Pentecostal women dress style

[stormdancer0]

Mmm yes the time that this scripture was written.. that's what a lot of people say. Times change, but what God meant doesn't. How our we supposed to tell the difference between God's people and the world? If we all look the same? People can tell I am different by the way I am dressed and present my self. You don't see people walk up to a young lady that is wearing pants, make-up, jewelery, short hair(not that there is anything wrong with it unless a woman came to God like that and therefore doesn't cut it afterwards), a bad attitude and a fowl mouth and ask her "Are you Pentecostal?" No you don't. At least I haven't nor heard of it. But I have people come up to me and ask me all the time.

We tell the difference by our love. Jesus said "They will know you are My followers in this: that you love one another." Not by your dress, by your love. I do not dress provocatively, any dresses or skirts I wear are at least knee length; as are any shorts (which I generally do not wear in public); yet I, too, have been stopped and asked if I were a Christian. One person even asked if I were a minister. It was not my dress, but the love I showed others that made the difference. Plus, I have seen several people dressed the way your church advocates, but were rude, obnoxious, and demanding. If you feel convicted, by all means, wear what you feel comfortable in. In all my years following God, I have never felt convicted by the Holy Spirit that I should not wear pants or cut my hair.

A razor referring to anything sharp. Not just an actual razor. Yes you can cut your hair and it still be long, but the point isn't just having long hair. It's to obey the scriptures by not cutting your hair period. I know plenty of girls who have never cut their hair but yet it is not long, due to their hair not growing fast or similar situations.

Why do you say it refers to anything sharp, when it says specifically "razor." Why be so specific when "Do not cut your hair" would be just as quick to say, and much clearer if that's what Paul meant.

When women were shamed in that time, they were required to shave their heads as a symbol of their shame. It took a couple of years to grow the hair back to an acceptable length, so she had to live with her shame for that long. This is the basis for the admonition "Do not let a razor touch your head."

Ahh but there is. "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me." Psalms 101:3
People make up all sorts of excuses for that one. Like you did, "we should be very careful.... of what we watch". Yes we should, but why risk the chance you being tempted to watch the ungodly things on tv? Such as adultery, stealing, lying, fornication, fowl mouths, ungodly references(dirty talk), gossip, presentation(the way the look may tempt us to change ourselves), and all that. Almost every show has at least one of those things.

How is "be careful" and excuse? That makes no sense. If I tell you to "be careful of traffic," am I then making an excuse? No, I am advocating caution. I do the same with TV.

The television in itself is neither evil nor good. It is what you watch on it that can be wicked. Do you listen to the radio? Tapes? Read books? There is much evil on these things as well. If you do not watch TV, then how do you know that "almost every show has" these things? That's like the people who've never read the Bible claiming it is full of contradictions. They say that because that's what they've been taught, and that's what they want to believe. There are many good, Christian shows on TV.

Though, I guess if someone is weak in their faith and cannot make themselves turn the channel if something inappropriate comes on, perhaps they SHOULD refrain from watching it altogether.

Sure we all sin, we aren't perfect, we make mistakes, but some shows such as soap operas, make it seem like it's ok, and perfectly natural. Actually same thing goes for computers. We are allowed to have them, but we should be careful what websites we go under. But i believe computers are not as bad, since you have to type in where you want to go. You have control of what websites you go under, unlike tv, whatever these directors throw out there, is there to watch.

You have just as much control with the TV. You can change the channel, you can turn it off, or you can put in a good movie. I agree about the soap operas. I never did like those things. But I love shows that show you how to make quilts, or paint, or grow veggies. I see no harm in those. And if you think you have so much control over where the computer takes you, type in "whitehouse.com" accidentally sometime instead of "whitehouse.gov" A small mistake in your typing can bring up stuff that would turn your stomach. Much like flipping through channels can do. But most of the channels that have such things on it have been blocked on our tv, so there is less chance that we or our kids will see something inappropriate.

You don't think make-up representing ungodly things, and evil things, makes it a ban? I'm sorry you feel that way.. But make up entices no matter how little you put on. It a facade. That's what it is, sort of a lie. No, not sort of. It is a lie.

In a few cases, make up represented ungodly women. But no where does it say in scripture, "Do not wear makeup." I see little difference in a little makeup and ,say, some hairspray. Both are there to make you look the way you want to look. Or conditioner on your hair. It all is there to artificially change how your hair or face looks, to make you look better.

I do not think it defiles a barn to add a new coat of paint. I don't think God cares if we put on a little lip gloss. I personally don't wear makeup often at all.(Except when I was a clown. That's a whole 'nother story!) I just always figured, if you don't like how I look, then you can look some other direction.

So we are just to run around without any rules at all? And do whatever we please? No. the government has rules, Jobs have rules, Stores have rules, everything has rules. There needs to be boundaries. And the rules that we have aren't man made, they're the rules god set for us in the bible. We merely follow them. Sure God didn't say exactly in the bible, Thou shalt not watch television, because it wasn't invented back then. We have to adapt to the technology and new things that are coming out to what god means. There is scripture for everything, we don't just make up rules because we feel like it.

Of course not. Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." The commandments He gave us are "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body and spirit" AND "Love your neighbor as yourself." He added that all the law were contained in those two commandments. I try to keep these two commandments. I do not believe that we are restricted by the Jewish rules of living, or else we would still be stoning people who work on Saturdays. All of the 10 Commandments are included in the two that Jesus gave us.

