I grew up in a tradition that regards the Lord’s Supper (LS) as merely symbolic, which comes from the words of Jesus, “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24-25).
Then I was able to listen in on the Reformers conversation on whether the elements were transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, or whether the elements are spiritually the flesh and blood of Christ.
But I never understood the LS as sacramental, a means of grace. Is this sacramental nature of the LS based on Scripture or tradition?
How about all sacraments are tradition, since “sacrament” as such does not appear in the NT? But anyway, I don’t see an ontological efficacy in LS. The analogue of Tanakic communal meals with God only goes so far, since Christ was the sacrifice par excellance, and I do not see LS as anything but commemorative of that.
Vlad, so far I’m in agreement. Yes, no “ontological efficacy.”
It is sacramental in that the Eucharist is God’s word – that is, its the gospel.
Luther defined a number of “classes” for the word of God (though that’s my terminology).
There is the Word of God – Christ.
The word of God – the Scriptures
And the word of God – the preaching of the gospel.
In this sense, the sermon is just as sacramental. The homily or sermon is God’s word to God’s people as a covenant whole – “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
the Eucharist then is God’s word personally – “This is my body broken for you.”
(Just don’t tell anyone that I’m writing theology rather than simply Greek/linguistics)
The Eucharist then is God’s word personally – “This is my body broken for you.”
Mike, I what you’re saying, but a person has to buy into the premise about the “Word” and so on, to agree with Luther.
(Just don’t tell anyone that I’m writing theology rather than simply Greek/linguistics)
You’re quite the theologian, my brother. A good combination, I say.
Wait a minute, you never agree with me. I need to review what I wrote. Must have miss-typed something, perhaps inadvertently praising the TNIV or something.
Mike, doesn’t that leave too much on the table? It seems we would be broadening the word “sacrament” so much that it would start to lose its meaning. Or we need to first lay out what the meaning of “is” is.
Wait a minute, you never agree with me. I need to review what I wrote. Must have miss-typed something, perhaps inadvertently praising the TNIV or something.
Vlad, every now and then.
Is this sacramental nature of the LS based on Scripture or tradition?
I believe that you are setting up a false antithesis here, as if the sacramental nature of the LS cannot be based upon both Scripture and Tradition (not the capitalised “T”).
It helps when we recall that the Bible is not a systematic theology, rather God gave the Church the Spirit to guide it to all truth.
In regards to the Reformed view, if you have not yet read it try Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Keith A. Mathison and Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper by John Calvin.
For Luther, a sacrament was “Word and Element with the Spirit”, bear in mind also that the Word of God is creative.
I believe that you are setting up a false antithesis here, as if the sacramental nature of the LS cannot be based upon both Scripture and Tradition (not the capitalised “T”).
What do you mean by “tradition” and whose “tradition”?
It helps when we recall that the Bible is not a systematic theology, rather God gave the Church the Spirit to guide it to all truth.
Is this your basis for the sacramental understanding of the LS?
Thanks for the link (I’ll check it out).
The idea that the Lord’s Supper is sacramental can perhaps be based on John 6:53-56. The relevance of this is of course debatable, but it suggests a real scriptural basis for a more than symbolic understanding.
What do you mean by “tradition” and whose “tradition”?
To answer the last part first, I mean the Church’s Tradition. By “Tradition” I mean…well let me explain; If we jump back to the post-Ascension Church we find a Church that has no NT. Rather we have oral teachings and epistles, some of which become the NT. So Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
So the doctrine of the sacrament is theological, and whilst it is not systematically set forth in Scripture the concept is there. So in Romans 4 circumcision is called a ‘sign and seal’ etc.
So the Westminster Confession:
“Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5] There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]”
[1] ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
GEN 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
[2] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
1CO 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.
[3] 1CO 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. GAL 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[4] ROM 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
EXO 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
GEN 34:14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us.
[5] ROM 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
1CO 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
[6] GEN 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
MAT 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
TITUS 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
The idea that the Lord’s Supper is sacramental can perhaps be based on John 6:53-56. The relevance of this is of course debatable, but it suggests a real scriptural basis for a more than symbolic understanding.
