Home > Brandenburg, Methodology, The Word > Is Our Practice to Be Regulated by Scriptural Example?

Is Our Practice to Be Regulated by Scriptural Example?

September 5, 2007

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.

Advertisements
  1. Sonya
    September 5, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    WDJD

    As opposed to WWJD

  2. Thomas Ross
    September 5, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Amen. “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.

  3. September 6, 2007 at 9:57 am

    Thomas,

    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.

  4. September 6, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    I 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.

  5. September 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    I’m all for cosmetics. Especially for ugly women.

  6. Sonya
    September 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    hmmm

  7. Sonya
    September 6, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    : )

  8. September 6, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    What ugly women?

  9. Sam Hanna
    September 7, 2007 at 7:19 am

    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?

  10. September 7, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Sam,
    Acts 1:16-26, the Jerusalem church voted on Matthias to take over Judas’ ‘bishoprick'(v.20).

  11. Sam Hanna
    September 7, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    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.

  12. September 7, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Ok, 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?

  13. September 7, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Sam,

    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):

    In Acts 14: 23 it is said of Paul and Barnabas, ” when they had ordained (cheirotoneesanti s) them elders in every city,” etc. This muchquoted word, which has been relied on to prove a ritualistic ordination, by the “laying on of hands,” the best: scholarship decides to mean the stretching out of the hand or the lifting up of the hand as in voting.

    The meaning of which here is, that the Apostles secured the election of elders by the vote of the churches, with no reference to ceremonial induction into office.*

    * This word, Cheirot’oneoo, Robinson, in his N. T. Lexicon, defines, ” to stretch out the hand, to hold up the hand, as in voting;

    The word used in Titus I: 5, “ordain elders in every city,” is katasteesees, which means to set, to hence to vote; to give one’s vote. In N. T. to choose by vote, to appoint.” Creen, in his N. T. Lexicon, defines it, ” to stretch out the hand; to constitute by voting; to appoint.” Dontsegan, in his Greek Lexicon, defines, ” to stretch forth the hand; to vote in an assembly by extending the hand: to elect, to choose.” The only places where this word is used in the N. T. are that already named, Acts 14: 23, and 2 Cor. 8: 19, where Paul speaks of the brother “who was chosen (Cheirotoneetheis) of the churches to travel with us.” Here the choice or appointment of the brother is the only thing indicated. place, to constitute, to set over. And which Robinson defines, “to constitute, to make;” and Green, “to place, constitute, set, appoint.”

    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.

  14. Sam Hanna
    September 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    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.

  15. September 7, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Sam,

    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.

  16. Thomas Ross
    September 8, 2007 at 10:14 am

    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.”

    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.)

  17. Thomas Ross
    September 8, 2007 at 10:18 am

    By 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!

  18. September 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Thomas,

    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.

  19. September 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    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.

  20. Bobby Mitchell
    September 8, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    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.

  21. Thomas Ross
    September 9, 2007 at 10:44 am

    I 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.

  22. Thomas Ross
    September 9, 2007 at 10:55 am

    Also, I agree with comment #8 by Pastor Brandenburg: “What ugly women?” 🙂

  23. Thomas Ross
    September 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

    Also, 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.

  24. September 9, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Tom,

    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.

  25. Sam Hanna
    September 11, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Dave,

    As we say in Ireland – TMI – too much information.

  26. Thomas Ross
    September 12, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Response 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.”

    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?”

    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?”

    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.”

    What Pastor Brandenburg had said before on Ezekiel was:

    “The paint in the noun form was something that turned the eyes “brilliant.””

    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.”

    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.”

    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, 10”

    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.

  27. Thomas Ross
    September 12, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    A 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.”

    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.”

    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 (“church”) 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.”

  28. September 12, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    I 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.

    Wearing old garments is always done by evil, deceitful people in the Bible. Joshua 9:5, 13. Based upon that, we can wear only new garments. Old garments are for the ungodly.

    Only seductive women look through their window lattice. Proverbs 7:6.

    Swine are always associated with evil in Scripture, so no one should do hog farming or eat hog products. 15 verses.

    The uses of the word “pale” are associated with bad things—shame and destruction.  The pale horse in Revelation and the shame of sin.  This would speak against having pale skin.

    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.

  29. September 13, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    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.”

  30. September 15, 2007 at 9:37 am

    On the issue of invitations, Thomas said…

    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.

    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.

  31. September 15, 2007 at 9:38 am

    And by the way, Thomas (again) said,

    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.

    Thomas, you might want to go back and re-read the comments.

  32. Backwoods Billy Bumpkin
    September 16, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Hi 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.

  33. September 16, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    Here’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.

  34. September 16, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    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:

    A whole year was spent in preparation for the intended honor. Considering that this took place in a palace, the long period prescribed, together with the profusion of costly and fragrant cosmetics employed, was probably required by state etiquette. — JFB, 1871

    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.

  35. September 17, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Here’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.html 

    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=681 

    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”.

  36. September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    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,

    There is no particular value in being seriously unreadable.

    But of course, if you find it valuable, well… at least somebody does.

    From what I can see, your argument is basically this…

    Only bad women wore makeup in the Bible, therefore only bad women wear makeup today.

    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…

    Only bad women wore makeup in the Bible, therefore good women shouldn’t wear makeup.

    I hope you won’t mind my putting your enthymeme to the test… How about if we substitute “played games” for “wore makeup.”

    Only bad people played games in the Bible, therefore good people shouldn’t play games.

    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.

  37. Bobby Mitchell
    September 17, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    I 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.

  38. September 17, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    Seventeenth 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.

  39. Bobby Mitchell
    September 17, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Jeff,

    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.?

  40. September 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    I’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.

  41. September 17, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    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.

  42. Bobby Mitchell
    September 18, 2007 at 6:36 am

    I’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).

  43. September 18, 2007 at 6:57 am

    That’s in the text?

  44. Bobby Mitchell
    September 18, 2007 at 7:43 am

    No, but it is better than what I’ve seen here so far. 🙂

  45. September 18, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Bobby, do you only mind rough responses when they come from me?

    I suppose that these sorts of debates could go on endlessly. After all, we have plenty to say to fill in the gaps wherever the Bible is silent.

    In this particular argument, as I see it, we’ve presented plenty of arguments the other way. Apparently though, not enough for you or Tom. This is not surprising.

    I suppose that we could answer your little challenge by turning around and saying, “You question the godliness of Esther? Show us some proof that she wasn’t godly.” Then, having set yet another hurdle on the race track, I suppose we could crank it up as high as possible. After all, one can always set the high hurdles too high for anyone to actually clear them. And, I suppose that in some small way, this debate tactic would be somehow useful. At least, satisfying.

    But no, we haven’t done this. We’ve tried (Jeff and Kent much better than I) to demonstrate the lawfulness of these sorts of things (cosmetics). But that’s not enough, now is it. Because as soon as someone challenges the lawfulness of a practice, it falls to those challenged to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the practice is not only lawful, but also prescribed by God for the godly.

    Meanwhile, in case you haven’t noticed, Thomas uses some really awful debate tactics. Tom is no dumby. He knows debate better than most on this blog. He knows what he is doing when he makes comments like this…

    By 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.)

    and this…

    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?

    These are called “distractions.” You might not know that Bobby, but Thomas does. These are meant to shame us into his way of thinking. They are the equivalent of the “real men wear their hair parted on the right” type of arguments. They utilize the same rhetoric as the “cool” use… “Cool Kids wear Rebop. I can’t wear THAT because its not ‘cool’.”

    We know this. We don’t like it. I don’t mind some humor. I do mind what I’ve seen in this debate. If a novice uses garbage debate tactics, well, I’ll point it out and excuse it. But when an expert knowingly uses garbage tactics, we have another name for it.