Jesus didn't denounce them for rules, he called them hypocrites. Cuz that's what they were. They didn't practice what they preached.

No, He denounced them because they were so wrapped up in rules that they paid no attention and did not care about others. They put rules above love. They preached tithing, practiced it, but condemned others who could not afford to do the same, instead of offering to help out those less fortunate. They showed no love - that was why they were denounced.

No you probably wouldn't sit well. We don't believe that woman should hold that authority of a pastor. A pastor's wife, sure, but not a pastor. I am a girl myself, and I don't believe any woman should be given that position.

I was the same way. I never believed in woman pastors. But when God called me to do what I'm doing, it was unmistakeable. The Spirit has also let me know that many men have been called, but have rejected the calling. So God is looking for anyone - male or female - who will step up and FAITHFULLY, HUMBLY lead His people. I do not think I would ever be comfortable as a head pastor. I do believe that a man should be head over the church. But if men are called and prefer the world, then women have to step up into that gap. We have a gentleman in our church who is very resentful that I am a pastor because I am a woman. But I offered to step aside and let him step up, and he refused. 90% of what I do is visit the sick, and pray for those in need. That tends to be more of a female thing to do, but if God calls me to lead a church, I will do so.

Yes there's another thing people make excuses for. "God says he loves you for the inside, not the outside. So it shouldn't matter how we look" Yes that's correct in some ways. God doesn't care what race we are, what color eyes, hair, and skin we have. whether we have a skin disease or anything.

We do not turn away visitors or even frequent visitors just because the way they are dressed. I never implied that. We welcome them with open arms, we love them just as we should, just as god loves them. But if one were to become a member and want to follow the ways of god, we wouldn't encourage them to look the same. we wouldn't condemn them, just merely show them the scriptures.

And god does look on outward holiness. He wants us to be modest and appropriate, not just inwardly wise, but also on the outward. If we are holy inside, should it not should on the outside of us? I read a website and this person makes a good argument, he says this.

"Many people will say, "Well, God looks on the heart. God doesn't care what you look like on the outside. God just looks on the heart." That is true. God does look on the heart, but man cannot see the heart. Man can only see the outer. Not only that, the outer appearance is usually a pretty good indicator of what is in a person's heart. Although it is possible to look right on the outside and be wrong on the inside, it is well nigh impossible to look right on the outside and be right on the inside. What is on the outside comes from the inside. That is why Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"

And I couldn't have said it better myself.

"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;But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." 1 Timothy 2:10 KJV

So it's a sin to braid your hair? or wear pearls? How much are you allowed to spend, and it still not be "costly array?"

What I wear is modest. A woman should not put her self-worth in things such as makeup, jewelry, or rich clothing. She should be modest, and take her self-image from the good works she does, not what she looks like. This is how I understand this verse.

"And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do." NLT

So, this is Peter's preference. He said, "I want women" to dress a certain way.

Another words, dress modest, not wear immodest things that draw attention. So if you don't encourage inappropriate clothing or makeup in your service, does that mean you allow it to happen outside of your church? doesn't make sense. How are people to know the difference from the people in your church, your religion, than from the people of the world?(meaning the people who do not follow god) Seems like they're just playing the part. I don't dress and act one way at church, then dress and act differently outside of my church, I am the same. Just because my pastor isn't watching me, nor the people of my church, doesn't mean I do what I want. God is still watching me, I need to be an example for him.

I agree 100%. The thing is, we are taught that the church building is just that, a building. The church is not a building, it is a group of believers. We are not just believers at church, but at home, in the workplace, and everywhere else. When I say we discourage inappropriate clothing in our services, I misspoke. We discourage inappropriate clothing for our congregation. We are the church, no matter where we are. Even in running errands, we represent God. This is something we have only recently (as in the past year or so) begun emphasizing - that you cannot be a Christian on Sunday and live like the world the rest of the week. This has been the central focus of all my teachings.

Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car, anymore than going to church makes you a christian.

This is one of my favorite quotes. But wearing ultraconservative clothing doesn't make you a Christian, either. It is how you love, how you treat others, that makes you a Christian. That's what Christ said.

I would fear that dressing the way you advocate would actually repel people from getting to know me. If people won't get close enough to you to experience God's love, how can you bring souls to Him?

 

[breadandbutter]

In a previous post I stated that ancient Greece and Rome had sumptuary laws that prohibited any woman the adorning proscribed in 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 except prostitutes. There were thousands of sacred prostitues in the city of Ephesus, who were attached to Diana's shrine. Sacred prostitution was a part of her worship. But, I want to answer the question, "Within what price range would 'costly array' have been in Paul's time?" The denarius was the foundation of the Roman monetary system for centuries, and one denarius was a day's wage for the average laborer. A "costly" garment could cost up to 7,000 denarii, which was, at minimum, 2 years salary. Lower quality garments cost 500-800 denarii. If we could possibly convert this cost into today's money, if the average yearly income is $50,000, then one dress would cost $100,000 at least. The price range for the clothes of the sacred prostitutes would be something like that of the clothes worn by Princess Diana of Wales!

Some of the hetaerae were very rich. We know the names of some of the hetaerae. Phryne, whose lovers included the orater Hyperides, the painter Apelles, and the sculptor Praxitiles, along with other patrons, made her so wealthy that when Alexander the Great destroyed Thebes, Phryne offered to rebuild the city at her own expense!

