Is Our Practice to Be Regulated by Scriptural Example?
Any one of you read Of Domestical Duties? William Gouge wrote it in 1622. I was looking for a very old book for our church to use in family devotions and I found his book. I’m guessing that when Gouge was done, others didn’t think it necessary to write much else on this subject. We are going over his chapter called “Duties for Children.” Some of his points I have not read anywhere else, although they are thoughts that parents contemplate in child-rearing. Maybe no big surprise, but Gouge doesn’t shoot from the hip. He takes his points from exegesis of Scripture, mainly using examples in the Old Testament.
For instance, Gouge uses examples as authority for the practice of parental consent.  He says that children should never get a job that will take them away from home without the parent’s consent. They shouldn’t marry without parental permission and no minister should perform the marriage without the expressed authority of the parents.  He breaks all of these down with supporting references and explanations. In this realm of parental consent, he ends with: “Children’s forbearing to dispose any of their parents’ goods without consent.” Here is his evidence:
In that Isaac was pleased to send Jacob to Padan Aram without any great provision, it seemeth that Jacob made conscience of taking any thing privily, but went as his father sent him with his staff (Gen 32:10). And the apology which he made to Laban his father in law concerning things taken away (Gen 31:36), sheweth that he held it unlawful for children privily to convey away their parents’ goods. What is my trespass? what is my sin? [saith he] what hast thou found of all my household stuff? Doth he not hereby imply, that if Laban’s daughters had taken away any of their father’s goods, it had been a trespass and sin? The Apostle saith of the heir [who of all the children may seem to have the greatest right] that as long as he is a child [that is, under the government of his parents] he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all (Gal 4:1). If he differ not from a servant, what right can he have at his pleasure to dispose his parents’ goods? hath a servant any such right?
Gouge makes his case using examples from the Bible. Historically, the doctrine and practice of churches and Christians have been regulated by Scriptural examples. To them, this was normal. Are examples somehow less authoritative today? Are they less imposing as Biblical commands?
In 1 Corinthians 11:1, the Apostle Paul said, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Peter had the same idea in 1 Peter 2:21, when he wrote, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” The Lord Jesus Christ wasn’t physically around for Paul or Peter to follow, so how were they able to follow Jesus? They used his example. That example today must be read from the Bible. Paul especially had to rely on the reports of what Jesus did to understand how to follow Him. You won’t find it in the Mega-church Seminar for Church Growth.  Instead you’ll have to dig into Scripture and rely on how it says that Jesus and His apostles practiced.
Does it matter if we pattern our churches after the examples in the Gospels and Acts? Does it make any difference if we don’t imitate what we read that Jesus did in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Or are these examples actually to regulate what we do as churches and Christians? A big part of the practice of many churches are methods not found in the examples of the New Testament. Are churches that do not regulate their operation by the pattern revealed by God in Scripture in reality acting in disobedience to God’s Word?
A Scriptural means of church growth is crucial. Jesus said, “I will build my church.” 1 Corinthians 3 says that the church is grown by means of eternal materials that stand the test of God’s judgment. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that everything must be built upon the rock, something lasting in contrast to the sand. We do war spiritually, not carnally (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). How we do it matters. Silence doesn’t mean permission. He gave us the example in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles to follow. When we don’t follow His example, it is akin to us building it and not Him.
John wrote in 1 John 2:6, “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” How He walked is recorded in the New Testament via examples. If we abide in Him, we will follow His example. When is it that we do not follow His example?
- In any area, when we practice differently than how He did.
- When put in the same situation as He was in, we act or respond differently than what He did.
- We do everything His way, but occasionally we add our way to His.
- We leave out some of what He did.
William Gouge looked all over the Bible to study its examples. From those, He learned the duties of the children, the father, the mother, a husband, and a wife. He didn’t limit his doctrine and practice to declarative statements or commands. He knew, as should we, that the examples of Scripture along with all the rest of the Bible can and will equip a man unto every good work.
Last 5 posts by Kent Brandenburg
- The Obama Vote - October 1st, 2008
- How Did Jesus Evangelize? part two - September 23rd, 2008
- How Did Jesus Evangelize? part one - September 17th, 2008
- Reducing Ourselves to Scriptural Evangelism - September 10th, 2008
- What Part of "Go" Don't We Understand? - September 3rd, 2008
WDJD
As opposed to WWJD
September 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pmAmen. “All Scripture [including the examples] are profitable for doctrine.” (2 Timothy 3).
Two questions.
Question #1. Where do we see that people are called to come to the front of the church building (”altar,” so our altar is not in heaven in the Person of the Son of God?) to pray there regularly after the preaching–and this is so important a part of the service that many consider it the most important part? (note: the question is not, “do we see examples of giving people counsel immediately after preaching, for we do see that, Acts 2, etc.; so giving people an opportunity to get counsel about their souls, etc. has Biblical justification).
2.) Why is it that every single example in Scripture of what godly women do has them without cosmetics–but we have a number of examples of ungodly women with them on–and Ezekiel even presents a contrast between how Jehovah adorns Israel without cosmetics and how she, in sin, wears them?
Hmm.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pmThomas,
The problem with your use of the “regulative principle” lies in the inconsistency of its requirements. The “regulative principle” requires a specific warrant, or else denies that it should be done. But if that were the case, where is the specific warrant for: passing offering plates, making announcements, having platforms and/or pulpits, wearing ties, playing pianos and/or organs (specifically), having pews, sometimes with padding, having carpet, and etc.
The absence of a specific example does not prevent our doing a thing. If it did, then the “regulative principle” prevents our using the “regulative principle” — there being no specific warrant in the Bible for using the “regulative principle.”
But it is ironic the way the argument from silence can be used… arbitrarily based on the assumptions of the user.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:57 amI don’t believe someone must give the traditional invitation and I do believe that it is a tradition. There can be problems with how it is done, for sure. But here in public, let me show why I believe Scripture would permit the practice of an invitation as an application of Scripture.
1. Invitation to Spiritual Change is Scriptural. God invites to do so (Rev. 22:17). Peter invites to do so (Acts 2:40).
2. Begging and Urging to Spiritual Change Is Scriptural. Paul beseeched to spiritual change (2 Corinthians 6:1; Ephesians 4:1).
3. Some sort of public profession is called for (Rom. 10:9, 10; James 5:16; Matthew 10:32).
4. A Response to Preaching Is Called For (James 1:19-21).
I believe a kind of invitation can be an application of those principles. Hmm. (Is hmmm a kind of help for change spurred by the Holy Spirit?)
Regarding cosmetics, I believe that cosmetics can be worn in a worldly fashion. In Ezekiel, Israel painted her eyes, and I am against painting the eyes. The paint in the noun form was something that turned the eyes “brilliant.” I am against that. I am against the wrong use of cosmetics, based on these passages. I cannot outlaw cosmetics based upon those passages.
I’m all for cosmetics. Especially for ugly women.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pmhmmm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm: )
September 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWhat ugly women?
Do you all belive that the NT only should be used for deciding how to govern your churches?
For instance, do you have a verse for the members in a local assembly “electing” their elders and pastor?
September 7th, 2007 at 7:19 amSam,
September 7th, 2007 at 1:01 pmActs 1:16-26, the Jerusalem church voted on Matthias to take over Judas’ ‘bishoprick’(v.20).
Bill,
Lets be honest with the passage. They drew lots according to the OT custom and appointed him an Apostle based upon the lots. There was no election by voting as in Baptist churches today. Also, many will argue that the Church had not even begun then.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmOk, I won’t use the word vote. Matthias was chosen (via casting of their lots, v.26). At any rate, he was chosen to the office replacing the office that Judas vacated. Yes, Matthias took over Judas’ ‘apostleship’, but v.20 as a fulfillment of Ps. 109:8 talks about him taking Judas’ ‘bishoprick.’ That word means ‘oversight’ or ‘office.’ While we do not have apostles, neither indeed can there be any, we do have bishops (i.e. pastors) and since the Jerusalem church chose Matthias, then a church congregation ought to be able to chose their ‘bishop.’
