John xiii. 8.
—Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
To comprehend the full meaning of these words (which, as we shall see, are of no small importance) we must carefully attend to the circumstances of the history, which gave occasion to them.
The chapter begins thus—Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own, which were in the world, he loved them to the end.—
We are prepared by these words to expect something, on the part of our Lord, very expressive of his love for his Disciples.
The season, too, is critical, and must excite our attention: it was before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart out of this world to the Father; in other words, just before his crucifixion.
There is, indeed, some difficulty in fixing the precise time, when the transaction, now to be related, happened. I take no part in the disquisition, because it is not material to my purpose, and would divert me too much from it. It is enough to say, that it was at most, but the evening before the Paschal supper was celebrated, and therefore but two days before Jesus suffered.
The history proceeds—“And supper being ended (or rather, as the text should have been translated, the time of supper being come[76]) the Devil having now 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 was come from God and went to God; he riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. After that, he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the Disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.”
Thus far all is clear. Jesus condescended to wash the feet of his Disciples; a ministry, very common in the East, and usually performed by servants, in discharge of their duty towards their masters, or, by inferiors, at least, in testimony of respect towards their superiors; as is abundantly plain from many instances.
This then was ONE end of this washing. Our Saviour meant it as a lesson of humility and condescension to his Disciples. But was it the ONLY, or the chief end? That is the point we are now to consider.
Let it be remembered, then, that nothing was more familiar with the Jews, than to convey an information to others, especially if that information was of importance, by natural, rather than artificial signs, I mean by deeds, rather than words; as every one knows, who has but dipped into the history and writings of the Old and New Testament. The transaction before us, if understood only as a lesson of humility, is a lesson conveyed to the Disciples in this form[77].
Now, this way of information by action was occasionally made to serve TWO contrary purposes: either to give more force and emphasis to an instruction; or, to cloathe it with some degree of obscurity, or even ambiguity. For actions, speaking to the eye, when the purpose of them is by any means clearly ascertained, convey the most lively and expressive information: on the other hand, when it is not, they are somewhat obscure, one thing being to be collected by us from another: or the information is even ambiguous, as the action may signify more things than one.
Sometimes, the primary sense is declared, or easily understood; while, yet, a secondary sense, a less apparent one, but more momentous, is, also, intended.
This, upon inquiry, may be the case before us. Christ’s washing the feet of his Disciples obviously conveys this instruction, which is asserted, too, in express words—that, as he, their Lord and master, washed their feet, so they ought also to wash one another’s feet[78]. But another, and far more important, instruction may be conveyed in this action, though it be not so fully and explicitly declared. It may, I say, be conveyed: from laying all circumstances together, we shall be able to form a judgment, whether it were, indeed, in the Agent’s intention to convey it.
First, as I said, the narrative of this transaction (which, take it as you will, was clearly designed to be an information by action) is prefaced in a very extraordinary manner. Jesus, knowing that his hour was come—knowing too that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God, proceeded—to do what? Why, to give his disciples a lesson of humility and charity, in washing their feet. The Lesson, no doubt, was important; and becoming the character of their divine master. But does it rise up to those ideas of importance, which we are prepared to entertain of an action, performed at such a time, and so awfully introduced? His hour was come—the Father had given all things into his hands—he came from God, and was now going to God. All this announces something beyond and above a common lecture of morality; something, which might be a suitable close to the instructions of such a teacher.
Let us see, next, how the action is received. One of the disciples, Peter, surprized at his Lord’s condescension, says very naturally, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus, to remove his scruples, replies, What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter. The words are ambiguous, and may mean, “Thou shalt know, immediately, from the explication I am about to give of this action;” or, “thou shalt know hereafter, in due time, and by other means,” what the purport of it is. Still Peter, not satisfied with this answer, but confounded at the apparent indignity of Christ’s condescension, replies resolutely, Thou shalt never wash my feet. This resistance was to be overcome, that the information, whatever it was, might take place, by the performance of that which was the vehicle of it. Jesus answers, therefore, more directly and solemnly, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me—Which words, whether understood by Peter or not, were clearly seen to have some meaning of the last concern to him; and, struck with this apprehension, he submits.
