In the light of the recent ridicule of RM I would like to have some of you Bible scholars explain the following verses.



Romans 16:16

Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.



1 Corinthians 16:20

All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.



2 Corinthians 13:12

Greet one another with a holy kiss.



1 Thessalonians 5:26

Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.



Over the years various arguments have been advanced as justification for eliminating the holy kiss. One of the most common reasons given for the non-use of the holy kiss is that the brotherly kiss was only a social custom at the time of the Apostles, and largely for that reason it is assumed both Paul and Peter incorporated it into their writings. They say that salutation type kissing was an ingrained procedure of that current culture, having been influenced by earlier societies - Oriental, Jewish, and others. And that since our modern culture no longer practices salutation type kissing; the Biblical directives in this regard do not apply, at least not in a literal sense.

In fact, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, in speaking about Romans 16:16, passes off the command of the holy kiss by saying, "Whatever in modern culture is symbolic of the deep affection Christians ought to feel toward each other - a kiss on the cheek, a warm handshake, a grasping of both hands - is the equivalent of the apostolic command".

While this explanation is made in sincerity, it is simply wrong. The Holy Bible does not list these substitutes, but explicitly commands the use of the holy kiss. To assert that a warm handshake may be substituted for the holy kiss is adding to the Word of God. Also, a firm handshake or other "symbols" would not stand out, because unbelievers do these things as well.

To imply that the holy kiss originated only from custom, and thus is no longer applicable today is to doubt the divine veracity of the Bible. We are told in the Word that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). We must have simple faith to believe this teaching.

It was God's will that both of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, command the use of the holy kiss, and on the basis of God's direction they taught and exhorted their followers to practice it. To think otherwise is to recognize these two Apostles, in this instance, not as inspired brethren in the Lord, but rather as keen sociologists, who were merely introducing the proper "customs" of that time into the household of faith.

It is difficult, indeed, to assume that if the holy kiss was intended only for use in the early church, that God would have included it in His divine and infallible Word. It is self-evident that God wants the holy kiss to be exercised until the Lord returns.

There are those today who oppose the holy kiss because they feel it is a barrier to drawing souls into the church. This practice in some circles is referred to as one of "Paul's limitations", that is, commandments which seem as grievous. They feel this is a clear deterrent in gaining converts. Yet, experience has taught that truly converted people - those who have fallen upon the Rock and been broken, who have repented of their sins and been converted, and are living sanctified lives - are not at all disinclined toward practicing the holy kiss, but rather count it as a privilege and an obligation in their pilgrim walk of life. It seems that the holy kiss can only be practiced, and survive, among those who are truly lambs of Jesus' flock. It is only then that grace is sufficient to exchange this kiss of love.

Let's also remember that the Bible DOES NOT say:

1. Where the kiss is to be given. It doesn't say a 'dry kiss on the lips" it doesn't stipulate the mouth, the cheek, the neck, hands or feet. Some brethren have had their spirituality questioned for 'offering the cheek" Why?

2. How often. I have heard many times over the years how we "need to practice the holy kiss more" How it need to be practiced every Sunday or how nice it is that some brethren in other lands kiss whenever they meet, no matter how often. Why does it need to be legalized?

And what exactly elevates it to doctrine status? Because it is found at the close of 4 letters? What about "take a little wine for thy stomach's sake"? I don't see that in the BD&P. Nor do i see much emphasis on talking in tongues, laying on of hands, and divine healing even though these receive as much or more weight in Holy Writ. Laying on of hands is considered a doctrine in the Word, unless I am reading it wrong: Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. So why doesn't it receive press time in CGCM literature? Surely we aren't brushing it aside?

Holdemaner,,LOL Yes you can believe it the future of God's kingdom on earth and in Heaven is wavering on the doctrine of the holy kiss.

IF this topic is important (and I'm not convinced that it is), then someone really needs to expose the sophistry and presumption in Holdemaner's arguments. It is a totally typical Holdeman writing. I'm sure it seemed bullet proof to him, but it is full of fouls that a referee in a debate tournament would ream him on.

"Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss. (1 Thessalonians 5:26)"


Was Paul excluding women when he said that?

