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].