Sometimes just a litttle bit of history will illuminate perplexing scripture passages, but it is not the standard practice of Pentecostal/Apostolic leaders to be scholastically minded in interpreting the Bible. Their tendency is more that of being up on Cloud Nine! But, Cloud Nine is where men get into delusions! We must put passages like 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 back into their correct historical context. Attempting to force these texts to fit into a modern day church setting distorts the TRUE meaning of scripture.

 

[LinkH]

In a previous post I stated that ancient Greece and Rome had sumptuary laws that prohibited any woman the adorning proscribed in 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 except prostitutes. There were thousands of sacred prostitues in the city of Ephesus, who were attached to Diana's shrine. Sacred prostitution was a part of her worship. But, I want to answer the question, "Within what price range would 'costly array' have been in Paul's time?" The denarius was the foundation of the Roman monetary system for centuries, and one denarius was a day's wage for the average laborer. A "costly" garment could cost up to 7,000 denarii, which was, at minimum, 2 years salary. Lower quality garments cost 500-800 denarii. If we could possibly convert this cost into today's money, if the average yearly income is $50,000, then one dress would cost $100,000 at least. The price range for the clothes of the sacred prostitutes would be something like that of the clothes worn by Princess Diana of Wales!

Some of the hetaerae were very rich. We know the names of some of the hetaerae. Phryne, whose lovers included the orater Hyperides, the painter Apelles, and the sculptor Praxitiles, along with other patrons, made her so wealthy that when Alexander the Great destroyed Thebes, Phryne offered to rebuild the city at her own expense!

Sometimes just a litttle bit of history will illuminate perplexing scripture passages, but it is not the standard practice of Pentecostal/Apostolic leaders to be scholastically minded in interpreting the Bible. Their tendency is more that of being up on Cloud Nine! But, Cloud Nine is where men get into delusions! We must put passages like 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 back into their correct historical context. Attempting to force these texts to fit into a modern day church setting distorts the TRUE meaning of scripture.

Honestly, I am very wary of these seemingly educated 'historical' approaches. There may have been some super-rich high priced harlots who wore gold in the first century. Hmm. the example you gave was from three hundred years before. How much has our society changed in 300 years. Even so, if you can find 50 texts from the first century, written 10 years from the date of I Timothy and I Peter that show that some rich prostitutes wore a lot of gold, that doesn't prove that this was the issue Peter and Paul were addressing.

I don't know the details of Roman sumpuary laws, but I have heard of Jewish women in that time period wearing their dowry in their hair. If there were laws against non-prostitutes wearing such things, we really do not know the extent of the enforcement of such laws or the penalties if they were not enforced. Someone studying our legal system from a thousand years in the future might conclude that citizens of a certain state in the US were not likely to fornicate or commit adultery because there were laws against fornication and adultery in certain states. What a study of the legal system from our time does not fully reveal how our society operates.

I've read arguments that Paul was not opposed to women teaching or usurping authority over women, really. And that he was just reacting to female priestesses who were very dominant in Ephesus. One might be able to show how important priestesses were in paganism, but this type of argument ignores the fact that Paul is making an argument from Adam and Eve, not paganism.

The homosexual proponents will argue that Paul didn't really mean what he said about homosexuality, and that he was just arguing against pedophilia and homosexual prostitution. They will show some 'fact' about homosexuality in history and present historical documents. But this is just a form of sophistry. Show some facts about the way homosexuality functioned back then, and then try to argue that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

While I do believe we need to keep history and culture in mind while studying such issues, and that it is profitable to examine history and culture, I think we also need to be careful not to indulge in a shallow approach that throws out a smoke screen of a few historical facts, and then argues that the apostles did not mean what they said.

 

[breadandbutter]

The standard of interpretation of Biblical passages I am wary of are those of a supposed 'spiritual' nature with no scholarship! We positively cannot understand the Bible without history. It goes hand-in-hand with the Bible. We also must study the definitions of the key terms in the passage in the original Greek or Hebrew.

Much of my study of the scripture texts involving women came through the writings of Catherine Clark Kroeger, Ph.D. (She has a website). She passed away last winter in her 80's. She was both a Latin and Greek translator and professor of Biblical and classical Greek at the University of Minnesota. She had a long list of achievements in the line of Biblical scholarship. She focused her attention of study for a while on ancient women and was an expert on the activities of women in cult worship.

The first sumptuary law was passsed while Rome was still a Republic, the Lex Oppia, enacted in 215 B.C., and ruled that women could not go out in public with more than half an ounce of gold on their persons and their tunics could not be in different colours. (Britannica Online Encyclopedia) One needn't worry that Rome had any problem enforcing laws! Considering their reputation for cruelty, the punishment may have been something like being buried alive! Women managed to get the Lex Oppia repealed, but rest assured, Rome kept the classes of women distinct, and sumptuary laws were in place at the time of the early church. Dr. Kroeger stated, "Ostentation was frequently a sign of promiscuity in the ancient world." The look of the hetaerae was that of ostentatiousness, as opposed to "moderate" or "modest." Their look was way, way overdone. Philo, the Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of the 1st cen., gives his description of a prostitute in his work, The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel,

"bedecked with a multitude of gold chains and bracelets as having her hair dressed in elaborate braids...and her expensive clothes embroidered lavishly with flowers." (19-21)

Dr. Kroeger states:

"Women are bidden to dress modestly and with propriey (vv 9-10)--surely a necessity in a city which boasted thousands of prostitutes. Sumptuary laws forbade any but harlots the adornment Paul here proscribes.

In Ephesus, where a great multitude of sacred courtesans were attached to the shrine of Diana, women had much to unlearn.

