Baptism and footwashing—more than symbols

Seventh-day Adventist theology defines both baptism and footwashing (“the ordinance of humility”) as symbols.¹ With symbols, the real essence is found not so much in the symbols themselves but in the realities they represent.

Symbolism is, without question, integral to both baptism and footwashing. But do they involve more than just symbolism? In the New Testament both ordinances signified cleansing from sin. They rendered a person clean. That dimension, acknowledged in the Adventist statement of faith, was much more pronounced than Christians today realize.

To gain a better understanding of the original context of both practices, we will (a) explore Jewish attitudes toward ritual purity in the first century, (b) examine certain New Testament incidents in the life of Jesus as well as (c) incidents in the early church in which ritual purity forms an important background, (d) and see how the New Testament language of baptism and footwashing highlight the cleansing function of both ordinances. We will close our study with some observations for our modern setting.

Jewish attitudes toward purity

To twenty-first-century Christians, the idea of ritual purity sounds strange, though less so to those who have lived in Muslim countries. But to first-century Jews, it was paramount.

They attained ritual purity through three practices (a purity pyramid) that ensured a person was always clean. By far the most important was circumcision. Rabbis considered it the greatest sacrifice, one made in the flesh.² Thus, it rendered a person clean, while the uncircumcised were unclean.

Paul makes a veiled reference to this when he states: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Gal. 2:15).³ The phrase “by birth” in this verse is a translation from the Greek phusei, which describes a person’s natural status (cf. KJV’s “by nature”) received through circumcision. Paul, therefore, contrasts Gentiles who are “sinners” (uncircumcised/unclean) and circumcised Jews, who no longer are. The apostle does not condone this perspective but simply acknowledges it. He then proceeds to offer an alternative, which we will explore below.

Next in importance were sacrifices. They were difficult to perform, especially for Jews living in the diaspora. They were usually offered during the designated pilgrimages because they required travel to Jerusalem.

The third level of the pyramid was ritual washings. The most important was the mikveh, immersing oneself in a pool of water. Baptism most likely developed from the mikveh.⁴ Required of proselytes joining the Jewish faith, it was also available to Jews who wanted purification.

Smaller mikvaoth were enough for one person. Larger pools could accommodate more and often had two sets of steps, one leading down and one for going back up, to keep the purified ascending individuals from touching those descending who were still impure. The most famous mikveh was the Pool of Siloam, situated downhill from the temple, where pilgrims could purify themselves before ascending to the temple.⁵

The ritual washing of hands (niptō or baptizō in the Greek text) was common (Mark 7:1–4) because a ritually pure person might accidentally touch a defiled person or thing and thus incur defilement. Mark adds: “And there are many other traditions that they [Jews] observe, such as the washing [baptismos] of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches” (v. 4).

Circumcision provided statutory purity, while sacrifices and washings restored purity once compromised. Although the concept had a biblical foundation, Jewish tradition had greatly embellished it.

Jewish purity laws and the ministry of Jesus

When Jesus offers to visit a centurion’s home to heal a servant, the official objects because he is “ ‘not worthy’ ” (Luke 7:6). Being a Roman, he was uncircumcised and therefore perceived as unclean. Aware of Jewish sensitivities (vv. 3–5), he seeks to prevent Jesus from entering his home.

In Luke 15:2 the Pharisees complain that Jesus “eats” (sunesthiō) with sinners. They were not concerned with moral defilement, however, but ritual. “Sinners” were the ones who did not follow purity laws, and one therefore became defiled through such close social interaction.

When a sinful woman anoints Jesus’ feet, Simon the Pharisee reasons: “ ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner’ ” (Luke 7:39). Simon was not worried about immorality, because it cannot be transferred through touch. But ritual defilement could, or so the rabbis taught. Hence Simon’s syllogism.

During Jesus’ trial, Jews did not want to enter Pilate’s Hall because doing so would result in ritual defilement and make them unable to partake of the Passover meal (John 18:28).

Showing little regard for such traditions, Jesus compared Pharisees to tombs—clean on the outside but full of defilement on the inside (Matt 23:27). Thus, He made it clear that inner, moral purity is much more important than outer, ritual purity.

Jewish purity laws and the early church

The early church did not have the same theological clarity as Jesus did. When invited to Cornelius’s house, Peter hesitates: “ ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation’ ” (Acts 10:28). To convince him otherwise, God shows him a vision of a sheet with “all kinds of animals” (v. 12; emphasis added)—that is, both clean and unclean.

When told to eat, Peter replies: “ ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean’ ” (v. 14). The word unclean refers to animals forbidden by God (Lev. 11:1–47). Common applies to animals that were clean according to Leviticus 11 but considered defiled or common by rabbinic thinking because of their proximity to something unclean.

“ ‘What God has made clean, do not call common’ ” (v. 15), the angel explains. The being never tells Peter to eat unclean animals but only those that were clean, but which rabbinic tradition declared defiled, or common. The vision convinces Peter to visit Cornelius, realizing he will not be defiled by it.

