Earrings? Why not? God piereces ears!

[staysharp]

Since there is so much fuss about earrings on men, thought I would offer proof positive that God himself pierced David's ears and certainly doesn't mind if u do either.

Psalms 40:6
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.

[DAII]

He required servants to be pierced as well ...

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 21:6

[pelathais]

I just don't like the needles and awls.

In antiquity most piercings and cuttings of the flesh were done to "brand" an individual as a slave or the possession of another. That's why primarily women and pirates or other mercenary forces wore the ear ring - that loop or hoop style dangle thing. Of course there were many other reasons as well - a rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood, etc.

The woman was chattel for her father until he sold her off to become the chattel of another man (a wife). The pirates were often run away slaves. Mercenaries were often the slaves possessed by their captain who hired out the entire band to the highest bidder.

Free men had no such scars or piercings to identify them as the property of another. This is my own primary motivation for not being branded in any way - I am a free man. However, if I can accept a woman wearing uncut hair as a consecration to God (and I do) I suppose that on the same grounds I could accept someone else wearing an ear ring to signify a similar purpose.

[staysharp]

He required servants to be pierced as well ...

Exodus 21:6

OUCH! is all I can say, that was before the Chinese at WAL-MART.

[staysharp]

I just don't like the needles and awls.

In antiquity most piercings and cuttings of the flesh were done to "brand" an individual as a slave or the possession of another. That's why primarily women and pirates or other mercenary forces wore the ear ring - that loop or hoop style dangle thing. Of course there were many other reasons as well - a rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood, etc.

The woman was chattel for her father until he sold her off to become the chattel of another man (a wife). The pirates were often run away slaves. Mercenaries were often the slaves possessed by their captain who hired out the entire band to the highest bidder.

Free men had no such scars or piercings to identify them as the property of another. This is my own primary motivation for not being branded in any way - I am a free man. However, if I can accept a woman wearing uncut hair as a consecration to God (and I do) I suppose that on the same grounds I could accept someone else wearing an ear ring to signify a similar purpose.

P, earrings on men are certainly not new to our generation. However, I am curious as to why there is such an aversion and distaste. Maybe, its due to gender bias perception. Even when I see men wearing large diamond earrings, something is unsettling in me.

I consider myself liberal minded, however I still struggle with this. I pastor in a predominately black city and I know this issue will eventually show itself in my leadership. Still haven't decided where to stand.

BTW, while u r absolutely correct as to the gender branding, etc. I doubt any today consciously wear them as a symbol....just sayin.

[Sam]

When I was going to the Vineyard Church in Springdale, OH, several of the pastors --both men and women-- had piercings.

[MissBrattified]

I guess I've never understood why people want to put holes in their skin. :blink If I did wear earrings, they'd be clip-ons. No ear punctures for me, thanks anyway. :D

That aside, are you sure the meaning of the verse in Psalms is "pierced" ears?

KJV: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

MY husband (and my son) will most certainly NOT be having their ears pierced. I think it looks girly, and that's the end of that. :coffee2 I don't care whether David did it or not.

[deltaguitar]

My wife just got her ears pierced. After being UPC for about 12 years the holes had grown back together. I was all worried that it might hurt or she would be in pain but she said she didn't even feel it.

[pelathais]

P, earrings on men are certainly not new to our generation. However, I am curious as to why there is such an aversion and distaste. Maybe, its due to gender bias perception. Even when I see men wearing large diamond earrings, something is unsettling in me.

I consider myself liberal minded, however I still struggle with this. I pastor in a predominately black city and I know this issue will eventually show itself in my leadership. Still haven't decided where to stand.

BTW, while u r absolutely correct as to the gender branding, etc. I doubt any today consciously wear them as a symbol....just sayin.
Yeah. Today it seems to be just another fad to go along with. It's too much hassel for me.

"Let me stab a hole in your head and sell you something to wear in it..."

Why not just leave it alone? People look fine without it. Just MHO.

[pelathais]

I guess I've never understood why people want to put holes in their skin. :blink If I did wear earrings, they'd be clip-ons. No ear punctures for me, thanks anyway. :D

That aside, are you sure the meaning of the verse in Psalms is "pierced" ears?

KJV: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

MY husband (and my son) will most certainly NOT be having their ears pierced. I think it looks girly, and that's the end of that. :coffee2 I don't care whether David did it or not.

Yes. The word in the original is "pierced" and appears to be an allegorical allusion to the branding of a "love slave."

