A Critique of John Christopher Thomas, Essay Example

Summary

J.C. Thomas’ Thesis: The main idea that J.C. Thomas wants to communicate to the readers through his article is that the practice of foot washing described in the Gospel of John shouldn’t be simply viewed as a symbolic action that mustn’t be literally read and conducted. The author states that this practice must be put in one row with such sacraments as the baptism and the Eucharist.

To support his argument Thomas has divided his article in three parts, each answering its specific question, that altogether make up a sequence of evidence to promote the idea of the importance and the necessity to follow the practice of foot washing. The first part is aimed to answer the question of the theological justification of this practice; the second one describes the meaning of the practice; and the third one connects it to the Lord’s Supper.

Thomas describes several major evidences that provide theological justification for the practice of foot washing. But the greatest issue at this point is that the author states that verses of John 13 should be interpreted as “calling for a literal fulfillment of the commands” (1). As a justification for such a statement Thomas gives several examples: 1) in the ancient times the practice of foot washing was “remarkably widespread” (Thomas 1); 2) literal fulfillment of the command to wash the feet of each other is implied by the continual use of the phrase ‘ought to’ throughout the chapter; 3) the action of Jesus is described as an example thus it is assumed that the subsequent behavior must be based on the given example; 4) Jesus is viewed as a person in authority thus to wash one another’s feet is his injunction; 5) our present view of the chapter must be inevitably influenced by the interpretation of the early readers who assumed it to be a guidance for action.

Then the author discusses the main meanings that the practice of foot washing bares in itself. According to Thomas those meanings are: 1) it’s a symbol of the near death of Jesus that will take place through crucifixion; 2) an attempt not to fail to fulfill the practice is a promise of the future share of Jesus’ destiny, more importantly of his eternal life; 3) it’s a sign of a spiritual cleansing from sins accumulated throughout one’s life for continuing fellowship with Jesus after his departure.

And the last section of the essay discusses the connection between the foot washing in John 13 and the Lord’s Supper. At this point Thomas teaches his readers that the practice of foot washing is somehow related to the Lord’s Supper because it was placed in the 4^th gospel and it preceded the Supper. However, the author states that at this point another alternative may exist, that is – “more than likely the foot washing itself was carried out by all members of the community” (12).

In the conclusion of the essay the author once again emphasizes the fact that the practice of foot washing should be classified as a sacrament that was established by Jesus himself with an aim for it to be continued in the worshipping community.

Critical analysis

Thesis: Even though in overall I find J.C. Thomas’ argument and evidence to be quite logical and persuasive ones, still for me there present certain deficiencies, gaps and inconsistencies due to which I cannot absolutely agree with the author. It seems to me that Thomas’ logical sequence of arguments about the necessity to practice foot washing, as it was meant by Jesus, became a bit controversial because of his conclusion that its observance should be conducted only just before the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, the author is too concentrated on the literal reading of John 13 thus ignoring the symbolic meaning of the chapter.

Section 1: the theological justification for the practice of foot washing

The major statement that Thomas gives in the first section of his essay is that the example of foot washing which Jesus showed in John 13 was actually an explicit command to follow this practice in the future and not merely a symbolic ritual. At this point it should be noted that even though this practice is still alive, nevertheless only few Christian denominations continue to preserve it as it was bequeathed by Jesus. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church foot washing is now associated only with the Mass of the Lord’s Supper and it is conducted after the homily that follows the reading of the chapter 13 in the Gospel of John. In the Eastern Orthodox Church the ceremony of foot washing is also preformed once a year on Maundy Thursday (Holy and Great Thursday). Most Protestants also connect foot washing with the Lord’s Supper service and only Baptists view it as one of three ordinances (two others being Agape and Eucharist) and practice it on the regular basis (The Catholic Encyclopedia).

More importantly, the author states that his conviction to believe that foot washing must be performed as a religious rite comes from deep underlying evidence rather than from surface reading of the biblical text. And at this point I see the first controversy in the essay due to the fact that later in the text the author himself writes that there exist “three directives for the disciples to practice foot washing” (4) and one of them is the mandatory tone and language that is used in John 13:1-20.

