The washing of feet

[atheist]

I don't know if this is the proper place to put it, but there's a question that has been on my mind for years and maybe somebody could help.

Even when I was a convinced Christian, there was some odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT that never quite made sense to me.

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3)

Some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can be given, but it's still awkward when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. [...] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

In this passage he washes the feet of the apostles. This was a common practice for servants and the intention is clear, but he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. That makes a notorious difference. He didn't wash or wipe women's feet. Why this difference? Was he probably stating subtlety that women were inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme?

My question is this: if washing feet was a sign of hospitality in those days, as experts point out, is there any record about this habit practiced on women or was just something applied to men? I never saw such a passage in the Bible and don't remember reading something similar in texts from biblical times. Any idea?

[Kurieuo]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, nor whether it really matters? Today's culture in western society is obviously different to back then. What is it that you are using the judge the culture then as less moral than your westernised culture? I think this cuts to the heart of the matter.

Kurieuo.

[bizzt]

Some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits can be given, but it's still awkward when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

Maybe she didn't have a Towel???????

[August]

I think you have it a bit backwards.

If you read the preceding chapter, in John 11, Jesus raises Mary's brother from the dead, even though he's been dead for 4 days. If someone did that for me, I would also be very thankful. Martha, Mary's sister, showed her gratitude by serving food etc, while Mary showed it by pouring the ointment over Jesus' feet. If she had anything more valuable, then that is what she would have given. It was a token of love and respect. Jesus did not order her to do it, and allowed it because He was sensitive to her need to show her gratitude.

I would argue she wanted to do it, she wanted to show gratitude and that's the way she chose to do it. It would have been cruel from Jesus to take away that right from her, and He defends that right of her's just later on in the same chapter, verses 7 & 8.

Those who love Christ will lay out the best for Him. True love does not spare anything, even using your hair to wipe someone's feet. Could Jesus have rejected that token of love, and not terribly offended Mary? Considering what Christ had sacrificed for us, nothing would be too much to show as an manifestation of thanks, and this is what Mary did.

[Prodigal Son]

i don't think he once discriminated against women. he probably washed the apostle's feet and not women because he was around them more. and mary cleansing him wasn't humiliating her at all--just don't see that. Jesus made it very clear that men/women are equal in all respects in the eyes of God.

[atheist]

Today's culture in western society is obviously different to back then. What is it that you are using the judge the culture then as less moral than your westernised culture? I think this cuts to the heart of the matter.

Not at all. If you care to take examples from Jesus life, his deeds should have an universal validity, the things he did should mean something and interpretations can be drawn from his acts. Anyway, even in that culture, was he stating a difference?

By the way, Kurieuo, I noticed that you erased all threads where I was giving an opinion lately. It is obvious that I'm not welcomed here. Sorry for thinking that this forum could bear some tolerance for non-Christians, now I see clearly that it doesn't. I should know better.

[atheist]

If you read the preceding chapter, in John 11, Jesus raises Mary's brother from the dead, even though he's been dead for 4 days. If someone did that for me, I would also be very thankful. Martha, Mary's sister, showed her gratitude by serving food etc, while Mary showed it by pouring the ointment over Jesus' feet. If she had anything more valuable, then that is what she would have given. It was a token of love and respect. Jesus did not order her to do it, and allowed it because He was sensitive to her need to show her gratitude.

I saw this aspect before, but I don't think it justifies the whole thing at all. Jesus allows this terrible humiliation of a woman in front of everybody, he didn't do anything to stop it and this was always the most disturbing thing for me. A man adoring a woman's feet is an act of sheer finesse. The other way round seems to me rather awkward and chauvinistic. A gentleman wouldn't accept such thing easily (not the washing, I mean the hair wiping) and even in eastern societies this kind of house behaviour wasn't normal at all. It looks pretty ugly not coming from a lover. In a patriarchal society, this looks even harder to take, because Jesus didn't accept women apostles so he wasn't breaking any mold or prejudice with his attitude and his example.

Could Jesus have rejected that token of love, and not terribly offended Mary?

Yes, he could, easily.

Considering what Christ had sacrificed for us, nothing would be too much to show as an manifestation of thanks, and this is what Mary did

But Jesus had not sacrificed anything until then. She could be grateful for what he did for her brother, though; this point is clear.

and He defends that right of her's just later on in the same chapter, verses 7 & 8

Surely. I never saw much sense in this justification, but the case is that he didn't even says a word until Judas makes the objection.


I cannot prevent compare these episodes with Homer and the passage of the return of Odysseus to Ithaca, when the old servant Euriclea washes his feet. Good-hearted Odysseus wouldn't allow an old servant to perform such duty (and in that case it was her duty) without some firm objections.

[atheist]

Jesus made it very clear that men/women are equal in all respects in the eyes of God

Why didn't he accept women apostles then?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Jesus made it very clear that men/women are equal in all respects in the eyes of God

Why didn't he accept women apostles then?

If He had sent out female apostles, nobody would have listened-women didn't have any authority back in that time period, to the point that their testimony in court meant nothing. Also, look at what the apostles had to suffer. And you haven't shown that his choice is the result of being anti-female. You're saying because He didn't choose women He was against them...but that doesn't make sense. Also, men and women are equal, but they have separate roles. If I assign the big muscular guy to the task of being a mechanic, and the lady who weights under 100 lbs a desk job, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying that they have different roles that they fit into, and if they were to try to swtich, they'd be much less effective.