[Baron1710]

I guess I've never understood why people want to put holes in their skin. :blink If I did wear earrings, they'd be clip-ons. No ear punctures for me, thanks anyway. :D

That aside, are you sure the meaning of the verse in Psalms is "pierced" ears?

KJV: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

MY husband (and my son) will most certainly NOT be having their ears pierced. I think it looks girly, and that's the end of that. :coffee2 I don't care whether David did it or not.

So you tell your husband what he will NOT do?

That would be the quikest way to get me to wear an earing.

[Nitehawk013]

Or we could call it what it really is. A mild version of body mutilation.

[jfrog]

Or we could call it what it really is. A mild version of body mutilation.

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

mutilate
verb
1. maim, damage, injure, disable, butcher, cripple, hack, lame, cut up, mangle, dismember, disfigure, lacerate, cut to pieces He tortured and mutilated six young men.
2. distort, cut, damage, mar, spoil, butcher, hack, censor, adulterate, expurgate, bowdlerize The writer's verdict was that his screenplay had been mutilated.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilate

Calling piercing the ears a form of mutilation is really a rather large stretch of the truth. As you can see from the vast majority of definitions above, ear piercing barely fits any of the definitions. Couple that with the connotation that mutilation is usually something that is very bloody, gory, and leaves the mutilated in a very noticable state due to the horrendous condition their body is left in. Attempting to call ear piercing a form of mutilation is a lie.

And you see while it may not be a lie by the connotation of what a lie is, it is definately a lie under the definition of what a lie is. (lie ... 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.) So since calling ear piercing a form of mutilation gives the wrong impression, then by definition this is a lie. The point is, its much better to use words with their connotation than their denotation. Otherwise people are going to look at you as funny as you are looking at me by saying what you did was lie.

[MissBrattified]

So you tell your husband what he will NOT do?

That would be the quickest way to get me to wear an earing.

You would deliberately do something to upset your wife? :blink

He wouldn't do something like that without talking to me about it first, and I wouldn't either. (get my ears pierced without his approval)

I don't boss my husband around, but he gets my input on just about everything, and vice versa. When it comes to decisions that affect both of us, affect our children or affect our family as a whole, we have an agreement that the "no" vote rules. That way nothing ever gets the go ahead unless both of us are in agreement. If he doesn't agree with me, it's my job to persuade him. If I'm uncomfortable with something, it's his job to persuade me. I think it works pretty well. Trust me - it doesn't all go MY way. LOL!!!!!

Women who nag and whine and are bossy tend to have resentful husbands who don't want to do anything for them. However, if you're kind and you pick your battles, you're more likely to win a few. I am 100% confident that if my husband decided for some crazy reason to pierce an ear or two, that my "no" vote would completely halt the process. :) Ergo, I can say: My husband will not be getting his ear[s] pierced.

[Timmy]

So you tell your husband what he will NOT do?

That would be the quikest way to get me to wear an earing.

Hmm. I think I just realized why my wife is always telling me "Don't take out the trash" and "Don't even think about doing the dishes".

[RandyWayne]

Hmm. I think I just realized why my wife is always telling me "Don't take out the trash" and "Don't even think about doing the dishes".

Maybe this is why my wife is always saying "You BETTER go buy that brand new computer NOW!".

[MissBrattified]

Hmm. I think I just realized why my wife is always telling me "Don't take out the trash" and "Don't even think about doing the dishes".

ROFL!!!!! My husband IS the type of person who will rebel if I'm bossy--so I know better. ;)

He changed our wedding ceremony because one of my older sisters snapped her fingers at him during rehearsal and told him to get in line (literally). He formed a new line from a new door. It was hysterical! :toofunny

[Timmy]

ROFL!!!!! My husband IS the type of person who will rebel if I'm bossy--so I know better. ;)

He changed our wedding ceremony because one of my older sisters snapped her fingers at him during rehearsal and told him to get in line (literally). He formed a new line from a new door. It was hysterical! :toofunny

:ursofunny

[Orthodoxy]

In antiquity most piercings and cuttings of the flesh were done to "brand" an individual as a slave or the possession of another. That's why primarily women and pirates or other mercenary forces wore the ear ring - that loop or hoop style dangle thing. Of course there were many other reasons as well - a rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood, etc.

