Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………........3
Chapter One Rightly Dividing the Word ………………..9
Chapter Two Women’s Pants in the Bible ………………19
Chapter Three Women’s Cosmetics in the Bible …………27
Chapter Four Jewelry in the Bible ………………….……35
Chapter Five Hair or Veil ………………………...….......67
Chapter Six Myths About Standards…………………..103
Introduction Many of us grew up without questioning the faith and beliefs we have inherited from our loving, God-fearing, faithful parents, and church leaders like wearing hand-medown clothing. We were told WHAT to do to be saved or to be holy, but never was told WHY we did it. Many of us knew WHAT, but not WHY. We had the answers without ever asking the questions. When I begin to search for the reasons WHY, I could find no scripture to justify many of the actions required for the traditions we held on to, and I could not really believe these requirements were of value to God, or that they were consistent with the principles that Jesus taught. For several years, I questioned, searched and examined the scriptures, trying to discover the original intent of the passages that some people believe govern women's appearance, and consider essential requirements for women's salvation. I have had the privilege to serve on jury duty several times, and each time the judges would tell us that proof must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. The proof presented me as valid interpretation and application in the matter of women's appearance were NOT presented beyond reasonable doubt, and seemed most debatable to me. So weâ€™re told that some things you just have to accept in faith. I had faith in the Word of God in the Bible, but what I did NOT have, is faith in the words of men. I have taken the Bible's advice and "tried the spirits" and "searched the scripturesâ€? and I cannot see that these things were meant to be so. I don't believe men's interpretations were always without error, especially when they cannot be supported with scripture.
In the 21st century church you hear statements and questions for which there are no Biblical answers, for example: No problem, I won't wear real gold or pearl earrings. How come you can wear pins, but not necklaces, rings, etc., when only where you wear them is different? You have a gold wedding band. It doesn't say anywhere in this chapter NOT to cut your hair! You mean just because Jezebel painted her face, ladies aren't to EVER wear make-up?? You're kidding-that was just a Bible story describing a woman (not a command). How come it's OK to wear jewelry in your hair and not on your neck or finger? Lady's pants are NOT men's clothing. I bet any man in the church wouldn't be caught dead wearing a lady's pants suit bought in the lady’s department of a store! I remember my wife dressing for a state-wide event one night and she was putting on a gold chain belt with big white pearls on it. I asked her to move it a few inches from her waist to her neck and then asked why she didn’t wear it there for church. I was trying to get a point across. You see, she would be accepted as a Pentecostal preacher’s wife wearing it as a belt; but she would be a sinner wearing it as a necklace. We have questions with no answers. We live in a generation where you can’t say just “do it because I say do it.” We know the WHAT, but we need to know the WHY. How could I teach people something that I myself did not believe? It was intellectual dishonesty. I found I could not honestly do it. I have always believed and preached that the Bible alone is the guide for behavior and salvation.
No man-made manual or Articles of Faith can override the infallible Word of God. When a man or organization tells you, you must do something because they say it has to been done for salvation or holiness, then that person or organization becomes your God. I promised God when He called me to preach that I would preach only the Bible, not from a manual or my ideas, and if I could not preach the infallible Word of God, I would not preach. As I began to study my marked-up Bible of twenty years, underlined scriptures of Bible lessons I have been taught, I discovered a whole new territory of scriptures that I had never highlighted or underlined. As I began to ask the questions WHY, the Bible began to give me the answers that cut through traditions and man-made doctrines to the point that I had to make a choice, man or God. For the generation that asks WHY, we can’t tell them, “take it or leave it or that’s just the way it is.” We must find the answers in the Word of God. The answers are not from Bible stories that describe a person or words written to a certain culture or people, we must rightly divide the Word and find answers that are not debatable, but can stand as true doctrine if it affects our salvation. God’s word is clear regarding his commandments. As you read this book, I want you to study the Bible, rightly divide the Word of God, and ask WHY. It’s not good enough just to know WHAT you have to do to hold on to man made-traditions, you must know WHY from a Biblical point of view. If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, when rightly divided and searched, it will produce the right answers. When it does, let God’s Word work on your thought pattern about issues you have the WHAT for and no WHY. Ask yourself these questions: Why do we do this? Is it from God or man? What does the whole Bible say about it? How does God really feel about it?
WHY do we ignore the original Hebrew and Greek when we study the Bible? WHY do we say that make-up, women’s pants, women cutting their hair, and jewelry are all part of holiness and make it a holiness standard when there are no scriptures that state these things are what makes us holy? WHY do we tell women it’s a sin if they wear pants, put on make-up and jewelry or cut their hair when the Bible states that Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law, and no where do we find these things in the law? WHY didn’t Jesus in his teachings deal with the issues of hair, make-up and jewelry? History and the scriptures tell us that women wore jewelry, painted their faces and cut their hair in Bible days. WHY did God of the Old Testament, who the Bible says is the same yesterday, today and forever change his views on jewelry, and where do we find him commanding us not to wear it in the New Testament? Don’t just read this book, ask the questions WHY and study the Bible. Rightly divide the Word and don’t settle for someone telling you WHAT you have to do, but know WHY you have to do it and your eyes will begin to open to see some real truths in the Word of God. We will not be judged by the cultures of 1920 or 1950, we will not be judged by what parents or grandparents believed and taught, we will not be judged by a religious organization’s manual; but we will be judged by the infallible Word of God. I must ask WHY and find the answers and if I have created an unbearable yoke like the Pharisees that Jesus condemned, I must push away my pride and say I’m wrong and the Bible is right.
I understand for some this will be very hard to do because we’re taught never to question what we believe, never ask the question WHY, and just do it, just because. There are many preachers who are mocking bird preachers who preach things they have picked up from other preachers without ever going the Bible and studying and asking the question WHY. Preacher friend, you may give a list of WHAT we must do, and say we do it BECAUSE, and give another list of things with no Biblical foundation, but the people will always want to know WHY. In the 21st century with space shuttles flying into space and computers in every home connected to the world by the internet, people are just too smart to settle for the WHAT, their intelligent brains are searching for the WHY. Only ignorant people live in the dark caves of the past devoid of knowledge. I challenge you not to just read this book, but to research every verse that is given from the Bible. Go to the library and study Bible commentaries, research the Hebrew and Greek to find the original meaning of English words and ask questions WHY. If you discover that the Word of God isn’t the foundation of what you believe, be humble enough to admit that your tradition has no Biblical foundation. We have been taught rules without principles and traditions rather than scripture, and when you search the Bible you may become confused because you find that the rules are not commandments and the traditions are not scriptural. On this journey you will have to decide what is man made and what is God given. Please be advised when your foundation called ‘holiness standards’ is shaken, you may experience frustration and confusion. When this happens, go to the only foundation and that is Jesus. This book is not written against the Articles of Faith of a denomination. If the Bible and your Articles of Faith have a conflict, remember the Bible is truth and will endure.
Chapter One Rightly Dividing The Word 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. There are times when we are embarrassed to share our doctrine because we haven’t rightly divided the word, it doesn’t make sense to us and sure don’t make sense to who we’re trying to share it with. Many don’t study, they just repeat what they hear, and many times what they hear is wrong and taken out of context. Where are the men and women who will study and dig out why we teach the things we say is truth? When rightly dividing the word we must understand the original language of the words we are studying. I have traveled to the Holy Land several times and in going discovered that much of what you see isn’t the original. Over thousands of years with the cities being destroyed many times, there are layers of dirt. The original ancient cities can only be discovered when you begin to dig, the Bible is the same way as you begin to dig and understand the original language of the text, and you begin to understand the true meaning of what it is saying. The only way you can rightly divide the word is to go back to the original Hebrew or Greek word and find out the meaning of the text. Using misunderstood English words, when the original means something totally different creates some man made doctrines. For example the word shamefacedness in I Timothy 2:9 is often used to describe a woman without make-up, but the original Greek word has a different meaning. The word shamefacedness comes from the Greek word ‘Aidos’ which means a sense of shame or honor, bashfulness, reverence, regards for others, respect. We never hear anyone today describe a woman as being shamefaced; we would say that woman is respectful.
The task of translating foreign languages is extremely complicated because there are rarely exact words to interpret into another language. One of the translators' jobs for the King James Version (KJV) was to compare the various scriptural texts that differed from each other, and decide which the original intent was most likely. When there was a difference in opinion by the translators, the KJV Bible text reflects what the majority viewed as correct interpretation, and the margin states the minority opinion. Since there is not appropriate English word for many Greek words used in the manuscripts, the translators had to make MANY choices on their own. When a Greek word used had more than one meaning, the translators had to decide which meaning was intended. To further complicate things, the meaning of some English words used in the KJV does not NOW mean what they did when the KJV Bible was translated. Because "conversation" meant one's "conduct," in the 1600's, so "conduct" was translated "conversation" in the New Testament. For correct interpretation, one must determine the original Greek word that was used in a text, and itâ€™s meaning at the time it was written -- not the meaning of the word NOW, or the meaning when it was translated. The Greek language uses the same word for wives as for women. They do not have two separate words, as does the English language, likewise for men/husbands. The translators of the King James Version decided by context where to use the word "women" and "wives." However, it is possible that the entire passage in I Corinthians 11:1-16 was intended to be limited to only husbands and wives even though it uses the words "men" and "women." When rightly dividing the word we must understand the people addressed, when and where: Not all instructions in the Bible - not even all that God spoke - are intended for us to obey.
Genesis 6:13,14 - God told Noah to build an ark. Must we build one? Genesis 22:1,2 - God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Must we slay ours? Some commandments in the Bible were for certain people and not universal commandments for everyone in every generation. There are commandments that deal with things in certain cultures and times in the Bible. We are told in Acts 15:29 to abstain from meats offered to idols, there are two other places talking about this same issue in the New Testament. When was the last time you question the butcher at the grocery store about your meat being offered to idols. You see that commandment is irrelevant to our western culture today. Paul wrote letters to the churches dealing with culture issues of that time, when he wrote 1 Corinthians it wasnâ€™t a universal commandment but an ordinance dealing with a custom, womenâ€™s veils have been replaced with diamond rings in our western culture to show theyâ€™re married. Many differences in believers' interpretations can be traced to a difference in opinion as to whether or not the instructions (1) are God's absolute Word for all times (universal), OR (2) were intended only for those believers of the first century (particular). In other words, there is a conflict in interpretation when one person believes a scripture pertains to the present and another believes it is culture-bound and pertains only to the Biblical people to whom it was written. Scripture cannot be rightly interpreted and applied without giving some consideration to the cultural context, historical background, and the occasion and purpose for its being written. Each book of the Bible is conditioned by the language, time and culture of the people in which it was originally written. In speaking to men, God's Word was expressed in the vocabulary and thought patterns of those men, and conditioned by the culture of those times and circumstances. This means, God's Word was, first of all, His Word to them, NOT to us.
After we understand what God's Word was to them, we can ask: What is His Word to US through the texts written to them? Or: How do these texts apply to US? If we don't properly limit God's Word to its original intent, it is very easy to read into the text our own meaning. Paul attempted to solve problems that had surfaced by applying the principles of Jesus. God's Word to them through Paul had eternal principles for their basis. He expressed this well in 1 Corinthians 4:17, speaking of Timothy, "...who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways WHICH BE IN CHRIST, as I teach everywhere in every church." A PRINCIPLE transcends history and culture, while an APPLICATION or EXAMPLE only applies to genuinely comparable situations. Examples and applications cannot be ("rightly") applied at random to any and every kind of situation at any time. Some scripture was given because of specific situations at a particular time; and the same type situations may no longer be found in our experience, as we see with eating meat offered to idols. Paul says to Timothy, "Be nourished up in sound doctrine." He says the same things to Titus. What is important in the ministry is that you hold fast the faithful words you have been taught, and teach them to others. They were to apply the teachings of Jesus. What are Jesus' teachings or doctrine for women's appearance? There aren't any. Christ said nothing about women's appearance, clothing or hairstyles. Apparently, these were inconsequential, nonessential matters to which He was indifferent, where the Spirit individually guides women. II John 1:9 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
Galatians 1:8,9 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. When rightly dividing the word, study doctrines you have been taught and ask the question do the doctrine come from Christ or man? What is the view of Jesus on hair, makeup, jewelry and womenâ€™s pants? What are the Old Testament laws that God gave Moses concerning these issues? II John chapter 1 says that those who abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, is it a man-made doctrine or Jesus given doctrine? When rightly dividing the word you must understand the historical background of the passage or the book that you are studying. Knowing the background of the book is helpful before you start reading. You should try to acquire reliable information about the author and the original recipient of the book, the date and the reason why it was written, and the cultural or life setting when it was written. With this information the modern reader will have an easier task to hear the same message that was originally heard by the recipient.
You must seek to know the original message intended by the author. A modern reader must somehow transfer himself to the time when the author wrote the letter to be able to hear that original message. Not knowing the Historical background will cause us to read things in the passage according to our modern cultural background or custom. This, of course, is totally different from the author's own cultural background and thus causes many erroneous interpretations and applications. If you have a Study Bible, reading the introduction page of every book that you study is a good start to find historical background. Bible tools such, as a Bible Handbook or a good commentary is where you would find a lot of information in this matter. A good Example is 1 Corinthians chapter 11: 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. This is considered a difficult passage in the Bible to interpret. A good interpreter should start by gathering reliable background information before attempting any interpretation of the passage. When rightly dividing the word, know whom the writer is speaking to, was it for everyone or just certain group of people. When you understand the people who are receiving the word then you can understand what is being said.
