Wading through the wedding rings

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

In those days, wasn't an imprint of a signet ring like an imprint of a credit card nowadays? Could this be simply to illustrate that the father was replacing his trust in the prodigal's use of the family's credit, and authorizing him to conduct business on behalf of his father?

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

He's allowed creative license its a parable after all ....

Ever take a literature class, CHT??? ... Symbolism within symbolism.

[ChTatum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

He's allowed creative license its a parable after all ....

Ever take a literature class, CHT??? ... Symbolism within symbolism.

No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.......

I did read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series.
"Feints within feins within feints".

"I must not fear, fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that causes complete obliteration. I will face my fear, I will allow it to pass through me and over me. When it has passed I will turn my inner eye to the path of the fear, and nothing will be there. Only I will remain."

Man, I remember the "Fear Litany" over 20 years after reading the books!

[SDG]

Let me see ... The Father rewards the son w/

1. A kiss [not a sin]
2. A hug [not a sin]
3. His best robe [not a sin]
4. Sandals [not a sin]
5. A side a beef [not a sin]
6. A celebration [not a sin]

7. A ring .... [a one way ticket to fire and brimstone]

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

I was thinking more along the lines of giving him a credit card. It would be something he could use in lieu of coins with local merchants to conduct transactions.

Well, now, maybe it would be an indicator of status after all. Status with his father, rather than marital status. But others would see the ring and know that he and his father were reconciled.

But it's symbolic of the spiritual, and signet rings are virtually meaningless in our culture nowadays.

A wedding band does more than show affiliation, as it is a token of a covenant. A son hasn't entered a covenant with his father, he's just born and his father loves him and wants the best for him.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by ChTatum

I do too.

Love you, bro, but I ain't one of 'em!

I can tell by your beard Bro. LOL! I have yet to meet anyone who believes all that stuff and has a beard! LOL! I will say that I have wrestled with the tie issue and even made an effort to go along with the not wearing anything golden or silver idea. I was able to elimate them both from everything, with the exception of suspenders. I just couldn't find any appropriate for every day and church use that didn't have silvery clamps on them.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by CupCake

Why don't we just cut through all the what you or I or they think, it quit simple really! "PEOPLE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN DOINGS, BUSINESS AND STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR ANSWER THAT ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE"!

What I should have replied with:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 11:14
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Proverbs 24:6
For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.



The trouble with cupcakes is they are too easily devoured in haste . . .

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

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.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

This is possibly the most balanced and unbiased post concerning wedding rings that I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Well said, OPC, and I am looking forward to reading the responses.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I fully understand the context. I agree that Paul is admonishing women in regards to godliness. However, what you seem to so easily ignore is that there is an historical context to all of man's teaching on godliness issues.

Paul still says that it was a rule in all the churches of God. That means in was an admonishment not only in Corinth but also in all the other fellowships in Asia Minor and the known world at that time. That rule would also be accepted in the "world without end" which is how the sages described the nation of Israel, which the New Testament saints believed was the Church. Therefore we cannot say that these issues were just merely historic in their meanings.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

This is a very basic principle of godliness that I certainly embrace.

Then take off that Jewelry.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

I certainly don't embrace the views of Carlton Pearson.

The agnostic Carlton Pearson also believes in an ever changing church, which changes because of their surrounding cultures. The Bible doesn't teach that. What it does teach is a City set upon a Hill, She is to be a lamp to light the way of truth in word and DEED.

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

However, to suggest that we have an obligation to simply embrace every personal view Paul or Peter held in regard to non salvation issues is far-fetched and I know of no one who does.

TB, could you explain the above chapter with the examples in Peter and Paul's writings in which you're referencing?

I'm interested in seeing how you present that as an argument.


Thank you for your time.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

This is possibly the most balanced and unbiased post concerning wedding rings that I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Well said, OPC, and I am looking forward to reading the responses.

Well thank you Michael Phelps!

I think you'll find another winner in here somewhere, wherein the difference between tradition and conviction is defined.

The part I liked was something along the lines of, if you adhere to a practice based on a true personal conviction, it won't make you angry if others don't practice it.

Some have come right out and said, "the bible says 'don't wear gold,' I believe it, and I won't do it. It's plain and it's right there in the inspired Word of God."

Others look at the same verse and say the context allows a contradictory interpretation, to wit, that the meaning isn't to ban one thing, but to emphasize another thing.

There are some comments that add the notion that these particular verses are Paul's personal pastoral preferences, not commandments straight from the mountain.

There are also some wonderful points about cultural context and the appearance of evil.

I have been fully delighted by the depth and wisdom shared, and the adult manner in which this has been discussed, all of which is beneficial in my search for the truth of the bible, or biblical principle, undergirding the topical teachings. I've tossed out a few questions that remain unanswered, but by and large I've pestered posters both pro and con to offer scriptural basis to back up opinions and reasoning they've offered.

I'm too curious to go along with a 'because-I-said-so' ruling, and too skeptical to go along with those who have taken the opposite view largely in reaction away from the former group, and have cobbled together their reasoning after they've formed their opinion.

Perhaps not an entirely exemplary thread, but it certainly recommends itself and AFF.