The woman was chattel for her father until he sold her off to become the chattel of another man (a wife). The pirates were often run away slaves. Mercenaries were often the slaves possessed by their captain who hired out the entire band to the highest bidder.

Free men had no such scars or piercings to identify them as the property of another. This is my own primary motivation for not being branded in any way - I am a free man.

I agree with pelathais here. Earrings could biblically signify a woman's submission to her husband, although most women probably never think about it that way.

[Baron1710]

You would deliberately do something to upset your wife? :blink

He wouldn't do something like that without talking to me about it first, and I wouldn't either. (get my ears pierced without his approval)

I don't boss my husband around, but he gets my input on just about everything, and vice versa. When it comes to decisions that affect both of us, affect our children or affect our family as a whole, we have an agreement that the "no" vote rules. That way nothing ever gets the go ahead unless both of us are in agreement. If he doesn't agree with me, it's my job to persuade him. If I'm uncomfortable with something, it's his job to persuade me. I think it works pretty well. Trust me - it doesn't all go MY way. LOL!!!!!

Women who nag and whine and are bossy tend to have resentful husbands who don't want to do anything for them. However, if you're kind and you pick your battles, you're more likely to win a few. I am 100% confident that if my husband decided for some crazy reason to pierce an ear or two, that my "no" vote would completely halt the process. :) Ergo, I can say: My husband will not be getting his ear[s] pierced.

Don't try and put this on me. Reminds me of a book I saw once, Bobbed hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers.

If my wife told me what I WASN'T going to do then she might expect a similar response from me. My wife doesn't tell me what to do, so we don't have the issue.

[tv1a]

I fought with God over this issue when He told me to pierce my ears. I thought earrings were going to send you to hell. It took 3 months of praying, research, and a Word of knowledge spoken into my life before I took the plunge.

When I did, I was able to speak into a young man's life who though who committed to a relationship with Christ after realizing God didn't care about his earrings or tattoos. He had to see visible evidence that God was after him, not his jewelry.

I'd pierce my ears again in heartbeat to reach this generation.

[staysharp]

I fought with God over this issue when He told me to pierce my ears. I thought earrings were going to send you to hell. It took 3 months of praying, research, and a Word of knowledge spoken into my life before I took the plunge.

When I did, I was able to speak into a young man's life who though who committed to a relationship with Christ after realizing God didn't care about his earrings or tattoos. He had to see visible evidence that God was after him, not his jewelry.

I'd pierce my ears again in heartbeat to reach this generation.

u say God told u so? just wondering how u came to that conclusion?

[tv1a]

I know God's voice when he speaks to me.

u say God told u so? just wondering how u came to that conclusion?

[Orthodoxy]

Tattoos, on the other hand, are a different story, IMO.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:28

Not trying to bash anybody here with a tattoo, but this is Scripture.

[staysharp]

I know God's voice when he speaks to me.

is that it? i wasn't being derogatory, I'm just wondering why? that's all. Usually when God speaks there is a purpose. Was it to give u a greater witness?

[staysharp]

Tattoos, on the other hand, are a different story, IMO.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:28

Not trying to bash anybody here with a tattoo, but this is Scripture.

my old friend who was a high profile evangelist in UPC who has now gone on to be with Jesus had a "hot' & "cold" on each of his breasts tattooed...it was so funny, he showed up on the platform one Sunday morning without an undershirt and everybody could see em...lol

[Baron1710]

Tattoos, on the other hand, are a different story, IMO.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:28

Not trying to bash anybody here with a tattoo, but this is Scripture.

The purpose of the tattoo is important, consider the context. It is not a stand alone clause it is tied to the previous statement.

[Sam]

Tattoos, on the other hand, are a different story, IMO.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:28

Not trying to bash anybody here with a tattoo, but this is Scripture.

Are the cuttings in the flesh and making marks upon you both associated with a reaction for the dead? Or do they refer to two separate and unrelated actions?

Most Bibles I've checked are ambiguous as to whether they are separate except this one:

I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshiping the dead. CEV

[MissBrattified]

Don't try and put this on me. Reminds me of a book I saw once, Bobbed hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers.

If my wife told me what I WASN'T going to do then she might expect a similar response from me. My wife doesn't tell me what to do, so we don't have the issue.

Touche. I don't tell my husband things like, "You are NOT going to do that." However, I can tell you with confidence that my husband will NOT do that, and due in no small part to my input on the matter, should it ever arise. (Highly doubt the possibility anyway.) Just because I put it strongly to you doesn't mean I'll put it to HIM like that. :D

I'm afraid I've never read that book....

