Understanding head covering and foot washing
Many ‘ordinances’ were given to the New Testament churches. In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul uses the word ‘paradosis’, which means ‘rules passed down, to be kept’.
Ordinances, then, are practices or actions to be carried out by the churches of Christ in every age.
They fall into three kinds or groups:
- Unchanging symbolic ordinances given personally by Christ.
- Permanent Christian duties to do with how we conduct ourselves in the church and civil society (examples include the duty of worship and obedience of lawful authority).
- Cultural commands whose moral substance is permanent, but whose expression may change over time. Head covering and foot washing fall under this heading.
1. Unchanging symbolic ordinances
The first group is ordinances commanded by Christ personally, involving physical symbols never to be changed. There are two in this group, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Christian baptism was started by the Saviour. It is nothing like Jewish circumcision or Old Testament washings. It has a greater meaning than even John the Baptist’s “baptism of repentance”. It depicts burial and resurrection: death to the old life, and the receiving of a new life given in conversion (Romans 6:3-4). We call it ‘believer’s baptism’ because it is for those who hear the Gospel, repent and believe, “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39). It is also a picture of washing from the guilt of sin, and of our readiness to follow the Lord, through life, who led through the waters of baptism. (It is difficult to see how sprinkling can picture most of these!)
Also inaugurated by the Lord personally is the Lord’s Supper. The ‘elements’ or symbols are broken bread, picturing the tortured body of Christ atoning for the sins of his people, and the cup, representing the blood of Christ, or the life of Christ, a life of perfect righteousness, performing nothing but good and wonderful works. This sublimely unblemished and virtuous life was offered up to earn and deserve the rewards of eternal bliss and glory for all his own people.
When a church gathers for the Lord’s Supper, all remember with inner tears of gratitude and with great joy, the love of Christ in redemption. By this we show we are the Lord’s (John 6:53-56), dedicate ourselves afresh to him, and taste the blessings of mighty assurance. ‘Remember’ is the key word in the Lord’s Supper, which continues unchanged for all time, “till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26).
These two ordinances are the only ones in New Testament worship and practice that involve physical symbols. All the elaborate symbolism of Mosaic law was fulfilled and ended with the coming of Christ, leaving only the symbols now appointed for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. With these two exceptions, all New Testament worship is in spirit and truth (John 4:24). (Particular Baptists or the Reformed Baptist tradition has, like the Plymouth Brethren, always avoided the use of a cross as a physical symbol.)
Some Protestants (Presbyterians for example) speak of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ‘sacraments’, defining them as outward signs of inward grace actually conferred. But for Baptists, the waters of baptism and the bread and wine convey no grace or power in themselves, nor are they signs and seals of spiritual blessing being certainly conveyed—they are symbols only, illustrating conversion and the atoning work of Christ. As these elements help focus the mind and the heart on gratitude and love for Christ, a great blessing is experienced, and renewed commitment takes place. For a person going through the waters of baptism, a testimony is proclaimed and their previously experienced conversion published to the world.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are memorials—not channels of blessing, or means of grace—performed once, in the case of baptism (Romans 6:3), and repeatedly in the case of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:24-26).
Because the term ‘sacrament’ implies that an act or an element literally conveys grace, Baptists historically avoid the term, using instead the biblical word ‘ordinance’. The material elements are ordained by the Lord, but the blessing is given entirely via the sincere heart.
(We should note that the term ‘sacrament’ derives from the Latin noun sacramentum which comes from the word for ‘sacred’. It is not used in the New Testament to describe baptism or the Lord’s Supper. There is nothing ‘sacred’ about the elements.)
2. Permanent Christian duties
Although we speak of two ordinances nowadays, there are actually more. We can list at least fifteen New Testament practices for churches that used to be called ordinances among Baptists, and which feature in early Baptist confessions of faith. They are:
Worship, preaching the Gospel (and the primacy of preaching), gathering for corporate prayer, the public reading of Scripture, singing of hymns, brotherly admonition of one another, the care of the poor and needy, paying attention to pastors, support of pastors, submission to the civil authority, the duty to work, the avoidance of covetousness, the avoidance of revenge, and separation from paganism and immorality and false teaching.
To take just one of these, care of the poor and needy, we will obviously look beyond monetary needs. In a pensioned welfare state many elderly (though not all) are provided for, but they may be poor and needy in coping with modern life. God will bless and help through his servants—the church membership. Their medical appointments (everything now being by computer) may be managed for them, clinic journeys covered, home repairs effected, meal trains arranged when needed, and many other provisions covered. How can we, as pastors and elders, face the day when we will stand before God, if we have had needy, elderly—perhaps forgetful—saints slowly perish under the weight of trials they could no longer cope with?
It is a pity we no longer name these matters listed above as ordinances, because this has led to a tendency to regard some of them as optional, voluntary or vaguely ideal, rather than mandatory.
