Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Sister Alvear]

a humble spirit is so precious....and many times hard to find...

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

a humble spirit is so precious....and many times hard to find...

True, true, true Sister Alvear.

[SeekingOne]

I am not exactly a Bible scholar, but it seems that when jewelry is used in a negative fashion, it isn't the jewelry itself. In other words, the scripture doesn't say the jewelry is evil, but how people use it. Sort of like money, it isn't evil but it can certainly turn someone away from God. Just because Jesus instructed the "rich man" to go and sell all that he had, doesn't mean everyone should do that.

Again, I am not comfortable wearing jewelry so I am not defending because I want to wear it. I just don't see anything against jewelry, but on the "spirit" behind some that wear it. Just as I see a negative "spirit" behind some that love money instead of just using money.

If a person couldn't live without their jewelry, money, make-up, whatever, then I would have them question why? Don't seek an outward image, instead seek a deep relationship with Jesus and let THAT image shine through.

As far as jewelry is concerned, my friends wearing jewelry to be pretty is no different than "standards" women wearing a dress or poofy hair to be pretty. If the dress, jewelry, poofy hair etc. draw such attention that it defines them, then MAYBE it is a problem. I wouldn't bother even thinking about it unless it were my child though! LOL I am not the judge of the world.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by SeekingOne

I am not exactly a Bible scholar, but it seems that when jewelry is used in a negative fashion, it isn't the jewelry itself. In other words, the scripture doesn't say the jewelry is evil, but how people use it. Sort of like money, it isn't evil but it can certainly turn someone away from God. Just because Jesus instructed the "rich man" to go and sell all that he had, doesn't mean everyone should do that.

Again, I am not comfortable wearing jewelry so I am not defending because I want to wear it. I just don't see anything against jewelry, but on the "spirit" behind some that wear it. Just as I see a negative "spirit" behind some that love money instead of just using money.

If a person couldn't live without their jewelry, money, make-up, whatever, then I would have them question why? Don't seek an outward image, instead seek a deep relationship with Jesus and let THAT image shine through.

As far as jewelry is concerned, my friends wearing jewelry to be pretty is no different than "standards" women wearing a dress or poofy hair to be pretty. If the dress, jewelry, poofy hair etc. draw such attention that it defines them, then MAYBE it is a problem. I wouldn't bother even thinking about it unless it were my child though! LOL I am not the judge of the world.

Motive is huge. jewelry can be sensual, but it's not the jewelry but the persons heart or manner it's worn.

[Jeffrey]

RDP considers himself an exegete, a scholar even, yet uses scriptures like Jer 4:30 (of course, not a pericope, but a specific verse. ahem) to prove that God prohibits jewlery!

What are you doing,
you who have been plundered?
Why do you dress up in beautiful clothing
and put on gold jewelry?
Why do you brighten your eyes with mascara?
Your primping will do you no good!
The allies who were your lovers
despise you and seek to kill you.

He is clearly describing what the audience at that time would recognize as harlotry. Not one thing in particular, but an entire portrait! Furthermore, his focus in this pericope is not hookers at all! Israel, the figurative woman here, is batting her eyes at lovers who despise her and hate her. God is jealous. He is hurting. We may as well add in the verse "batting the eyes, wearing perfume, making kissy-lips, twirling your hair." But only a legalistic maniac would proof-text a verse like this to use it as a "see, there it is, God prohibits jewelry" verse. Just amazes me.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

RDP considers himself an exegete, a scholar even, yet uses scriptures like Jer 4:30 (of course, not a pericope, but a specific verse. ahem) to prove that God prohibits jewlery!

What are you doing,
you who have been plundered?
Why do you dress up in beautiful clothing
and put on gold jewelry?
Why do you brighten your eyes with mascara?
Your primping will do you no good!
The allies who were your lovers
despise you and seek to kill you.

He is clearly describing what the audience at that time would recognize as harlotry. Not one thing in particular, but an entire portrait! Furthermore, his focus in this pericope is not hookers at all! Israel, the figurative woman here, is batting her eyes at lovers who despise her and hate her. God is jealous. He is hurting. We may as well add in the verse "batting the eyes, wearing perfume, making kissy-lips, twirling your hair." But only a legalistic maniac would proof-text a verse like this to use it as a "see, there it is, God prohibits jewelry" verse. Just amazes me.