    To satisfy your cravings for some Scriptural evidence of Esther’s beauty and grace and dignity and godliness, consider… Esther 2:7, 10, 15, 20

  46. Bobby Mitchell
    September 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    For the record, I am NOT anti-cosmetics. When discussing this with Brother Brandenburg once I told him my reasons. He used some of the same in one of the recent posts.

  47. Bobby Mitchell
    September 18, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    And, no, Brother Mallinak, I don’t mind rough responses only from you, or from anyone else. My perception is that there is a tendency to treat Thomas differently than others. Now, I’ll stop there, because if someone was defending me like this, I would not like it. So, I’m going to do unto others . . .

  48. September 18, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    I can see Thomas now… impish grin on his face. He loves it, and he knows it.

    But at least he isn’t wearing makeup.

  49. September 18, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    I treat Thomas differently than pastors who comment, but not much differently. I would treat a pastor differently mostly because of his office and some because of age. If a pastor on here used some of the same techniques that Thomas has used that Pastor Mallinak has referenced, he would not get much different treatment than what Thomas has gotten. We could have a regular discussion on these things, keeping it to the Bible only, but the tactics get used that drag the talk into the mud—not a mud facial though.:-) There are more tactics than what Pastor Mallinak pointed out. And so my evaluation is that he’s getting hit at least equal to what he deserves. I’m waiting for his dealing with the latest that has been added on cosmetics.

  50. September 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Hey, we’d “make up” but Thomas is against that. (wink!)

  51. Thomas Ross
    September 19, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    Prescriptum: Readers, please note that I do not have Internet access in my residence, but I use the wireless network at the church house when I am there and have time to do so. What I am doing on this post, and what I have done in the past when commenting on one, is save the current state of affairs to my computer, and then, during the week at some other point when I have time, read the comments, and then prepare a response, which is then posted on JackHammer the next time I can get Internet access on my computer. Thus, the comment below is a response to what Pastor Mallinak wrote a number of days ago. I see that there are a lot of new things that have been posted on the blog since Sunday; I am glad; they should be interesting and, I trust, help us all to love God and one another will all our heart and have our minds attuned to the Scriptures; I intend to comment on them after I read them; now I have time but to save the comments to my computer. I mention all this in case this comment seems dated, or I seem slow to reply to the comments of others. Church starts in about three minutes—talk to y’all later.

    Response to Pastor Mallinak’s opposition to the Regulative Principle.

    Preface: I appreciate Pastor Mallinak and his love for God and His Word. I trust that nothing in this response (or in any other on this blog) will be taken as a personal attack or anything similar; it is simply an attempt to analyze these matters Scripturally and dispassionately. The same is true for my responses to Pastor Brandenburg and anyone else who writes on here. I almost feel like this is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said, but I thought I should say it, just in case.

    Pastor Mallinak wrote:

    “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.”

    It is easy to make the distinction between an element and a circumstance. An element is something God commands in worship. A circumstance is something that is involved in making the element happen. In OT worship, the priest offering a bull on various occasions was an element. Whether the bull was 300 pounds or 500 pounds, or whether the bull was led to be offered by a rope or by riding on it, were circumstances. The high priest had to wear the ephod; that was an element. Whether he wore Nike or Reebok sandles was a circumstance. In NT worship in the Lord’s church, for example, preaching is an element, God commanded it (2 Timothy 4:2). Singing is an element, God commanded it (Ephesians 5:19). Assembling is an element, God commanded it (Hebrews 10:25). Having a pulpit is a circumstance, which is materially related to preaching, but it is not sinful to use some other sort of podium. It is a circumstance. Having a blue or red book of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs is a circumstance. One has to have something to sing from. Assembling in a particular location (building, rented room, field) is a circumstance. Do we really want to argue that there is no way to tell the difference between elements and circumstances? Would someone at a secular job, say, a mailman, when told by his boss to sort the mail, that he could not do it, because he was not told whether to put the bulk packages on the right and the envelopes on the left, or the other way around? (Maybe if he was part of a union—otherwise, I doubt it).

    It is clear that offering incense was an element. Why? “And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon . . . And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:1, 7-8, note ff.).

    Pastor Mallinak later, to support his contention that there is no difference between elements and circumstances, stated, “Offering incense is an element, but whether we use the censer or a cowboy hat to carry the incense is a circumstance.” The following verse makes this assertion very problematic: “And he shall take a CENSER full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD” (Leviticus 16:12). A censer, not a cowboy hat, is commanded, so it is part of the element. A genuine differentiation between an element and a circumstance would be “Offering incense in a censer is an element, but whether to use the censer made by Naphtali Censers for U, Inc. or Gideon Corp. is a circumstance.” Furthermore, since God commands reverence in worship (Lev 19:30, etc.) the cowboy hat would not work anyway, since it would be making a joke out of God’s holy worship and be irreverent. I cannot help but conclude that the attempt that has been made here to argue that there is no distinction between an element and a circumstance definitely fails in its attempt to support itself Biblically.

    I do not see how Pastor Mallinak, by maintaining that the Bible makes no distinction between elements and circumstances, gives Nadab and Abihu a chance to avoid getting burned up. Their offering was strange fire, because the Lord did not command it, says Leviticus 10. Without a distinction between elements and circumstances, there would be no way to tell what was “commanded” (elements) and what were necessary concomitants to fulfilling the commands (circumstances). The two other sons of Aaron who were left would be liable to be burned up by fire from heaven at any time, because they could not know if the fact that they had a different pair of sandals on, a different size animal to offer, a different length of beard than they did last time, a different breakfast, newly washed or less newly washed clothing, etc. was something that God would burn them up for. If there is no difference between elements and circumstances, being an OT priest would be a job that would require a really good life insurance policy. This is the consequence if “God consumed Nadab and Abihu because of a wrong circumstance.”

    After stating that the Bible does not differentiate between elements and circumstances, Pastor Mallinak stated that in “Old Testament worship . . . God prescribed every element and every circumstance of worship.” If this is the case, then the following, for example, would be stated in the OT, but there are no verses that tell us: where the material for the Levitical footwear is prescribed; where the weight of the animals offered is prescribed; where the mixture of brass for the censers is prescribed; where the person who is to design the garments down through the generations is prescribed; where the locations that the sheep graze that make the wool is prescribed; where the methods for making the wool into garments is prescribed; where the speed with which one was to walk around while making the sacrifices is prescribed, etc. If God burned people up for wrong circumstances, all these things, and many other like things, would need to be stated in the Bible somewhere. The distinction between elements and circumstances is unavoidable and necessary.

    To argue that somehow a distinction between elements and circumstances is a contradiction, as Pastor Mallinak does, is also problematic. I think the analysis above would take care of this assertion, so I will say no more on it at this point.

    By the way, Biblical proof for the Regulative Principle is also not just found in Leviticus 10. Some arguments for it are found in the helpful article, “Biblical Authority and the Proof of the Regulative Principle of Worship in The Westminster Confession,” John Allen Delivuk, (Westminster Theological Journal, 58:2 (Fall 96) p. 237-257). I have posted sections of that article after my comment as a subsequent comment. There is no need to re-invent the wheel, so I refer the reader to the comment I have posted after this one for further Biblical evidence, from both the Old and the New Testament.

    Along that line, Pastor Mallinak argued, “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.”

