David Turner
The washing of the disciples' feet by Jesus (John
13:1-17) was a cultural form. Although the principle communicated
in foot washing is trans-cultural, the form is not. By evaluating
the content of the passage and comparing foot washing with the two
ordinances of the church (Baptism and The Lord's Supper) I will show
that the washing of the disciples' feet by Jesus was done to illustrate
a major principle. The form, however, was not meant to become a
regular practice of the Church.
Culturally, the washing of feet was a customary
practice in the
It was for this reason that the disciples
were astounded by Jesus when he began to wash their feet. He was
not a servant but their "Teacher and Lord". It offended them that
Jesus would do such a humiliating task.
But this was the very point he was attempting to teach
them. Prior to the Passover a dispute had developed between the
disciples over who would be the greatest among them (Luke 9:46-48).
On that occasion Jesus used little children to illustrate the importance
of humility. This did not stop the discussion, however, and it
soon became an obsession for them. Even after Jesus washed their
feet this concern was still on their minds (Luke 22:24-27).
The purpose of his washing their feet then, was to
show that the greatest among them would be the one who was willing to
become the least. In so doing he shattered their notions as to
what true greatness was.
Was the form essential beyond its use for
conveying the message? Let's look to the passage and see. In
verse 14 Jesus says, "you should do as I have done for your"(NIV).
This is not a command in the since that they were to literally wash one
another feet. Compare this request with Jesus' opening statement
concerning the Lord's prayer in Luke 11, "when you pray, say . . .".
Was Jesus telling his disciples to always pray that and only that
prayer? Of course not. It was an example given for them to
use in structuring their personal prayers. Can the Lord's actions
in foot washing also be considered an example? Notice the Lord's
own words in verse 15, "I have set you an example . . ." Again, the
emphasis is on the principle and not the means of conveying that
principle.
The washing of the disciple’s feet is an account unique to the
Gospel of John. None of the other gospels tell of it, the epistles
never notice it, and Luke never says a word concerning its practice in
the early accounts of the church in Acts. In contrast, the
ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are recognized throughout
the New Testament. Baptism is often spoken of in all four gospels
(not the Lord's). It is explained by Paul in three epistles and
Luke refers to it as a common practice in the Acts. The Lord's
Supper is found in three of the gospels, is expounded upon by Paul in
two epistles, Peter speaks of it, and Luke accounts of its importance to
the early Church in the Acts.
It is obvious from its status in Scripture that the form of
foot washing has minor significance to the whole of this passage.
Jesus used a cultural form to teach a trans-cultural principle. By
placing to much emphasis on the form we miss the true beauty of the
message which Jesus conveyed to this disciples. Washing feet is
non-essential; serving Christ, by serving one another is the true path
to greatness.
Now, it might be asked, "How can we discern a Biblical command
as cultural (restricted to the people of that culture in that day) to a
trans-cultural command (one not limited to a culture but applied to all
cultures)? This is not a simple task but requires patient study
and evaluation on the part of the interpreter.
Our first responsibility is to
determine the meaning of the passage. What did the writer attempt
to communicate? This requires interpretation and can usually be
done in the following manner. First, to whom is the passage
addressed? Is it to everyone or to a specific group of believer?
Is it to the disciples? This is important in determining the scope
of the message. Second, why was this teaching given? What
are the underlying reasons for the passage? Is the reason clear?
Third, are there conflicts in this teaching? Can these conflict be
resolved with other passages? Fourth, is the passage context
treated as normative? "Does Scripture command obedience to the form
itself, or is the command merely given in the context of a historical or
cultural form? On this last point it must be added that it is
essential to recognize the difference between the form. Foot
washing is an illustration of a command to obey the principle of
servanthood, not the form of the act of foot-washing.
