Bible Authority, Foot Washing, the Holy Kiss, and Head Coverings?

Does Bible authority matter or is man free to do as he sees fit in the Christian
religion? Most have come to the conclusion today that it does not matter. The
result is that there are more unheard of things going on in Christian worship today
than ever before. You name it and it is being done somewhere. Every type of
special service the mind can imagine (and many that you cannot) is being held.
The idea is that anything we do in worship with the intent of being pleasing to God,
to glorify God, is acceptable to him.

It has always been terribly difficult for me to see how one gives glory to God by
adding to his word and doing things he has not commanded as acts of worship – a
kind of make up your own worship as you go. Everyone who has ever read the Old
Testament knows God had what he wanted in worship and service listed down to the
minutest degree and I say that respectfully and do not mean those things were of
no importance. They obviously were for God made them so. One was expected to
be exceedingly careful and detailed in his worship to God.

When Nadab and Abihu “offered profane fire before the Lord, which he had not
commanded them” (Lev. 10:1 NKJV) “fire went out from the Lord and devoured
them.” (Lev. 10:2 NKJV) God said, “By those who come near me I must be regarded
as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified.” (Lev. 10:3 NKJV) Thus doing
the thing God had not commanded in what was supposed to be an act of worship
resulted in death and doing the thing not commanded was also considered to be a
failure to glorify God. How people today have come to accept the idea that they
can glorify God by doing in worship things God has not commanded I do not know.

I do know of one man I was reading after who says of the God of the Old Testament
that he was a “critical God.” Those are his exact words. He will get to tell God that
face to face in the last day and I am glad I was not the one who charged him as
such.

It is said that was then and this is now, now under a new covenant, but the Bible
says of the Old Testament that, “whatever things were written before were written
for our learning.” (Rom. 15:4 NKJV) In talking about what happened to the children
of Israel as they came out of Egypt and wandered in the wilderness being
disobedient the Bible says, “now all these things happened to them as examples,
and they were written for our admonition … therefore let him who thinks he stands
take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor. 10:11-12 NKJV) Do we listen or are we fearless? Is
there respect for the word of God or disrespect?

God is to be worshipped “in the beauty of holiness.” (Psalms 29:2 NKJV) I am not
sure I know how to be holy while exalting my own ideas about what to bring into
worship and placing them on the same level with God’s commands.
There is in the New Testament one verse that settles this question about whether or
not we need Bible authority in the Christian faith and practice and worship once for
all to those who are willing to listen. “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in
the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:17
NKJV)

What does it mean to do a thing “in the name of the Lord Jesus?” There is a
passage in the Old Testament that tells us. In 1 Chron. 21:18-19 the Bible reads as
follows: “Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David that David
should go and erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
So David went up at the word of Gad, which he had spoken in the name of the
Lord.” (NKJV) To do a thing in the name of the Lord, whether in word (in the case of
Gad) or deed, is to do what God has told you to do. No more, no less. You cannot
do a thing in the name of the Lord about which the Lord has said nothing. Why not
just be truthful and say you are doing it in your own name?

Many dispute this – that is the idea we must have authority for religious acts in
Christianity. In light of Col. 3:17 I do not know how they are able to take that
position and still claim allegiance to the Bible. However, I know of one who takes
the position that we do not need Bible authority who says that if we do need it then
we sin when we do not practice things like foot washing, the holy kiss, women
having their head covered in worship, etc. You get the idea. He will bind anything
and everything as practiced in the first century, another time, another culture, on
Christians today or charge them with inconsistency if they say we must follow the
Bible (the thing he feels free to depart from).

If the man is correct and we are inconsistent it is hard to see how it helps his
position. All we would have is two parties involved in sin rather than one – the party
that innovates and acts on its own without authority and the party that fails to live
up to all its duties and responsibilities. It would still not prove we do not need Bible
authority.

We might look briefly at these things of which he spoke. You can read about the
history of foot washing in the Bible beginning with Gen. 18:3-5, Gen. 19:2, Gen.
24:32, Gen. 43:24, 1 Sam. 25:41 and so on. It is clearly seen by any who read that
this was an age old act performed due to the nature of the times people lived in –
travel on dirt roads and in sandals (the only shoes that existed among common
people). People’s feet were dirty continually due to the conditions under which they
lived and it was considered an act of kindness and service to make provision for
this.

In Jesus’ day it was considered an act of service and humility to do this for another.
See the account of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears (Luke 7:38,
44), Jesus’ washing of the apostles’ feet in John 13:2-17, and that of widows
providing this service to the saints in 1 Tim. 5:9-10. When Peter desired that the
Lord also wash his hands and head the Lord responded, “He who is bathed needs
only to wash his feet.” (John 13:9-19 NKJV) This clearly shows the purpose of such
foot washings.

Do we need our feet washed today? I hope not. For what reason should we wash a
person’s feet today? It was never an act of worship but the objector who wants us
to practice this wants to make it so, and if I misunderstand him in that it is only in
where he wants the foot washing practiced, and says we will be inconsistent if we
do not practice it. Jesus teaching in John 13 is not that foot washing was to be
made a continual practice for Christians to follow down through the ages but that
one should be willing to humble himself and serve others.

But, is it even true that Christians do not practice foot washing today? No. Many
Christian women who work in hospitals and nursing homes do the very thing that
Jesus said to do. Where the circumstances are such that foot washing is needed it
still ought to be practiced today and is. The brother is in error.

One wonders if our brother thinks there would have been foot washing practiced
had Judaism and Christianity originated in a northern climate rather than the hot
and dusty Middle East?