Prostitutes were active in many areas of ancient life, and some of these found Christ as well.

This enjoinder might also have been a warning to women who sometimes disrobed during worship. A magnificient fresco in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii shows a group of naked women participating in a celebration of the mysteries of the god Dionysus. Furthermore, it was sometimes an act of piety and blessing for a pagan woman to raise her skirts to the waist. By contract, modesty, rather than fertility, was a priority in Christian services of prayer."

The gold, pearls, and costly array, in the 2 parallel texts of 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:5 were not only out-landish and ostentatious but also idolatrous. The hetaerae drew attention to the Diana cult with their appearance. No woman today adorns herself in this same context to bring honor or fame to a pagan goddess!

I am the author of a book on jewelry in the Bible and a tract on women's adorning. There are some 31 references to jewelry in the entire Bible, and out of these 31, 7 refer to the wearing of jewelry (sometimes clothes, also) in worship of idols. These 2 particular texts are 2 of those 7.

 

[dayhiker]

I think the idol worship of the pagans is the issue. Most of the Bible is speaking to God's people to not be like the idol worshipers. I've done my share of preaching and I became aware that I was preaching to have an effect on people as much as I was trying to communicate what the Bible said. And I preached from one verse to the next.

But clearly everyone who wasn't a Christian in the NT times was an idol worshiper. God isn't concern about if we wear a robe or some other piece of clothing. God even told Isaiah to preach naked for 3 yrs! God is concern about us not putting any other God before Him. Command numro uno. I started to realize that often the context of scriptures was idolitry but preachers never even mentioned idol worship. A great example is Rom.1.
Some day no jewelery. Yet, Abraham sent a lot of jewelery with his servant to get a wife for Isaac. The women who were coming to church with jewelery were rich to have those things. While others were so poor they barely kept alive in this world. So it seems clear to me the apostles were concern about the rich having a attitude that was showing off in front of the poor. So Paul says the poor can rejoice in the riches they have in Christ. While the rich can humble themselves in their need for God.

Being rich isn't said to be a sin. Nor is being poor. But the wrong attitude toward the other is a sin. That's breaking the 2nd law to love our neighbor.

 

[LinkH]

The standard of interpretation of Biblical passages I am wary of are those of a supposed 'spiritual' nature with no scholarship! We positively cannot understand the Bible without history. It goes hand-in-hand with the Bible. We also must study the definitions of the key terms in the passage in the original Greek or Hebrew.

I am on a mailing list of a retired Classics (Greek and Latin) professor and chair who also knows Hebrew. He describes his Hebrew as 'intermediate' but a friend of mine who got a masters in Hebrew translation in Jerusalem considered this professor's Hebrew to be more advanced that his own.

He often comments on the false arguments supposedly derived from Greek that are often circulated in pulpits. In his experience, many seminarians don't know Greek that well, though he could think of some exceptions.

My concerns with people using Greek and Hebrew are that 1) some preachers say things that are outright false about the languages 2) using Greek and Hebrew some teachers will make arguments that aren't supported by the language of the text.

Much of my study of the scripture texts involving women came through the writings of Catherine Clark Kroeger, Ph.D. (She has a website). She passed away last winter in her 80's. She was both a Latin and Greek translator and professor of Biblical and classical Greek at the University of Minnesota. She had a long list of achievements in the line of Biblical scholarship. She focused her attention of study for a while on ancient women and was an expert on the activities of women in cult worship.

I am working on a PhD in another field. If someone has a PhD, that doesn't mean their arguments can't be tenuous or they can't have a crackpot theory. It just seems like if you come up with some way out there theory in the field of Biblical studies, you can get a following. Is this the lady who argues that Paul is dealing with Diana worship when he says that he does not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man for Adam was form first, then Eve, etc?

The first sumptuary law was passsed while Rome was still a Republic, the Lex Oppia, enacted in 215 B.C., and ruled that women could not go out in public with more than half an ounce of gold on their persons and their tunics could not be in different colours. (Britannica Online Encyclopedia) One needn't worry that Rome had any problem enforcing laws! Considering their reputation for cruelty, the punishment may have been something like being buried alive! Women managed to get the Lex Oppia repealed, but rest assured, Rome kept the classes of women distinct, and sumptuary laws were in place at the time of the early church.

Rome had a terrible time enforcing their own constitution during the first century and the century leading up to it. Dictators were supposed to be temporary, during times of war. There wasn't supposed to be any triumverate or emperor. Their legal system had undergone an incredible change. The society had also become more decadent over time, with people eating sumptuous meals and throwing them up in vomitoriums. There was also a lot of adultery, and Octavian tried to change some of things.

Of course they could be cruel in enforcing certain laws. That is not the issue. The issue is whether this was a law they cared to enforce, or some law considered obsolete that was still on the books or else, if it was even still a law. You say that the sumptuary laws had been repealed. What year was this? If it was repealed due to a public outcry, what makes you think it would have been enforced thereafter? If it was repealed, people didn't want to follow it. The US had a constitutional amendment against alcohol about 80 or 90 years ago. Does that mean Americans don't drink? Did they drink when it was against the law?

