Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

I went back 8 pages from the latest in order to find your reference to a question about costly array. If this is not it, then please repeat it. But here is what I think you are referring to:

Originally Posted by rdp

Does "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel" mean what it clearly instructs:___________?

Put it this way, if you think it is clearly saying to never wear jewelry, pearls or costly array, that is not what it is saying. There is more than that to it, due to the context. We have to apply the same manner of interpretation that is required with Peter's words. In other words, it is saying the same thing Peter said when he wrote, "not... the wearing of apparel." And this is an important comparison of writings. Peter's words show that the "clear instruction" people derive from the writing is not always what was intended by the writing. For example, while considering Paul's words in your reference, to read Peter's words in the same manner you are reading Paul's words to Timothy would make one think we were being told to never wear clothing.

Nothing in the Greek says anything about costly in Peter. When we read 1 Tim 2:9 and read the term "costly" we realize that is what Peter likely meant. So this proves that people's views of what they think is plain reading is not always what the context is actually intended to relate.

The bible is written in such a way that you cannot just take a sentence out of the context and offer its plain reading to people without overviewing the overall context. Otherwise, Peter said we should not wear clothes. Again, NO GREEK INFLECTION IS INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL READING TO INFER COSTLINESS IN PETER'S WORDS.

Paul was not saying to never wear gold or jewelry or costly array. It was an issue of appearance and "over-the-top" flamboyance. It is dressing in a manner that is prideful, which is why it was contrasted with sobriety. A man can wear a $1,000 suit and it look as plain as can be, and not be worn due to pride, but simply is made from excellent tailor work. Sometimes costly things are costly because they WILL LAST LONGER. So Paul would not speak against that at all. But the tone of his context is ridiculous and self-focusing luxury. When something is worn that screams out, "Look how expensive my clothes are!" it is wrong and should not be worn.

Originally Posted by rdp

BUT, consider the OT sacrifices....were they spoken of by God favorably? Of course! Would it be a sin today to go back & begin animal sacrifices in order to roll your sins ahead? Of course it would [see Gal. 4-5].

Your logic fails. You are claiming it was never right for women to wear jewelry -- not now nor in Old Testament times. You claim that God merely tolerated jewelry but finally gave his true opinion as time went by until the NT times saw it outrightly prohibited. You cannot compare sacrifices to that.

The reason animal sacrifice would be an affront against God and a sin now is because Christ was once offered for sins for ever. Before He was sacrificed, GOD DEMANDED ANIMAL SACRIFICE. Christ had not died, and therefore it was no sin to offer animal sacrifices. That is a far cry from what you believe in God having NEVER condoned jewelry. He DID CONDONE animal sacrifices and demanded it. So you cannot use that. In order for your idea to stand, there must have been something that occurred in time and space AFTER jewelry was condoned that rendered them sinful, just as Christ died once and for all AFTER animal sacrifices were condoned making them presently sinful.

I could marshall many, many more examples, but in principle, mankind was not the temple of God on the OT as they are today. A-L-L of the dwelling places of God on Earth have had the jewels INSIDE....NOT OUTSIDE of the temple. But, according to you, this has suddenly changed right Mike???? No thank you.

Incorrect. The temple was full of OUTWARD SPLENDOUR.

From Josephus, we read this of Herod's temple:

The outside of the Temple was overlaid with plates of gold, thus

the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of purest white [that is, from the pure white limestone ashlars]. (Jewish War V, 222-223)

...Golden spikes were laid onto the roof “to prevent birds from settling upon and polluting” it ( Jewish War V, 224).

Though this was Herod's temple, Jesus called it the Father's house, fully condoning it.

Again, you still did not directly answer my question as to how could God reason that an evil act illustrates a holy act. You are only referring me to instances that you also think are sin but were nonetheless condoned by God, implying such sinful acts were never anything but evil. The instance of animal sacrifices fails due to the reasons I showed.

So please do not simply list all the sinful acts you think God tolerated, because he never tolerates sin, and no animal sacrifices before Christ was offered were sinful. Therefore, you not only did not answer my question yet, but you also mistakenly implied animal sacrifices were sinful but God tolerated them. Explain why God would take a sinful act to illustrate a holy act.