Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

rdp is trying to insist that apparel ought to be modified specifically be "adorning". This would have the effect of putting beautiful or costly in front of the word apparel. This would negate our earlier argument that it's not a prohibition because it would be prohibiting clothes if it was. If beautiful/costly was added in front of apparel then the verse could be a prohibition to all those things since it wouldn't be prohibiting clothes in general.

Of course when I made a transliteration of this verse I found something even more amazing. The apparel the verse mentions isn't literal apparel at all, it's totally figurative, and the verse isn't telling us not to wear the apparel it speaks of, it's telling us to wear it because the apparel it speaks of is the kind that covers the heart, an incorruptible, mild/humble and peaceable mind/spirit.

Yes, Peter definitely zones in on the word "adorning" here making full use of it. In the first context, he is definitely literal. But then he uses the word to talk about how women are truly beautified. This doesn't mean they don't still "beautify" themselves (the nature of a woman), it means they understand the source, true beauty, etc....

Eugene Peterson does a great job on this pericope:
The same goes for you wives: Be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs. There are husbands who, indifferent as they are to any words about God, will be captivated by your life of holy beauty. What matters is not your outer appearance—the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the cut of your clothes—but your inner disposition.
4-6Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in. The holy women of old were beautiful before God that way, and were good, loyal wives to their husbands. Sarah, for instance, taking care of Abraham, would address him as "my dear husband." You'll be true daughters of Sarah if you do the same, unanxious and unintimidated.

Amazing when we read these letters with the intent at getting the message, the heart of the letter first and leaving that as our primary goal... avoids us majoring in the minors.

[Godsdrummer]

I will try and put this into words that I mean but sometimes that is a problem. So here goes.

I just don't get it. How some do not see what they are doing. But then Jesus did not himself respond to the religious leaders of his day with anything other that the word of God. In its proper context and meaning. He spoke with authority because he was speaking his own words and knew what he ment.

Here is the thing Jesus over and over upbraided the religious leaders for their pious teachings and overly strick usage of the law of Moses. They had defined and redefined the simple commandments of God till they filled up a separate book. Kind of reminds me of the articles of faith of the UPCI, given is a list of standards that are hard put to find anywhere in scripture yet these are given and preached as sin through out the organization.

Here is the final point, We are to love and accept those that God has received, even though they do not have as high of standards or have lower standards.

Paul was not just talking about meat, and the sabbath in this passage.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

I am going to say this again, that last time I said this I got my head bit off LOL but this is what scripture says.

The weak Christian is the one who put restrictions on what he can do, like eating meat, and keeping the sabboth day.

Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

How is it that we miss this verse, this is the spirit we that have Christ are supposed to have. We that eat meat, allow more liberty to do those things others feel a need to prohibite. Are not to despise the other.

Those of us that put limitations on our walk with God are not to judge the other for God has received them.

Yet we see this everyday the judging of one another and the despising of those that are weaker. All we are doing is showing our true spirit is not of God.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations

We are further instructed not to dispute with one another over these issues. I for one want to appoligize for the disputing as God can do more to show his child the error of thier way much better than I can, without causing a brother to fall.

RDP Pray for me as I will pray that you find a closer walk with God than you imagined. and that your eyes will look to our God and creator rather than other christians in judgement.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Unfortunately, RDP does believe this issue affects one's position with Christ because he believes the jewlery prohibition is spit from God's mouth, from the Text,

Well where else did I find the imperative "not with gold, pearls, or costly array"???? Did I read that in reader's digest, or is it found in Holy Writ?

and therefore one who disobeys is rebellious, a sinner, delusional or otherwise.

You make the word of God of no effect thru your traditions.

If it's a matter of conscience, fine. I respect that, guard that, and honor that in love. If it's a matter of taking hostage scripture and using that misinformation against your other brothers, throwing stumbling blocks in the way of the cross that Jesus didn't put there, Jesus has a problem with that, and so do I.

Ughhh, Jeses is the One who inspired Paul & Peter to warn against the outward demostrations of showiness...exhibited with "gold, pearls, or costly array." What He has a "problem" w/ is those who explain away the Word of God. Sheeeeesh.........

I can respect his position, but frankly, this discussion has gone nowhere. It's been cycled on "repeat" for about 3 months.

Finally something that we can agree on.......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

No one is ERASING anything lol I thought you understood this whole goal of interpreting concept.

Let's turn now to historical evidence, busts, statues, etc... We have no historical evidence that shows people of the Way did not wear jewelry. There's a great documentary out on Hassidic Judaism. If you wanted to live as strict as they do, not freed from the Law, and as pious as ever... yet you find their women with cut hair, jewelry and make-up.

Now we've resorted to "Appealls Outside of the Text????" Man, has it gotten' that bad Jeffrey? "Let God be true and every man a liar."

So now I have to believe all of a scholar's conclusions to take as valuable any of them? That old argument? You're really going there? Throw away your Bible. Throw away 90% of your book collection, your Bible atlas, your commentaries, your devotionals, your concordances, all of it. Be consistent

What you don't understamd is that Paul distinquished between "learning" & "truth." "....ever LEARNING, but never able to come the knowledge of the TRUTH." I know the difference...you apparently do not, since you can't even grasp the meaning of "N-O-T with gold....".