For example in 1 Peter chapter 3 Peter is speaking to women whose husbands were not in the church, we often skip verses 1 and 2 and go straight to verses 3 and 4 and we miss who this scripture is talking to. Peter wasn’t talking to all the women but to a certain group of women, who had unsaved husbands. Peter isn’t saying it’s wrong to wear jewelry, fix your hair or wear clothing, he is saying what you do to the external is not going to reach your unsaved husband, it’s the meek and quiet spirit, the hidden man of the heart that will touch that unsaved husband. I Peter 3:1-4 1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 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; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. You see in the Pentecostal organization we have made a universal commandment for everyone out of 1 Peter chapter 3 and Peter never talks about men wearing jewelry in this verse. So is wearing jewelry wrong for women and right for men? Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 2 verse 8-10 directs his writings again toward men and women, but only deals with the jewelry on women, and again we also use this verse as an universal commandment for all concerning jewelry. 1 Timothy 2:8-10 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. We know men and women wore jewelry in the Old Testament, and we use 1 Peter chapter 3 and 1 Timothy chapter 2 as commandments against the wearing of jewelry in the New Testament, if these verses are commandments, then nowhere do you find a scripture against men wearing jewelry. We must rightly divide the Word of God before making a doctrine that applies to both genders. In chapter four of this book we will rightly divide 1 Peter chapter 3 and 1 Timothy chapter 2 to find out what is really being said here. The purpose of this book is to get people to study and find out what the scriptures really say about holiness standards. The Word of God will empower you to combat religious ignorance, you will find that most people when discussing issues donâ€™t like to study the Bible, and they think that the original Hebrew and Greek isnâ€™t relevant to what the King James Version of the Bible says, they will take the words from the KJV over the original meaning. The main purpose of this book is to get people to rightly divide the Word and study to show or prove what is right and wrong, and to be empowered with truth and not traditions of men. When someone tells you, you have to do something, you have the power to say but this is what the Bible says, and then you can ask that person this question: Are you right or is the Bible wrong? Hosea 4:6 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Notice it was PEOPLE that lack knowledge, people are always depending on the ministry to empower them with knowledge. It’s time for the God’s people to dig and discover. Too many people are being told WHAT to do and never understanding WHY they do it, go to the Bible and ask WHY, rightly divide the Word and be empowered by the Word of God that will outlast every man made tradition. I challenge you to study, study, study and study some more. I challenge you to be a spiritual attorney and dig up enough evidence to prove that makeup on women is unholy and sinful; prove to the jury that women’s pants are unholy and a sin. Can you prove that God hates jewelry and it’s unholy and sinful in his sight? Will the jury be convinced or walk away scratching their heads in confusion? Ask the question and find the answers. Let me again state that this book is not written against the Articles of Faith of a denomination. If the Bible and your Articles of Faith have a conflict, remember the Bible is truth and will endure forever.
Chapter Two Women’s Pants In The Bible Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. When the arguments concerning women’s pants are being heard Deuteronomy chapter 22 and verse 5 is the scripture quoted. Although the word pants aren’t found in this scripture, most will argue that it’s an abomination for a woman to wear pants. I remember a few years ago listening to a talk show on the radio and the host was discussing a young woman who was fired from her job for refusing to wear pants because of her religious belief. During the radio program people would call in to the show and misquote Deuteronomy 22:5 to say that women wearing pants is an abomination to God. Well the talk show host got the Bible and read the scripture and was very confused because he could not find the word pants in Deuteronomy. The talk show host who knew little about the Bible, his argument was that a woman wearing women’s pants isn’t wearing men’s clothing, so how can it be an abomination. Good question, so what does Deuteronomy chapter 22 verse 5 really mean? Three key words we must look at to understand the meaning of this Mosaic Law, which is found in the middle of Ceremonial Laws in the Old Testament: woman, pertained and man. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Understand that the Old Testament was originally in Hebrew and the English was translated from Hebrew and we must go back to the original to find the true meaning of each word. Woman - hXXa Transliterated Word - 'ishshah Phonetic Spelling - ish-shaw' Definition - woman, wife, female, woman (opposite of man), female (of animals) Pertaineth - ylk Transliterated Word - Keliy Phonetic Spelling - kel-ee' Definition - article, vessel, implement, utensil article, object (general) utensil, implement, apparatus, vessel implement (of hunting or war), implement (of music) implement, tool (of labor) equipment, yoke (of oxen) utensils, furniture vessel, receptacle (general) vessels (boats) of paper-reed Man - rbg Transliterated Word - Geber Phonetic Spelling - gheh'-ber' Definition - man, strong man, warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight) Now that we understand the original meaning of these three key words it changes the whole meaning of this Old Testament Law, the word "pertaineth" is the Hebrew word "keliy" which means a "vessel, implement (of war), article or utensil" and the word "man" is the Hebrew word "geber" which means "man, strong man or warrior". Look at Deuteronomy 22:18 and you will find that a different word is used for “man”. It means simply “a man (in contrast to a woman)”. So we see that the best translation for Deuteronomy 22:5 would be, "A woman shall not put on the weapons of a warrior, neither shall a warrior put on a women's garment..." this Mosaic Law now takes on a whole new meaning.
Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5”, “In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.” Rabbi Tilsen further states, “This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...” Think about this, why don’t we take other parts of Deuteronomy chapter 22 literally? These would include building a parapet (wall) around the roof of one's house (Verse 8); not planting two kinds of seed in a vineyard (Verse 9); making tassels on the four corners of one's cloak (Verse 12); and not wearing a garment made of wool and linen. How can one verse taken out of a list be applicable to the twentieth century, while all the rest of the items on the list remain old law issues? So if you insists this verse is a text against women wearing pants, you better be sure their own clothing is not a blend of more than one kind of fabric, that there are four tassels hanging from their coat, and that they don't plant two kinds of seed in their garden.
Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly Old Testament law. Paul taught that if you obey any one part of the Law, and you do not keep all of the Law, you are guilty of transgressing the entire Law. Some of the Jews in the New Testament church could not get past their culture and felt they needed to be circumcised. They felt secure in their act of circumcision and Paul made it known to them that doing this made them guilty because they violated the whole Law. In Acts 15:29, the apostles and other had a meeting in Jerusalem and decided that it was necessary to continue only four commandments from the old Mosaic Law, and Deuteronomy 22:5 was not one of them. Non-Jewish believers were not required to observe Mosaic customs and ordinances. Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Let’s look at another key word found in the Old Testament: Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Clothed - tntk Transliterated Word - Kethoneth Phonetic spelling - keth-o'-neth Definition - tunic, under-garment, a long shirt-like garment usually of linen In Genesis the Hebrew word "kethoneth" was used to describe Adam and Eves’ clothing. Remember, Moses was the writer of Genesis and He used the word “kethoneth” to describe the attire God made for Adam and Eve, which is also the same word he used to describe the clothing of his time.
This is the word used throughout the Old Testament to describe clothing for men and women. A study of the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who was alive during the time of the New Testament church shows that he wrote in explicit detail what clothing was like at that time from his own, first hand observations and it is described exactly like the clothing that is referred to as â€œkethonethâ€? in Genesis. So from Adam to Jesus, clothing did not change and men and women wore essentially the same thing. The basic article of clothing worn by Jewish men and women in Bible days were the tunic, which came down well below the knees, had a hole for the neck, arms, and was open at the bottom. For ease in walking, the tunic was girded (belted). While made in identical fashion to the men's tunic, the women's tunic had distinctions that set it apart from the men's in embroideries, patterns, colors, fabrics, ornaments, shawls, and styles. In American culture, the dress and skirt are considered women's apparel ONLY. But in the days of Jesus, the tunic (very similar to the dress) was the apparel of BOTH men and women. For the past fifty years in American culture, slacks have been acceptable attire for women and men just like the tunic was for both sexes in Bible days. Since it was acceptable for men and women to wear garments made alike in Bible days, why do we consider it wrong behavior for the present? God does not ordain fashion styles for men and women; if he did, we would still be dressing like Adam and Eve. We are not told that God made pants for Adam and a skirt for Eve. If he made any distinction between their garments, it was so insignificant that we are not even told what it was! Twelve times the Bible mentions "skirt" referring to the "skirt" of a MAN!
What is considered acceptable and respectable in fashion is dictated by one's culture, not God. Could we actually believe God cares in the least whether the woman's garment has one hole or two holes at the bottom for her legs to fit through? The scripture says God is a spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit. In what way could one be worshipping God in Spirit by the manner in which a woman's garment is sewn from the waist down? To think so is to fall into the same trap as the Galatians. Paul had to ask them, Galatians 3:3 "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" There is no scriptural reason for women not to appear as personally attractive as they so desire. A sloppy, drab, dull or inappropriately clothed believer is a poor advertisement for godliness. Of course limits of decency in dress should always be observed. No true believer would compromise himself or herself with an indecent dress, nor should they make themselves ridiculously conspicuous to the other extreme. Jesus didn't state, I must increase, you must look hopelessly out of-style and pitiful. If God does not make a distinction between men and women's clothing in the Bible, what right to we have to do so? Are we more Holy than God? We no longer wear tunics or robes in the western world so who established the fashion of coats, shirts, ties, pants, blouses and skirts? Did God establish this or the worldâ€™s clothes designers?
Knowing that the clothing that people wore has changed over thousands of years and will continue to change as long as the world exists, the question must be asked, when the world began to move from robes to pants and dresses, who set that standard, God or the World? We often hear the bathroom symbols used as an argument against women wearing pants. Will God judge us according to bathroom symbols or the Word of God? How can we say that women wearing pants is conforming to the world, when everything we wear is designed by the world? The truth is that we do let the world’s designers determine what we wear and don’t wear as styles change. And to say that women’s pants are of the world and the other articles of clothing we wear are not would be hypocritical. We must understand that Deuteronomy 22:5 was not about pants but about a warrior’s uniform and his weapons, and God has never ordain one style of clothing over another, the culture we live in dictates what we wear, not God. So did the teaching that woman should not wear women’s pants come from God or man? Some will say that Deuteronomy 22:5 is under Moral Law. Is it? The word moral doesn’t even show up in the Bible, but to understand law, Bible scholars have divided The Mosaic Law into three parts, Ceremonial Law, Civil Law and Moral Law. Ceremonial Law - This was the religious portion of the Law, which guided and provided for Israel in her worship and spiritual relationship and fellowship with God. It included the priesthood, tabernacle and sacrifices, also known as The Ordinances (Exodus 25-31 and Leviticus).
Civil Law - This part of the Law governed Israel in her secular, social, political, and economic life, also known as The Judgments, or the Social Law (Exodus 21:1â€“23:13). Moral Law - This part of the Law governed the moral life giving guidance to Israel in principles of right and wrong in relation to God and man, also known as The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). Ceremonial Law was an example or shadow of things to come, pointed toward the Messiah; we know that animal sacrifices and temple rituals went out when Jesus Christ died for our sins. Civil Law was to govern the nation, and that law was only meant for the nation of Israel, we now live under the civil laws of our land. The only Law that was carried over into the New Testament was the Moral Law; study the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. "A woman shall not put on the weapons of a warrior, neither shall a warrior put on a women's garment..." in the Mosaic Law this would be under Civil Law and not under Moral Law, Deuteronomy 22:5 does not apply to us today, nor does it deal with womanâ€™s pants.
Chapter Three Women’s Cosmetics In The Bible II Kings 9:30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. When the discussion of make-up comes up there is one name you will always hear, her name is Jezebel. She has gone down in history as the wicked cosmetic queen. I have heard it said you would never name your daughter after her, why would you want to look like her. Jezebel was a woman that was crafty, malicious, revengeful, and cruel. She had no principle, restrained by no fear of either God or man, zealous in her connection to her heathen worship; she spared no pains to maintain idolatry around her in all its glory. The name Jezebel came to be used as the synonym for a wicked woman. We see that in Revelation 2:20. Now you wouldn’t want to paint your face like this wicked woman would you? Let’s look at the three actions of Jezebel took before she died in II Kings chapter 9 and verse 30: 1) She painted her face 2) She combed her hair (‘tired’ is from the Hebrew word ‘yatab’ which means ‘to be good, pleasing, be well or glad’ in other words she combed her hair to look good) 3) She looked out the window So what makes one act sinful and wicked and the other two not sinful? Why do we only talk about Jezebel painting her face as a sinful act and fixing her hair and looking out the window is never mention. She also wrote letters and she got married are these also considered evil because Jezebel did them?