Another thing to consider is that while the Romans had a great deal of concern at certain times for upholding norms and modesty standards for their own Roman women, did that translate into concern for upholding these same norms and modesty standards for non-Roman women? I've read that non-Romans didn't get married under the Roman legal tradition. I suppose they had their own customs and ceremonies. Ephesus may have had a few Roman women, but it was a multi-cultural city, perhaps with a Greek majority. Why should we assume that the Romans would have made their subjects dress and act Roman? They let the Jews worship in the temple and didn't make them eat pork like a previous empire tried to do. The Romans didn't make everyone Roman. They subjugated other nations under rome.

Dr. Kroeger stated, "Ostentation was frequently a sign of promiscuity in the ancient world." The look of the hetaerae was that of ostentatiousness, as opposed to "moderate" or "modest." Their look was way, way overdone. Philo, the Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of the 1st cen., gives his description of a prostitute in his work, The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel,

"bedecked with a multitude of gold chains and bracelets as having her hair dressed in elaborate braids...and her expensive clothes embroidered lavishly with flowers." (19-21)

Okay, maybe so. And maybe the extent to which certain harlots and other women dressed up influenced Christian women at that time, and maybe that was the reason the apostles wrote like they did. But it would be irrational for us to argue that because Ephesian prostitutes wore gold, that there is no principle in these passages that apply to us.

And I notice these arguments deal a lot with cultural context but not Biblical context. Paul doesn't make reference to this sort of paganism in his passage and neither does Peter.

Dr. Kroeger states:
"Women are bidden to dress modestly and with propriey (vv 9-10)--surely a necessity in a city which boasted thousands of prostitutes. Sumptuary laws forbade any but harlots the adornment Paul here proscribes.

Laws from 215 BC? Does she give any evidence regarding how such laws were applied to non-Romans?

This enjoinder might also have been a warning to women who sometimes disrobed during worship. A magnificient fresco in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii shows a group of naked women participating in a celebration of the mysteries of the god Dionysus. Furthermore, it was sometimes an act of piety and blessing for a pagan woman to raise her skirts to the waist. By contract, modesty, rather than fertility, was a priority in Christian services of prayer."

Notice Paul does not address the issue of women running around naked in his address to women in the passage. Perhaps it was nto a problem.

The gold, pearls, and costly array, in the 2 parallel texts of 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:5 were not only out-landish and ostentatious but also idolatrous. The hetaerae drew attention to the Diana cult with their appearance. No woman today adorns herself in this same context to bring honor or fame to a pagan goddess!

This is a huge unsupported leap. We have a few fragments of history about the culture at the time. How can we know this is what Paul had in mind? These cities were multi-cultural. I've read of Jewish women wearing their dowries in their hair as a custom, and not because they were pagan.

I am the author of a book on jewelry in the Bible and a tract on women's adorning. There are some 31 references to jewelry in the entire Bible, and out of these 31, 7 refer to the wearing of jewelry (sometimes clothes, also) in worship of idols. These 2 particular texts are 2 of those 7.

Two quotes aren't all that convincing. How convincing are the other seven? Why isn't there any hint in these passages that Paul or Peter are addressing pagan practices? It is not enough to argue how the pagans in these regions behaved if that is going to be the conclusion.

We shouldn't unthinkingly accept any argument because someone with a PhD puts out a book. Anyone with resources can publish a book. From an academic perspective, I ask, was the book even peer reviewed? Not that that matters from a spiritual perspective. In my field, at least we can run some stats on some data and compare it to the size of the population. In this type of research, the 'population' is near infinite, and there are a few pieces of information from ancient documents for our data. The argument isn't tied closely to the context of scripture.

 

[breadandbutter]

I have never found out how to separate portions of a person's post so I can make comments here and there. You make comments that read to me as though you are missing the point now and then and are simply off the subject.

Catherine Clark Kroeger was an expert in her field and is definately more informed than either you or I. I don't doubt she knew what she was talking about when she said sumptuary laws forbid only prostitutes the adornment proscribed in the texts, and ostentation was frequently a sign of promiscuity in the ancient world. If you can't believe the professor, why go to school? I did some research on sumptuary legislation but didn't feel it was necessary to carry it to the extent of your inquiry. It makes perfectly good sense, Biblically. The nature of the adorning of the great harlot in the vision of John in Rev. 17 is ostentatious. "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and DECKED with gold and precious stones and pearls..." It wasn't the wearing of gold, pearls, and braids, per se, but the QUANTITY that is in focus.

So far as my knowledge goes, the Lex Oppia was the only sumptuary law that women were successful in having repealed. I find it rather amusing that ancient women of the Empire would gather together and make demands of the government and be successful. I am currently reading, Goddesses, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, by Sarah Pomeroy. She makes a few remarks about the Lex Oppia, or Oppian Law, curtailing displays by women. You asked when it was repealed, how it was enforced, and what was the penalty for infracture? Pomeroy gives the details leading up to its repeal and states, "The law was an irritant, despiste some hints that it was not strictly enforced at all times. In 195 B.C. the repeal of this law was proposed, and women demonstrated in the streets." The Oppian Law was in force for 25 years. Another interesting remark by Pomeroy is, "In the sixth century B.C. the Athenian lawgiver Solon institutionalized the distinction between good women and harlots. Solon regulated the walks, the feasts, the mourning, the trousseaux... of citizen women. A bride, in addition to her dowry, had a small trousseau, limited by Solon to three dresses and some other paraphernalia of little value."

Even though Phryne and Alexander the Great were before Paul, Phryne is still a valid example of the wealth of some of the hetaerae. The hetaerae were high-class prostitutes. Ephesus was one of the wealthiest cities of the world. Diana's temple was constructed entirely of marble--one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. Her temple was no cheap brothel, and the courtesans did not look like 'bag ladies'. These girls didn't work cheap!