Read only what you write. Enjoy your intellectual incest. I prefer to enjoy coming to the table with other brothers, in a Talmudic/Midrashic way, sharing different perspectives and learning from each other. But that's just me

I also enjoy apologetics, but when someone attempts to render what the Scriptures clearly say as ineffective.....I don't believe them!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You missed the poetic sense of how I was saying wide-eyed didn't you

Pretty plain.... hahaha... and cue the repeat button.

And you apparently overlooked the quotation marks indicating a jab....yes, "cue the repeat button" indeed!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

In 1 Peter, TS, it's really not even remotely questionable what is going on.

Agreed...the external ornamentation is said "not with," while the internal ornamentation is said "but this." Yes, "not even remotely questionable!"

Look at it in several renderings (ESV, Amplified, NJKV, etc). The items mentioned after the "external" are a "such as" or a "for example." Women, you're beauty is not in all those things that women do, for example _____, but rather you're beauty is an internal wellspring coming from an adorning of the heart.

Oh, you mean the Amplified w/ it's brackets, which were supplied by the translators, not found in the original text!?!?

1) This is an exhortation
2) The word "not with" is in the arrangement of a "not that, but this" syntax.
3) The writer was not having a knock-down drag out with his audience over any particular issue at this point (like many epistles are). There is instead an exhoration to both men and women, and both exhortations appeal to those things which are common for men and women at the time.
4) I have not read one single scholarly opinion that reads this verse like a prohibition on jewelry, fashion, clothes or otherwise.

Hmmm, really, I've got numerous quotations by scholars at home that do [David Bernard, Nate Wilson, Clement, Tertullian, Calvin, etc.]. Kinda' makes ya' wonder what a fella' is reading!


5) A prohibition on the wearing of jewels is not consistent with the full-range context of scripture
6) The "apparel" issue is glaring ("it's so clear and plain!" )

Oh brother....I give the exact transliteration of the greek in I Ptr. 3:3, & you just plod along like you don't see it. It's called "ignoring the evidence" Jeffrey!

There are times when I examine the scholastic evidence and I lean one way over another. For example, with rdp, he probably doesn't know it, but I lean more complimentarian than I do egalitarian (there's a big astrick on my leanings which should be further explained on a thread where appropriate), but I'm not certain. And I readily admit to others I discuss that with: here's where I am with it, but I'm not certain. With this topic, however, I have no inkling of doubt.

Nor do I have any "inkling of doubt," the Bible clearly contrasts the external ornamentation w/ the internal ornamentation. The former has a "not" tied to it, while the latter has "but this" tied to it.

In all thy learning get understanding.....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Oh, so NOW context matters. So we can't just apply an across-the-board rule that the "not with" phrase brings meaning to the text, but that context is important here? You just contradicted your own rebuttal. Your rebuttal to me as I offered an explanation of the "not this, but this" language, was indeed, the "fallacy of equivocation." Glad you knew what that was

Yes, very familiar w/ the Fallacy of Equivocation [which is why I'm the one who referenced it!?], & you fella's are grossly guilty of it here. You're equating speaking/eating with decorative ornamentation....& there's NO comparison! It's quite NATURAL to speak & eat, but quite UNNATURAL to adorn God's temple w/ ornaments! Man, you guys just don't get it......

You see, you never said the content had to make a lick of difference. You were claiming that "not with" is clear and plain and refused to consider anything further on the matter. So which is it rdp?

Contrare Monfrare....I certainly have referenced context repeatedly....which is the contrast of the external ornamentation w/ internal ornamenation. The former says "NO," the latter says "YES".....for about the 10th time now.......happy to oblige!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

My goal is not hyper-literal consistency. It's to try hard to be exegetically consistent

Then pls. do so in Eph. 5 & Rom. 13, not to mention several others that I could enumerate......

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Thanks for bringing that up, rdp.

You've been called out, and caught red-handed.

Say what???? You guys treat the text of I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3 as idiomatical expressions, then, when I use other texts [Eph. 5/Rom. 13] using the same criteria you're forced to come up w/ all sort of "explanations" why the model doesn't fit?

You use natural things like eating/speaking in the same breath as unnatural ornamentation....and YOU'RE accussing ME of "equivocating"?????

Good grief, does it get any worse?????

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by rdp

Say what???? You guys treat the text of I Tim. 2/I Ptr. 3 as idiomatical expressions, then, when I use other texts [Eph. 5/Rom. 13] using the same criteria you're forced to come up w/ all sort of "explanations" why the model doesn't fit?

You use natural things like eating/speaking in the same breath as unnatural ornamentation....and YOU'RE accussing ME of "equivocating"?????

Good grief, does it get any worse?????

rdp, what they are saying is that such expressions can be used EITHER WAY. They are saying that the use is dependent upon the context and not upon the grammar and structure. They even offered some examples of verses with the same basic grammar and structure that couldn't be taken as ban on the "not ______" It is you that is claiming that every use of the word "not ______" must be used the same way, as a prohibition.