Lot is recorded as having two daughters who had not known a man (Genesis 19:8), but Genesis 19:12 talks about his sons-in-law. How is this explained?

We know that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).   Therefore, there must be an answer to this question and there are three possible answers.

First of all, let us look at this passage. In Genesis 19:8 Lot, through a misguided sense of hospitality, offered his two daughters to the depraved men of Sodom. The new KJV Bible Commentary observes that this “is absolutely an amazing statement, especially on the part of a believer.   That he would protect two strangers and offer his own flesh and blood is beyond understanding. Doing his best, he has jeopardized his daughters, enraged his townsmen, and finally required rescue by those he was trying to protect.”   Matthew Henry’s Commentary states that Lot “pleaded the laws of hospitality and the protection of his house which his guests were entitled to.” Of course, we understand that his conduct, at face value, would have been terribly wrong. However, it has been suggested that Lot’s “offer” was not to be meant seriously, but only made for the purpose of showing the Sodomites the depravity of their conduct.

In addition, Richard Elliott Friedman, “Commentary on the Torah,” writes on pages 66-67: “It seems to me that it is not the Near Eastern tradition of hospitality but of bargaining that accounts for what is going on here… Lot is supposed to make an extraordinary gesture. He offers his own two daughters. But no one is supposed to take him up on it. And then, in this horrible town, the gesture does not work anyway. The people only become angry.”

In Genesis 19:14 we read that “Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, ‘Get up, get out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city!’ But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.”

In Genesis 19:15-17 we read the outcome. “When the morning dawned, the angels urged Lot to hurry, saying, ‘Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.’ And while he lingered, the men took hold of his hand, his wife’s hand, and the hands of his two daughters, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. So it came to pass, when they had brought them outside, that he said, ‘Escape for your life! Do not look behind you nor stay anywhere in the plain. Escape to the mountains, lest you be destroyed.’”

The first possible answer to our above-stated question is that Lot had more than two daughters.   In verse 15, Lot was told to take “your two daughters who are here”. In the Douay Rheims Bible it states, “Arise, take thy wife, and the two daughters which thou hast who are here.” And in Young’s Literal Translation we read: “Rise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters who are found present.”   If these daughters were with Lot and his wife, it is likely that they were unmarried; otherwise, they would have been with their husbands (the exception behind this is explained below in the second possible answer).   If indeed Lot had other daughters who were not in the house, they would have been destroyed with his sons-in-law as only Lot, his wife and two daughters escaped from Sodom.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers agrees with this concept, stating: “The traditional view is that given in our Version, and is confirmed by Genesis 19:15, where the words—‘thy two daughters which are here,’ Heb., which are found—certainly suggest the idea that Lot had other daughters, besides the two which escaped with him.”

A second possible answer is the way that in biblical times, betrothal was a valid marriage.   In the Jewish Encyclopaedia.com under the heading “Betrothal and Home-Taking” it states the following: “After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking (‘nissu’in,’ ‘liḳḳuḥin’). In case the bride was a widow or the groom a widower, this interval was reduced to thirty days (Ket. v. 2; Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 56).”

In our booklet “Jesus Christ – A Great Mystery!,” pages 24 and 25, under the heading “Mary’s Betrothal to Joseph,” the following is written:

“We should take note of another important fact when considering the relationship of Joseph and Mary prior to Mary’s conception. We read in Matthew 1:18–20: ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”’

“The angel told Joseph that he and Mary were already considered to be husband and wife. But they had not consummated the marriage yet—they were living in the state of betrothal. Legally speaking, they were married, but they had not come together, sexually, as husband and wife.

“The concept of betrothal is quite different from today’s concept of engagement. In our society the word ‘engagement’ does not seem to carry much value, as people commonly get engaged and then dissolve the engagement without legal consequence. In ancient Israel and Judah, a betrothal was considered to be a binding agreement, and could only be dissolved through divorce. This is why Joseph wanted to ‘put her away,’ a Biblical expression for divorce.

“The Luther Bible comments on ‘betrothal’: ‘The Jewish engagement constitutes a legally binding marital promise. The marital intercourse only occurs, however, after the wedding, when the bridegroom takes the bride into his home.’

“Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible states, ‘Betrothal, unlike modern engagement, was legally binding and could be broken only by divorce.’”

