Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Christ the only only one with right to authority, he was God after all. Yet never in his ministry did he teach in a maner that demanded authority.

As for the husband and wife parallel to Christ and the church That is right. But the question is where do you get the parallel of Christ, pastor, church?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Christ the only only one with right to authority, he was God after all. Yet never in his ministry did he teach in a maner that demanded authority.

As for the husband and wife parallel to Christ and the church That is right. But the question is where do you get the parallel of Christ, pastor, church?

I thought the topic was authority in general, and I thought you had said something about husband and wives? Did I jump in at the wrong point here?

As far as leadership in the Church -- Christ does not appoint overseers that have no authority to perform their tasks. They are called and commissioned of the Spirit. See, people see poor and failing examples of spiritual abuse and throw out the baby with the bath water. Spiritual leadership is a staple to the NT church. The elders calling in their communities was paramount. However, to turn things upside down, this leadership was really serving, as conveyed by Jesus in the Gospel of John. They were appointed to serve the Church. Do they have authority? Yes. Authority to do what? To serve. To lead the church. Authority to lord over people? No.

[mfblume]

I went back 8 pages from the latest in order to find your reference to a question about costly array. If this is not it, then please repeat it. But here is what I think you are referring to:

Originally Posted by rdp

Does "not with gold jewelry, pearls, or costly apparel" mean what it clearly instructs:___________?

Put it this way, if you think it is clearly saying to never wear jewelry, pearls or costly array, that is not what it is saying. There is more than that to it, due to the context. We have to apply the same manner of interpretation that is required with Peter's words. In other words, it is saying the same thing Peter said when he wrote, "not... the wearing of apparel." And this is an important comparison of writings. Peter's words show that the "clear instruction" people derive from the writing is not always what was intended by the writing. For example, while considering Paul's words in your reference, to read Peter's words in the same manner you are reading Paul's words to Timothy would make one think we were being told to never wear clothing.

Nothing in the Greek says anything about costly in Peter. When we read 1 Tim 2:9 and read the term "costly" we realize that is what Peter likely meant. So this proves that people's views of what they think is plain reading is not always what the context is actually intended to relate.

The bible is written in such a way that you cannot just take a sentence out of the context and offer its plain reading to people without overviewing the overall context. Otherwise, Peter said we should not wear clothes. Again, NO GREEK INFLECTION IS INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL READING TO INFER COSTLINESS IN PETER'S WORDS.

Paul was not saying to never wear gold or jewelry or costly array. It was an issue of appearance and "over-the-top" flamboyance. It is dressing in a manner that is prideful, which is why it was contrasted with sobriety. A man can wear a $1,000 suit and it look as plain as can be, and not be worn due to pride, but simply is made from excellent tailor work. Sometimes costly things are costly because they WILL LAST LONGER. So Paul would not speak against that at all. But the tone of his context is ridiculous and self-focusing luxury. When something is worn that screams out, "Look how expensive my clothes are!" it is wrong and should not be worn.

Originally Posted by rdp

BUT, consider the OT sacrifices....were they spoken of by God favorably? Of course! Would it be a sin today to go back & begin animal sacrifices in order to roll your sins ahead? Of course it would [see Gal. 4-5].

Your logic fails. You are claiming it was never right for women to wear jewelry -- not now nor in Old Testament times. You claim that God merely tolerated jewelry but finally gave his true opinion as time went by until the NT times saw it outrightly prohibited. You cannot compare sacrifices to that.

The reason animal sacrifice would be an affront against God and a sin now is because Christ was once offered for sins for ever. Before He was sacrificed, GOD DEMANDED ANIMAL SACRIFICE. Christ had not died, and therefore it was no sin to offer animal sacrifices. That is a far cry from what you believe in God having NEVER condoned jewelry. He DID CONDONE animal sacrifices and demanded it. So you cannot use that. In order for your idea to stand, there must have been something that occurred in time and space AFTER jewelry was condoned that rendered them sinful, just as Christ died once and for all AFTER animal sacrifices were condoned making them presently sinful.

I could marshall many, many more examples, but in principle, mankind was not the temple of God on the OT as they are today. A-L-L of the dwelling places of God on Earth have had the jewels INSIDE....NOT OUTSIDE of the temple. But, according to you, this has suddenly changed right Mike???? No thank you.

Incorrect. The temple was full of OUTWARD SPLENDOUR.

From Josephus, we read this of Herod's temple:

The outside of the Temple was overlaid with plates of gold, thus

the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of purest white [that is, from the pure white limestone ashlars]. (Jewish War V, 222-223)

...Golden spikes were laid onto the roof “to prevent birds from settling upon and polluting” it ( Jewish War V, 224).

