Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

"Oh how rich! Ugggh. How funny!"

Someone needs some edumacation.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ughhhh, remember that bit about "context"???? See Bernard's Practical Holiness & In Search of Holiness....just for starters.

What would be the context of Isaiah 3? Is it to be taken literal?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

"Oh how rich! Ugggh. How funny!"

Someone needs some edumacation.

I've apparently got enough education to know better than to say "animal sacrifices are not sin" !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

What would be the context of Isaiah 3? Is it to be taken literal?

Sure it's literal...which is more than we can say for Ezek. 16! The context of Is. 3 is extravangance & ostentatious display manifest thru ornamentation. Thus, when we come to the clothing articles listed, it's apparent [& some translations actually indicate this] that there was elaborate designs & probably even metals woven into them. The point is, they were "literally" wearing this stuff...which God called "filth" in chp. 4:4. Do we have the same God today or not? Of course we do........rdp.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

I've apparently got enough education to know better than to say "animal sacrifices are not sin" !

Finally some sensible typing, bro, without the juvenile expletives.

You took my words totally out of context, like I believe you are doing with Peter and Paul.

One more time: You claim jewelry was always sin and that God tolerated that sin even using it as an illustration for a holy concept of loving Jerusalem in Ezek 16. But animal sacrifices were not considered sin in the old testament like you claim jewelry was. The cross occurred which caused sacrifices to cease, so offering an animal sacrifice was not to be done after the cross occurred. So animal sacrifices are not sin in and of themselves, or else God would have never COMMANDED them to be done before the cross. But because Jesus caused them to cease with His sacrifice we are not to offer them any more.

Since God COMMANDED animal sacrifices before the cross, it was NOT A SIN. The sin is not offering an animal in sacrifice today, it is rejecting the final sacrifice in Jesus Christ.

And like I already said, though you have admittedly refused to answer my question, in order for animal sacrifices to be comparable to the issue of jewelry, jewelry must not be considered a sin in the Old Testament but then considered sin in the New DUE TO SOME CHANGE OF SOMETHING BY SOMETHING. Christ's cross CHANGED the opinion towards animal sacrifices that God had in the Old Testament. Show where HIS OPINION CHANGED from using it Himself as a holy picture to condemning it as sinful. The fact is you believe it was always sinful, which is not the case with animal sacrifices. Apples and oranges.

Something must have occurred that caused the acceptance of jewelry to change over covenants. Lo and behold, nothing like that occurred, and Peter and Paul were CONTEXTUALLY saying jewelry is not to be relied upon for certain reasons, not the general wearing of it outside those reasons.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Sure it's literal...which is more than we can say for Ezek. 16! The context of Is. 3 is extravangance & ostentatious display manifest thru ornamentation. Thus, when we come to the clothing articles listed, it's apparent [& some translations actually indicate this] that there was elaborate designs & probably even metals woven into them. The point is, they were "literally" wearing this stuff...which God called "filth" in chp. 4:4. Do we have the same God today or not? Of course we do........rdp.

Wow. You have to really stretch to know for a fact that Isa. 4:4 is referring directly to their adornment as "filth."

Why would God say that their adornment was filth, when He's the one who adorned them in the first place? You keep complaining about people skipping over the word "...NOT...(with gold....)", but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that God decorated Israel in the first place. He took it away as a punishment for their sins.

Eze 16:7 -14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

....Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

...Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

...I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

...I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.

...And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

...Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

...And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.



Let's get this straight:

GOD adorned Israel, because she pleased Him. (Of course, we know that later it was all taken away because she displeased Him.)

What is your straightforward interpretation of that?