[Orthodoxy]

The purpose of the tattoo is important, consider the context. It is not a stand alone clause it is tied to the previous statement.

So, are you saying that it's okay to have tattoos as long as you are not doing it for the dead?

[Sam]

So, are you saying that it's okay to have tattoos as long as you are not doing it for the dead?

If the prohibition against cutting the flesh and tattoing the flesh are both for the dead, then a tattoo which is not for the dead would not be wrong.

Besides, that was Old Covenant, under the Law. If there is no NT prohibition against tattoos they are not wrong.

[John Atkinson]

Twice I almost got inked twice, once as a Navy Submariner, once as a member of a heavy metal band, I don't regret passing on either.


God converted me. What do I need to mark me but his Spirit?

[Orthodoxy]

Besides, that was Old Covenant, under the Law. If there is no NT prohibition against tattoos they are not wrong.

There's no NT prohibition against bestiality either.

[Twisp]

There's no NT prohibition against bestiality either.

Romans does tell us not to "leave the natural use of a woman". 1 Cor 6:13 tells us that the body is not for fornication. The Greek word for fornication covers all illicit sexual acts, if I am not mistaken.

[TheLegalist]

Is the tattoo for self glorification? hmmm I didn't know our bodies natural use to God is for that. If it is not then... Also why do you need to tattoo yourself? I always find this a interesting answer and it usually is answered with a question.

[TheLegalist]

There's no NT prohibition against bestiality either.

The argument of "if it is not repeated in the NT it doesn't matter" is about as idiotic as it gets. Paul says all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.

[Twisp]

Is the tattoo for self glorification? hmmm I didn't know our bodies natural use to God is for that. If it is not then... Also why do you need to tattoo yourself? I always find this a interesting answer and it usually is answered with a question.

If you go down that road, then you could say the same thing about fixing your hair, plucking your eyebrows, trimming your nose hairs, using any kind of facial/body creme, medicinal or otherwise, ect...

[TheLegalist]

If you go down that road, then you could say the same thing about fixing your hair, plucking your eyebrows, trimming your nose hairs, using any kind of facial/body creme, medicinal or otherwise, ect...

nope, incorrect. tattoos are not grooming. Totaly different thing. Try again! The aspect of men cutting there hair shows basic grooming/maintenance is allowed.

[Twisp]

nope, incorrect. tattoos are not grooming. Totaly different thing. Try again! The aspect of men cutting there hair shows grooming is allowed.

I didn't say cutting your hair. I said fixing your hair. Cutting it short is one thing, and would be considered grooming. Fixing it in a certain style could be considered even more superficial than getting a tattoo, since you do it to look nice to other people. A tattoo, as far as I know, is usually more of a personal preference that is not usually seen by other people.

[TheLegalist]

I didn't say cutting your hair. I said fixing your hair. Cutting it short is one thing, and would be considered grooming. Fixing it in a certain style could be considered even more superficial than getting a tattoo, since you do it to look nice to other people. A tattoo, as far as I know, is usually more of a personal preference that is not usually seen by other people.

I don't believe in making ones hair something of a glorified mess. It should be nice and kept. Mild organization that does not bring attention to oneself. You might want to read how the early church in the first few centuries looked at this stuff. You might be amazed and how they clearly limited any type of elevating oneself in appearance.

[Twisp]

I don't believe in making ones hair something of a glorified mess. It should be nice and kept. Mild organization that does not bring attention to oneself. You might want to read how the early church in the first few centuries looked at this stuff. You might be amazed and how they clearly limited any type of elevating oneself in appearance.

I understand that the early church did not believe in self glory via appearance.

The question here is whether tattoo's are self glorification. The answer is no more than fixing your hair nice for Sunday night service is. Actually, it is probably less being that everyone can't see your tattoo, whereas your hair is fixed for everyone to see.

I guess technically the question was about earrings, lol. This is kind of a branch off of that question, I reckon. lol.

[Sister Alvear]

The early church wanted God to have the glory in ALL things...I am afraid we lag behind them in many ways...

[TheLegalist]

I understand that the early church did not believe in self glory via appearance.

The question here is whether tattoo's are self glorification. The answer is no more than fixing your hair nice for Sunday night service is. Actually, it is probably less being that everyone can't see your tattoo, whereas your hair is fixed for everyone to see.

