Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[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.

[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!