3. Cultural commands: rules where the principle is unchanging, but the practice or implementation may change
Foot washing
First, we name in this category the command of Christ exemplified in his washing the feet of the disciples (John 13:1-16). The Lord said to them, “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” The only other place where this is referred to as a Christian duty is 1 Timothy 5:10, where the washing of the saints’ feet is among the graces exhibited by those who qualify for support as widows.
In the hot, dusty conditions of Bible times this was an important act of care and respect, the Lord’s actions showing that such care, blended with humility, may flow from the master to the servant among believers, and certainly from the preachers to the hearers. Clearly today it would be expressed differently, in a hundred acts of help, care and relief, but the principle remains binding. (How absurd that the elevated, lordly popes and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church perform foot washing only on Maundy Thursday!) The Saviour did not create a ‘rite’ but gave an example, welcome in those days, of many expressions of humble service and hospitality to others.
There are other commands of the New Testament that convey a principle which may be obeyed in a different way. For example, the Saviour commanded the rich young ruler to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and “follow me” in order to have eternal life (Matthew 19:16-23). In our case this is obeyed in the words of the hymn writer:
Take myself, and I will be,
Ever, only, all for thee.
The same applies to the command (given five times) to greet one another “with an holy kiss” (1 Corinthians 16:20). The word ‘greet’ translates ‘embrace’. We see cultural flexibility in this command, believing that words of greeting between saints should be accompanied by whatever tangible tokens of warmth, respect and oneness are suited to our culture.
Similarly, the command to work with our own hands (1 Thessalonians 4:11) was clearly addressed to the situation at that time. Now, vast numbers of believers work more with their heads, and the essential matter is that one works for a living, or in the operation of a household.
Head coverings in worship
This brings us to a much-discussed ordinance or practice, the rule of head coverings in worship, found only in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. In Western countries the majority of evangelical Christians today see the apostle’s instructions as being set in the culture of the time and region, while a much smaller proportion prefer a strictly literal application of them.
It is a strange fact that those friends who advocate the head coverings of 1 Corinthians 11 seem to assume that all reformed teachers of the past believed this was an unchangeable rule. They certainly did not. Most believed that while head coverings for women were obligatory in their day, to know God’s order for them, the head covering itself was a cultural matter that could change. As long as the dress code of society attached great significance to head coverings, it was vital for Christians to comply. But the cultural expression of submission and modesty changed from age to age, even from land to land.
For this reason, head coverings are not mentioned in any of the reformed confessions. The Westminster Confession (1.6) affirms that “There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God … common to human actions and societies, which are ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence …” One of the proof texts provided is 1 Corinthians 11.13-14, showing that the Confession authors placed head coverings in the category of things that may vary in application according to the culture of society.
Another proof of this is seen in the fact that The Directory for the Public Worship of God (issued by the Westminster Assembly) says nothing whatsoever about head coverings. Among past teachers who took the ‘cultural’ view were Luther, Calvin, Francis Turretin, Richard Baxter, John Trapp, Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, John Gill, Charles Hodge, and for Scotland, Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie, to name a few.
Examples of changing culture
In 1 Corinthians 11:3 the apostle presents the divine order for men and women. This is the unchanging order for all time. But verse 4 has clearly been seen by reformed preachers of history as something changeable according to culture: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This was not always the case, even in Bible times.
What about the high priest and other priests under the Mosaic order, who wore turbans and linen caps in their worship duties? This was by God’s command, and they felt no impropriety. Moving to times in church history, why did John Calvin wear a Geneva Bonnet whenever he preached? The usual practice of preachers in his location (and all men in the congregation) was to don their hats during sermons.
John Knox also led worship in his Geneva Bonnet (and is painted that way). Martyrs such as Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer all wore preaching caps in the pulpit. Part of the dreadful ‘theatre’ of their executions was their being degraded from clergy to laity, by making them die in secular hats.
Nearly all the post-reformation preachers wore Canterbury Caps while leading worship and preaching. Why? Because male head coverings in their era were a symbol of authority, and these men proclaimed God’s Word. They complied with the cultural message of the hat for their day, so that they could honour God’s order. To lay aside their headgear would have sent out the message that they denied their authority and responsibility as men in God’s order.
In the fifth verse of 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle states that a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonours her head in a shameful way. The dress code of that time and place noted her acceptance of God’s order for men and women by her head covering.
Head coverings for women have been very much more stable than that for men in churches. Nevertheless, from soon after World War II in the UK (and the mid 1950s in the USA), a rapid decline began in women regularly wearing hats. As far as a secular society was concerned, the significance of head covering as a mark of God’s order for the sexes, or even as a mark of modesty, faded from minds.