In addition, Flavious Josephus, the Jewish historian, states in 1:11:4, that “these sons in law to Lot, as they are called (Genesis 19:12-14) might be so styled because they were betrothed to Lot’s daughters, though not yet married to them.” Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible gives a similar explanation: “… some think they were espoused to men, but had not yet cohabited with them.” Similar the viewpoint of Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: “‘… married his daughters.’ Better, as R.V. marg., were to marry… This seems more probable… The verb used here means literally ‘the takers of.’ For Lot’s daughters were in the house with him: Lot went out to find his ‘sons in law’: the word ‘sons in law’ may mean ‘the betrothed.’ If the daughters had been married, they would not have been living with Lot.”

Therefore, it could well have been that Lot’s daughters were betrothed as was Mary to Joseph who were considered man and wife.

And a third possible answer, although unlikely, is that Lot lied when he said that his daughters were virgins, to make them more “attractive” to the evil and sexually perverted people of Sodom.   If this is indeed the answer, then Lot would not have been the only man of God to lie (as examples, see Abraham in Genesis 20:2; Isaac in Genesis 26:7 and Jacob in Genesis 27:19).

Looking at the evidence, it is more likely that either the first or the second explanation may be the correct answer. But whichever it is, we can rest assured that the Bible does not contradict itself (compare John 10:35).

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

Since you believe that Mr Herbert W Armstrong had the ministerial rank of “apostle,” what is your response to those who believe that there is to be no further understanding or change after he died on January 16th 1986?

Our original Q&A on this subject, as quoted in the first part of this series, covered 1 Corinthians 11 v 1: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.”   In some other translations “imitate” is translated as “follow” and so the words follow and imitate seem to be interchangeable – but are they?   Dictionary definitions are as follows:

Follow: go after as an admirer; strive after; aim at

Imitate: mimic; try and get as close to the real thing as possible; impersonators

“Mimetes” is the Greek word translated imitate (see Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries).   So we need to know – and be sure – what Scripture says and imitate any leader only according to revealed Scriptural instruction and not to add on any unnecessary, unwanted, unwarranted or personal opinions or baggage.

The Christian life, as revealed in the Bible, is one of overcoming and growing spiritually toward the goal of being spiritually mature like Christ.   God expects us, as Spirit-begotten Christians to be developing more and more of the very character of Christ as we learn to follow His Way of Life.

Imitate is to get as close to the original as possible, not just following which is a much looser term.   It indicates being skin-tight.   To follow is a much looser term and whilst it can be correct in many ways, the word imitate is much more all-encompassing.   Imitate is to do everything Christ did and wants us to do according to His perfect example.   So this is not striving after words but making sure that we fully understand the difference and take to heart the original meaning of “mimetes” which is to imitate.   And that is much more important than just following and so we can only follow those who faithfully and loyally preach and teach the way of God as revealed in His Word and as we have seen, some of the original apostles’ writings have been incorporated in the Word of God which cannot contradict itself.    Any apostles since then have not been unique as were the original ones and, therefore, we must not follow them as if their writings were holy writ.

One such proponent of “nothing can be changed after 16th January 1986” states the following:  “We see in chapter 4 (1 Corinthians 4:14-16) above, that Paul clearly instructed the Corinthian Church to follow him – as he was their apostle, sent to them by Christ. However, many people try to use another passage, also found within First Corinthians, to justify a position of not following the apostle sent to them and through whom they were enlightened. The passage is: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ” (I Cor 11:1). Such people claim that this verse implies only following someone in so far as they follow Christ, and rejecting any aspect or teaching that does not comply.”

It would appear that this is written to emphasise the need to follow Mr Herbert Armstrong at this end-time.   However, we read in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 a section of Scripture that implies exactly the opposite.   It states: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.  I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?  For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?”   We can read from this passage that partiality was not to be countenanced and yet it appears that, as written above “that Paul clearly instructed the Corinthian Church to follow him – as he was their apostle” which would negate the instruction on non-partiality.   There appears to be somewhat of a contradiction here.

It is also worth noting that Mr Armstrong said just before his death that the church membership should follow the Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God after his death.   Mr Joseph W Tkach was appointed and, along with Mr Tkach’s son and some others, led the Church in a completely different direction.   That organisation, now called Grace Community International, is part of mainstream Christianity with just about every teaching understood during Mr Armstrong’s tenure of office being changed.   Mr Armstrong undoubtedly said this in good faith, but had his instruction been followed the true Church of God would have been destroyed.   However, Jesus said that He would guide His Church, be with it always, and that the grave would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18; 28:20).   To have followed this instruction would have been an unmitigated disaster, but as this would have been Mr Armstrong’s instruction at his death, it could not have been changed according to those who feel that everything that was in place on 16^th  January 1986 would have to have complied with that instruction to their great detriment.   Just this one issue shows what a disaster it would have been to adopt such a faulty instruction and reasoning even though it was given in good faith.

