Marring the Beard and Wearing the Clothes

[JoeHardy07]

Hey,

So, like ever since I was a little kid, preachers and evangelists have always harped facial hair. From reading my Bible I find that in the Old Testament under the old covenant it was a shame NOT to have a beard. You have to have a beard before you can mar it, right? So we are no longer under the old covenant, correct? That's why us Apostolic men should be clean shaven? So, if we don't stick to the code of the beard from the Old Testament, why do we still adhere to men not wearing that which pertains to women and vice versa. I'm not defending cross dressors LOL!; my point here is: why hold one standard and not another? Both of these are of the Old Law. We neglect and completely rebel against keeping our beards, but we still obey the dress code. What's up with that?

*I've been to countless (actually like 10 or 11) UPC and Apostolic Churches from my birth in 1988, and ever since I can remember it has always been this way, so it is not just in one church.*

[MissBrattified]

I really don't understand the prohibition against facial hair on men. For one thing, it's a clear gender distinction, since (most :D) women don't have beards.

I don't think the beard thing comes from the OT. It was probably a legitimate cultural reaction at some point, but IMO should be done away with, because it's now more a hindrance than a point of separation.

[Sam]

Facial hair was not an issue in the early days of the Pentecostal movement. The folks we consider Pentecostal pioneers like W.J. Seymour and later leaders like Bishop G.T. Haywood had facial hair. Back in those days many men had facial hair. During World War 2 and later, it seems the custom of most men was to be clean shaven. Some had "military" haircuts called a "butch" or "flat top." Beards were not very common. Mustaches became smaller and some times were just like a thin line above the upper lip. Then in the nineteen sixties there was a movement among young people who were called "hippies" who rebelled against "the establishment" by letting their hair and/or sideburns grow long and by growing beards and/or mustaches. Because this was a "change" to what had become a common look among men, some preached against it as a reaction to "change". Others preached against it because it was associated with rebellion against the establishment and pastors did not think Christians should look like or be associated with those who often advocated the use of drugs, sex without marriage, and refusing to serve in the military.

[Godsdrummer]

Facial hair was not an issue in the early days of the Pentecostal movement. The folks we consider Pentecostal pioneers like W.J. Seymour and later leaders like Bishop G.T. Haywood had facial hair. Back in those days many men had facial hair. During World War 2 and later, it seems the custom of most men was to be clean shaven. Some had "military" haircuts called a "butch" or "flat top." Beards were not very common. Mustaches became smaller and some times were just like a thin line above the upper lip. Then in the nineteen sixties there was a movement among young people who were called "hippies" who rebelled against "the establishment" by letting their hair and/or sideburns grow long and by growing beards and/or mustaches. Because this was a "change" to what had become a common look among men, some preached against it as a reaction to "change". Others preached against it because it was associated with rebellion against the establishment and pastors did not think Christians should look like or be associated with those who often advocated the use of drugs, sex without marriage, and refusing to serve in the military.


As always Sam your input is well put together and factual. This goes to show one that many of what conservitive churches preach as scripture are none more than traditions of men. There are times when Pastors can and should call saint to a higher standard (temporalily) I beleive this is what Paul is doing over the Hair/covering question in Corinthians. But these things should never become a doctrine of the church. This kind of thing put regulations on the saints of God that are much like the pharisee of Jesus day.

[Sister Alvear]

I think men ought to grow beards and look like men...well....let me think again....ha...

[Digging4Truth]

I really don't understand the prohibition against facial hair on men. For one thing, it's a clear gender distinction, since (most :D) women don't have beards.

I don't think the beard thing comes from the OT. It was probably a legitimate cultural reaction at some point, but IMO should be done away with, because it's now more a hindrance than a point of separation.

Possibly it was a "legitimate cultural reaction" but it was, at most, a reaction and should have been left on a personal basis rather than making it into doctrine.

(BTW... I am not disagreeing with your post... just using it to make an additional point.) :)

[Godsdrummer]

I think men ought to grow beards and look like men...well....let me think again....ha...

I think we should be well groomed both men and women including personal hygene. When we go into the world we still represent Christ, this does not mean however we have to spend extra money of clothes etc. But at the same time we should not let ourselves go. If one wants to have a beard or mustache that is fine but it should still be well groomed.