I see, you attack me off of your muddied perceptions [strawman fallacy], & expect me to defend it?? I've NEVER referred to myself as a "scholar, or exegete." YOU supplied that, not me Jeffrey. Thus, you assume what you cannot prove!

Regarding Jer. 4, what has happenned to your theory about figurative verses & sinful symbols over in Ezek. 16? Hmmm, you don't apply the same criteria here do you? And part of what the audience would recognize as harlotry was make-up & jewelry! Tks. for the help!

No, I do not think that every woman who wears make-up & jewelry is a harlot. My point was that figurative verses can cut either way [for about the 3rd time now]. But we do see God repeatedly condemning the wearing of jewelry by His people. Are you guys denying that:________?

Remember, the OT was physical in nature, while the NT is spiritual in nature. Thus, the idolatry in the OT, which was repeatedly connected to jewelry, is now done in the heart/spiritually, which is apparently still connected to jewelry from the way you guys fight it so hard!

Still waiting on you to deal w/ I Tim. 2:9, "N-O-T with gold...".

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

I see, you attack me off of your muddied perceptions [strawman fallacy], & expect me to defend it?? I've NEVER referred to myself as a "scholar, or exegete." YOU supplied that, not me Jeffrey. Thus, you assume what you cannot prove!

Regarding Jer. 4, what has happenned to your theory about figurative verses & sinful symbols over in Ezek. 16? Hmmm, you don't apply the same criteria here do you? And part of what the audience would recognize as harlotry was make-up & jewelry! Tks. for the help!

No, I do not think that every woman who wears make-up & jewelry is a harlot. My point was that figurative verses can cut either way [for about the 3rd time now]. But we do see God repeatedly condemning the wearing of jewelry by His people. Are you guys denying that:________?

Remember, the OT was physical in nature, while the NT is spiritual in nature. Thus, the idolatry in the OT, which was repeatedly connected to jewelry, is now done in the heart/spiritually, which is apparently still connected to jewelry from the way you guys fight it so hard!

Still waiting on you to deal w/ I Tim. 2:9, "N-O-T with gold...".

Oh, you've announced yourself as such many times We can hear you loud and clear.

Your point about "figurative verses can cut either way" does nothing more but prove the point many of us are trying to make. They do "cut both ways," if that's the way you like to put it. I have no issues with that either! Our goal is to hear the message and apply the message. You are zooming in on a piece of the story that you are reading without any consideration of the "figurative" or the context. Your treatment of these OT texts is either woefully dishonest or ignorant. But there's really not another option. Can you find an exegesis of those texts from a worthy scholar that supports your position? I would love to read it.

Your bologna about the OT being physical and NT being spiritual really doesn't help your NT proof-texts much. I'd just avoid going down that road if I were you. The OT is part of the same story, just as literal at times, figurative at others, along with it's highly spiritual moments.

If you read back a few threads, I responded to your 1 Tim 2:9 argument. You decided to ignore that. Remember when I talked about the word "not" as something pointing to a "this, not that" context?

If you read this from v8, he appeals to men at their pride issue, and specifically fighting and arguing. To women, he includes them in this humility charge, tells them their beauty doesn't come from primping in the mirror, chasing the latest fads but from doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. Don't miss the forest for the trees, RDP. The "not" is an indicator that the apostle is making a comparison, a contrast, he's setting up a "for example." To take from that a strict prohibitionist's view does a great disservice to his message.

Expensive clothes, fancy hairdos and overdone jewled up clothing is all mentioned here. This takes us back even to Corinth where the rich Christians would go to the assembly parading their social status (very common for the time) -- it is perhaps acknowledged that Paul may have been dealing with that. Not creating a list of rules of prohibitions, but pointing to "true beauty" and "true humility." That's the Gospel way after all.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh, you've announced yourself as such many times We can hear you loud and clear.

Your point about "figurative verses can cut either way" does nothing more but prove the point many of us are trying to make. They do "cut both ways," if that's the way you like to put it. I have no issues with that either! Our goal is to hear the message and apply the message. You are zooming in on a piece of the story that you are reading without any consideration of the "figurative" or the context. Your treatment of these OT texts is either woefully dishonest or ignorant. But there's really not another option. Can you find an exegesis of those texts from a worthy scholar that supports your position? I would love to read it.

Your bologna about the OT being physical and NT being spiritual really doesn't help your NT proof-texts much. I'd just avoid going down that road if I were you. The OT is part of the same story, just as literal at times, figurative at others, along with it's highly spiritual moments.