God will use His ministry as He sees fit and if there is greater understanding of a particular doctrine, then we should embrace that.   Being stuck in a time warp (whatever date that may be) can only stunt personal growth which we are charged to pursue.

Ephesians 4:11-15 is quite clear in delineating the offices that God has in His Church and how those so ordained have the responsibility to speak only the truth:

“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ…”

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers opines on 2 Peter 3:18 as follows:  “The Apostle ends, as he began, by exhorting them to that sound knowledge which he sets forth as the sure basis of all Christian activity, whether the knowledge be full and mature, as in 2 Peter 1:2-3; 2 Peter 1:8; 2 Peter 2:20 or to be acquired and increased, as in 2 Peter 1:5…” (which is about fruitful growth in the faith”).

Some claim that nothing can be changed after the death of an apostle, and since Mr Armstrong was an apostle, nothing can be changed after his death in 1986.

Even though we need to realize that the Bible speaks about more apostles than just the original twelve apostles who followed Christ during His lifetime, we also need to observe important distinctions.

An apostle is someone who is being sent out to proclaim the gospel. In Matthew 10:1-5, the names of the original twelve apostles are given. Compare also Luke 6:12-16. The list includes Judas Iscariot who was later disqualified and replaced by Matthias–one of two candidates who had accompanied the other apostles “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21-26).

The Bible mentions additional apostles after the New Testament Church was founded–including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4 with Acts 13:50) and James, the half-brother of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:5-9).

As we stated before, we read that the Church was founded on the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the chief corner stone. But the apostles, mentioned therein, are foremost the original twelve apostles (with Matthias having replaced Judas), because we read that the Heavenly Jerusalem has “twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” The apostle Paul was later chosen to become the apostle to the uncircumcision, as Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. And he was used powerfully by God to write inspired and sacred texts which were included in the Bible, and which were recognised by Peter as inspired and holy writings.  But ultimately, it was one of the original apostles, John, who canonised the Bible, after the death of Paul and Peter, as we explain in our free booklet, “The Authority of the Bible.” 

We read in Acts 12:1-2 that one of the original twelve apostles, James, the brother of John, was killed by Herod. But later, in Acts 15 (AFTER the death of one of the original apostles), important changes were made in the Church, holding that physical circumcision was no longer necessary.  The discussion followed teachings by Paul and Peter regarding the need for circumcision, and it was James, the half-brother of Christ and the apostle over the Church in Jerusalem, who pronounced the final decision. The idea that no changes can be made in the Church after the death of an apostle (James, the brother of John) is therefore clearly wrong.

Some claim that Herbert W Armstrong was the end-time Elijah who restored all things and since everything was restored, nothing can be changed. This erroneous concept has been thoroughly disproved in our Q&A on “The Mission of the End-Time Elijah.” 

Some claim that Mr Armstrong’s book “Mystery of the Ages” deserves the status of an inspired writing equal to the Bible. This false claim has been disputed by Mr Armstrong himself who stated, when he passed out copies of his book to Ambassador College students, that his book was written to help with understanding the Bible better, but that it was in no way to be viewed as holy Scripture.

With this latest information and all of the previous material mentioned earlier in this Q&A (and all of the others), we feel that these cover this subject comprehensively and answers the views held, no doubt sincerely, by those who may feel otherwise.

Lead Writers: Brian Gale (United Kingdom) and Norbert Link

Since you believe that Mr Herbert W Armstrong had the ministerial rank of “apostle,” what is your response to those who believe that there is to be no further understanding or change after he died on January 16th 1986? (Part 1)

It is true that there are those who believe that understanding can only come through an apostle and since there are no apostles alive today, everything that was understood at the time of Mr Armstrong’s death is to remain so and any further understanding is not to be countenanced.   Of course, some have declared themselves to be apostles (and prophets) but self-declaration is not tantamount to unchallenged approval.

We have covered a number of matters via Q&A’s, editorials and member letters and it is worth mentioning these before we start looking at this overall question.

