Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Just bear in mind that the Golden rule of interpretation is a man-made philosophy.

Scriptural understanding has to come by revelation from the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL truth)

Rom 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter

2 Cor 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Looking at 1 Peter 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;

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.

I believe this scripture contextually is saying that outward beauty should not be the primary focus of a Christian woman, but rather the inward man should be decked with meekness and a quiet spirit. If a woman (or a man as the case may be) is focused on spiritual disciplines, I don't think there will be an unnecessary emphasis on outward beauty. In fact, we know from the bible that our present body will not inherit heaven, so why would a Christian care so much about "outward beauty".

1 Cor 7:31
And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away

Coupling this scripture with 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Tim 2:9, I see all three scriptures saying be modest.

However, if someone else reads the scriptures and comes away with the understanding that gold jewelry is wrong to put on, I'd have to ask is it okay if I put on silver jewelry or aluminum jewelry?

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

And I should remind YOU that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 was addressed to this "city" in a very literal sense. Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Why, of course I've heard of it. It's a literal method of interpretation (one of many).

The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.

If the words are employed in their natural and primitive signification, the sense which they express is the proper literal sense; whereas, if they are used with a figurative and derived meaning, the sense, though still literal, is usually called the metaphorical or figurative sense. Examples through comparing John 1:6 and 1:29.

A secondary application in this area is to realize that the King James
Version of the bible uses the English language of AD 1611. Many words and phrases have no meaning to us today or have entirely different meanings than what they had 380 years ago. This has led to serious misunderstandings of the bible and many erroneous practices and false doctrines.

The GROI is pretty elementary and a pre-interpreter's introduction to exegetical learning.

And everything I said that you replied employed an interpretive choice, which I explained. These rules are not rigid, static laws, but are rather tools (that must be decided when to use which one) for dynamic interpretation of learning what the passage meant originally, from the original writer to the original audience, and then understanding what that could mean to a contemporary reader.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

And I should remind YOU that I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 was addressed to this "city" in a very literal sense. Ever heard of the Golden Rule of Interpretation?

Then using the Red Sea as a type of our applicability of water baptism was also "poor biblical interpreation" & "unfortunate" ! Poor Paul, what was he thinking??????????

Actually, we have permission to use the Red Sea as a figurative type of baptism, since the Apostle has already done so in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.

The "Golden Rule" of using types and shadows

Also, Paul was not saying our Baptism is literally the same as miraculously passing through the Red Sea -- it served as a metaphor (obviously) of their new life away from Egypt (the place of slavery and bondage).

People can get carried away with types and shadows until they begin forming doctrines BASED on types and shadows, rather than types and shadows serving as illustrations for teachings BASED on Scripture.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

1st off, it's hilarious to watch Max squirm about the costly apparel issue & try to foster the ol' cultural card relative to Ephesus [tired & worn out excuse]. Curiously, he doesn't say the same thing about Paul's teachings on repentace, faith, etc. Tell us Max, was that also merely to be understood by Ephesus, & not applicable to us today??? Then YOU wanna' talk to ME about "poor biblical interpretation". Puhleeeeeeeeeezze...

Now, to the priests: The priests were not the Temple, dwelling place of God, in any way, as we are today. This was a temporal deal typifying the beauty of our Great High Priest who bears us on His shoulders & Heart. But, when it came to God's historical places of dwelling, no jewels on the outside! Max can scorn it all day long, but Paul repeatedly drew from typology to form his doctrinal posturing. Max is the one who apparently needs some lessons in Hermeneutics.

You seem like you value interpretation. Surely, you know it's not wise to make blankets statements about entire letters. Themes of forgiveness, grace, repentance and faith are quite universal and appeal to know specific cultural theme. They may get fleshed out in cultural ways in the letter, but ultimately these timeless PRINCIPLES are just that, timeless

It's interesting how you again cling to types and shadows as primary reasoning for extra-biblical doctrines. The priests (we are today "priests unto God) were somehow different? Who's doing the squirming right now? Not me

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Reading this thread. I agree, the "temple of God" issue is irrelevant to what you guys are discussing. Somewhat of a distracting argument. Is he suggesting God loves jewels on angels that he created but not on humans that he created? And why he makes that argument is confusing, because he doesn't believe the jewels ol' Lucy had were even legitimate (he hasn't quite said God looked at them as sin though).

Further, the "temple of God' analogy is used by Paul to talk about sexual uncleanness, not fashion.

Thank you for your restraint and response. The temple to which Paul was referring was indeed their physical bodies with which the Corinthians had a propensity to dishonor with certain priestessess.
As far as jewelry is concerned, the issue is ostentatiousness versus modesty. If we have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts and put on the Lord Jesus Christ and are exercizing the 9 fruit of the Spirit, esp meekness and temperance it is no longer an issue. I think looking for outward evidence of someone's "holiness" is a mistake and leads into areas like green fog.
"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh". Galatians 5:16


"Keep your words sweet for you may have to eat them"

[rdp]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Just bear in mind that the Golden rule of interpretation is a man-made philosophy.

Scriptural understanding has to come by revelation from the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL truth)

Rom 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter

2 Cor 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Looking at 1 Peter 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;

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.