Peter, yes, John 6:53-56 is no easy text to handle. Some of the Fathers understood it that way.
To answer the last part first, I mean the Church’s Tradition. By “Tradition” I mean…well let me explain; If we jump back to the post-Ascension Church we find a Church that has no NT. Rather we have oral teachings and epistles, some of which become the NT. So Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [Or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
Richard, but you must first establish that the early church held to a sacramental view of the LS for your use of “tradition” to fly.
you must first establish that the early church held to a sacramental view of the LS
For starters we have The Didache 10.3 “You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name’s sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant.”
Then we have the liturgies of the early Church as well as the writings of the early Church Fathers.
Richard, correct me if I’m wrong, but the Didache and the Church Fathers are all interpreters, right?
Let’s demonstrate this thing on the pages of Holy Writ?
Let’s demonstrate this thing on the pages of Holy Writ?
TC, this is the outlook I am trying to take on, in that the pages of Holy Writ were shaped by a community of faith. That is to say, what is written in the NT would have been understood by the immediate audience not only from the letters but also from the oral teachings/traditions. Hence the liturgies provide a framework for understanding what the community of faith understood.
The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina is very helpful.
The doctors of the Church worked out the theology of the sacraments.
But you may wish to look at Calvin’s section on the sacraments here and Charles Hodge’s here.
Mikes book is here
Though it’s convenient for me to draw a line at extracanonical texts, I don’t think Richard is wrong for looking at other writings. The canon is not exhaustive, and other texts can tell us what the primitive church was thinking and how it worshiped. And let’s not even get started on canonization. It is also true that liturgy shaped doctrine, most readily demonstrated in the Arian controversy.
That being said, I don’t see the quote from the Didache as the least bit conclusive. Even though it is a prayer after communion, the “grace” is coming through Christ (as is knowledge, faith, and immortality in verse 2), not through the Eucharist itself.
TC, this is the outlook I am trying to take on, in that the pages of Holy Writ were shaped by a community of faith.
Richard, I reject the notion that a community of faith shaped the pages of the Holy Writ. Maybe you need to explain what you really mean. As it stands, I reject it.
That is to say, what is written in the NT would have been understood by the immediate audience not only from the letters but also from the oral teachings/traditions.
But this is not the same as saying that what we have on the pages are shaped by a community of faith.
Your statements seems more like interpretation to me.
Calvin is another interpreter, but I’ll see what he has to say.
I’m after Scripture, my friend.
The canon is not exhaustive, and other texts can tell us what the primitive church was thinking and how it worshiped.
What are those other texts, and why aren’t we all jumping hallelujah in recognition of these other texts?
Everything from Polycarp to the Ebionites provides some insight into early Christianity, and you know that as well as I do. I think we are jumping hallelujah–where would we be if we couldn’t fill out our understanding of both the culture and language of first few centuries CE?
I am not saying they are normative, but they are a part of the puzzle. I knew we’d disagree sooner or later!
I think we are jumping hallelujah–where would we be if we couldn’t fill out our understanding of both the culture and language of first few centuries CE?
Yes, but not as definitive. And I think we still agree here.
I am with Zwingli on this one – it’s symbolic. I see it as an ordinance of the church not a sacrament – Eucharist doesn’t save – Jesus saves.
Brian, until Scripture convince me otherwise, I’m with Zwingli on this one.
TC, I’m with you, Brian and Zwingli. Symbolic all the way.
Stan, so far, appeal has to be made to extrabiblical literature to build a sacramental case. I’ve not been convinced from Scripture yet.
I consider it a symbolic memorial service.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25 TNIV)
Note the memorial language. Also note that the bread and wine are obviously not actually his body and blood but rather symbolic.
That’s my take as I quickly approach 2:00 in the morning.
Ok, I’m sorry I came in a little late.
