I have noticed this coming up through a number of the threads, and it might help to have a discussion on this subject.

Just how do we decide what is applicable to the early church, and what is applicable to us today? As was posted on Monday evening, some people have what might be termed a salad bar approach to the Word  picking a bit of this and a dash of that, and developing a hermeneutic around that process.

Yet, just how do we determine these things? As discussed at length a few weeks ago, we make a strong point for Sunday worship and weekly communion based on a couple of passages of Scripture  even though there is no direct command or thus says the Lord for such. Yet, when there are directions / commands / ??? to the church at Rome, the church at Corinth, and the Thessalonian brothers and sisters to greet one another with a holy kiss, most of us are quick to dismiss this for the 20th c., stating it was cultural to the early church.

We are quick (and I believe rightly so) to use apostolic precedent in setting the way things should go in the church, but what about the possible precedent Jesus set with regards to footwashings. Some folks incorporate this in their worship, and others dont. Having participated in footwashings at camp and at special services, I can say it is a humbling experience that it wouldnt hurt us all to participate in every now and then.

Im sure there may be other examples as well.

What are yalls thoughts on this issue? How can we safely develop the proper hermeneutic so that we dont miss out on what is important  while not condemning our brother or sister if they dont worship exactly as we do.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

Answers

Darrell...

Good question, in fact, I just asked the same thing this past Sunday morning during Sunday School. The answer is the same as it has always been. Context. Context is the standard. Without this as our guide, then our hermeneutic is destined to the salad bar. :>)

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Michael -- good answer! If we discount context, author, adressee, etc., then it certainly can be a salad bar.

Do me a favor ... can you explain the context or ??? that would cause the church of the 20th c. to dismiss or discount the "greeting with a holy kiss" mentioned in the original post. That might be a great example.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

I'm not Mike, but I've been led to understand (by pretty much every commentary and every writer, this century or other, that I've read about this, that the kiss on the cheek was the cultural equivalent of the hearty handshake or the warm-hearted hug of friendly affection. the context of the passages in Romans and the Corinthians is that Paul is sending greetings to old and dear friends, and if he were there himself he would give them "a big ol' bear hug", or, at least, the equivalent of the day -- a kiss on the cheek.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Sam -- thanks for your response. You make the point I am trying to make: "I've been led to understand (by pretty much every commentary and every writer, this century or other, that I've read about this), that the kiss on the cheek was the cultural equivalent of the hearty handshake or the warm-hearted hug of friendly affection."

I too have been led to understand it that way, but can't recall any commentary explaining it except to make that point. Then we ask, how do we know? If Paul commands / directs his readers to greet with a holy kiss, how do we know we are not supposed to be doing the same in the 20th c?

It's not a big deal, I know ... but the concept is important I believe. Thanks for your response, and if anyone else can help, give us a shout.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Great discussion guys!! Now this is something that I have struggled with since I became a Christian. What about the "covering" & "not allowed to speak" in Corinthians. Also...the "learn in quietness" & "not teach or have authority" in Timothy?

1 Cor 11:1-18 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-- it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-- nor do the churches of God.

1 Cor 14:34-38 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

1 Tim 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing-- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Please keep in mind as you answer that I have not been to Bible college. Here is what I usually do when studying a subject... 1. Find all the related scriptures on the subject. 2. In each of these, determine who is speaking. 3. Determine who is being spoken to. 4. Try to come to a Godly understanding of what He has said.

On the issue of the women being silent, I have found that women in the Bible were allowed to prophesy, pray, teach other women and children. I also see that in a private discussion Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos. So...this silence must not be absolute.??

There are so many varying teachings on this subject...difficult to come to a decision. Our church studied this not very long ago, we were taught that the covering was the custom of the times, but how can that be when the reasons given for it refer back to the origin of man and because of the angels? Also...when we are told not to teach or have authority over a man, the reason refers back to Adam and Eve.

Would greatly appreciate any help you can give me.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Can I throw in another 'cog" then?.....What exactly does it mean that 'women shall be saved through child bearing'? I deffinitely would like to hear about that 1! Kathy C. ><>

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

To Kathy,

Being saved thru childbirth has to do with the curse on Genesis 3. You cannot separate this verse from it's context, i.e., the prohibition of women having authority over men or teaching men. The reasoning for the prohibition goes back to the Garden. As I understand the verse you're refering to, it is to be understood that even though Christian women, who have their sins forgiven, still must undergo the pain of the curse of the Fall (pain in childbirth) it does not mean they are condemned or lost. Their salvation is good even though they suffer through the curse. It is not saying they shall have salvation BECAUSE OF their childbearing. It is saying they have salvation IN SPITE OF their childbearing. I hope I worded this well enough to communicate my thoughts. I'm in a small hurry.

