Basic Standards

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Finally,

As it pertains to preferences and personal convictions:

1. Preferences

Why does anyone prefer something other than what God has prescribed and proscribed in the Holy Scriptures?

Is your opinion and preference better than His?

2. Personal convictions

There is no such thing, in the sense most always meant. What is usually meant is something like "While I can't prove it with the Bible, the Holy Spirit has led me to believe and do X, Y, and/or Z."

As if to say the Holy Spirit would lead a person to submit themselves to something outside of the very Word the Spirit of God inspired to be written? It's basically claiming God Himself is adding to or taking away from His own written Word in order to give you extra-Biblical revelation on what He really wants of you.

Hogwash. Stick with the Scriptures.

Now, if you admit something you believe and practice standards wise is not in the Scriptures and you also admit it's coming from your own sense of things or from someone else, like your pastor or other church leaders, and not from God, then fine, call it a personal conviction if you want. But don't mix God into something you came up with on your own.

POW!

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The incident in Genesis is an illustration of the principle. And it is something that has recurred throughout history. When people get serious about God, they lose interest in other things. Those things may not be necessarily sinful or bad in themselves, but they just don't have the attraction they once had. Vanity Fair ceases to be entertaining for such people.

Wasn't the issue in Genesis about jewelry connected to false gods, not jewelry itself?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This isn't true.

The Greek word for long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is κομᾷ or koma.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_c...ians/11-15.htm

It means to wear long hair or to allow the hair to grow out.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2863.htm

It is from the Greek word κόμη or kome, which simply means "hair".

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2864.htm

And since hair grows from underneath the scalp, at the follicles, and not from the ends, letting one's hair grow long is not merely a matter of a woman occasionally cutting or trimming her hair in small amounts at the ends, but of the overall length as it comes out from the head and flows down the body.



This isn't true.

The Reina-Valera 1960 version of 1 Corinthians 11:15 reads



Note the emboldened text above.

The phrase "dejarse crecer el cabello" does not mean uncut hair. It means to allow oneself to grow the hair. To render the phrase uncut, the text would read "sin cortar".

See: https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/dejarse%20crecer

https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/uncut



This isn't true.

2 Samuel 14:26,



Here we see Absalom and his famous locks, which he only cut once a year, but which grew so long and heavy at the end of each year, it weighed the same as two hundred shekels, which is just over 5 pounds of hair, according to the modern Hebrew shekel.

See: https://www.unitconverters.net/weigh...w-to-pound.htm

See: https://www.essiebutton.com/how-much...o%205%20pounds.

Note the quote from the second link:





Paul's appeal to nature cannot mean cut or uncut, as a man, in a fully natural state, under no command to keep his hair short, like Adam (creation, the beginning?), for instance, would see his hair grow just as long if not longer than any woman.

Context matters:


"Porque si la mujer no se cubre, que se corte también el cabello; y si le es vergonzoso a la mujer cortarse el cabello o raparse, que se cubra. ... Por el contrario, a la mujer dejarse crecer el cabello le es honroso; porque en lugar de velo le es dado el cabello." - 1 Corinthians 11:6, 15 RVR60

cortarse el cabello o raparse is the opposite of dejarse crecer el cabello

There is no "I'm going to cut it but let it grow" here. And I'm going to repeat that Paul wrote this, a Jew, and at least Jewish women at that time didn't cut their hair, at all.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...1-hair#anchor3
Among women long hair is extolled as a mark of beauty (Cant. iv. 1, vii. 6). A woman's hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation (Jer. vii. 29; comp. Deut. xxi. 12).

I haven't looked at other cultures around. What Paul meant is what the point is.
"to let the hair grow" = you don't keep cutting it.

Paul's appeal to nature cannot mean cut or uncut

That's not what I meant. He says that it is a dishonor for a man to let their hair grow, and an honor for a woman to do the same. There is no "command" if that's what you are looking for. You can have your hair like a woman but it is a dishonor for you. There is hair like a woman. "And they had hair as the hair of women..." - Revelation 9:8 KJV. When nature don't let generally mature or older men have long hair, and let generally mature or older women have it, it creates a distinction of sexes regarding the hair. Therefore, even if you are a man and young enough to have long hair, you should keep it short.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Ad hominem. Non sequitor.

