Foot Washing, Article Critique Example

For a period of many centuries, there appear to be a deal of corresponding contexts for the religious practice of foot washing. The clearness for the studying and practicing foot washing, grounded on John 13, means that in all probability, the Johannine community practice foot washing as the direct consequence of John 13:1-20 and the tradition that underlies it. Many examples show that the influence of reading John 13:1-20 was rather consecutive and the practice of foot washing was common. Foot washing is more than a symbol of hospitality, an example of humidity and a prototype of the continual forgiveness of sins accessible for the believer, but also a symbol of slavery.

The theological justification for the practice of foot washing

J.C. Thomas, the Professor of New Testament Church of God School of Theology, the author of various articles and books on foot washing in John, states, that among all canonical Gospels, only the one according to John includes an examination and significance of Jesus washing the feet (11). The author underlines, that the verses written by John, has been a subject matter of various scholars and clergymen. However, there is still no unanimity about the significance and importance of foot washing. The history of the construing and interpretation of foot washing is the object of various disputes and debates.

Foot washing was a conspicuously prevalent practice in the ancient world and operated in a diversity of ways: as a symbol of hospitality, for the aim of hygiene and convenience, as a symbol of slavery, and as a religious cleansing. In other words, foot washing was a part of daily life. The original theological justification for the execution and practice of foot washing is based in the definite nature of the commands Jesus does to his disciples to wash one another’s feet on John 13:1-20 (Thomas).

In John 13:14, Jesus tells that “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one other’s feet” (Carroll and Prickett 135). Thomas underlines, that for the disciples to fulfill and practice foot washing themselves, the strength of such Jesus command is deepening by referring to the foot washing example, shown in the verse 15: “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you” (Carroll and Prickett 135).

A general call to service cannot be excluded altogether. Thomas states that there are three reasons to think that John 13:15 is strengthening the direct command to wash one another’s feet. The first argumentation is the context of the mentioned verse. In verse 14, it has been distinctly formulated that the disciples have to wash one another’s feet (Thomas). The second argumentation is the command, given by Jesus. Third, the combination given John 13 “ye also” (Carroll and Prickett 135), underlines the close relation between Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet and disciples’ washing one another’s’ feet. The disciples have to act exactly as Jesus acted, Thomas states. The teaching to wash one other’s feet is based on the actions of Jesus in John 13: 4-10 (Carroll and Prickett 135). Consequently, the foot washing is more that an example. It is a certain archetype.

Thomas states, that in verse 16 again there is a call to human and status of Jesus as the base of the command to wash one another’s feet. The author underlines that this time “it comes in the form of a saying”. The significance of the formulation is comprehended by the double amen which foregoes the rest of the saying. The formula of double amen, indicates a specific sacred saying, which issues forth from Jesus’ authority.

Thomas emphasizes that, however, not all readers of John 13:14-17 elucidate these verses as demand of verbal performance of the commands, those religious communities which follow this ceremony are certain of the compulsory nature of Jesus’ instructions. While the commands of John 13:14-17 are “read against cultural context of western antiquity” (Thomas), it appears possible that the first readers of John would have taken mentioned verses as a command for performing. Such first readers were in other situation than present-day readers, who, because their unconscious of the foot washing practice, appear incapable to take the commands seriously. The familiarity of the first readers with the practice of foot washing makes it probable that after reading verses, they would be disposed to perform its literal fulfilment (Thomas).

In addition to support the first readers, Thomas states that the most natural reading of John 13: 14-17 is those which need a literal fulfillment. The verses show the connection between sticking to commands and Jesus’ own actions. The verb “ought” (Carroll and Prickett 135) in verse 14 underlines the nature of the actions, which disciples are instructed to wash one another’s feet. It shows the requirement, obligation and necessity, Thomas states.

In John 13, in many cases the sentence structure shows the relation and connection between human responsibility and an act of salvation (Thomas). Thomas emphasizes that the disciples are not able to refuse not to perform Jesus’ command to wash one another’s feet. Here, the disciples’ command to service is grounded on the saving action of the Lord. The disciples have got cleansing at the hands of Jesus. Now, they have to conserve such practice. That means that there is the contextual and implicit command that the disciples get this sign from one another, as well as render it (Thomas).

According to John, Jesus identified himself as “Master and Lord” (Carroll and Prickett 135). Thomas pays attention that such identification shows that Jesus expands upon the connection and implication of his dominion and lordship. As Master and Lord has washed the disciples’ feet, the disciples have no alternative but to do the same action taking into consideration their own positions as serfs near Jesus. Their own position and sequel actions cannot expect to be on a superior level than Jesus has. This identical action between the disciples and Jesus confirmed by the use of such saying in John 15:20 (Thomas). There, the world’s detestation for the disciples and Jesus is identical.