As far as the covering for women, I will post something later. I've worked through this already and can't find it. I don't want to re- invent the wheel. Once I find it, I'll post it.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Scott: Yes, U have worded it understandably well. Thanks for the info.

Kathy C. ><>

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Darrell: You wrote this:

>>Sam -- thanks for your response. You make the point I am trying to >>make: "I've been led to understand (by pretty much every commentary >>and every writer, this century or other, that I've read about >>this), that the kiss on the cheek was the cultural equivalent of >>the hearty handshake or the warm-hearted hug of friendly >>affection." >>I too have been led to understand it that way, but can't recall any >>commentary explaining it except to make that point. Then we ask, >>how do we know? If Paul commands / directs his readers to greet >>with a holy kiss, how do we know we are not supposed to be doing >>the same in the 20th c? >> >>It's not a big deal, I know ... but the concept is important I >>believe. Thanks for your response, and if anyone else can help, >>give us a shout. >> >>Darrell H Combs

I give you now an extended passage from Moses Lard's commentary on Romans: (with paragraph breaks inserted by me; where Lard emphasizes by using italics, I have used all upper case lettering)

"Among intimate friends, and as an expression of sincere affection, the kiss was common among the Jews. Indeed, the custom appears to have been general among oriental nations. Thus when Joab slew Amasa, he took hold of his beard, as if to kiss him (2 Sam. 20:9). And the Savior said to Simon: 'thou hast given me no kiss; but this woman, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet.' (Luke 7:45). Judas also kissed the Savior in the act of betraying him. And in speaking of the meetings of the early Christians, Justin Martyr says, 'Prayers being ended, we salute one another with a kiss; and then the bread and wine are brought to the president.'

"The custom seems to have prevailed in the church if not from its very founding, certainly from a very early day, where it assumed peculiar sanctity; and it seems to have been completely promiscuous.

[Because modern usage of this word connotes immorality, I'll include definitions #1 & 3 from Webster's -- "consisting of different elements mixed together or mingled without sorting or discrimination; without plan or purpose; casual" Now back to Lard]

"Is it binding on us in this present day? The question has been much discussed; and it appears not easily settled. If it be assumed that the Apostle enjoined it upon the Christians in Rome, as something to be done by them in virtue, solely, of their relation to one another in Christ, then I should hold that his injunction has the force of law for us. And that the case in hand has much of this look, I am candid to say, I cannot deny.

"On the contrary, it seems to me a most improbable thing, that the Apostle would enjoin upon the holy in Christ, a custom which it appears to me impossible to indulge promiscuously, without certain and widespread abuse. I am therefore averse to think he has done it.

"Upon the whole, the view I prefer to take of the case is this: The Apostle, by his injunction, did not create the custom; for it was prevalent at the time. He meant merely to PURIFY it. He hence says, 'Greet one another with a HOLY kiss.' Only therefore where the custom exists, is his injunction applicable. Where the custom does not exist, his injunction is not designed to create it. It hence does not bind upon us.

"If we do kiss, it must be a HOLY kiss; but we are not compelled to kiss. This is my best answer to the question. Were promiscuous kissing the vogue in churches of the present day, the results would be disastrous in the extreme. In the case of the young especially, it would soon degenerate into the grossest abuse. [And this was written in 1875! - sam] It would become, in the shortest time, as carnal as the flesh pots of Egypt, and the sure precursor of infinite scandal. In no land or case, in my opinion, is promiscuous kissing among the children of God, a tolerable thing. It must be utterly eschewed."

Now, is Lard's opinion "the end of the matter?" Well, he's not inspired as were the NT writers. But he uses a couple of phrases that we would do well to keep in mind, and which for me come close to summing up the greater question of hermeneutic approach: "Upon the whole, the view I prefer to take of the case is this", and "This is my best answer to the question." There are matters in which we simply don't know, and about which we have to come to sometimes different opinions. These are matters which are not clearly spelled out for all Christians for all time. I think that most of the time God expects us to use some of the intelligence he gave us to work it out in the most reasonable and agreeable way we can, and then

If they were meant for all Christians, why didn't Paul write them to everybody? I guess he could have instructed them privately to do so, while he was with them; and since he hadn't yet been to Rome to meet the church there, he couldn't have yet done that.

BUT, if that were the case, then we could expect Paul to give instruction to Rome on EVERY aspect of ther corporate gatherings. And he clearly didn't. And if it was to have the importance of a command for all Christians, we would expect to find it in the body of the letter, rather than thrown in almost as an afterthought toward the end of a list of personal greetings.

