Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Cindy]

We can wear jewelry and still have an humble, meek, etc. spirit. That is how God wants us adorned, not that he doesn't want us to wear jewelry.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Sure it's literal...which is more than we can say for Ezek. 16! The context of Is. 3 is extravangance & ostentatious display manifest thru ornamentation. Thus, when we come to the clothing articles listed, it's apparent [& some translations actually indicate this] that there was elaborate designs & probably even metals woven into them. The point is, they were "literally" wearing this stuff...which God called "filth" in chp. 4:4. Do we have the same God today or not? Of course we do........rdp.

With the literal story and account of Rebekah, jewelry was a gift on behalf of Isaac.

Genesis 24:22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;

Quite a bit of GOLD! The servant cast a fleece out before God saying that if he offers a woman to let down her pitcher to drink, and she responds saying, "Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also," then he would know that God sent the woman to him. And God sent this woman to a man who was going to give her a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold. Funny how God would answer such a prayer from a man who was bound to give this woman all that gold, and lead a woman to him, if RDP is correct! One would think the last man to whom God would send Rebekah would be a guy who was to give her all of that ungodly gold! And that ain't no illustration, but an actual event!

Rebekah's story continues with her being called BLESSED when her jewelry from Isaac and Abraham were seen.

Genesis 24:30-31 And it came to pass, when he saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well. (31) And he said, Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels.

Therefore, two witnesses of scripture (Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24) show All sorts of these "UNHOLY PICTURES" to show holy love and God's will for a couple to be married. There should be NO pictures of wearing jewelry to represent anything holy whatsoever if you are correct. It is ridiculous to think God uses unholy pictures to illustrate holy acts.

So, it is wrong to use ostentatious displays of jewelry, but not jewelry in moderation. The bible does not teach anywhere to ban jewelry altogether.

[The Lemon]

With all this bantering back and forth, and both parties using scripture to back their view, I appreciate the diverse opinions expressed.

Having said that, it is amazing how a thread like this can go on, and on, and on. It is obvious that neither side is going to concede anything so why waste time debating the issue? I realize we all have the ability to become arrogant from our own beliefs and experiences as we express them and try to persuade others of the "right" that we know. Still, I can't help but see how what would be called the more "conservative" side seems to really get upset and aggrivated moreso than the more "liberal" crowd.

Here is the bottom line as I see it. Who are we to judge another mans servant? i have no right to tell either my Apostolic brothers and sisters or even the AOG down the street that issues like jewelry are going to infringe, hinder, or cancel their walk and relationship with God. There simply is no proof whatsoever to create a literal doctrine over this issue. I know enough Christian folks who do not tow all the lines that we deem "standards" and they have wonderful moves of God in there church's and they are everybit as saved as my more conservative brethren. The issue is a heart issue, period.

And as I have said before...I don't have to go to their church, and I don't have to be subject to their teaching.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

With all this bantering back and forth, and both parties using scripture to back their view, I appreciate the diverse opinions expressed.

Having said that, it is amazing how a thread like this can go on, and on, and on. It is obvious that neither side is going to concede anything so why waste time debating the issue? I realize we all have the ability to become arrogant from our own beliefs and experiences as we express them and try to persuade others of the "right" that we know. Still, I can't help but see how what would be called the more "conservative" side seems to really get upset and aggrivated moreso than the more "liberal" crowd.

Here is the bottom line as I see it. Who are we to judge another mans servant? i have no right to tell either my Apostolic brothers and sisters or even the AOG down the street that issues like jewelry are going to infringe, hinder, or cancel their walk and relationship with God. There simply is no proof whatsoever to create a literal doctrine over this issue. I know enough Christian folks who do not tow all the lines that we deem "standards" and they have wonderful moves of God in there church's and they are everybit as saved as my more conservative brethren. The issue is a heart issue, period.

And as I have said before...I don't have to go to their church, and I don't have to be subject to their teaching.

You sorta/kinda asked a question and immediately answered it in the next sentence. The conservative side, when it comes to church, are not willing to let someone else abide by a different set of standards and convictions then them (for the most part). For instance, I can accept someone who refuses to wear a wedding ring -and wouldn't make someone who didn't have one put one on after entering the doors of my church. Yet the person who is adamantly opposed to them will often make someone entering their church, take it off if they happen to be wearing one.

And if you really want to have some fun, bring up the whole "weaker brother" thing if someone starts giving you grief about something!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Everyday living should show Christianity. I don't think the context allows us to separate everyday living but showing forth Christianity to win a husband.

Sure it does:

1Pe 3:1-7 KJV Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (2) While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. (3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; (4) But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (5) For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: (6) Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through something their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

Notice that Sarah is used as an example in reference to her husband in the analogy. Why? Because the context is that women should not be tempted to lure their husbands to Christ through sensuality and outward adornment, as some were obviously tempted to do.

1Pe 3:6 KJV Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Albert Barnes noted in his commentary that it does not mean no wearing of jewelry at all:

It cannot be supposed that all wearing of gold about the person is wrong, for there is nothing evil in gold itself, and there may be some articles connected with apparel made of gold that may in no manner draw off the affections from higher things, and may do nothing to endanger piety. The meaning is, that such ornaments should not be sought; that Christians should be in no way distinguished for them; that they should not engross the time and attention; that Christians should so dress as to show that their minds are occupied with nobler objects, and that in their apparel they should be models of neatness, economy, and plainness. If it should be said that this expression teaches that it is wrong to wear gold at all, it may be replied that on the same principle it would follow that the next clause teaches that it is wrong to put on apparel at all. There is really no difficulty in such expressions. We are to dress decently, and in the manner that will attract least attention, and we are to show that our hearts are interested supremely in more important things than in outward adorning.