I won’t argue with you (or the ‘many’) as to when the church began. To me it seems that The Lord Jesus Christ had an assembly of baptized believers even during his earthly ministry, which is a strict (and proper) definition of the word translated church.
Is that honest enough with the passage?
September 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pmSam,
How do you think pastors should be appointed? What verses support your view? I have preached and believe the same verse that Bill referenced. However, Hiscox’s Directory for Baptist Churches, first published in 1859, says this in his exegesis (it also represents historic practice):
Then he quotes a very large number of commentators to support his view. You can read the chapter with this information here.
Regarding the first church, it started before Pentecost, or else it couldn’t be added to in Acts 2:41. Jesus refers to it like an existing entity in Matthew 18:15-18.
Br Kent,
Your argument from the Greek is cogent save for the fact that it does not say in any of those passages that they had a “congregtional vote” on the issue. As you rightly pointed out, “to give one’s vote” is only one possible translation from the Greek. In fact, it seems to imply from the context, if anything, in Acts 14 and Titus 1 that Paul and Titus did the choosing not the congregation.
Now, I don’t think this is damning to the case for congregational election in 2007 as we do not have Apostles any more and I think that we can go to the OT for election of elders as a pattern from the tribes of Israel. I also like your point about Titus being elected by the churches (though note it does not say church members) to be a missionary but, without labouring the point, this still does not prove that in Acts 14/Titus 1 the congregations did the electing.
My point in all this debate is to challenge the pre-suppositions of those who make the Book of Acts the manual for Church Governance rather than a primer of paradigms to draw principles from. I have always adopted the view that if you cannot prove something absolutely by Scripture using principle or pattern then it should not be a fundamental doctrine and test of separation.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pmSam,
I don’t have a problem with your last paragraph. Each church as the pillar and ground can decide as autonomous what they deem worthy of separation, what they believe Scripture says. That way we don’t devalue the truth like has been done among fundamentalists and evangelicals. I discuss that as promised at What Is Truth. I write about once a week there and here, and have one more post in what is already a three part series.
Pastor Mallinak wrote:
“The problem with your use of the “regulative principle†lies in the inconsistency of its requirements. The “regulative principle†requires a specific warrant, or else denies that it should be done. But if that were the case, where is the specific warrant for: passing offering plates, making announcements . . .”
Answer:
There is a difference between a circumstance of worship (offering plates, pews with padding, etc.) and an element of worship. An element requires specific Scriptural warrant, circumstances do not. For example, to listen to preaching, which is commanded (2 Timothy 4:2, etc.), one needs to either sit, stand, etc. so pews are involved, but having padding or not is not an element of worship. The padding is not worshipping God. Singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is commanded, and is an element, but whether the song books are blue or red, or their kind of binding, is a circumstance, and we have liberty in it.
There are many, many passages of Scripture that teach the Regulative Principle. However, I won’t go into all of them because then my post would be too long :-). Here is one.
Lev. 9:23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people.
Lev. 9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.
Lev. 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev. 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
When they offered in accord with Jehovah’s explicit command, then God blessed them. When Nadab and Abihu offered in a way that was not forbidden, but not specifically commanded, it was strange fire. The definition of strange fire is “which He commanded them not.”
Before we argue that the Regulative Principle is false (and thus abandon a Baptist distinctive in favor of the position of Catholicism and Lutheranism), if we have not already done so, we would do well to read one of the classic expositions of the doctrine. Examples include:
A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland (1662; repr. Edinburgh: Ogle, Oliver, and Boyd, 1844).
“A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God,†and “A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and Their Imposition,†in vol. 15 of Works of John Owen (ed. W. H. Goold; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862), and “The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship,†in vol. 13 (pp. 462-506).
James Bannerman, “Church Power Exercised in Regard to Ordinances,†in The Church of Christ (1869; repr. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960). Bannerman discusses “Extent of Church Power as Regards the Public Worship of God,†and “Limits of Church Power as Regards the Public Worship of God.â€
These can be acquired either by Interlibrary Loan or at various places on the Internet cheaply.
Sam, voting is proved in Bible Study #7, “The Church of Christ.” You can request a copy from http://www.pillarandground.org/(510) 223-8721 or contact me. I won’t comment more on it here, lest I pass the forbidden length.
Commenting on Pastor Brandenburg’s post:
I agree with points #1 and 2 wholeheartedly. I agree with #3, the public profession. We confess Christ before men, especially through baptism after conversion, the specifically required public confession. We confess him when we go house to house, etc. #4. We are to receive with meekness the engrafted Word, of course.
How do these verses teach us that God has instituted, and thus requires us in worship, to come to an “altar” at the front of a church building and pray there? Were Baptist churches universally disobedient to this command for 1800 years until the Pelagian heretic Charles Finney, who taught that salvation is not supernatural but simply an act of the human will, and thus was the epitomy of easy-prayerism/decisionism, introduced it in the 1800’s? Would anyone conclude that we must have people come to the front of a church building from those verses? (Again, let me say that giving people counsel immediatly after preaching is Scriptural, Acts 2, etc.—so giving people who have questions about salvation, or spiritual needs, etc. an opportunity to get counsel immediately afterwards is justified Biblically. The only question is concerning having them walk forward and pray at the “altar” without getting any counsel, or confessing anything before men, etc.)
September 8th, 2007 at 10:14 amBy the way, on cosmetics (note–men who are afraid of women–and women who do not really want to do what Scripture says–please do not read this–not, I trust, that we have many of those who read Jackhammer.)
1.) 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. (2 Kings 9:30)
Note that Revelation 2:20 indicates that Jezebel wanted “to teach and to seduce [God’s] servants to commit fornication.†Jezebel, a primary model for the ungodly, “cursed woman†(2 Kings 9:34; cf. Revelation 2:20), painted her face for the purpose of seduction. Scripture records no other purpose for cosmetics than this.
2.) 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. (Jeremiah 4:30)
“Here seems to be an allusion to the story of Jezebel, who thought, by making herself look fair and fine, to outface her doom, but in vain, 2Ki 9:30,33. See what creatures prove when we confide in them, how treacherous they are; instead of saving the life, they seek the life; they often change, so that they will sooner do us an ill turn than any service. And see to how little purpose it is for those that have by sin deformed themselves in God’s eyes to think by any arts they can use to beautify themselves in the eye of the world.” (Matthew Henry)
Here again, cosmetics are condemned. Scripture associates them again with the appearance of a harlot. No exception is made for “moderate†use, whatever that is supposed to be.
3.) 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 (Ezekiel 23:40)
This verse pictures Samaria and Jerusalem as women who are involved in “adulteries . . . [and] whoredoms†(v. 43), who are “lewd women†and “harlot[s]†(v. 44). The prophet, under inspiration, deliberately includes a mention of cosmetics on these harlot-women. Ezekiel—and the Spirit who inspired his canonical book—considers this use of paint is an ungodly characteristic of prostitutes which contributes to the picture of these women as loose, lustful, and sinful.
In each one of these passages, cosmetics are associated with harlots, fornication, and ungodly, wicked women. One verse should suffice for us, but how can we say that God does not condemn cosmetics when we have “two or three witnesses†establishing this teaching (2 Corinthians 13:1)? None of the passages say a word about “excessive†use or putting on “too much.†The item itself is viewed negatively. How is a woman who wants to follow Scripture to know that a certain amount is “moderate†and a certain amount is “excessive†and so is then sinful? How can one know, remembering that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin†(Romans 14:23), that a given amount is not enough to bring Scriptural condemnation, when the Bible never hints that a little bit is OK, but simply condemns the item itself?