[Godsdrummer]

Here is a thought for all you out there. Where so we get that separation has to do with clothes, hair, etc. Jesus said that men would know us by our love one for another. I do not see that the early Christians wore different clothing or such like to seperate themselves from everyone else. To come out from among them does not mean wear different clothing etc. It means have a different attituted.

[MissBrattified]

Here is a thought for all you out there. Where so we get that separation has to do with clothes, hair, etc. Jesus said that men would know us by our love one for another. I do not see that the early Christians wore different clothing or such like to seperate themselves from everyone else. To come out from among them does not mean wear different clothing etc. It means have a different attituted.

Clothes aren't excluded from the picture. If everyone around me is dressed fairly modestly, then I suppose we will look the same, but if everyone around me is going without clothes, I will look different since I will still be dressed modestly. Correct? Sometimes we look different by default, or at least, we should.

Jesus said that the Pharisees were focusing on the washing the outside of the cup, but the inside was dirty. Then he said that they should be paying attention to BOTH the inside and the outside. Not that the inside was the only thing to focus on.

Appearance matters because of people--we are sending messages to them before they ever know us or talk to us.

Personally, I think God cares whether or not people go nude or wear clothes. :coffee2 And I think He cares whether or not we're modest--that has to do with considering our fellow man, and not causing them to stumble. Yes, attitude matters, and attitude will be reflected in everything.

[Sister Alvear]

I say a lot of things in jest...now seriously speaking I can find no Bible against beards...if it is there I have not found it...however I am just a very simple person...

[mfblume]

There's lots of bible FOR beards. David's men had their beards have shaven by the enemy while at war, and David demanded they stay away from home until their beards grew back.

[Sam]

Did Jesus have facial hair?

We don’t have any photographs and the four Gospel accounts that we include in our Bibles don’t say.

Through the years artists have often shown him with a beard and long hair. Some times this hair has been blond almost like a woman with a beard.

The image on the shroud of Turin has a beard but there is controversy as to whether this crucified person from the first century is really the one we worship as our God in flesh.

In Isaiah there is a person referred to as the servant of YHWH which many take to be our Lord Jesus Christ. One verse in Isaiah 50:6 indicates He had facial hair.

Below are several versions of this verse from Bibles to which I have access. Some use the word “beard,” some speak of “hair” on the face or cheeks, while others do not use either of these designations.

I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting. NIV

..
I gave My back to those who strike Me,
And My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard;
I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting. NASB


I followed orders,
stood there and took it while they beat me,
held steady while they pulled out my beard,
Didn't dodge their insults,
faced them as they spit in my face. The Message


I gave My back to the smiters and My cheeks to those who plucked off the hair; I hid not My face from shame and spitting. Amplified


I give my back to those who beat me and my cheeks to those who pull out my beard. I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face. NLT


I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. KJV

I gave my back to those who strike,
......and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
......from disgrace and spitting. ESV

I let them beat my back
and pull out my beard.
I didn't turn aside
when they insulted me
and spit in my face. CEV

I gave My back to those who struck Me,
.............. And My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard;
.............. I did not hide My face from shame and spitting. NKJV

I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting .ASV

......
My back I have given to those smiting, And my cheeks to those plucking out, My face I hid not from shame and spitting.
Youngs Literal Translation

..I gave my back to smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. Darby

I offered my back to those who struck me,
my cheeks to those who plucked out my beard;
I did not hide my face
From insult and spitting CJB

I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows; and I turned not away my face from from the shame of spitting. LXX

I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spit upon me. Douay

I offered my back to those who struck me,
my cheeks to those who tore at my beard;
I did not cover my face
against insult and spittle.
Jerusalem Bible

I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to those who slap on the face; I turned not my face from shame and spitting.
Syriac Peshitta

I gave my back to the smiters, and my checks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
Jewish Publication Society

[Godsdrummer]

Clothes aren't excluded from the picture. If everyone around me is dressed fairly modestly, then I suppose we will look the same, but if everyone around me is going without clothes, I will look different since I will still be dressed modestly. Correct? Sometimes we look different by default, or at least, we should.

