Quote:
Originally Posted by LUKE2447
and the early Christian church teachers for centuries across the board disagree with using it to glorify yourself along with many other things. To say who used it and how is speculative when it comes to the whole picture.
Also the Book of Esther is questioned on it's authenticity. I personally don't believe it happened but is a made up story.
|
The early "Fathers" were early Catholics. Of the Church "Fathers" Clement and Tertullian in particular expressed their opinions on women's adornment. The entire chapter 8 of
Practical Holiness a Second Look is devoted to what the UPCI author, Bernard, refers to as being "Biblical standards many leaders throughout church history have firmly advocated" and quotes extensively from Clement and Tertullian. But, when did the views of the "
Fathers" become "Biblical standards?" When teaching Oneness and the history of the baptismal formula this same author uses the "Fathers" as historical proof the early church taught Oneness and baptized in the name of Jesus. Tertullian coined the term, trinity, and Bernard himself states that Tertullian was the first in history to use Matt. 28:19 as a precise baptismal formula. But, with the issue of makeup and women's adornment, Bernard refers to the "Fathers" as examples of church leaders who taught "Biblical Standards!"
The opinions of Clement and Tertullian on makeup and adornment were not a reflection of the Apostles' teaching, no more than they were on baptism. The "Fathers" inherited their disgust toward makeup (and women) from the pagan philosophers, who held the traditional,
misogynous view of women. Clement in
Against the Embellishing of the Body referred to WOMEN CURLING THEIR HAIR and their use of cosmetics as practicing "pernicious acts of luxury." Tertullian was a Stoic philosopher, and according to the Stoics, those products which nature did not provide were by definition luxuries, and criticism of a luxurious lifestyle was a keystone of the Stoic philosophy.
In the type of literature, which criticized married women for wearing perfumes and using cosmetics, [in the NT era], the writer seems to show these products being used in an extreme, even perverse fashion. The wearing of makeup
per se did not characterize a prostitute. The class of respectable women in the Empire wore makeup, but it was the OVER APPLICATION of beauty products AND perfume that went with a prostitute's identity, but there was a tacit acceptance of the
less ostentatious everyday use of beauty products.
The Apostles wouldn't have had a problem with Christian women wearing makeup. There is too much physical evidence in the form of archaelogical discoveries in Israelite digs and literary proof in the
Talmud for the use of makeup by Hebrew women. Paul would have studied the
Talmud in Rabbincal school and knew the Rabbis gave their permission for women to wear makeup as part of their adornment.
"These are permitted in a woman's adornments: she treats her eyes with kohl, fixes a parting and puts rouge on her face." (Baby. Moed Kattan 9b) Jewish sources distinguish between makeup used for therapeutic purposes and makeup meant for embellishing the eyes: "
Kohl, Rabbi Shema ben Elazar says, if for healing to kohl one eye, and if for ornament to kohl both eyes." (Tosefta Shabbath, 8:33) Since making up the eyes was considered a labor, it was forbidden on the Sabbath. (Baby.
Shabbath, 109a) For more on the use of makeup in the
Talmud go to my website.
The Pentecostals and Apostolics are far too harsh and cruel on women. Esther would have worn makeup, and she and her husband went 50/50 in ownership of the Kingdom! Makeup was invented by the Mesopotamians -- prior to the Persians. It was decided that the book of Esther was canonical, and I take it as such. I love the book of Esther.
www.studyholiness.com