for this one command, what could be added! It is indeed once noticed elsewhere, on
purpose to show us that in apostolic times this precept was no dead letter, but
a sacred reality, a part of service in the church, and classed among works
entitled "good" by the Holy Ghost.
"Let not a widow be taken into the number under
three-score years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good
works: if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, IF
SHE HAVE WASHED THE SAINTS' FEET: if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good
work:" 1 Timothy 5: 9, 10. Females,
then, as we learn from the above words, are as much embraced by it as men.
5. But
the Saviour sets forth another ground of obligation still. He pleads that the reason why He performed
this act of condescension, was, that it should have the force of an example to
be imitated by all His followers. The
Lord Jesus might have uttered the command without Himself fulfilling the act,
as the commander-in-chief orders the storming party to the breach, but does not
head them himself. Our Lord’s act then adds the greater weight to His injunction. He inquires first if they understood His
intent in what He had done? He then
informs them that He did it by way of making His example binding on His
followers. "For I have given you an example,
that ye should do, as I have done to you." While then we confess that the life of Jesus
in general is intended for an example to us, this deed of His is especially so.
It is a pattern-act, to be copied by
every disciple. It is not intended so much as a theme for admiration, (the use ordinarily made
of it) as for a guide to practice. "I have given you an example that ye should DO."
And its literality follows from the
succeeding words. "As I have done to you." In one respect this is more blessed even than
baptism; for in that we are passive, but in this we are active observers of the
Redeemer’s will. And note how forcibly His example is connected
with the command, "Ye ought to wash one another’s feet : For I have given you an example, that
ye should do as I have done to you."
6.
Example is most forcible when it begins with superiors. On one occasion, as we are informed, it was
needful for the safety of the army of the Crusade that a certain space should
he walled in as speedily as possible. The
English king, who was at the head of the army, put his own hand to the trowel
and wrought. The
meaning of that lofty example was felt at once by all. It was evident that he meant all, however
lofty their station, to do the same. But
there had been no force in the same act performed by one in a lower rank. A duke would have passed by the mason plodding
at his work, and have felt no obligation on himself to
do likewise. But when a king and the
general-in-chief did so, the point of the example was not to be evaded. Thus,
when the Lord Jesus, the Great Head of our religion, is seen stooping to wash
the disciples’ feet, the force of the example is not to be gainsaid. And He Himself states it as effectually
precluding and silencing all claim to exemption on the
score of rank. "No apostle is greater than his
commissioner." If, then, He does it from whom even apostles
receive their commission, who may plead superior rank as an excuse?
7. Jesus
saw that the chief obstacle to the
fulfilment of this command would be pride. This remnant of earth, therefore, He combats. ‘May not the scholar do without degradation
what the master has done? Can the
servant be degraded by stooping as low as his Lord! Such as is the character of the act in my
case, such is it also in yours. Do you
account it a glory in me so to condescend, and yet fear degradation to yourself
from it?’ To one who doubts whether he
ought to fulfil this duty, I would say, ‘Brother, pray that pride and the fear
of man may be taken away.’ The evidence
for the practice will then be overpowering.
8. But,
lastly, the Saviour pronounces the disciple "blessed"
who keeps this command. "If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them."
Jesus foresaw that many would be ready
with their commendations of His humility, who would be content with barren
admiration. He would urge them on to do
the like. He foresaw that His action
looked at in the picturesque distance and the classical light of the sacred
history, would be esteemed beautiful, while any attempt on the part of the
disciple to reduce his Lord’s command to practice, would be scoffed at as absurd.
But be the world’s idea what it will,
the judgment of Jesus is, "Blessed are ye, if ye do
it." Does then the
Christian seek the approval of his Master? He will find it in this case attached, not to
the knowledge of his meaning, but to the fulfilment of the
deed. "Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it." "Being not a
forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in
his deed." "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth me." Likeness
to Jesus, and obedience to Him, is the saint’s true blessedness.
9. Thus
far it has been the writer’s privilege to go with the Scripture. But one might easily understand from our
knowledge of human nature, and its remains even in the regenerate, that
objections would arise against a command so abasing to the flesh. Two opposite
classes of objections are raised against it.
1st.
Some rest their resistance to the injunction on their ignorance of
its reasons and meaning. ‘What is the we
of it? What good would it answer to do it now?’
2nd.
The second class of objections takes opposite ground. The objector assumes that he knows and fully understands
its intent. ‘It is an eastern custom.’ ‘It was intended to teach us humility.’
To
both these classes we may reply - the obligation to perform the present command
of the Lord is quite distinct from the question of knowledge or ignorance. Peter was ignorant of the meaning,
and on that ground resisted; and his conduct is recorded to teach us the
sinfulness of ignorance resisting what is enjoined of God. His duty was the same, whatever was the state
of his knowledge. Again, on the other
hand, if the Most High should reveal to you, perfectly, every reason of the
ordinance, your knowledge, in place of being a release from the performance of
the duty, would only bind you more strongly to fulfil it. It is not an enigma, where all that is
required is, to find out the meaning. It
is a command to be performed, as you value the authority of Jesus, and desire
to experience His declaration of blessedness.
10.
Whether it be an eastern custom or no, is nothing to
us. To Christians, it has lost any old
and former meaning it might have had, as soon as our Master takes it up and
makes it binding on us. The empty custom
of unbelieving man, as soon as ever it is enjoined by Jesus, becomes the solemn
and significant rite, to be obeyed by every true disciple. It is idle to inquire - Who do it by nature? We do it on another principle, and for reasons
totally unlike theirs. And if any
positive command can be established on the word of a teacher sent from God, the
washing of one another’s feet is enjoined on the saints by the solemn authority
of Jesus. It is idle to talk of
it as a question between the eastern and the western nations. Have not the
western saints’ feet, which grow soiled, and need washing? This is all which the command supposes.