Jesus said that the Pharisees were focusing on the washing the outside of the cup, but the inside was dirty. Then he said that they should be paying attention to BOTH the inside and the outside. Not that the inside was the only thing to focus on.

Appearance matters because of people--we are sending messages to them before they ever know us or talk to us.

Personally, I think God cares whether or not people go nude or wear clothes. :coffee2 And I think He cares whether or not we're modest--that has to do with considering our fellow man, and not causing them to stumble. Yes, attitude matters, and attitude will be reflected in everything.

You missunderstand me abit Miss. Jesus referance to the Pharisee had not to do with clothing either as much as the atitude of being rightious on the outside for show not in clothes as much as thier attitude. I was not meaning going around dressing imodistly. What I was saying is that most common people had one change of clothing maybee two in those days so the differance between a Christian and and sinner would not be readily recognize just by looking at the clothes they wore. Today it is different with all the different styles so getting back to plain clothing is a good thing to me. Your light must shine by other means than dressing in a way that defines you as different. My wife and I have left standard of dress per say as a sign of holiness. Not modesty by any means but standards. Yet people still reconize that she is a Christian because of her attitude and spirit.

[MissBrattified]

You missunderstand me abit Miss. Jesus referance to the Pharisee had not to do with clothing either as much as the atitude of being rightious on the outside for show not in clothes as much as thier attitude. I was not meaning going around dressing imodistly. What I was saying is that most common people had one change of clothing maybee two in those days so the differance between a Christian and and sinner would not be readily recognize just by looking at the clothes they wore. Today it is different with all the different styles so getting back to plain clothing is a good thing to me. Your light must shine by other means than dressing in a way that defines you as different. My wife and I have left standard of dress per say as a sign of holiness. Not modesty by any means but standards. Yet people still reconize that she is a Christian because of her attitude and spirit.


I get what you're saying, and I don't espouse being different from a worldly person just for the sake of it. (being different) If we live a godly lifestyle, there are times when we will simply be different (separate). And sometimes we may be less conservative than our neighbor--for instance, standing next to a Muslim woman at the grocery store, I look positively risque. :D

I don't think we should set standards based on what other people wear or do--that's all. It's a mistake to be separate for separation's sake. We should be separate where the Bible tells us to be separate. Then we will stand out when and where it matters.

[Godsdrummer]

I don't think we should set standards based on what other people wear or do--that's all. It's a mistake to be separate for separation's sake. We should be separate where the Bible tells us to be separate. Then we will stand out when and where it matters.

See That is where I am going, we should not set standards period. Where did Jesus set standards? When man sets a standard he ends up with double standards. Preach the word, only the word not our own feelings. And let God through the Holy Ghost do the rest.

[dlehman]

How very timely for this thread to come up. I apologize because I sometimes skim AFF, but just recently joined. Over in the Library forum, I posted(http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24490) that I recently completed a book on this topic called The Godly Beard. It is 77 pages long and looks at the topic from many viewpoints.

It is available for free online at http://www.i8-d.com/The_Godly_Beard_-_Web_Edition.pdf . It is free to read, but not print, sell or edit. If you want the book in print form, it is available at http://www.cafepress.com/dewaynelehman .

I haven't posted much from it here, but for those wondering about whether a church should take a standards stance on it, I would say that I assume most already have, and in my book then I assume that churches are either going to be for or against beards, even if it is just a platform rule.

And if a church is going to make an official stance, it needs to pass biblical muster before going into effect. Just making a cultural reaction is dangerous. That is what caused the various decisions in the councils in the early centuries AD, one of which gave the doctrine of the trinity which one could easily say was to accommodate Greek philosophy and Roman paganism.

Consider this. If you are going to take a firm stance on a woman's hair based on one scripture (there are more, but most just point to 1 Corinthians 11), and if you cannot deny that a beard is a clear gender distinguisher, then you are in a position of having to say that for a man to shaving off his beard does as much to a man's masculinity as a woman shaving off her hair does to her femininity. Shaving, then, is an effeminating action, whether intentional or not.

It's not like the pants issue. Pants are an arbitrary line, though I'm not arguing against it. As a society, we have decided that leg clothing with an inside seem are for men, and those without an inside seem are for women.