Then Thomas gives the first major evidence that provides theological justification for the practice of foot washing. That is an examination of the practice from a historical point of view. Here the professor states that in Greco-Roman and Jewish antiquity the washing of feet was a commonplace and it had various functions. I find this issue raised by the author to be an important one, because one of the main rules in reading the Bible is to remember that it can’t mean today what it didn’t mean back then. Thus this rule can be paraphrased into an axiom – the way the biblical text was viewed by its first readers is the one in which it must be viewed today. And Thomas states that “the first readers’ familiarity with the practice in general makes it likely that, after reading John 13:14-17, they would be inclined to carry out its literal fulfillment” (2). Therefore, if for the ancient readers of John 13 the action of Jesus was a meaningful and commonplace practice than for the contemporary readers the meaning of the text must stay the same and the washing of one another’s feet must be observed as a normal approach only highlighted and emphasized by the religious context of the New Testament.

Then, once again, the author returns to the interpretation of John 13 based on the language that is used in the 4^th gospel, which is quite logical and does make sense. First of all, an obligation to follow Jesus’ example is dictated by the use of the verb ‘ought to’ (13:14-15) which implies “an obligation towards men which is deduced and which follows from the experienced or preceding act of God the Savior” (Hauck 563). It is understandable that when the phrase contains the verb ‘ought to’ then a command is given and it must be done, there is no other option. Secondly, the combination of words “just as…also” in v.15 serves as a remembrance or guidance to act exactly in the same way as Jesus did.

Thomas also provides another argument to persuade the audience that Jesus’ action was an actual command that must be followed. The author states that Jesus gave his disciples not just an example, but even a prototype on how to act in the future. But it seems to me that at this point Thomas is absolutely concentrated on the literal reading and literal perception of the biblical text and thus doesn’t pay adequate attention to the symbolic meaning that is stored in Jesus’ action. I think that at this point it was something like an act of humiliation and demonstration of his willingness to serve others at Jesus’ part. By his nakedness and performance of feet washing Jesus shows that he is ready to be a servant to his disciples in particular and to all the people in general, and even though he knows that he is higher than they are (“…no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger [disciple] greater than the one who sent him [Jesus]” 13:16), he isn’t that arrogant. And this is truly a symbolic lesson that Jesus Christ teaches his followers – to put aside one’s pride and arrogance and to be ready to serve others as people usually serve oneselves. This lesson was then summed up by Paul in the book of Philippians: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:3-4).

Thomas’ final argument on the necessity to literally perform the practice of foot washing is that Jesus describes it not only as a command, but also as a blessing (v.17). Thus the author states: “It is not enough for the disciples to know what to do; they must actually do it in order to be considered blessed” (4). Furthermore, he explains that foot washing is not just a blessing, but it is also a sign of a continual fellowship with Jesus. Thus if disciples want to be part of Jesus they must follow his command and preserve the practice of foot washing. Therefore, it can be concluded that if the followers of the Christ want to be a part of him they must fulfil this ritual.

As a conclusion Thomas states that after providing his evidence it becomes clear that Jesus wanted to institute foot washing as a continuing religious rite (ceremony) and therefore it should be put in one row with the Eucharist and water baptism. At this point I also have a doubt due to the fact that a difference between a ritual and a ceremony should be acknowledged. On one hand a ceremony (rite) has a regular frequency, its schedule is planned and predictable, and it doesn’t imply a change in the status (it rather confirms it); on the other hand a ritual is irregular and unpredictable, it is conducted when needed, and it provides a transformation of a status (Malina 139-143).  Therefore, an example set by Jesus seems to be more like a ritual not a ceremony and thus it mustn’t be conducted on the regular basis as the Lord’s Supper, but rather be performed when there is a necessity like the ritual of baptism. But there exist another question at this point that the author fails to answer. That is why in the book of Acts (which tells the story of the early Christian church) there is no mentioning of the practice of foot washing when those of baptism and communion are described for many times?