And just plain weak.

You are definitely on fire, lol. If don't have the context please skip my comments.

It was said as a reduction to the absurd to an argument, how their logic leads them to drop important teachings from Jesus that he himself indicates that not obeying it is a sin.

I was referring to Matthew 19:7-9 KJV. Moses didn't say what Jesus said. Moses only setup laws to regulate divorce.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Wasn't the issue in Genesis about jewelry connected to false gods, not jewelry itself?

I don't know that wearing jewelry has a direct connection to personal votive images. I think in Genesis the idea is they were on pilgrimage to a sacred assembly so they obviously put away their images as well as dressed in such a way as is fitting for people going to supplicate God for deliverance.

How would a person dress if going to appear before a judge to petition for mercy? I think most would agree that modest conservative appearance is called for rather than festive celebratory appearance.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Regarding 1 Peter 3:1:6,



The context is the submission Christian wives are to render unto their husbands, particularly either unsaved/unbelieving husbands, or Christian husbands who are currently in a state of disobedience/unbelief, for whatever reason.

If a Christian woman finds herself in such a context, Simon urges them to not think that beautifying themselves outwardly is going to entice the husband to obey the Word. It will not. Rather, it is the inner qualities of the Christian wife's life that will do the trick.

This passage, therefore, is not a prohibition against the wearing of any or all jewelry, any more than it is a prohibition against "putting on of apparel". Essentially, Simon is urging Christian wives in this context to not try to deck themselves out in their finery in order to use their appearance as the means whereby their husbands will convert or begin to obey the Word.

This strongly suggests that these Christian women did indeed have jewelry insomuch as Simon is counseling them not to wear such things as a means of securing their husband's obedience. The implication is if you own and wear such things as jewelry, do not depend upon it as the mechanism whereby your husband is going to become convinced to submit to the Lord. Rather, trust in the work of the Holy Spirit through you, granting you meekness and quietness of heart.

It seems vs 3-6 are explanatory of v 2, and are describing "chaste conversation". In other words, I don't see the admonition against jewelry and finery being strictly limited to evangelistic attempts to win over an unbelieving husband.

How would a woman obey the instructions while still wearing all the finery involved? Would she only dress up when not around her husband? That seems like it would accomplish the exact opposite of the intended effect?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Context matters:

But of course, it does. So does the meaning of words.

"Porque si la mujer no se cubre, que se corte también el cabello; y si le es vergonzoso a la mujer cortarse el cabello o raparse, que se cubra. ... Por el contrario, a la mujer dejarse crecer el cabello le es honroso; porque en lugar de velo le es dado el cabello." - 1 Corinthians 11:6, 15 RVR60

cortarse el cabello o raparse is the opposite of dejarse crecer el cabello

The Spanish of the Reina-Valera 1960 is substantially no different in meaning than the average English version, KJV or otherwise, and so, doesn't give a special meaning apart from, or that cannot be discerned from, an English translation.

So, why you appealed to the RV1960 as a prooftext is beyond me.

Furthermore, while "cortarse el cabello o raparse" is juxtaposed with " dejarse crecer el cabello", it does not mean they are oppositive phrases. Remember, context matters. And the context of the verse in question is this:

If a woman will not cover her hair with a veil, particularly when she prays or prophesies, not only does she dishonor her head, which is to say, her husband, the dishonor is so great, and the indecency of not veiling herself so complete, she may as well debase her natural beauty by cutting her hair off (not just trimming a bit here and there, but actually whacking off the locks, according to the Greek).

But if and since doing so would make her unattractive or ugly (particularly to her husband, if no one else), and so, would shame or embarrass her, that is, to have it cut off or shaved to the skin (from whence grows the hair), she should cover her hair with a veil and bring an end to her and her husband's dishonor.