    Does not this assertion lead to the conclusion that what was strange fire in the Old Testament, as not commanded, is now pleasing to God, because it no longer matters if we worship Him only as He has commanded? Certainly typological features of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ. We don’t offer bullocks because Christ has fulfilled that part of the OT system. We don’t celebrate the Passover because Christ is our Passover. Other parts of OT worship are not typological. For example, OT prohibitions on idolatry are not fulfilled in Christ and are certainly something we are still bound by. If Pastor Mallinak wishes to argue that the Regulative Principle is something only for the Old Testament, then we would need to prove that worshipping God exactly the way He says is something that is fulfilled in Christ so we now get to worship God however we wish, so now we get to offer Him what in the Old Testament was strange fire. I do not see what offering God only what He has told us to offer Him could possibly typify or how this principle could be fulfilled in Christ. Furthermore, as the following sections from John Allen Delivuk’s article on the Regulative Principle demonstrates, there are both New Testament and Old Testament verses that support the Principle

    Pastor Mallinak said, “Actually, the regulative principle has it all wrong.”

    Certainly the ultimate authority is Scripture, not history. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that this declaration is an endorsement of a Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopalian position and stated opposition to a historic Baptist principle. Of course, Pastor Mallinak is a Baptist, and he has no sympathy or intentional affinity with the Romish harlot—I speak here of the consequence of adopting the argument that the Regulative Principle is in error. If we can worship God however we want, unless He specifically says otherwise, then the Baptists were wrong in opposing the imposition of liturgy—where did God say that we cannot have a liturgy? The Baptists were wrong in opposing priestly vestments—where did God say that we cannot have special clothes for the pastor? The Baptists were wrong in opposing incense, holy water, and other Papist superstitions in worship—where does the Bible specifically prohibit incense, holy water, etc.? The Episcopalian majority in England did not argue that God required an Episcopal hierarchy; they argued that it was a useful thing and a pretty good idea, although Scripture did not command it; as long as it was not forbidden, it was OK. (Certainly there is no hierarchy taught in the Bible—but where does the Bible forbid hierarchy?) The Baptists apparently were wrong in rejecting all of this in favor of the Regulative Principle. They were wrong in believing, in the words of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, that “the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men . . . or in any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (Chapter XXII:1—this is an explicit affirmation of the Regulative Principle, and it was intended by the authors of the confession as such). Do we want to abandon a historic Baptist distinctive (and, far more importantly, an extremely important part of Biblical worship), to adopt a historic position of the Romish harlot and anti-Christian Protestantism—all so that we can defend an innovation of the Pelagian heretic Charles Finney?

    By the way, I would much rather attend a church that was on fire for God, aggressively soulwinning, manifesting love for God in careful obedience to His Word, etc., but called people to the front of the building after the service, than one that was dead but opposed the “altar call.” There are definitely more central things than this narrow issue of church practice (and one reason we can discuss this issue on this blog is our unity on those many more fundamental matters). However, if God has never commanded His church to practice an altar call, the two options above do not form a dichotomy—a church that gave people counsel from the Scriptures after preaching, and where members sought to immediately respond to the Word preached by putting it into practice in their lives, would be strengthened, not weakened, by practicing as Baptists did for their first 1800 years. We have had no large-scale revival in America (although there have been local ones) ever since the widespread introduction of the “new measures” invented by Finney; indeed, Finney’s theology and methdology helped destroy that great revival, and were opposed by genuine men of God (such as Asahel Nettleton) who were used to see many genuinely converted in the Awakening.

  52. Thomas Ross
    September 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Quotations from “Biblical Authority and the Proof of the Regulative Principle of Worship in The Westminster Confession,” John Allen Delivuk, (Westminster Theological Journal, 58:2 (Fall 96) p. 237-257). I quote extensively only the section on the definition of the Regulative Principle and one of the arguments in favor of it, so that I don’t write too long here.):

    “The regulative principle of worship states that the only way to worship God is in the manner that He has commanded in the Holy Scripture; all additions to or subtractions from this manner are forbidden. This is an application of the view that the Bible is sufficient for all good works, and that it is the only judge in spiritual matters, as expressed in Chapter 1 and 31:3 of the Confession. The regulative principle teaches that the proper way to determine God’s will concerning worship is to study the Bible to determine acts of worship God has commanded for Christians, and do only those acts. Obviously, Christ fulfilled some rites of Old Testament worship, such as sacrifices, and these are not to be used in Christian worship. However, the acts of Old Testament worship that are of grace and not judgment, like praying and singing Psalms, are still suitable forms of worship as are the New Testament acts of worship such as the [ordinances]. . . .

    1. Proofs for the Regulative Principle from the Sufficiency of Scripture

    2. Proof for the Regulative Principle from Christian Liberty

    From the time of the vestments controversy of the latter sixteenth century, the Anglican additions to worship had given many sincere believers serious conscience problems. They believed that these innovations were not worship. Therefore, they had problems of conscience every time they participated in worship. . . . Because God left men’s consciences free from the doctrines and commands of men, the church is forbidden to teach or command anything the Bible does not. This prohibition extends to adiaphora as well as sins. In worship, the church is forbidden to add rites and ceremonies to those found in the Bible, because the conscience is to be free of human requirements. . . . Samuel Rutherford, an author of the Confession, used Christian liberty to derive the regulative principle of worship. Rutherford defines Christian liberty as: 1) Freedom from the Ceremonial Law (Gal 5:1–5) and the commandments of men, “for all these Ceremonies being now not commanded, but forbidden of God, become the Commandments of (Col 2.18,19, 20) men, from which the Jewes and Gentiles were freed in Christ”;

    3. Proof for the Regulative Principle from the Second Commandment

    James Ussher, taught that the regulative principle was the application of [WTJ 58:2 (Fall 96) p. 245] the second commandment is seen in the following selections from his Body of Divinitie. Ussher said the command’s meaning and purpose was,

    To binde all men to that solemne forme of religious Worship which God himselfe in his Word prescribeth, that we serve him, not according to our fancies, but according to his owne will, Deut 12.32.21 [Emphasis his.]

    Ussher continued by asking, what is forbidden in the Second Commandment? He answered,

    Every forme of Worship, though of the true God, Deut. 12.31 . contrary to, or diverse from the prescript of God’s Word, Mat. 15.9. called by the Apostle Will-worship, Col. 2.23 . together with all corruption in the true Worship of God, 2 King. 16.10 . and all lust and inclination of heart unto superstitious Pomps, and Rites in the service of God.22

    James Ussher influenced the Westminster Assembly’s conclusion that the second commandment taught the regulative principle of worship.
    Because of the exposition of the second commandment in the Larger Catechism, pursuing the topic in detail among the authors of the Confession is unnecessary. However, one topic relating to the second commandment, that of “will-worship,” deserves comment. Following the usage of the King James Bible, the Puritans called the practice of adding human rites and ceremonies to worship services, “will-worship,” from the term’s usage in Col 2:23 . . .

    4. Proof for the Regulative Principle from the Positive Commands of Scripture

    Samuel Rutherford believed that the positive commands with respect to worship forbade any other practices of worship, even in the smallest matters,24 and defended his position from the Bible. In answer to the question, “Whether or not Humane Ceremonies in God’s Worship, can consist [coexist] with the perfection of God’s Word?” Rutherford answered:

    These humane Ceremonies we cannot but reject upon these grounds; Our first Argument is: Every positive and Religious observance, and Rite in Gods worship, not warranted by Gods Word, is unlawfull: But humane Ceremonies are such: Ergo,
    The Proposition is sure, the holy Spirit useth a Negative Argument, Act. 15.24. We gave no such Commandment, Levit. 10:1. Jer. 7.30. and 19:5, 6. and 32:35. 2 Sam 7.7. 1 Chron. 15.13. The Lord Commanded not this, Ergo, It is not Lawfull.25 [Emphasis and punctuation his.]

