Jewelry, for Christians or not?

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:43 pm

9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 1 Timothy 2:9-10

Who do you explain this? Does it not say that women are not to wear gold, pearls or expensive clothes? I've studied into the "braided hair" part and realized that what Paul seemed to be targeting was that women in those days used to braid jewels and fancy decorations into their hair. By the way, its been awhile i know. I've been super busy and didn't have the time to put into here. But here I am again, much to the consternation of some I suppose.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:08 pm

My pastor is of the opinion that it's a heart issue. It all depends on your reason for wearing jewelry.

That's not what the Bible says. Do we obey what the Bible says or not? I just leave that as a challenge for you to think about.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:14 pm

It appears to me that the deeper issue is, as Paul seems to have implied, modesty. I can respect that it isn't healthy for people to have immodest affectations (in terms of the content of their behaviour), and jewelry might be an outward form of immodesty, but so can a whole bunch of other things. Rolex watches and fancy Blackberry-style cellphones ain't just for telling time and texting your buddies, after all. And Hummers are clearly not just for getting from point A to point B.

I also think people can have a number of different reasons for wearing jewelry, that are not immodest or status symbols. My parents wear wedding rings, for example - I don't consider that an affectation.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:33 pm

It appears to me that the deeper issue is, as Paul seems to have implied, modesty. I can respect that it isn't healthy for people to have immodest affectations (in terms of the content of their behaviour), and jewelry might be an outward form of immodesty, but so can a whole bunch of other things. Rolex watches and fancy Blackberry-style cellphones ain't just for telling time and texting your buddies, after all. And Hummers are clearly not just for getting from point A to point B.

I also think people can have a number of different reasons for wearing jewelry, that are not immodest or status symbols. My parents wear wedding rings, for example - I don't consider that an affectation.

I don't feel that Rolex watches and Blackberry cell phones are anything but vanity. However the Bible says no gold or silver. How do you get around that? I do not wear a gold or silver watch. I don't want my girlfriend were glasses with jewels on them. Do we do what the Bible says or do we read in "What we think Paul might of meant". Did he mean what he said or not? It seems pretty clear.

InTheFlesh · Post by **InTheFlesh** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:28 pm

Your Pastor got it right. I think you could have accepted it and wore it when you visit grandpa.
Hopefully, he would not rob you.

Isa.61
[10] I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

Rev.21
[2] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:39 pm

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I've always interpreted Paul's instructions about modesty and dress to mean that one should not dress in such a way as to attract attention to oneself. If you need to dress to impress, (or drive for that matter) then you are not humble but proud and haughty. The same kind of principle could be applied to overly pious clothing, gold edged leather bound Bibles, etc.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:18 pm

Again I repeat. The Bible says NOT does it mean it or not. And if it doesn't mean it how do we go about deciding when it means what it says and when it doesn't?

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:19 am

It's never that easy. We aren't 1st-century inhabitants of the Roman Empire, we are 21st-century inhabitants of wherever. The teachings of the Gospel and of the Epistles make no sense when they are grafted haphazardly onto our current social situations without some kind of interpretation! (Indeed, Scott, this is what you yourself did when you addressed the point about braided hair!)

I'm catching onto what Paul is saying about modesty here - the content of an action or behaviour or the virtue associated with it - rather than on the jewelry itself, which is merely a formal rejection of modesty which may still apply, or may not. It might be completely anachronistic to focus on the jewelry itself in an age in which jewelry is but one among many immodest and spiritually-corrosive status symbols or affectations (like Rolexes or Blackberries or Hummers).

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:48 pm

I'm catching onto what Paul is saying about modesty here - the content of an action or behaviour or the virtue associated with it - rather than on the jewelry itself, which is merely a formal rejection of modesty which may still apply, or may not. It might be completely anachronistic to focus on the jewelry itself in an age in which jewelry is but one among many immodest and spiritually-corrosive status symbols or affectations (like Rolexes or Blackberries or Hummers).

Some good points in there I will say. However do we ignore jewelry (which is by far the clearest of the examples) because of other problems. "Well we don't apply that over here so that means we don't need to apply it in what it actually says". That is what it seem your post is trying to convey. Maybe I am misunderstanding it. Correct me if I am.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:52 am

I'm not saying we ignore what the Bible is actually saying here - but as Christians we ought to be concerned with the content of moral behaviour rather than the form. We shouldn't ignore the use of jewelry as an affectation; but my point was slightly more subtle than that. Neither should we focus on jewelry to the exclusion of all other affectations or expressions of vanity.

'Simple living', as the Dissenters, Quakers and Anabaptists have it, might be a possible goal.

scottlittlefield17 · Post by **scottlittlefield17** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:55 am

I'm not saying we ignore what the Bible is actually saying here - but as Christians we ought to be concerned with the content of moral behaviour rather than the form. We shouldn't ignore the use of jewelry as an affectation; but my point was slightly more subtle than that. Neither should we focus on jewelry to the exclusion of all other affectations or expressions of vanity.

'Simple living', as the Dissenters, Quakers and Anabaptists have it, might be a possible goal.

I agree, sorry for misunderstanding what you meant.