So, again, the issue isn't about completely uncut hair. It's about the dishonor that is created when a woman prays or prophesies while not veiled in a church meeting. The dishonor to her head is equivalent to the dishonor she would feel if her hair was chopped off or shaved.

So, of all the Apostolic women who pray and prophesy whilst uncovered by a veil, Paul actually instructs them to have their hair cut off as a way to incur against them the dishonor they bring upon their head/husband.

So, let the hair grow long, it is a glory to a woman, that is, it beautifies her, but cover it up as something only the husband is supposed to see.

There is no "I'm going to cut it but let it grow" here. And I'm going to repeat that Paul wrote this, a Jew, and at least Jewish women at that time didn't cut their hair, at all.

I haven't looked at other cultures around. What Paul meant is what the point is. "to let the hair grow" = you don't keep cutting it.

A women, or a man for that matter, can have hair cascading down past the hips, to the thighs or beyond, and cut away some split ends, and not a soul is going to think 3, 4, or even 5 feet of hair is somehow short, or that the person so crowned is not letting their hair grow (Look at the video below for proof. The woman's hair is over 4 feet long and she mentions early in the clip that she just had it trimmed. Her hair is longer than many Apostolic women with completely uncut hair).

And as far as the source quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

1.) Do you have any newer scholarship?

The text is from 1906.

2.) Do you have any other sources that corroborate the point?

One source alone by itself does not lend itself to credible fact collection. Certainly not enough to hang so much weight.

3.) Have you read the materials lists in the Bibliography?

Because you have no way of knowing where those men got their idea about uncut hair from. They certainly don't give any specific reference. Perhaps it is their own invention or misapplication of something contained in one of the sources found in the Bibliography.

4.) Did you go and read the Scripture references in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy?

Because neither one of those verses are prooftexts that women never cut their hair. The verse in Jeremiah isn't talking about women but about the "sons of Judah" (See verse 30). The verse in Deuteronomy is not about abasement or mourning, but about hygiene, as the captured women were not just to be shaved, but also trim their nails. This was to remove possible contaminants from her body before she was brought into the home. Additionally, this verse isn't even about Hebrew/Israeli women, but about heathen women. So, as a custom, it's not something these women would ordinarily do, but was to be enforced upon them by the law of God.

That's not what I meant. He says that it is a dishonor for a man to let their hair grow, and an honor for a woman to do the same. There is no "command" if that's what you are looking for. You can have your hair like a woman but it is a dishonor for you. There is hair like a woman. "And they had hair as the hair of women..." - Revelation 9:8 KJV. When nature don't let generally mature or older men have long hair, and let generally mature or older women have it, it creates a distinction of sexes regarding the hair. Therefore, even if you are a man and young enough to have long hair, you should keep it short.

But it is what Paul meant when he referred to nature, and the beginning of creation. Nature is inherent to the species. And it is inherent that men and women can both have long, uncut hair. The longest hair on record in the history of the human race was upon a man named Tran Van Hay. So something other than the biological nature is meant.

The question is one of comeliness. Something about nature is supposed to teach us that it is not comely or attractive for a man to have long hair, but is comely or attractive if a woman does. The nature that Paul wrote of then is not mere biology of heads and follicles but is psychological, that is, what is a generally agreed upon, at least in the ancient world, principle, that men with long hair are less attractive, and women with long hair are more attractive.

And part of that reason has to do with Paul's use of the word περιβολαίου or peribolaiou in 1 Corinthians 11:15, translated as "covering" (although this is a different Greek word translating covering earlier in the chapter).

Dr. Troy Martin, in this article make a pretty good case that peribolaiou refers to a sexual organ in various Greek literature contemporary to Paul. And while one need not go so far as Dr. Martin on the matter, one can understand Paul's reason for ordaining head coverings for women: long hair is sexually attractive, a part of her body as much as her breasts, or hips, or buttocks, or other parts that men are normally excited and enticed by. As such, hair, along with those other parts, are to be covered. Especially long hair, because longer hair is more attractive on a woman than short hair is.