Q&A – Some state that the Church of God must not change any of the teachings established by Herbert W Armstrong prior to his death in 1986.   It is further stated that his doctrinal understanding has the weight of uncanonised Biblical truth.   As a basis for this position, 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 is quoted.   Our answer to this belief is set forth in the following response.    (10th March 2006)

Q&A – Does the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates believe in and practice hierarchical government?

Q&A – The term “Apostle”

Editorial – Why Are We Not All Together?

Editorial – The Mission of the End-Time Elijah

Editorial – Where to Go?

Editorial – Beware of Apostasy in God’s Church

Editorial – Whom God Uses

Editorial – Herbert Armstrong and his Legacy

Editorial -New Truth or New Understanding?

Member Letter – January 2015

One of the misunderstandings that is commonly made by some is when talking about “new knowledge”.   As the editorial above (“New Truth or New Understanding”) clearly shows, it is not new truth but new understanding, as the truth has always been there and it is God who gives understanding of His Word and His Way.

It is also appropriate at this stage to quote from our “Statement of Beliefs” under “Doctrinal Foundation” as follows:

“The major doctrines of the Church are those, which were taught by Herbert W. Armstrong, derived from the Biblical teachings as followed by God’s faithful servants, and originally established by Jesus Christ through the founding of His Church in the time of His chosen early apostles. Since we are to increase in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, we are committed to review and alter any of our teachings, if and when proven to be wrong by the Bible.”

The first Q&A listed should be re-read as it contains a number of explanations which are vital in understanding this whole question.   However, there are a number of other matters which we will now address.

We read in Ephesians 2:19-22 the following: “Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

It is clear that the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.   But the apostles we are reading about are the very ones whom Jesus Christ Himself chose whilst He was on earth.   The apostles’ doctrine is now part of the Bible and any apostles since the canonisation of the Bible cannot alter the original doctrine and understanding. For more information on the issue of canonisation, please read our free booklet, “The Authority of the Bible.” 

Because of the understanding in Ephesians 2:20, the Bible gives us a flawless foundation because Christ was perfect and the New Testament writings by the apostles is truth because only the truth has been preserved. (Please note that Paul wrote additional letters which have not been preserved in the Bible.)

The original apostles were handpicked by Christ for a very special role, not least of which was to record the acts and teachings of Jesus whilst He was here on earth, plus other information about church administration etc., and to make sure that these things were added to the Hebrew Scriptures to deliver to us God’s complete and perfect revelation to mankind.   In 2 Peter 1:13-15, we read: “Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.  Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.”

We know that the Roman Catholic church feels that they have the authority to change biblical teachings wherever they deem it necessary to do so.   They have “changed” the 7th day Sabbath to the 1st day of the week (Sunday); they ignore God’s Holy Days and keep paganised holidays (Christmas, Easter etc.) and have long been involved in syncretism  to build their membership.   However, the true Church of God keeps rigidly and faithfully to the Scriptures.   We read in Jude verse 3: “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Mr Herbert Armstrong taught the truth from the Bible; truth that may have been hidden or not understood for centuries, but it was always there in the Bible and God revealed it to Mr Armstrong who taught according to Biblical injunction.   He has not added to it nor taken away from it in the sense that he did not proclaim as godly truth “new doctrines” which were not contained in Scripture, and that he did not delete doctrinal truth which was clearly revealed in the Bible. Otherwise he would have been guilty of adding or taking away Scriptures which is condemned (see Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19).

Was Mr Armstrong an apostle in the same way that the 1st century apostles were? The answer is that he was clearly not.

The original apostles were special because they were eye witnesses as we read in 2 Peter 1:16: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”

The original apostles were also given power to work miracles.

God put doctrine into His Church through THE apostle (Jesus Christ).   See the Q & A on the term “Apostle”.   Also see Hebrews 3:1-4 where we read: “Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”

All theology must confirm to what the original apostles taught.   This was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

The apostleship of the original apostles is unique because of all of these points.   But even they were not infallible—they were human beings who made mistakes. However, their writings, as preserved in the Bible, are infallible. Any writings of subsequent apostles since the book of Revelation and the close of the apostolic era have not been infallible – only God’s Word is – and we must, therefore, always be true only to the Word of God.   We need to grow in grace and knowledge (2 Peter 3:18) and not be stuck in a time warp where nothing can be changed after 16^th January 1986, otherwise any such growth is stunted.

How many times did we hear Mr Armstrong say: “Don’t believe me. Believe your Bible”?   Did anyone ever hear him repudiate that statement?