I believe this scripture contextually is saying that outward beauty should not be the primary focus of a Christian woman, but rather the inward man should be decked with meekness and a quiet spirit. If a woman (or a man as the case may be) is focused on spiritual disciplines, I don't think there will be an unnecessary emphasis on outward beauty. In fact, we know from the bible that our present body will not inherit heaven, so why would a Christian care so much about "outward beauty".

1 Cor 7:31
And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away

Coupling this scripture with 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Tim 2:9, I see all three scriptures saying be modest.

However, if someone else reads the scriptures and comes away with the understanding that gold jewelry is wrong to put on, I'd have to ask is it okay if I put on silver jewelry or aluminum jewelry?

Both the context & actual text itself would prohibit any form of decorative ornamentation. So far as the silver goes, see Deut. 7:25. The plural pronoun "them" grammatically relates back to "their" [i.e., nations in the promised land] in the first clause of the sentence structure.

I would actually agree w/ your take on I Ptr. 3:3, but simply point you to the NIV, NLT for a more contextual translation.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Actually, we have permission to use the Red Sea as a figurative type of baptism, since the Apostle has already done so in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.

The "Golden Rule" of using types and shadows

Also, Paul was not saying our Baptism is literally the same as miraculously passing through the Red Sea -- it served as a metaphor (obviously) of their new life away from Egypt (the place of slavery and bondage).

People can get carried away with types and shadows until they begin forming doctrines BASED on types and shadows, rather than types and shadows serving as illustrations for teachings BASED on Scripture.

Yes, but the gold/silver served as types of glory [gold/purity] & redemption [silver]..all of which are internal as opposed to external, as it was then, to God's place of dwelling. Do you deny this?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

You seem like you value interpretation. Surely, you know it's not wise to make blankets statements about entire letters. Themes of forgiveness, grace, repentance and faith are quite universal and appeal to know specific cultural theme. They may get fleshed out in cultural ways in the letter, but ultimately these timeless PRINCIPLES are just that, timeless

Okay, then be consistent w/ the same letter, same author, same Holy Spirit, same, same, same......

It's interesting how you again cling to types and shadows as primary reasoning for extra-biblical doctrines. The priests (we are today "priests unto God) were somehow different? Who's doing the squirming right now? Not me

The OT was natural/physical in nature, the NT is spiritual in nature. We are not "literal" priests, but this is spoken of in a metaphorical sense. Thus, the "jewels" worn by the priests of the OT are fulfilled in NT believer's in a spiritual, not physical, sense. The very definition of typology is the study of physical phenomenon's which are inherently proleptical/anticipatory of a future event. The OT dwelling places of God prefigured its NT fulfillment in Christ, & ultimately the Ecclessia...which the glory resides WITHIN, not WITHOUT.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes, but the gold/silver served as types of glory [gold/purity] & redemption [silver]..all of which are internal as opposed to external, as it was then, to God's place of dwelling. Do you deny this?

Jesus would affirm the same, or maybe borrow the illustration.

The weightier matters are of the heart, the internal motive, the inside. The valuable part of a man is not where he comes from, who is father is, how much money he has, what he looks like -- it's what he is, determined by his heart. Our richness and value, our investments, they should all be based on the redeemed heart within us.

Those ways you use gold and silver -- sure, they can be used figuratively.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by rdp

The OT was natural/physical in nature, the NT is spiritual in nature. We are not "literal" priests, but this is spoken of in a metaphorical sense. Thus, the "jewels" worn by the priests of the OT are fulfilled in NT believer's in a spiritual, not physical, sense. The very definition of typology is the study of physical phenomenon's which are inherently proleptical/anticipatory of a future event. The OT dwelling places of God prefigured its NT fulfillment in Christ, & ultimately the Ecclessia...which the glory resides WITHIN, not WITHOUT.

Oh no, he came back with the burgundy (a type of sacrifice)

Okay, then be consistent w/ the same letter, same author, same Holy Spirit, same, same, same......

Consistency is not uniformity. I would argue that I do use consistency. I'm shocked that was your response.

The NT is very much natural and spiritual. I'm not following. Where do you get this from? The Kingdom of God on Earth goal was the same for our predecessors. Do you mean, the concept of a literal Kingdom is replaced by a spiritual one? I can follow that. But make no mistake, the Kingdom we are part of is very much physical. The love we profess, is very much to be acted out in literal ways today. The abstracts that make us cry, also fuel us to act right now in the present. "Thy will be done... on earth as it is in heaven."

I'm glad you spot the metaphor in that we are priests. Of course, I could do what you did to Jeffrey, and just keep repeating that that scripture is plain and literal, and demand you not compromise from the clear and plain reading of it, afterward citing some Golden Rule of something or another But I'm glad you see it's a metaphor. In some ways, it's a reality. What does a priest do? They offer up sacrifice. They interact with God directly. That role is fulfilled in Jesus, our High Priest, and we can continue to have access today -- so we are, in many ways, "priests unto God."

As a type, the sparkle and bling of the priest garments (representative of their sacred affiliation with God's glory) are most certainly fulfilled AS A TYPE in downpayment of the Spirit. ("we hold these treasures in earthen vessels")

However, that does not negate the use of jewelry in a positive sense in the OT, nor make it's use negative because of a anagalous type. The type itself doesn't even make it negative, it showed it's fulfillment -- and continues it's positive identification.