There are no passages in the Bible where godly women wore cosmetics. I would love to find at least one, but it is not possible. (Furthermore, history confirms that the Jews in the OT era did not wear them (except for the harlots), they were universally condemned for centuries by the patristic writers in the Christian era, etc.) There are a large number of descriptions of godly women, and of female beauty, in Scripture; the Song of Solomon praises in detail many aspects of a godly woman’s anatomy, clothing, perfumes, etc., but no reference in the entire book is made to her wearing cosmetics. Ezekiel 16:6ff describes the beauty of Israel as Jehovah clothes her, mentioning jewels, bracelets, beautiful clothing, and other items that made her “exceeding beautiful†(v. 13), but no reference is made to cosmetics. Cosmetics are entirely absent in the descriptions of the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31, Israel as Jehovah’s bride, the church as the bride of Christ, Mary (both the Lord’s mother and Martha’s sister), Sarah, Rebekah, Priscilla, Deborah, Leah, Jochebed, Phoebe, Miriam, Joanna, Rachel, Hannah, Anna, Salome, Elizabeth, Martha, Abigail, Ruth, and all other godly women in Scripture. We have far fewer names of ungodly women in Scripture than we do godly ones, but we have cosmetics specifically mentioned on them, while the godly ones wear none. This lack of cosmetics did not prevent the godly women from having the Lord Himself describe them as “beautiful and well favoured†(Genesis 29:17), “of a beautiful countenance†(1 Samuel 25:3), “very beautiful to look upon†(2 Samuel 11:2), “fair and beautiful†(Esther 2:7), “exceeding beautiful†(Ezekiel 16:13), “beautiful . . . as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners†(Song 6:4), etc. Even apart from the fact that “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised†(Proverbs 31:30), Jehovah never states that a painted woman is beautiful in Scripture, but many times He says that ones without cosmetics are so!
September 8th, 2007 at 10:18 amThomas,
I’m going to assume you weren’t warning me about fear of women.
First, Scripture does not prohibit cosmetics. Second, the Bible does not command anyone to wear cosmetics. Third, what we know for sure from the examples that you give is that there is a wrong usage of cosmetics. God has condemned a lot of activities in Scripture with stated prohibitions; yet, He hasn’t done that. We men, who are not afraid of women or newly married young men who have never lead a church, believe that women shouldn’t paint their faces like Jezebel. That’s what we know we can get out of the passages you have referenced.
What is wrong with Thomas’ conclusions? 1) Where is the purpose of Jezebel’s cosmetics given in 2 Kings and Revelation 2? I read no purpose clause. One can see a connection between Jezebel’s cosmetics and seduction, but not cosmetics themselves. Let’s be very fearless—will you say, Thomas, that all women who wear cosmetics are wearing them to seduce men, since you conclude that the purpose of cosmetics is seduction? The next verse, the Jeremiah one, is like the 2 Kings one, very much indicating the unique situation with the paint, by saying “rentest,” tearing the face up with the cosmetics. Are women not to wear ornaments? One might conclude that, but the verb “deckest” is used to indicate extravagance. Ornaments are in at least two places associated with harlots. We won’t conclude that ornaments are wrong. The word for “painting” is used elsewhere and translated “glistering.” We are against “glistering cosmetics.” I already dealt with Ezekiel, and your cut and paste didn’t actually treat my exegesis of the words. A plain reading of Scripture sees that women who are unsaved and wanting to behave in a seductive way will use cosmetics as a part of that. From that we can’t assume that godly women didn’t wear cosmetics.
You say that there are two or three witnesses that condemn cosmetics. You don’t have that. You add to Scripture to say that cosmetics themselves are condemned. That isn’t in there. You have examples of ungodly women who wore cosmetics in an extreme, seductive, or worldly way. We’re against that. We are guided by silence. Godly women wouldn’t wear cosmetics like ungodly women. Their cosmetics are not worn in a way to be noticed.
Here’s a principle too. You have many passages where women wore clothes and jewelry in a way to accentuate their looks. If they are naturally beautiful, then why the jewelry? Why the ornaments? Are these saying that God fell short in His creation? Of course not. You make that kind of conclusion about cosmetics, but your position is not consistent, so it can’t be true. If women are wearing the cosmetics for beauty sake (when you say originally it is because of seduction—so which is it?), and that is wrong, then what are ornaments for? Or is it only when they “deck” themselves with them (that is, extravagance)? My conclusion from the examples in Scripture is that the wrong use of cosmetics is wrong, not cosmetics themselves.
Sam,
Call or write Thomas to get your copy of Bible study #7. He should be willing to take his time to send something that he has and he has encouraged you to read.
Thomas,
You said that my #4 was about receiving the word with meekness. You left out ‘lay aside every superfluity of naughtiness.’ Laying aside needs to take place, an act of sacrifice of something of our own desires.
You wrote:
How do these verses teach us that God has instituted, and thus requires us in worship, to come to an “altar†at the front of a church building and pray there? Were Baptist churches universally disobedient to this command for 1800 years until the Pelagian heretic Charles Finney, who taught that salvation is not supernatural but simply an act of the human will, and thus was the epitomy of easy-prayerism/decisionism, introduced it in the 1800’s? Would anyone conclude that we must have people come to the front of a church building from those verses? (Again, let me say that giving people counsel immediatly after preaching is Scriptural, Acts 2, etc.—so giving people who have questions about salvation, or spiritual needs, etc. an opportunity to get counsel immediately afterwards is justified Biblically. The only question is concerning having them walk forward and pray at the “altar†without getting any counsel, or confessing anything before men, etc.)
My answer to your paragraph:
I never wrote that God instituted men to have an invitation. What I have shown in principle is that some application of my four points can result in some kind of invitation, because those are the aspects of practice found in the Bible.
Element of Worship—Public confession, laying aside sin, inviting to respond spiritually to a Scriptural challenge, begging to spiritually change.
Circumstance of Worship—kneeling in the assembly meekly to confess wrong doing upon an invitation.
Element of Worship—Collect money.
Circumstance of Worship—Use plates.
You are arguing a strawman, because we didn’t say that God instituted any kind of formal type of invitation system, but who are you to work at altering our church’s practice of #1-4 above, just because we use different circumstances to accomplish that element than you would. You say you agree with my #1-4, and you practice it in many different ways. Why would you attempt to change our circumstance if the circumstance doesn’t matter? Is it that you don’t like the element either? Is it because people don’t prefer to be public or meek in their laying aside or confessing their faults? Who said that we must have people come to the front of the church building to do so? People can kneel at their seat, go to a side room, or go to the back. I don’t say that any one of these is superior to the other, but I believe that #1-4 should take place. Would you hold our church back from this obedience to Scripture?
You want them to get counsel. Where does the Bible legislate that they get counsel, that they must get counsel? Regarding the use of the term “altar” that you obsess over. Notice that I never used the term “altar” in my comment, and yet you use the term “altar.” Our bodies are a living sacrifice. Is there not an altar anywhere where we offer ourselves to God based upon the truth of His Word? Can we not use the term in that kind of way, since God says we are offering ourselves to Him? That’s all it is. You are the one that is making it into some kind of replacement of Jesus Christ as an altar. If you think I’m replacing Jesus Christ as the altar by using the term in that sense, then please let me know. I can guarantee you that I’m not, which, of course, I’ve told you before, but you continue to deal with this in public for some reason, perhaps thinking that I’ll be shamed into changing, since you do it in public.
Kent,
As far as the “men who are afraid of women” warning, I didn’t see that as Thomas warning you at all. When I read his warning there was not one thought of you that came to mind.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pmI don’t have time to comment right now at any length, but I wanted to say briefly that the thing about men being afraid of women was not directed at Pastor Brandenburg at all (or anyone else in particular). I am sure that we all would agree that both weak men and pushy women are a problem; that was about it.
I am glad that we are discussing the invitation system as a cirucumstance. It is helpful to clarify our thinking.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:44 amAlso, I agree with comment #8 by Pastor Brandenburg: “What ugly women?”
September 9th, 2007 at 10:55 amAlso, I am not trying to attack any of the godly, strong men of God, or their churches, who are the writers on JackHammer. I am very thankful and rejoice in them. These questions are ones that I thought it would be worth for us, as brethren and friends, to discuss.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:09 amTom,
I thought it was spoken like a true newlywed. Hail the man who’s been married for two months. He’s still not skeered of his wife.