The bible does not make this distinction, but we do find clothing differences.

But the bible does show and reinforce physical distinctions.

How strange then, that while we embrace unnatural gender distinctions with clothing, some churches would reject the natural distinctions that God clothed the body with.

And it is not an "Old Covenant" issue. The same scripture that says not to shave off the beard also says not to eat blood or things strangled, not to prostitute our daughters, and not to make cuttings and markings on the flesh. You will find that Jesus and the apostles frequently referred to this law, and even applied them to the Gentiles. So yes, it still applies. And especially because they are even described specifically as holiness standards in both the old and new testaments.

God and His holiness does not change. Our holiness is based on His holiness. As we are told, man is the image and glory of God.

And all I am saying is, if you are going to recognise hair standards as biblical (meaning it's not just a "rule", but you consider it biblical holiness), it must include the biblical beard standard, or you are not using the Bible as your yardstick. Then, you are just being cultural, comparing yourself by yourself.

Men, understand that women are not the carriers of most of the holiness burden. I've heard that preached, but it is not true. If you study carefully, men carry more of the holiness burden. Man the glory of God, woman is the glory of man.

That's a heavier load, which far more than physical burdens, but also spiritual burdens. For many years, women of churches have served as the majority of prayer warriers, worship leaders, the ones trying to get their husbands saved. And I say, thank you SO MUCH!

But that ought not be. Men need to step up, be men, and lead the Church of the Living God, and stop pushing off all the responsibilities to the women, including the holiness burdens.

It is often said, you can tell an Apostolic woman just be looking at her, but you cannot tell the men. One view says that's because the world looks like Apostolic men... another view says that's because Apostolic men look like the world.

I encourage people to read the free version of the book I've written. And before jumping to judgement on whether or not it is a standard, rather ask yourself why it would be a standard. God made it clear to Israel when they grumbled about things others had that they did not, and I'm summarising here: You are not Egyptians! You are not Canaanites! You are separate and holy unto Me, not the world!

Unfortunately, Israel kept ignoring God in this. You ever want to read how God gets angry with His people who ignore His holiness? Read Malachi 2. The priests profaned the name of the Lord and so He said, among other things, that He would spread dung on their faces!

Wow, now that's defilement. The face can be defiled.

I know this is a long post, but let me end with one thing. To the merciful, be merciful. To the strict, be strict. If a church makes no stance because they don't know any better, I commend them. They go where God leads them, and have not fallen into the trap of simply preaching anything that sounds hard.

But to those that have strict holiness standards, and show no mercy, and have strayed as far as to be iron rods, and have gone against God's teaching on the beard, they are on dangerous ground. They as much have told their women to shave their heads, and their men to wear dresses. They have created a false image, not a godly image. God will use an iron rod against those who put an iron rod to Him.

God defines His image, not us. I've prayed many nights that God be patient with churches that have neglected biblical teaching in favour of cultural teaching.

If you have any doubt, you are best to preach your ignorance of the topic and show mercy, rather than to take whatever stance the Jones' next door are preaching. Preach what you know. Learn what you don't know.

Patience is a fruit of the spirit, God will honor that long before disobedience.

[dlehman]

See That is where I am going, we should not set standards period. Where did Jesus set standards? When man sets a standard he ends up with double standards. Preach the word, only the word not our own feelings. And let God through the Holy Ghost do the rest.

Jesus did preach standards. Love is a standard. It is not even optional to hate your enemy, by Jesus' standards.

Standards are inward to outward (cleaning the inside of the cup). A good analogy I've heard is the bikini in church. It's hard to be humble inside and vain outside. If you clean the outside of a cup (simply appearance), like the Pharisees, you become a hypocrite.

But if you clean the inside of the cup, because you want to drink clean water, you will naturally be lead to clean the outside as well, because you did not enter into the cleaning for appearance sake.

It is the same with the beard. It is not simply a question of "what" but of "why". Any "hippy" (and I hate that word, btw, because I don't like derogatory labels... try converting someone you are derogatory towards) can grow a beard, they say. But any man can shave, I say.

It's about "why". A prostitute on a corner can wear a dress. Do we commend her keen Christian fashion? It's not the "what" that makes holiness. It's the "why".