IMO, the explanation for this passage, and the principle for the NT verses are found in this pivotal verse:

Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

And keeping Titus and Timothy in perspective, it's a one-sided letter. We aren't fortunate to know exactly what was being addressed. This is the difficulty with epistles. But we do know that quite often a specific problem was being addressed --- and there were some consistent problems (thank God for those problematic people, or we wouldn't have half our New Testament!).... flaunting social status through separate communion tables, an abundance of wealth, using gifts not in love, disorderly services with people using tongues in public, ideas about the body, the dead and the resurrection, heretical teachings about Jesus' divinity, Judaizers, sexual immorality, marriage and divorce, giving/offering, what it means to be saved (usually explained by saying "how" we are saved first), and on and on.

It's quite silly for someone to go into Timothy, take a verse, scream "can't you read" and disregarding any effort to discover what the author originally meant. It's not silly, it's ignorant.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wow. You have to really stretch to know for a fact that Isa. 4:4 is referring directly to their adornment as "filth."

Why would God say that their adornment was filth, when He's the one who adorned them in the first place? You keep complaining about people skipping over the word "...NOT...(with gold....)", but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that God decorated Israel in the first place. He took it away as a punishment for their sins.

Eze 16:7 -14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

....Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

...Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

...I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

...I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.

...And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

...Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

...And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.



Let's get this straight:

GOD adorned Israel, because she pleased Him. (Of course, we know that later it was all taken away because she displeased Him.)

What is your straightforward interpretation of that?


IMO, the explanation for this passage, and the principle for the NT verses are found in this pivotal verse:

Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The whole problem which rdp is not able to see is that he is taking one sentence out of the text, a note against "the wearing of gold," and neglecting the context which qualifies that forbiddence saying that a woman is not to win her unsaved husband by such wearing of gold, etc. It is not talking about everyday living in general. And Paul's words stated that women should not think that wearing of gold shows forth their christianity, but rather good works. Why would he mention good works? Why did Peter mention the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit? It is to win her lost husband.

People can lift phrases out of context all day long and convince ignorant people of their doctrine, but to read the overall context and ask what is the overall point, and to notice the contrast being made, the truth comes out and is quite a bit different than what others said about it.

Everyday living should show Christianity. I don't think the context allows us to separate everyday living but showing forth Christianity to win a husband.
We can also look at the admonishment of men in verse 8 of 1 timothy 2 where they are exhorted to lift their hands and pray every where. I would not think women not adorning themselves with gold, pearls, or costly array would only apply to certain instances because Paul said in like manner also, which points to the previous statement of his address.

THere is an article in the Thompson Chain Bible regarding Rome. In that article it describes the lifestyle, dress, and choices that the early church made which contrasted with the Roman government and their civilian life. If we take an honest look at early church life, there isn't much room for jewelry. Most of their extra possessions were sold to help with the needy. Again I gather from the HG and the scripture as I read it that Paul is suggesting women to put away arraining theirselves in gold or pearls or costly array for the sake of adorning with good works.

How does jewelry take away from good works and a meekness of spirit? We have to look at what the purpose is for wearing jewelry to answer that question.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wow. You have to really stretch to know for a fact that Isa. 4:4 is referring directly to their adornment as "filth."

Why would God say that their adornment was filth, when He's the one who adorned them in the first place? You keep complaining about people skipping over the word "...NOT...(with gold....)", but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that God decorated Israel in the first place. He took it away as a punishment for their sins.

Eze 16:7 -14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

....Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

...Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

...I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

...I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.

...And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

...Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

...And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.



Let's get this straight:

GOD adorned Israel, because she pleased Him. (Of course, we know that later it was all taken away because she displeased Him.)

What is your straightforward interpretation of that?


IMO, the explanation for this passage, and the principle for the NT verses are found in this pivotal verse:

Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

How does this passage relate to the Christian character that New Testament believers are supposed to have? Honestly I disagree with RDP that jewelry was a sin in the OT. However we do see the problems that wearing jewelry caused people to have in the OT. They were puffed up and played the harlot and worshipped what they had. Are men any different today? Do you not believe this is what caused Peter and Paul to write what they did regarding adornment? They knew well the scriptures quoted. What saith the Spirit unto the churches today?