The early church was largely made up of converts out of the Greco-Roman Mystery religions. Paul was sent to the Gentiles; Peter to the Jews. Paganism is always in the background of the Epistles. Numerous issues Paul deals with concern paganism and are of absolutely no relevance to us today. It is physically impossible for us to commit sacrilege; we need not be warned to keep ourselves from things stangled and from blood (Acts 15:20); we don't need to worry about eating food sacrificed to idols, nor do we buy meat in the shambles; the issue of veiling addressed in 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is clearly a cultural issue that does not pertain to women of our historical era and nationality at all whatsoever. The point I am striving to make is that women in our historical era and culture are not violating 1 Tim. 2:9 nor 1 Peter 3:5 in wearing jewerly, beautiful hair, designer clothes, etc. no more than we violate 1 Cor. 11:5-6 when we pray and prophesy without ancient headdress! Women's clothes, hair, make-up, jewelry, and women's rights are issues based upon CULTURE and not salvation. We do not live in the pagan culture of the ancient Roman Empire, and women's adorning does not bear the meaning in our culture it did in the first century Roman Empire. When Constantine made Christianity legal idolatry entered into a mystery form and survives today in Mystery Babylon--the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations. The temples of the gods are gone and sacred prostitution is ancient history. No modern day woman would want to copy the look of an ancient pagan priestess, if she could.

It is no leap--I will clearly show you why the adorning of the women at Ephesus was idolatrous.

Christian women did not look like the hetaerae, but these women in Ephesus were showing up for prayer service dressed like the priestesses of Artemis/Diana, because they actually were gnostic teachers who believed women could be mediators. Notice "usurping authority" immediately follows "adorning." Gnostic teachings were famous for infusing Christian and pagan beliefs. Gnosticism was characterized by an opposition to traditional Jewish scriptures, esp. the first few chapters of Genesis. The cult of Artemis taught female dominance--that woman was created first. The creation story of Genesis was paganized--fused in with Diana worship-- and mytholigizing Eve as the one who brings knowledge and meaningful life to Adam was a theme.

The problem at Ephesus was false teaching, which Timothy was instructed to refute when Paul went into Macedonia. Female gnostic teachers were part of the problem. (The boy I raised was a Greek student at Ohio University. His professor, first crack out of the box, made the entire class buy the book, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, which he brought home to me thinking I might be interested. Of course, the book was on gnosticism).

Opposition to true doctrine at Ephesus was mentioned by Paul in his speech at Miletus (Acts 20:28-31) and is apparent elsewhere in the Epistles. The nature of these false teachings can be inferred from Paul's objections to them. The church at Ephesus is commended in the book of Rev. for hating the deeds of the Nicolatitans, who were gnostics. Ephesus was the bastion of a strongly developed theological system, known as gnosticism.

The women at Ephesus were influenced by gnostics and were teaching the flip-flopped version of Adam and Eve, which Paul refutes in vv 13, 14. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve..."

Dr. Kroeger and a team of Greek language experts studied the rare verb, authenein, translated "usurp authority." This is the only place in the entire Bible the word appears. In all other places in the NT the Greek word for "authority" is exousia. If we have here a command against women doing the same thing a man does in teaching the word of God, the word used would not be authenein. Paul said women had exousia to pray and prophesy with proper headdress in 1 Cor. 11. In studying the usage of the verb, authenein, in Greek literature, it is only used rarely, but is found in ancient gnostic papyri. Dr. Kroeger states:

"Previously, they had been taught that fornication brought the worshiper into direct communion with the deity. It is worth noting that certain Gnostics and Nestorians employed authentia to indicate a force binding together the fleshly and the divine. Virtually without exception, female teachers among the Greeks were courtesans. Active in every major school of philosophy, these hetairai made it evident in the course of their lectures that they were available afterwards for a second occupation."

The gnostics had essentially "Christianized" the office of the pagan priestess. Not only were the women at Ephesus dressed the part but were employing authenein--not exousia.

I recommend Kroeger's book she wrote with her husband, I Suffer Not a Woman. She goes into depth explaining the meaning of authenein, going all the way back to its first usage in literature and the different shades of meaning it took on, ("usurp authority" is not the oldest translation); she analyzes the grammatical structure of the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12 in the Greek, and goes to great lengths with gnosticism, explaining its origin, etc. The book makes the best sense of anything I have read concerning women in ministry. Her scholastical work on this text is considered 'ground breaking'.

There are plenty of references to jewelry and beautiful clothes being worn in the Bible by good women. Queen Esther wore royal apparel. Rebekah wore bracelets and earring and beautiful clothes. Abraham would not have adorned his future daughter-in-law and not adorn his own wife. Sarah, also, wore jewelry. The Talmud records Jewish women wearing braids.

Sometimes jewelry and/or clothes were worn in worship of idols, but not always. The first example of idolatrous earrings and clothing is found in Genesis 35:1-4. Jacob instructed his house-hold to get rid of all the strange gods in their hand and their earrings, and they were to change their garments, also. The earrings in this text were talismans. The clothing and jewelry the women were wearing in Isaiah 3:16-26 were also of an idolatrous nature and worn ostentatiously. There were ornaments for their feet, cauls, round tires like the moon, chains, bracelets, tablets, earrings, rings, nose jewels, and changeable suits of apparel. The spoils taken by Gideon's men in Judges 8 were idolatrous.

