Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But would you not agree that the context is showing what people depend upon for (in Peter's case) winning lost husbands, and (in Paul's case) showing Christian character? That is a far cry from saying no jewelry at all.

If Jewelry would ever threaten the condition of another soul, I would think the conviction of the Holy Ghost would always lead to abstinence from it. In Paul's case, I do not think the Spirit would every lead us contrary to showing Christian character. Maybe this is really what its about anyway, the character of Christ. We read into the law of no jewelry at all when its really how we can better show the character of Christ. Can we see the positive, versus the negative, in this scripture?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Murder is not the same as what occurred in the Old Testament. Even Jesus said nothing about the Centurion's lifestyle in the military where men are killed in battle. While the Old Testament said THOU SHALT NOT KILL, God demanded war and death of enemies. It was no contradiction. Killing in war was not the point of killing in the Ten Commandments. And all of that was in the time of the one covenant. So there is no difference in the New Covenant with warfare, etc.., but it's only that warfare is not carried on by the church. Furthermore, there would not be a picture of God killing someone to show His love in the sense that He gives jewelery to illustrate His love.

Actually what I meant by this is that Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek and to give one that sues you our coat and cloke both, rather than despising him for taking it. Thats a stark contrast wouldn't you think?

Originally Posted by mfblume

But there is nothing specifically said about covenantal attire in the sense of priestly robes changing from one covenant to the next. Does it simply not make more sense that dress is simply not the issue it is proposed to be in the eyes of whom I call traditionalists? Aside from plain modesty, it is not an issue.

Our only example is Christ for he is now our high priest. We look at what he might have worn compared to the priestly attire of the Old Covenant. There is a stark difference. Why did Christ choose this lifestyle and why does he ask us to follow him in the same mindset of modesty and simplicity?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Advising against it is a far cry from forbidding it wholesale, too, though.

I know the HG would indeed bid us to all take Paul's advice, else why would it be deemed as the Holy Writ? Now as to the penalty for not taking his advice, thats what is debatable.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I appreciate your civil and intelligent manner. You bring forth a much better communication than rdp has done here.

Thanks and though I may not use RDP methods, I agree with the end result. I just reach that agreement differently.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If Jewelry would ever threaten the condition of another soul, I would think the conviction of the Holy Ghost would always lead to abstinence from it.

I agree. But what the Spirit convicts us to do is the issue. Also, jewelry is not something that would threaten the condition of the average soul.

In Paul's case, I do not think the Spirit would every lead us contrary to showing Christian character. Maybe this is really what its about anyway, the character of Christ. We read into the law of no jewelry at all when its really how we can better show the character of Christ. Can we see the positive, versus the negative, in this scripture?

The overall scriptures must be weighed out, and not a single verse. That means the question of God using a sinful metaphor to represent a holy act makes nonsense out of the picture.

Actually what I meant by this is that Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek and to give one that sues you our coat and cloke both, rather than despising him for taking it. Thats a stark contrast wouldn't you think?

Yes, it is a contrast of covenants. But it shows no contradiction. Contrasts and contradictions are two different things. Because God can change hearts, stoning someone for a sin is no longer the remedy under the new covenant. Either way, RDP alleges a contradiction in the way God looks at things.

Our only example is Christ for he is now our high priest. We look at what he might have worn compared to the priestly attire of the Old Covenant. There is a stark difference. Why did Christ choose this lifestyle and why does he ask us to follow him in the same mindset of modesty and simplicity?

He had a very expensive robe... one with no seams. A seamless garment was costly array, really. So again it all boils down to lack of understanding the context of Peter's and Paul's words.

I know the HG would indeed bid us to all take Paul's advice, else why would it be deemed as the Holy Writ? Now as to the penalty for not taking his advice, thats what is debatable.

Actually what exactly was his advice is the issue. It is not total abstinence from jewelry. It is forbiddence of dependence of jewelry to show Christian character. No matter which way we slice it, the context is not saying never wear jewels.

Thanks and though I may not use RDP methods, I agree with the end result. I just reach that agreement differently.

Although I claim the end result is traditional error and misinterpretation of the scriptures due to not catching the context, I appreciate your civility. You are also not using ridiculous arguments that rdp uses, that make no sense.

[mfblume]

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

Thank you!!!!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

Oh how rich! "Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their Christianity...". Since you say that Paul "stated" this, surely you can demonstrate where he "states" this:__________? More assumptions from the Mike dug-out that fail to be domonstrated! Not surprising at this point......

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

And keeping Titus and Timothy in perspective, it's a one-sided letter. We aren't fortunate to know exactly what was being addressed. This is the difficulty with epistles. But we do know that quite often a specific problem was being addressed --- and there were some consistent problems (thank God for those problematic people, or we wouldn't have half our New Testament!).... flaunting social status through separate communion tables, an abundance of wealth, using gifts not in love, disorderly services with people using tongues in public, ideas about the body, the dead and the resurrection, heretical teachings about Jesus' divinity, Judaizers, sexual immorality, marriage and divorce, giving/offering, what it means to be saved (usually explained by saying "how" we are saved first), and on and on.

It's quite silly for someone to go into Timothy, take a verse, scream "can't you read" and disregarding any effort to discover what the author originally meant. It's not silly, it's ignorant.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

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.
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.

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.

[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.