After the incident, Jewish Christians confront Peter: “ ‘You went to uncircumcised men and ate [sunesthiō] with them’ ” (Acts 11:3). It is the same accusation directed at Jesus when He ate with sinners.

Peter later explains: “ ‘[God] made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed [katharizō] their hearts by faith’ ” (Acts 15:9). Cleansed is a ritual term. The Jewish Christians had complained that Peter had eaten with uncircumcised (i.e., unclean) persons. But Peter replies that God had “cleansed” the uncircumcised through faith.

The cleansing God provides is far greater than that of circumcision. It leads Peter to utter a most profound (for a Jew) statement: “We shall be saved in the same manner as they” (v. 11, NKJV). While Gentiles do not require the cleansing that circumcision was thought to offer, Jews did need the cleansing God provides through faith.

Paul and Peter face a similar accusation in Antioch. Despite Peter’s noble response in the Cornelius incident, here he falters: “[Peter] was eating [sunesthiō] with the Gentiles; but when they [men from James] came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party” (Gal. 2:12). The “circumcision party” were Jewish Christians who still thought circumcision conferred ritual purity. The issue at Antioch was not what Peter and Paul were eating, as some mistakenly assume, but that the circumcised were eating with the uncircumcised. While Peter caved in under pressure, Paul stood firm.

Paul declares that believers are justified by faith (v. 16). The word justified has the same force as the word cleansed, the difference being that justified is a legal term, whereas cleansed is a ritual one. Like Peter in Acts 15:9–11, Paul emphasizes that true purity stems from faith in Jesus, not from circumcision, sacrifices, and ritual washings.

Baptism and footwashing as purity ordinances

It is against this backdrop that the New Testament presents baptism and footwashing. When Ananias visits Paul immediately after his Damascus Road experience, he tells him: “ ‘Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name’ ” (Acts 22:16). To the Ephesians Paul declares: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:25, 26). Paul calls baptism “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). And Hebrews 10:22 summons us to approach God with “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and . . . bodies washed with pure water.”

The words wash/washing, clean/cleansed, and pure carry ritual connotations. The apostles used ritual language to develop the theology of baptism. Indeed, the Greek words baptizō/baptismos are also used of ritual washings (e.g., Mark 7:3, 4). The apostles understood baptism as a ritual of purity.

More important are Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. When He endeavors to wash Peter’s feet, the disciple initially refuses. “ ‘If I do not wash you, you have no share with me,’ ” Jesus replies (John 13:8). It is extremely unlikely that He would exclude Peter for refusing an ordinance of humility. Much more is at stake here. The issue is purity. If Peter does not have his feet washed, he remains in defilement. It is such defilement that can bar him from Jesus’ presence. Peter immediately agrees to the footwashing.

Jesus then makes the following amazing statement: “ The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean’ ” (v. 10). Jesus here uses purity language. A person who has bathed—that is, has been baptized—has statutory purity, is clean—as clean as Jews thought a circumcised person was, and even cleaner. What is now needed is footwashing to restore purity in case it has been compromised. Sacrifices and ritual washings are no longer necessary because baptism and footwashing will render a person clean on an ongoing basis.

Jesus then adds: “ ‘And you are clean, but not every one of you’ ” (v. 10). Though Judas was probably baptized (John 3:22; 4:1, 2) and had his feet washed, he was still not clean because his heart remained defiled. Purity ordinances are effective only in a person who believes, who has been purified in the heart.

Cleansing

We saw that first-century Judaism was obsessed with ritual purity. It attained it by a series of rituals: circumcision, which provided statutory purity, and sacrifices and ritual washings that restored purity when circumstantial defilement occurred.

The early church struggled with this topic. On the one hand, Judaizing Christians wanted to continue with the rituals of purity. On the other hand, the apostles realized that true purity comes through the cleansing sacrifice of Jesus.

Both Jesus and the apostles understood baptism and footwashing as purity ordinances, external manifestations of an inner faith, to the point that Jesus warned Peter that he could be excluded from His presence if he refused footwashing. It is the inner faith together with the outward ordinances that declare a person clean before God (John 3:3, 5).

What are the implications for Christians today? Some Protestant churches do not practice baptism or see it as of secondary importance, as merely an external rite of little weight. What matters is faith. Most Christians do not practice footwashing. By contrast, the Adventist Church is correct in seeing both ordinances as integral to the life of a believer.

What we may need to do is rethink our terminology. Though both symbolize inner realities, they are more than symbols. They are ordinances of cleansing. A believing person who is baptized attains not only membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church but is formally declared clean in God’s presence. And while we can ask for forgiveness every day in our prayers, and it is granted, footwashing functions as a formal event that declares us cleansed once again from any circumstantial defilement, again in the presence of God.

The two ordinances, external manifestations of an inner faith understood within their New Testament context, ensure our ongoing status as clean before God.