By the way. I’m not afraid to say that I am scared of my wife. (Whoops! my wife just walked in… gotta go)
Shewww! Safe. Now, back to what I was saying.
It certainly COULD be true that a man lets his wife wear makeup because he is afraid of her. He might be afraid he won’t recognize her without it. Or he might be afraid of what she’ll look like without it. But I really doubt that very many men are sniveling in a corner wishing their wife would quit wearing the stuff.
My wife wears very little makeup, and does not need any. But I buy her makeup because I believe in it. A few years ago, there was some small controversy within our family regarding earrings. Some of our loved ones (whom we truly love) consider ear piercing to be abhorrent. I studied it out, as much as one could study out such an issue, and found their arguments to be abhorrent. Then, I gave my wife fifty dollars and told her to go get her ears pierced. Then, I bought her some diamonds for her ears. Then, I told her to wear them in front of the loved ones who disagreed.
The point being, as a MAN, I told my wife to adorn herself, and I tell her to. I am not afraid to tell her to put on some makeup. Especially when intimacy calls…
Tom the Newlywed, newfound expert in marital bliss, will know what I mean, no doubt.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pmDave,
As we say in Ireland - TMI - too much information.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:39 amResponse to Pastor Brandenburg’s comment on cosmetics:
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“God has condemned a lot of activities in Scripture with stated prohibitions; yet, He hasn’t done that [with cosmetics]. . . . we can’t assume that godly women didn’t wear cosmetics.â€
Are the examples binding? Are the examples of the many, many godly women who are never once hinted at as wearing any teaching us to follow their pattern? Since 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that “All Scripture,†including the examples, is profitable for doctrine, the question we should ask as we come to the question of cosmetics should be, “Does Scripture provide any teaching on this?†rather than “Why didn’t God say it the way I would like?†“Who art thou, that repliest against God?†Keep in mind that there are no verses that say, “Thou shalt believe in the Old and New Testaments†or “Thou shalt not be a polygamist,†or “Thou shalt not miss church†or “Thou shalt believe in the Trinity†or “Thou shalt read the Bible and pray every day†or even “Thou shalt not step on, throw dirt on, and burn the Word of God†or “Thou shalt not refuse to be born again,†or (to consider what Scripture associates cosmetics with) “Thou shalt not work in a house of prostitution,†but all these things are certainly taught in Scripture. What if God wanted to forbid the use of cosmetics the way they are practiced in our century, but not prohibit reconstructive surgery, camouflage in warfare, etc, so a verse that said “Thou shalt not paint thy face†would actually be a problem? But besides this, it is not our business to tell God how He wants to teach something. We are just to study, yea, to pour over every word, every jot, and every tittle of Scripture, tremble before it, and wholeheartedly and immediately put it fully into practice. (By the way, I am not assuming that Pastor Brandenburg would argue that examples are not for use in establishing doctrine, nor, of course, that he is in any way against trembling before every jot and tittle. As another aside, this is not strictly a discussion that relates to the Regulative Principle of worship, but one that relates to the binding authority of examples, since they are profitable for doctrine, 2 Tim 3:16.)
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“Let’s be very fearless—will you say, Thomas, that all women who wear cosmetics are wearing them to seduce men, since you conclude that the purpose of cosmetics is seduction?â€
Definitely not—no more than the purpose of the many Christian women (indeed, of the definite majority of Christian women) who wear pants is to be an abomination or look like men. (This is not to equate the two things, for they are not in precisely the same category, since there is a positive command for the one, Deuteronomy 22:5, while the other is forbidden by example alone.) My point was not that all Christian women who wear paint do so to seduce men, it was that the only reason given in Scripture why women wear it was for seduction. There are no examples of godly women wearing it at all, and in the examples where ungodly women wear it, this is the only purpose that is ever explicitly found. Seduction (all three texts) and an ungodly woman improperly making herself fair for the purpose of seduction (Jeremiah 4:30) are the only purposes for cosmetics God ever gives in the Bible. If there is a passage that gives another purpose, a godly and God-honoring one, I would love to see it—I have no desire to swim against the tide for no reason.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“Are women not to wear ornaments?â€
They can wear ornaments, because godly women in the Bible wore them. They make them look better, because the Bible says so. God clothes Israel with jewels (Ezekiel 16:12). He doesn’t put paint on her, though. She puts paint on herself when she falls into apostasy (Ezekiel 23:40). There is no inconsistency with being in favor of jewels and not being in favor of cosmetics, because godly women have the one but not the other in Scripture. The argument that my position is inconsistent assumes that I am arguing based on the intention of the woman, when I am arguing on the item itself. Jewels can be worn with a wrong motive, in which case sin takes place, but the jewels themselves are not sinful. Cosmetics, from the examples of Scripture, are wrong in themselves, even if a woman who wears them is sincere and extremely godly.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“The word for “painting†is used elsewhere and translated “glistering.†We are against “glistering cosmetics.†I already dealt with Ezekiel, and your cut and paste didn’t actually treat my exegesis of the words.â€
What Pastor Brandenburg had said before on Ezekiel was:
“The paint in the noun form was something that turned the eyes “brilliant.â€â€
Let me say that Pastor Brandenburg is definitely to be commended for here—something he consistently does—attempting to support his view with Scripture. Far too many would not bother to look at the words and build a case from them, but quote whoever said “If the barn door needs painting, paint it,†as if that had anything whatever to do with it. I couldn’t care less that someone justified cosmetics at some point with an analogy about a barn door, and Pastor Brandenburg does well to not use this kind of argument, but to set up his argument from the Bible.
I would like to know what verse he is using to support the idea that the paint turned the eyes brilliant. The word “brilliant†is not found anywhere in the KJV. The only noun that appears to be derived from the verb in Ezekiel 23:40 is found in Genesis 49:12, where it is translated “red.†Pastor Brandenburg’s line of argument would then lead to the conclusion that we are against cosmetics that are red—which would not be something many pro-cosmetics people would want, as it would eliminate 99% of lipstick. The word “red†is glossed as “dark†by my computer Bible software, which is rather different than “brilliant†as well. I cannot deal with his “brilliant†argument any further, since I don’t know how he came to the conclusion that the painting was brilliant. As for “glistering,†that verse is talking about stones (2 Chronicles 29:2), not faces with paint, and immediately following that phrase is the phrase “of divers colours,†which may have influenced a translation other than “painted†stones. Whatever the colors were, we have a deafening silence on godly women wearing them in chapter after chapter dealing with feminine beauty (one whole book dealing largely with it in Solomon’s Song), and only ungodly women wearing them. Furthermore, we would hardly want to argue something like “Jezebel wore dark red paint, so light red, hot pink, blue, purple, yellow, green, black, etc. are all OK—in fact, even dark red is OK, as long as it is not exactly the same as what she wore—as long as we don’t have the exact color composition of Jezebel we are OK.†Even if we were able, somehow, to establish that Jezebel wore “brilliant†cosmetics—which I see no basis for whatever in the Bible—and then conclude that the other examples of ungodly women who wore them also wore brilliant ones—which is a stretch—it would still need to be established that godly women wore non-brilliant ones, and the brilliancy, rather than the item itself, is condemned. However, Scripture gives no evidence whatsoever of any godly woman wearing any color, kind, or amount of paint.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“Their [godly women] cosmetics are not worn in a way to be noticed.â€
If they cannot be noticed, then there is no difference if they don’t wear them at all. Why not stop, then? Don’t they actually make a difference in how they look? Why don’t many of them want to leave the house without them on, if they don’t make any difference and nobody can notice if they have them on or not?
