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.