I guess technically the question was about earrings, lol. This is kind of a branch off of that question, I reckon. lol.

Have you seen tattoos lately? hidden? Also since when does something hidden from others limit how a person can feel pride and everything else in life about such?

[Sam]

There's no NT prohibition against bestiality either.

sex with an animal would be wrong (unless you were married to the animal), wouldn't it?

[MissBrattified]

sex with an animal would be wrong (unless you were married to the animal), wouldn't it?

Why add the qualifier "unless you were married..."???? Isn't it wrong no matter what? :blink

[Orthodoxy]

sex with an animal would be wrong (unless you were married to the animal), wouldn't it?

Let's hope so! LOL And why did you add that qualifier (unless you were married to the animal)?

My point was that bestiality is only specifically mentioned in the OT, not the NT. That doesn't mean we can go sleep with animals now since we're under grace.

[TheLegalist]

I believe he is equating his marriage and others too... HAHAHAHA

[Praxeas]

The argument of "if it is not repeated in the NT it doesn't matter" is about as idiotic as it gets. Paul says all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness.
Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

[Praxeas]

Let's hope so! LOL And why did you add that qualifier (unless you were married to the animal)?

My point was that bestiality is only specifically mentioned in the OT, not the NT. That doesn't mean we can go sleep with animals now since we're under grace.
Bestiality is not mentioned in the NT however we do have many scriptures that teach on God's order of creation that man is made for woman and vice versa, not for animals

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Rom 13:13 Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy.

The ONLY sanctified relation is marriage. If a woman is unfaithful to her husband he can divorce her. The NT teaches explicitly that all other relations outside the marriage is wrong.

Consider also

1Co 6:13 "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both."11 The body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1Co 6:14 Now God indeed raised the Lord and he will raise us by his power.
1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that anyone who is united with12 a prostitute is one body with her?13 For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."14
1Co 6:17 But the one united with15 the Lord is one spirit with him.16
1Co 6:18 Flee sexual immorality! "Every sin a person commits is outside of the body"17 — but the immoral person sins against his own body.

You have sex with an animal you are joined to that animal just as you would be with a prostitute.

One definition of this word from the greek is lewd
Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful.

The word is said to cover all sexual sins
Porneía may also refer to marriages within the degrees prohibited by the Law of Moses and generally to all such intercourse as prohibited in that Law

Paul clearly identifies the only sexual relationship acceptable is that between a man and a woman in marraige

[TheLegalist]

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

Being under the administration of the covenant and knowing and doing what is righteous are two different things. There was no NT to the early church. They had the sciptures of the Jews to look at. God's righteousness is all throughout scripture and the same line of reasoning is consistent.

[TheLegalist]

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

Also you will NEVER find me saying we are under the "old covenant" "the law"! Also schoomaster is clearly principle foundation of which would be continued.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Why add the qualifier "unless you were married..."???? Isn't it wrong no matter what? :blink
I think he was pointing out that you're only supposed to have sex with your spouse..... and we can't marry animals. So that in and of itself would rule out bestiality. ;) (if nothing else did)

[Praxeas]

Being under the administration of the covenant and knowing and doing what is righteous are two different things. There was no NT to the early church. They had the sciptures of the Jews to look at. God's righteousness is all throughout scripture and the same line of reasoning is consistent.
There was indeed a NT in the early church. They are under the New Covenant just as we are. They were taught orally by the Apostles.

This is evidenced as well by the first church council where they determined the Gentiles did not have to keep the laws of Moses. It was a Jewish thing. Paul emphatically tells us we are NOT under the Law of Moses

We are not under the law of Moses. Is the NT and Paul wrong?

[Orthodoxy]

Yes BUT Paul says we are NOT under the law. The Law is a schoolmaster to bring us TO Christ and once we come to Christ we are no longer under the law.

So that is why, if it is not repeated in the NT it is not a part of the new covenant.

It's not idiotic at all. Do you really keep the entire law of Moses because Paul said all scripture is given?

We are no longer obligated to keep the OT ceremonial laws, but what about the OT moral laws? Aren't we still obligated to keep those?

Theologians have generally recognized three types of OT laws: (1) moral, (2) ceremonial, and (3) civil.

[Sam]

We are no longer obligated to keep the OT ceremonial laws, but what about the OT moral laws? Aren't we still obligated to keep those?