11. To
those who pass carelessly by this act of the Saviour and His following command,
affirming, that it was only intended to give us a lesson of humility, I would
reply, It is not said so by Christ. The
significance of the rite belongs as much to the party whose feet are washed, as to
the disciple who is called to humble himself in washing them. Such a careless statement as this
supposes that we know all the reasons of the command: which we have only to
deny. "What
I do, thou knowest not now." Jesus does not say, ‘Do this that you may
learn humility.’ He hints at several
unknown and mysterious reasons. He knew that, had He told His disciples simply
that it was a lesson in humility, many would have passed by it, regarding it
only as one way among many of learning the same thing, and confident that they
knew as good or better modes of attaining that grace. But Jesus does not do so; He teaches us that this is to be regarded as an ordinance of cleansing, conveying deep and most
important lessons as it regards the standing of a saint before God. While, then, the act of washing another’s feet
carries with it, as we confess, a lesson of humility to him who performs the
act, yet it carries also a far higher meaning than any self-devised display of
humility could do. It teaches him whose
feet are washed, that sins and errors gather upon him, though God’s past
forgiveness is unaltered: it sets forth the necessity of Jesus’ intercession,
the duty of the saints’ care for each other, and the need of the gentle
admonitions of love. The lesson of
humility, then, is only one among many points intended by the Redeemer; and no
act of our own can fill the gap left by its omission.
12.
Again, what answer can be returned by him who neglects this rite to the Quaker, when he pleads, that all
rites and ceremonies are abolished - baptism, and the supper of the Lord not excepted? ‘Be consistent,’ he says. ‘Either
celebrate the washing of the saints’ feet according to the command of Jesus; or
cease to urge on me the duty of baptism and the Lord's supper.’
Until the Christian keeps all the
Saviour’s commands, the objectors are confirmed in their error. They reject all the ritual commands of Jesus,
and, though in error, are at least consistent in error. But the Christian
who rejects this, is consistent with his principles, and his practice is
self-condemned.
13.
Examine, then, the evidence for this neglected practice, side by side with
those rites which you acknowledge and perform. 1. On the same solemn eve of his
betrayal and death, Jesus instituted both the breaking of bread, and the
washing of the saints' feet. By
what rule do you accept one of these rites, and reject the
other? 2. You cannot
affirm that the command to celebrate the supper is more clearly stated, more
solemnly introduced, or more strongly enforced. Concerning the origin of the Lord’s Supper, we
read only, "As they were eating, Jesus
took bread, and blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take, eat,
this is my body’. And He took the cup,
and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it.’"
The
Lord’s Supper takes its origin from the midst of another act. But the washing of feet begins with Jesus’
breaking off from that in which He was engaged, as though that which He was to
perform were more important than the supper that then engaged Him. "He riseth from supper, and layeth aside His garments." 3. It was not in consequence of any custom,
but wholly out of course, and without example. The washing of feet, if at all, was before
supper, not during it. 4. The
bread and wine were handed by the disciples from one to another; this, as more
solemn, was performed for each of the apostles by the sacred hand of Jesus.
5. The command to celebrate the supper
is couched in the general words - "Do this
in remembrance of me." But
Jesus specifies with great exactness concerning the other rite - "Ye ought to wash one another's feet." 6. Nothing is spoken concerning the
disciple that should refuse to eat at the table of the Lord; but of him that
should refuse to be washed, it is said, "If I wash
thee not, THOU HAST NO PART WITH ME."
7. After the command to celebrate the
supper, no further notice is taken of the act. But after the washing of the feet, Jesus
recalls the subject again to their mind, and would have them reconsider its
intent. 8. Of the celebration of the
supper it might he said, that it was intended for apostles alone: but of the
washing of feet, we are expressly taught that it was designed for all who
acknowledge Jesus as their teacher and Lord.
14. The
reader can compare it for himself with the evidence on which he esteems himself
bound to keep the Lord’s day.
15.
Finally, the fixed relation which the washing of feet holds to the other two
rites (or ‘sacraments’ as they are improperly called) proves that it was
intended to be permanent. Baptism is
appointed as the sign of that great and fundamental doctrine, that man by
nature is totally defiled, and needs a total cleansing. But this washing is appointed as the sign of a
no less certain and important doctrine, that sin still adheres to the
saint, after that great and general pardon which is given at the
moment of faith; and that nothing but the intercession of Jesus can remove the
guilt from before God. As surely, then,
as we may not remove the appointed landmark from the one doctrine, so neither
may we remove the sign which Jesus has affixed to the other. Moreover the washing of feet bears an evident
relation to the supper of the Lord. Jesus
rose from table and performed the act, before He gave the bread or the cup, to
signify, doubtless, the entire cleanness with which that holy supper should be
eaten; even as His apostle afterwards taught. "Let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup."
As, then, Christians confess that
baptism and the Lord’s Supper were intended to be fixed and permanent in the
church, throughout all ages, till the Saviour’s coming again, so must this be likewise intended to be
permanent. For the washing of feet
being permanently related to things which are confessedly enduring, partakes
necessarily of the same character of endurance.*
[*
It may be permitted here to add a word or two on the history of the fulfilment
of this command by the disciples of Jesus. Grotius,
in his note on the place, informs us that the practice continued in the
To
the worldly these remarks are not addressed. To them the rite must be ever
foolishness. But it is in exact accordance with the lowliness and the gracious
service which is urged upon the saint now in his time of humiliation: one day
to be rewarded with a crown of glory that fadeth not
away! The Lord give His people grace to see and
practice the truth! The writer’s warrant for this little tract is,
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
bur whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven:" Matthew 5: 19.
-------