It is widespread for the preacher to underline the servitor role. However, there is a significant passage, the capacity and content of which surpass Jesus’ actions. In verse 3 Carroll and Prickett underline that Jesus knew, that God created him, and that he was going for God (135). Jesus knew that God was his Father, who gave him everything into his hands. Knowing this, he rose from supper, put aside his clothes, belt with a towel and started to wash disciples’ foot (Thomas).

“If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them” identified in verse 17 (Carroll and Prickett 135). Thomas emphasizes that it is a final precept given so that the disciples may not miscarry to carry out the foot washing among themselves. This time, Jesus’ command is a benediction and blessing. It is not sufficient for disciples to know what to do. Virtually, they must do it so that to be blessed (Thomas 112).

The grammar of verse 17 confirms that the disciples have some knowledge of the foot washing. Jesus has provided this clarification (Thomas). The author underlines that such contrast is realized by the use of an excellent condition clause, which shows a future possibility. The author believes that the use of term blesses in such context underlines the significance of Jesus’ commands to wash one another’s feet. Such emphasis resembling that of verses 8 where Jesus notify Peter in advance that his unity and solidity with Jesus are reliant of the foot washing. Thus, not only have the disciples got foot washing from Jesus as a symbol of lengthening fellowship with him, but they are now also entrusted to continue this practice. That means that foot washing is a continuation of fellowship with Jesus, Tomas supposes.

Thomas supposes that the proof for the practice of foot washing grounded on John 13, infer that all probability the Johannine community interested in religious foot washing as the outcome of John 13:1-20 and the tradition that underlies it. Indeed, the communities, which practice foot washing, can argue that in place of interpreters needing to show the possibility of the practice of Johannine community, the burden of confirmation is on those who would disclaim such possibility.

The meaning of foot washing

In case, there are enough reasons to believe that Jesus, as shown in John 13, longing that foot washing is practiced, what was the destined significance of such act? Thomas finds that an examination of principal interpretation of foot washing is helpful because it makes understandable “certain dominant themes and aspects of Jn 13.1-20” (11).

A diversity of indicators in John shows a close connection between the foot washing and passion of Jesus. Thomas underlines, that the reader is ready for such connection in John 12. There, Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet is told to be ready for his funeral. Also, the location of foot washing shows that foot washing, in conjunction with the rest materials, was meant to instruct and teach the disciples for Jesus’ leaving. The connection of foot washing to the passion on Jesus is shown in John 13:1, where the reader studies that Jesus time had come. The appearance of Judas in John predicts the treason of Jesus, Thomas states. In John 13:3, the return of Jesus to God and Father is indicated again. Thomas believes, that when Jesus’ risen from supper and “laid aside his garments: and took a towel, and girded himself” (Carroll and Prickett 135) is also a prediction of Jesus’ death. Jesus undressing predicts in the foot washing the humiliation connected with dying.

Thomas stays, that foot washing, is not an ordinary, but unusual action. When in John foot washing appears in the context of the meal, it foregoes the meal, more frequent appearing at the door of the host. Nevertheless, the foot washing, which Jesus provides to his disciples during the Lord’s Supper, cease rather than foregoes the meal. Another indication of extraordinarily of foot washing is the most consultative way in which Jesus’ actions are shown. Thomas shows that rather than simply saying that Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, it is indicated the importance of Jesus’ doings and actions by pointing each constituent of the procedure. When Jesus tells Peter that he will not comprehend the importance of this action, Jesus underlines that foot washing is unusual. Only after the resurrection, Peter and the disciples comprehended the full importance of foot washing, Thomas finds. In response to Peter’s rejection of the foot washing, Jesus tells Peter that this action is not obligatory and that its importance is far-reaching. Jesus tells that “if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me” (Carroll and Prickett 135). It is clear that according to John, in case Jesus does not wash Peters’ feet, than Peter has no share with Jesus. That means that by refusing the foot washing, Peter is renouncing to share in eternal life and the effects of the cross (Thomas).

Foot washing as a sign of cleansing is the next meaning of foot washing described by Thomas. It is obvious, that the meaning of the foot washing is provided in John 13:10, Thomas states. It is essential to understand the meaning of the two verbs used to characterize a washing, the bath to which Jesus indicates, and the cleansing which it provides, for comprehending the role and purpose of foot washing.Foot washing is a symbol which indicates beyond itself to some deeper meaning, Thomas underlines. There are two things, which indicate to the crucifixion as substantial to such deeper meaning. First, the qualities described by mission, destiny and identity of Jesus, are secured through Jesus’ death. Second, Jesus’ behavior of abasement in washing the disciple’ feet predict his ultimate behavior of abasement on the cross. Such hints make it easier to comprehend the importance of foot washing, Thomas states. Peter is rejecting the effects of cross, with rejection of foot washing, the author indicates.

According to Thomas, “a distinction between the two verbs “to bathe” and “to wash”” is significant. The explanation of these two verbs is based on the custom. It is indicated, that a guest or a traveler would bath at home, but upon arrival to the other house would wash the dirty parts of his body (Thomas).