[Godsdrummer]

Jesus did preach standards. Love is a standard. It is not even optional to hate your enemy, by Jesus' standards.

Standards are inward to outward (cleaning the inside of the cup). A good analogy I've heard is the bikini in church. It's hard to be humble inside and vain outside. If you clean the outside of a cup (simply appearance), like the Pharisees, you become a hypocrite.

But if you clean the inside of the cup, because you want to drink clean water, you will naturally be lead to clean the outside as well, because you did not enter into the cleaning for appearance sake.

It is the same with the beard. It is not simply a question of "what" but of "why". Any "hippy" (and I hate that word, btw, because I don't like derogatory labels... try converting someone you are derogatory towards) can grow a beard, they say. But any man can shave, I say.

It's about "why". A prostitute on a corner can wear a dress. Do we commend her keen Christian fashion? It's not the "what" that makes holiness. It's the "why".

I do not disagree with you at all I was making I think the same point as you from a differant point of view. I will say this I have searched the scripture to find many of the standards that were preached to me growing up and that I even preached for over 30 years are not bible based but based on mans traditions much like the beard question. When in the 60's and 70's the hippie movement were growing beards and long hair (men) preachers preached against it so as not to be identified with the negative element of that time. Now I have nothing against this we don't want to be identified with the world but it has become a standard for many as if it were gospel. This kind of thing should not be. True holiness will shine from the outside but it does not have to be reflected in the clothing, hair etc. One final thought as I see it from my understanding the Pharisee had done the same thing as many performance based organiztions do today they had gone beyond the law and refined the word adding their own interpretation. As Jesus told them they obeyed the letter of the Law but had left the spirit of the law. We need to find the spirit of the law and follow that rather than get so wrapped up in the letter of the law. Remmenber Jesus came to earth to give us a door to God, that we can form a personal relationship with God. It is not about a book of rules it is about a relationship with God. When we have a book of rules that is just religion.

God bless
Laromans12/Godsdrummer

[Sam]

Jesus had a lot to say about "outward standards" vs. "inward reality" in:
Matthew 5:17-48
Matthew 6:1-34
Matthew 7:1-27
Matthew 23:2-39

[Godsdrummer]

Jesus had a lot to say about "outward standards" vs. "inward reality" in:
Matthew 5:17-48
Matthew 6:1-34
Matthew 7:1-27
Matthew 23:2-39

Sam I agree here

but all of these things have nothing to do with whether a woman can or cn't wear a pair of pants or not or if she should'nt cut her hair or wear jewlery etc.

[dlehman]

Remmenber Jesus came to earth to give us a door to God, that we can form a personal relationship with God. It is not about a book of rules it is about a relationship with God. When we have a book of rules that is just religion.


For the most part, I do agree. But the "relationship" gospel can be taken way too far. The whole come as you are, God loves us where we are, etc. is partially right. But partially right is partially wrong.

There are rules, even ones that aren't "in stone", just in principle. Everyone goes after the "dress code", but that's an easy and over hit target. Let's use a much harder example and try it ourselves:

If you were a preacher, would you let a man on the platform who hit his wife? If not, let's say some of your congregation interprets incorrectly a man having rule over his wife for allowing such action and calls you unbiblical for making such a rule.

Now, how would you defend yourself towards those people? What scripture would you use?

As you can see, this is a ridiculous scenario today (though not always! This was a BIG topic at one point!) But there is no set in stone law, and yes, there is many you can go to and get a very valid principle. But, you will always have someone telling you that what you are doing is just "man-made" because you don't have direct prohibition in scripture.

We see this all the time with youth programs. Now there's an area that doesn't even look for direct scripture, but just common sense. There are clear rules in most churches, even criminal background checks. Under the blood doesn't always mean you get to be alone with 5 year olds.

As I tell people, hey, when we get to heaven, hug all the children you want. Until then, that brother must take the concerns of his church into consideration before ANY debate over the sincerity of his repentance.

[dlehman]

Sam I agree here

but all of these things have nothing to do with whether a woman can or cn't wear a pair of pants or not or if she should'nt cut her hair or wear jewlery etc.

That is true. But you also can't just ignore 1 Corinthians 11, or Peter's writings on jewelry (which I view a bit differently than most, but I won't go into here).

