Hair, sleeves, pantsuits, jewelry, and makeup

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Cool drive-by. Should a read the following posts, but alas... not your style, I guess?

I am just quick to pull the trigger or perhaps lazy

[Esaias]

lol

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, which is why I said a direct statement by an apostle (two, actually) on the subject of Christian women's attire is more on point than metaphors and allegories, which by the way go both ways.

Could you go ahead and post these two direct statements?

Just so I don’t have to guess what they are?

And explain if they do or not have anything to do with jewelry? And if they do, what they specifically say about wearing jewelry being sinful?

Thanks

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Could you go ahead and post these two direct statements?

Just so I don’t have to guess what they are?

And explain if they do or not have anything to do with jewelry? And if they do, what they specifically say about wearing jewelry being sinful?

Thanks

I know you asked him, but "modest apparel " Paul instructed Timothy about seems to clearly show women should be covered with long clothing, I'd would say non tight is included in that.

The whole anti jewelry stance stands or falls on what "not with" means.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Could you go ahead and post these two direct statements?

Just so I don’t have to guess what they are?

And explain if they do or not have anything to do with jewelry? And if they do, what they specifically say about wearing jewelry being sinful?

Thanks

I don't recall making that claim, bolded above in your statement??

Paul: 1 Timothy 2:9-10
Peter: 1 Peter 3:1-6

Jewelry: ornamental pieces (such as rings, necklaces, earrings, and bracelets) that are made of materials which may or may not be precious (such as gold, silver, glass, and plastic), are often set with genuine or imitation gems, and are worn for personal adornment.

Objects designed for the adornment of the body are called jewelry. While modern jewelry is made of gold, silver, or platinum, often with precious or semiprecious stones, it evolved from shells, animal teeth, and other items used as body decoration in prehistoric times. Over the centuries it came to be a sign of social or religious rank, and in Renaissance Italy, jewelry-making reached the status of a fine art. By the 19th century, industrialization brought jewelry within the reach of the middle class. Firms opened by such jewelers as Carl Fabergé and Louis Comfort Tiffany achieved great success by making fine jewelry for the wealthy. (Merriam-Webster definition).

Paul says women are to adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, and NOT with "broided hair, gold, pearls, or costly array", but rather with good works, as is becoming to women who profess godliness (reverence towards God).

Peter says women should have a chaste conversation combined with fear, whose adorning should not be an outward adorning (of plaiting the hair, wearing of gold, or putting on apparel), but rather a meek and quiet spirit. This is how holy women of old adorned themselves, being in subjection to their husbands, etc.

So Christian women who profess to serve God in holiness should not adorn themselves with outward adornments, like jewelry, elaborate hairdos, fine and ostentatious clothing, etc. Instead, they are to adorn themselves with humility, chastity, godliness, good works, sobriety, reverence, and other Christian virtues suitable to a woman of God.

Objections:

1. If these prohibit jewelry, they also prohibit any kind of clothing, for he says "or putting on of apparel".

Not so, because the Bible commands nakedness to be covered, commands clothing to be worn, and Paul explicitly says women ARE to wear "modest apparel." Paul prohibits "costly array" as a means of adornment, and Peter prohibits "putting on of apparel" as a means of adornment. The key term is "adorning".

1 : to enhance the appearance of especially with beautiful objects
adorned the wall with her paintings
2 : to enliven or decorate as if with ornaments

Clothing must be worn to cover nakedness and to present a modest appearance. Clothing should NOT be worn as a decoration or for the purposes of "enhancing the appearance as with decorations". The same applies to hairstyling and jewelry (gold, silver, other similar ornamentation).

2. The Bible speaks positively in the Old Testament about wearing jewelry and fine clothing, therefore women can wear jewelry and fine clothing.

Not so, for the Old Testament also speaks positively about animal sacrifices and other such offerings, as well as circumcision, yet for Christians to endorse such as desirable or acceptable would be contrary to the tenor of New Testament teaching. So just because something is mentioned positively in the Old Testament does not by itself make it desirable or acceptable behavior for Christians.

Again, none of the OT examples usually cited contain positive commands to godly women concerning their ordinary dress, whereas the New Testament contains positive commands to godly women concerning their dress that restrict/prohibit jewelry etc. Thus, the apostolic directives are more to the point and provide positive, general instruction.

Again, one can obey the apostolic directives without violating any "examples" of the OT. But, contrariwise, if one took the proposed OT examples as a rule of conduct, one may very well be in violation of the apostolic directives.