    These examples concern sins not forbidden in the Bible. For example, in Jer 19:5–6, God condemns Israel for burning its sons to Baal, “which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.” Here Rutherford used an example of an Old Testament’s positive worship command forbidding all other forms of worship, another argument that uses the hermeneutic of good and necessary consequence.
    Thomas Gataker supported the position that the positive command forbids the negative. In the following quotation, he taught that the positive command implies the negative and vice versa. He wrote:

    there are in Gods Law as well affirmatives as negatives; yea that as every affirmative includeth a negative, so every negative hath an affirmative infolded in it: and that there is (Deut. 27.26 . Gal. 3.10 .) a curse imposed as a penalty as well on the breach of the one, as of the breach on the other: and that the one is as well broken by the omission of that that therein is enjoyned, as the other by the practise of that that therein is inhibited.26

    The following example clarifies Gataker’s position. He applied the principle that the positive forbids the negative to the sacraments, showing how men could abuse the sacraments without this principle to protect them. He observed:

    [WTJ 58:2 (Fall 96) p. 247]

    And in many cases it holdeth onely therefore: For why we should use water and not wine in Baptisme: Why bread, rather than roasted flesh in the Lord’s Supper, and why bread onely and not cheese too, as some haue vsed, no reason can be rendred, but because God so pleased to determine the elements in either. [His emphasis.]27

    Gataker believed that if the positive commands of Scripture did not forbid their negative counter parts, havoc could be done to the celebration of the sacraments.
    The church could also suffer harm by a sloppy application of the principle that the positive command forbids the negative and vice versa. The Westminster Divines were careful in the application of this principle. For example, if one examines the negative and positive commands in the questions and the corresponding Scripture proofs in the Larger Catechism regarding the second commandment, one finds that they teach no negative or positive duty without an accompanying text of Scripture for support. The principle that the positive command forbids the negative is not a licence to say no to almost everything.
    The Westminster Divines also carefully limited the application of this principle, thus leaving other areas of life as adiaphora. For example, Thomas Gataker wrote,

    an Action may haue warrant sufficient by permission without precept or practise. For where God hath not limited the vse of any Creature or ordinance, there he hath left the vse of it free. Where he hath not determined the circumstances of any action, there what he hath not prohibited, that hath he permitted, and that is warrant sufficient for it. Where therefore circumstances are determined, the argument holdeth from the negatiue to make that vnwarrantable, that is not either expresly or by good consequence inioyned. But where they are not determined, the argument is strong enough from the negatiue to proue that warrantable that is not either expresly or by iust consequence prohibited.
    For this cause in the point of Gods worship the argument holdeth (Jer. 7.31 & 19.5 , Coloss. 2.22,23.) from the negatiue for the substance of it, because (Deut. 12.30,31, 32) God hath determined it.28

    While the Westminster Assembly believed the Bible taught that affirmative commands forbade their negative counter-parts, it applied this rule with great caution, and it only applied the rule in areas such as worship, which God had authoritatively addressed; other areas were considered adiaphora. Good and necessary consequence was used in deriving and defending the rule that a positive command forbids other actions by implication. . . .

    V. The Principle of Uniformity

    . . .

    What about the circumstances of worship? All agree that not everything connected with worship is worship.32 These non-worship items include the [WTJ 58:2 (Fall 96) p. 250] shape of the building, the length of the service, seating and other items of no religious significance. The Westminster Divines addressed this issue in chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the Confession, which reads,

    there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

    George Gillespie’s discussion of circumstances is commonly used to define the distinction between worship and circumstances.33 Three conditions must be met for a matter to be a circumstance. First,

    It must be onely a circumstance of Divine Worship, no substantiall part of it, no sacred significant and efficacious Ceremonie. For the order and decency left to the definition of the Church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth more, but mere circumstances.34

    Samuel Rutherford is of great help in understanding the meaning of circumstances. By circumstances, Rutherford meant things merely natural (physical), and not spiritual, which included such circumstances as time and place. Circumstances are either merely physical, merely moral, or partly moral and partly physical. The latter class he called mixed circumstances. Physical circumstances are adjuncts of worship, things that occur concurrently with other civil and religious actions done by men, but are not part of the action. As adjuncts, they contribute no moral goodness or badness to the agent in his performance. He listed some of the physical circumstances, time, place, person or agent, name, family, condition (country, family, house), garments, and gestures, as sitting and standing.

  53. Thomas Ross
    September 21, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    My reply to all the pro-cosmetic posts.

    Dear brethren,

    I was able to get online before the Lord’s Day, so I have posted here my reply to all the pro-cosmetics material, and to Pastor Mallinak’s apology against the Regulative Principle written after my last comment. May it be a blessing, and help us all to love God with all our minds. Amen.

    Response to various previous comments.

    Introductory comment to the general reader: The most substantive portions of this reply are in the middle of this post. So if you just want to skim it and get the best part, you’ll have to figure out where the middle is and read that part first; and in the time it takes you to do that, you could have read the whole thing anyway. So there. Ha! (Actually, there simply were a lot of comments to respond to—I do think that the most interesting and best challenges to the anti-cosmetic position were the comments by Pastors Brandenburg and Voegtlin which were around the middle of this reply.)

    #28. Wearing old garments isn’t always done by old, deceitful people, James 2:2; Luke 16:22; It isn’t only ungodly people who look through window lattices, Song 2:9; God tells us we can eat whatever we want, including pig; etc. I don’t feel like I really should need to prove that being born with white skin is not a sin. I’m not sure what the point of all this is, unless it is to affirm that we are not supposed to get doctrine from examples, but I don’t believe Pastor Brandenburg holds to that. There are not chapter after chapter of matter on the subject of old clothes. I will say no more on this.

    Pastor Brandenburg also said:

    “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 Genesis 2 there is no statement, only an example. Christ quoted Genesis two against divorce, not polygamy. There is no didactic condemnation of polygamy anywhere in Scripture—it is only the examples. I don’t know what “this face painting thing” is supposed to mean. I can give you page after page of condemnation of cosmetics by the patristics if you would like them; if we cannot produce even a single example of an affirmation of “moderate” use, our use of history is very questionable if we wish to affirm that early Christianity actually adopted the “moderate use” position.

    #33. Pastor Brandenburg wrote,

    Here’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.

    It is very easy to see that people used pots, drank beverages derived from grain, used utensils, etc. from records of stores that sold these things, from houses where old examples of these are found, etc. Records of cosmetics could easily be obtained in the same way, if they were there. Furthermore, there was a great deal written before the printing press. Perhaps the historical assertion was intended to be that the percentage of people who wrote things was lower, or fewer copies of what was written were available or in circulation; and the fact that copies of what was written were harder to make is irrelevant to this historical question. I cannot imagine someone concluding that very little was written at all in the Middle Ages who lived in 1200 and attended one of the medieval universities, or someone in a modern library with volume upon volume of the medieval writers of Christiandom before his eyes, or someone who reads, say, Schaff’s History of Christianity in the volumes on the middle ages, and reads about the various literary controversies, etc. that were going on, or someone who reads a history of literature and sees all the things that were written in this era.
    If we wish to dismiss the conclusions of those who have written books on the history of cosmetics (as the author of Powder and Paint did, which I quoted above to substantiate my assertion), when they say that Christiandom was against it and women did not wear cosmetics, an assertion that historians affirm that cosmetics were not used is in error because the printing press was not yet invented seems most dubious.

    #34: Pastor Voegtlin wrote, “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?”

    The woman was a real woman, who had spots; but the beloved did not see them because of his love. No woman since the fall literally has no spots (except my wife, of course ☺).

    Both Pastor Voeglin and Pastor Brandenburg brought up Song 3:6, “Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?”

    When I was studying this subject to come to a conclusion on it some time ago, I noted the following:
    A.) The powders here are on the man, not the woman.
    B.) The parallel with myrrh and frankincense shows that they are scents, not (male) cosmetics.
    C.) The Koehler-Baumgartner (subsequently K-B) Hebrew lexicon (the standard modern one) defines this word (‘avaqah) as “scent-powders.”
    D.) The LXX translates the word with murepsou, meaning “perfumer.”
    What this passage justifies is deodorant. It does not justify face paint on men—nor, certainly, on women. It is “scent” or perfume-type material, not face paint. The verse justifies male deodorant, not female makeup.
    Esther, etc. are commented on below.

