Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

It seems that Timothy was having some issues in his churches in terms of what was going on during the worship service...He had already talked of the need for prayer for other leaders, and then he seems to get specific. Apparently the men were fighting, and the woman were trying to draw inappropriate attention to themselves.

A modern-time Epistle:

"Women, I've heard there are some problems with some of you flaunting yourselves around at worship. You have forgotten what true godliness should be -- not with fancy prom dresses, shopping sprees and elaborate hairstyles, but appropriateness, gentleness and all things in love as well as good conduct."

All of Paul's comments are in a one-two-three punch, in the flow of appropriateness at worship. He gives a few words to the men, and then says "likewise," transitioning the subject to the women.

Paul states it positively first, and then negatively. He then says, “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” The question comes up here, Is it a sin to braid your hair or to wear jewelry? I don’t think that’s the point of Paul’s statement. And the reason I think that is the similar passage in 1 Peter 3:3-4, which says, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the
imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” Notice what Peter speaks against: the braiding of hair, the putting on of gold jewelry, and the wearing of clothes. If we read that passage in a wooden way, it would
prohibit wearing clothes. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that the clothes shouldn’t be the main thing. And, likewise, the braided hair shouldn’t be the main thing (or whatever way you fix your hair). And the gold jewelry shouldn’t be the
main thing (or whatever other kind of jewelry you might wear). Do you see the point? It’s not to strictly prohibit a certain kind of hair-do or specific kinds of jewelry. The point is that your outward appearance should not be the focus of your life. That’s not the
most important thing. That’s not what you should be known for. Instead, what you should be known for is your Christexalting life. In the passage I just read from 1 Peter, it says, “let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’ sight is very precious.” And in our passage for this morning, Paul says that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper for
women who profess godliness—with good works.”

The above was from a friend. I've often considered... IF Paul was prohibiting something to the Church of Ephesus, I don't believe he was, but IF he was, what does that mean? We STILL would need to know what the situation was, why it needed addressing, what the specific prohibition was (and meant) and then determine it's contemporary application (actually about 20 other steps before that). In other words... If the conehead veil was a modern piece of art in Paul's day, the symbolized one's affiliation with the cult, and Paul said "women, do not wear a conehead veil" (I have no clue what a 'conehead veil' is by the way, serves the illustration) we could take it centuries later to mean that women should never wear a "conehead veil." The reality is the "conehead veil" was a specific time in a specific location and because it had a specific meaning. In Ephesus, it has been discovered time and again the issues of the poor and rich. We do a disservice to the Text to forget the historical context (or not even bother with it) of what was going on and what this broided hair, pearls and gold were referring to. Anyone who insists to read these documents as "clear and plain" has shown nothing but contempt and irresponsibility with approaching documents of antiquity.

All of that to render the text ineffective? Why not just believe the Bible Jeffrey? Does your cultural hypothesis also go for I Tim. 3:16? Was that just something for Ephesus to consider also? What about Paul's teachings on faith/repentance? Just for Ephesus...right? The context of chp. 2:9 has to do w/ the decorative ornamentation...which has a "not" inextricably tied to it. See the HCSB, NLT, etc....could not be plainer. Honestly, it's beyond me how in the world you cannot understand this. You seem to possess some educational skills...but apparently not enough !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So the first argument is immediate meaning and applied meaning. The argument that Paul is not issuing a universal edict prohibiting the wearing of jewelry.

Assumptions into the text, never stated by the same!

The second, is the argument of canonical inconsistency. There has never been such a prohibition in scripture.

Contrare Monfrare...Deut. 7:25, Ex. 33, Gen. 35, Is. 3, I Tim. 2, I Ptr. 3, etc. Next....

Canaanite and Israelite men and women wore jewelry and cosmetics.

They also sacrificed babies to pagan gods...should we now follow that example also? Remember that bit about "consistency"? BTW, God repeatedly chided them for their ornamentation [Ex. 33, Is. 3 , etc.].

The reasons were personal beautification (even seen int he prieslty costumes), currency, evidence of wealth (this is a different meaning for jewelry than we have today, although in some extremes there's some similarities), symbol of social status (unique to Ancient Near East culture -- an example would be Saul's attire as King) and finally religious function.

