There is an interesting comparison to be made between the foot washing in John 13 and the head covering discussion in 1 Corinthians 11. Both stories seem to imbed a principle inside of an application that has particular and immediate cultural relevance. In my sermon on Sunday I stated that Paul’s primary concern was to encourage the Corinthians to worship in a way that reflected their identity as male and female redeemed and restored by the Gospel of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He wanted their worship to reflect the fact that the Gospel does not obliterate gender. In Christ we are EQUAL with respect to salvation and inheritance but DIFFERENT with respect to role and responsibility. That principle was to be communicated in culturally accessible ways. In the message I quoted Judith Lynn Sebesta who wrote in her book The World Of Roman Costume:
“the traditional costume of the Roman matron “signified her modesty and chastity … It consisted of her distinctive dress, the woolen stola, which was worn over a tunic; the protective woolen bands which dressed her hair; and the woolen palla or mantle, which was used to veil her head when she went out in public.”[1]
Sebesta goes on to explain:
“For a married woman to neglect the covering of her head while in public would traditionally be understood as “a sign of her ‘withdrawing’ herself from matronage” and the decision of a Roman husband to divorce his wife for doing so would amount to “a ratification of the exclusion her bare head had expressed.” … A move towards the abandonment of the female head covering would have struck many at the time as a move towards a more licentious, a more sexually provocative, way of appearing in public, precisely the kind of social influence Paul is anxious to avoid.”[2]
What we see in 1 Corinthians 11 then is a timeless principle expressed in a culturally relevant manner. Dr. Andreas Kostenberger remarks upon the parallels between this passage and the foot washing story in John 13 as well:
“It’s important to discern at what point Paul is stating a timeless principle and at what point he’s conveying a cultural expression of that principle. An example may help here, the account of the foot washing in John 13:1-20 and its modern application. In the original context, Jesus, shortly before the crucifixion, washes his disciples’ feet and then tells his followers that they ought to follow his example. The question arises, should Jesus’s disciples literally wash each other’s feet in any and every culture, or is it sufficient to derive from the story the general need to relate to fellow believers in a disposition of humility and service and to express this attitude in whatever cultural mode is appropriate?[3]”
In a culture where people walked long distances on roads covered in animal dung while wearing only sandals, foot washing was a remarkable display of humility and practical service. It was needed and it was lowly. That was the point. Christians should be willing to serve each other in practical and humble ways. However, in a culture where everyone drives everywhere inside air conditioned vehicles across well paved and manure free highways, foot washing likely loses something of its symbolic value. D.A. Carson in his commentary on The Gospel Of John says:
"Two factors have prevented most Christians, rightly, from so institutionalizing footwashing. First, nowhere else in the New Testament, or in the earliest extra-biblical documents of the church, is footwashing treated as an ecclesiastical rite, an ordinance, a sacrament…. Wise theologians and expositors have always been reluctant to raise to the level of universal rite something that appears only once in Scripture. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the heart of Jesus’ command is a humility and helpfulness toward brothers and sisters in Christ that may be cruelly parodied by a mere ‘rite’ of footwashing that easily masks an unbroken spirit and a haughty heart."[4]
Much the same could be said about head coverings. There is a reason that very few churches have mandated the practice, even while the vast majority of Evangelical churches in the world (though not in North America) have retained the principle of gender distinctiveness. Wise theologians and pastors are still reluctant to raise to the level of universal rite or requirement something mentioned only once in Scripture and particularly so when the principle seems better communicated through alternative symbols in our culture today.
It would be too easy for a Christian to engage in a ritual foot washing of a nicely protected 21st century western foot, only to refuse to care for the aged, take a turn in the nursery or help an immigrant apply for a well paying job. Performance of a ritual can easily obscure the need to practice a principle in the mundane details of daily life. Likewise, it would be easy to wear a hat to church and then go home and eviscerate a husband’s leadership while undermining the pastor and the board of elders. The principle is far more important than any particular application of it. That isn’t to say that foot washing or hat wearing are unhelpful – indeed they may be in certain situations; my point, and that of many others, is that we too often obsess over the sign at the expense of that which is signified. As cultures change, symbols and signs may need to be adjusted – but the Word of the Lord stands forever.
As long as there is a church on this earth we will need to manifest our redeemed identity as men and women in our worship. And we will need to humble ourselves in order to serve each other in practical and lowly ways.
"If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them". (John 13:17 ESV)
SDG
Paul Carter
P.S. We are very pleased to have Dr. Kostenberger, cited above, coming to speak to our Spring Conference co-hosted by CLRA and TGC Ontario. For more information and to register online see here.
[1] Judith Lynn Sebesta, The World Of Roman Costume as cited in Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 516.
[2]Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 517.
[3] Andreas Kostenberger, God’s Design For Man And Woman, (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 172.
[4]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 468.