Though this was Herod's temple, Jesus called it the Father's house, fully condoning it.

Again, you still did not directly answer my question as to how could God reason that an evil act illustrates a holy act. You are only referring me to instances that you also think are sin but were nonetheless condoned by God, implying such sinful acts were never anything but evil. The instance of animal sacrifices fails due to the reasons I showed.

So please do not simply list all the sinful acts you think God tolerated, because he never tolerates sin, and no animal sacrifices before Christ was offered were sinful. Therefore, you not only did not answer my question yet, but you also mistakenly implied animal sacrifices were sinful but God tolerated them. Explain why God would take a sinful act to illustrate a holy act.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.....does the Bible mean what it says when it instructs "not with gold jewelry, pearls or costly apparel"?????? Y or N? I'm not being smart-alec here, but have you ever heard of the "overreading the read"? Seriously.....

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

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.

Yes...another subject indeed. I DO NOT believe that the woman was the OT jewish nation. Israel did not "sit upon seven mountains," nor "rule the kings of the Earth" during the time of John's vision...but Rome did!

My point regarding Rev. 17-18 was/is that the true bride was depicted as arrayed in pure white, while the false bride was depicted in ornaments. Either way you slice it, this does not put ornamentation in a favourable light. Ezek. 16 has been dealt w/ ad nauseum in this thread.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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!

Don't have time, but you need to take your own advice here in Ezek. 16 .

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Yes...another subject indeed. I DO NOT believe that the woman was the OT jewish nation. Israel did not "sit upon seven mountains," nor "rule the kings of the Earth" during the time of John's vision...but Rome did!

Jerusalem is on seven hills. And the OT shows Jerusalem as being a focus in God;s eyes to all the earth.

My point regarding Rev. 17-18 was/is that the true bride was depicted as arrayed in pure white, while the false bride was depicted in ornaments. Either way you slice it, this does not put ornamentation in a favourable light. Ezek. 16 has been dealt w/ ad nauseum in this thread.

But in all you have stated about Ezek 16 you never once explained God's reasoning in using sinful wrongdoing to illustrate a holy thing. Anyone can type all month long and avoid the one issue that we are asking, and say they responded ad nauseum.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I went back 8 pages from the latest in order to find your reference to a question about costly array. If this is not it, then please repeat it. But here is what I think you are referring to:



Put it this way, if you think it is clearly saying to never wear jewelry, pearls or costly array, that is not what it is saying. There is more than that to it, due to the context. We have to apply the same manner of interpretation that is required with Peter's words. In other words, it is saying the same thing Peter said when he wrote, "not... the wearing of apparel." And this is an important comparison of writings. Peter's words show that the "clear instruction" people derive from the writing is not always what was intended by the writing. For example, while considering Paul's words in your reference, to read Peter's words in the same manner you are reading Paul's words to Timothy would make one think we were being told to never wear clothing.

Nothing in the Greek says anything about costly in Peter. When we read 1 Tim 2:9 and read the term "costly" we realize that is what Peter likely meant. So this proves that people's views of what they think is plain reading is not always what the context is actually intended to relate.

The bible is written in such a way that you cannot just take a sentence out of the context and offer its plain reading to people without overviewing the overall context. Otherwise, Peter said we should not wear clothes. Again, NO GREEK INFLECTION IS INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL READING TO INFER COSTLINESS IN PETER'S WORDS.

Paul was not saying to never wear gold or jewelry or costly array. It was an issue of appearance and "over-the-top" flamboyance. It is dressing in a manner that is prideful, which is why it was contrasted with sobriety. A man can wear a $1,000 suit and it look as plain as can be, and not be worn due to pride, but simply is made from excellent tailor work. Sometimes costly things are costly because they WILL LAST LONGER. So Paul would not speak against that at all. But the tone of his context is ridiculous and self-focusing luxury. When something is worn that screams out, "Look how expensive my clothes are!" it is wrong and should not be worn.



Your logic fails. You are claiming it was never right for women to wear jewelry -- not now nor in Old Testament times. You claim that God merely tolerated jewelry but finally gave his true opinion as time went by until the NT times saw it outrightly prohibited. You cannot compare sacrifices to that.

The reason animal sacrifice would be an affront against God and a sin now is because Christ was once offered for sins for ever. Before He was sacrificed, GOD DEMANDED ANIMAL SACRIFICE. Christ had not died, and therefore it was no sin to offer animal sacrifices. That is a far cry from what you believe in God having NEVER condoned jewelry. He DID CONDONE animal sacrifices and demanded it. So you cannot use that. In order for your idea to stand, there must have been something that occurred in time and space AFTER jewelry was condoned that rendered them sinful, just as Christ died once and for all AFTER animal sacrifices were condoned making them presently sinful.