Now I’d like to know why those of us who understand the LS as sacrament bear the burden of evidence. From what I can see, there’s little evidence either way, and what evidence there is can be interpreted both ways.
“This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (Stole that from Stan, thanks Stan)
The evidence for ordination is the focus on the ‘remembrance’.
The evidence for sacrament is ‘This is my body’; ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’.
Whilst I tend towards a sacramental appreciation of the LS, I don’t deny there’s a possibility in scripture for an ordinal appreciation.
T.C., if you look at the Eastern Orthodox understanding of sacraments, there’s a strong sense of everything being considered sacrament, in the way that Mike (?) mentioned earlier. I’d tend to agree with that.
However, I believe that one view of the LS as more than symbolism originated in the Jewish Passover traditions. The Passover each year is treated in Liturgy as if those taking part are actually there, in Egypt, however many thousands of years ago, being set free from slavery. The two became analogous, and so a similar spiritual significance was passed on to the LS.
Personally, I think you ordinalites are missing out
Vlad: In one sense the whole debate is somewhat anachronistic but on the other hand it is quite helpful. But in terms of the Didache, the key phrase is “spiritual food and drink”. It indicates that there is more behind the Eucharist than simply bread and wine. I know of no sacramentalist (myself included) who would deny that the “grace” comes through Christ rather than through the Eucharist itself. But then again, do we not all receive spiritual benefits when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, our faith is strengthened and we are assured of God’s fatherly kindness towards us.
Brian: Whilst the memorial view is commonly ascribed to Zwingli it is somewhat debateable as to what he himself believed.
Stan: I find it surprising that as someone who purports to be “Reformed” in some sense you consider it to be a symbolic memorial service. Try Given for You by Keith A. Mathison. Hughes Oliphant Old’s Worship Reformed According to Scripture would also be worth a look.
I would point out that the term “remembrance” for the Jew was very robust and loses something in translation. The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal, it is a meal of covenant renewal so that what happened in the past is re-enacted so that it is made present again.
TC: It took me years to sort this issue out so I am doubtful that we will agree after 27 comments. But I will try to answer your questions,
I reject the notion that a community of faith shaped the pages of the Holy Writ
The NT grew up within the Church, i.e. the Church existed before the NT was written however the Christisns believed things before the NT was written, i.e. the rule of faith for the earliest Christians was oral teachings from the Apostles. In time the NT became to be written and canonised. Hence Paul wrote “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
I would argue that John 6 reflects a robust sacramental view, i.e. St. John’s Gospel contains a deeply sacramental element.
Richard: IMO many Reformed (including Calvin) miss the LS as they also do with baptism.
Stan, read the two books I linked to and then explain you comment
Try reading Barth on the Lord’s Supper…it’s the most confusing stuff I’ve ever attempted to read.
As I’ve stated before I’m a Baptist by training, and somewhat still by conviction. Therefore, I tend to side with symbolic interpretations…still, there have been times when taking the Supper was a mystical experience and I’ve gotta say that there was something more going on than emotions.
TC, you may wish to have a glance at this.
coming late to the conversation . . .
a few thoughts . . .
First, to be totally clear . . . this issue is NOT a matter of symbolic vs. sacramental. Sacramentalists believe the LS is symbolic also . . . so I think a better frame for the debate is “merely symbolic” vs. “sacramental.”
Second, we should make certain we are all on the same page in the way we use the term “sacramental.” One can refer to the sacramental nature of the LS and not hold transubsantiation, for example. Also . . . defining sacramentalism as something having “ontological efficacy” (as Vlad did earlier) is not that helpful either. I know sacramentalists who would not use that phrase at all to describe what they believe about the LS . . . neither would simply defining the LS as a “means of grace” (a secondary cause by which God graciously works within his people) help that much . . . people who are not sacramentalists refer to things such as reading the Scriptures, prayer, etc., as “means of grace” in some sense.