For the umpteenth time, this is how the holy kiss has been traditionally exchanged. It's a formalised embrace that does not involve the touching of lips. Where the Holdies got the idea that it has to be a liplock, I have no idea, but for crying out loud, it does not involve dudes smooching dudes and chicks smooching chicks. Geez.

I apoligize for posting that article without giving credit to the author.I had googled the subject and posted that excerpt and now I can't find it again.It was not written by a holdeman.When I find the website I will post the link.

Steven, I like what you added on this. That's got to be the spirit of the thing.

Paris; yes indeed the world is evangelized by the holy kiss of our God upon us! That is not what you meant Paris, I am only playing with you. The mind of the legalist will always think in terms of reducing holy things to ordinances and precepts. The holy and life-giving commands given to Moses by God were reduced to ordinances and precepts of law that must now be performed. Spiritual death began to work in and through them immediately. Even temporal life was now reduced from 120 to 70 years. Why are we so intent to kill ourselves? Do we hate ourselves this badly?

The holy kiss [whatever that is] immediately becomes something less than holy when it becomes a law or an ordinance to perform.

If the Christ-In-Us activites are not spontaneous in nature then we are merely putting on some kind of a religious act. Leave that to Hollywood.

My opinion is that contrived christianity is not holy in any kind of way! Possibily the term [holy] should be defined when it is used in connection with the word kiss. God is holy and nothing He does is contrived or religious, yet day by day I sense His kiss upon me!

"Over the years various arguments have been advanced as justification for eliminating the holy kiss."

Every word of the author's argument is based on the spin that the "kiss" is true, but the Church is slipping from it. Look at the following sentence. Its default position is that the kiss is necessary, but now we are ELIMINATING it. This generates a certain fear response in the reader that we are subtracting from the bible.







" One of the most common reasons given for the non-use of the holy kiss is that the brotherly kiss was only a social custom at the time of the Apostles, and largely for that reason it is assumed both Paul and Peter incorporated it into their writings."

Here again, he uses the term "non-use" to set the negative tone, and then later, uses the phrase "only a social custom". All this gives the reader the sense that we are downgrading, slipping from truth.








"In fact, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, in speaking about Romans 16:16, passes off the command of the holy kiss by saying, "Whatever in modern culture is symbolic of the deep affection Christians ought to feel toward each other - a kiss on the cheek, a warm handshake, a grasping of both hands - is the equivalent of the apostolic command".

While this explanation is made in sincerity, it is simply wrong. The Holy Bible does not list these substitutes, but explicitly commands the use of the holy kiss."

Now the author is refuting The Wycliffe Commentary by an argument which is absurd. The author bases his argument on the fact that Paul did not itemize the substitutes. If a contemporary minister today said, greet each other with the hand-shake of fellowship, would he also have to list all the substitutes of other cultures, just in case it is read hundreds of years later in timbucktoo? That is absurd thinking!





"To assert that a warm handshake may be substituted for the holy kiss is adding to the Word of God. Also, a firm handshake or other "symbols" would not stand out, because unbelievers do these things as well."

Is this adding to God's word, or to a legalistic synthesis of God's word? Are you telling me that the God of the Milky Way gets in a huff if men shake and don't kiss? What does this say about the largess of your God?







"To imply that the holy kiss originated only from custom, and thus is no longer applicable today is to doubt the divine veracity of the Bible. We are told in the Word that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Timothy 3:16). We must have simple faith to believe this teaching."


Where else would it originate from, if not from custom. If a modern minister encouraged the brethren to greet each other with the hand-shake of fellowship, wouldn't that be from our custom? This author is making Paul into a god, and everytime Paul sneezes, the scribes scramble to interpret the cosmic meaning.





"It was God's will that both of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, command the use of the holy kiss, and on the basis of God's direction they taught and exhorted their followers to practice it. To think otherwise is to recognize these two Apostles, in this instance, not as inspired brethren in the Lord, but rather as keen sociologists, who were merely introducing the proper "customs" of that time into the household of faith."


Jesus said, everything was wrapped up in the first two commandments. It is about love, understanding, tolerance, forgiveness. It does not have a frigging thing to do with men kissing men on the lips. The world suffers, not for the lack of bushmasters lip smooching, but suffers for the lack of love.





