Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

No offense, but that doesn't answer if ok or not to wear costly apparel????

I believe he did answer your question. Read it again.

And, at the end of the day, maybe it's the wrong question??

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

A true man of God would understand he has no authority over the authority of the husband. The gifts of ministry are just that gifts and helps to the authority of the headship of the husband under Christ who is over the wife, that together are over the children.

When we understand the teaching of Christ that the greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all, that we function together as a body, Christ being the head. We will find the ussue of authority is moot.

We must remmember one given gifts of ministry are still just men, we are not infalable. Just as our own bodies are made up of three parts so is the body of Christ. From our head Jesus we get our idenity our direction. As most of this comes from the word, as individuals we know what is right and wrong. Where then is the need for positions of authority, IMHO these come from mans need to regulate what we think are laws of God. Most being mans traditions.

God did not and does not pull one part of the body apart to fill positions of authority, he works with in the body by his spirit through spiritual gifts to equip, the whole body to do the work of ministry, and to edify the body, till we all come to the unity of faith.

Even Paul the apostle (one sent) to the gentiles did not think more highly of himself than others. Even when withstanding Peter to his face he did not do so as one with authority over Peter and Peter did not feel his authority was being questioned as they did not look at things in light of authority. Or else he would not have accepted what came from the spirit of God through Paul.

Some may see this thread as a standards issue, I see it as a authority issue. "you must do it my way because I am an authroity of said subject and you must not be as you don't see things my way"

And we wonder why peope want nothing to do with Christianity?

Authority doesn't mean one has to themselves as better. It's a role.

Christ had authority, yet he put on a towel and washed nasty toe jam. The husband's relationship to his wife is paralleled to Christ and the Church. It's a significant relationship and it related to social order, something established since Creation.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So your argument is:

If Jewelry was something spoken of favorably by God, because sacrifices were also favorable and are now not favorable, therefore, jewelry likewise is no longer something God looks at with approval?

Of course the argument would then go into symbolism. Sacrifice -- killing an animal is not a sin -- offering the animal up for sin sacrifice however would spit on the sacrifice of Jesus. If I can remember right, you believe the Church somehow takes on a symbolism of jewelry now? This is where I wasn't able to follow you.

I believe that gets pretty stretchy, rdp. Jewels were not to the people of God what sacrifice is to the people of God, nor are they today. Are these really apples-to-oranges comparisons? Mike's point would be God's lack of disapproval in Ezekiel of jewelry. What was replaced that things have changed?

My overriding point was/is that God spoke favorably of animal sacrifices....but now clearly would radically disapprove of them. Honestly, I think we're moving away from the simplicity of the instructions "not with gold jewelry....". Moreover, as I pointed out before, Ezek. 23:40 also demonstrates a DISAPPROVAL of ornamentation by God.

You see, it's always risky business to employ metaphorical verses to butress one's doctrinal posture...since theses types of verses usually can cut both ways. However, when you come to the epistles, we're not dealing w/ metaphors....we're dealing w/ "literal" instructions to the "literal" NT church. Check in in a few days....busy right now....rdp.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Well, the NT church is described as a bride adorned for her husband.

In the eschaton...not while here in the flesh. Moreover, contrast the false bride w/ the true bride in Rev. [since you're referring to Rev.] & see which one wore the jewels & which one was "arrayed in pure white" [minus the ornamentation].

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Eze 23:40 And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments,
Eze 23:41 And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil.

How does this speak against these things as sin. It was not the washing themselves and presenting themselves in this manner that was wrong, it was the purpose that they did these things that was wrong.

You know what rdp if you want to read into scripture what is not there that is ok who am I to change you. But to pass your convictions to everyone else it becomes a problem. Jesus condemed the pharise in his day for the same thing. Acctualy he did not condem them as much as that it was the spirit they manifested that was wrong. Stipulating the letter over the spirit of the word. As Jesus informed them, that the works of the letter of the law did not bring eternal life, he brought eternal life.

IMHO we do a dis service to our Lord when we take the emphasis off of Christ and put it into works and our ward apperance. An out ward apperance that does not glorify him in the first place. Your rules and regulations do not bring others to Christ, they push them away.

No offense intended, but I rarely even read your posts they're so silly. You constantly throw out the "cultural card" to dismiss Scripture. Who takes this seriously??????

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I believe he did answer your question. Read it again.

And, at the end of the day, maybe it's the wrong question??

Geeeee...go figure, "wrong question" !

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

My overriding point was/is that God spoke favorably of animal sacrifices....but now clearly would radically disapprove of them. Honestly, I think we're moving away from the simplicity of the instructions "not with gold jewelry....". Moreover, as I pointed out before, Ezek. 23:40 also demonstrates a DISAPPROVAL of ornamentation by God.

You see, it's always risky business to employ metaphorical verses to butress one's doctrinal posture...since theses types of verses usually can cut both ways. However, when you come to the epistles, we're not dealing w/ metaphors....we're dealing w/ "literal" instructions to the "literal" NT church. Check in in a few days....busy right now....rdp.

Let's be clear, I don't believe this passage in 1 Timothy is a metaphor. That doesn't mean literal means throwing out interpretive devices, including discovering authorial intent, learning what it meant to the audience and then deciding what it means for us. I don't think we are getting off-track. I think this is all a part of exegetical discovery.

Sacrifice had a huge role in the Story of God. It was how sin was taken care of. Why would God have a different opinion about sacrifice? Because He came already as the ultimate sacrifice and throwing a goat out there in place of the Messiah is blasphemous! In this case, God's approval/disapproval are by default of a work He did, and the symbolism of sacrifice. That doesn't seem to be the same thing, or even similar thing, with jewelry.

Ez 23:40 certainly doesn't look like God's disapproval with jewelry. I think that has been adequately responded to on this thread.

I'm concerned with your definition and frequent use of "literal." You seem educated enough in hermeneutics/exegesis to understand this.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Geeeee...go figure, "wrong question" !

Could it be?

We read 1 Timothy, the instruction here to correct a problem in the Church, and we walk away asking "so is wearing such and such wrong?" Is that the question at all?

Either way, the question of TS was answered.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

In the eschaton...not while here in the flesh. Moreover, contrast the false bride w/ the true bride in Rev. [since you're referring to Rev.] & see which one wore the jewels & which one was "arrayed in pure white" [minus the ornamentation].

Another subject, but the harlot was OT jewish nation. Maybe it's just an allegory thing like ez 16?? If ez 16 doesn't literally mean jewelry was worn or condone then the harlot in rev can be an allegory not meaning to be taken literally as a condemning jewelry and such.

I don't think we can have it both was, we cant write off of ez 16 as allegory that doesn't support wearing jewelry and then take rev as an allegory in condemning jewelry.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

In the eschaton...not while here in the flesh. Moreover, contrast the false bride w/ the true bride in Rev. [since you're referring to Rev.] & see which one wore the jewels & which one was "arrayed in pure white" [minus the ornamentation].

Now that is a metaphor, RDP. Just since we've been talking about that quite a bit. To read into this metaphor with eyes that say "see, since they had jewels and are represented as a false bride, then jewels MUST be wrong" is faulty and is really not straightforward with the Text. In fact, post the entire pericope from Revelation and let's read together!