Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

No where have I compared food with ornameentation, where you get that from? I was pointing out wording in the bible where not is to not being taken as literally not.

Yes, but the reason it isn't taken as "not" in these verses is because eating/speaking are naturally inherent to humanity, whereas decorative ornamentation on God's temple is "not."

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

rdp, here is the point:

if the word "not" does not function literally in other texts, then it means there is no such thing as "it's there, plain and literal for everyone to see." It's an example and reminder that these things require interpretation that includes understanding the context and how the word "not" is used.

The same goes for your interpretation of I Tim. 2 when compared to the Rom. & Eph. passages that I cited earlier. You can't have it both ways Jeffrey.

It's not about making up false categories of "natural vs. unnatural" (sounds good though). It's not about making up drastic contrasts. It's an isolated point that the word "not" does not always have a literal meaning.

This was demonstrated many times before. The way "not" is used in 1 Tim is with a "not this, but this" feeling. It's not a universal prohibition for many reasons, not the least being there is no precedent for such a prohibition.

The precedent is actually in the verses that we're discussing. Paul/Peter effectually says, "Don't adorn yourselves outwardly, but rather let it be 'hidden' inwardly." How in the world you cannot comprehend this is beyond me.


What we do know about NT churches is there was an issue of division in social classes becoming an issue in the church. The rich paraded their wealth over the poor (no middle class), and this even started in the church.
This is why The Message just about nails the "message" in this verse:

And I want women to get in there with the men in humility before God, not primping before a mirror or chasing the latest fashions but doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it.

Honestly, do you really want to start appealling to The Message? If so, you might want to check out their rendering of I Cor. 11 & the hair issue [I think it's in The Message, but I could be mistaken]. Regardless, The Message is known for its liberties [Dynamic Equivalence] & not a translation that I would appeal to....you should know this.

Furthermore, the contrast is not "not with jewelry but with simple clothing." The contrast gives us a clue of the feeling of the verse. Not with (insert what were cultural fashions of the day, and possibly even problems among the rich), but with good deeds (which have nothing to do with clothing). The irony of "good deeds" cannot be overlooked.

Whatever speculative reasons you can give for the early church, can also be said of us today. Or, was God sa nearsighted that He didn't know that we'd have to grapple w/ these verses? That's "Open Theism."

Women, you're beauty is not in the trinketts that can so easily get you off-course... that's not your beauty, your beauty comes from the good things you do.

Both Apostles said "Don't wear gold jewelry." [For ex., see the NLT, HCSB, etc.]. That settles it for us...we simply believe the Bible. "Let no man remove you from the simplicity which is in Christ Jesus."

The "braiding of hair" likely referred to the way some of the rich women would wear elaborate hairstyles, often woven in gold so that their entire head shined,

I've heard this ad nauseum, but the problem is that this is an excercise in eisegesis. The text simply does not support this. It says not the interweave/braid something...which is what? Hair. That's the precept, but the principle is that one shouldn't deck their hair out in a style that draws attention to them, as opposed to the glort of God emanating w/in.

it was also customary for the rich to show their wealth in eccentric ways, including wearing entire inventories of jewelry on the arms, hands, feet, necks. It was the world's way of showing power and prestige. At worship, this certainly only served to cause division and stepped away from the "neither male nor female, jew nor greek, bond nor free."

Again, learning and considering what the significance of this letter was to the church it was written to clues us in on how we can apply that today.

Well said, & that's exactly why we obey what it says.

It wasn't the individual piece or kernel of gold, the pearl or even an expensive piece of clothing,

This is diametrically opposed to the text itself Jeffrey. Why did he waste his time, under the auspicies of the Holy Spirit, enumerating these articles if it "wasn't" about them????

it was the overall image of the women in the church flauting their social status in flambouyant ways. Paul's reminding them, that isn't Christian beauty. To simplify this issue into modern times and just read this as a prohibition on jewels and "expensive" items of clothing is to not really understand the situation in Ephesus.

As usual, you place more weight on your speculations & possible culture of that day than you do the Word of God. I do not do that, I allow the text to speak for & define itself...which is the fundamental difference between you & I.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

As usual, you place more weight on your speculations & possible culture of that day than you do the Word of God. I do not do that, I allow the text to speak for & define itself...which is the fundamental difference between you & I.

Well, you can't say I didn't try at least once to deliver a civil reply to you

Speculations? Is that what historical consideration is? Is that what it means to ask "what did this mean to the original audience?" "Why was this being written? What problem could he be addressing, if any?" Ahh... just speculation. Well, I'll tell you what, let's not get around you own speculations that the Text is a prohibition, even while you stamp your feet and cross your arms in a petulent little fuss.

You did what you've done the entire post. You were given reasons why the "not with" does not necessarily indicate a prohibition, as it was clear it didn't in other instances, but instead you reverted back to your "it's clear and plain." Of course, the "clear and plain" doesn't work in other instances that were thrown out, and where other considerations were made. Thou lacketh an ounce of consistency in this area. If each passage requires interpretation, taking into consideration the message, thought, flow, authorial intent, then so does this one Mr. Clear & Plain.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, but the reason it isn't taken as "not" in these verses is because eating/speaking are naturally inherent to humanity, whereas decorative ornamentation on God's temple is "not."