    #35:

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “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.”

    History: Unless we can produce a single quote saying that cosmetics are justified, it seems to me that pages of quotes against them from the patristics, the fact that historians of the subject say that they were not used, etc. seems to me like it is yet to be overturned; indeed, I do not see how it can be overturned.
    Scripture: The “eye” comment is an argument from Scripture; I deal with it below. When I was investigating this subject a while ago, the possibility that only eye-paint is condemned came up for consideration. (By the way, how many fundamental Baptists in favor of cosmetics preach against applying any to the eyes?) This is what I wrote then, edited in a very minor way:
    However, this argument is based on the assumption that the KJV mistranslated ayin as “face” in the passages on cosmetics; it supposedly should have rendered it as eyes instead. It then takes a “between the lines” approach, the kind that is equally invalidly used to justify smoking (and could be used to justify heroin or cocaine), where one looks for reasons to do whatever Scripture does not say instead of trying to stick as closely as possible to what it does say. It is true that the Hebrew word ayin is often translated as eyes, but the translation face is correct in the texts in question. Consider: Exodus 10:5, ayin translated “face”; also in LXX translated “face.”; Exodus 10:15, likewise; Numbers 14:14, “face to face” is ayin to ayin; Numbers 22:5, “face” is ayin; Numbers 22:11, “face” is ayin; In 1 Kings 20:38; “ashes upon his face” is a disguise; “face” is ayin. How well can one disguise oneself if ashes are just on the eyes? This reference is directly related to the issue of makeup; the idea is to change the facial appearance from what it is naturally. Ayin here is indeed the “face,” as the KJV says, not just the eyes; 1 Kings 20:41, “ashes . . . face” is also ayin; 2 Kings 9:30; “painted her face” has “face” as ayin; Jeremiah 4:30, “rentest thy face” is ayin; Jeremiah 16:17 places “face” pene and “eyes” ayin in parallelism.
    Thus, the KJV is not in error when it says “painted the FACE.” (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30). “Face” is the translation that we should have in the passage in question; it is superior to “eyes.”

    Pastor Brandenburg also wrote,

    “Esther 2:12, [shows] in the context, [that] 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.”
    When I was studying this subject out earlier, I typed in “cosmetics” on my Bible software to see if anything came up. I did find that the NIV mentioned “cosmetics” in Esther 2:12. Does this verse justify the use of face paint on women?

    First, we should consider how we are defining “cosmetics.” Pastor Brandenburg cites ISBE, which says that oil put on the limbs and head was a “cosmetic.” The encyclopedia is defining “cosmetic” in the sense of any sort of cleansing agent. Obviously when both men and women applied oil to one’s arms and legs [and head in the same context, so the same meaning] is different than changing their color, and the purpose was sanitation, not attempting to “make [oneself] fair,” which is condemned in Scripture. When I say “cosmetics” below, I mean “paint,” not deodorant, perfumes, soap, or things of that nature, which are all found in the Bible on godly people and are therefore justifiable Scripturally—and which ISBE and the NIV are defining as “cosmetics.” When ISBE defines perfumes as cosmetics, I have no problem with them. [And, I think we can also see, in relation to a comment of Pastor Voegtlin, that if the Bible condemns “painting [the] face” and “making [onself] fair,” then the fact that there may be some oil in the paint used does not justify the painting—the oil that is approved of is not used for these purposes.]
    Specifically on Esther 2:12, note that the KJV makes no mention of cosmetics in the verse; it reads, “six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odours, and with other things for the purifying of the women.” The NIV translators (and ISBE) are defining “cosmetic” in the sense of “things for purifying,” that is, something like soap, or they are mistranslating the verse. There is no reference at all to face paint in Esther 2:12. A study of the Hebrew lexica will reveal that any reference to face paint is very dubious in this text. The rare Hebrew word used, tamruq, appears also in Esther 2:3, where it is rendered in the Authorized Version as “things for purification,” just as it is rendered in 2:12. The Hebrew lexica demonstrate that it is some sort of cleansing oil, not face paint. The LXX does not provide any reference to cosmetics in translating this word (as smegma), which is rendered “women’s purifications” in Brenton’s LXX translation. (Compare the verb smecho, “to cleanse,” in Josephus, War 2:123). Nor does the Latin Vulgate’s translation provide any assistance to the face-paint advocate in Esther 2:12. Esther 2:12 does not refer to face paint. It refers to something like soap (the LXX word is even glossed as “soap” by my Bible software.) I am all in favor of soap, and I’m glad Esther used it.
    Even if one could prove that substances similar to modern cosmetics were really in view in this passage (which they are not), it would not help the case of women who wanted to wear them, for these purification rites were the requirement of a wicked, incredibly promiscuous pagan king totally absorbed with gratifying his flesh, not a godly man, and Esther, who “obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her,” used “nothing” (v. 15) of the sort when she was not under compulsion! Even if one could prove that cosmetics were genuinely in view, the passage would more reasonably be an argument against Christian use of cosmetics than a text in favor of the practice. When I studied out Esther 2:12, as I desperately tried to find a text in favor of cosmetics, I found that I could not fairly exegete the passage and get face paint out of it.

    Pastor Brandenburg also cited Song 4:3, “Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet,” to support lipstick. However, 1.) The passage does not say that this is lipstick. This is just a description of her lips. 2.) All the other parts of her description in 4:1-5 are things that pertain to the woman herself naturally, not things that pertain to her part-time when she “does herself up.” She is always fair; always has dove’s eyes; always has beautiful hair; always has nice teeth; always has a pleasant voice; always has beautiful temples; always has a beautiful neck; and always has great breasts (v. 1-5). None of these things are features that are “added on” when she “puts on her face.” Apart from the fact that the verse does not say lipstick is in view, the context militates against it.

    Pastor Brandenburg gives examples of the knowledge of cosmetics in ancient civilizations. This is certainly a fact. Indeed, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, which I quoted earlier, gives descriptions similar to those mentioned by Pastor Brandenburg, but then writes, “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.” The fact that the Egyptians and other pagan civilizations around Israel used cosmetics, but the Israelites historically did not, favors the position I am arguing for, rather than favoring “moderate” use of face paint. Furthermore, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which Pastor Brandenburg quotes in favor of oil as a cosmetic (and if we define purifying or aromatic oils as a “cosmetic,” then I have no qualm with this), also states, “paint . . . used as a cosmetic . . . [is] always spoken of as a meretricious device, indicating light or unworthy character. Jezebel . . . the harlot city Jerusalem. . . . [and] the adulteress [are the only Biblical examples].” Both the quotations from Smith and ISBE come from the articles on “paint” in the respective encyclopedias.
    Song 1:14; 4:13 is cited for “camphire” as a cosmetic. Pastor Brandenburg writes, “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.’” The pagan people of the East may have used it to stain their hair and nails, but “Whether the custom of staining the hands and feet, particularly the nails, now so prevalent in the East, was known to the Hebrews, is doubtful.” (ISBE, “Paint.”) In the context of Song 4:13-16, the “camphire” is used as a perfume, which gives the woman a pleasant smell (see esp. v. 16). As Pastor Brandenburg demonstrates, “The camphire or henna-plant is . . . powerfully fragrant.” Consider as well that even if the context supported a use of camphire as a paint, rather than as a perfume, it was used “to dye orange hair, nails, fingers and toes” (K-B Hebrew lexicon). How many fundamentalist women want to dye their hair orange? Is that “moderate” and “unnoticeable”? If this were a reference to paint (which it is not), rather than to a perfume, it would not support “unnoticeable” cosmetics, but wild and extravagant ones—ones that the pagans around Israel happily adopted. Orange hair, on pagans old or new, reminds me of what I read about the savages that inhabited Britain when the Romans came in to take over. They went into battle naked, having their entire bodies painted blue, and had a witchdoctor uttering curses on the Romans with them. The Romans were afraid at this extremely odd sight, but they eventually urged themselves on to fight, and then they slaughtered them all and conquered the island. (This anecdote may not be especially relevant, but at least it is interesting.)

