Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
Indeed, because I won't allow the wordly liberals to nullify NT instructions to the church.
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
It wasn't the individual piece or kernel of gold, the pearl or even an expensive piece of clothing, 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.
?????
Linear Mode