Again, many of the OT examples usually cited in this discussion are metaphors and allegories, whereas the apostolic directives are neither, but are direct and plain statements.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

58090I don't recall making that claim, bolded above in your statement??

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you did. That was the gist of the conversation though. I believe it has been mentioned several times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Esaias

58090
Paul: 1 Timothy 2:9-10
Peter: 1 Peter 3:1-6

I cover this below.

Originally Posted by Esaias

58090
Again, many of the OT examples usually cited in this discussion are metaphors and allegories, whereas the apostolic directives are neither, but are direct and plain statements.

I beg to differ with you here. These are both classic examples of allegories. I will provide the Merriam Webster dictionary definition below . . .

allegory noun
al·​le·​go·​ry | \ ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē \
plural allegories
Definition of allegory
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
a writer known for his use of allegory
also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM sense 2

The second definition is the simplest and most direct. An allegory is a symbolic representation. So one thing symbolizes something else. In Galatians, Paul uses the historical events of Issac, being the promised child of Abraham being symbolic of the New Covenant, while Ishmael, being the child of bondage symbolized the bondage that was typical of the Old Covenant.

Bible, King James Version


Gal.4
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This is the only mention of the actual word "allegory" in the Bible.

Now let's see if the passages of Paul and Peter are truly allegories. Does something physical (wearing clothes, jewelry and plaiting hair) symbolize something figurative? I believe it does.

[8] I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
[9] In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Now we have two ways that we can interpret these scripture verses. Literally or allegorically. The literal translation would be that in verse 10 that a woman would literally, (or as the words are actually written) say that Sister Charity? would be coming to church dressed in her good works. (My doesn't she look good today, dressed in her deeds that she has done for the poor, and her teachings to the children, and doesn't her veil look good, that is her Bible study good works. Oh no, I know that she appears to be naked, but she is not, because you are failing to see her good works that she is clothed in).

Does this make any sense? Of course not! This verse does NOT mean that she is literally wearing good works instead of apparel, jewelry, and the manner in which she fixes her hair. This passage is obviously intended to be interpreted as an allegory. Let's try it that way.

Here comes Sister Charity. She is wearing clothes of course. She has her hair fixed in an attractive fashion, (these Pentecostal ladies know how to "DO" hair don't they?) she is wearing some jewelry too I see. She is a very attractive lady altogether, she wears nice clothes, fixes her hair in an attractive manner, her jewelry is tastefully worn, attractive but not trashy, sort of understated. She is altogether a testimony to her peers of a faithful Christian, dressed in good taste, she brings honor to her husband and to her God with her appearance.

But that is not the part God sees, because remember . . .

1Sam.16
[7] But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

While the men are trying to see whether she is wearing a wedding band, or how far her sleeves fall past her elbows, and whether her hair is braided? or merely twisted, or curled, or (God forbid), permed?!, God is looking on her heart. He is looking at her time spent in prayer, her efforts feeding the hungry and the comfort that she has given to the little girl in the neighborhood that she picked up and brought to church, who lives in very bad circumstances and needs someone to give her some hope and be a mentor to her. God looks at this woman's heart that is "clothed" in good deeds, and says that this woman's deeds are more beautiful than any amount of jewelry, any amount of fine clothes and the best coiffed hair ever!
While man is judging her by her outer appearance, God is seeing her good deeds and saying "OH, what a beautiful, Godly woman this is". This would be the allegorical interpretation of this scripture.

Likewise Peter is certainly speaking allegorically.

1Pet.3
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

These scripture passages are saying essentially identical things. To prohibit adorning with gold literally, would be to prohibit plaiting hair, which is typically not done by even conservative pastors. Consistency would also require that, if you were to interpret this literally, that you would also prohibit putting on apparel. NOBODY preaches that. When they get to that phrase (putting on apparel) they kick back into allegorical mode.

Flip flops aren't just something worn on the feet. Wearing gold? Prohibited by the apostles! Two places!

Wearing clothes? Of course wearing clothes is mandatory. And they quote the same two verse.

This is how I believe these passages should be understood.

And we still don't have ANY scripture that says wearing jewelry is a sin . . . Just in case anybody is keeping score.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Oh well. At any rate we got that all cleared up. That really was a rabbit trail anyway. The main thing is that we still do not have ANY scripture that says jewelry is in any way sinful. We may have some preachers saying it. We may have saints saying it. But we don’t have scripture saying so.