Matthew Henry touched on the context I mentioned in relation to the wearing issue.

If the husband be harsh, and averse to religion (which was the case of these good wives to whom the apostle gives this direction), there is no way so likely to win him as a prudent meek behaviour. At least, a quiet spirit will make a good woman easy to herself, which, being visible to others, becomes an amiable ornament to a person in the eyes of the world.

We can also look at the admonishment of men in verse 8 of 1 timothy 2 where they are exhorted to lift their hands and pray every where. I would not think women not adorning themselves with gold, pearls, or costly array would only apply to certain instances because Paul said in like manner also, which points to the previous statement of his address.

1Ti 2:8-10 KJV I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. (9) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (10) But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Notice it mentions women professing godliness.

Some remarks by Barnes:

Or gold, or pearls - It is not to be supposed that all use of gold or pearls as articles of dress is here forbidden; but the idea is, that the Christian female is not to seek these as the adorning which she desires, or is not to imitate the world in these personal decorations. It may be a difficult question to settle how much ornament is allowable, and when the true line is passed. But though this cannot be settled by any exact rules, since much must depend on age, and on the relative rank in life, and the means which one may possess, yet there is one general rule which is applicable to all, and which might regulate all. It is, that the true line is passed when more is thought of this external adorning, than of the ornament of the heart. Any external decoration which occupies the mind more than the virtues of the heart, and which engrosses the time and attention more, we may be certain is wrong. The apparel should be such as not to attract attention; such as becomes our situation; such as will not be particularly singular; such as shall leave the impression that the heart is not fixed on it. It is a poor ambition to decorate a dying body with gold and pearls. It should not be forgotten that the body thus adorned will soon need other habiliments, and will occupy a position where gold and pearls would be a mockery. When the heart is right; when there is true and supreme love for religion, it is usually not difficult to regulate the subject of dress.

Gill:

Or gold, or pearls, or costly array: not that the apostle forbids all use or wear of such things by proper persons, whose circumstances would admit of it, and upon proper occasions, and at proper times: certain it is, that earrings and bracelets of gold, and jewels set in silver and gold, and raiment, costly raiment, were sent by Abraham, and given to Rebekah, and wore by her, who was a woman professing godliness so the church in Psa_45:9 though in figurative expressions, yet in allusion to what is literal, and honourable, and commendable, is said to be in gold of Ophir, and her clothing to be of wrought gold, and to be brought to the king in raiment of needlework: but however justifiable such a dress may be at other seasons, the apostle judged it very improper at the time of public prayer, or at the time of public worship; seeing it might swell the heart of the wearer with pride, so as to forget herself and the business she was come about, and draw the eyes of others upon her; and so cause a general inattention.

THere is an article in the Thompson Chain Bible regarding Rome. In that article it describes the lifestyle, dress, and choices that the early church made which contrasted with the Roman government and their civilian life. If we take an honest look at early church life, there isn't much room for jewelry. Most of their extra possessions were sold to help with the needy. Again I gather from the HG and the scripture as I read it that Paul is suggesting women to put away arraining theirselves in gold or pearls or costly array for the sake of adorning with good works.

How does jewelry take away from good works and a meekness of spirit? We have to look at what the purpose is for wearing jewelry to answer that question.

The purpose is indeed the issue. Some women obviously have a problem with it, and I think women have more of a temptation with that area of appearance than men. Paul addressed the problem men have -- wrath and doubting. But to say all jewelry is forbidden would be contradictory to the examples we showed in Genesis 24 and Ezek 16.

In fact, Peter mentioned Sarah, wife of Abraham, while Abraham sent gold and jewelry to Rebekah. Would there be a contradiction for Abraham to send jewelry to Isaac's future wife while Sarah and Abraham were regarded as examples? I think not.

[mfblume]

typo correction:

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through something their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

Should be...

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by mfblume

typo correction:

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through something their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

Should be...

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

It is really so simple. If I told someone "Let them know you by your actions, not your words." I wouldn't be telling them not to speak! That is the fundamental error being made here and even though it has been explained over and over, to any clear thinking person, it is obvious.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

It is really so simple. If I told someone "Let them know you by your actions, not your words." I wouldn't be telling them not to speak! That is the fundamental error being made here and even though it has been explained over and over, to any clear thinking person, it is obvious.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by randywayne

it is really so simple. If i told someone "let them know you by your actions, not your words." i wouldn't be telling them not to speak! That is the fundamental error being made here and even though it has been explained over and over, to any clear thinking person, it is obvious.

exactly!!!

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

It is really so simple. If I told someone "Let them know you by your actions, not your words." I wouldn't be telling them not to speak! That is the fundamental error being made here and even though it has been explained over and over, to any clear thinking person, it is obvious.

Do you think its Ok to have wrath and doubting? Why then would Paul forbid one action for men but advise against another for women?

The passage does not say, not with your gold, pearls, or costly array..

it says not with gold, pearls, or costly array.

Thats quite different to say what you already have, let it not be what you stand for; and to say not with it period.

In the context Paul is advising men to do thus and thus without wrath and doubting and women to do thus and thus without adorning of gold, pearls, costly array.

By the way Mike, I do like the commentary you quoted. I think history shows and so can the HG what happens to our mind when we consider jewelry at any length. Don't let a blessing become a curse.

We can apply that with money or anything else. However we HAVE To have money to live and operate. We don't have to have jewelry. Its not a necessity, its a luxury.