Mr Armstrong changed the Church’s understanding on divorce and remarriage when he came more fully to understand this matter.   However, there are some who cling to the old understanding and they don’t believe that that should have been changed.   Pentecost was changed from a Monday to a Sunday when Mr Armstrong came to understand this more fully.

The authority of the apostles enabled their writings, as appropriate, to become part of the written Word of God.   These original apostles were unique in their work and ministry and their written contribution is included as part of the Bible.   Any “apostle” since then does not have the same authority and any of their writings are not part of the Word of God.   One proponent of the “frozen in time” concept has written that “Mystery of the Ages” and other material by Mr Armstrong from that period of time (1978-1985) should be recognised for what they actually are – un-canonised apostolic writings.   We are not quite sure what this means; if it means that the writings of Mr Armstrong may be without any error then they could be on dangerous ground.

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

First of all, not all “Christian” churches keep the Passover.   Wikipedia states the following (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footwashing ): “Washing of the Feet is a religious rite observed by several Christian denominations. John 13:1–17 mentions Jesus performing this act.  As such, many denominations (including Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics) observe the washing of the feet on Maundy Thursday of Holy Week. Moreover, for some denominations, foot-washing was an example, a pattern.  Many groups throughout Church history and many modern denominations have practiced foot washing as a church ordinance including the Adventists, Anabaptists, Baptists, and Pentecostals.”

Wikipedia also states that “The Eucharist (also called Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper, and other names) is a rite considered by most Christian churches to be a sacrament. According to some New Testament books, it was instituted by Jesus Christ during his Last Supper.”

In a Church of God article some years ago, the following was noted: “Jude tells us in verse 4 that certain ungodly men crept into the church, during the second half of the first century A.D. and began teaching that obedience to God’s law was unnecessary.   They forsook observing God’s Holy days.   However, in order to deceive, they used familiar terms such as Passover and Pentecost to refer to new festivals preserving the outward form long after the spiritual substance disappeared.  To this day, the Roman Catholic Church uses the term ‘Paschal season’ to refer to the time of their Easter observance.  Paschal is derived from the Latin word for Passover.   Latin-based languages, such as French and Spanish, still use the word for Passover to refer to the Easter celebration.

“There was this desire to get away from the fact that the symbols introduced by Jesus Christ on the night of His final Passover were to be observed annually by true Christians.   To accomplish this, alternate terms for the observance of the Passover symbols were introduced.   By the beginning of the second century, terms such as ‘communion’ or ‘eucharist’ were being used.

“However, by using names that focus total emphasis on the symbols of bread and wine, the footwashing part of the service was easily and quickly obscured.   Also veiled was the fact that partaking of these symbols was part of an annual observance, a fact made clear by the use of the Biblical term Passover.”

This is yet another example of the confusion that exists in many areas of biblical understanding.   The Passover became Holy Communion in many mainstream Christian churches and is now taken whenever a church desires rather than the annual practice of Passover, and footwashing is generally no longer practiced as part of this service.

It is worth looking briefly at some of the objections that are raised about doing this as Jesus Christ clearly instructed His disciples to do. We can see the conclusions that can be established when not being obedient to living by “every word” of God (compare Matthew 4:4). We hasten to add, however, that the entire Passover service is only for properly baptized true Christians who have received the Holy Spirit. Those who have not been baptized in accordance with Scripture should not participate in the annual Passover service. An upcoming Q&A will discuss this important issue in more detail.

One website source addressed the question of footwashing as part of the Passover service as follows:

“It should be observed first of all that just because Christ gave a command to someone, at some time, during his ministry, does not mean that that same command was required of all people for all time.  One must look at the nature of the command, to whom it was given, the purpose thereof (if stated), and whether or not it initially applied in a limited way, or whether it was for every person throughout history.

“For example, the Lord once commanded a man, ‘take up your bed and walk’ (John. 5:8).  Surely it is not difficult to understand that this particular injunction was not universal in its application.  To another he said, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (John. 9:7).  That requirement applied to no one but the man to whom it was given.  To the apostles Jesus said, ‘Wait in the city [of Jerusalem], until you are clothed with power from on high’ (Luke 24:49).  That command was for the apostles exclusively.”

The man who was healed was told to take up his bed and walk and it was specific to one individual and Christ did not say that everyone had to do this; likewise the one in the pool of Siloam.   The apostles were certainly told to wait for what we know was the day of Pentecost to receive the Holy Spirit, and it was a unique event.   As we will see later, the Passover was to be kept by all of the disciples then and down through the ages.