And the scripture you post is no exception. It may have been a Freudian slip Esaias, but what you said is true. At least so far, we have no scripture that even remotely indicates that wearing jewelry is a sin.

What we DO have is strong evidence through multiple passages that indicate that God considers jewelry a blessing. Your reference in Hosea is another such scripture. It also is an allegory. Like the example that I quoted in Ezekiel and the two references of Paul and Peter.

Read the first two chapters of Hosea and I believe you’ll see what I’m referring to. I can’t get too deep into it right now. I will try to do so later.

Hint: Who did the adulterous woman get her silver and gold from?

The adulterous woman in Hosea got her gold from . . .

GOD

I know this may cause the conservatives head to explode, but the Bible says, what the Bible says . . .

[8] For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal

This is yet another allegory. The adulterous woman is a symbol of Israel. God is saying that He gave the adulterous woman (Israel, who was committing idolatry by worshiping Baal) food, silver and gold. In another verse He says He has given them wool and flax, to cover her nakedness. Then Israel was making offerings of these blessings from God to Baal!

Hence Israel, and Judah were playing the harlot. They were being unfaithful to, or committing adultery with God.

This is very similar to the allegories in the New Testament. The woman, jewelry, apparel, all blessings from God. The stark contrast is that in the New Testament, we have an example of a Godly woman, while in the Old Testament, we have Israel playing the harlot.

In Ezekiel the scene is much the same as in Hosea. God dresses a woman that symbolizes Israel in fine clothes, blesses her with good food, and adorns her with many kinds of jewelry.

If God used this to symbolize His love for His chosen people of Israel, it is difficult for me to believe wearing jewelry is considered a sin by God.

I do understand that MANY preachers DO consider it a sin. Maybe they should try to understand what the Bible is REALLY saying.

That's how I see it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you did. That was the gist of the conversation though. I believe it has been mentioned several times in this thread.




I cover this below.



I beg to differ with you here. These are both classic examples of allegories. I will provide the Merriam Webster dictionary definition below . . .

allegory noun
al·​le·​go·​ry | \ ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē \
plural allegories
Definition of allegory
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
a writer known for his use of allegory
also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.
2 : a symbolic representation : EMBLEM sense 2

The second definition is the simplest and most direct. An allegory is a symbolic representation. So one thing symbolizes something else. In Galatians, Paul uses the historical events of Issac, being the promised child of Abraham being symbolic of the New Covenant, while Ishmael, being the child of bondage symbolized the bondage that was typical of the Old Covenant.

Bible, King James Version


Gal.4
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This is the only mention of the actual word "allegory" in the Bible.

Now let's see if the passages of Paul and Peter are truly allegories. Does something physical (wearing clothes, jewelry and plaiting hair) symbolize something figurative? I believe it does.

[8] I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
[9] In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Now we have two ways that we can interpret these scripture verses. Literally or allegorically. The literal translation would be that in verse 10 that a woman would literally, (or as the words are actually written) say that Sister Charity? would be coming to church dressed in her good works. (My doesn't she look good today, dressed in her deeds that she has done for the poor, and her teachings to the children, and doesn't her veil look good, that is her Bible study good works. Oh no, I know that she appears to be naked, but she is not, because you are failing to see her good works that she is clothed in).

Does this make any sense? Of course not! This verse does NOT mean that she is literally wearing good works instead of apparel, jewelry, and the manner in which she fixes her hair. This passage is obviously intended to be interpreted as an allegory. Let's try it that way.

Here comes Sister Charity. She is wearing clothes of course. She has her hair fixed in an attractive fashion, (these Pentecostal ladies know how to "DO" hair don't they?) she is wearing some jewelry too I see. She is a very attractive lady altogether, she wears nice clothes, fixes her hair in an attractive manner, her jewelry is tastefully worn, attractive but not trashy, sort of understated. She is altogether a testimony to her peers of a faithful Christian, dressed in good taste, she brings honor to her husband and to her God with her appearance.

But that is not the part God sees, because remember . . .

1Sam.16
[7] But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

While the men are trying to see whether she is wearing a wedding band, or how far her sleeves fall past her elbows, and whether her hair is braided? or merely twisted, or curled, or (God forbid), permed?!, God is looking on her heart. He is looking at her time spent in prayer, her efforts feeding the hungry and the comfort that she has given to the little girl in the neighborhood that she picked up and brought to church, who lives in very bad circumstances and needs someone to give her some hope and be a mentor to her. God looks at this woman's heart that is "clothed" in good deeds, and says that this woman's deeds are more beautiful than any amount of jewelry, any amount of fine clothes and the best coiffed hair ever!
While man is judging her by her outer appearance, God is seeing her good deeds and saying "OH, what a beautiful, Godly woman this is". This would be the allegorical interpretation of this scripture.