Fairly soon it could be said that the vast majority of people had no idea that there had ever been any significance. Head coverings no longer sent out a message. The language spoken by dress had changed. Some have blamed this on the rise of feminism, but in secular society the culture had changed long before. For many years now whether or not a woman has her head covered in church says nothing to society about her love for God’s order, or her modesty. (In fact, there is the possibility, especially in secular and worldly high-society functions, that a woman may indulge in expensive and exquisite millinery to project a message of dominance and attention-seeking.)
Are head coverings a creation ordinance?
Friends who advocate women’s head coverings insist that this is a creation ordinance (1 Corinthians 11:7-8). They reason that, as it was pronounced before the Fall, before culture ever began, it must be unchangeable. But the head covering part is not a creation ordinance. The relationship order for men and women is certainly a creation ordinance, but there is no mention of head coverings in Genesis 1-3. All that is said is that Adam and Eve were both naked, and were not ashamed (Genesis 2:25). The head covering expresses the creation ordinance, but it was never part of it. It was a symbol that came thousands of years later.
Friends who advocate women’s head coverings appeal to verse 10, where Paul says that a woman should have “power” on her head “because of the angels”. This, however, is a non-argument. The idea presented by these friends is that angels are educated in God’s gracious plan of redemption, and his order for men and women, by observing believers at worship. This is a highly improbable idea, assumed from Ephesians 3:10. The reality is that angels, with their vast knowledge, know all about redemption, but they marvel to see how God’s many-faceted plan works out.
In the Corinthians passage, we see angels who have gladly embraced the task of being servants to the heirs of salvation. With their mighty power, they could have resented being made lower than people, to serve them — and we believe that Satan fell because his pride would not accept that serving station. But the good angels, the holy angels, have accepted it, and it is these angels who would be amazed and horrified to see women at worship who were renouncing the symbol of service and humility. They would see women who had received eternal life, telling the people of their day (by the language of dress) that they resented God’s order for men and women and would not obey the Lord! True Christian women are marvels of humility and devotion, graces which render all their other gifts of wisdom and service still more beautiful.
In the Western world, the culture has changed. People attach no significance to a head covering. In the present culture modesty in clothing and ornamentation has become the symbol or sign of womanhood. In these circumstances the angels will be just as pleased with conformity with these, as with the head covering of earlier times.
What does ‘nature’ say?
If we move on to 1 Corinthians 11:13-15, the apostle calls us to judge the matter by what ‘nature’ teaches, or what is natural, saying that ‘nature’ teaches that long hair is shameful on men, but a ‘glory’ for women. Calvin, in his commentary, defines ‘nature’ as the commonly accepted customs that had become ‘natural’. But he points out that it was not always a disgrace for men to have long hair. He says not all countries in the first ages had men wearing shorn hair, the haircut having not yet arrived in Gaul or Germany for example.
According to Calvin, Paul makes custom the guide of what is manly or effeminate. Most divines followed Calvin in this conclusion, including most Puritans. They taught conformity to the dress code for head coverings, but allowed for the possibility of change. The Corinthians passage, they said, is set in a strong cultural context.
Another route to the same conclusion is this: Paul uses the word ‘nature’ in the same way that he uses it in Romans 1:26-27 where he speaks of how homosexuals change the natural use of their bodies into that which is against nature. Here ‘nature’ must mean ‘how we are made’, constitutionally. So in what way does nature (our constitution) teach that long hair on a man is shameful? Nature gives men and women a powerful instinct not to look like the opposite sex. That is the unchanging constitutional part. But what clothing or hair length looks masculine or feminine may change with culture.
In the Anglo-Saxon period, and from the mid 1600s to the end of the 1800s, long hair in men suggested strength and vigour. The long period of the full wig projected the same message. But later, the West swung back to the culture of Corinth, and long hair in men became effeminate. Nature, or our constitution, does not teach men to be ashamed of hair length, but to be ashamed of looking like a woman.
The lesson is, we must comply with our God-given instinct, but in line with what is regarded as male or female in our culture. A Christian man will always avoid looking like a woman. Today in London, long hair on a man does not generally denote femininity. Distinctly feminine hairstyles (eg a bouffant), frilly garments, nail varnish, earrings and make-up would most certainly offend against ‘nature’. We see on television men not presenting as gay, yet adopting what is associated with women. By the language of dress they are proclaiming their hostility to God’s order, and their wilful defiance.
A man’s instinct is to avoid the current dress, mannerisms or voice of a woman. A woman’s instinct is not to appear as a man. If these instincts are bludgeoned aside, and the opposite appearance adopted, that is rebellion against God’s order, probably including or motivated by lust. It is evident, however, that the wearing of a head covering is no longer relevant to keeping the principle of the ordinance.
For all these reasons the present writer joins with probably the majority of Bible believing Christians in concluding that Christians today must observe the language of dress in the prevailing culture, and not the culture from the distant past.
(From Bible Studies preached by Dr Peter Masters at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on 8th and 22nd July 2026.)