But what! taking these oracular words, in the sense only in which Jesus thought fit to explain them, we hardly see the force and propriety of them. For, had Peter no part with Jesus, that is, was he incapable of receiving any benefit from him, unless he had this ceremony of washing, performed upon him, when that ceremony had no further use or meaning, than to convey a moral lesson? If he had not learnt this lesson from Christ, he might have learnt many others: or, he might have learnt this, some other way: and taking it in either light, he might still be said to have some part with Jesus, though he had not been washed by him.
The true import, then, of these enigmatic words, and of the whole transaction which is here recorded, begins to appear, and is further opened by the sequel of Peter’s conversation with Jesus. For, understanding, that this ablution was, some way so necessary to him, Peter subjoins, Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, and is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all; for he knew who should betray him: therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
It was, we see, the uncleanness of sin, or the filth of an evil conscience, which was to be taken away by this washing. More than a single moral lesson, how excellent soever, was, therefore, couched in this act; indeed, the necessity and efficacy of CERTAIN MEANS, by which mankind were, in general, to be cleansed from sin, was that which was ultimately and mainly signified by it. He that was thus washed, was clean every whit; and the information of this benefit being the end of the washing, it was enough if that was conveyed by washing any one part.
You see at length to what all this tends. Jesus, knowing the secret treachery of Judas, and, by the divine spirit which was in him, foreseeing the destined effect of that treachery; knowing, that he was now, forthwith, to suffer death upon the cross, the purpose, for which he came from God, and for the execution of which he only waited before he returned to him; considering, withal, the immense benefit, which was to accrue to mankind from his voluntary devotion of himself to this death, and that the eternal Father, for the sake of it, had given all things into his hands, had given him the power to redeem all the sons of Adam from the vassalage of sin and death, by virtue of that BLOOD which he was now to pour out upon the cross, as a propitiation for them; Jesus, I say, foreseeing and considering all this, chose this critical season, when his hour was now come, to signify by the ceremony of washing his disciples feet[79], the efficacy and value of his own precious blood, by which alone they, and all mankind, were to have all their sins purged and washed away for ever.
This was apparently the momentous instruction, which it was our Lord’s purpose to convey in this transaction. He would, first, shew that we were to be washed in his blood; and then, subordinately, that we were to follow his example in a readiness to do as he had done; that is, not only to wash each other, but, emblematically still, to lay down our lives and pour out our blood, if need be, for the sake of the brethren. All circumstances concur to assure us, that such was the real secret intent of this mysterious washing; and thus, at length, we understand the full purport of those words—If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me[80].
If it be still said, that Jesus explains his own purpose differently, it is enough to reply, that these emblematic actions were generally significative of more things, than one; and that the manner of Jesus was, on other occasions, to enforce that instruction, which was not the primary one in his intention[81]: the reason of which conduct was founded in this rule, so constantly observed by him, of conveying information to his disciples, only, as they were able to bear it[82]. In a word, he gave them many instructions, and this, among the rest, darkly and imperfectly, because they could not then bear a stronger light; but yet with such clearness as might, afterwards, let them into his purpose; leaving it to the Holy Ghost (whose peculiar province it was) to illuminate their minds, in due time; to reveal all that had been obscurely intimated; and to open the full meaning of his discourses and actions, as well as to bring them all to their remembrance[83].
From this memorable part of the Gospel-history, thus opened and explained, we may draw some important conclusions.