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“The next verse, the Jeremiah one, is like the 2 Kings one, very much indicating the unique situation with the paint, by saying “rentest,†tearing the face up with the cosmetics.â€
Pastor Brandenburg is correct when he states that, in Jeremiah 4:30, the woman is putting a lot of cosmetics on. She is doing her best to look good with the extremity of what she can do with her garments (crimson), and she is doing her best to look good with her use of cosmetics as well. It is noteworthy that Jeremiah 4:30 states that the purpose of cosmetics on her was to “make herself fair†(with another purpose as well in that passage, of seducing her lovers). This is the only place in Scripture where a woman “makes herself fair†(Hitpael of yafah). A godly woman in Scripture does not have to have this causative sense of making herself fair, but can be “exceedingly beautiful†(yafah in the Qal, Ezekiel 16:13; Song 7:1, 6) without cosmetics, without “making herself†so. It is obvious that women wear cosmetics to make themselves fair—they certainly don’t do it to make themselves ugly, and to say that they do it so that nobody will know that they are doing it doesn’t make any sense, for then they would look no different than if they didn’t do it and they would be wasting their time every day. If Scripture alone is our guide, are we doing well to follow the only example of a woman “making herself fair†in Scripture, who does so using cosmetics—where it is an evil woman doing this—or are we doing well when we follow the many examples of the godly women in Scripture whom God, their husbands, and others call truly beautiful, even exceedingly beautiful, without using any paint at all?
Furthermore, unlike Jeremiah 4:30, 2 Kings 9:30 gives no indication of an “excessive†(and can this be defined? How do we know what exactly this is?) use of cosmetics. All the verse says is, “she painted her face.†Concluding that this is only “she painted her face excessively†looks like eisegesis to me. God could have said, “she painted her face excessively.†He said simply, “she painted her face.†Likewise in Ezekiel 23:40, there is no hint of excessiveness. The verse simply says, “thou . . . paintedst thine eyes.†It does not say, “painted them too much.†It just says, “painted.†I don’t think in Ezekiel 23:40 we would conclude that she washed herself excessively; so why would we conclude that she painted herself only “excessively� Please note my answer below on the “deckedst†argument.
We still have the only examples in Scripture of cosmetics on ungodly women every time. Only ungodly women are said in God’s infallible Word, our sole rule for life, to make themselves fair. Despite very detailed descriptions of the beauty of many godly women, and mentions of their hair, clothes, perfumes, jewels, etc., there is not a single verse anywhere that even suggests that they wore cosmetics, while the contrasting descriptions of God clothing Israel (no cosmetics) and Israel clothing herself in her sin for her lovers (using cosmetics) argues otherwise.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
Or is it only when they “deck†themselves with them (that is, extravagance)? . . One might conclude that, but the verb “deckest†is used to indicate extravagance.
I would like to see exactly why this “deckest†argument is valid proof of extravagence, since in Isaiah 61:10 the same word in the same case (Qal) is used in a good sense of something God does on a woman, as it is in Ezekiel 16:11, 13, where it is twice even translated in English the same way as “deckest.†If God decked Israel with jewels, to do so is not wrong or extravagant.
Furthermore, the decking argument does not deal with paint, but with other items. So it would be irrelevant to the question of cosmetics. None of the passages on cosmetics say that only “excessive†use or only putting on “too much†is sinful, but less is OK. We might assume that Jezebel put on more than a typical 21st century American fundamental woman would—and we are probably correct in this—but the item itself is viewed negatively and Scripture never says she put on “too much.†How is a woman who wants to follow Scripture to know that a certain amount is “moderate†and a certain amount is “excessive†and so is then sinful? How can one know, remembering that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin†(Romans 14:23), and the smallest sin is an infinite evil, worse than death, mutilation, torture, or anything else, that a given amount is not enough to bring Scriptural condemnation, when the Bible never hints that a little bit is OK, but simply condemns the item itself? Among the vast numbers of examples of godly women in the Bible, He could have, at least one time, mentioned “discreet†use of cosmetics or something similar, but He did not. God was easily able to include at least one example of a godly woman using “moderate†makeup, but He never did so—instead, He included examples that condemn the substance without any mention of the amount.
Just as an Old Testament saint should have learned to avoid polygamy because all the OT examples of it worked out badly, so the NT (and OT) saint should see the fact that the scores of godly women in Scripture did not wear cosmetics, but ungodly women did in a number of places, was written for our ensamples. This, in fact, was the lesson learned by ancient Israel:
Smith’s Bible Dictionary:
PAINT
“The use of cosmetic dyes has prevailed in all ages in eastern countries. We have abundant evidence of the practice of painting the eyes both in ancient Egypt (Wilkinson, ii. 342) and in Assyria (Layard’s Nineveh, ii. 328); and in modern times no usage is more general. It does not appear, however, to have been by any means universal among the Hebrews. The notices of it are few; and in each instance it seems to have been used as a meretricious art, unworthy of a woman of high character. Thus Jezebel “put her eyes in painting” (2Ki 9:30), margin; Jeremiah says of the harlot city, “Though thou rentest thy eyes with painting” (Jer 4:30); and Ezekiel again makes it a characteristic of a harlot (Eze 23:40); comp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 9, 10â€
This lesson that cosmetics are sinful was also the universal position of early Christianity. I could reproduce pages of quotations similar to these from patristic writers:
“For those women sin against God when they rub their skin with ointments, stain their cheeks with rouge, and make their eyes prominent with antimony. To them, I suppose, the artistic skill of God is displeasing!†Tertullian, 4.20.
“Both sexes alike should be admonished that the work of God and His fashioning and formation should in no manner be adulterated — either with the application of yellow color, black dust, rouge, or with any kind of cosmetic…. God says, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.†Does anyone dare to alter and change what God has made?†Cyprian, 5.434.
“Do not paint your face, which is God’s workmanship. For there is no part of you that lacks beauty. For God has made all things very good. But the wanton extra adorning of what is already good is an affront to the Creator’s work.†Apostolic Consitutions 7.395; extended discussion 5.432-5.436
I am unaware of a single instance where cosmetics are commended, for “moderate†use or otherwise, by any patristic writer.
In the medieval, Reformation, and subsequent eras, cosmetics were condemned:
“It seems that Englishwomen remained ignorant of cosmetics throughout the Middle Ages. . . . It is not until the middle of the sixteenth century that we get more than a handful of references to cosmetics in England; yet within a few years such references become abundant . . . There is . . . scarcely a sermon which does not condemn the vanity. . . . “the early Christian Fathers . . . support his argument that ‘no painting can make any to seem fairer, but fouler.’ St Ambrose is cited to show that from the colouring of the faces springs enticement to vice and the abandonment of chastity; and St. Cyprian to persuade his readers that ‘whosoever do colour their faces or their hair with any unnatural colour, they begin to prognosticate of what colour they shal be in hell.’ From theologians and religious leaders of his own century, like Calvin, Stubbes finds many examples of outright condemnation of ‘this whorish and brothelous painting and colouring.’ The ‘dishonesty’ of the fairer sex he found unpardonable. If you are endowed with a pretty face why bother to try to make yourself more beautiful? And if you are not so endowed ‘why dost thou hypocritically desire to seem fair and art nothing less?’ . . . There was not wanting a succession of divines and moralists down to the twentieth century to hold up a reprimanding finger to those ‘whom the devil (Pride’s father) doth persuade/ To paint your face and mende the worke God made.’ Their usual argument was that it was only by ‘the comeliness of the mind that the body is adorned.’ . . . to legislate about make-up . . . was reserved for the Puritans of the Long Parliament. . . . The Puritan reformers were, indeed, as outspoken in their attacks on the use of cosmetics as were the priests of the Roman Church. . . . In every decade since then there have been forthright criticisms of woman’s use of the beauty-box—principally in the 1860s and the 1920s.†(pgs. 1-8, 25, 52, Powder and Paint, Neville Williams, London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1957).