Likewise Peter is certainly speaking allegorically.

1Pet.3
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

These scripture passages are saying essentially identical things. To prohibit adorning with gold literally, would be to prohibit plaiting hair, which is typically not done by even conservative pastors. Consistency would also require that, if you were to interpret this literally, that you would also prohibit putting on apparel. NOBODY preaches that. When they get to that phrase (putting on apparel) they kick back into allegorical mode.

Flip flops aren't just something worn on the feet. Wearing gold? Prohibited by the apostles! Two places!

Wearing clothes? Of course wearing clothes is mandatory. And they quote the same two verse.

This is how I believe these passages should be understood.

And we still don't have ANY scripture that says wearing jewelry is a sin . . . Just in case anybody is keeping score.

Please explain how a woman can adorn herself with costly array, gold, silver, and plaited hair, while obeying the instruction to not adorn herself with costly array, gold, silver, and plaited hair.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The adulterous woman in Hosea got her gold from . . .

GOD

I know this may cause the conservatives head to explode, but the Bible says, what the Bible says . . .

[8] For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal

This is yet another allegory. The adulterous woman is a symbol of Israel. God is saying that He gave the adulterous woman (Israel, who was committing idolatry by worshiping Baal) food, silver and gold. In another verse He says He has given them wool and flax, to cover her nakedness. Then Israel was making offerings of these blessings from God to Baal!

Hence Israel, and Judah were playing the harlot. They were being unfaithful to, or committing adultery with God.

This is very similar to the allegories in the New Testament. The woman, jewelry, apparel, all blessings from God. The stark contrast is that in the New Testament, we have an example of a Godly woman, while in the Old Testament, we have Israel playing the harlot.

In Ezekiel the scene is much the same as in Hosea. God dresses a woman that symbolizes Israel in fine clothes, blesses her with good food, and adorns her with many kinds of jewelry.

If God used this to symbolize His love for His chosen people of Israel, it is difficult for me to believe wearing jewelry is considered a sin by God.

I do understand that MANY preachers DO consider it a sin. Maybe they should try to understand what the Bible is REALLY saying.

That's how I see it.

Where again did you find in the New Testament a godly woman pictured decked with jewelry, et al?

The allegories and metaphors used by God to describe His adorning of His bride with various costly and beautiful adornments are just that - the adornments of a bride, the bride of a King. See Psalm 45 for a similar picture. I don't see anything wrong with a bride being adorned for her wedding, because all that adornment represents something, and is not (or shouldn't be, anyway) mere decoration for the mere sake of decorating oneself to become the focus of admiration etc. (The bride is already the focus of attention and admiration at her wedding to begin with. But seeking such during one's ordinary daily life is contrary to the apostles' teachings on the subject.)

Again, an allegory, metaphor, symbol, or representation using pictorial description is not something that somehow "overpowers" a clear, plain, direct, didactic command of two apostles.

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The adulterous woman in Hosea got her gold from . . .

GOD

I know this may cause the conservatives head to explode, but the Bible says, what the Bible says . . .

[8] For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal

This is yet another allegory. The adulterous woman is a symbol of Israel. God is saying that He gave the adulterous woman (Israel, who was committing idolatry by worshiping Baal) food, silver and gold. In another verse He says He has given them wool and flax, to cover her nakedness. Then Israel was making offerings of these blessings from God to Baal!

Hence Israel, and Judah were playing the harlot. They were being unfaithful to, or committing adultery with God.

This is very similar to the allegories in the New Testament. The woman, jewelry, apparel, all blessings from God. The stark contrast is that in the New Testament, we have an example of a Godly woman, while in the Old Testament, we have Israel playing the harlot.

In Ezekiel the scene is much the same as in Hosea. God dresses a woman that symbolizes Israel in fine clothes, blesses her with good food, and adorns her with many kinds of jewelry.

If God used this to symbolize His love for His chosen people of Israel, it is difficult for me to believe wearing jewelry is considered a sin by God.

I do understand that MANY preachers DO consider it a sin. Maybe they should try to understand what the Bible is REALLY saying.

That's how I see it.

So she had earrings on and god multiplied and gave her a nose ring? Wait maybe it wasn’t talking about jewelry lol