    #36—Pastor Mallinak wrote,

    “Maybe this is a more accurate version of your position… Only bad women wore makeup in the Bible, therefore good women shouldn’t wear makeup.”

    Yes, that is correct.

    Pastor Mallinak wrote, “I hope you won’t mind my putting your enthymeme to the test… How about if we substitute “played games” for “wore makeup.” Only bad people played games in the Bible, therefore good people shouldn’t play games.”

    If Scripture had a number of examples of ungodly people performing a certain activity, and chapter upon chapter of records of godly people where such an activity would very easily and naturally fit in if they were engaged in it—and if a book of the Bible contrasted the ungodly people’s way of doing it and the godly people’s way of doing it, as God’s adorning Israel without cosmetics and Israel’s adorning herself with them is done in Ezekiel, and if this activity were universally condemned by the Old and New Testament people of God until about a century ago, yes, we should not do that particular activity.
    Since the Lord did not quote Genesis 2 for polygamy, but for divorce, I would be interested to see exactly how Pastor Mallinak would argue against polygamy in Mormon Utah.
    The examples of Scripture are binding:
    “All scripture [including examples] is . . . profitable for doctrine . . . for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17). It can make us “perfect.” Everything we need to know about how to live, including what is sinful and righteous in the way we appear, is in the Word of God. Every word of “all scripture” is profitable for teaching us. This includes the large portions of the Bible that are not direct commands or didactic statements, but narratives and examples. We are to get teaching from the examples of Scripture: “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Corinthians 10:11). “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning” (Romans 15:4); cf. Romans 4:23; 1 Corinthians 9:10. Consider that justification by faith was proved by Paul from an example (Genesis 15:6).

    Pastor Mallinak wrote, “Apparently (and I am convinced) Esther in fact wore makeup.”

    Perhaps now that I have shown that there is no reference to makup in Esther 2:12, Pastor Mallinak has been unconvinced. ☺

    #41, Pastor Voegtlin wrote, “I will add that there are many things we learn from the story of Scripture that are not stated explicitly in Scripture.”

    Amen.

    #45. Pastor Mallinak wrote, “Meanwhile, in case you haven’t noticed, Thomas uses some really awful debate tactics. . . . He knows what he is doing when he makes comments like this…

    By 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.)

    and this…

    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?

    These are called “distractions. . . . Thomas knows [this] . . . [he is] an expert knowingly uses garbage tactics.”

    I appreciate that Pastor Mallinak wants to oppose things that he sees as sinful. This is a good thing.
    I trust that, in relation to the first comment on men being afraid of women, my own words in comment #21, on what I was doing will be taken for the truth. “I am sure that we all would agree that both weak men and pushy women are a problem; that was about it.” I know personally a soulwinning, KJV, Baptist, etc. man (he’s not a pastor, though) who believes that cosmetics are wrong (no influence from me), but he allows his wife and daughters to wear them. I doubt he is the only one in the USA who believes in this way, and then acts this way. It certainly is not a sin to NOT wear cosmetics—but do we really think that there are not many women who it would be much easier to get to miss explicitly Biblical things, such as soulwinning—or would maybe even rather loose a toe, or their appendix, etc—than stop wearing cosmetics?
    In relation to the second comment, if what I said is a “distraction” and “garbage tactics,” as far as I can tell, Pastor Mallinak means that the fact that the invitation system was invented by Finney and fits perfectly into his theological system is irrelevant. To Finney, salvation WAS simply a human decision of the will, so pressuring someone to make a human decision was actually bringing him to salvation (and, BTW, it also made him sinlessly perfect at the same moment.) This is carefully documented in the study in “Oberlin Perfectionism,” available in Perfectionism, vol. 2, Benjamin B. Warfield (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003 (reprint of 1932 ed.) in the set of Warfield’s compete works. One could also go to the font directly and read Finney’s Systematic Theology. Finney denied substitutionary atonement, the depravity of man, original sin, salvation by grace through faith alone without works, was so radically against eternal security that even those in heaven could sin and lose salvation, and held to other abominable heresies. I will prove these if you want me to.
    If these facts are only an irrelevent “distraction,” I would appreciate knowing which of the following propositions is false:
    1.) Charles Finney invented the invitation system.
    2.) Charles Finney was a Pelagian heretic who rejected the truth about salvation.
    3.) The system he invented fit his theology perfectly.
    4.) Finney’s system of theology is totally anti-Biblical and should be rejected by the Lord’s churches; and doctrine and practice are related to each other.
    5.) Biblically, it is relevent that the Holy Spirit did not lead His church, the pillar and ground of the truth, into a practice for 1800 years, but a heretic invented it. It would not have been fine for Paul or other apostolic era Christians to get practices for NT churches that were invented by the Judaizers, or for Old Testament saints to introduce into their worship practices Moses was silent about, but Baal worshippers were really into.
    If none of these propositions are false, then I don’t see why what I wrote is a “distraction . . . garbage tactics.” I certainly am not by any means trying to employ garbage tactics. However successful I may (or, alas, it seems I may not) be, I am trying to argue in a way that would honor God, that would not be insulting, that would not question anyone else’s motives, etc. So far am I from wanting to “shame us [the pastors arguing the opposing position on this topic],” I actually want them to look good—if any of us have to look bad, and I don’t know why we would, I would rather have them look good and me look bad; I just want the content of the questions analyzed for the glory of God. I appreciate the fact that Pastor Mallinak thinks that I am an expert in debate technique. I am not anything of the sort. I mean exactly what I say when I don’t see how the fact that Finney invented the invitation system in the 1800s is an irrelevant distraction, not to mention how it is a garbage tactic. If it is these things, I am ignorant enough of debate technique (I don’t think I have read a book on debate technique in my life) that it looks totally relevant to me Biblically, based on #5 in the previous paragraph.

    #40:

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote,

    “I gave an actual argument in my last post and that wasn’t answered—maybe there isn’t any.”

    I hope I have covered everything now. I commend Pastors Brandenburg, Mallinak, Mitchell, and Voegtlin for their work. This discussion has put together the best arguments for cosmetics that I have seen. Nevertheless, I believe that the following propositions still stand: 1.) Examples in Scripture are binding. 2.) No godly women in Scripture wore cosmetics. 3.) Only ungodly women wore them in Scripture, and when they wore them, there is no indication that only excessive use is condemned. 4.) The body of the Old Testament people of God, and the NT saints from the first century until the 19th century, were against cosmetics.
    I also noticed in the wealth of recent comments that attempts to justify face paint based on Scripture that were made before my previous reply were not re-introduced (only “brilliant” cosmetics are condemned, “deckedst” indicates extravagance, etc.). I am not sure if these arguments were not re-introduced because my answers were deemed so off-base that they still stood impregnable, if my answers demonstrated to those who advanced these arguments that they were errant and so they were recognized as invalid and dropped, if, in the midst of many pastoral responsibilities, the disputants did not have time to read my reply (I am not going after anyone in saying this—at least two out of the three main contributors to the other position have specifically stated that they did not read everything written before they replied—one of such comments which was the basis for my allowing Billy Bumpkin to use my computer to post his ‘pinion, although if he asks again, I will not let him—and he certainly was not supposed to represent any of the other disputants on this blog—if he is not truly a real person who lives in Bumpkinland with the Tooth Fairy and attends the Universal Church, then he represents me, not someone else, no?), or if they failed to reappear for some other reason I am not aware of. Arguments not based on verses (“It doesn’t matter that godly women didn’t wear it but ungodly ones did”) continued to reappear, however, based on the position that point #1 of 4 in the last paragraph is invalid. The reader should consider carefully if any of the four points that I asserted I had established was indeed established, or if I failed in my attempt, and then act accordingly.
    There are a number of things I have learned from this discussion, for which I am thankful, and I am glad that it has been possible to conduct it. Much in it has been profitable. May we all be beautiful in the way we all agree Scripture says all saints are to be before the Lord, who alone is worthy of all praise, glory, and honor.