Through the great majority of the centuries of the history of the people of God cosmetics have been condemned as sinful, based on the examples of Scripture discussed above.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:10 pmA reply to Pastor Brandenburg’s comment concerning the invitation system.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“You said that my #4 was about receiving the word with meekness. You left out ‘lay aside every superfluity of naughtiness.’ Laying aside needs to take place, an act of sacrifice of something of our own desires.â€
I did not realize that this was the part of the verse that was being used to argue for coming to the front after preaching. I did not leave it out because I was trying to weaken your argument, but because I did not know that this was the part of the verse that was supposed to justify coming to the front of the church building after preaching as an application. I am entirely in favor of laying aside every superfluity of naughtiness by obeying every Word of God, and not following our own hearts and our own ways.
By the way, since I know that Pastor Brandenburg is a good man who takes the Word of God seriously and is careful in studying it, I looked up the word “lay aside†in James 1:17 to see if there was anything necessarily public in this Greek word (apotithemi), or anything else that would clearly look like an invitation system. I didn’t see anything like that in any of the three Greek lexicons I checked (Thayer, BDAG, Louw-Nida). Also, I have difficulty seeing how anything public is involved in “cast off the works of darkness†(contrast with) “let us put on the armour of light [which would have to be public as well?]†(Romans 13:12) “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts†(Ephesians 4:22) “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another†(Ephesians 4:25). “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.†(Colossians 3:8). In some of these references, if one already had established that “lay aside/put off†was public, (and certainly one who literally puts off clothing, etc. does so outwardly) I could see how one could support it, but I don’t know where the evidence for this comes from. In some of these verses, I don’t see how the putting off is a public action, whether in a church assembly, or somewhere else; anger, malice, etc. certainly seem to be things that one can have on the inside and conceal in there for long periods of time. Perhaps I have again misunderstood (as I did before) how Pastor Brandenburg intended this verse to support his position.
Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
“You are arguing a strawman, because we didn’t say that God instituted any kind of formal type of invitation system, but who are you to work at altering our church’s practice of #1-4 above . . . Would you hold our church back from this obedience to Scripture? . . . Regarding the use of the term “altar†that you obsess over. Notice that I never used the term “altar†in my comment, and yet you use the term “altar†. . . you continue to deal with this in public for some reason, perhaps thinking that I’ll be shamed into changing, since you do it in public.â€
I have no intention of attacking Bethel Baptist Church (or her pastor), a church (and pastor) I love and am very excited about. I view (correctly, I trust!) commenting on this blog as a place for public discussion and a place where brethren can share their common wisdom and insight into the Word of God. Since Pastor Brandenburg is a man of God who wants to be very careful with the Scripture, he correctly does not employ the word “altar†of the front of the church building, recognizing that there is no actual altar there (unlike the Protestant “churches†that Finney held his revivals in, where there very well could have been altars at the front, and thus when the “altar call†was instituted, it is a Popish/Protestant term). For doing this, Pastor Brandenburg is to be commended. Is it a fair question, however, to ask if his discernment here is representative of independent Baptist churches in general, of evangelicalism, or even of all (Most? Some?) who read Jackhammer. Would they all refrain from calling the steps in front of the building an altar? If not, are they not adopting sacramentarian terminology (unlike Pastor Brandenburg)?
Pastor Brandenburg is also to be commended for not attempting to defend an invitation system as an element of worship, but as a circumstance for something that actually is commanded. A circumstance is something that is a matter of indifference, like blue carpet or red carpet, pews with padding or hard pews. I would question if most of fundamentalism views the invitation system in this way. Does not most of the movement rather treat the invitation system as an element of worship? I have heard a good, KJV, soulwinning, etc. Baptist pastor tell me that, when he was in England, he would not preach at a church (Tabernacle Baptist in England, Spurgeon’s old church) because they did not have an invitation at the end. This was the sole reason he gave for not preaching there, although the church had other far bigger problems (TULIP, false views of eschatology). I have heard quite a few times that the invitation is the most important part of a church service, from many different people and pastors. Who would say that whether pews were padded, or chairs were placed in rows, is the most important part of a church service? Are there fundamental Baptists who would look down on or separate from a church because of the color of its carpet? I don’t think so. But can we really say that there are no fundamental Baptist churches that would look down on or separate from a church that did not call people to the front after the preaching? Are there not rather many, many of these? Are these Baptists treating the invitation as a circumstance, or as an element?
No one would get angry if someone said that he thought padded pews are better than hard ones, and here on Jackhammer we have had discussions where we disagree about things that are obviously vastly more important (close/closed communion, divorce, etc.). I do not recall anyone stating in these discussions on this blog that one who believed in one communion position, or held a particular divorce position, was actually in favor of divorce, or actually wanted to disobey Scripture on communion, etc. God forbid that I would be against humility, confessing Christ before men, or obedience to Scripture. Since Pastor Brandenburg treats the invitation system as a circumstance, simply questioning it is not the reason he would question if I am against such things. However, many other Baptists really treat the invitation system as an element of worship, and thus would conclude that anyone who thought it better to be without it and practice as Baptists did for the first 1800 years of the Christian era was someone who was against evangelism, humility, obedience, etc.
If we agree that the invitation system is not an element, the question then arises if it is a circumstance for obedience to James 1:17, etc. If circumstances are things that are necessary or clearly related coordinates for the practice of elements, such as having a book of songs so that we can sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, or having a place to meet (church building, house, open field) so that the ekklesia (“churchâ€) can assemble, etc., the question then arises, “Do the NT requirements for confessing Christ before men require, or is a clearly related coordinate of them, calling people to kneel at the front of the church building after preaching?†Whether one agrees with the practice of all Baptist churches in the first century, and every century after that until Charles Finney, that this is not the case, or whether one agrees that the innovation of Finney, a man who like few others helped to destroy revival and the gospel, is a requirement or a closely related coordinate—or whether one thinks I have defined “circumstance†incorrectly—and so concludes that the invitation system should be retained, I think our discussion of this question glorifies God and benefits those who read it in their thinking of how the Holy One has commanded us to worship Him.
If all the Lord’s Baptist churches either followed the practice of the apostolic churches and had no invitation system (while they zealously evangelized, examined themselves during preaching to get right with God immediately, etc.) or if they retained Finney’s innovation only because they viewed it as a mere circumstance at best, as at best and at most as a matter of indifference, we would be better off than we are today, when many Baptists (one of whom is not Pastor Brandenburg) view the invitation as an element of worship and thus as something essential. We all would do well by considering in every aspect of the worship of God these excellent questions from Pastor Brandenburg’s post:
“Does it matter if we pattern our churches after the examples in the Gospels and Acts? . . . Or are these examples actually to regulate what we do as churches and Christians? A big part of the practice of many churches are methods not found in the examples of the New Testament. Are churches that do not regulate their operation by the pattern revealed by God in Scripture in reality acting in disobedience to God’s Word? . . . How we do it matters. Silence doesn’t mean permission. He gave us the example in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles to follow. . . . When is it that we do not follow His example? . . . In any area, when we practice differently than how He did. . . . We do everything His way, but occasionally we add our way to His. We leave out some of what He did.â€
September 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pmI don’t know how much of this I can comment on, but I believe what I wrote in my article and your cosmetics example are apples and oranges. I’ll use these as opening examples of similar usage of examples as you.
This is just a start and what I could come up with in five minutes.
Your polygamy argument doesn’t work because God does tell us what he wants in marriage in Gen. 2 and then Christ repeats it in the NT.  Most of your examples of early Christianity prohibiting cosmetics don’t work because they don’t actually prohibit it. They easily can be saying what I am saying, that is, don’t do this face painting thing.
In conclusion, adornments for women are acceptable in Scripture. The ruling principle is modesty in wearing them. They are not to be worn to draw attention, but to adorn. This is modesty as it applies to extravagance. 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 is the guide. This principle works against the Jezebel look, the look of the prostitute that Israel was going for in presenting herself to foreign nations instead of to God.
I don’t mind that Thomas uses his liberty in Christ to forbid his wife from cosmetics or anything that “glistens.”
But there are several reasons why this is a difficult debate to carry on in the manner Thomas prefers.