So, it's not just a simple sex distinction, it's also a combatitive against lust for another man's wife, and a Christian sister, no less.

_____________________________________

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It seems vs 3-6 are explanatory of v 2, and are describing "chaste conversation". In other words, I don't see the admonition against jewelry and finery being strictly limited to evangelistic attempts to win over an unbelieving husband.

How would a woman obey the instructions while still wearing all the finery involved? Would she only dress up when not around her husband? That seems like it would accomplish the exact opposite of the intended effect?

The chaste conversation, or holy conduct of a wife with a disobedient husband is not an either/or proposition.

How do we know? Because a wife could have all the external standards in the world making her appear holy, but inwardly she could be anything but.

Conversely, a woman could wear, in everyday life, some of the finery mentioned but have the coveted internal standards that make her holy.

Finally, she could have both the external and internal situation a mess of ungodliness, or, she could have both the external and internal situation ordered and pure before God.

So the point is, if you focus on the externals only, without accounting for the internals, you will not gain your husband's obedience. He must witness the lifestyle and conduct, that is, she must live and act like a daughter of Sarah, who called her husband Abraham, "Lord".

Well, this "Lord Abraham", when he sent his servant Eliezer to secure a bride for Isaac, sent him with gifts of jewelry as wedding presents for the bride, as a sign of his wealth and prestige.

One of the included items, of all things, was a nose ring*, along with some bracelets (See Genesis 24:22-47)!

So, to Abraham and to Sarah, a proper wife for Isaac would be bejeweled as a sign of her betrothal.

God says the same thing to Israel in Ezekiel 16:12, that He gave them such jewelry, including a nose ring, as tokens of marriage (See the image below).

So then, a holy woman, as of old, a daughter of Sarah, could very much be like Rebekah, married to Isaac, with a half-shekel (or 6 grams) weight piece of gold in her nose, and bracelets on her arms, and still maintain a chaste conversation before her husband because of the internals, and so, win him to the Lord.

Simon, therefore, is not arguing against any outward ornamentation for a wife per se, but rather not to outwardly ornament herself only, as if that will be a sufficient witness for a disobedient husband.

* The KJV uses the word earring, and not nose ring. But according to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it is a nose ring (as seen in the link). We know this because Eliezer says he placed the ring on her face, not her ear (See Genesis 24:47).



While this image is striking and perhaps not to our modernized, American tastes, and certainly not to the average Apostolic's view of holiness, it is a fair representation of what Rebekah would have looked like with the gifts Abraham, through Eliezer, gave to her.

Simon Peter would have been well informed of this, and so would have his original readers, especially since he used Sarah and Abraham as points of reference. He, therefore, is not making a case against jewelry and nice clothing, because if he was, he would be dishonoring Abraham and his gifts to and through Eliezer, along with Abraham and Sarah's son Isaac and Isaac's wife, Rebekah, the mother of Israel. And since Isaac is a type of Christ (Romans 9:7 & 10, Galatians 4:22-28, and Hebrews 11:18), making Rebekah a type of the church, by inference, to dishonor the patriarch Isaac and Rebekah his wife by disclaiming the wearing of finery as a proscribed practice, would be, in a sense, to disclaim Christ and the Church, as their anti-types.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You are definitely on fire, lol. If don't have the context please skip my comments.

It was said as a reduction to the absurd to an argument, how their logic leads them to drop important teachings from Jesus that he himself indicates that not obeying it is a sin.

I was referring to Matthew 19:7-9 KJV. Moses didn't say what Jesus said. Moses only setup laws to regulate divorce.

I understood the context perfectly. What you did was, because those two brothers have a different opinion than you regarding standards, you accused them of not upholding the doctrines of Christ and His apostles. You therefore just flamed them as less of believers than yourself because you don't think they are following the Scriptures properly because they don't see eye to eye with you about outward appearances.

And then you challenged them, insinuating they might believe they can divorce a woman for any reason in contradistinction to what Jesus taught.