This same writer then states: “In order to appreciate the situation that occurred during the Passover supper, one has to have some ‘background’ knowledge in a couple of areas – pertaining to the customary act of feet-washing itself, and that of the events that led up to the ‘supper’ incident.  Notice first that Jesus washed the feet of all the disciples.  If one is going to bind precisely this ‘example’ as a church ordinance, as a few small religious groups have done, then the feet of everyone present will have to be cleansed.   Further, everyone who washes the feet of others will need to have his own feet bathed by everyone else.  If there should be a group of several hundred people, this ‘ceremony’ would consume the better part of a day – or even longer.”

This is a ridiculous answer.   All the disciples had their feet washed. The same happens in the Passover services today of the Church of the Eternal God and its affiliates, the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship and the Global Church of God.   The Bible doesn’t say that “the feet of others will need to have his own feet bathed by everyone else” and is a complete misunderstanding of what is written.  A baptised member of the church will have his feet washed and wash another one’s feet and that is sufficient to fulfill the instruction by Christ.

The writer then states: “That Jesus was not washing the disciples’ feet as a literal act to be required henceforth is very clear from what happened in the meantime, and how the Lord responded.  Peter knew that Jesus was about to wash his feet (in a literal sense), but Christ says, ‘You do not know what I’m doing.’ Obviously, it was not the act of washing feet per se that was the point; rather, it was the lesson to be conveyed.  And so, in a mild rebuke, Jesus told his apostle (if we may paraphrase), ‘If you do not learn the lesson I am attempting to demonstrate, you will have “no part” in my ministry’ (v. 8).”

A further assertion by this same writer is that “The Son of God was demonstrating an attitude, not requiring a literal act.  The error, then, on the part of some religious people, is in not discerning the difference between what the Lord was doing literally, and the symbolic significance of the act.”

This is a further ludicrous answer to try and circumnavigate what Jesus was clearly teaching.   The lesson was about humility and not having a self-serving attitude.   Jesus said what they (and we today) have to DO – “you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14).   That takes action and is, therefore, a literal act.   Jesus demonstrated a literal act by doing the footwashing – doing means action and it takes effort.   And, in addition to, not in place of this, we demonstrate an attitude of service to others.   It is an instruction that has two facets to it.

Let us review what the Bible instructs on this matter; after all, this is what matters, not some human explanation that can employ mental gymnastics to show that what the Bible teaches is not necessarily so.

When Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, He told them: “I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15). His disciples then and as His followers today, we are to emulate that same example as instructed.   When we wash one another’s feet we serve one another as we should do in humility, lowliness of heart and mind, not seeking our own way but looking to help and encourage each other in humility and love. So many today seek pre-eminence which Christ clearly condemned (as an example, see Matthew 23 for Christ’s condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees and their approach to many matters).

In Mark 9:33-37, Jesus answered the disciples who were disputing about who was the greatest amongst them when he said: “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all” (v 35).   In Mark 10:42-44, we read: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.’”

We have seen some of the arguments that are propounded to claim that Christ was merely teaching the disciples about humility and that He did not establish a ceremony for the Church to practice in the future, believing that it is only the attitude that counts and the performance of the physical act of footwashing today is unnecessary. However, the correct understanding of what the Bible states is clear; physical action is needed.

Jesus Himself clearly explained the primary lesson of foot-washing: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:13-14).  He added in John 13:17: “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” In Matthew 28:20, Jesus described the responsibility of the church as  “‘teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.”

In our Statement of Fundamental Beliefs we state the following about keeping the Passover and the annual Holy Days:

“The Passover once a year in the evening by engaging in a footwashing service as an example of humility in accordance with Christ’s example, and partaking of the unleavened bread and wine, symbolizing physical and spiritual healing and forgiveness of sin. The entire service symbolizes a remembrance of Christ’s death (Leviticus 23:5, Luke 22:14-20; John 13:1-5; 1 Corinthians 11:20-29).”

By simple deduction and correct biblical understanding, we see that Jesus Christ was willing to humbly and unconditionally serve the disciples in doing such a menial task and baptized members of the Body of Christ are instructed to follow His example in the matter of footwashing and ignore those who, erroneously, deem it unnecessary.

Lead Writer: Brian Gale (United Kingdom)