II Kings chapter 9 verse 30 does not say anything against the act of painting one's eyes. It simply states that Jezebel did such. So to make a teaching that we are not to wear make-up, we should have clear biblical commands against doing so. You will never find any commandment in the Bible concerning make-up. The arguments we hear made using this verse are quite selective in only picking out one action Jezebel did. If one truly follows this line of thought, they will want to do NOTHING that she did. So you better stop fixing your hair, looking out the windows, writing letters and getting married. Many times we will read or hear references concerning Egypt and make-up, some will say with the discovery of King Tut’s tomb in the Roaring Twenties that women begin to paint their faces and cut their hair to model themselves after the fashions of Egypt. We have been taught that Egypt is symbolic of the world and we are to come out of it and be separated, so what commandment did God give Israel concerning make-up when they left Egypt? King Tut died in 1343 BC and Moses received the Law in approximate 1445 BC, about 100 years prior. If the discovery of this Egyptian tomb established that the culture of that time period painted their faces, and Israel was very much part of the Egyptian culture for 400 years, what commandment or instruction did God give them in the Law to separate from this act? So what did Jeremiah have to say about the evils of make-up, isn’t there some commandment in Jeremiah concerning this sinful act? Let’s read it: Jeremiah 4:30 And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.
When we read this scripture we must understand that Jeremiah was pointing out that no matter how attractive Judah made herself to other nations, none of these nations would come to her aid when the Babylonians came against her. This was a simple analogy to describe what a woman might do to look more attractive. His description included clothing herself in bright red, putting on jewelry and make-up. Do we see any thing in these descriptions that suggest that a woman wearing red, with jewelry and make-up is evil and wicked? What about Ezekiel, he had something to say about make-up, was it a commandment against it or a description of what a woman might do? Letâ€™s read it: Ezekiel 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 Again we find three acts here that Israel done to make her attractive: 1) She bathed 2) She painted her eyes 3) She put on jewelry So was these acts sinful, was it the bath, make-up and jewelry that was sin or what she was doing with herself? Act number one, there is nothing wrong with bathing and likewise in act number two we have no scripture here condemning make-up, if make-up is wrong here so is bathing. So what about the ornaments they decked themselves with in act number three, now that is a sinful act so make-up must be also, or is it?
Ezekiel had just written a few scriptures earlier how God Himself wanted to adorn Israel with jewelry. So if God wants to adorn them with fine jewelry it can’t be sinful. Ezekiel 16:10-14 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. 13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. The issue in Ezekiel 23:40 isn’t about bathing, makeup and jewelry, but it’s about the intent of the heart. The sin being condemned here had nothing to do with a woman looking attractive, but the issue was Israel was seeking unholy alliance with other nations. It’s been proven that bathing and jewelry in this scripture was not a sinful act, so again what makes the act of putting on make-up evil? Job 42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch. Job had a daughter he named Keren-happuch, we read here in Job chapter 42, which has a definite connection with the stibium (stain used to paint the eyes). Would righteous Job have given his daughter a name that had a meaning connected with painting the eyes, if it was a bad habit?
His other daughters had names with good meanings. This particular daughter's name had a connection with what was considered a sign of beauty, the painting of the eyes. It’s highly likely that all of Job's daughters painted their eyes, as it says in Job 42:15 "that in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job." Well what about I Timothy chapter 2 verse 9, the writer is telling us that a woman should not wear make-up, is that what is really being said here? Let’s read it: I Timothy 2:9 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; The word shamefacedness has nothing to do with make-up; it’s about the attitude of the woman. Shamefacedness comes from the Greek word ‘Aidos’ which means a sense of shame or honor, bashfulness, reverence, regards for others, respect. Shame face has nothing to do with plain face. Women wearing make-up was very common in Bible days. If it was a sin, surely there would be a scripture to that effect, but it is not even mentioned in the New Testament. Is it not a mistake to think that the absence of make-up could make one godlier, or commend one to God; that the plainer the woman looks, the holier she is? One's outward appearance is not necessarily an indication of the condition of the heart, and is of no concern to God, other than that he desires that one appear in such a way that they earn the respect of others in their culture. Anything can be done to the extreme or done with pride. Sound doctrine does not have its foundation in trifling, irrelevant details found in narratives about Jezebel or unfaithful wives.
Wearing make-up is a customary and normal practice in today's American culture. Whether one wears make-up, or abstains from it in no way indicates anything to God about one's spirit. I Samuel 16:7 Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart It's a case of men teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Matthew 15:8,9 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Misinterpretations of the scriptures concerning women's appearance are counter productive to Jesus' message, as well as being destructive to the personalities of the women. The challenge of this book is for you to study and find commandments from God concerning what we call holiness standards. We see and understand that women wore make-up in the Bible, so what is the commandment concerning this act. Study the Bible, look up the original Hebrew and Greek and you will find that God really has nothing to say when condemning make-up. I have heard it said to women "is hell worth the lipstick you have on" indicating that lipstick is a sin and will send your soul to hell. If the Bible shows us that women did wear make-up in Biblical days and there is no commandment from God making it a sin, wouldnâ€™t it be cruel of God to send someone to hell for something he did not call sin?
Where does the Bible state that the absence of make-up on a woman makes her look holy, or that God has this holiness standard concerning make-up? Is it God’s standard or man’s standard? When you study the Bible what is God’s feelings toward make-up? Why do we take a description of a person and turn it into a commandment of God? Was Ezekiel chapter 23 a description of what Jezebel did before she was killed or a commandment of God concerning make-up? Was Jeremiah chapter 4 a description of what Judah did to attract other nations or a commandment of God concerning make-up?
Chapter Four Jewelry In The Bible ABRAHAM When jewelry is discussed most scriptures are taken out of context and twisted to try building a doctrine against the use of any kind of jewelry. The Bible is pretty clear on what God thinks of it, does God like jewelry or dislike it? Well the only way to find out is to look at the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and get the whole picture of what God thinks. So letâ€™s get started in Genesis chapter 24 verse 1 we find Abraham sending his servant, Eliezer, to find his son Isaac a wife. Eliezer met a young girl named Rebekah and when she told him whose family she was with, he gave her a gold nose ring and two gold bracelets. Genesis 24:22-24 22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold; 23 And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father's house for us to lodge in? 24 And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor. In Genesis chapter 24 verse 35 the servant of Abraham talks about the blessings of the Lord and the wealth of his master with the family of Rebekah. This scripture shows us that Abraham was a wealthy man. The silver and gold was a blessing from God. Genesis 24:34-35 34 And he said, I am Abraham's servant. 35 And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.
After the servant placed the earring and bracelets on Rebekah he bows his head and worshipped the Lord and blessed him. Genesis 24:47-48 47 And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands. 48 And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master's brother's daughter unto his son. The ring was not for the ear, but the nose; the armlets, such as young women in Syria and Arabia still appear daily at wells decked in. They are worn from the elbow to the wrist, commonly made of silver, copper, brass, or horn. Genesis 24:50-53 50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. 51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken. 52 And it came to pass, that, when Abraham's servant heard their words, he worshipped the LORD, bowing himself to the earth. 53 And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. What is the thing that proceeded from the Lord? The servant brought jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment and gave them to Rebekah and to her brother and mother he gave precious things.
The Bible states that Abraham was called the friend of God. It is obvious that he did not think the wearing of jewelry was sinful or he would not have sent Eliezer with jewelry for the young future bride of his son, Isaac. Galatians 3:14 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. In the New Testament under the New Covenant we claim the blessings of Abraham through Jesus Christ. Notice how the servant of Abraham, Eliezer describe one part the blessings of the Lord in Genesis chapter 24. … the LORD hath blessed my master greatly he hath given him … silver, and gold … Do we receive all or part of the blessings of Abraham under the New Covenant?
JACOB Jacob left his home because he took his brother's birthright and went to his uncle’s home. Here he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Their father, Laban did not worship Jehovah but worshipped household gods, in Genesis 31:19 Rachel stole her dad's household gods. The Bible also tells us that her father did not know that she had stolen the images. Genesis 31:19 19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's. Genesis 31:30 30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods? Genesis chapter 31 establishes that Laban, Leah and Rachel’s father worshipped strange gods and had statues of them in his house.
It was in worship of these gods that the women wore certain types of jewelry. They wore amulets and charms also to ward off evil spirits. Jacob, who served Jehovah, knew in God's sight these articles of jewelry were wicked so he had them buried. Genesis 35:2-4 2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: 3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. 4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. Many will take this one scripture out of context and argue that earrings are evil and that God commanded Jacob to cleanse his house of all the jewelry and bury it. This in no way tells us that the wearing of jewelry is sinful. The reason they wore the jewelry was evil and sinful. The wearing of jewelry worn to ward off demonic spirits or worn in worship to false gods is wrong. Any jewelry today that has a satanic or new age symbol would be evil and displeasing to God to wear, it wasnâ€™t the jewelry that was evil, but what it represented. Jacob, like his father did not believe that wearing jewelry was evil, only when it was wore in worship to another god.
JOSEPH When Joseph, Jacob's son, was sold into slavery and became the second man in command in Egypt, we read where Pharaoh put a ring on his finger and a gold chain around his neck.
Genesis 41:41-42 41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. 42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; The Bible lets us know that Joseph was a righteous, God fearing man, that he loved his God with all his heart, and would not commit adultery with Potiphar's wife for it was considered sin. He loved the God of his Father Jacob, Grandfather Isaac and Great Grandfather Abraham, and lived according to what he was taught in so much that his father favored him. Joseph, like his father, grandfather and great-grandfather did not believe that wearing jewelry was a sin. If Jacob and his father considered the wearing of jewelry sin, why did Joseph accept these articles of jewelry from Pharaoh? The reason is clear. His father did not think the wearing of all jewelry as sinful. If Jacob had taken a stand against jewelry, then he would have stood against his Grandfather and his own mother. The Bible lets us know that his Great- Grandfather gave his servant jewelry to give to Rebekah and she wore it.
MOSES In Exodus God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, he told Moses to have the Israelites borrow jewelry from the Egyptians and for them to wear it. Exodus 3:22 22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.
Exodus 11:2 2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. Exodus 12:35 35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: In his omniscience, God knew the Israelites would take this jewelry and wear it and later would take the jewelry and have Aaron melt it down and the golden calf would be formed and they would worship this calf as their god. Did this stop God from telling Moses to borrow the jewelry? NO! In Exodus chapter 32:2-3 the Bible tells us that Aaron commanded the people to remove their earrings, the wives, the sons and daughters. Keep in mind that these are the jewels that God had commanded them to borrow from the Egyptians. As religious people we don’t like to admit this, but God did tell them in Exodus 3:22 to put the borrowed jewelry on your sons. It’s amazing to find out that men have been wearing earrings for thousands of years and God commanded it. It’s in the Bible and you don‘t need the Hebrew to find it! Exodus 32:2-3 2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. The golden earrings were not evil in the ears of the people, it’s when they removed them and made a golden calf and worshipped it, that’ when it became sin.
Even though, after they had committed this grave sin, God did tell them to remove their jewelry, but it was not permanent. Letâ€™s now look at the uniform for the priest in the tabernacle and the plan God gave Moses for what they should wear and the material for the garments and where he was going to get it. In Exodus chapter 35 we find were God got the jewels and gold for the priest and tabernacle, it was an offering from the people to God. Exodus 35:5 5 Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass, Exodus 35:22 22 And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD. In Exodus chapter 35 people gave their bracelets, earrings, rings, tablets and jewels of gold out of a willing heart. Their was no message of condemnation, surrender your jewelry or go to hell, remember this was the jewelry God had blessed them with and now they were in return blessing God, so that a tabernacle could be built. If jewelry was so wicked and evil why did God accept it as an offering? The book of Exodus also reveals to us that the priest of the new tabernacle would be decked out in jewels, the garment and breast plate consisted of the following: Pure gold, sardius, topaz, carbuncle, emerald, sapphire, diamond, ligure, agate, amethyst beryl, onyx, jasper, rings of gold, bells of gold and a pure gold plate with HOLINESS TO THE LORD engraved on it.
Exodus 28:17-20 17 And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. 18 And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. 19 And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. 20 And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their enclosings. Exodus 28:22-24 22 And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold. 23 And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate. 24 And thou shalt put the two wreathen chains of gold in the two rings which are on the ends of the breastplate. Exodus 28:34 34 A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem of the robe round about. Exodus 28:36 36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. There are a lot of churches where the Old Testament priest would not be welcomed on the platform; most Pentecostal Churches have platform standards that rule out all jewelry even the wedding bands. We call these the platform standards, Holiness Standards and look at what God does; he puts golden plates with chains around the necks of the priest engraved with the words Holiness To The Lord. Looks like God has a different view of holiness standards.
If jewels and gold was so evil and a sin why did the priest wear them on their bodies with the words HOLINESS TO THE LORD engraved in gold? So now we have heard from the Bible what Abraham the father of a great nation, Moses the leader of that great nation and the men that God anointed to be priest in that great nation viewed jewelry, what about the kings of that great nation that God chose to be his bride? Looks like God has a pretty positive attitude toward jewelry also, so what about Saul, the first king anointed over Israel.
SAUL The Bible tells us that King Saul wore gold bracelets for this was told to us at the time of his death and again at the time when David composed his most famous song about Saul and Jonathan, he spoke of Saul who adorned the people with jewelry. II Samuel 1:10 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. II Samuel 1:24 24 Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel. SOLOMON The Song of Solomon tells us that King Solomon wore gold chains. Song of Songs 1:10 10 Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
Let look at King Jehoshaphat and what he done with jewels of the enemy.