I'm not satisfied with this post, exactly, but do not have time to edit.

 

[lilmissmontana]

No you are right, no one is going to hell because of the length of their hair. You are 100% right about that. But the way you actually mean it, not so much. If we disobey the word of god(Bible), and according to the scripture, allow a razor(of any kind, including scissors), to touch our hair, and we do it knowing it is wrong, and against the bible, then yes we will go to hell. Sin is sin. Anyway you look at it. Whether a woman cuts her hair, or whether she commits murder. It's against what God says in the bible, so it is wrong.

Yes we need to rightly divide the word of god. But if we are spiritual, and we should strive for that, the fleshly things such as the way the bible says to dress, and for women to not cut their hair, shouldn't be a problem. Regardless, we need both teaching, to keep us away from straying, and evil in this world. The bible says we need to separate from this world, "For we are in this world(physically speaking) but should not be of this world(spiritually and fleshy speaking)." We should not act or look like the world, we are to be different. How are people to know we are followers of God? If we do not show it. Appearance and attitude. Not just one.

uh ... okay ... again, balance in all things ...

We should not lust after this world, which is why we need God, and his word to help us along the way.



It is not a burden in any way. Live for God, follow the bible. easy as that. But yet people make it so hard and difficult for themselves. Yes some churches teach that, and some don't. Pentecost does teach that however, which is the subject of this thread. And as I said previously, a woman cutting her hair, and her committing murder, is the same thing. sin is sin, no matter how you look at it, and compare it side to side. Sure we see it as committing murder is worse than a woman cutting her hair, but not according to god. that's not how he sees it. We see it with our fleshy eyes, but he doesn't. It goes against his word, so it is a sin. Simple as that.

so, basically said mostly the same thing I did ...

I DON"T believe cutting ones hair is going to detain me from going to heaven ... or not to hell ... or however one wants to term it ... I don't see cutting ones hair as a sin ... period ... balance in all things ...

I never advocated disobeying the Lord ... yes, sin is sin ... again, I don't believe cutting or not cutting ones hair is a sin ...

that's true ... God doesn't see things the way we do ... He says so ... ? don't see an issue there ...


btw ... if it were a sin to cut ones hair or not ... it would NOT be the same as murder ... murder isn't forgiven here ... it's not the unforgiveable sin ... but it must go before the Lord ... not on earth in this millenium ...

 

[breadandbutter]

Atapia94, please heed...

God is calling you to be separate, yes, but that means "anointed." You cannot put God on the outside of you for the "world" to see.

Christian women in the early church looked like the rest of the normal women of the Roman Empire, but they did not look like the hetaerae--the high-class prostitutes. But, sumptuary laws forbid normal wives to adorn themselves as the hetaerae.

Christianity was illegal. Christians worshiped underground, hidden from the government. If Christian women went around advertizing their new Christian faith in newly designed "Christian" clothing, officials could have picked them up and hauled them to jail, recognizing them by their clothes! The chiton was the chiton. There is no historical record I can find of clothing being entered into court as evidence of Christianity, and witnesses were required. Christians were known because they did not WORSHIP THE PAGAN GODS--not their clothes--and their public testimony of Christ.

Moreover, "long" hair did not separate pagans from Christians. ALL women, who were free, had long hair. PAGAN women had "long" hair. Female slaves were recognized by a short hair cut, called the kepos. The norm, throughtout the Empire, by the NT era, was short haircuts on men and long hair on women. Men wore the Ceasarcuts--after the Emperor.

Where do you think the Bible declares it to be a sin for a razor to come on a woman's head??? Women COULD take the Nazarite vow. Look at the vow in Numbers 6:2-16 "...When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite..." In v 18 at the end of the vow, "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." A woman with a Nazarite vow was required to shave her hair all off, too, and offer as a sacrifice. Women slaves, or captives, taken by Hebrew men, were required to shave their heads (Deut. 12:12). In such instances, in the OT, women were not publicly "shamed" for being shorn or shaven.

The Apostle did not say it was a "sin" for a woman to be shorn or shaven in 1 Cor. 11:6. The word he used in v6 is "shame", which is not synonymous with "sin," and does not denote an unholy, unrighteous, or unclean state BEFORE GOD, but "shame" bears a CULTURAL meaning and meant in Paul's day to publicly wear a badge of infamy before the ancient society in which he and the early church lived. At different points in history cutting off a woman's hair short or shaving her head was punishment for crimes, usually of a sexual nature. Even as recently as the end of WW II, when over 20,000 French people accused of collaboration with Germany, suffered while their heads were publicly shaven. Nearly all those punished were women, and a vast number were innocent of adultery with Germans. (Shorn Women: Gender and Punishment in Liberation France.)

The punishment for adultery among Jews was to "shorn" or "shave" the woman's head. Going out into public without veiling the head was proof of adultery in Jewish estimation and grounds for divorce. Dr. Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p 155 states, "It was the custom in case of a woman accused of adultery to have her hair shorn or shaven," at the same time using this formula: "Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their heads covered..." An unveiled Jewish wife might, then, be tried for adultery; and when so tried, be "shorn" or "shaven".

I wish you would go back and read my post on hair. I explain the meaning of the Greek verb, keiro, translated "shorn." It does NOT mean "to cut" without specifying how much!

The UPCI has deceived multitudes of women with deceitful citations of the word definitions imperative to understanding the passage of 1 Cor. 11:1-16. Just check their references and obtain the dictionaries from which they are quoting. Not only are they deceitful with word definitions, but they skip over the crucial element in the historical/cultural background of the passage.