It's the old, "have you stopped beating your wife?" trick question. You can't say "yes" because then you admit to beating your wife. You can't say "no" because then it looks like you are continuing to beat your wife. All you can do is try and say "I don't beat my wife". It automatically forces a defensive posture about something the person would otherwise have no reason to be defensive about.

It's a low tactic. And a logical fallacy, along with ad hominem and non-sequitor.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The chaste conversation, or holy conduct of a wife with a disobedient husband is not an either/or proposition.

How do we know? Because a wife could have all the external standards in the world making her appear holy, but inwardly she could be anything but.

Conversely, a woman could wear, in everyday life, some of the finery mentioned but have the coveted internal standards that make her holy.

Finally, she could have both the external and internal situation a mess of ungodliness, or, she could have both the external and internal situation ordered and pure before God.

So the point is, if you focus on the externals only, without accounting for the internals, you will not gain your husband's obedience. He must witness the lifestyle and conduct, that is, she must live and act like a daughter of Sarah, who called her husband Abraham, "Lord".

Well, this "Lord Abraham", when he sent his servant Eliezer to secure a bride for Isaac, sent him with gifts of jewelry as wedding presents for the bride, as a sign of his wealth and prestige.

One of the included items, of all things, was a nose ring*, along with some bracelets (See Genesis 24:22-47)!

So, to Abraham and to Sarah, a proper wife for Isaac would be bejeweled as a sign of her betrothal.

God says the same thing to Israel in Ezekiel 16:12, that He gave them such jewelry, including a nose ring, as tokens of marriage (See the image below).

So then, a holy woman, as of old, a daughter of Sarah, could very much be like Rebekah, married to Isaac, with a half-shekel (or 6 grams) weight piece of gold in her nose, and bracelets on her arms, and still maintain a chaste conversation before her husband because of the internals, and so, win him to the Lord.

Simon, therefore, is not arguing against any outward ornamentation for a wife per se, but rather not to outwardly ornament herself only, as if that will be a sufficient witness for a disobedient husband.

* The KJV uses the word earring, and not nose ring. But according to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it is a nose ring (as seen in the link). We know this because Eliezer says he placed the ring on her face, not her ear (See Genesis 24:47).



While this image is striking and perhaps not to our modernized, American tastes, and certainly not to the average Apostolic's view of holiness, it is a fair representation of what Rebekah would have looked like with the gifts Abraham, through Eliezer, gave to her.

Simon Peter would have been well informed of this, and so would have his original readers, especially since he used Sarah and Abraham as points of reference. He, therefore, is not making a case against jewelry and nice clothing, because if he was, he would be dishonoring Abraham and his gifts to and through Eliezer, along with Abraham and Sarah's son Isaac and Isaac's wife, Rebekah, the mother of Israel. And since Isaac is a type of Christ (Romans 9:7 & 10, Galatians 4:22-28, and Hebrews 11:18), making Rebekah a type of the church, by inference, to dishonor the patriarch Isaac and Rebekah his wife by disclaiming the wearing of finery as a proscribed practice, would be, in a sense, to disclaim Christ and the Church, as their anti-types.

I'm having trouble understanding how someone can be decked with finery while not being adorned with said finery?

I'm also having trouble finding any record of any serious revival movement in history that didn't take a highly conservative view of apparel. Montanists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Shakers, New Light Presbyterians, the Stone-Campbell restorationists, Baptists, Puritans, Separatists, Nonconformists, Covenanters, Methodists, Holiness movement, Pentecostals, even many early charismatics, the Adventists, Irvingites, and so on and so forth, all tended to eschew jewelry, makeup, elaborate hairstyles, costly apparel, etc. In contrast, it was always the established church and those not in revival or opposed to revival who enjoyed the fine adornments of the day.

Which raises the question: why is that?

Outside of Christianity, a similar phenomenon has been recorded, as for example among the Stoics and even in the sumptuary laws passed at various times in ancient pagan Rome attempting to reign in the female adornment and roll things back to the more "austere" days of the pre-imperial Republic.

Has mankind been mistaken all this time? Or is there something to it?