JEHOSHAPHAT II Chronicles 20:25 25 And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take away the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches with the dead bodies, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away: and they were three days in gathering of the spoil, it was so much. King Jehoshaphat after conquering the enemy stripped the dead bodies of their precious jewels. The Bible also tells us that King Jehoshaphat was a man that feared God, before they won the battle that gave them an abundance of precious jewels, they fasted and sought God.
II Chronicles 20:3 3 And Jehoshaphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah. King Jehoshaphat was no evil man nor did he look at precious jewels as being a sin. We see here in the Bible a king with jewelry that also fasted and feared God. King Hezekiah, king of Judah was good, right and true before the Lord, here is another king blessed by God.
HEZEKIAH II Chronicles 31:20 20 And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the LORD his God.
II Chronicles 32:27-29 27 And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honour: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels; 28 Storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks. 29 Moreover he provided him cities, and possessions of flocks and herds in abundance: for God had given him substance very much. In II Chronicles chapter 31 the Bible tells us that King Hezekiah was a good and right man with truth before the Lord, this does not sound like a sinner, but a righteous man. In II Chronicles chapter 32 the Bible tells that this righteous man had silver, gold, precious stones and all types of pleasant jewels that came from God. Again we see another king that does not view jewels, precious stones and gold as sin and a God that gives them to him. So what does God think of jewelry? Why would God bless someone with precious jewelry then call it sin? What has been the attitude in the Bible toward jewelry up to this point? Abraham (father of a great nation) Joseph Moses (leader of a great nation) The Priest (anointed by God) King Saul King Solomon King Jehoshaphat King Hezekiah
POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE
Oh letâ€™s not forget the one that is Holy, what is Godâ€™s attitude toward jewelry? POSITIVE!
Just think about every time a person is preached into hell because they have a ring, bracelet or earrings on, how God must feel. Think of how many people are not in the church today because of our narrow view of jewelry, that’s not really God’s view on it. A God who we quote from the Bible as saying is the same yesterday, today and forever, and never changes, so who changed, God or us on the view of jewelry? Is the absence of jewelry really a standard of holiness, where did that come from, God or man? We have seen so far in the Bible that jewelry was viewed a good thing, no where do we find it sin or that God wasn’t pleased with people wearing it. The Bible is clear that God blessed many people with jewels. So what about the prophets of the Old Testament, what was their view on jewelry? Let’s look at a prophet by the name of Daniel, a man that refuse to give up his prayer time three times a day and was cast into the lion’s den.
DANIEL Daniel 5:29 29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. How many would let this old prophet preach in their church with a gold chain hanging around his neck? It’s very clear that people must have worn ornaments and jewels to weddings in the Bible. Let’s look at how the bride of God is viewed in Isaiah chapter 61.
Isaiah 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. Jewelry is viewed in a very positive way here in Isaiah chapter 61. Some will preach that a simple wedding band is sin, but we see here that ornaments and jewels were part of the wedding celebration and God says that garments of salvation and robes of righteousness is compared to ornaments and jewels. In Isaiah chapter 3 we often hear it preached that this chapter in the Bible is proof that wearing jewelry is a sin, where God is accusing Israel of committing adultery against him. As we read Isaiah chapter 3 we will see that there is more than just jewelry that God removes from his bride. Isaiah 3:16-26 16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: 17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. 18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21 The rings, and nose jewels, 22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the veils.
24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. 25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. God spoke of Israel here as if she were a literal woman committing harlotry against him. It was a Jewish custom for the man to give jewels to his bride. God is saying here is he’s going to take back that which he gave Israel. God also spoke of head bands, bonnets, scarfs, mantles, hoods, and veils. God takes away her perfume, instead of sweet smell there will be stink. All these items he was going to take away from Israel. This is the place most people will say that wearing jewelry became a sin, in Isaiah chapter 3. Most take a stand on outward adornment and jewelry, they say it is sin to wear jewelry but it’s okay to wear headbands, veils, scarves, etc. How about the changeable suits of apparel, glasses and fine linen, ever heard a preacher preach against these things? It wasn’t the items that God took away from Israel that was a sin, but how she used the items. If a man uses an automobile to rob a bank, is having the automobile a sin or how he used the automobile the sin? The only time we find God viewing jewelry in a negative way is when it was misused. In Ezekiel the chapter 16, God again likened Israel to a real woman, he said he had clothed her in fine clothing and put rings on her fingers and rings in her ears and in her nose, and bracelets and gold chains and a gold crown. Now why would God do all that if jewelry were a sin?
Ezekiel 16:9-14 9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. 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. 13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD. This was God who said he had adorned Israel this way, and even though Israel had been stripped of her jewelry earlier and God who in his omniscience knew that she would use this jewelry to attract other lovers, God still said he would adorn her. Notice God said, "I decked" and "I put", again why would God put something that was sin on his people. In most Pentecostal churches you would never get on their platforms with bracelets or earrings on even if God decked you out with them. Sounds like the Bible is saying that God must have some kind of jewelry store, and he loves to give it away. Ezekiel 16:17-18 17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, Notice in Ezekiel chapter 16 verses 17 the jewels of gold and silver belong to God, he gave them to Israel to wear and said in verse 14 that it was beautiful.
Again they got in trouble when they removed the jewelry and begin to create images of men, it wasn’t the jewelry that was sin, but how they used it. DOES GOD HAVE JEWELRY? If throughout the Old Testament we find that God told Israel to wear jewelry, why do some teach something blatantly different? We often hear Malachi 3:6 quoted where God declares, "I am the Lord, I change not" to support Deuteronomy 22:5 dealing with the abomination of what some will say is the wearing of clothes pertaining to the opposite sex. We have heard it said we know that God does not change in His likes and dislikes because He has declared I change not. Doesn't make sense does it? Sounds like God does change, or is it us who changes God’s views to agree with our man made doctrines. So, what are God’s feelings about jewelry?
NEW TESTAMENT Now how about the New Testament were jewelry is mention, the first place is with Jesus giving us the parable of the prodigal son, when he returned home his father put a ring on his finger. Luke 15:22 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: Since this story is a parable of the lost, but now found, is he still lost with a ring on his finger? Remember Jesus was the one telling the story.
James chapter 2 is dealing with how we are to treat people that come to our church. James 2:1-4 1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 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; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Itâ€™s telling us to show equal respect to all, nothing wrong with a man wearing a gold ring and nice clothes, the thing thatâ€™s wrong is when a rich man is given a better seat than the poor man or when the successful preacher is given the better seat than the poor struggling preacher. Both Peter and Paul wrote that women should not put so much emphasis on outward appearance, so they both mentioned the wearing of gold or pearls. If you read their writings in the original language, you come to the understanding that they were not forbidding jewelry from being worn but were saying things such as a meek and mild spirit was better adornment. They both were speaking of moderation. I Peter 3:3-4 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; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1 Timothy 2:8-10 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. When reading 1 Peter chapter 3 and 1 Timothy chapter 2 we must consider: 1. Who was speaking? 2. Who was the receiver of the message? 3. Was the message intended for a specific purpose or universal? 4. Did the message involve a specific time frame? Peter was speaking specifically to a certain group of believing women whose husbands were not believers, encouraging them to strengthen their "inner man" in order to win their husbands over to Christ. The apostles' writings were directed to certain people in certain cultures. They were applications of Jesus' principles and doctrine addressed to the needs and times of certain people in certain circumstances, not additions to Jesus teachings and not intended for all believers for all time! The difference in scriptures intended to expound doctrine, and those making applications from doctrine, must be "rightly divided." 2 Timothy 2:15 15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. By context we can see that Peter and Paul were not speaking to ALL women for ALL times. To be literally consistent in the I Timothy 2 text, men should lift up holy hands when praying (Verse 8), and women would not be allowed to teach, as instructed in Verse 12.
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Why is it some interpret certain verses in the same chapter to apply literally, and others don't? How can one verse (only Verse 9) be taken out of context to actually apply in a physical sense, which is located between two verses that are spiritualized (verse 8 and 12)? It can only be done with haphazard, inconsistent, unsound, incomplete, indiscriminate interpretation. These verses are instances where some have maximized what Paul intended to minimize, because the idioms he used were not understood. An idiom is a manner of speaking distinctive of a certain people or language. In this case, the idiom was a manner of speaking which would minimize the first clause in order to emphasize the second clause. For correct interpretation, idioms of speech HAVE to be taken into account. If the Bible were written in our generation and contained an instruction to kids (as we often call children), people 2000 years from now could easily think it was speaking of goats, unless the figures of speech and idioms of the time in which it was written were taken into account. If it said, "Take this with a grain of salt," people could believe we accepted certain instructions by symbolically throwing salt into our mouths. If they were of the belief that every instruction that one can possibly take from the Bible is meant for them, they could interpret it that they too SHOULD ALWAYS accept instruction in this manner -- if they did not recognize the idiom of speech used. If they took the literal meaning of someone "dissolving into tears," they would probably think it was something that no longer took place in their day and time.
When idioms are not realized and taken into consideration, the resulting interpretations can be as far apart from the original intent as lightning and a lightening bug. For example we will often hear preachers say itâ€™s not all about shouting and running the aisles, God moves in a quiet way with a deep spirit and weeping. Now we know that the preacher isnâ€™t condemning worshipping God with a shout and hand clapping, he is saying the quiet ways of God are just as important as the shouting and noise. Not only is shouting good, but also the quiet deep moves of God. Emphasis is put on the second clause, but does not forbid the first clause. Other places in scripture, we find the word "not" often means, "not only...but also" or "not so much...as." Today, in order to express the thought contained with this type idiom in English, we would place the word "only" in the first clause, and "also" or "rather" in the second clause, such as: "Let not a women's adorning be (only) that of outward things -- such as fixing her hair, wearing gold or pearls, or apparel -- but (also/rather) let it be the inward adorning of a meek and quiet spirit." In using this idiom, the emphasis is put on the second clause (but also let...), BUT IT DOES NOT FORBID THE FIRST CLAUSE (adorning outwardly). It is in addition to it. In other words, the emphasis is on the inward adorning, but the outward adorning is NOT eliminated. The same type idiom was used when John said: "Let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed" in I John 3:18. The context speaks about a brother in need. If we have this world's goods and do not help him, we do not really love him. We can tell him we love him (love in word), but this is not enough. We have no problem realizing, through common sense, that the instructions actually meant: "Let us not love in word (only), but (also/rather) in deed."
Another example is John 4:21-23. Jesus said that the hour was coming, and then was, that true worshippers would not worship at Jerusalem or in Samaria -- that God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. But after this men did worship God at Jerusalem (Luke 24:52-53, Acts 2). Recognizing the idiom, we realize that He did not mean literally that people would not worship at Jerusalem (only), but (rather) they would worship in spirit and in truth (regardless of location). In Luke 14:12-14 we read: "When thou makest a dinner...call not thy friends, nor thy brethren...but call the poor, maimed, the lame, the blind..." What is meant is: "Call not (only) your friends, but (also) the poor, blind,". If this was a command NOT to call friends to supper, why did Jesus accept invitations to eat with his friends? And why do we today invite our friends and relatives to eat with us? If one takes I Peter 3:3 and I Timothy 2:9 to mean jewelry is NOT to be worn by the believing woman, to be consistent, do not the scriptures also have to be interpreted to mean one is to go naked (NOT wear apparel); never tell a brother "I love you;" and that no true believer can ever possibly worship in the geographical city of Jerusalem; and that one's friends and relatives should never be invited for a meal? The absurdity of these sentences reveal that some interpretations of I Peter 3:3 and I Timothy 2:9 are not consistent with interpretation of other scriptures using the same type idiom. Right interpretations are consistent with, and not contrary to other PRINCIPLES and PRACTICES found in the Bible. If these two verses (I Timothy 2:9 and I Peter 3:3) are NOT expressing idioms, but are actually forbidding the use of jewelry -- then they are contrary to other places in the Bible on this subject.
Letâ€™s look again what 1 Peter chapter 3 has to say: 1 Peter 3:1-6 1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 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; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. There is no denying that it was an acceptable practice for holy women in the Old Testament to wear jewelry. As early as Genesis and Exodus, it was fitting for people to array themselves in jewels. Letâ€™s do a little review of what we have learned concerning jewelry in the old times: Rebekah accepted from the servant a golden earring, two bracelets for her hands, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. Joseph wore Pharoah's ring and gold chain around his neck. Aaron told the children of Israel to break off the golden earrings of their wives, sons, and daughters, and to bring them to him to fashion into the molten calf image.
In this case, the people would have been better off if they had continued wearing their jewelry. Obviously, God's chosen people wore all types of jewelry. In Exodus the holy people contributed bracelets, earrings, rings, tablets (necklaces or amulets) and golden jewels and in Numbers they contributed some of the jewelry taken in the spoils of victory to make an offering and memorial for the Lord. If jewelry was polluted and sinful, how could an offering and a memorial made from them be acceptable to God? And why would a pure, undefiled bride be described as adorning herself with jewels, as in Isaiah 61:10? In Ezekiel 16:11-12, the Lord took a cast away newborn baby and clothed her with ornaments, bracelets, chain, jewelry, earrings. If these things were sinful, would the Lord have given them, even in this parallel of the origin and history of Jerusalem? How could they possibly make the point that was intended in this passage -- that of jewelry symbolizing his blessings upon Jerusalem? A bad thing cannot symbolize a good thing. Proverbs 25:12 compares a wise reprover upon an obedient ear to "an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold." Wisdom and obedience were equated to highly revered ornaments of the finest kind-- gold. The author would not have compared wisdom and obedience to gold ornaments if they were defiling or polluted things. The holy city is described as having gates of pearl. Revelation 21:21 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. If pearls were unholy, what place could they have in describing the holy city?