The next question, discussed by Thomas, is what Jesus meant when tells about a complete bath that makes anyone clean. The author believes that, for the disciples, there is only one version that seems more likely, baptism, which has a divine origin. It is likely, that the disciples, which baptize others, would have felt baptism themselves, or at the hand of Jesus or John (Thomas).

Thomas states, that there are several additional pieces of obviousness that the meaning for the one who has bathed more likely refers to Jesus’ death and baptism. The author believes that one of the causes for such identification is the influence and effects of the bathing. Jesus says that the person who has bathed is wholly clean, Thomas underlies. The author emphasizes that, in early Christian literature, no ceremony means entire cleansing from sin as does baptism. Surely, the crucifixion is that case which accomplishes the cleansing, but it is baptism which means the cleansing (Thomas). Second, Jesus implies that there is no cause to reiterate the complete bath one has got. Moreover, baptism is a ceremony, which is a one-time only.

Thomas finds that another sign of cleansing in John is the Book of Glory. The author supposes that such comprehending of foot washing suits acceptable within the context of faith and belief, of which chapter 13 is a piece. In this passage, the disciples are not being devoted to belief, but are proceeding in their faith and believe. Disciple’s early baptism would indicate fellowship with Jesus and belief, at the time when foot washing would designate the continuance of that fellowship and belief. As a symbol of preparation for Jesus’ leaving, foot washing signifies the disciples’ mental cleansing for a continuing relationship with Jesus and assuming his mission.

To sum up the previous scrutiny, a distinguishing of foot washing with the cleansing from the sin, contracted through everyday life in this world, is a suitable one. In a manner, foot washing is an extension of baptism, for it identifies the washing away of after-baptism sins in pious’ life.

In addition to mentioned meanings of foot washing, Thomas finds some more. Foot washing is an example of humility, given by Jesus to his disciples (11). Such interpretation is more likely natural, for foot washing itself was the work of serfs. Foot washing, as a symbol of the Eucharist, is the next interpretation of foot washing. A command to go on the practice and fulfillment of foot washing is similar to the commands to repeat the Eucharist. The author explains that the person who has been baptized can go on asking forgiveness of sin by collaboration in the Eucharist (13). Foot washing as a symbol of baptism is the next interpretation of foot washing. The author pays attention that foot washing is associated with water christening in the minds of scholars. The next interpretation of foot washing is a sacrament separate from baptism and Eucharist (15). The author sees foot washing as a reference to the sacrament of penance. Also, foot washing has been identified as an ordination ceremony (15). Foot washing as a polemic is the last interpretation of foot washing given by Thomas. The following interpretation is grounded upon the way in which foot washing appears to substitute baptism in the periscope.

It is evident that some of the interpretations of foot washing are mutually unique and exclusive, Thomas underlines. Most of these views are grounded upon themes discovered in the periscope. Notwithstanding the varied emphases of different scholars, many of their fundamental acumen are actual and effective.

The relationship of foot washing to the Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper, shown in John, contains discussion about greatness. It has been evaluated by many expositors and commentators, as providing self-dependent evidence, that the foot washing is an allegorical introduction of humility (Thomas 12).

Thomas states, that while the fourth gospel does not make the bond of the foot washing to the Lord’s Supper quite distinct and evident, three things can be inferred about the community’s practice.

The first thing is that because of its allocation in the fourth gospel, the foot washing was obviously studied in connection with the Eucharist. In such case, it is probable that the foot washing happened in the context of a meal in conjunction with the Eucharist. At the same time, the author states, that it is not possible to determine whether each Eucharistic celebration would include the foot washing.

The second thing that can be inferred about the community’s practice is that in case foot washing was studied in connection with the Eucharist, then in all possibility it preceded the Lord’s Supper. Thomas emphasizes that John 13:1-30 is undoubtedly open to such interpretation. The author confirms that verse 12 shows Jesus as rejoining the meal, and verse 27, which shows that the meal had been finished.

The last thing, described by Thomas, is that foot washing was fulfilled by each member of the community. The author believes that such fulfillment would concord well with the commands of John 13:14-17 and with emphasis upon reciprocal intercession in John. Thomas supposes that since the recognition of sin can have been a social one to the community, the brotherly intercession could well have been pretty particular in its petitions.

In conclusion, in case divine had gone to work on the problem, we would still be involved in eternal dispute: whether the foot must be sprinkled or immersed. Some can dispute about the left foot or right foot must be immersed earlier. Other can argue about the symbolism of christen feet or head. That is why it is important to follow Jesus in our heads, than to follow him with our foot.

Works Cited

Carroll, Robert, and Prickett, Stephen. The Bible: Authorized King James Version. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Thomas, John C. Footwashing in John and the Johannine Community. London, UK: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Thomas, John C. Footwashing within the Context of the Lord’s Supper. 03 March 2008. 16 July 2010. < http://anabaptistnetwork.com/node/320>.