First, Thomas wants to insist on a particular activity being sinful, and then wants to force us all to argue the issue from Scripture alone. Now, mind you, I’m all for that. However, in this case, there is a difficulty that is all but obvious to most of those who are not Thomas. I’ll get to that in a minute.
I’m jumping into this debate admittedly without having given all that Thomas has written on the subject a thorough reading. For one thing, I’m a slow reader, and Thomas can type much faster than I can read. For another thing, I’ve got other stuff I’m doing. And for a third thing, whenever Thomas sets the table, he insists on setting it way up on top of the cabinets. Then, in order to properly view it, I have to get out my step ladder and climb up there so I can see exactly what he is saying. I have to carry my great big two volume dictionary with me so that I can refresh my memory about stems and hiphils and hithpaels. And then, we still haven’t served the main course.
So, that is my gripe. Enough whining though, before Jeff kicks me off.
The difficulty with arguing this issue the way Thomas insists is…
1) The Bible never commands or requires cosmetics.
2) The Bible never says that cosmetics are okay.
3) The Bible never forbids cosmetics.
Nor does Thomas ever cite a specific example of God forbidding cosmetics. Rather, Thomas argues the lack of good examples or indications that “good godly” women wore cosmetics of any kind. Since he can’t find one good or godly woman who wore cosmetics, it must be bad. Since Jezebel was a bad woman, and she wore cosmetics, and since no good godly woman is mentioned as wearing cosmetics, women are in sin who wear cosmetics.
And, having insisted that it is so, I’m supposed to come up with Scripture to prove — prove mind you — that cosmetics are lawful Scripturally. The burden of proof is arbitrarily mine. If I can’t prove from the Bible that a thing is lawful, then it is unlawful. Especially if bad people did it.
So, I’m stuck. Because I have to admit that the Bible never says it is okay for women to wear makeup. And Jezebel did. And the Bible never mentions whether Esther did, or Sarah, or Rebecca, or Lydia, or Aquilla, or Deborah. Where do we go from here?
We can’t deny that bad women wore makeup. We can’t refute the statement that when a society becomes apostate, the women start adorning themselves with excessive makeup. We can’t deny that hookers utilize cosmetics to draw attention to themselves.
Isn’t it possible though that the reason that the Bible doesn’t mention the cosmetics used by good women because it wasn’t their focus, because they weren’t noted for their makeup? Couldn’t it be that their adorning was the hidden man of the heart, the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit?
The truth is, you’ve given us all kinds of reasons why you don’t let your wife wear makeup. That is fine. You can use your liberty that way. But it by no means proves conclusively that cosmetics = sin. Sin, as a wise man once said, is transgression of God’s law, not your tradition.
So, we can use our liberty to “paint the barn.”
September 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pmOn the issue of invitations, Thomas said…
Now, Thomas uses the Leviticus passage on “strange fire” as a proof of the regulative principle. If it is not specifically commanded, then it is strange fire. Yet Thomas does not hold this consistently. The Bible makes no distinction between a “circumstance” of worship and an “element” of worship. Offering incense in the Leviticus passage was an “element” of worship. One could argue that the incense itself was a “circumstance,” utilizing Thomas’ examples of distinctions. Yet God consumed Nadab and Abihu because of a wrong circumstance.
The Old Testament makes no distinction between the circumstances and the elements. Nor does Thomas demonstrate how such a distinction could be made. Old Testament worship was very restricted, and God prescribed every element and every circumstance of worship. Thomas has yet to demonstrate that New Testament worship must be equally prescribed. In fact, from what Thomas has written, he does not believe that the circumstances need to be prescribed.
But consider the contradiction of principles here. If it is not specifically required, it is strange fire, says Thomas. But not the circumstances. The offering must be taken… that is an element. How we take the offering is not designated. That is a circumstance. Imagine making that application to Old Testament worship. Offering incense is an element, but whether we use the censer or a cowboy hat to carry the incense is a circumstance.
Either it all requires warrant or it doesn’t.
Actually, the regulative principle has it all wrong. Rather than looking for what we can’t do, we should be looking for what God wants us to do and doing that. God wants confession of sin, God wants open confession, and an invitation at the end of the preaching accomplishes this. As Pastor B pointed out in comment # 19, if the circumstances need not be prescribed, well then, invitations are OK. Since, unlike the OT system, the NT system is not prescribed down to the very material in the preacher’s garments, we really need to study what we should be doing.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:37 amAnd by the way, Thomas (again) said,
Thomas, you might want to go back and re-read the comments.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:38 amHi thar, y’all. My name done be Backwoods Billy Bumpkin. I done read this here debait ‘bout de cosmetks. I’m a fundimentalist, and I done got no Greek or Hebrew dat I no ‘bout, ‘cept dat Greek that run the deli and de Hebrew that have de jewelery store. My KGB Bible is all I need to reed. I got de points dat Tom done been makin. He do talk pretty high faultin,’ like Pastor Malliknack said. I been readin’ what Pastor Brandonburg said too. I think I igree with them two, rather than dat Tomas. This is what I done got out of it all in my simble way of thinkin’.
1.) The Bible tells us lots ‘bout what women should be lookin’ like. Dere be lots and lots ‘bout it in there. There ain’t none of them good ones dat put stuff on dare faces in de Bible.
2.) The Bible tells us some stuff ‘bout what de bad women be lookin’ like too. Day be wearin’ makup, while de good ones don’t in the Bible.
3.) God tells us ‘dat de good women be beautiful, even tho’ they don’t be wearing any paintin’. De bad women try to make themselfes fair, but God don’t say they be so.
4.) All these be written four us to get docrine from dem. We needs to learn from it all. De lessin we’s to lern from these ‘samples in the Bible be clear, of no privite intirpritation.
What we done learn from all dis is that da gud women today are two wear makup and try to make themselves beautiful, like de bad women do, the hairlots and Jezebell, in the Bible. This is leberty. Give me leberty or give me deth.
Dat one done go over real, real good, in my thinkin’. Itz sure takin’ the passiges four what they say. Any simple purson can see dat be de truth. Tom’s sain dat we don’t gonna be usin’ any paint be addin to the Bible. It sure iz sad dat all threw de hiztory of Chewdizm and Christinity they got dis rong and took Tom’s p’sition. He’z rong, reel rong, and does dat be ranglin’ wid him get dair position from de plain teeching off de versees.
Just two let you no, I boarowed Tom’s computer two post dis hear. I don’t got none of mine own four mieself.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pmHere’s a point about historical quotes. Someone will say that there is very little written in the middle ages about cosmetics and women. Guess what? Very little was written at all before the printing press. Then we get more references about cosmetics then, as if cosmetics grew in popularity. Guess what? Everything in the world was mentioned more after the printing press. It’s like the statistic that people get in more accidents near their own home. Guess what? People spend much more time near their own home.
I must confess I have not read every comment on this post, yet I am going to add my two pieces of gravel to the mix. These pebbles are related to the historicity of the no cosmetics position and the fact that no good women employed these debauched paints in the Bible.
It seemed to me that maybe Esther would have some light to shed on this discussion, so I went to Esther two and there I found this comment on verse twelve:
I haven’t done enough homework on this thought so I will probably be harrangued for a long time by Billy or Tom (who both happen to have the same email address :))
I also had this question relating to this particular of cosmetics. What are cosmetics made of? This would be good research for Thomas. It seems like some of them could easily be byproducts of oils, which has lots of biblical warrant….
Come to think of it. I suppose that as long as my facial paint is an oil based paint, I don’t need to worry about Thomas’ restrictions.
Another question. What is an ointment? What is the difference between Old Testament ointment and 2007 foundation?
What are the powders of the merchant? What is the difference between Old Testament powders of the merchant and 2007 blush?
What if there is a “spot in thee.” Is it wrong to try to be like the one in Song of Solomon 4:7 who has no spot in them?
Is a garden left to itself, or is it tended?