So far as scripture tells us, Jesus said nothing against wearing jewelry, gold or pearls. If these passages were meant to apply literally from the first century through the present, what principles of Christ are being used to confirm it? To accurately interpret scriptural meaning, things have to be examined in their sociological (cultural) context, their historical context, and their scriptural context. What was the writers' REAL intent in these verses? Could it not have been said this way? "Gold, pearls and fine hairdos are not valuable spiritually as adornment; make sure you are adorned spiritually." "Adorn yourself with godliness, for gold, pearls and fine hairdos profit nothing spiritually." 1 Timothy 2:8-10 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. Many preachers will jump on this one verse and pick out two words, gold and pearls and preach some poor soul into hell for her $20 gold earrings or $50 pearl necklace, while wearing his $1,000 Georgio Armani suit and $500 alligator shoes, and his wife is seating behind him digging in her $600 Louis Vuitton purse for her $700 dollar Gucci designer glasses, aggravated because she spent three hours that morning twisting and plaiting her hair and it still looks bad. Paul was simply trying to say that a spiritual thing like prayer is more important than what youâ€™re wearing.
1 Peter 3:1-4 1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 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; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. If Peter were saying not to wear jewelry here, we would also have to come to the conclusion that Peter was also telling the women not to wear clothing or fix their hair. I don’t think we want a group of naked, nappy head women running around our churches. The hidden heart that has an ornament of a meek and quiet spirit is greater in the sight of God than your pretty hair do, gold or the dress you’re wearing. Isn’t it funny how some women will not wear jewelry, but they are loud and bossy, wanting to be heard? Some do not read the full meaning or understand the full truth about certain scriptures. We can’t take one line out of a verse out of context and build a doctrine of salvation on it, it has to be the whole Bible or it’s not truth. This verse is not saying jewelry is wrong, but it’s dealing with the husband and wife relationship. The Bible is saying be good wives to your husbands, responsive to their needs. There will be husbands that are indifferent to the words of God, but will be captivated by the life of a holy wife. What matters is not your outer appearance, the styling of your hair, the jewelry you wear, the style of your clothes, but your inner disposition. Cultivate inner beauty, the gentle, gracious kind that God delights in.
The holy women of old were beautiful before God, that way, and were good, loyal wives to their husbands. The final place in the New Testament is in Revelation, when it is describing the false church. Revelation 17:3-5 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. What this scripture is telling us in prophetic words is that the false church is a wealthy church; it’s not describing a certain woman, but a religious institution that is wealthy. We often hear people say that they don’t want to look like a harlot in the eyes of God with gold, precious stones and pearls on their body. It wasn’t the jewelry that made this woman a harlot; it was what the golden cup was full of. Look again at verse 4: having a golden cup in her hand full abominations and filthiness of her fornication …And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints. Again, we have to look at the whole Bible and how God feels about jewelry. Revelation chapter 17 is only a description of a woman and not a commandment concerning jewelry. If you want to take this scripture and say you don’t want to look like a harlot in the eyes of God because of the gold, precious stones and pearls, you would also have to stop wearing purple and red.
Jewelry doesn’t make a woman a Harlot, fornication does. So you don’t want to look like the harlot in Revelation, how about the church found in Psalms 45: Psalms 45:6-17 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad. 9 Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir. 10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. 12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour. 13 The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. 14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. 15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace. 16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. 17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever. The church though in figurative expressions, is honorable, and commendable, she is said to be in gold of Ophir, and her clothing to be of wrought gold, and to be brought to the king in raiment of needlework and sweet smelling perfume with a name that will be remembered in all generations and will praise God for ever and ever.
There is another place where a pure, undefiled bride is described as adorning herself with jewels. Isaiah 61:10 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.
Reflecting The Glory A few years ago I was standing outside a ladies meeting listening to a popular Pentecostal women speaker explain how Lucifer was cast out of heaven with jewels and now he used jewelry to affect his influence in the earth. She read one scripture from Ezekiel chapter 28 and twisted it to make wearing jewelry vain and evil. She didn’t go into much more detail, but it got the ladies on their feet shouting and then she said she didn’t have time to go into it and to buy her book, what a way to sell books! So I bought the book and it lack detail, one twisted scripture taken out of context to try and prove that jewelry belong to the devil, but when you put the one scripture back into the Bible and read the whole book you will find that the devil doesn’t own the jewels and God didn’t have a problem with people wearing it. Let’s look at Ezekiel chapter 28 and verse 13 the one scripture quoted here: Ezekiel 28:13 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
This woman’s book says: Precious stones beckon and allure. Calling attention to the person wearing them, they foster a spirit of vanity. Where did these sparkling jewels originate, and why did God create them? The book goes on to say: Precious stones were initially created for the express purposed of reflecting God’s glory. When Lucifer was cast as profane from the mountain of God, jewels ceased to be a medium whereby God reflected His glory. After his expulsion from heaven, Satan used jewelry to affect his influence in the earth. All this may sound good in the woman’s book for those who want to make jewelry evil, but wait a minute there are nine precious stones that satan is covered with and to say that jewels ceased to be a medium whereby God reflected His glory does not agree with Exodus chapter 28. In Exodus God takes the same nine jewels that we find here in the fall of Lucifer and adds three more jewels to bring the total to twelve, this was to represent the twelve tribes of Israel and puts them on a plate and makes them part of the uniform of the priest in the tabernacle. Let me remind you the office of the priest was established after the fall of Lucifer. Exodus 28:17-21 17 And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. 18 And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. 19 And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. 20 And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their enclosings.
21 And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. So if God stop using jewels to reflect his glory when Lucifer was cast out of heaven why does the Bible say that the priest’s garments were for GLORY and BEAUTY! Exodus 28:1-2 1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons. 2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty. How can a garment be holy with all those jewels covering it? Does absents of jewelry make us holy? Haven’t we been taught to keep holiness standards meant no jewelry? So did they have vain priest under the influence of Satan running the tabernacle of God? Does the Old and New Testament contradict itself when it comes to the wearing of jewelry? Where did God command that jewelry is sin? Did Jesus condemn jewelry? We see in the Old Testament that God’s Holy people wore earring, bracelets, necklaces, and all types of jewelry that he gave them, God’s Holy Priest were covered with jewels, so where does the teaching that the absents of jewelry is a sign of holiness comes from? God declares, "I am the Lord, I change not”, the Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, who changed on their view of jewelry God or man?
Many will teach that wearing jewelry is vanity and God hates a proud look, what about the luxury cars we drive, the nice big nice homes we build, the church buildings we’re so proud of? You see jewelry can be vanity for some, but so can the clothes we wear, the cars we drive and also the homes we live in, to preach against one we would have to preach against it all. The way you use things that God has blessed you with, starts in the heart. Some may argue that God once gave and blessed the use of jewelry, but because of the vanity and disobedience of Israel, He no longer does, which is why Paul forbids its use in the New Testament. The problem with such an assertion is that it is not taught in the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures contradict such an idea. Luke 15:22 22“But the father said to his servants, bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand…” This verse is from the parable of the Prodigal Son, given by Jesus. Surely, Jesus would not have used a sinful practice as part of His parable. Considering the overwhelming body of evidence that God not only doesn’t condemn the use of jewelry but also has actually given it as a gift to His faithful children, it cannot reasonably be stated that jewelry is a sin. Peter wrote that “… holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves…” so who started the doctrine that the absent of jewelry was holiness? When did wearing jewelry become sin, who started this commandment? Did God start it? Is this a man made tradition or is it a Bible commandment? Isn’t funny how in some churches you can’t sing in the choir or be on the platform with a simple wedding band on your finger when God has no problem with it?
Doesnâ€™t make sense, not wearing jewelry plays such an important part in our salvation when there is no commandment against it, God blessed his people with it, Jesus never condemned it and we find that holy people wore it. I do believe that a people are to dress modest, but our problem with modesty within the Pentecostal organization is that we confuse dressing decoratively with dressing lusciously. The Bible is very clear that women are not to provoke men to lust because of her attire. A necklace, ring, fingernail polish, or makeup does not provoke lust in a male, but a low cut tight blouse or tight mini-skirt will.
Chapter Five Hair or Veil Weâ€™re about to examine one of the most misunderstood chapters of the Bible, Bible scholars donâ€™t understand parts of I Corinthians chapter 11, but some have taken this misunderstood chapter and twisted it to become a salvation issue. Before we can fully understand this chapter we must understand the culture it was written to, so we can understand why Paul addressed this issue in the church. This letter to the Corinthian church was written around 57 AD. Why such a letter? In Biblical times, women covered their heads with veils or scarfs as a sign of chastity and modesty. The unveiling of a woman's hair was considered a humiliation and punishment. In the orient, the head was covered as a gesture of respect, in the presence of a notable, an elder or scholar. From this followed the practice of covering the head in the presence of god at worship, the practice becoming a sign of piety. The headgear was an ornament. Shulamites long flowing locks were admired (Song of Songs 4:1, 6:5, 7:5 compare with Ezekiel 16:7). Much art was bestowed in the braiding (Isaiah 3:24, II Samuel 14:2, 6, Judges 13). A woman suspected of adultery was disheveled and her covering was removed by the priest (Numbers 5:18-compared with Leviticus 21:10). The shearing of hair was the insult of a captive woman (Jeremiah 7:29, I Corinthians 11:15). In Talmudic times, women always covered their hair. Some aggadic sources interpret this custom as a sign of a woman's shame and feeling of guilt for Eve's sin. Should a woman walk bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without repayment of her dowry. (The term "dat Yehudit" means that a woman should not spin or have her hair uncovered in the street.)
By the sixteenth century, praying with the head uncovered was considered to be a heathen custom. Girls did not have to cover their hair until the wedding ceremony. In some contemporary Sephardic communities, however, it is the custom for unmarried girls to cover their heads. Some rabbis compared the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts since they felt that a woman's hair could be used for erotic excitement. They forbid the recital of any blessing in the presence of a bare headed woman. Pious women even took care to not uncover their hair in their house. The general custom was to appear in public and in the presence of strange men with covered hair. It gradually became accepted to be the general traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, some circles of women began to wear a wig, called in Yiddish, a shaytl, which was made of artificial or real hair and worn, according to an old Jewish practice by pious women as a sign of modesty. "Pious married women never share their hair in public and have it covered frequently by a wig." This innovation was opposed by certain authorities such as Moses Sofer. Rabbinic literature teaches that it is sinful for a Jewish woman to be seen by any man other than her husband, or to listen to the recital of prayers without her head covered. Some very pious Jewish women used to cut their hair off on their wedding day and keep their head covered with a kerchief, a custom still observed in some Jewish communities though it has been discarded for the most part.
In modern times, only the strictly orthodox insist on women covering their hair all the time. It remains however the practice in some Reform synagogues for women to cover their hair. The majority of Jews cover their heads at prayer; its study or religious observances. This practice isn't based on any law in the Bible or Talmud, but a first time injunction in the Medieval Jewish Codes. There are places in the United States where one of the chief divisive distinctions between Reform and Orthodox Jews is the willingness or the unwillingness of the congregations to worship with uncovered heads. Now that we understand the culture that Paul was part of, letâ€™s examine 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. THREE different Greek words are each translated in the KJV with the English word "covering." Each of these Greek words has an entirely different meaning each time it is used in this passage. Yet all three Greek word meanings were translated as the same English word, "covering" in the KJV Bible. Notice the different meaning for each word: Uncover - ajkatakavluptoĂ&#x; Transliterated Word Akatakaluptos Phonetic Spelling - ak-at-ak-al'-oop-tos Definition - to remove something placed on, over, or in front of, so as to reveal 1) Not covered 2) Unveiled Cover - katakaluvptw Transliterated Word Katakalupto Phonetic Spelling - kat-ak-al-oop'-to Definition - to place something on, over, or in front of, so as to wholly cover or conceal 1) To cover up to veil 2) Or cover one's self
Covering - peribovlaion Transliterated Word Peribolaion Phonetic Spelling - per-ib-ol'-ah-yon Definition - a covering thrown around, a wrapper, suggesting a veil or mantle thrown around the body 1) a mantle 2) a veil 1 Corinthians 11:5, 13 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (akatakaluptos) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (akatakaluptos) ? 1 Corinthians 11:6-7 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (katakalupto). 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover (katakalupto) his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 1 Corinthians 11:15 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (peribolaion).
Does Veil Equal Hair? We have heard it taught that the hair is now a womanâ€™s covering and that they no longer need veils according to 1 Corinthians 11:15. If this is true letâ€™s rightly divide the Word of God and put this doctrine to the test. Number One - Why Veil Doesnâ€™t Equal Hair The first thing we see here is that the word covering has two different meanings in the original Greek.