So I may conclude my critical analysis on the first section of J.C. Thomas’ essay by saying that in overall I agree with his evidence and with his point of view that most probably the foot washing should be practiced on the regular basis and as a direct consequence of John 13:1-20. However, there are some gaps due to his application of the literal reading of John 13 and ignorance of the underlying symbolism. There are also certain inconsistencies and misuse of terms.

Section 2: the meaning of foot washing

In this part of the essay Thomas follows his reasoning that if Jesus “as depicted in John 13, desired that foot washing be practiced” (5) then there must be certain underlying meanings hidden in this ritual. Therefore, the author provides three major points in regards to the probable meaning of the practice.

The first meaning that Thomas describes is the connection between the foot washing and the near death of Jesus. Such a statement does make sense if to take into account that the whole 4^th gospel is not a biographical one, but it rather gives a Christological understanding of Jesus’ practices and teachings. Thus the entire Gospel of John is of a sacrificial context and is concentrated on the Jesus’ crucifixion and return to his Father. Therefore, it is quite logical to assume that there is a direct relationship between Jesus’ action of washing the feet of his disciples and his death on the cross. Furthermore, the coming of Jesus’ death hour is mentioned for a couple of times in the chapter 13 (vv.1, 3, 19). But it seems to me that there is also another symbolic connection between the death of Jesus and the practice of foot washing. By washing the feet of his disciples the Christ removed the dirt from them, and in the same way by dying on the cross he took away sins from their souls. This point is missing in Thomas’ discussion of the issue as he solely describes symbolism of Jesus’ action in terms of Judah’s betrayal (5) and the humiliation that is present in both the action of foot washing and laying down his life on the cross (5-6).

The second meaning that Thomas discusses is that the foot washing as shown in John 13 is not just one of those ordinary practices of washing feet of other people that were conducted in the ancient times, but it rather has hidden underlying motives. The author provides a couple of evidences to support his idea that this practice is of an unusual nature. First, the foot washing described in John 13 is out of place as it doesn’t precede the meal, but rather interrupts it. Second, all the actions of Jesus are described in a highly deliberative way (which is logical if it is an exact prototype of how to act in the future). Third, Jesus himself mentions that it is not an ordinary thing as its significance can’t be comprehended at that particular moment (v.7).

Then, once again, Thomas returns to the idea that by washing feet of each other disciples receive a share in Jesus’ destiny, which “includes not only eternal life, but also being sent as Jesus himself was sent, resurrection at the last day, and the hatred of the world” (7). Therefore, it seems to me quite logical to assume that if disciples, as a consequence of the practice of foot washing in John 13, obtained a part in Jesus’ destiny, then they would share this practice with their own disciples and so person by person all followers of the Christ  would share Jesus’ destiny as a result of this ritual. Such a conclusion is supported by the text of the chapter and Jesus’ own words: “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me” (13:8).

The third and last meaning of foot washing that Thomas provides is that it is a sign of cleansing. Concerning this issue the author points out the distinction between the verbs ‘to bathe’ and ‘to wash’. In John 13 Jesus proposes his disciples to wash certain parts of their bodies, but not to bathe entirely. Here a clear symbolic meaning can be seen: people are born clean or become clean through certain events, but have some dirt [sins] accumulated on them by the course of their lives in the sinful world, thus there is no need to bathe all the body [soul], but there is only a necessity to wash certain parts of it (“A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean” 13:10).