Some divide the Law into three categories: the civil, the moral, and the ceremonial and say we no longer have to keep the civil and ceremonial but have to keep the moral. Others just teach that the Law was God's covenant with Israel and has been replaced (in total) by a New Covenant with a new people (the Church or the Israel of God). Others who go along with the whole New Covenant thing believe the only part of the law we are required to keep under the New Covenant is what the Apostles and Elders decided in Jerusalem and is recorded in their letter to the churches in Acts 15. There is one version of the Bible which includes the whole Limuda or Didache in the letter from the Apostles and Elders in Acts 15.

[TheLegalist]

There was indeed a NT in the early church. They are under the New Covenant just as we are. They were taught orally by the Apostles.

This is evidenced as well by the first church council where they determined the Gentiles did not have to keep the laws of Moses. It was a Jewish thing. Paul emphatically tells us we are NOT under the Law of Moses

We are not under the law of Moses. Is the NT and Paul wrong?

I HAVE NEVER SAID WE ARE UNDER THE MOSAIC COVENANT! We are under LAW which is the LAW of Christ which has the same BASE tenants!

You missed my point... I am talking about books written. Most are written YEARS later after of christ's life and only partials here and there. They referenced the OT scriptures. Which Paul said ALL SCRIPTURE was for instruction in righteousness which was a reference to the writings of Law and Prophets etc...

AGAIN READ WHAT I SAID! Being under covenant and knowing righteousness are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! The basis of all law is upon the SAME REASONING! MArk 12:29-31 We are under the administration of Christ which is the SAME PRINCIPLES TAUGHT BEFOREHAND of which CHrist said and confirmed in John 15. Just as he, we do also the commandments of the Father. Which is a reference to that which ALL LAW HANGS of which HE DID and was found innocent!

If he could be charged with SIN and DEFILEMENT then we would no do it either. Ceremonial law in itself is not sin. That which defiles is of the heart. To not perform in heart would be sin but the failed action of the ceremony is not what defiles.

[tv1a]

Sorry about short burst. Not much time. But yes, it has been a greater witness. I work a lot with at risk young people. I have been able to make considerable inroads in their lives.


is that it? i wasn't being derogatory, I'm just wondering why? that's all. Usually when God speaks there is a purpose. Was it to give u a greater witness?

[tv1a]

The Bible says sin gets stronger with legalism/law. Makes me want to run far away from it.

[Praxeas]

When they were pierced did they also stick ear rings in them? Simply being pierced does not mean they wore ear rings.

David said this because under the law if a man had fulfilled his 7 years servitude and wanted to stay with his master forever, they would punch his ear through with an awl but i don't know anything about slipping a ring in it

[MissBrattified]

When they were pierced did they also stick ear rings in them? Simply being pierced does not mean they wore ear rings.

David said this because under the law if a man had fulfilled his 7 years servitude and wanted to stay with his master forever, they would punch his ear through with an awl but i don't know anything about slipping a ring in it

I think they would have to, or the hole would close.

[Praxeas]

I think they would have to, or the hole would close.
I don't know...if you read the scriptures and the commentary the point wasn't an ear ring or a hole in the ear lobe, but the joining of the ear with the door to the house of the master

Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

[MissBrattified]

I don't know...if you read the scriptures and the commentary the point wasn't an ear ring or a hole in the ear lobe, but the joining of the ear with the door to the house of the master

Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

Scripture doesn't condemn earrings, so it's not illogical to assume they wore one in the hole to keep it open.

Also, the fact that they braced the ear against the door to make the hole doesn't mean that the point of the act was to "join...the ear with the door...." The point was creating a symbol of the fact that the servant would voluntarily serve the master forever. Whether that was just a hole or a hole with an earring in it seems marginal to me.

[Praxeas]

Scripture doesn't condemn earrings, so it's not illogical to assume they wore one in the hole to keep it open.

Also, the fact that they braced the ear against the door to make the hole doesn't mean that the point of the act was to "join...the ear with the door...." The point was creating a symbol of the fact that the servant would voluntarily serve the master forever. Whether that was just a hole or a hole with an earring in it seems marginal to me.
I didn't say scriptures condemn ear rings. I didn't say it was illogical to assume anything.

