Some have conjectured that this washing of feet (page 97) was a usual rite at the Paschal feast. So Scaliger, Beza, Baronius, Casaubon and other learned men have thought. (See Poole's Synopsis, on John xiii. 5.) But Buxtorf has clearly shown the falsity of their reasons, and Lightfoot has also proved that it was a perfectly unusual thing, and that there is no passage in all the Rabbinical writings which refers to it as a custom. It is manifest indeed, to a common reader, that the whole peculiar force of this ablution, in this instance, consisted in its being an entirely unusual act; and all its beautiful aptness as an illustration of the meaning of Jesus,—that they should cease their ambitious strife for precedence,—is lost in making it anything else than a perfectly new and original ceremony, whose impressiveness mainly consisted in its singularity. Lightfoot also illustrates the design of Jesus still farther, by several interesting passages from the Talmudists, showing in what way the ablution would be regarded by his disciples, who like other Jews would look upon it as a most degraded action, never to be performed except by inferiors to superiors. These Talmudic authorities declare, that "Among the duties to be performed by the wife to her husband, this was one,—that she should wash his face, his hands and his feet." (Maimonides on the duties of women.) The same office was due from a son to his father,—from a slave to his master, as his references show; but he says he can find no precept that a disciple should perform such a duty to his teacher, unless it be included in this, "The teacher should be more honored by his scholar than a father."
He also shows that the feet were never washed separately, with any idea of legal purification,—though the Pharisees washed their hands separately with this view, and the priests washed their hands and feet both, as a form of purification, but never the feet alone. And he very justly remarks upon all this testimony, that "the farther this action of Christ recedes from common custom, the higher its fitness for their instruction,—being performed not merely for an example but for a precept. (Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. in ev. Joh. xiii. 5.)
Laid aside his garments.—The simple dress of the races of western Asia, is always
distinguishable into two parts or sets of garments,—an inner, which covered more or
less of the body, fitting it tightly, but not reaching far over the legs or arms, and consisted
either of a single cloth folded around the loins, or a tunic fastened with a girdle;
sometimes also a covering for the thighs was subjoined, making something like
the rudiment of a pair of breeches. (See Jahn; Arch. Bib. § 120.) These were the
permanent parts of the dress, and were always required to be kept on the body, by the
common rules of decency. But the second division of the garments, (superindumenta,"
Jahn,) thrown loosely over the inner ones, might be laid aside, on any occasion,
when active exertion required the most unconstrained motion of the limbs. One of
these was a simple oblong, broad piece of cloth, of various dimensions, but generally
about three yards long, and two broad, which was wrapped around the body like a
mantle, the two upper corners being drawn over the shoulders in front, and the rest
hanging down the back, and falling around the front of the body, without any fastenings
but the folding of the upper corners. This garment was called by the Hebrews
(
Hebrew characters) or (Hebrew characters), (simlah or salmah,) and sometimes (Hebrew characters); (begedh;)—by the Greeks,
[Greek: himation]. (himation.) Jahn Arch. Bib. This is the garment which is always meant by
this Greek word in the New Testament, when used in the singular number,—translated
"cloak" in the common English version, as in the passage in the text above,
where Jesus exhorts him that has no sword to sell his cloak and buy one. When this
Greek word occurs in the plural, ([Greek: himatia], himatia,) it is translated "garments," and it
is noticeable that in most cases where it occurs, the sense actually requires that it
should be understood only of the outer dress, to which I have referred it. As in Matt.
xxi. 8, where it is said that the people spread their garments in the way,—of course
only their outer ones, which were loose and easily thrown off, without indecent exposure.
So in Mark xi. 7, 8: Luke xix. 35. There is no need then, of supposing, as
Origen does, that Jesus took off all his clothes, or was naked, in the modern sense of
the term. A variety of other outer garments in common use both among the early
and the later Jews, are described minutely by Jahn in his Archaeologia Biblica, §122.
I shall have occasion to describe some of these, in illustration of other passages.
My exegesis on the passage "He that is washed, needs not," &c. may strike some as rather bold in its illustration, yet if great authorities are necessary to support the view I have taken, I can refer at once to a legion of commentators, both ancient and modern, who all offer the same general explanation, though not exactly the same illustration. Poole's Synopsis is rich in references to such. Among these, Vatablus remarks on the need of washing the feet of one already washed, "scil. viae causa." Medona-