"It is difficult, indeed, to assume that if the holy kiss was intended only for use in the early church, that God would have included it in His divine and infallible Word. It is self-evident that God wants the holy kiss to be exercised until the Lord returns."

It is difficult for a Pharisee, I agree, those who tithe the mint and cummin and swallow the camels.








"There are those today who oppose the holy kiss because they feel it is a barrier to drawing souls into the church. It seems that the holy kiss can only be practiced, and survive, among those who are truly lambs of Jesus' flock. It is only then that grace is sufficient to exchange this kiss of love."

It is a fact that nearly all non homosexual men despise the kiss. Maybe they aren't with Jesus after all.

Holdemaner,
I agree that the Bible does teach the practice of greeting others with a kiss. Many of my friends kiss on the cheek when we meet or at church.
The conflict here is WHERE that kiss should be. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it ever say that men should kiss each other on the lips. The society in which we live today is inundated with homosexuality and so the practice of men kising on the lips is viewed as such.
The Holdeman church has stepped over it's boundaries (gasp!! say it isn't so!)oncce again in making a rule as to where that kiss has to be.
I remember the revulsion I felt both as a young convert and also as an adult when having some woman's soft smooth mouth pressed on mine.
I can only imagine that it must be must worse for the men. In my mind, it must be completely emasucalting for a straight man.

I notice that holdemaner has not responded to anonh and his questions. I too would like him to contrast his "holy kiss belief's" based on 4 (per his article) scriptures to lets say - speaking in tongues - prophesied from the old testament on... or we could discuss spiritual gifts, the list goes on.
Participation of or belief in any of these would land one outside of the CGCM post haste.

While I believe that observing the Holy Kiss is a teaching that should not be ignored,I also have issues with the way it is practiced in the CGCM.Personally I don't think that the lips should actually touch.Something in the order of the pictures posted by Steve would be great for me.Many members of the CGCM feel that they actually need to "kiss".This has caused me to weaken on the actual practice of it.



In answer to anonH.... I have no answer...I have often wondered along with you why we do not observe and practice these and other teachings as well.If there are any other H out there that can help me out with this feel free.



Having said this I also rebuke any of you who have ridiculed RM on this issue.However misunderstood the holy kiss is among the H it does not in any stretch of the imagination have homosexual connotations.You pretend to be openminded and free souls who love and embrace anything and anybody,but deep down in the dark recesses of your beings you are no better than the most narrow-minded vindictive vermin that walk the earth.

The greatest joy that the H get out of a doctrine like this is that it becomes sort of an easy bright-line test between "true" and "false" churches. In other words, as they scan across all those "other" churches, whaddya know, there are NO other churches that are as close to the Bible as WE are. They focus in on a very minor thing like this (which is probably a misinterpretation of scripture anyway) and make it a litmus test.

What I find mind-boggling is how they can raise this kind of detail to the status that it has, and yet they completely write off far more important matters with hardly a thought. I guess that's legalism at its finest. Nothing has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9_uMwt-lA

Thats what a big wet smack on the lips makes me feel like doing....

Lots of "plain" churches practice the holy kiss. I work with lots of arabs in my business and they just do an "almost" cheek kiss. In my humble opinion that's how it should be done. It's probably the way it was done way back in the olden times. Seeing guys kiss on the lips makes me want to puke and where I come from could earn them a visit to the ER if the wrong people saw it happen. 

Check! Check! Reality Check! Getting kicked around for telling it like it is since 2005!!

Example of a Biblical kiss??? If he is on the neck, it would seem a level of double-jointedness would be required to have the lips meet.



Luke 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Acts 20:37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,

Amen TM, Amen. Unfortunately I believe you are one of those guys that must do the side step dodge and must surely be getting funny looks at times. Cause there sure is folks doing the straight on where you attend.

I have witnessed many French People kiss. Once on each cheek, It is a greeting serving much the same purpose as the Handshake. Male and Female, And Nothing sexual about it. The holdemans just got an extra twist to it. I seem to getting a lot of handshaking recently but if someone starts to lean forward I just lean a bit back. Perhaps they think I am cold?