I think that, in cases like this, most of the time God expects us to use some of the intelligence he gave us to work it out in the most reasonable and agreeable way we can, and then to live in peace and harmony with one another in spite of differing views. It is these times when we must put to use two particular scriptural injunctions; those about stumbling blocks and weaker brothers, and those about allowing fellow Christians to be accountable to their Master, rather than to us, in matters not spelled out for us. These two passages are key to living together in love.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Before anyone says so, yes, I understand that the above mini-treatise does not completely answer the question of hermeneutic approach. As a rule, I have found that the most common problems and arguments come when two people can't agree on what is a matter of "opinion" and what is a matter of "clear revelation". For some, baptism's efficacy is an opinion, and for some, it is the truth. Our biggest fights come from arguing about which it is.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Excellent response, Sam. Anybody wanna tackle DLee Muse's questions in the same academic fashion? They have befuddled me as well!

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

You mean you folks dont greet each other with a holy Kiss, a Kiss of love once in a while. As I understand, it was to be done. It is sure mentioned enough times in the book. God didnt intend it as a ritual the way some of these things go at times. There are times in our relationships with our Kin in the Spirit. That Just a hand shake dont cut it. In fact I think the handshake thing gets over done. I once told one of the Elders who shook my hand at least 6 times each sunday, that I thought we knew each other pretty good by now. Move on Boys. Its amazing what a kiss on a beard will do. It is something which should come naturally. "Behold, how they love one another." Not something mundane frivolous, but born out of the Joy of the Lord. Does that make sense?

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

Hey D. Lee,

I promised you a response to the covering of I Cor. 11. I found what I had previously written. It's not as grandiose as I remembered it, but I hope it will help.

As far as women covering their head, I believe strongly that this is a cultural thing, but the point Paul is making is a good one. The covering in I Cor 11:5 showed the woman was in subjection to her husband. Our closest similarity to that is a wedding ring. It shows a person is married but really doesn't have the same meaning as the head covering. If the woman refused to be in subjection to her husband, it was a shameful thing. Still is. The point Paul is making is that if she is being shameful enough not to submit to her husband then go ahead and shave her head so that the outside will appear the same as the inside, shameful (It was considered a great disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head). If a woman knows how shameful it is to be shaved, then she should know how shameful it is not to be in submission to her husband.

In this chapter Paul teaches a divine order: God, Christ, Man, Woman - in that order. The phrase in verse 10 "because of the angels", Im convinced, refers to the angels in Jude 6. Certain angels refused to remain in their proper "abode" meaning they got too proud to stay in the role in which God created them. They rebelled, although we do not know much about the rebellion from the Scriptures. The same kind of warning, although a different context, is given concerning a new Christian becoming an elder - "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil" (I Tim 3:6). A person's pride will keep them from submitting to anyone. This entire passage has to do with people who will not accept their God-given roles. Pay attention to verse 11. He is pointing out that neither man or woman is superior to the other, they simply have different functions and roles to fulfill. To rebel against that is rebelling against God.

He then points out that we have a kind-of built-in way of covering and not being covered. Hair. A woman with long hair has a glorious thing, but a man with long hair is out of place. Why, because it goes against the role that God created him for. But, should anyone disagree, Paul puts it plainly in verse 16. He's tried to say it nicely, but just in case someone still wants to fuss over it, he says "we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." In other words, there is NO other thinking to be tolerated on this issue. He then moves on in verse 17 and following that they better stop fussing over silly things creating factions.

This understanding may not be politically correct, but what in the Scriptures is?

Hope this helps.

Scott

-- Anonymous, November 06, 1999

As far as women prophesying, George Faull has a very good study on that. It was posted on the Web page for Summit Theological Seminary, but I don't think it's there now. Summit will send you a copy if you want and there number is (765)472-4111.

-- Anonymous, November 08, 1999

Scott...Thanks for your answer, I am still studying the issue.

What I am confused about is for both the "covering" and the "not allowed to teach or have authority" issues (except...because of the angels) the same reason is given...basically man came first and woman was made for man. My question is...why is the "covering" considered a custom while the other is not?

-- Anonymous, November 08, 1999

It's only a draft, but I have a web page that attempts to be a starting point for the original discussion that this thread was about, before all the side issues started being discussed. I would appreciate feedback, better examples of application of the principles, etc.

This page doesn't try to answer every question, just set up principles that I think are valid. And actually, these principles were taught to me by another, so that's two who think these are valid.

The page is http://www.netcom.com/~mwwinst/interpret.html

-- Anonymous, November 12, 1999

Dear brothers and sisters, For me a very simple solution to the "holy kiss" issue occurred a few years ago at the National Prayer Clinic. I was looking over some literature when someone came up behind me and gave me a "holy kiss" on the neck. I turned around to see Chuck Doughty standing there. Praise the Lord. Also, I have a friend in Corbin, KY, a retired preacher, who always greets me with a kiss on the cheek or neck. I look forward to it. In Christ, Terry

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1999