1. First, we learn, if the comment here given be a just one, That the blood of Christ (so an Apostle hath expressed himself) cleanseth us from all sin[84]: I mean, that the death of Christ was a true, proper, and real propitiation for our sins; and not a mere figure, or tropical form of speech; as too many, who call themselves Christians, conceive of it. For the pertinence and propriety of the representative action, performed by our Lord, is founded in this supposition, “That the blood of Christ was necessary to our purification, and that, but for our being washed in his blood[85], we should be yet in our sins.” Jesus himself, in explaining this transaction, so far as he thought fit to explain it, confines us to this idea. For in this sense, only, is it true—that we, who are washed, are clean every whit—and, that unless we are washed by Christ, we have no part with him.
Such, then, is the information given us in this ceremony of washing the disciples feet; and not in this, only. For, besides the present emblematic act, performed by our Lord, for the special benefit of his disciples, the TWO Sacraments, it is to be observed, were purposely instituted, for the general use of his church, to hold forth to us an image of his efficacious blood, poured out for us: the sacrament of Baptism, by the reference it had (like this act) to the typical washings of the Law; and the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, as referring, in like manner, to the typical sacrifices of that dispensation. Of such moment, in the view of our Lord himself, was this doctrine of propitiation! And so careful, or rather anxious, was he, that this consolatory idea of redemption through his BLOOD[86] (suggested in so many ways, and in so striking a manner) should be always present to us!
Nor were his Apostles (let me, further, remark) less intent in prosecuting this design. For they insist every-where, and with a singular emphasis—that Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us[87]—and that we are WASHED, and sanctified, and saved, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus[88].
Go now, then, and say, that the blood of Christ is only a metaphor, and means no more in the mouth of a Christian, than it might be supposed to do in that of an honest heathen, who should say, That he had been saved, or benefited in a moral way, by the blood, that is, the exemplary death, of Socrates!—When we speak of its washing away sin, it is true, we use the term washing metaphorically (for sin is not literally washed): but the scriptures are unintelligible, and language itself has no meaning, if the blood of the lamb slain had not a true, direct, and proper efficacy (considered in the literal sense of blood) in freeing us from the guilt of sin, or, in other words, from the punishment of it.
2. A second conclusion may be drawn, more particularly, from the words of the text—if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. For, if these words mean, as I have endeavoured to shew, and as, I think, they must mean, that we are redeemed only by the blood of Christ; and if, as the context seems to speak, it is in our power to forfeit this benefit, by refusing to be washed by his blood, that is, to accept the deliverance, offered to us, through faith in his blood[89]: it follows, that there is something very alarming in the condition of those persons, who hold out against all the calls of Grace, and obstinately persist in a state of infidelity. In vain have they recourse to natural religion, or to any other supposed means of purification and salvation. In vain do they trust even to the moral part of the Gospel, while they reject or disbelieve the rest. They must be washed by Christ, if they desire to have any part with him; they must place their entire hope and confidence in the blood of the covenant, who would share in the blessings of it.
Nay, more than this: the Redeemer is outraged by this refusal to comply with the gracious terms of his salvation. And, though some may make slight of having no part with Christ, it may concern them to reflect, what it is to have a portion with unbelievers[90].
3. Lastly, and above all, I conclude, that they, who are washed, and, in consequence of that washing, trust to have a part with Christ, as they can never be enough thankful for the inestimable benefit, they have received, so they can never be enough careful to retain, and to improve it. If we, who have once embraced the faith, revolt from it; or, while we make a shew of professing the faith, pollute ourselves again with those sins, from which we have been cleansed; nay, if we do not strive to purify our hearts and minds still more and more by the continual efficacy of a lively faith in Jesus; if, in any of these ways, we be in the number of those, who draw back unto perdition, what further sacrifice remains for us, or what hope have we in that, which has been already offered?
Judas himself, be it remembered, was washed among the other Disciples; yet he was not clean, for all that, nor had he any part with Jesus. What can this mean, but that something is to be done, on our part, when the Redeemer has done his? and that the permanent effect of this washing, as to any particular person, depends on his care to keep those robes white, which have been washed in the blood of the lamb[91]?
The account, and the conclusion, of the whole matter, is plainly this—If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, then have we fellowship with him, and HIS BLOOD CLEANSETH US FROM ALL SIN[92].