All of which serve as the exact reason Paul & Peter forbid it in the NT....next....

Jewlelry had religious significance in the ANE. It identified the religious beliefs or position of the wearer, such as the Israelite High Priest. Some ascribed supernatural powers to their religious jewels/amulets. It is commonly taught, even among the Jews, that it is these amulets, religious jewels that are condemned as idolatry in Isa 3:16-21. Finally, jewelry was sometimes used as an offering to the gods to be placed on their images or temples. Israelites even did this in Numbers 31:50.

Appealling to the Jews now are we? Then appeal to the Othodox Jews as well. How much decorative ornamentation do they wear? Regardless, they are not the NT church, or the temple of God. Go to your Governors house & try to decorate it. It's not your house...& if you've been water & Spirit baptized in Jesus' Name...neither is your body; you've been bought w/ a price.

That's the ANE, now here's some research from Greco-Roman culture:

There are many similarities between the Greco-Roman world and the ANE. Perhaps this explains why there is less information about the use of jewelry in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. We do know that jewelry was common in the Roman Empire. The Oxford History of the Classical World has this to say:

The wearing of excessive jewellery [sic] was a practice which [Roman] legislators had long since given up trying to curb, though moralists still condemned it. Pliny rails against women who wore pearls on their fingers, on their earrings, and on their slippers, and reports with disapproval how Caligula's first Empress, Lollia Paulina, turned up to a feast wearing emeralds and pearls on her head, hair, ears, neck, and fingers.[27]

It continues, noting that rings were very common. Men wore rings as signets, while women wore them to signify engagement.[28] In fact, it seems that the Romans invented the engagement ring.[29] Rings in the Roman Empire are particularly interesting. At various times, different types of rings were used to signify social status—slave or free, citizen or non-citizen, aristocrat or commoner. These rules were enforced by law, but were gradually relaxed as more people wanted to be able to wear fancier rings.[30]

Because the Greco-Roman world was a pagan society, Jewelry in this time doubtless functioned in much the same way as it did in the ANE with regard to its religious aspects. It probably was accorded supernatural powers and used as protection from evil or a method to persuade the gods to act in a certain way.


To be continued...

Nice concession above regarding the Roman influence of rings! Only furthers my point...will you also embrace their "trinity" doctrine? Why not, since apparently the Bible itself is not authoritative enough!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I put together some information on Jewelry in the ANE, in Greco-Roman culture (which was the cultural context, in part, of the New Testament), now we will turn to Jewelry in Scripture:

One passage that seems to prohibit jewelry against a number of passages that support it or refer to it in a positive manner is weak evidence.

1 Peter 3:1-6 tends to be more clear than 1 Timothy 2, leading people to be more confident about conclusions in the former. Here, Peter is contrasting true beauty with false. He says, "Your beauty should reside, not in outward adornment—the braiding of the hair, or jewelery, or dress—but in the inmost center of your being, with its imperishable ornament, a gentle, quiet spirit, which is of high value in the sight of God" (3:3, 4, NEB). In other words, real beauty that lasts comes from inner virtues, not outer appearance.

Verse 3 says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment" (NIV).[34] So Peter is speaking of the source of one's beauty. This could be interpreted, then, as instructions on beauty, not instructions on what is worn. In other words, according to this interpretation, the issue is not whether a woman wears jewelry, but whether she uses it as her source of beauty. Peter says that the source of beauty should be "a gentle and quiet spirit" (3:4). It is also important to note that in verses 1 and 2, Peter gives the reason for his instructions: "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives" (NIV). We see again Peter's emphasis on internals, rather than externals.

But again, one passage that seems to prohibit jewelry against a number of passages that support it or refer to it in a positive manner is weak evidence.

Positive uses of jewelry in scripture include Gen 2:10-12, the High Priest wore jewelry (Exodus 28)... look at Lucifer before he fell "you were the model of perfection, perfect in beauty, every precious stone adorned you, your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared" (vv. 12-13), Ezekiel 16, Rev 17:4 (both Babylon and the true bride are wearing jewels),

So now we've stooped to appealling to the devil for support of our doctrines??? Seriously Jeffrey, why don't you just get honest w/ the NT instructions to the church? Yes, I could take the time to deal w/ each of your unbiblical assertions, but I've done just that for about 60 pages now.

