Hair, sleeves, pantsuits, jewelry, and makeup

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

1 Peter 3:3 Still includes "apparel" in the prohibition list. Kinda strange that in such a plain speaking verse we want to broad brush as verboten anything gold but compromise on letting people wear apparel.


Its just a slippery slope and we need to get back to the old paths.

The apparel is identified in 1 Tim. 2:9

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The apparel is identified in 1 Tim. 2:9

The apparel of shamefacedness and sobriety.? 🙄

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by diakonos

The apparel of shamefacedness and sobriety.? 🙄

So are we supposed to avoid wearing shamefacedneas and sobriety now too???


Oy vey...shoulda never ate that apple...I mean we had just 1 rule and now we got a list the size of the US Tax Code double spaced in triplicate.


So if I started a makeup company/brewery called Shamefacedness & Sobriety....what would the sermon preached against it sound like?

[n david]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Wearing Jewelry is a sin.

Do you and the other cons on here wear neckties?

Vanity and sin! Repent, you sinners!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

What part of NOT with gold do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

1Tim. 2:9 is clearer. Not with gold.

Brother Epley, first of all thanks for responding. Let’s dig into this a little deeper. Perhaps we can come to agreement, even if we should agree to disagree. I’ll try to be respectful about it.

First of all, these passages are very similar. They (in my opinion at least) are saying the same thing. I earlier quoted Peter, whose ministry was primarily to the Jews and you quoted Paul whose ministry was primarily to the Gentiles.

Both passages are allegorical in nature. They should not be taken literally. The proof of this is something that we have already touched on when i asked if you preached against wearing apparel as well. If we were to interpret this passage literally this would be the case. I think we agree that these passages are not literal but allegorical in nature. I believe that you are mixing the two, (allegorical and literal) interpretations. I believe you are in error when you do so.

You believe that Paul’s version is clearer. I believe Peter’s version is. One thing is sure, neither says that wearing jewelry is a sin.

An allegory is a story wherein something literal represents something else. In this case the apparel that would be clothing for our natural bodies, represents our hearts. What both Peter and Paul are saying is that man looks on the outer appearance but God looks on the heart. It is an allegory. Man looks on the fine clothes, the gold and the broided hair but God looks at the meek and quiet spirit (Peter) or the shamefacedness and sobriety (Paul). Further evidence that Paul is speaking allegorically is when he refers to women being clothed in good works.

Continued

[Tithesmeister]

Continued

The question is, should we also interpret this literally? Would we be in error to do so. I believe we would. However the evidence may be considered inconclusive at this point. So perhaps we should look for other sources. There are two more that I can think of. One is allegorical and the other literal. They may lend a little more color to the picture.

Ezek.16

[1] Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,
[3] And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
[4] And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.
[5] None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
[6] And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
[10] 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.
[11] I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
[12] And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
[13] 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.

This is another allegorical story where Israel is the woman that God is in covenant with. It is a beautiful story that obviously is not in any way meant to be taken literally. Some may consider it a type of the church and Jesus even.

In the context of jewelry being sin, notice that God is pretty much blinging out his bride with jewelry and fine apparel. Now we know that God is without sin and while this is obviously an allegory, wouldn’t it be odd for God to use sinful jewelry to make a point even? These are the words of God as recorded in Ezekiel. It is evident to me that God has no problem with jewelry.

[Tithesmeister]

Cont.

Jas.2

[1] My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
[2] For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
[3] And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
[4] Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
[5] Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Here we have a specific reference to a ring. This story is not allegorical, it may be best described as hypothetical. It is to be taken literally. The point of this story is not that the ring is sinful nor is it that the fine clothing that the man with the ring is wearing is sinful. It is the thoughts of the men that judge the men that are evil. They invited the rich man to sit on the platform and consigned the poor man with no ring to sit on the floor in plain sight of security (because being poor is a sin in the modern Pentecostal prosperity teaching church). He is obviously poor only because he has not been paying his tithes and is probably looking for something to steal since he is a thief based on the fact that he doesn’t tithe.

Notice how I tied that in so neatly there? Anyway the point is that in spite of the ring and fine apparel being specifically mentioned by James, the focus was that the church leadership should not sin by exalting the rich and disrespecting the poor. He completely overlooked preaching to the man about the sinfulness of wearing jewelry. Most conservative preachers would never miss the opportunity to preach about the sins of wearing jewelry meanwhile being sure to honor the influential and wealthy, because being wealthy is obviously impossible without being righteous and holy. (Sarcasm alert.)

Anyway that’s my thoughts Brother Epley. I’d like to hear yours.

[CC1]

The style of writing in Biblical days was different than that of today. Contrast was a big part of making points and that is what these verses regarding gold, etc are about.

It is saying that what makes a women's worth isn't the amount of gold, etc she wears but her character, godliness, etc. Of course old time Pentecostals equate godliness with not wearing makeup, jewelery etc but I believe the bible is talking about godliness in the sense of being just, honest, exhibiting the fruit of the spirit, etc.

Of course the christian principles of moderation and modesty always apply to anything we do.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by CC1

The style of writing in Biblical days was different than that of today. Contrast was a big part of making points and that is what these verses regarding gold, etc are about.

It is saying that what makes a women's worth isn't the amount of gold, etc she wears but her character, godliness, etc. Of course old time Pentecostals equate godliness with not wearing makeup, jewelery etc but I believe the bible is talking about godliness in the sense of being just, honest, exhibiting the fruit of the spirit, etc.

Of course the christian principles of moderation and modesty always apply to anything we do.

Well said.

[FlamingZword]

KJV Exodus 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

NIV Exodus 3:22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians."

We see here a command from God to put jewels upon the sons and daughters of the Israelites, why would God commanded such an action if Jewelry was sinful.

It would be like God saying load up a bunch of sin upon your sons and daughters.