At this point a question arises: what are those ‘events’ or ‘an event’ that make people clean (“the one who has bathed”)? Thomas has two variants: first is that it is a ritual of baptism. He assumes that if disciples were baptizing others, then automatically they should have been baptized themselves. And the second probable interpretation of this ‘event’ is that it could be the death and blood of Jesus that have cleansing qualities. But I don’t agree with such an assumption, because in the Gospel Jesus says to Peter “And you are clean” (John 13:10), which means that the disciples are already clean, but not that they will become clean as a result of some future event (Jesus’ death on the cross). Thus it is more possible that at this point Jesus was talking of baptism as a bath that takes away dirt from people’s souls. And Thomas also supports this idea more: “Certainly, the crucifixion is that event which accomplishes the cleansing, but it is baptism which signifies the cleansing” (10). And such a statement is also supported by other scholars, for example by Dodd:

In xiii 10 ????????, to take a bath, is contrasted with ???????, to wash a part of the body. Baptism is a bath (???????, Eph. v. 26; Tit. Iii, 5).  The Christian reader is assured that having undergone the ??????? he is ???????, yet may need some kind of recurrent washing. (401)

Thus at this point a conclusion can be made that in order to remove those sins that a person accumulates after one’s baptism, a certain practice of cleansing must be applied – that is foot washing.

However, it seems to me that a huge gap has been made by Thomas in this investigation. In the biblical text Jesus says: “And you are clean, though not every one of you” (John 13:10-11), because he already knows who is going to betray him and that is Judah. As it is assumed that all the disciples have become clean through a ritual of baptism, then a question arises: what’s about Judah? He was baptized, but Jesus himself says that he is not clean. Then it is quite logical to assume that it is not baptism that has made all the disciples clean except for Judah. Therefore, there must be some other explanation to the ‘event’ that makes people clean. And it seems to me that the disciples received ‘bath’ from Jesus by believing that he is a Messiah, and Judah was the only one who didn’t, thus he is not clean.

Section 3: the relationship of foot washing to the lord’s supper

In the last section of the essay Thomas states that there is quite a direct connection between the practice of foot washing and the Lord’s Supper. His main argument at this point is that in John 13 it is clear that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples in the course of the Last Supper: “The evening meal was being served…; so he [Jesus] got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist…” (vv.2-4). Therefore, washing feet was something like a confession and forgiveness of the sins that preceded the Supper itself. I find this argument to be logical and persuasive one, but still it seems to me that at this point (in connection with the Lord’s Supper) the practice of foot washing, once again, is more a symbolic one, and therefore should be perceived from such a viewpoint rather than from the position of a literal fulfillment.

Conclusion

Thomas’ conclusion: Through the course of the entire essay Thomas tries to persuade readers that the practice of foot washing, as it is described in John 13, should be viewed not just as a symbolic rite, but rather as a direct command of Jesus to preserve and fulfill this practice in the future.  Therefore, foot washing mustn’t be neglected and should be put in one row with the ordinances of baptism and the Last Supper as it conforms to the basic characteristics of a sacrament: 1) it was instituted by Jesus; 2) it is rooted in Jesus’ atoning death; 3) it is evident that foot washing must be continued in Johannine community (vv.14-17).  However, in the last paragraph Thomas states that “since the foot washing serves primary as a sign of the continual forgiveness of sins available to the believer, its observance just before the Lord’s Supper is most appropriate” (13). In such a way the author contradicts himself.

Critical analysis conclusion: It seems to me that while Thomas’ argument in support of an idea that the practice of foot washing should be preserved literally and not simply as a symbolic act was quite a logical one, still those inconsistencies and gaps that I found in the essay made me believe that foot washing was given by Jesus more like a symbolic will to his followers to be servants in the world, to be obedient and humble. The support of such an idea I find in the biblical text itself – Jesus says: “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John 13:15). As there is a complete difference between the words ‘as’ and ‘what’, therefore Jesus’ followers mustn’t do exactly what he did, but must do everything with the same attitude as he did it.  But nevertheless, it seems to me that the exact practice of washing each other’s feet should be re-found in the modern Christian community, as nowadays people no longer remember and follow such Jesus’ commands as the necessity to posses a sense of solidarity and surrender in sacrificial love.

Works Cited

Dodd, Clement H. Interpretation of the Forth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Hauck, F. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, and Conde B. Pallen. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1913.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. Colorado Springs, CO: The International Bible Society, 1984.

Malina, Bruce J. Christians Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986.