Originally Posted by Tithesmeister
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you did. That was the gist of the conversation though. I believe it has been mentioned several times in this thread.
I cover this below.
I beg to differ with you here. These are both classic examples of allegories. I will provide the Merriam Webster dictionary definition below . . .
allegory noun
al·le·go·ry | \ ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē \
plural allegories
Definition of allegory
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
a writer known for his use of allegory
also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM sense 2
The second definition is the simplest and most direct. An allegory is a symbolic representation. So one thing symbolizes something else. In Galatians, Paul uses the historical events of Issac, being the promised child of Abraham being symbolic of the New Covenant, while Ishmael, being the child of bondage symbolized the bondage that was typical of the Old Covenant.
Bible, King James Version
Gal.4
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
This is the only mention of the actual word "allegory" in the Bible.
Now let's see if the passages of Paul and Peter are truly allegories. Does something physical (wearing clothes, jewelry and plaiting hair) symbolize something figurative? I believe it does.
[8] 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.
Now we have two ways that we can interpret these scripture verses. Literally or allegorically. The literal translation would be that in verse 10 that a woman would literally, (or as the words are actually written) say that Sister Charity? would be coming to church dressed in her good works. (My doesn't she look good today, dressed in her deeds that she has done for the poor, and her teachings to the children, and doesn't her veil look good, that is her Bible study good works. Oh no, I know that she appears to be naked, but she is not, because you are failing to see her good works that she is clothed in).
Does this make any sense? Of course not! This verse does NOT mean that she is literally wearing good works instead of apparel, jewelry, and the manner in which she fixes her hair. This passage is obviously intended to be interpreted as an allegory. Let's try it that way.
Here comes Sister Charity. She is wearing clothes of course. She has her hair fixed in an attractive fashion, (these Pentecostal ladies know how to "DO" hair don't they?) she is wearing some jewelry too I see. She is a very attractive lady altogether, she wears nice clothes, fixes her hair in an attractive manner, her jewelry is tastefully worn, attractive but not trashy, sort of understated. She is altogether a testimony to her peers of a faithful Christian, dressed in good taste, she brings honor to her husband and to her God with her appearance.
But that is not the part God sees, because remember . . .
1Sam.16
[7] But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
While the men are trying to see whether she is wearing a wedding band, or how far her sleeves fall past her elbows, and whether her hair is braided? or merely twisted, or curled, or (God forbid), permed?!, God is looking on her heart. He is looking at her time spent in prayer, her efforts feeding the hungry and the comfort that she has given to the little girl in the neighborhood that she picked up and brought to church, who lives in very bad circumstances and needs someone to give her some hope and be a mentor to her. God looks at this woman's heart that is "clothed" in good deeds, and says that this woman's deeds are more beautiful than any amount of jewelry, any amount of fine clothes and the best coiffed hair ever!
While man is judging her by her outer appearance, God is seeing her good deeds and saying "OH, what a beautiful, Godly woman this is". This would be the allegorical interpretation of this scripture.
Likewise Peter is certainly speaking allegorically.
1Pet.3
[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;
These scripture passages are saying essentially identical things. To prohibit adorning with gold literally, would be to prohibit plaiting hair, which is typically not done by even conservative pastors. Consistency would also require that, if you were to interpret this literally, that you would also prohibit putting on apparel. NOBODY preaches that. When they get to that phrase (putting on apparel) they kick back into allegorical mode.
Flip flops aren't just something worn on the feet. Wearing gold? Prohibited by the apostles! Two places!
Wearing clothes? Of course wearing clothes is mandatory. And they quote the same two verse.
This is how I believe these passages should be understood.
And we still don't have ANY scripture that says wearing jewelry is a sin . . . Just in case anybody is keeping score.
|
Threaded Mode