If you read back a few threads, I responded to your 1 Tim 2:9 argument. You decided to ignore that. Remember when I talked about the word "not" as something pointing to a "this, not that" context?

If you read this from v8, he appeals to men at their pride issue, and specifically fighting and arguing. To women, he includes them in this humility charge, tells them their beauty doesn't come from primping in the mirror, chasing the latest fads but from doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it. Don't miss the forest for the trees, RDP. The "not" is an indicator that the apostle is making a comparison, a contrast, he's setting up a "for example." To take from that a strict prohibitionist's view does a great disservice to his message.

Expensive clothes, fancy hairdos and overdone jewled up clothing is all mentioned here. This takes us back even to Corinth where the rich Christians would go to the assembly parading their social status (very common for the time) -- it is perhaps acknowledged that Paul may have been dealing with that. Not creating a list of rules of prohibitions, but pointing to "true beauty" and "true humility." That's the Gospel way after all.

Get out of your "explain away" mode Jeffrey & just take the Word as it is stated. "....N-O-T with gold...." will still be there when you're finished w/ your eraser!

You often show your ignorance when you deride angles that I bring into the discussion that you've never considered. "Speaking evil of the things which they know not of," sound familiar? For ex., you mock the concept that the OT was physical in nature [perhaps you should reread II Cor. 2-3], but the NT is spiritual in nature [see same chp.'s], which honestly reveals your lack of study.

What in the world does Corinth have to do w/ I Tim. 2? Timothy was in Ephesus, not Corinth!

Oh yea', the "scholars" that you look for regarding both the OT & NT texts abound. Do your own homework...I'm immersed in studying something else right now [the pre-existence issue]. But, I will point you to early writers such as Clement, Tertullian, or even Calvin. David Bernard's "Practical Holiness/In Search of Holiness," Nate Wilson's, "In bonds of love," etc. lists numerous quotations regarding the jewelry issue. The list would be too voluminous to cite here, & I do not have my library w/ me! In sum, do your own homework [hint, ya' might wanna' see how the Orthodox Jews viewed (& still do as I understand it) jewelry, since every NT writer had a Jewish paradigm].

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Get out of your "explain away" mode Jeffrey & just take the Word as it is stated. "....N-O-T with gold...." will still be there when you're finished w/ your eraser!

You often show your ignorance when you deride angles that I bring into the discussion that you've never considered. "Speaking evil of the things which they know not of," sound familiar? For ex., you mock the concept that the OT was physical in nature [perhaps you should reread II Cor. 2-3], but the NT is spiritual in nature [see same chp.'s], which honestly reveals your lack of study.

What in the world does Corinth have to do w/ I Tim. 2? Timothy was in Ephesus, not Corinth!

Oh yea', the "scholars" that you look for regarding both the OT & NT texts abound. Do your own homework...I'm immersed in studying something else right now [the pre-existence issue]. But, I will point you to early writers such as Clement, Tertullian, or even Calvin. David Bernard's "Practical Holiness/In Search of Holiness," Nate Wilson's, "In bonds of love," etc. lists numerous quotations regarding the jewelry issue. The list would be too voluminous to cite here, & I do not have my library w/ me! In sum, do your own homework [hint, ya' might wanna' see how the Orthodox Jews viewed (& still do as I understand it) jewelry, since every NT writer had a Jewish paradigm].

Where's that head-slapping emoticon? Ah.. nevermind.

As far as every response from you being "NOT with gold" you're like talking to a brick wall. "Explain away?" Is that what you call exegesis? Here we go 'round the same pony over and over and over and over. Like I said, I'll just keep repeating "Not with braids" and smugly feel like I'm so witty.

What's your point with 2 Corinthians 2-3? Chapter 3 points fully to Christ. But other than that, I can't wait to see what a trainwreck you did to poor Paul in that letter too.

As far as me mentioning Corinth... are you that dense to not following the context of my remarks? I never ONCE claimed that Timothy was in Corinth. At least your ignorance is consistent. Go back and read what I was saying there and maybe you can actually give me a legit response.

I ask for NT/OT scholars and you give me Bernard and Nate Wilson?

Hint: Have you been with Hassidic jews lately? THEY WEAR JEWELRY!!!! I mean, if we believe they represent where we should be and what we should look like.

[Truthseeker]

I find it interesting there's over 600 or so commands in the OT and not one mentions jewelry.

No law no transgression? Sin comes by law.