The covering in I Corinthians chapter 11 and verses 6 and 7 come from the Greek word katakalupto meaning to place something on like a veil. Covering in verse 15 has a total different meaning coming from the Greek word peribolaion. Paul wasn’t talking about the same covering here, so hair can’t be a covering in verse 15. What Paul is saying here in this verse, is that her hair is given to her to be covered, doesn‘t nature teach you that. If Paul was stating that the hair now takes the place of the veil he would have said, her hair is given her for a covering using the Greek word katakalupto not peribolalaion. Corinthians chapter 11 verse 15 doesn’t mean that the hair takes the place of a veil, or that a woman’s long hair is now her covering. Some use this as the reason given for wearing it pinned up because the Bible says long hair is a covering for the head of the woman, not for her back, that’s not what Paul is saying here. In reality, when long hair is put up, it doesn't cover much more than does a man's short hairstyle. Paul says her hair is given to her to be covered, peribolalaion meaning a covering thrown around. The word "covering" peribolalaion, it’s something literally thrown around; suggesting a veil or mantle thrown round the body. Hair is not usually "thrown around," and certainly hair put UP on a woman's head in a bun, could not be "thrown around!" Number Two - Why Veil Doesn’t Equal Hair 1 Corinthians 11:4, 7 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
If Paul were talking about hair being a covering in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 than here in verses 4 and 7, every man would have to shave his head so it would not be covered. So if hair equals veil or covering, a man would have to shave his head before praying. Number Three - Why Veil Doesn’t Equal Hair If a covering meant hair here, Paul talks in circles and makes no sense in what he is saying, let read verses 6 and 7 and replace the word covering with hair to see how it reads. 1 Corinthians 11:6-7 6 For if the woman does not have hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair. 7 For a man indeed ought not have hair on his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. It all sounds funny, but some will tell you that the hair is the woman’s covering, can’t be or Paul makes no sense in what he is writing. If a woman does not have hair how can she be shorn or shaven? If it’s shame for her to be shorn or shaven let her put her hair back on? I’m confused! Just doesn‘t seem to read right, and a man ought not to have hair. Paul wasn’t talking about hair but a covering or veil here in verses 6 and 7. It's clear that there is a possibility she could pray and prophesy uncovered what can she do remove her hair? If her hair was her covering and she removed it (by shaving it off) how could she be in danger of having her head shaven? When was the last time you heard a preacher tell the men in the church they had to shave their heads before they prayed?
So, what is Paul really saying here in verses 6 and 7? Paul is saying if a woman comes to church and wants to pray or be used with the gift of prophesy and she doesn’t not have a veil on, it’s the same shame of being bald headed. If it’s a shameful site for a woman to be shaven, so is it when she is uncovered, so let her be covered, and he wasn’t talking about being covered with hair here. The man wasn’t to cover his head when praying or using the gift of prophecy. When was the last time you went to a Pentecostal conference and saw the women praying with veils on their heads? Preachers will take this scripture and teach that cut hair on a woman is a shame and a sin, but you never hear a preacher teach what Paul was really saying here. Most preachers will tell you that women wearing veils to church doesn’t apply to our generation or culture today, if that is true then 1 Corinthians chapter 11 isn’t relevant to us so why do we keep trying twist shorn and shaven into the uncut hair doctrine on women, when Paul was addressing veils and men and women’s position under Christ and not hair? Nowhere do you find trim, cut or styled hair a sin, if you want to correctly quote Paul, he is talking about veils here in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, not cut hair on woman. If Paul is speaking about veils in verses 6-7 and hair in verse 15 he is contradicting himself, so is I Corinthians chapter 11 dealing with women wearing veils in church or women cutting their hair?
Power Before The Throne 1 Corinthians 11:10 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Verse 10 is probably the most difficult to understand and translate in the whole passage, the key word in this verse to understand is POWER, so many twist it to mean something totally different from itâ€™s original Greek meaning. Power - ejxousiva Transliterated Word Exousia Phonetic Spelling - ex-oo-see'-ah Definition - the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed) 1) universally a) authority over mankind 2) specifically a) the power of judicial decisions b) of authority to manage domestic affairs 3) metonymically a) a thing subject to authority or rule 4) jurisdiction a) one who possesses authority A sign of the husband's authority over his wife the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself The sign of regal authority, a crown The Greek meaning for power here is authority, we cannot say that a woman has power before the throne or power with the angels, but Paul was clearly stating that a woman has authority over her. Paul means (symbol of authority) by exousian, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
The veil is an emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. The woman was made for the man, to be his helpmeet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because she is made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. The woman who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. She ought to have power on her headâ€Ś Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. In Genesis we see Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection. Genesis 24:65 65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself. We have to find why the woman has authority over her, what is the purpose of the veil? Verse 10 starts with three key words: 1 Corinthians 11:10 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. For what cause, you have to go to the scriptures preceding verse 10 to find out why. For this cause does not link women and angels, but links verse 10 with verses 7-9. The symbol of authority on her head is not because of the angels; Paul clearly tells us that women are under the manâ€™s authority, not angels. Remember, God-Christ-Man-Woman, is Godâ€™s chain of command. For what cause, verses 7-9?
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch, as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. At this point, we begin to see that Paul is speaking as much about spiritual coverings as he is about physical coverings. God, through Jesus Christ, is man’s spiritual “covering,” and man is woman’s spiritual “covering.” Again, this is a reflection of the servant-leader role played by Christ to mankind and of the servant-leader role played by man to his wife. A man is to act as a spiritual protector, or covering, for his wife as Christ does for us. The man-made covering (the veil) was a symbol of this relationship, providing a sign of spiritual submission by the wife to the husband. By refusing to wear a veil, the Corinthian women were showing a rebellion towards this Godly relationship. Verses 8 and 9 tell us that just man was created for God, woman was created for man. As such, the spiritually ordained hierarchy has been in place since the creation of mankind. 1 Corinthians 11:10 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. The word power in this verse is the Greek word exousia and refers to hierarchical authority, not supernatural power with a spiritual being.
Since woman was created for man, then a woman should have “power on her head” or, in other words, authority over her. Furthermore, a woman should not rebel against this divine relationship as the pagan women did, because doing so is the sin of rebellion, which was also committed by the angels that followed Lucifer – they too rejected the authority over them, which was God. 1 Corinthians 11:3 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Right here Paul begins with order, GOD-CHRISTMAN-WOMAN. The order of rank is that Christ is the center, with the Father above and man below him; and in the family the man is first and the woman second. That is nature's order. How can a woman’s uncut hair bring power and a covering to her house when Paul put the man over the house and the woman in nature’s order? The head of the woman is the man; does uncut hair bypass the man and go straight to God by some all seeing angelical host? John 14:6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Can a man bypass Christ to get to the Father? God does have an order and we are not allowed shortcuts by our works. Many teach that if a woman cuts her hair that she loses this special supernatural power with the angels and there is no longer protection for her and her family that is not what Paul is talking about here.
The word power in the original Greek means authority, hierarchical authority. The veil is a symbol that the woman is under the manâ€™s authority, not the angels. Acts chapter 1 tells us how we would receive power. Acts 1:8 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Power comes from the Holy Ghost and not from uncut hair, Mark records what this power will do for you in Mark chapter 16. Mark 16:17-18 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. The word power found in Acts is different from the power found in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. Power in Acts chapter 1 is from the Greek word (duvnamiĂ&#x;) dunamis meaning strength power, ability inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth power for performing miracles. If Paul was trying to tell women that uncut hair brought power and protection to them and their families, he used the wrong Greek word. Any woman that teaches or believes that she has special power with angels because of her uncut hair believes another gospel other that that was preached by Paul and the Apostles.
Paul directed some strong questions to the Galatians when they were requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised for salvation. Galatians 2:2-5 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Did you receive the Holy Ghost by your works or by faith? He goes on to say, you are so foolish to have started in the Spirit, now youâ€™re trying to be made perfect or holy in the flesh. Did you receive miracles by your works or by faith? Do women receive salvation by uncut hair or by faith? Do women receive miracles by uncut hair or by faith? Are we so foolish to start by receiving the Holy Ghost, but now we have added works to the list to make us perfect? Paulâ€™s says if anyone preaches anything other than Jesus, man or angel let him be accursed. The gospel is not uncut hair on women that brings salvation and miracles, but that we receive everything through faith in Jesus Christ. This is how Paul begins Galatians: Galatians 1:6-9 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. If you preach that a womanâ€™s salvation and power comes from uncut hair, youâ€™re cursed. If Gentiles weren't required to be circumcised for salvation, how is uncut hair on women going to bring salvation? Bible scholars have always been puzzled about Paul inserting angels right here in these scriptures, we can see that the veil on the womanâ€™s head is a sign that she has authority over her, and that would be her husband. How do the angels fit into this picture? We are given no clues, or explanations. But here is something to think about found in Isaiah. The word katakalupto occurs also in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating from the 3rd or 2nd century B.C.). It occurs, for example, in Isaiah 6:2: Isaiah 6:2 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. Here, the seraphim are said to cover (i.e. to veil or conceal) their faces and their feet. As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled. Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be covered would be improper and offend the angels.
Where do you find that woman with uncut hair have special power with angels out of I Corinthians chapter 11 verse 10, when itâ€™s stating that the veil is a symbol of manâ€™s authority over her?
How Long is Long? 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Hair - komavw Transliterated Word Komao Phonetic Spelling - kom-ah'-o Definition - to let the hair grow, have long hair Hair - kovmh Transliterated Word Kome Phonetic Spelling - kom'-ay Definition - hair, head of hair In verses 14 and 15 the Greek word for long hair is komao, and in verse 15 the word hair in the Greek is kome, in the original definitions of these words nowhere do you find that komao or koma means uncut hair. When the question comes up how long is long, and next question is every ethnic groups hair grows at different lengths, the answer is always let nature teach you, whatever is natural for your race, donâ€™t go against nature. Some teach that a women cutting or trimming her hair goes against nature. To say that a woman that cuts her hair goes against nature, we would also have to say that the woman that shaves her legs or under her arm goes against nature.
It’s natural for a man to have a beard and for a man to shave he would be going against nature. Paul says it’s natural for a woman to have long hair, nowhere do you see that long hair means uncut hair. We all know it’s a secret rule within the Pentecostal organization that facial hair on men is not accepted, but nature teaches us that it’s natural for a man to have hair on his face. The rules we make up gets very confusing, what applies here don’t apply there, no wonder Jesus blasted the Pharisees. Oh let me insert this right here, there is no scripture or commandment against men having facial hair, you will find only Old Testament laws telling men how to trim their beards. Some people will tell you that long doesn't mean long, it means uncut. Or short doesn't mean short, it means cut. Then we further confuse the issue by saying cut hair is short hair in the eyes of God, no matter how lengthy it is! But if a man stops cutting his hair and lets it grow, we then flip flop the definition applied to women and tell him that his long hair is a shame unto him. Sound confusing? Didn't we just say that cut hair is short hair no matter how lengthy it is? The fact is you can cut your hair and still have long hair, cutting or trimming does not stop the growth of hair, and hair grows from the scalp not the ends. Paul wasn’t addressing the facts that a woman can or cannot cut their hair, he is saying in verse 15 that a woman’s long hair makes her beautiful, her glory, and her hair is given to her to be covered peribolalaion meaning a covering thrown around. So the Bible clearly states that a woman is to have long hair, not uncut hair and it is to be covered.
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 bear out the fact that nature exists for man -- not man for nature. Paul's reference to what nature taught THEM could hardly be a basis of DOCTRINE for US.
Would God command a woman to cut her hair? Numbers 6:1-2 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: Numbers 6:3-21 defines the Law of the Nazirite. A man or woman would take a voluntary vow of personal dedication to the Lord. He witnessed to his separation by abstaining from strong drink and not coming in contact with a dead person. Numbers 6:5 5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. His head was considered dedicated and consecrated (Numbers 6:9, 11). The parents of Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist dedicated them to the Lord before birth and for life. Normally the vow was for 30 to 120 days. The long uncut hair of the Nazirite was the symbol of strength and abundant vitality (see 2 Sam 14:25-26), and was worn in honor of the Lord as a sign that he belonged to the Lord, and dedicated himself to his service with all his vital powers. Then, too, a luxurious growth of long hair was looked upon as imparting a somewhat handsome appearance, an ornament, and, in the case of the Nazirite, was the diadem of the head consecrated to God (Jeremiah 7:29).
When a man or woman had completed their days of separation, the Nazirite sacrificed a peace offering to the Lord. Numbers 6:18 18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings. Have you ever heard someone say that God would never tell or command a woman to cut her hair; well we see here that God commanded women who took a Nazirite vow of separation to cut their hair at the end of the vow for an offering. I canâ€™t find a law or commandment from God concerning uncut hair on a woman, but I can find places where God commanded women to cut their hair. Well you say that this doesnâ€™t apply to the church in the New Testament, we no longer live under the Law, but we find the Apostle Paul who penned the letters to the Corinthian church taking a vow and not cutting his hair. When examining Paul's visit to Corinth, we find that his hair played an interesting roll during his stay there as recorded in Acts 18:18: Acts 18:18 18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. Paul stayed in Corinth "a good while". As he departed Corinth, he entered into the neighboring city of Cenchrea where he proceeded to shave his head. The past tense used in the phrase "for he had a vow" indicates that the vow ended with the shaving of his head. This indicates that the Apostle had been keeping a vow while in Corinth.