I mean, you have to interpret it some way. It does mean something. And brother, I won't even disagree with you if you say it applies in a completely different way. But, as I've often done, we have to look at the context, the specific book, and the Bible as a whole. If we are going to interpret it differently, it is not enough to say, "That's the wrong way to read it." We should make a good case for "why".

If you interpret it differently, just as I was convicted over beards, then we must research it. I scoured the entire Bible for a year. There's a lot of material I didn't include. But I didn't let one scripture, or just my "interpretation" stand. I looked at the main scriptures, Leviticus 19:27 and Leviticus 21:5. I looked at the context. I looked to see if the surrounding scripture was valid as well, that it was preached in the NT. I looked to see if it was a principle followed the way I thought it read by the people of God after its writing. I looked to see if Jesus interpreted it, if the apostles interpreted it, if any interpretation change occured historically after the biblical years.

And what I found was that the letter of the scripture lined up with the spirit of the scripture, lined up with the practice of the writers, lined up with the direction of all scripture in the general topic.

And I readily admit, pants is not the same. But to examine it fully, one must go through the same process, whether it is to approve or disapprove of the topic. Jewelry, makeup, and hair, however, have much more scripture, and I think while you can make a valid principle argument on pants, you will not get the same on the other issues.

I tell everyone, don't be afraid to ask questions! God is not afraid to answer. :)

[Godsdrummer]

For the most part, I do agree. But the "relationship" gospel can be taken way too far. The whole come as you are, God loves us where we are, etc. is partially right. But partially right is partially wrong.

There are rules, even ones that aren't "in stone", just in principle. Everyone goes after the "dress code", but that's an easy and over hit target. Let's use a much harder example and try it ourselves:

If you were a preacher, would you let a man on the platform who hit his wife? If not, let's say some of your congregation interprets incorrectly a man having rule over his wife for allowing such action and calls you unbiblical for making such a rule.

Now, how would you defend yourself towards those people? What scripture would you use?

As you can see, this is a ridiculous scenario today (though not always! This was a BIG topic at one point!) But there is no set in stone law, and yes, there is many you can go to and get a very valid principle. But, you will always have someone telling you that what you are doing is just "man-made" because you don't have direct prohibition in scripture.

We see this all the time with youth programs. Now there's an area that doesn't even look for direct scripture, but just common sense. There are clear rules in most churches, even criminal background checks. Under the blood doesn't always mean you get to be alone with 5 year olds.

As I tell people, hey, when we get to heaven, hug all the children you want. Until then, that brother must take the concerns of his church into consideration before ANY debate over the sincerity of his repentance.


Bro
I understand what you are saying and whole heartedly agree. There are even times when I beleive the pastor can and should make temp. standards when things call for it. It is just that we see these standards become law after the need is over. As is this thread on beards.

As for the question on women being subjection. That just makes my point where in the word of God do we go from help meet to slave. As for scripture start in Genisis and go to Ephesians
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
How did Christ love the church?

[Godsdrummer]

That is true. But you also can't just ignore 1 Corinthians 11, or Peter's writings on jewelry (which I view a bit differently than most, but I won't go into here).

I mean, you have to interpret it some way. It does mean something. And brother, I won't even disagree with you if you say it applies in a completely different way. But, as I've often done, we have to look at the context, the specific book, and the Bible as a whole. If we are going to interpret it differently, it is not enough to say, "That's the wrong way to read it." We should make a good case for "why".

If you interpret it differently, just as I was convicted over beards, then we must research it. I scoured the entire Bible for a year. There's a lot of material I didn't include. But I didn't let one scripture, or just my "interpretation" stand. I looked at the main scriptures, Leviticus 19:27 and Leviticus 21:5. I looked at the context. I looked to see if the surrounding scripture was valid as well, that it was preached in the NT. I looked to see if it was a principle followed the way I thought it read by the people of God after its writing. I looked to see if Jesus interpreted it, if the apostles interpreted it, if any interpretation change occured historically after the biblical years.

And what I found was that the letter of the scripture lined up with the spirit of the scripture, lined up with the practice of the writers, lined up with the direction of all scripture in the general topic.