Im simply pointing out that there is no mention of a ring. It has to be assume they stuck a ring in the hole, which also assumes the intent was to keep the hole open, which is not supported by the text

Keil and Delitsch
In this case the master was to take his servant הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל, lit., to God, i.e., according to the correct rendering of the lxx, πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον, to the place where judgment was given in the name of God (Deu_1:17; cf. Exo_22:7-8, and Deu_19:17), in order that he might make a declaration there that he gave up his liberty. His ear was then to be bored with an awl against the door or lintel of the house, and by this sign, which was customary in many of the nations of antiquity, to be fastened as it were to the house for ever.

That this was the meaning of the piercing of the ear against the door of the house, is evident from the unusual expression in Deu_15:17, “and put (the awl) into his ear and into the door, that he may be thy servant for ever,” where the ear and the door are co-ordinates. “For ever,” i.e., as long as he lives. Josephus and the Rabbins would restrict the service to the time ending with the year of jubilee, but without sufficient reason, and contrary to the usage of the language, as לְעֹלָם is used in Lev_25:46 to denote service which did not terminate with the year of jubilee. (See the remarks on Lev_25:10; also my Archäologie.)

[CC1]

I always find it amusing to hear old time Pentecostal preachers preach about the Prodigal son coming home and the father giving him his ring when in the preachers own church any man wearing a ring would probably be condemmed. (and yes I know the significance of why the father gave the son the ring but it does not do away with the fact there was a ring to begin with and God had no problem with it despite the former RR's wild assertions that jewelry was cast down from heaven with the fallen angels).

[MissBrattified]

I didn't say scriptures condemn ear rings. I didn't say it was illogical to assume anything.

I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out that outside of our Pentecostal paradigm, it wouldn't occur to us to say they didn't wear an earring, because that would be the practical way of keeping the hole open. IMO, it's pointed out because, as usual, we have to find a way to sanitize the story. Not deliberately, mind you--it's just a habit.

Im simply pointing out that there is no mention of a ring. It has to be assume they stuck a ring in the hole, which also assumes the intent was to keep the hole open, which is not supported by the text

It's just a possibility--that's all--and not an illogical one. As I pointed out. :D

That this was the meaning of the piercing of the ear against the door of the house, is evident from the unusual expression in Deu_15:17, “and put (the awl) into his ear and into the door, that he may be thy servant for ever,” where the ear and the door are co-ordinates. “For ever,” i.e., as long as he lives. Josephus and the Rabbins would restrict the service to the time ending with the year of jubilee, but without sufficient reason, and contrary to the usage of the language, as לְעֹלָם is used in Lev_25:46 to denote service which did not terminate with the year of jubilee. (See the remarks on Lev_25:10; also my Archäologie.)

I'm intimately familiar with this particular text, due to a sermon I heard preached many times called "I love my Master." :) I agree with the interpretation that "forever" meant voluntary service "as long as he lives", because otherwise the ceremony would have been fairly insignificant.

[Michael Phelps]

I always find it amusing to hear old time Pentecostal preachers preach about the Prodigal son coming home and the father giving him his ring when in the preachers own church any man wearing a ring would probably be condemmed. (and yes I know the significance of why the father gave the son the ring but it does not do away with the fact there was a ring to begin with and God had no problem with it despite the former RR's wild assertions that jewelry was cast down from heaven with the fallen angels).

?????? I've never heard that one!

[mfblume]

God thinks it is beautiful.

Ezekiel 16:12-13 KJV And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. (13) Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

[CC1]

?????? I've never heard that one!

I only know that second hand from what someone posted on AFF a year or two ago. Perhaps someone who has been to a woman's conference the former RR has spoke at and covered this subject can weigh in.

[Praxeas]

I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out that outside of our Pentecostal paradigm, it wouldn't occur to us to say they didn't wear an earring, because that would be the practical way of keeping the hole open. IMO, it's pointed out because, as usual, we have to find a way to sanitize the story. Not deliberately, mind you--it's just a habit.
Im posting from the perspective that doesn't believe ear rings are wrong though :-)

It's just a possibility--that's all--and not an illogical one. As I pointed out. :D
Sure, but we can't do any thing more than speculate. I agree. For all we know they stuck bamboo shoots through them ;)


I'm intimately familiar with this particular text, due to a sermon I heard preached many times called "I love my Master." :) I agree with the interpretation that "forever" meant voluntary service "as long as he lives", because otherwise the ceremony would have been fairly insignificant.
Me too. It was one of the first messages that ever really stuck in my mind that my first Pastor taught.

[berkeley]

The size of the hole in the ear would determine if an earring was needed to keep the hole from closing. :)

[berkeley]

I was going to gage my ears once...