Incorrect. The temple was full of OUTWARD SPLENDOUR.

From Josephus, we read this of Herod's temple:

The outside of the Temple was overlaid with plates of gold, thus

the sun was no sooner up than it radiated so fiery a flash that persons straining to look at it were compelled to avert their eyes, as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain; for all that was not overlaid with gold was of purest white [that is, from the pure white limestone ashlars]. (Jewish War V, 222-223)

...Golden spikes were laid onto the roof “to prevent birds from settling upon and polluting” it ( Jewish War V, 224).

Though this was Herod's temple, Jesus called it the Father's house, fully condoning it.

Again, you still did not directly answer my question as to how could God reason that an evil act illustrates a holy act. You are only referring me to instances that you also think are sin but were nonetheless condoned by God, implying such sinful acts were never anything but evil. The instance of animal sacrifices fails due to the reasons I showed.

So please do not simply list all the sinful acts you think God tolerated, because he never tolerates sin, and no animal sacrifices before Christ was offered were sinful. Therefore, you not only did not answer my question yet, but you also mistakenly implied animal sacrifices were sinful but God tolerated them. Explain why God would take a sinful act to illustrate a holy act.

Very pressed for time, but will address this later....ESP. the "Josephus" argument [can't wait]! The rest is mostly simple denial & philosophical reasoning [$1,000 suit] which counters tha plainness of I Tim. 2 & I Ptr. 3 [which DOES indeed indicate 'adorning' in the Greek in connection w/ 'apparel'].

[rdp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jerusalem is on seven hills. And the OT shows Jerusalem as being a focus in God;s eyes to all the earth.



But in all you have stated about Ezek 16 you never once explained God's reasoning in using sinful wrongdoing to illustrate a holy thing. Anyone can type all month long and avoid the one issue that we are asking, and say they responded ad nauseum.

Have to hurry here, but I've dealt w/ Ezek. 16 for about 114 pgs. now! I mean really, you must think that this is the only passage in the Bible! Your hermeneutical error is that of using metaphorical passages to invalidate the plainness of NT instructions to the church. Jewels are indeed beautiful in appearance...which IS EXACTLY WHY God uses them as ILLUSTRATIONS of His Mercy to Israel. His Mercy likeweise shines as brilliant stones...but if you're suggesting that He's endorsing His church being "decked" out in costly jewels, fine linen, etc.....you need a home Bible study on proper scholastics!

So, again, since His church is made up of women AND MEN, would you have aproblem w/ a preacher being "decked" in costly, brilliant stones [including nose rings, tongue rings, etc.] w/ "fine linen" teaching you about "tempreance/modesty":______________? Watch that banana peel Mike! Check back 2mmorrow...........rdp.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rdp

Have to hurry here, but I've dealt w/ Ezek. 16 for about 114 pgs. now! I mean really, you must think that this is the only passage in the Bible! Your hermeneutical error is that of using metaphorical passages to invalidate the plainness of NT instructions to the church. Jewels are indeed beautiful in appearance...which IS EXACTLY WHY God uses them as ILLUSTRATIONS of His Mercy to Israel. His Mercy likeweise shines as brilliant stones...but if you're suggesting that He's endorsing His church being "decked" out in costly jewels, fine linen, etc.....you need a home Bible study on proper scholastics!

So, again, since His church is made up of women AND MEN, would you have aproblem w/ a preacher being "decked" in costly, brilliant stones [including nose rings, tongue rings, etc.] w/ "fine linen" teaching you about "tempreance/modesty":______________? Watch that banana peel Mike! Check back 2mmorrow...........rdp.

You are still avoiding my point. It does not matter how many times you responded to Ezek 16, it matters if you are addressing our specific question: WHY WOULD GOD USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY ACT? You've done everything but directly answer that question.

Type 114 more pages of responses and never actually answer this single and simple question. But do not say you already answered it.


The point is what you think is plainness is incorrect, which is evident in your continued inability to answer this one simple question. Until you can answer this one question, I see no reason to believe your interpretation and alleged plain reading of the NT passages is correct, and nobody has helped me see it your way.

In my estimation GOD WOULD NEVER USE AN UNHOLY PICTURE TO ILLUSTRATE A HOLY THING OR ACT. Sorry, cannot get around that.

So, your interpretation that demands that picture be unholy shows your interpretation of Paul and Peter to be wrong. What you think is plain instruction is wrong. And until you or SOMEONE answers this question, I have not received an answer, and will never accept your idea that Peter and Paul meant what YOU CLAIM they meant. The fact that you are saying everything except the answer to this question shows me your idea of standards is error.