The shaving of the head was a Jewish custom (Nazarite vow) that was sometimes made to express gratitude for God's deliverance. Keep in mind that this is in the New Testament, early church; they also had the Holy Ghost. So would it be wrong for a woman with the Holy Ghost to take a vow of a Nazarite and cut her hair to indicate that it has ended? If a woman cutting her hair was a sin why didn’t Paul make this clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 11? You see the main subject in the letter to the church at Corinth wasn’t about women’s uncut hair but about women’s veils covering their heads. There are other places where God commanded women’s hair to be cut in the Old Testament Law. Leviticus chapter 13 covers God's instructions for partly shaving the head of a man or woman when checking for leprosy. Leviticus 13:33 33 He shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more: Leviticus chapter14 again gives God's instructions for shaving off all the hair of a leper (man or woman) in their cleansing. Leviticus 14:8-9 8 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean: and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven days. 9 But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.
Deuteronomy 21 tells God's instructions for a woman to shave her head when an Israelite wanted to marry her after they took her captive in war against their enemies. Deuteronomy 21:12 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; `God commands that a woman who takes a Nazarite vow to cut her hair, a woman found with leprosy is to cut her hair, and a woman taken into captivity from other enemies is to cut her hair, but we find no commandment concerning women not cutting their hair. Nowhere in the Bible do you find it a sin for a woman to cut her hair, there is no commandment from God concerning uncut hair. The letter to the Corinthian church was written about 57 AD, the church has been in existence for over 50 years when Paul wrote the letter, what commandments did the others of that day have concerning womenâ€™s hair? If hair was so important to God, why didnâ€™t he have a commandment concerning it in the Law? I can find scriptures where God commanded women to cut their hair for different reasons, but I have never found a scripture where God commanded uncut hair on a woman and you canâ€™t find it in 1 Corinthians chapter 11.
Shorn and Shaven Much of the argument over whether there is a biblical command against a woman cutting her hair revolves around the words 'shorn' and 'shaven' as found in 1 Corinthians 11:5,6.
1 Corinthians 5,6 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. First, please keep in mind that Paul was responding to a question asked by the Corinthian church about hair coverings during church services. They were not asking if it was wrong for a woman to cut her hair or a man to grow long hair. They weren't asking about the covering outside of the services. If one keeps these points in mind, it makes it much easier to follow Paul's response. Remember Paul says a woman’s head is to be covered only when she is praying or prophesying, and a man is to be uncovered when doing the same, indicating that this action is done in a church gathering. The words ‘shorn’ and ‘shaven’ are only used here to show the shame of a woman’s uncovered or unveiled head. Many will take the word 'shorn' and say that Paul is saying that woman is not to cut her hair, no where do you find that shorn means trim, shape or style, unshorn is not the same as being uncut. Again Paul’s focus isn’t the hair but the veil. With this in mind, let us study the words 'shorn' and 'shaven.' Shorn - keivrw Transliterated Word - Keiro Phonetic Spelling - ki'-ro Definition - to sheer a sheep to get or let be shorn of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head
'Shorn' is used four times in the Bible, once in the Old Testament and the rest occurring in the New Testament. 87
(Song of Solomon 4:2, Acts 18:18, I Corinthians 11:6 [twice]) In the Old Testament (Song of Solomon 4:2) it compares teeth to a flock of sheep that are shorn. 'Qatsab' was the word used here and means "a prim. root; to clip or (gen.) chop." Besides the two times it is used in I Corinthians 11:6, it is also found in Acts 18:18, referring to Paul having shorn his head, again in regard to a vow. The same Greek word, 'keiro,' is used in all three renderings. This Greek word is only found one other time in the Bible and is translated 'shearer' in Acts 8:32. 'Keiro' means "a prim. Verb; to shear." Vine's says it was used of "shearing sheep" in Acts 8:32 and means "to have one's hair cut off, be shorn" in the other three renderings. We are also referred to the word â€˜shave.â€™ Another definition is "to shear, as sheep, Acts 8:32; mid., to have the head shorn, Acts 18:18; I Corinthians 11: 6." Please note that it is related to shearing a sheep and we are referred to 'shave.' In comparing its usage to that in the book of Acts, it would appear that it means to cut closely, not just cut off any amount. Shave - xuravw Transliterated Word Xurao Phonetic Spelling - xoo-rah'-o Definition - to shear, shave, to get one's self shaved The word 'shaven' is only used twice in the New Testament and the same Greek word (xurao) was used in both verses. (I Corinthians 11:5, 11:6) This word was also translated 'shave' in Acts 21:24 in reference to the shaving of heads during a vow. The word is only found in these three Scriptures.
'Xurao' means "from a der. of the same as 3586 (mean. a razor); to shave or 'shear' the hair." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words also tells us that this word comes from another word meaning 'razor' and refers us to the word 'shear.' The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates it 'to shave.' In the three Scriptures where this word is used, it appears it held the same meaning: to shave the hair or to shear it. From these meanings it would be safe to say that the writer was referring to using a razor in removing all or almost all the hair from the head. (There should be no argument that all three Scriptures are referring to the head.) Upon further examination, when researching the original meaning of 'shaven,' one is also referred to 'shear.' This same word is elsewhere translated 'shear,' 'shearers,' and 'shearing.' If there is such a difference in the meaning between 'shaven' and 'shear,' the two words could never be used together in the definition of another word. When a study is made relying on the biblical meaning and usage, we can only come to the conclusion that 'shear' meant to closely cut or shave. 1 Corinthians 5,6 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. What is Paul trying to say here in verses 5 and 6? If a woman prays or prophesies she needs a veil or head covering, Paul says when her head is uncovered it is one and the same as being shaven.
He drives the point even further, if the woman is not covered let her go ahead and shorn her hair real close, if a bald women is shameful and ugly so is an uncovered woman, so let her be covered. The implication here in 1 Corinthians could be that the women were removing their head coverings, while the men put theirs on ONLY DURING THE TIME of praying or prophesying. If this is the case, the coverings could not possibly have been their hair, (since they could not very easily remove their hair when praying), but the coverings would of necessity be of an artificial nature, such as a veil for women, and hat for men. For the Corinthians, the period when their actions could bring shame to their heads was limited to the time they were praying or prophesying with their physical heads covered or uncovered. In view of the fact that Corinthian residents were Romans, Jews and Greeks, which all had different customs of dress, it seems highly probable that Paul was addressing CERTAIN men who were leaving their hats on, and CERTAIN women who were removing their veils during worship services. Do you ever see women in Pentecostal churches praying with veils on their heads? NO, but we take this scripture and teach that a woman is to have uncut hair, what is Paul really saying here, for a woman to wear a veil or not to cut her hair? Paul makes it clear that an unveiled woman praying or prophesying â€Śdishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. Why do we say that women wearing veils to church doesnâ€™t apply to us today, but then take 1 Corinthians chapter 11 and come up with a doctrine for women to have uncut hair? We must rightly divide the word and come up with the answers, who started the uncut hair on women doctrine? If youâ€™re going to use 1 Corinthians chapter 11 as a scripture for uncut hair on woman and are applicable to us today, you also have to teach that the woman must wear a veil that
covers her hair when praying or prophesying in church. What Paul is saying is that if a woman comes to church without a veil showing a bare head, go all the way shave the head and be bald, have a bare head without hair, if that is ugly and shameful so is an unveiled head.
The Word Shame 1 Corinthians 11:6 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. A book that many read concerning hair has this in it about shame: Looking again at I Corinthians 11:6, the word admonishes us that whether a woman cuts, trim shears, or is shaven, it is a shame. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” What word in this verse causes you to realize it is wrong to cut your hair? It is the word SHAME! It is a shame no matter how much is removed! We are not talking about a little wagging of the finger and saying “Shame on you.” Jude 13 says, “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” DOING THINGS THAT ARE A SHAME CAN SEND YOU TO HELL! This book adds to the scripture, the Bible only says shorn or shaven when describing the same shame as an unveiled head. Please note that the author of this book added cut and trim. So if doing things that are a shame will send us to hell, why don’t we look at the original Greek word here and also find out where else it can be found in the Bible.
Shame - ai[scron Transliterated Word Aischron Phonetic Spelling - ahee-skhron' Definition - shame, base, dishonourable The word shame or Greek word aischron is found three times in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:6, 14:35 and Ephesians 5:12. 1 Corinthians 11:6 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 1 Corinthians 14:35 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. The word shame comes from the same Greek word aischron found in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 14:35. No where is the 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and verse 35 referred to in this book, why will women travel the world twisting scriptures and speaking in churches about the shame of cut hair and it sending a women to hell and ignore the other shame found in 1 Corinthians? It's funny how we pick and choose scriptures out of context to back what we believe. Some woman make good money speaking and writing books, the shame in chapter 14 verse 35 would put them out of business or would it send them to hell? Many will explain away 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and tell you that itâ€™s not applicable to us today, so what makes one scripture irrelevant and another relevant? Shame occurs when social, cultural or religious traditions are violated, and depends on the norms for one's culture.
From culture to culture, generation-to-generation, shame is not constant, and does not transcend time. To use a toothpick at the table in England is considered rude and shameful; but it is not in America.
The Word Comely 1 Corinthians 11:13 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Since the word comely refers to a woman’s appearance, the only way one can determine that it is not “comely” for a woman to pray uncovered is if being uncovered is visible. Often a woman can trim her bangs or her dead ends, and it is not visible to anyone. If Paul is referring to a woman cutting or trimming her hair, why does he ask this question when her cut or trimmed hair may not be visible? Apparently, Paul is saying that being uncovered is visible – to the point of being uncomely. Additionally, Paul is specific in his admonition saying that a woman is to be covered while “praying or prophesying.” This suggests a temporal nature to the covering – something that can be taken off and put back on. If uncovered refers to a head from which hair has been cut, then why does Paul state that this is only forbidden while praying or prophesying? Why does he even mention praying or prophesying? Why doesn't he simply say in verse 5, “But every woman who has an uncovered head dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven,” leaving out “while praying or prophesying” altogether? Clearly, hair is not something that can be put on prior to church and then taken off after the service, which indicates that Paul is referring to a temporal covering.
When we rightly divide the Word and understand the original Greek meaning of the words used, we get a total different view of what Paul was trying to say to the Corinthian church. The eastern culture required women to wear veils on their heads, this wasnâ€™t a written law but a way of life, and still is in many parts of the world. The veil represents that the woman is under the authority of a man or married, same as a ring on the finger. When we understand who Paul was writing to and the time of the writing we have to say that this chapter is irrelevant to us today, the only way that 1 Corinthians chapter 11 can be relevant is to do what Paul is asking the women to and that is to wear a veil while praying and prophesying in church. Paul begins 1 Corinthians chapter 11 with like this: 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. And ends the first part of the chapter like this: 1 Corinthians 11:16 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. The word ordinances come from the Greek word paradises, this Greek word is translated as traditions twelve other times in the New Testament. What Paul is writing to The Corinthians is not a law but an ordinance or tradition. In verse 16 Paul even states it is NOT the custom of the other churches -- yet today this passage is sometimes given the dogmatic, rigid interpretation that it is binding on all women believers. Paul labels the behavior of women praying or prophesying with heads uncovered, and men praying or prophesying with heads covered (Verses 4-5), as "custom," and not doctrine.
Women of other cultures had no need of veils, since they probably had other ways of symbolizing the matrimonial
status. By the choice of his words "we" and "the churches of God" have no such custom, Paul has limited his instructions specifically to the Corinthians ONLY. Apparently, Paul saw the matter of women's head coverings (veils) as a cultural expression of the principles involved in matrimony, and not as a divine principle. Paul was giving the Corinthians a principle AND exception -- except he did so backwards to the way we would in English. If we were to deliver the same message in Verses 1-16, we would essentially say, "This is the way WE and the churches of God do this. But you Corinthians should do it this other way." He gave them first instructions for the exception (the Corinthians), and wound up with the principle for the majority in Verse 16 (as for us, and the churches of God, we have no such custom). Was it God's intent that particular instructions for particular action for particular people constitute a divine norm for conduct for the later church? Is something commanded just because it is recorded? NO!! This passage is NOT one of those where Paul stated, "the things I write are commandments of the Lord," as he did in I Corinthians 14:37. Essential doctrinal teachings of the scripture are confirmed by two or more passages. There is no other scripture that mentions women's head coverings. Where the scripture is ambiguous or silent, can one reasonably be dogmatic on ONE particular interpretation being THE CORRECT one? A passage with difficulty in interpretation is not a sound basis on which to build. 95
Should a Woman’s Head be Veiled, Have Long Hair, or Have Uncut Hair? Here’s What Early Christian Writers Had to Say: Must a Christian woman have…
Long Hair? Uncut Hair?
