Hermeneutics 101 (was-Re: Rings and Things)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Wed, 07 Aug 1996 14:18:41 -0300, you wrote:

Bro Frank,

Notice that Im responding to your comments on an article by a man Ive
never met. So, if thats not too absurd, one we go ...

>>I would like to begin this article with a quote from Bro. James
>>Kilgore, the Assistant General Superintendent of the United
>>Pentecostal Church.
>>
>
>First, as you have said many times, Mark. We are not Catholic, we have no
>Pope, so why start with a quote from a man instead of a scripture
>condemning Jewellry?

Im not Catholc.. but I certainly am not independant of others who
serve God. The man in question is of high regard and speaks with
sufficent gravity such that the things he says ought to be of interest
to those that love the same God that has demonstrated a powerful walk
and ministry in his life. In my personal opinion, there is more than a
small place for learning from the leadership of the church without
retreating to the rock throwing position that I am "sola-scriptura",
for I for one, am not.

>> World Book Encyclopedia, page 95 under
>>jewelry states, "Jewelry includes:  rings, bracelets, necklaces,
>>earrings, brooches, and 
>
>*****various ornaments for the hair."********
>
>Once again my comment about "plaited hair" Our Pentecostal women have more
>gizmos and doodads for their hair than Crystal Gayle. WAP even distributes
>a book on hairstyles for women.

Bugs the daylights out of me, to be honest.. Good point Bro Frank..
Wanna take the job of prophet? To be sure, theres a position open.

>  Why do we ignore that part of the Scripture
>on apparel and turn our guns at Jewellry? I'm not saying we should ignore
>Jewellry, just be consistent.

You got my vote, Bro.

> In no instance in Holy Scripture, neither by priest, prophet or apostle, was
>>the marriage vows solemnized by the putting on of a ring. God
>>performed the first wedding in the garden of Eden, and no where can we
>>find that he married Adam and Eve with rings. 
>
>If God performed any ceremony in the Garden, I missed it. EVERY aspect of
>the modern wedding ceremony (including rings) comes from the tradition of
>man. Using our brothers logic, we would also have to get rid of the wedding
>dress (they were naked), a minister (not one there), wedding march and
>music (none), a marriage license (if I don't need a ring  to show I'm
>married, I don't need a piece of paper either), etc. Reductio ad absurdum (
>argument reduced to the rediculous premise on which it stands, for those
>who don't know Latin)

The point being made here was that the ring is not justtified being a
component of marriage.  I think you helped to further that point
greatly.

>I just got married, and had all those elements in my wedding, with my
>pastor's blessing and approval.  

Thats something I cannot comment on. Marriage is good and the events
you speak of are blessed, but we cannot allow this to become personal.
Further, when you bring your pastor into the matter, I must withdraw.

>Let us also note there are only two wedding mentioned in the NT. Cana (a
>Jewish wedding with alcohol being served, and no discussion of Jewellry)
>and the marriage of Jesus and His Bride the church. There is no "apostolic"
>wedding ceremony or pattern to follow. Baptism, yes. Marriage, no.

There is no conflict here. In fact, we recognize couples married while
anamists, and Hindus as legitimately married. You dont want to know my
primitive opinion of what constitutes marriage, although I can tell
you I could be sharply rebuked using Bible for it.. Again, the point
is not to endorse a "Bible wedding", but to delineate certain customs
or aspects as without justification, unless personal opinion and
tradition is to be leaned on.

>In the old Testament God is shown as placing Jewels and Jewelry upon Israel as
>a sign of His love for her.

I think this has been covered elsewhere, but I would hope that it is
understood that this scripture, argued extensively by charismatics in
opposition to holiness standards of any kind, is figurative. Taken as
a whole, the Bible speaks of jewelery worn as an expression of
self-adornment or self-exhibition as a mark not unlike the spirit of
harlotry.

>10: I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers'
>skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with
>silk.

>11: I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands,
>and a chain on thy neck.

>12: And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a
>beautiful crown upon thine head.

As you know, neither crown nor badger skin was the available from the
Israelity Services and Uniform Dispensary. Jewelery too was in use
figuratively... However, rejoice, for what God is saying is that the
honor and gratification of significance that the human spirit seeks
when wearing jewelery, is actually made available through the plan of
salvation, and the mercy of God.

Mark carefully, Bro Frank: we who teach against jewelery are not
teaching against bits of metal or traditions, but say that it is God's
will that we demonstrate His ability to supply what the carnal man
seeks for in terms of value vainly, through fleshly means.

Spiritual life is not empowered lest the flesh is denied. This is the
principle behind all these matters, and they become twisted without
such understanding.


>2: For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly
>apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
>
>It is the church that is being criticized here, nothing negative is said
>about the man or how he dresses. "Gay apparel" is an Elizabethanism for
>attractive clothing.

Thank God! I thought Calvin Klien was showing up for big meetings now.

The man with the gold ring, and the well dressed man, both may enter
in, but is either one saved ? We make an issue about taking the time
for down and outers... Perhaps James is making the same point for, to
our shame, we often receive a politician, or buisness man with greater
fervor than the guy who slips in the back, and goes away without a
personal touch from anyone.


>>You cannot allow wedding rings in the church and ever win the battle
>>against jewelry. 
>
>We wrestle not against flesh and blood (or against precious metal and stone)

Well, whatever... I think that the point should be taken that the
things we do with our bodies are of great significance, as there is
really not a lot else that fits the description of "bottom line".

>> When Custom comes into conflict with scripture,
>>which do we obey? The Apostles said, "We ought to obey God rather than
>>men."
>
>I agree. So why are we so down on rings? Is it Scripture or custom? If
>Scripture, lets see some. If custom, who ought we to obey?

I'll publish an extensive run down on scripture related to jewelry. I
hope that is of some help.

>I agree with that. Just because I have written something here, not in the
>hope that everyone will go out and wear Jewellry, but that we will clean up
>our slack habits of Bible study, don't ever use it to go contrary to your
>pastor.

Well, I dont think you advicated the wearing of jewelry. If you did, I
did not read it.

>6- I wear a plain, simple wedding band 

Mine went down the disposal one day many years ago. Amazingly, though
I am considered handsome, only a few very sorry women have ever made
any advances at all.

Given the kind of spirit that would compel a woman to make advances
toward a man whose own spirit is projecting his holiness, it is ironic
that the same woman would have no concern as to whether I was married
or not. 

Believe me, I know how to tell devils where to get off so they NEVER
repeat the same mistake (as though it was a mistake). Married men ALL
ought to learn the authority and demonstration of carriage that
projects their power and holiness in the Spirit. And to those who are
tempted, no, I am not talking about a "proud look". Im talking about
being a child of God, and Ambassador of Christ. You dont need
symbolism to do that. You need power.