  54. Thomas Ross
    September 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    By the way, I have figured out how to post documents to a blog. I have therefore put my 35 page or so analysis of cosmetics in Scripture and history on my blog, http://www.agapekaiphilia.blogspot.com. Other interesting writings are there as well. We haven’t written much on actual posts, though; there are pictures from my wedding to the only woman in the world without any spot in her, though. 🙂

  55. Thomas Ross
    September 21, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    All seven Bible studies, including the one on the church that deals with voting in Scripture that was referenced earlier in this post in relation to Sam Hanna’s question, are also on our blog.

  56. September 22, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Thomas Ross stated…”May we all be beautiful in the way we all agree Scripture says all saints are to be before the Lord, who alone is worthy of all praise, glory, and honor.”

    Would this be a good time to suggest the topic of the Modestly Dresses Christian Woman??? They are becoming a thing of the past…and this is coming from a woman! 🙂

  57. September 22, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    Thomas,

    Could you please repost a link to your blogsite? The one above is not working. Thanks

  58. September 22, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    Here is my Denique Refero, my final answer to Thomas Ross and others in the matter of cosmetics. This was an issue I wouldn’t have chosen to sort through right now, but Thomas, who obviously has been putting a tremendous amount of thought into this recently (“will expect my wife to wear cosmetics or not?”), has wanted to sort through it right now, so we all must. Therefore, I am concluding my thoughts on this subject here. I have read his arguments, and as he normally would, he believes his position is correct. I differ with his conclusion. I do believe our behavior should be regulated by Scriptural example, not by silence. Here’s why I believe differently than his conclusion.

    I have never heard cosmetics taught as wrong in my entire life. I haven’t heard one message or read one article until Thomas Ross brought it to my attention. If there is nearly a total apostasy in a particular practice, and I’ve been in some of the most conservative Bible believing and practicing churches, I better get something convincing.

    For me to take the no cosmetic, no make-up position, I would have to be convinced that any kind of change of appearance of one’s face, using substances outside of one’s own body, is wrong. Brother Ross believes this is the case because there are three examples of face painting done by evil women. Did God permit or even ordain permission to apply foreign substances to one’s face to better the appearance of that face? Yes. Psalm 104:15, “And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.” Oil was appropriate to apply to the face to make it shine in appearance, therefore, changing its appearance from a non shiny face to a shiny face. Matthew Henry writes concerning Psalm 104:15, “That we have even from the products of the earth, not only for necessity, but for ornament and delight, so good a Master do we serve. First, Does nature call for something to support it, and repair its daily decays? Here is bread, which strengthens man’s heart, and is therefore called the staff of life; let none who have that complain of want. Secondly, Does nature go further, and covet something pleasant? Here is wine, that makes glad the heart, refreshes the spirits, and exhilarates them, when it is soberly and moderately used, that we may not only go through our business, but go through it cheerfully. It is a pity that that should be abused to overcharge the heart, and unfit men for their duty, which was given to revive their heart and quicken them in their duty. Thirdly, Is nature yet more humoursome, and does it crave something for ornament too? Here is that also out of the earth–oil to make the face to shine, that the countenance may not only be cheerful but beautiful, and we may be the more acceptable to one another.” Henry says that God ordains oil to apply to the face to make someone beautiful and more acceptable to one another. Now Thomas would say that this is soap. That is convenient for his anti-cosmetic position, leading the charge against any cosmetics. This actually obliterates his position, which he has argued vehemently, resorting to ridiculing the other side with all sorts of rhetorical devices. He says that no woman should change her appearance and in so doing doubt the creative beauty of God. And yet here, we definitively have God providing oil to change the appearance for the sake of beautifying. What are cosmetics, but oils and powders that God made to help beautify the appearance of the face?

    Brother Ross portrays the other side as loving the NIV translation in support of Esther wearing cosmetics in Esther 2:12. He knows the crowd to whom he is speaking. Well, Jackhammer crowd, Brother Ross will tell you if the KJV text is to be understood differently than it apparently reads too, but that’s when it is convenient again for the position that he is taking. He serves in making those who use Esther 2:12 as a verse supportive of cosmetics as somehow hating the KJV in this verse. I choose not to argue that way, in order to be consistent. I can guarantee you that I did not take my position from the NIV. I pointed out that the “oil of myrrh” to which Esther subjected her body in preparation was not just soap or a fragrance. It was something to change her appearance. Holman Bible Dictionary says, “In Esther 2:12, for example, the oil of myrrh is used as a cosmetic.” The Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible (p. 913) says, “One of the oils mentioned in connection with cosmetics was. . . . oil of myrrh (Esther 2:12). The Second Jewish Book of Why (p. 172) says, “The Talmud takes note of the special permission Ezra granted peddlers of cosmetics to travel freely among the women returning from Babylonian captivity so that the . . . beauty aids would be readily available to them. . . . The use of cosmetics is generally approved in Jewish law.” It is obvious in Ruth 3:3 that oil is not being used for cleansing as Ruth is getting herself prepared for Boaz. We see the same thing in 2 Samuel 14:2. The NIV didn’t exist when Jameson, Faucett, and Brown wrote this in 1871, “Now when every maid’s turn was come to go in to king Ahasuerus, “A whole year was spent in preparation for the intended honor. Considering that this took place in a palace, the long period prescribed, together with the profusion of costly and fragrant cosmetics employed.”

    I say that camphire was henna, which was used to make an orange dye that was used as a cosmetic. Brother Ross says that he likes arguments from Scripture, but that is mainly from those who take a different position. He himself doesn’t mind resorting to a long story about wild-eyed, pagan warriors who painted themselves with colors to prepare for battle. Of course, this is no Scriptural argument and serves, as he wished it to, as a red herring, an incredibly bright red herring that is associating the orange dye with pagan warriors. When he’s done, anyone that thinks camphire is a cosmetic that Solomon advocated now also supports the activities of pagan, idol-worshiping warriors. Oh, and they are afraid of women too. Perhaps these types strategies used by Brother Ross will influence you. Because someone uses orange dye doesn’t assume that they are coloring their hair all orange and painting their face all orange like they are preparing for a Syracuse Orangemen football game. Why not a little bit of orange (slightly darker skin tone) in a modest way in appropriate places? Had Brother Ross considered that possibility? No. If dye was used, it must have been ladled on and rolled on in perverted fashion.

    Yes, I believe that the terminology used to describe Jezebel was an extreme. Women shouldn’t appear as Jezebel did, painting on something that glistened, something immodest. I believe my examples as to how our behavior is regulated by Scripture do apply here. We can find activities that in Scripture only bad people do. For instance, only evil people will have beds with chatubah (Prov. 7:16), carved works in the KJV. If you have carved works on your bed, you would be practicing evil with this same application of regulation.

    Because good people do improve their appearance with external substances, and God ordains it, modest (kosmios) amounts of cosmetics are acceptable for a Christian to wear.