And I readily admit, pants is not the same. But to examine it fully, one must go through the same process, whether it is to approve or disapprove of the topic. Jewelry, makeup, and hair, however, have much more scripture, and I think while you can make a valid principle argument on pants, you will not get the same on the other issues.

I tell everyone, don't be afraid to ask questions! God is not afraid to answer. :)

Bro

Again I appreciate And to let you in on a little of my back ground I was raised UPCI I carried UPCI licence for ten years and was still an assosiate minister in the church we were attending for another 10 years. Bro I preached it I know all the scriptures and I studied them to prove they were right. Now here is the thing and I don't expect this to change your thinking and I don't want it to. I went to God not to prove anything but to get the word in my heart for myself. Although before this I would have said I had the word in my heart, but what I had was man word in my heart. I won't go into any more because if God can show me he can show anyone and if it does not happen it is still ok as far as I am concerend my thing is just to get people into the word. I will say I have seen God do the same work on other in the past few years. As for 1 cor. 11 I will say I beleive Paul was setting a precidence concering head covering for his time. And very little to do with hair. Keep studing. and in Peter on jewlery and Timothy it is not the jewlery that is the sin it is the attitude behind. Much the same as the Pharisee of Christ day their holiness was put on but not in the heart. If God did not want us to look nice and have jewlery why did he give it to his people. Read Ezekiel and where did they get the gold to build the tabernacle?
Enough said like I said I just want to get people into the word the bible says to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling. That means having a peronal realtionship to God and study his word.

God Bless

[dlehman]

Enough said like I said I just want to get people into the word the bible says to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling. That means having a peronal realtionship to God and study his word.


Quite right. Knowledge and experience are two different things. One can have a "knowledge" of God, which is 99% of the world's population, but few have any "experience" of God.

I've studied the various scriptures on topics. I grew up a Catholic and didn't start attending a Pentecostal church until my mid twenties, and so holiness was completely new to me.

For years, I attended and didn't even know about Oneness. Everything that was preached sounded right, so I never asked. Then, someone mentioned that some groups out there call Oneness a cult. It was only after reading their pages, that I hunted down the scriptures myself, and came to the revelation of Oneness. I didn't have a Thompson Chain, or any of Bernard's books. I've always had a fascination with studying out the Bible, and once I'd heard Acts 2:38, I knew they strange tongue talkers were on to something that the Catholics didn't know about.

I proved Oneness to myself. I proved tongues for my self years later. And by conviction, I studied beards (of which I can find almost nobody, and I mean nobody, teaching).

Men have studied the Bible man lifetimes over. But even so-called "greats" (by others' standards) like Calvin were upstaged in later history when people realised that Michael Servitus, who was preaching that he was on to something about the Oneness of the Godhead, turned out centuries later to be completely right, even if Calvin had him burned at the stake.

I learned from the Oneness teaching that, yes, everyone else CAN be wrong.

As for women's hair, I don't by into the teachings of many. They make the woman's hair out to be this magic substance, like the cheap paper prayer clothes sold by these snake oil salesmen on TV. But what I have read biblically, I believe. A woman needs a symbol of authority on her head. I think there is a lot of places where there is symbolism in the bible, but if it is speaking like that, I don't think it is a symbolic symbolism, mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma. ;)

I take that at face value. And yes, I believe Paul was making a point. Contrary to some belief's, I think if a woman covers her head in another way, this scripture validates them. However, teaching such ignores what Paul also said about a natural covering.

Being that I've spent such a long time studying words like shaven, shorn, clipped, plucked, etc. I do understand very well that these words have specific meanings.

I love a good King James, but I'll be quite honest, you better use your Strongs Dictionary, preachers, before you go making doctrinal decisions. King James is (wait for the shocking suspense) NOT a perfect translation. It's the best I've ever seen yet, but if you want in depth, you have to get into the Greek and Hebrew.

Back to the point, I would say from what I do know at this point, I support the completely uncut doctrine. However, I would not go so far as to question the salvation of anyone based on if they trimmed.

I make the distinction between a good teaching and a hell-fire and brimstone teaching. Jesus also made this distinction when talking about forms of hate, slander, and murder.

Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

And so, the problem, and I think you and I agree on this, Bro., is that many holiness teachings are either all in or all out, heaven or hell.