Just as one can trace the history of foot washing in the Bible he can trace the history
of the kiss. When he does he will find much the same as he did with the foot
washing – a custom of the times that went way back into ancient history in that part
of the world. See 2 Sam. 15:5, 2 Sam. 20:9 (though an act of treachery in this case
it nevertheless shows it was the traditional custom of the time), and also Matt. 7:44-
45. In the last passage Jesus is speaking to one called Simon and says, “I entered
your house; you gave me no water for my feet … you gave me no kiss.” (Matt. 7:44-
45 NKJV) The kiss served the purpose of being a greeting (1 Cor. 16:20), was to be
holy (2 Cor. 13:12), and to be of love (1 Peter 5:14). Thus Jesus said of Simon, the
one just mentioned, who had failed to provide water for the feet and failed to give
the kiss, “the same loves little.” (Luke 7:47 NKJV)

Another culture another time but it is said I am inconsistent if I do not adopt an

ancient cultural tradition rather than give a warm modern day hand shake and
maybe a hug. It is clear for any who want to see what Paul was commanding when
he said to greet one another with a holy kiss. The kiss was already an ancient
traditional greeting. Paul was only commanding that it be a “holy” kiss in greeting
while Peter says it must be of love (of sincerity).

I think I know what the brother will find if he tries to go around and give all the
Christian sisters a holy kiss this coming Sunday or if he runs onto one or another of
them at Wal-Mart and tries it. I even fear for his physical safety a little if he tries it
on any of the men. As common as hugging has become in our culture today (I am
old enough to remember when it was not that way) I have heard Christian sisters
say they are uncomfortable with some of the hugs they receive at services. What
would they say about being kissed?

We meet the requirements of the holy kiss when we greet one another sincerely and
warmly in the manner our culture is accustomed to. The brother who charges
inconsistency really understands all of this but when you are trying to find an
excuse you are liable to grasp at anything the mind can imagine.

In the piece I read the critic who denies need for Bible authority brings up 2 Tim. 2:9
and 1 Peter 3:3 and says we violate that. To refresh the reader’s memory I will
quote 2 Tim. 2:9, “in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest
apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or
costly clothing.” (NKJV) 2 Peter 3:3 reads, “Do not let your adornment be merely
outward-arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.” (NKJV)

He charges the sisters with being inconsistent by the way they dress. I find his
charge strange because I know where he lives and the people there are not wealthy
enough to violate Paul and Peter’s dress code nor are they where I live. That it can
be done I readily agree and I suspect it is done in a lot of places including religious
services around Easter but that is a personal problem (sin) and not a matter of
inconsistency in the position conservatives have taken that one must follow the
Bible as authority in their life. There will always be personal sin.

But, I really think he wants to condemn all braided hair or arranging of the hair, all
pearls, or gold. In other words unless you let your hair go wild as he sees it you
have abandoned this passage, you do not believe it, and thus you are no better
than he is in that you too just do what you want to do in religion and thus he has
justified himself. He wants us all in the same boat he is in (I think it may have a
leak). If you wear a gold wedding ring you have sinned in that you violated the
specifics of this passage.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that this passage teaches that women dress modestly
and do not go out dressed in such a way as to try and awe those who see her or
draw attention to herself because of her fine dress and jewelry. Likewise with the
hair and I have seen some fancy hair dos in my time. And, yes, some women do
violate these two scriptures but he knows what they teach as well as you and I do
but he seeks an opening to make a charge – one he cannot prove. We all who are
honest know what the passages in question are teaching.

Finally, he is concerned about inconsistency with regards to 1 Cor. 11 and the

women having their heads covered. Men have argued over this passage for ages.
Some take one side, some another. Some see it as a custom of the times (which it
surely was) and thus put it into the same category as foot washing and the kiss.
Others see it as a teaching to be bound for all time. On a personal basis, because of
verse 10 and my failure to understand it, I am hesitant to take a stand. I have
never known for sure what the phrase “because of the angels” means. Yes, I have
read a lot but nothing that yet has totally satisfied me. I lean toward the position
that the head covering is required, in part because of verse 10, but bind that on no
one. Every woman will have to make up her own mind.

But, here is a point I want to make. The idea that we cannot know everything does
not mean we can know nothing. We all know some math but how many of us are
Ph.D.’s? Because I do not have a Ph.D. in math does not mean I know nothing at all
about it. Because I do not know everything about the Bible and what it teaches
does not mean I can know nothing. If some depart from the critic’s interpretation of
a passage, whether he be right or wrong, if some misunderstand a passage and
thus end up with a wrong practice, does not mean they are being inconsistent? If
there is any individual that says he understands every passage in the Bible all I can
say is that he is a far better man than I am or ever will be.

Is a man inconsistent because he will not try and take up serpents for the Bible says
believers would do that according to Mark 16:17-18? “And these signs will follow
those who believe: In my name they will … take up serpents.” (NKJV) Does my
brother want a rattlesnake or perhaps a copperhead? No, I do not believe a man is
inconsistent because there are some things he does not practice today that was
practiced in the first century. Not everything found there was meant to endure until
judgment day.

I made the case early in this article that we must have Bible authority for all we do
in the Christian religion and worship. We must believe and we must obey to the
best of our ability. There is a throne of grace which we are invited to come to boldly
(Heb. 4:16) and a God who is willing to forgive and who desires that all men be
saved (1 Tim. 2:4) and who “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should
perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV)

The critic’s desire is that we find his God, the God who allows him to innovate and
do as he pleases and add to the word of God. He says he needs no Bible authority
the idea being that his own authority will do just as well. I am not going down the
path he is taking and the one down which he is leading others. I may not do
everything that was done in the first century by Christians that lived then in that
time and culture but what I do I will have Bible authority for to the best of my ability.
He says he will do things without Bible authority. But, I need it and he does not.
That is where the fork in the road comes. End of the story (until judgment day).