Oh yea', I may have missed something, but where does Rev. state that the true bride was "wearing jewels":_________? And, if you're going to appeal to "positive uses of jewelry" to support the jewelry message today, then can I also appeal to the volume of Scriptures that condemn jewelry also? Then you wanna' talk to ME about "inconsistency"?????

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

So now we've stooped to appealling to the devil for support of our doctrines??? Seriously Jeffrey, why don't you just get honest w/ the NT instructions to the church? Yes, I could take the time to deal w/ each of your unbiblical assertions, but I've done just that for about 60 pages now.

Oh yea', I may have missed something, but where does Rev. state that the true bride was "wearing jewels":_________? And, if you're going to appeal to "positive uses of jewelry" to support the jewelry message today, then can I also appeal to the volume of Scriptures that condemn jewelry also? Then you wanna' talk to ME about "inconsistency"?????

Seriously??!! You couldn't possibly have missed the fact that this was BEFORE his fall.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

For every text in the Bible that some would use to say that Bible is speaking negatively about jewelry, there are 2 or 3 in which God speaks of them favorably.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried! I looked exhaustively at these "positive" verses regarding jewelry about 2 yrs. ago & sorry to tell you, but the anti-jewelry verses outweighes the so-called "positive" verses. To make matters even worse, virtually everyone of the "positive" verses are metaphorical! And, EVERYONE of them are OT passages....just as polygamy, animal sacrifices, etc. Sorry Charlie, try again!

The real issues come down to:

Self-worth and Pride: Where does your self-worth come from? Is it jewels? Riches? Material possessions? Are all things in our life submitted to the lordship of Christ?

If all things are submitted to the Lordship of Christ, then you'll obey His written Word...not go thru 4-5 posts to render it ineffective.

Seeing Paul's exhortation (like many do with 1 Cor 11) as some new prohibition in Scripture is frightening.

Not "new" at all. Is. 3, Ex. 33, Gen. 35, etc. all condemn the literal ornamentation of His people. Metaphorical verses do not override literal condemnations by YHWH.

Busy 2mmorrow, but try to look in briefly....rdp.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Seriously??!! You couldn't possibly have missed the fact that this was BEFORE his fall.

And you couldn't have possibly missed the fact that his ornaments played a part in his fall??? Why-else would the Holy Spirit take the time to reference it in expounding on Lucifer's fall??

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by rdp

And you couldn't have possibly missed the fact that his ornaments played a part in his fall??? Why-else would the Holy Spirit take the time to reference it in expounding on Lucifer's fall??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Talk about reading into Scripture.

Why would God have permitted such a thing?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Nice concession above regarding the Roman influence of rings! Only furthers my point...will you also embrace their "trinity" doctrine? Why not, since apparently the Bible itself is not authoritative enough!

I'll let you try again with that insane comment. Free chance.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

All of that to render the text ineffective? Why not just believe the Bible Jeffrey? Does your cultural hypothesis also go for I Tim. 3:16? Was that just something for Ephesus to consider also? What about Paul's teachings on faith/repentance? Just for Ephesus...right? The context of chp. 2:9 has to do w/ the decorative ornamentation...which has a "not" inextricably tied to it. See the HCSB, NLT, etc....could not be plainer. Honestly, it's beyond me how in the world you cannot understand this. You seem to possess some educational skills...but apparently not enough !

Well, I tried.

You failed to consider rationally another opinion and instead tell me I just need to "believe the Bible." Laughable. Hey, Mr. RDP, I DO believe the Bible. That's exactly what we've been discussing the last 100 pages.

I have no time or desire to continue this meddling. Go on living your life happy and with good conscience, I'll do the same.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

And you couldn't have possibly missed the fact that his ornaments played a part in his fall??? Why-else would the Holy Spirit take the time to reference it in expounding on Lucifer's fall??

Yeah, no "speculation" going on here

If you're going to speculate, don't stretch so far. That looks like it hurts.