So, here's an example of where the "clear and plain" is not to be taken as "clear and plain." Instead, we must use some interpretive application to explain WHY the "not" is not so literal. Hmmmm... sounds like something everyone else has been arguing for the last 30 posts. You agree with it, then you turn the tables when it comes to 1 Tim, insisting it's "clear and plain."

Like a dog chasing its own tail.

[Jeffrey]

It seems that Timothy was having some issues in his churches in terms of what was going on during the worship service...He had already talked of the need for prayer for other leaders, and then he seems to get specific. Apparently the men were fighting, and the woman were trying to draw inappropriate attention to themselves.

A modern-time Epistle:

"Women, I've heard there are some problems with some of you flaunting yourselves around at worship. You have forgotten what true godliness should be -- not with fancy prom dresses, shopping sprees and elaborate hairstyles, but appropriateness, gentleness and all things in love as well as good conduct."

All of Paul's comments are in a one-two-three punch, in the flow of appropriateness at worship. He gives a few words to the men, and then says "likewise," transitioning the subject to the women.

Paul states it positively first, and then negatively. He then says, “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” The question comes up here, Is it a sin to braid your hair or to wear jewelry? I don’t think that’s the point of Paul’s statement. And the reason I think that is the similar passage in 1 Peter 3:3-4, which says, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the
imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” Notice what Peter speaks against: the braiding of hair, the putting on of gold jewelry, and the wearing of clothes. If we read that passage in a wooden way, it would
prohibit wearing clothes. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that the clothes shouldn’t be the main thing. And, likewise, the braided hair shouldn’t be the main thing (or whatever way you fix your hair). And the gold jewelry shouldn’t be the
main thing (or whatever other kind of jewelry you might wear). Do you see the point? It’s not to strictly prohibit a certain kind of hair-do or specific kinds of jewelry. The point is that your outward appearance should not be the focus of your life. That’s not the
most important thing. That’s not what you should be known for. Instead, what you should be known for is your Christexalting life. In the passage I just read from 1 Peter, it says, “let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” And in our passage for this morning, Paul says that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper for
women who profess godliness—with good works.”

The above was from a friend. I've often considered... IF Paul was prohibiting something to the Church of Ephesus, I don't believe he was, but IF he was, what does that mean? We STILL would need to know what the situation was, why it needed addressing, what the specific prohibition was (and meant) and then determine it's contemporary application (actually about 20 other steps before that). In other words... If the conehead veil was a modern piece of art in Paul's day, the symbolized one's affiliation with the cult, and Paul said "women, do not wear a conehead veil" (I have no clue what a 'conehead veil' is by the way, serves the illustration) we could take it centuries later to mean that women should never wear a "conehead veil." The reality is the "conehead veil" was a specific time in a specific location and because it had a specific meaning. In Ephesus, it has been discovered time and again the issues of the poor and rich. We do a disservice to the Text to forget the historical context (or not even bother with it) of what was going on and what this broided hair, pearls and gold were referring to. Anyone who insists to read these documents as "clear and plain" has shown nothing but contempt and irresponsibility with approaching documents of antiquity.

[Jeffrey]

So the first argument is immediate meaning and applied meaning. The argument that Paul is not issuing a universal edict prohibiting the wearing of jewelry.

The second, is the argument of canonical inconsistency. There has never been such a prohibition in scripture.

Canaanite and Israelite men and women wore jewelry and cosmetics. The reasons were personal beautification (even seen int he prieslty costumes), currency, evidence of wealth (this is a different meaning for jewelry than we have today, although in some extremes there's some similarities), symbol of social status (unique to Ancient Near East culture -- an example would be Saul's attire as King) and finally religious function. Jewlelry had religious significance in the ANE. It identified the religious beliefs or position of the wearer, such as the Israelite High Priest. Some ascribed supernatural powers to their religious jewels/amulets. It is commonly taught, even among the Jews, that it is these amulets, religious jewels that are condemned as idolatry in Isa 3:16-21. Finally, jewelry was sometimes used as an offering to the gods to be placed on their images or temples. Israelites even did this in Numbers 31:50.

That's the ANE, now here's some research from Greco-Roman culture:

There are many similarities between the Greco-Roman world and the ANE. Perhaps this explains why there is less information about the use of jewelry in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. We do know that jewelry was common in the Roman Empire. The Oxford History of the Classical World has this to say:

The wearing of excessive jewellery [sic] was a practice which [Roman] legislators had long since given up trying to curb, though moralists still condemned it. Pliny rails against women who wore pearls on their fingers, on their earrings, and on their slippers, and reports with disapproval how Caligula's first Empress, Lollia Paulina, turned up to a feast wearing emeralds and pearls on her head, hair, ears, neck, and fingers.[27]

It continues, noting that rings were very common. Men wore rings as signets, while women wore them to signify engagement.[28] In fact, it seems that the Romans invented the engagement ring.[29] Rings in the Roman Empire are particularly interesting. At various times, different types of rings were used to signify social status—slave or free, citizen or non-citizen, aristocrat or commoner. These rules were enforced by law, but were gradually relaxed as more people wanted to be able to wear fancier rings.[30]

Because the Greco-Roman world was a pagan society, Jewelry in this time doubtless functioned in much the same way as it did in the ANE with regard to its religious aspects. It probably was accorded supernatural powers and used as protection from evil or a method to persuade the gods to act in a certain way.