 

[scjohnson1973]

In our church some women do wear pants and have make up on. I personally see nothing wrong with that. I believe it is up to the person. Our church accepts anyone who comes through that door whether it be a prostitute or a person coming in off the streets with a cigarette. Everyone needs Jesus and I don't see cutting hair or wearing pants as a sin. I could be wrong because the Lord see's things different then we do, I guess time will tell. God bless and have a great weekend.

 

[Locutus]

hi, I found your questions really interesting. I myself am Pentecostal. Most people are very surprised by the way us Pentecostals dress. The reason why we do not cut our hair is because the bible tells us that (not direct quote, just paraphrased) "a woman's long hair is her glory, and that a razor should never touch upon her head". That is the reason why we do not. And we wear skirts because "a woman should not wear what pertaineth to a man" same goes for a man, that he should not wear what pertaineth to a woman.

I read a post in here, and the man said that he would prefer a woman to wear nice pair of slacks rather than a tight dress, I say this. Each pentecostal church has it's on standards. basically they are all the same. Some allow formfitting dress, whilst some churches(including mine) do not allow it. Some churches are allowed to watch television, while most pentecostal churches aren't. I'd say only 20% of churches allow their saints to watch tv.

And about 95% of churches do not allow they're women to wear make-up, because many passages in the bible talk about it, as how ungodly women wore it and they were led astray from God. Such as Jezebel, she was so evil & wicked and she always wore make-up. I think they see it as a symbol or reference to evil and ungodly things. Also as a form of vain & trying to change one's appearance.

"And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress in scarlet, that you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life."

And as for conviction, the bible says that we should pray for God to give us conviction, and allow it. Personal convictions is more along the lines of, say a woman will not wear shiny beads or fake jewelry on her clothing or her hair pieces, even though she is allowed to. She might find that as distracting, or maybe as giving a man the wrong idea, or too much attention to a certain part of her body.

Another thing is clear nail polish. We are not allowed to wear colored nail polish. Kind of like make-up to us. But yet some people believe it is wrong to even wear clear nail polish, and some don't. I personally don't think it is wrong. It makes my nails look nice and clean, still plain, and strengthens them.

I think I've covered mostly everything in this forum. Anymore questions I will be more than grateful to answer. If you would like direct scripture for anything I have told you, I will get them for you. As I do not remember each individual scripture, but I will look them up. I know scripture but not all, I am only 17 lol

Interesting to note the similarities between your position and my own (atheist). I don't do make up, nail polish, or tight clothing. I do cut my hair, but don't dye it - proudly silver! My reasons are obviously different, but not entirely. I don't think women are ennobled or empowered by artifice, since it reduces self-respect and confidence. Women are made to feel ashamed of their natural appearance, and I really REALLY hate that.

Another thing, I don't do skirts so often, but I'm a farmer, so yeah. When I do wear skirts, they're either shorter a-lines worn over jeans, or midi-maxi length. I really love my ankle length skirts I also live in Doc Martens boots (again, farming!). Conveniently, these boots work really well with long skirts and/or skirts over jeans, so I just wear my funky red patent leather ones when going out.

 

[Guppy238]

I think like this. What really matters is your heart and your motive. There are a lot of denominations in Christianity. All think a little differently about some scriptures. I believe that God will lead us to the right place for us...and if you get some new information or revelation about the Bible that your denomination doesn’t believe and you believe it strongly, find the group that believes as God has led you to believe.

This is the catch: If you are finding a group that justifies something you know by conscience is not right, then your motive is wrong. Say for instance, you grew up Apostolic Pentecostal and embraced your faith loving Jesus....your heart is pure. Then, you find you are wanting to wear pants. So, you look into the Bible to find justification for this. You find that the scripture does not command women to wear skirts for all of the reasons that have been said in this conversation. So, you start causing contention and discord among those you once worshipped with. You start posting that the Bible says you can wear them, that people have lied to you and taught you wrong. You have to examine your heart. ALL religious beliefs have some tradition and culture mixed in. If you want to rid yourself of all tradition, you are going to be worshipping alone. Sometimes, it is just best to embrace your chosen faith with all of your heart...traditions and all. People seem much happier who are not always questioning everything. If you can’t do that with a certain faith, then find one where you can. Clothes, hair, etc. are superficial and petty. I personally don’t believe you will go to hell for wearing pants and cutting hair but I worship with some who do believe that. Paul says not to use your liberty as a stumbling block for others and Jesus taught selflessness and laying down your life for your friends. What if my wearing pants causes a sister to violate her conscience and stumble?

The Apostolic faith is where I find I am fed the purest form of the Word of God. There’s no preaching like Apostolic Pentecostal preaching and you will find no more sincere kind and loving people to worship with. For me, I can sacrifice some superficial things for that. Maybe it is a test from God Himself even. Maybe He asks, “Are you going to let petty things come before that which is most important? Does your appearance mean that much to you?”

I want to be Apostolic. I love the faith. I can’t argue scripture to justify the outward. I don’t want to. I just want to enjoy it and I feel close to God in it. I don’t judge others who don’t believe the way I do. That is not my place but I want to practice my beliefs with all of my heart. I really don’t care that they are not proven commands by chapter and verse. It does not concern me at all. When you are in love, you don’t want to pick apart your beloved. You don’t want to argue about their preferences and idiosyncrasies. You find those things endearing. That’s the way it is with my faith.