In Ezekiel 16, the same oil that anointed Israel was offered to idols. There’s a thought… Something used for good, could also be used for evil… hmmm
Okay, tear it apart.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pmHere’s some more, Dr. Voegtlin, for Thomas to peruse. We have concentrated on the painting of the eyes, which historically and Scripturally is seen to be a problem. Thomas takes that as all cosmetics. And yet, as we look at Scripture and history, we don’t see the same view as what he has presented, either as himself or as a hick (you know, since this is so easy to understand, he needs to get down on our level; the reason we don’t get it is because we need it in hick language, not because it is just wrong).
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
Cosmetic.
From earliest times oil was used as a cosmetic, especially for oiling the limbs and head. Oil used in this way was usually scented (see OINTMENT ). Oil is still used in this manner by the Arabs, principally to keep the skin and scalp soft when traveling in dry desert regions where there is no opportunity to bathe. Sesame oil has replaced olive oil to some extent for this purpose. Homer, Pliny and other early writers mention its use for external application. Pliny claimed it was used to protect the body against the cold. Many Biblical references indicate the use of oil as a cosmetic (Exodus 25:6; Deuteronomy 28:40; Ruth 3:3; 2 Samuel 12:20; 14:2; Esther 2:12; Psalms 23:5; 92:10; 104:15; 141:5; Ezekiel 16:9; Micah 6:15; Luke 7:46).
http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/O/oil.htmlÂ
Regarding Esther 2:12, where in the context, Esther wore cosmetics, look at these:
Esther spent a year in preparation, six months with the oil of myrrh and six with spices and cosmetics (2:12).
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=681Â
Esther underwent 12 months of “beautification”: 6 months with oil of myrrh and 6 months of cosmetics and spices (EST 2:12.)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/KSS/kss-esther.htm
In Song of Solomon 4:3, since her lips were like scarlet, did they have anything similar to cosmetics back then? Yes they did. For perfumes, we know of small containers that were buried with Egyptian Pharaohs from 5,000 to 3,500 B.C., according to the Encyclopedia Britannica volume 6 (1956) p.495-496b. Also by 1500 B.C. men and women had lumps of sweet-smelling nard on their heads. For eye-liner, women used kohl (probably antimony sulfide) for their eyelids from 1500 B.C., which is just before the time of Moses. For red colors, Henna was a reddish color used for nails, palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet. (can’t forget the bottom of your feet!) The later Romans used “fucus” for red cheeks and lips. The Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.1198, says that scarlet dye came from the crushing of the cochineal worm.
” …….Camphire, mentioned in the Song of Solomon(1:14; 4:13) and identified as henna (Strong’s Concordance, #3724), provided a much used reddish-orange dye. Concerning this, the Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.8, p. 327) says: ‘Throughout the ages the peoples of the East prized this beautiful, fast dye which was used for dying the hair and nails.’
Song of Solomon speaks of royal luxury and abundance which Solomon would have enjoyed (1:12, 13; 3:6, 9; and imported goods such as cosmetic powders, silver, gold, purple, ivory, and beryl, his expensive carriage [3:7-10], his royal chariots [6:12]).
The camphire or henna-plant is a shrub which, escaped from cultivation, grows wild in many parts of the Orient. It bears clusters of small, white or yellow, powerfully fragrant flowers. Its leaves are dried, crushed into powder and made into a paste used since time immemorial as a cosmetic.
Henna has been a popular cosmetic in all the countries of the Middle East and the Indian Peninsula, where it grows as a common shrub. Women from these regions use it as a cosmetic to beautify their hands and feet with intricate designs. Henna is also used on hair as a conditioner as well as a dye. It is also used by men on their hair and facial hair as a dye. In the western countries it is mainly used as a hair dye. Egyptian mummies have been found with hennaed nails. The henna plant has been referred to as the ‘Cypress of Egypt’. Hebrews called it ‘camphire’. Henna is glorified in ‘The Song of Solomon’ - “My beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of Engedi”.
Thomas,
The hillbilly routine was interesting. I’m sure you got a good laugh out of it, which would be good. At least somebody thought it funny that way. And as for the “high faultin’” talk, well… to quote Spurgeon,
But of course, if you find it valuable, well… at least somebody does.
From what I can see, your argument is basically this…
Maybe that is too bald. Your hillbilly alter ego probably wasn’t expressing the true you. “…da gud women today are two wear makup and try to make themselves beautiful, like de bad women do, the hairlots and Jezebell, in the Bible.”
Maybe this is a more accurate version of your position…
I hope you won’t mind my putting your enthymeme to the test… How about if we substitute “played games” for “wore makeup.”
Does that work?
Jeff and Kent showed me to be wrong on the Esther thing. Apparently (and I am convinced) Esther in fact wore makeup. Bad, bad, bad. Not so sure she was a good woman after all. I mean…
But Thomas, you have yet to give any Scripture that would make the wearing of cosmetics a transgression of God’s law.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI really don’t have a dog in this fight, but c’mon guys. Why can’t Thomas have a little fun with you the way you like to have fun with him? Thomas is obviously fair game when you want to poke fun at him, but when he has a little fun it seems to be implied that he is not supposed to. BTW, it is no big discovery that Thomas wrote as “Billy.” He basically said so in the post.
Now, playing the devil’s advocate . . . Can any of you prove to me that Esther was really a Godly woman at that point in her life? Show me the evidence of her spirituality, please. Thanks.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pmSeventeenth book of the Bible pretty much lays it out for you. There’s not a book of Jezebel in the Bible, but there are the books of Ruth and Esther.
Also, the parental figure in her life at that time was a godly man.
Here’s evidence: obedience to Mordecai.
As far as the hillbilly bashing goes, did we strike back too hard? While I let it be clearly known that Billy is Thomas, I have no problem with his humor. Although it is more than just poking fun. It is a powerful rhetorical device.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pmJeff,
I asked for evidence that she was Godly and spiritual. Now, that you mentioned it, can you show me where Mordecai was regarded by the text as a Godly man? Just because a man doesn’t want to die and doesn’t want his people exterminated does not make him Godly.
In Esther do we see God working in response to faith and obedience or in spite of the fact that there is no mention of prayer, trust, etc.?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI’m sure he had fun writing it, and even though I am easily entertained by something humorous, as you know, Pastor Mitchell, I didn’t get the humor in this. It reminded me of the hick letter that Rod Bell wrote a few years ago in Frontline, mocking the perfect preservation position and people. I wrote a hick answer for Frontline, but they wouldn’t print it, because it was funny one direction. I don’t know what it is called rhetorically—Pastor Mallinak likely knows—but what I said is exactly how I got it and took it. I understand his position fully and that I don’t believe it doesn’t mean that I can’t comprehend what he is saying or that I would be too afraid to take the position. I gave an actual argument in my last post and that wasn’t answered—maybe there isn’t any. Now we’ve given more arguments, and I’ll await those in regular English or fake hick; however he wants to express it. If you remember, Pastor Mallinak’s humorous style responded to an unnecessary warning about fear of wives.
Esther identified her Jewish heritage at a most appropriate time. Godly Nehemiah didn’t mention God when talking to Ahasuerus. It seems that there is a deeper devotion to God than is expressed in a story primarily meant to reveal the providence of God, based on what we see in Esther 4:16. I believe we should see Esther as a believer, especially in light of the book as a whole.
OK, it seems that there may not be any textual evidence for Mordecai or Esther’s godliness or spirituality.
So are we to therefore assume that they were evil? There are many verses in the text that tell us that mankind left to himself is wicked. So, because the text doesn’t tell us they weren’t wicked, they must have been?
I don’t think many would take this approach, including you. I think you just wanted us to do some homework. But I will add that there are many things we learn from the story of Scripture that are not stated explicitly in Scripture. And some things we assume because our assumption seems to be the best way to reconcile the facts on either side of the story.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pmI’ll give a little help, here. If the penman that God used was Mordecai, then he must have been a “holy man of God” (2 Peter 1:21).
September 18th, 2007 at 6:36 am