From the Westminster tradition, a basic definition of a sacrament could be (labeled for future convenience) . . .
a) an ordinance (a practice of the church)
b) instituted by God
c) that puts a visible difference between the Church and the rest of the world
d) and represents, confirms, and applies the covenant of grace to those who believe (in other words, it is a means by which God graciously works within his people)
e) which is practiced within the context of the Word of God preached, taught, explained, etc.
It appears the only thing with which non-sacramentalists normally take issue is the matter of the LS “applying” the covenant of grace to those who believe.
The question, however, is whether God works through the LS in some way or not. Does God work within believers as they partake in the meal and meditate on Christ’s atoning death in the past, his present presence among them by the Spirit, and his future return?
If your answer is “no, God does not work within the believer during this time” . . . then I think you can safely say the LS is “merely symbolic.” If your answer is “yes, God does work in some way during this time in the believer” . . . then you may be more sacramental than you first thought.
Note the memorial language. Also note that the bread and wine are obviously not actually his body and blood but rather symbolic.
Stan, the language is there. Btw, thanks for staying up late to answer.
However, I believe that one view of the LS as more than symbolism originated in the Jewish Passover traditions. The Passover each year is treated in Liturgy as if those taking part are actually there, in Egypt, however many thousands of years ago, being set free from slavery. The two became analogous, and so a similar spiritual significance was passed on to the LS.
Damian, Paul quotes symbolic language in the tradition that he received and passed on to the Corinthians (11:23-26).
Was the Passover a sacrament?
The NT grew up within the Church, i.e. the Church existed before the NT was written however the Christians believed things before the NT was written, i.e. the rule of faith for the earliest Christians was oral teachings from the Apostles. In time the NT became to be written and canonised. Hence Paul wrote “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
Yes, but the early church had the inspired apostles and so on.
The oral traditions/teachings were based on what happened in the life of Jesus and how that objective reality impacted the Christian community, not the other way around.
I would argue that John 6 reflects a robust sacramental view, i.e. St. John’s Gospel contains a deeply sacramental element.
You’re not alone.
As I’ve stated before I’m a Baptist by training, and somewhat still by conviction. Therefore, I tend to side with symbolic interpretations…still, there have been times when taking the Supper was a mystical experience and I’ve gotta say that there was something more going on than emotions.
Ranger, the Supper itself points to an objective historical reality, but a person’s observance of it must be subjective and all that goes with what that means. So your emotions are totally expected and are legitimate.
If your answer is “no, God does not work within the believer during this time” . . . then I think you can safely say the LS is “merely symbolic.” If your answer is “yes, God does work in some way during this time in the believer” . . . then you may be more sacramental than you first thought.
Stuart, thanks for this input. It sure puts some things into perspective.
I do not consider the LS merely symbolic.
OK I come to this one when so much has been said, so have little original to offer the debate.
My reading of an abridged version of Calvin’s Institutes I picked up in a second hand bookshop, does seem to support a “real presence”, albeit verydefintely not transubstantiation.
Try 1 Cor 11 v 27-29. If by eating unworthily we are guilty of sin, and by not discerning the body we eat judgement on ourselves, does not the opposite follow. Go to the Lord’s table worthily, with the assurance of God;’s forgiveness and at peace with your neighbour, will we not meet with Christ and benefit thereby?
Colin, we can never be worthy of anything. Paul’s emphasis is on the manner in which we partake. “Manner” is the operative word here.
Vlad: If I were to leave it at that, I suppose it would. But there’s more to my perspective than that – though right now I don’t have time to expand my thoughts. Its getting late and this blogger sleeps.
T.C.,
I don’t think the 1 Cor text has more a symbolic leaning than the gospel texts. They both have the potential for both, as I explained earlier.
I’m not sure what the Jewish tradition calls the Passover, but I suppose you could call it sacrament, if it is indeed analogous in theological experience to the Christian sacraments. From my understanding it is. Of course, I speak from a non-Jewish standpoint, mainly from conversation and research.
Sorry for the delayed reply.
TC,
Do you believe in covenant theology? It would seem that the sacramental view would go hand in hand with it.
Mike
Was the Passover a sacrament?