Who says she felt humiliated.

[Deborah]

It seems to me a action of love and respect.

[atheist]

If He had sent out female apostles, nobody would have listened-women didn't have any authority back in that time period, to the point that their testimony in court meant nothing. Also, look at what the apostles had to suffer. And you haven't shown that his choice is the result of being anti-female. You're saying because He didn't choose women He was against

Sorry, Kmart, I would answer you, but anything I posted lately was erased, so I'm not in the mood to deal with the intolerance in this forum anymore, it's a total loss of time.

[LittleShepherd]

Mary wasn't humiliated at all. She showed humility in the presence of her savior, Who had forgiven her of much sin. She laid down her pride, and did what was right even when it would earn her ridicule from the men with Jesus. And what happened when she gave up her pride for her Savior? He praised her actions, and condemned the actions and behavior of the men who tried to ridicule her and keep her from Him. By choosing Him over petty notions of pride, in the end she was raised up higher than ever. She was praised and rewarded, not devalued and humiliated.

Jesus later washed his disciples feet, which was a very symbolic gesture. He came to serve, not to be served. I don't recall the passage ever saying there were no women present. If there were women present, He washed their feet. If there were no women present, He didn't. Not because He didn't value women, but because they were simply not there when this symbolic act took place.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Since when is intolerance a good thing. Tolerance is a silly concept. What can be done with intolerance isn't necessarily good of course.

[atheist]

I just stumbled upon this thread from many years ago looking for some answers. I've been around many Christian forums since then and never ever a good answer was presented. Shouldn't the actions of Jesus be clear enough to interpretation? I still consider now what I wondered then, for it is the character and manners of the so-called Saviour what I wanted to elucidate, but didn't find any big doses of curiosity or critical thinking about the Scripture in this or other similar forums. Anyway, just dropped by and wanted to leave some greetings. Enjoy life and keep it fair.

[zoegirl]

I just stumbled upon this thread from many years ago looking for some answers. I've been around many Christian forums since then and never ever a good answer was presented. Shouldn't the actions of Jesus be clear enough to interpretation? I still consider now what I wondered then, for it is the character and manners of the so-called Saviour what I wanted to elucidate, but didn't find any big doses of curiosity or critical thinking about the Scripture in this or other similar forums. Anyway, just dropped by and wanted to leave some greetings. Enjoy life and keep it fair.

Perhaps they are quite clear and it is you who has blinders on.

There have been plenty of responses to your questions, good ones, and yet you persist in this idea that nobody knows.

Mary showed that she understood who Jesus was. He was her savior and Lord and as such she was paying homage to Him and worshipping HIm. Bowing down and offering herself in a way that showed humility, not humiliation.

As to why He allowed it in front of other people? What an beautiful example of love and worship!!! An act that showed clear understanding of Christ's person. To those around who were bickering and pompous and themselves had blinders on, what a jaw-dropper!! (Oh to have her sort of uunderstanding and response to Jesus!!)

And yes it would have been terribly hurtful and offensive to reject it. She obviously didn't care about who was there. She was heartbroken and offering her heart (btw, we don't seem to worry about this sort of emotional humiliation when it is the fare of trite romance stories, do we? In those, we like the idea that the characters are so focused on ech other that they forget those around them. And yet here you are denying this emotionally based focus? Come on, human experience is filled with movies where the main characters debase themselves for their love. We thrive on this idea, a love so great that others fade into the background...."I only have eyes for you"....we love to see the man get donw on his knees in fron of the entire restaurant to propose) And yet this emotional focus is what you choose to deride?!?

(IMagine the movie scene...beautiful music in the background...."Oh John, I love you!!" she said, with tears streaking down the make-up on her face. Dropping to her knees and sobbing, "Please forgive me, I was wrong!!".....In consternation , John replied "Not here, Mary, good grief, stop embarassing yourself....look, everybody is staring, now come on, get up and fix your face...." and the beautiful music comes to a screechin halt...)

A silly as that is, don't you get it? An act so open and raw and bare as her's demanded the same. A parent doesn't reject a child's offering because it's poorly made or embarassing....nope it goes straight to the fridge in a place where everybody sees it. This was Mary's love (and lest my analogy is lost, no I am not saying there was anything romantic in this interlude) and worship and also her confession of her own sin.

Christ would have understood her heart and her brokeness and honored her worship.

It's not as if he didn't understand humility Himself. He came down and made Himself a man....I'd say that was a step down. Not to mention the humility of washing His disciples feet when they were bickering.

Do you suppose they immediately thought of her when JEsus bent down and started to wash their feet??! What an image! It would a smack in their faces to wake up and smell the coffee. "this is what true love does!! Don't you remember her? Remember this, remember me"

As to the silliness of Christ humiliating women....Examine the scriptures. There are tremendous examples of Christ's love towards women and His willingness to interact and discuss. The woman by the well, the woman exposed by adultery, Mary, Martha....groundbreaking enough to be included in the scripture in a time when, as someone already pointed out, women were not considered reliable. Christ used their testimony in addition to men for his resurrection, again showing His regard for women in a time when they were not alloewd to testify.