Yes, I think most are right or wrong, but that doesn't mean all will lead to hell.

Therefore, if you can believe that Paul meant what many say he meant in 1 Corinthians 11, but you also believe Paul had not made a new "commandment" which is judged by hell fire, then there is no reason not to teach it. And, then a pastor can still use a leadership or "platform" standard. But, in mercy, will not destroy those of the congregation who are still nursing on milk, and not ready for meat.

They can be right, without going too far, and without bringing condemnation. We must be careful, because what we put as stumbling blocks, God will judge us teachers on much more severely, which is what James spoke about.

This can equally be applied to jewelry.

Again, the problem, and I think this is our common ground between us, is the "hard rule".

I support the "soft rule", even concerning beards. My goal is to teach what the Bible teaches about beards, not create another "rule".

I could put it in a fashion like Jesus did in Matthew 5:21-22, but with homosexuality instead of murder. I believe such a "leveled" or tiered theology is supported, and we could go into dress, shaving, to going as far as a man portraying a woman.

And, of course, this is a "soft" teaching, because we're not telling men they have to look like the Brawny man (the old one with a beard, not the new GQ one) to go to heaven. We don't have to beat men over the head for their pastel shirts, hehe.

More importantly, we then rightly put the focus on the direction and walk, towards or away from the real line of hell-fire judgement. In that light, holiness is not the destination, but the direction.

Any of you Apostolic preachers perfect your own holiness and "arrive", you let me know. ;) Until then, you pay close attention to having mercy filled teachings so that God will be merciful to you when the skeletons come flying out of your closets at the judgement.

[MomOfADramaQn]

Here is a thought for all you out there. Where so we get that separation has to do with clothes, hair, etc. Jesus said that men would know us by our love one for another. I do not see that the early Christians wore different clothing or such like to seperate themselves from everyone else. To come out from among them does not mean wear different clothing etc. It means have a different attituted.



I agree with you 100%. Dress is not what separates the "apostolic/pentecostals". In the part of the country where I live there are still many southern baptists churches and church of god churches that have higher dress standards than some conservative pentecostals. Also - look at how the morman women dress - so my argument has always been I believe being "separate" is MUCH MORE than just how you look on the outside but unfortunately while I was growing up that is what was harped on more than how we should be on the inside and I personally think it is a shame.

[dlehman]

I agree with you 100%. Dress is not what separates the "apostolic/pentecostals". In the part of the country where I live there are still many southern baptists churches and church of god churches that have higher dress standards than some conservative pentecostals. Also - look at how the morman women dress - so my argument has always been I believe being "separate" is MUCH MORE than just how you look on the outside but unfortunately while I was growing up that is what was harped on more than how we should be on the inside and I personally think it is a shame.

True. What we must always remember is that we are separated unto God.

Leviticus 22:2

Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the Lord.

We don't just stand apart from a culture, or even from the world. The people of the world don't go around with their genitals hanging out, normally. We don't do that either, but we don't do it because they say not to do it.

Likewise, the people of the world like tattoos. The Bible speaks out against markings on the flesh. (Note: I have a tattoo from before I was saved, so I've been on both sides of this.) But we don't not get tattoos just because the world does get tattoos.

We don't mimic nor oppose the world. We simply stand where God asks us to stand, inside and out.

The world gives to charity. The world also kills. The world covers up the secret body parts and prostitution is outlawed in most of the world. The world also promotes loose sexuality, pornography, and strip clubs.

They don't do everything wrong, neither do they do everything right. But they judge themselves by themselves. We should not judge ourselves by them, but by the Word.

That means we pull out collars up to our noses, our sleeves down to our fingernails, and pull behind us trains of clothing so even our socks don't show when we do cart wheels? Of course not.

There's a difference between humility and hiding, between modesty and mockery. The Amish debate over even allowing colors in their clothing. Plain isn't always holiness. Holiness isn't always plain.

The picture of what heaven will be like is anything but plain, and nothing that isn't holy.

[Godsdrummer]

While it seems we always get on the subject of holiness here is a realy good book on holiness I recomend to any one realy in search of what holiness is. The Pursuit of Holiness by Jerry Bridges.