Yes, it was “a visible sign of an invisible grace” or a “visible word” as was circumcision. The homilies note, “And so was circumcision a Sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the Circumcised the promise of GOD touching the promised seed that they looked for.”
Yes, but the early church had the inspired apostles and so on.
I am not getting what your point is.
I don’t think the 1 Cor text has more a symbolic leaning than the gospel texts. They both have the potential for both, as I explained earlier.
“Do this in remembrance of Me.” What is this statement point to? Sacramental or merely symbolic?
I’m not sure what the Jewish tradition calls the Passover, but I suppose you could call it sacrament, if it is indeed analogous in theological experience to the Christian sacraments. From my understanding it is. Of course, I speak from a non-Jewish standpoint, mainly from conversation and research.
According to the Exodus record, the Passover was to be celebrated as pointing backwards and forward, backwards for God’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and forward because of the ultimate deliverance from sin through the Lamb of God (1 Cor 5:7).
Do you believe in covenant theology? It would seem that the sacramental view would go hand in hand with it.
Mike, I do not believe in covenant theology from the Reformed understanding of it.
And neither do I see it as going hand-in-hand with the sacramental view. Maybe you can explain what you’re getting at.
Yes, it was “a visible sign of an invisible grace” or a “visible word” as was circumcision.
Richard, What is your definition of a sacrament? Because I don’t think I deny that in reference to the Supper…
Richard, whatever the Lord wants us to know was communicated to us through the inspired writers of the NT through the Spirit. That is what I mean.
I do not believe the NT was shaped by the community of faith. It was shaped by what Jesus wants us to get through the Spirit.
What is your definition of a sacrament?
I use the Westminsterian definition of sacrament, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.”
I do not believe the NT was shaped by the community of faith. It was shaped by what Jesus wants us to get through the Spirit
Perhaps this discussion is better suited to another post as it is not really to do with Holy Communion.
You may be interested in A Spiritual Banquet by Revd Matthew Mason who blogs at Reformed Catholic.
I use the Westminsterian definition of sacrament, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.”
Not a bad definition from the divines. I concur with Stuart above that the Supper should not be seen as a mere symbolism.
Perhaps this discussion is better suited to another post as it is not really to do with Holy Communion.
Yes, let me work on that one.
TC, I also think that it is symbolic, but this scripture:
1 Cor. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ESV
Makes me wonder if there is more to it than just symbolism. Any thoughts?
Robert, I think the context of the Supper abuse speaks to the meaning of v. 27.
The apathy and drunkenness and so honor did not produce the right atmosphere for celebrating the Supper, whether we view it as sacramental or symbolic. That’s my take.
TC, in reference to comment #48 you may wish to have a gander at this and this.
Richard, thanks for the links. Many of the arguments of Form critics are hypothetical at best.
Fitzmyers sounds like those Jesus Seminar guys. I think some have given too much credit to the community of faith in shaping what we read in the Gospel narratives.
What are we then to accept as genuinely Jesus? Who decides? The Form critics?
TC, I am not familiar with the Jesus Seminar, but Fitzmyer would adhere to the following:
What are we then to accept as genuinely Jesus?
I would say that Form Criticism will help us to determine this but I agree that much NT form criticism has been performed by unhelpful people.
In 2009 I will be focussing on the NT, 2008 has been my OT year.
Richard, I like that furthur take on the matter. I wasn’t too impressed with the first one I read. Thanks for the follow up.
Well, I’ll be hearing more from you on the NT in 2009. Sounds great to me!
“Mike, doesn’t that leave too much on the table? It seems we would be broadening the word “sacrament” so much that it would start to lose its meaning. Or we need to first lay out what the meaning of “is” is.”
Vlad: I’m picking this question up after some time…but I do have an answer.
It would be leaving too much on the table if it wasn’t for the fact that Jesus didn’t institute anything else. What else did Christ institute? Proclamation, Eucharist, and Baptism. That’s a pretty decent sized table, I think.
Mike,
Christ instituted foot washing didn’t he?
Mike