Tatian (~165 AD)
Irenaeus (~190 AD)
Clement (~200 AD)
Tertullian (~210 AD)
Cyprian (~250 AD)
Athanasius (~340 AD)
Gregory Nazianzen (~370 AD)
Ambrose (~380 AD)
Chrysostom (~400 AD) y
Jerome (~400 AD)
Augustine (~415 AD)
y - Yes, or implied yes n - No, or implied no ? - No reference made, for or against
Note the following telling facts about the writings of early Christians: 1) They almost unanimously believed a woman should wear a veil while praying. Most of them believed she should wear a veil any time while in public. 2) Practically all of the early writers referenced long hair with regard to women, and none of them indicated that a woman should have "uncut hair." 3) Several authors either expressly stated or implied that a woman was permitted to cut her hair. NOT A SINGLE AUTHOR I COULD FIND OF THE EARLY CHURCH WRITERS EXPRESSLY FORBADE THE CUTTING OF A WOMAN’S HAIR. Brief Summaries of What Early Christian Writers Believed About the "Hair Question" Below is a summary of all early Christian writers I could find making comments about a woman’s hair, either expressly or implied. Some of them spoke at great length, some made only brief comments. Tatian – Believed men should not have long hair. Implied that men with long hair are imitating women (he used the phrase "with shoulder exposed" - an expression elsewhere used with respect to women). Irenaeus – Believed women should wear veils, although it is not clear if at all times they were to do it (as many early writers believed), or if only during prayer (as other early writers believed). Clement – Believed men should not have long hair, but very short hair, even shaved heads. Men’s hair should never be so long as to interfere with the eyes. Women should have heads veiled whenever not at home, and faces covered, and long
hair. Short hair or a shaved head for a woman was a sign of shame. Tertullian – Believed women should have their heads veiled at all times while in public, though he admitted tradition rather than Scripture suggested this. Men should not wear veils. Even virgins must be veiled, although he implied this practice was not followed in all the churches. He implied virgins had long hair, but long hair did not substitute for a veil. He implied that some churches believed a woman’s long hair was a substitute for the veil. He implied that older women had shorter hair than virgins, indicating they must have cut it. Regarding the veil, he explained that it should cover the same region as unbound natural hair, at least down to the neck (to where the robe begins). Although giving a lengthy discourse on the Hair Question, no mention was made against women cutting their hair. Cyprian – Apparently believed men should not have too much hair. "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" (a summary of what some early Christians believed) – Believed men should not wear long hair, and that women should have heads "covered" when in public (presumably with a veil or another appropriate covering). No mention was made of it being sinful for women to cut their hair. Athanasius – Reported that women of his day had long hair and wore veils. Gregory Nazianzen - Apparently believed women should wear veils. Ambrose – Believed that men should not have long hair. He believed women should wear veils, unless they had long hair, which served as a substitute to the veil.
Chrysostom - Believed women should be veiled whenever in public. Believed they should wear long hair in addition to the veil. In his lengthy discourse, no mention of uncut hair was made as a requirement for women. Men should have heads uncovered only when praying/teaching (they could have covered heads the rest of the time). They should not have long hair. Jerome â€“ Reported that women of his day had long hair. Long hair on men was disgraceful and sinful. Women wore veils at all times. Captive women had their hair cut off to shame them. Women cut their hair to keep fleas, etc, out of it, and used the veil to cover themselves scripturally. Implied it was not sinful for women to cut their hair. Augustine â€“ Believed men should not have long hair. Women must be veiled when in public; although he indicates that long hair could be used in place of a veil. Cutting or not cutting the hair was apparently irrelevant.
What Do These Facts lead us to surmise? The plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, combined with the writings of early Christian authors may lead us to conclusions that many of us are not willing to readily accept. First, there is no question that women, at least in certain circumstances, were unanimously instructed to wear veils by every author referencing the subject of covering. Second, early writers simply did not interpret Paulâ€™s writing to suggest that women were not permitted to cut their hair. What these two facts lead us to understand is the following: many Christians simply do not believe the truth on this important subject. Many preachers are in direct opposition to the clear teaching of Paul and to the beliefs of early Christians. They teach the subject is simply not important for modern Christians. Early Christians considered the subject very important. Some teach that a woman never is required to be veiled. Early Christians taught the opposite.
Others teach a woman is never permitted to cut her hair. Early Christians apparently taught nothing of such.
If there is No mention of the "Uncut Hair" Doctrine among Early Writings, When Then did this Doctrine Originate?? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is taken to literally mean that long hair is a requirement for women's salvation, and was not addressing the problem of the wives' lack of subjection to their husbands (a problem in their spirit), the whole point and intent of the passage has been missed. There is no teaching of Jesus that confirms that long hair or veils (literally and universally) for a woman is a requirement for salvation. If it were essential for all women believers, surely Jesus would have confirmed by direct teaching this necessity. How would the races of women of whose hair does not grow long be saved? Did God give Moses commandments in the Law commanding that woman not to cut their hair? Did Jesus ever teach on hair or give commandments concerning uncut hair on women? Since the New Testament church was an all-Jewish
believer church for many years, and they continued to live by the Law and 1 Corinthians wasnâ€™t written until 57 AD what instruction did women have concerning uncut hair? Is Paul addressing hair or veils in 1 Corinthians chapter 11? Who started the uncut hair on women doctrine?
Where does the Bible states that uncut hair on women equals holiness or brings salvation? If I Corinthians 11:1-16 is taken to literally mean that uncut hair is a requirement for women's salvation, and was not addressing the problem of the wives' lack of subjection to their husbands (a problem in their spirit), the whole point and intent of the passage has been missed. There is no teaching of Jesus that confirms that uncut hair or veils (literally and universally) for a woman is a requirement for salvation. If it were essential for all women believers, surely Jesus would have confirmed by direct teaching this necessity. How would the races of women of whose hair does not grow long be saved? Throughout this maze, the thread seems to be the desire of Paul's heart that the worship service in Corinth was "done decently and in order...without offense…and to the glory of God," which are the very points he had just made in the previous chapter, 1 Corinthians 10:3133. The "head of the husband is Christ, the head of the wife is the man" and each should act in such a way so that neither dishonored their head in their worship and culture.
Chapter Six Myths About Standards We must have standards or the glory of the Lord will leave our church. Some people believe that if 1)
they don’t have what they call Holiness Standards that the presence of God will leave their church. We all have been to churches that were Holiness and dead with no growth and to churches that accepted people with little or no standards and alive with God working in their church. I have heard preachers say, I know we don’t have Bible for it, but we must hold on to it or the glory of God will leave us. The bottom line is that God is not turned on with our appearance as much as where our hearts is. Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 15 that their worship was in vain; it was lips service with no heart because man-made doctrines were more important. Matthew 15:8-9 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
2) Standards are a boundary we set so people don’t sin. Well the Pharisees had 613 laws that they set up as boundaries to keep people from breaking the Law and sinning. In the New Testament Jesus walks into their world and begin breaking their man-made laws, and they hated Him. Jesus proved that we don’t need laws of bondage to keep people from sinning, that’s what the blood is for.
It’s a uniform that we must wear so people will know who we are. Nowhere in the New Testament does 3)
Jesus or the Apostles teach that people have to wear a uniform of holiness. We’re not an airlines or fast food restaurant, we’re the church. What uniform did the church in the Book of Acts wear?
Nowhere do you find that everybody has to look alike. If this is true why don’t the men have a certain uniform that sets them apart, they wear coats and ties like the rest of the world? Matthew 7:20 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. John 13:35 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another Jesus never talks of an external uniform of holiness, he said you will know them by their fruits, we know that Galatians chapter 5 tells us what the fruit of the Spirit is; love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Jesus never said you would know my disciples by what they wear, but how they LOVE.
We must do them to be saved, or we will go to hell. Salvation is a gift; you can’t buy it or earn it. Salvation 4)
is not in our clothing or hair; it comes only through Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Bible do you find God giving a commandment against make-up, jewelry, women’s pants or a woman cutting her hair. No place in the Old Testament Law do you find God dealing with these issues. Don’t you think if God were going to send someone to hell over something he would give a clear commandment about it?
2 Timothy 1:9 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
God has called us with a holy calling, called to be a saint or holy one, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace. The Bible is very clear that our salvation is through Jesus Christ and the price has already been paid all we have to do is accept the gift, not work for it. Our hair or the clothes we wear cannot be our savior or bring salvation.
Our forefathers established it and our parents believed it so it has to be right. Our forefathers and 5)
parents were not Holy, only God is Holy and the only human being without sin and pure was Jesus, so unholy people cannot establish Holy Standards, only a Holy God can. Many of our forefathers were uneducated with little or no knowledge of the Bible, Greek or Hebrew; many had a misunderstanding of the meaning of the scriptures. 1 Peter 1:15 -16 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. Our Holiness does not come from the rules we keep or the clothes we wear, our holiness cannot be fabricated, or passed on from generation to generation, it can only be received from a Holy God.
Our Holiness Standards Shows we have separated ourselves from the world. We live in houses 6)
and drive automobiles designed by the world. The clothes, eye glasses and shoe styles all change from year to year because of worldly fashion designers dictating what we wear, so to say makeup, uncut hair, no pants on women are a sign of separation from the world does not really make sense, when we follow all the other fashions that the world sets. The Amish people are the only group of people that truly separate themselves from the world they live in.
Does the names Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfger, Georgio Armani, Louis Vuitton, Gucci mean anything? Are these designers’ Godly people or worldly people? Many will tell you that no make-up, dresses on women and no jewelry is a sign of separation from the world while they proudly parade around with the name of worldly designers on their clothes, shoes and purses. I’m not against wearing designer clothing I wear them everyday, what I’m against is the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another, there is no where in the Bible you can find that make-up, jewelry, women cutting their hair or wearing pants is worldly, and by not doing these things you are holy and separated from the world. 7) The culture of 50 years ago was holy. In every religious organization, the leaders always feel that the past years were better years so lets make rules that will ensure we don’t mess with our heritage. Some churches it’s the music that is sacred, other churched it’s the type of facilities that are sacred. Some religious organization try to preserve a culture of dress that they feel was sacred, and anything that does not model after that culture is worldly and unholy. The 1960’s brought us the hippies that were considered rebellious, the men would grow their hair long and refuse to shave and as result of that group many preachers begin to preach against facial hair, not because of what the Bible says but because of what it represented in the world at that time. Today when you talk of facial hair being rebellious, most guys look at you funny because they don’t remember the 60’s and most wasn’t even born. The same with women wearing pants, there was a time in the history of our culture that women didn’t wear pants, but today our culture accepts women’s pants and most women grew up wearing women’s pants and don’t remember War World II or a time when women didn’t wear them.
In the Victorian age of our nation prostitutes wore make-up and good respectable women had plain faces, now even the First Lady wears make-up and our society doesn’t at her as evil or a prostitute. You see our culture changes; one culture isn’t holier than the next, as you can see we don’t wear robes like Biblical days. Colossians 2:8 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Holding on to past tradition will kill an organization or church, one must decide what is Bible and what is man made traditions.
Holiness is about the Internal and External.
Nowhere do you find in the Bible that uncut hair on women, women not wearing pants, make-up or jewelry are external holiness. There is no scripture connecting what we wear or don’t wear with holiness. God is holy and the only way we can be holy is to reflect His holiness and to be like Him, holiness is about character and only is reflected by the Holy Ghost that lives inside us. Holiness is internal that directs our actions and attitude. If a woman dress immodest to expose her body so that men will lust after her body parts, that’s not holy, it is the spirit of the flesh, lasciviousness that Paul spoke of in Galatians chapter 5.
UNHOLY Galatians 5:19-21 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 107
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. HOLY Galatians 5:22-23 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. There are ways you can be unholy in your dress, dressing so that people lust after you, wearing symbols of the occult on your jewelry or clothing, wearing something that would make people envious of us or trying to be equal with someone. The reason a person would do these things is because their spirit isn’t right. I have met woman with cut hair, jewelry and makeup with a spirit of holiness; they had love, joy, and peace, all of the fruit of the Spirit operating in them. Holiness is about the internal and external, but you find no scripture connecting uncut hair, women’s pants, jewelry and makeup to the external. It’s not unholy to dress to fit into the culture that you live in, men do it all the time with coats and ties, that coat and tie serves no purpose but to fit into a male culture of power and success. Coats and ties are not connected to holiness, they’re design by the world, so to pick certain items out for women and call it holiness and separation from the world would be contradicting with how men clothe themselves. I have seen women with a dress on, uncut hair, no makeup or jewelry and they were unholy because their attitude was all about dressing to be equal or superior to someone else, their spirit was ugly and ungodly. The next time you want to dress holy, read Galatians and the works of the flesh and ask why am I wearing this? Where in the Bible do we find uncut hair, make-up, jewelry, and no women’s equals’ external holiness?
What does a male have to do to prove separation from the
world and external holiness? I have worked for companies where women were sent home because they had too much flesh exposed, dressed like a prostitute adverting her goods on the street corner, if it’s not accepted in the corporate world, why should it be accepted in the church of God. Final word, always remember M&M, MODESTY and MODERATION. Be modest in your dress, don’t expose body parts for the opposite sex to lust after, breast, belly, tight short shirts, you get the picture. Don’t do the extreme with your dress, 5 earrings, pierced tongue, purple hair with bright blue eye make up. Most companies would send you home if you came to work looking the extreme; it doesn’t represent the company well, nor does it the church of the living God.