To be continued...

[Jeffrey]

I put together some information on Jewelry in the ANE, in Greco-Roman culture (which was the cultural context, in part, of the New Testament), now we will turn to Jewelry in Scripture:

One passage that seems to prohibit jewelry against a number of passages that support it or refer to it in a positive manner is weak evidence.

1 Peter 3:1-6 tends to be more clear than 1 Timothy 2, leading people to be more confident about conclusions in the former. Here, Peter is contrasting true beauty with false. He says, "Your beauty should reside, not in outward adornment—the braiding of the hair, or jewelery, or dress—but in the inmost center of your being, with its imperishable ornament, a gentle, quiet spirit, which is of high value in the sight of God" (3:3, 4, NEB). In other words, real beauty that lasts comes from inner virtues, not outer appearance.

Verse 3 says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment" (NIV).[34] So Peter is speaking of the source of one's beauty. This could be interpreted, then, as instructions on beauty, not instructions on what is worn. In other words, according to this interpretation, the issue is not whether a woman wears jewelry, but whether she uses it as her source of beauty. Peter says that the source of beauty should be "a gentle and quiet spirit" (3:4). It is also important to note that in verses 1 and 2, Peter gives the reason for his instructions: "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (NIV). We see again Peter's emphasis on internals, rather than externals.

But again, one passage that seems to prohibit jewelry against a number of passages that support it or refer to it in a positive manner is weak evidence.

Positive uses of jewelry in scripture include Gen 2:10-12, the High Priest wore jewelry (Exodus 28)... look at Lucifer before he fell "you were the model of perfection, perfect in beauty, every precious stone adorned you, your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared" (vv. 12-13), Ezekiel 16, Rev 17:4 (both Babylon and the true bride are wearing jewels),

[Jeffrey]

For every text in the Bible that some would use to say that Bible is speaking negatively about jewelry, there are 2 or 3 in which God speaks of them favorably.

The real issues come down to:

Self-worth and Pride: Where does your self-worth come from? Is it jewels? Riches? Material possessions? Are all things in our life submitted to the lordship of Christ?

Seeing Paul's exhortation (like many do with 1 Cor 11) as some new prohibition in Scripture is frightening.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Well, you can't say I didn't try at least once to deliver a civil reply to you

And I as well .

Speculations? Is that what historical consideration is? Is that what it means to ask "what did this mean to the original audience?" "Why was this being written?

"These things command and teach." "These things I write to you [Timothy] that you may know how to behave yourself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God....". The text makes it "plain" that he was giving instructions for church order...but run along to your cultural hypothesis to render this ineffective as well! Moving right along....

What problem could he be addressing, if any?" Ahh... just speculation. Well, I'll tell you what, let's not get around you own speculations that the Text is a prohibition, even while you stamp your feet and cross your arms in a petulent little fuss.

I see, I appeal internally to the text & it's "speculation." You appeal externally to the text & it's precise????? Jeffrey...you're a hoot !

You did what you've done the entire post. You were given reasons why the "not with" does not necessarily indicate a prohibition, as it was clear it didn't in other instances, but instead you reverted back to your "it's clear and plain." Of course, the "clear and plain" doesn't work in other instances that were thrown out,

You mean like you did in Eph. & Rom.??? What you charge & require of me, you yourself commit! Ever heard of the "Sanballat Paradigm"?

and where other considerations were made. Thou lacketh an ounce of consistency in this area.

As you do in Cf. Eph./Rom. & I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3. See thyself....



If each passage requires interpretation, taking into consideration the message, thought, flow, authorial intent, then so does this one Mr. Clear & Plain.

Very good Jeffrey...now see my above quotes internal to the book of I Tim. for all of the above!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So, here's an example of where the "clear and plain" is not to be taken as "clear and plain." Instead, we must use some interpretive application to explain WHY the "not" is not so literal. Hmmmm... sounds like something everyone else has been arguing for the last 30 posts. You agree with it, then you turn the tables when it comes to 1 Tim, insisting it's "clear and plain."

Like a dog chasing its own tail.

Speaking of a dog chasing his tail...how many times have I shown that you're "proof texts" argue from something quite natural, whereas decorative ornamentation is unnatural. You're meshing contexts, which is called an "Equivocation Fallacy." Oh, that's right, unless YOU make the logical references...it ain't smoke!

Ughhh, is anybody in there...this about the 16th time that I've demonstrated this, yet you plod along saying "You're inconsistent." Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!