  59. Thomas Ross
    September 23, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Pastor Voegtlin asked for the link to the blogsite; I think what happened is the period may have been considered part of the address. It is:

    http://www.agapekaiphilia.blogspot.com

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote:

    “If there is nearly a total apostasy in a particular practice, and I’ve been in some of the most conservative Bible believing and practicing churches, I better get something convincing.”

    I think there are people around who hold my position today, although they are in the minority. I believe I demonstrated historically that they were in the overwhelming majority. I agree with Pastor Brandenburg that the position taken by the saints through church history is important. By the way, the fact that we have not heard a message on it does not mean that there are not people believing it. I recall an elderly saint here at Mukwonago Baptist mentioning that he had never heard a message against gluttony. Pastor Brandenburg is to be commended for having taught through the Song of Solomon in Sunday school (Pastor Sutton actually taught it, but, of course, Pastor Brandenburg allowed and had it happen), but I suspect that many saints have never heard anything like that. I believe we can also think of other things that are not preached on very often (for better or worse), but are believed. I don’t think I have ever heard a sermon on Jezebel, for example; though I am (as has been repeatedly pointed out) younger than the other people on here; perhaps they have all heard sermons on her.

    Pastor Brandenburg is to be commended again for introducing Scripture, now Psalm 104:15, to support his position. (I am also thankful for the time he has put into this study; whether it has benefited anyone else, I can say for myself that it has helped me understand the Scriptures better and love God with my mind more.) As I studied Psalm 104:15, I noticed that Keil and Delitzsch commented that “Corn, wine, and oil are mentioned as the three chief products of the vegetable kingdom . . . with oil God makes the countenance shining, or bright and cheerful, not by means of anointing . . . but by the fact of its [the oil—which, by the way, is the same Hebrew word as “fat”] increasing the savouriness and nutritiveness of the food.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary notes, “He supplies man’s needs indirectly through providing fodder for “the cattle” and directly through supplying him with “food” (v.14), i.e., “wine … oil … and bread” (v.15).” The wine, oil, and bread are all things that are eaten, in context, not things that are put on one’s face (unless one has a toddler . . .). I would note as well that Matthew Henry (an excellent devotional commentary writer who also does often have good exegetical insights) does not actually say that the oil is applied to the face—he just says that we should be thankful for the oil. This is not to say that commentaries cannot be found that say that the oil is here applied to the face (if one looks through enough commentaries, we know we can find just about anything), but I believe the ones I cited above are correct when they affirm that the context shows that the wine, oil, and bread are all food items that are consumed in Psalm 104:15.
    By the way, if we are going to use the “glistering” argument (although it is of stones, rather than people, and the reason the KJV did not render it “painted” was, I believe, demonstrated by me in a previous post), but we are goint to use Psalm 104:15 to say that women can cause their faces to shine with cosmetics, I would like to know what the differentation is between glistering and shining for cosmetics. It would be important to determine this, since the one is sin and the other is not, and we are thus accountable to the Lord to know the difference, following this argument.
    Although Psalm 104:15 does not speak of applying oil to the face, but having a healthy body through eating oil, like wine and I do not think Scripture would establish that oil cannot be used on one’s body. What we do have in Scripture is a condemnation of painting the face, every time the word appears. We do have references to women being beautiful, but only ungodly women “make . . . [themselves] beautiful” in Scripture. Changing the color of one’s face, lips, etc. is a different matter than using Oil of Olay to have your skin be moist and not dry [I hope this is a good illustration, as I have never used Oil of Olay] or wearing an oily chapstick for the same purpose, or using soap.
    I am very thankful that none of the “big three” of Jackhammer love the NIV. I am glad that Pastor Brandenburg did not take his position from the NIV; I didn’t think that he did. The fact is that I discovered Esther 2:12 as an argument for cosmetics when I was studying the subject our a while ago by the NIV, which came with a commentary on my computer. I knew that Esther 2:12 was a verse that could be used by an advocate for face painting for beauty purposes, but I did not mention it until it was brought up by Pastors Brandenburg and Voegtlin, because I did not think it was relevant. When they brought it up, I told the story of how I found out it was used for this before the JackHammer discussion began. I did the same thing for Song 3:6 when Pastor Voegtlin mentioned it. The KJV’s “things for purification” are things like soap. I believe, actually, that the NIV translators (and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) also recognize this, but they are using the word “cosmetic” in a looser sense that includes the soap. I did not pull “soap” out of nowhere; it was the translation that appeared when I put my cursor over the word in my LXX translation. The LXX translators thought it was soap. [One way this discussion has been a blessing to me has been in establishing clearly this Scriptural differentiation between oil and cosmetics/face paint.]
    I don’t believe we can establish that any of the items mentioned in Esther 2:12 have to do with painting the face; the fact that Bible encyclopedias (Pastor Brandenburg cites Holman and the Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible) use the word “cosmetic” does not mean that they did. We speak of cosmetic changes to our teeth at the dentist, but we are not having our teeth painted. Oil of Olay would be sold in the cosmetics section at Wal-Mart. We can’t assume that these encyclopedias (or JFB) meant face-paint when they wrote what they did, especially if the Hebrew words simply don’t support it. Furthermore, even if Esther 2:12 did refer to face paint, it would help my position more than the alternative, because Esther chose not to wear any when she was not being forced to do it (Esther 2:15). If I thought the verse actually did refer to cosmetics, I would be using it as an argument for my position, because it would prove that not only did ungodly women only wear face paint in Scripture, but godly women did not do so when they were not forced to by pagans. However, I don’t believe that would be a valid argument, because the verse does not relate to paint, but to purification.
    I don’t think anyone would want to put myrrh on one’s face. The Hebrew lexicon (K-B) on this word states, “Latin murra: myrrh, from resin Commiphora abessinica (Arabian): Song 414 51, tastes bitter . . . smells strong, like ground spice . . . Song 36 brought to Palestine by traders; women wear it in a perfume bag suspended between the breasts Song 113; used as a perfume: for oneself 36, for one’s clothes Ps 459, for one’s bed Pr 717; in liquefied form in drops . . .Song 55.13; used as a massage when dissolved in oil . . . (Ug. s¥mn mr) oil of myrrh Est 212; the yellowish-brown to red lumps of resin are especially valuable; . . . lumps of myrrh were used in oil for anointing Ex 3023; . . .Song 46 parallel with [Hebrew word] . . erotic symbolism for the two breasts.” This is the entire definition (except I took out the Hebrew so it would not look weird when I posted it). It looks clear to me that it was used as a perfume. I don’t think women usually wanted yellowish-brown lumps of myrrh on their faces. It would definitely change the appearance, though. The smell of ground spice, in contrast, would be very nice. The Encyclopedias are defining a perfume as a cosmetic.
    By the way, I would be interested in seeing the unabridged section of the Second Jewish Book of Why. If I could get the author, publisher, etc. I would like to Interlibrary Loan it and look at the quote there. It is relevant to our historiographical discussion here, at least as far as I can see from the quote, and Pastor Brandenburg is to be commended for citing it.
    Pastor Brandenburg quotes Ruth 3:3, where the word “oil” is not present but “anoint” is, to argue that Ruth put face paint on (although Boaz would not have been able to see it in the dark—perfume, though, would be noticeable). He also cites 2 Samuel 14:2, where the word “oil” is used with “anoint.” However, this is the same word “anoint” is also found in:

    2Sam. 12:20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
    Dan. 10:3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

    If Ruth’s anointing herself proves she put face paint on, do these verses prove that king David and Daniel used put on base layers, lipstick, eye shadow, or some other sort of cosmetic? (Compare also 2 Chronicles 28:15—they clothed the prisoners and put cosmetics on them???) I trow not.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “an incredibly bright red herring that is associating the orange dye with pagan warriors.”

    This was funny. I enjoyed reading this. It is good to lighten up sometimes (as long as its not light blue). Please note that I specifically said in my previous post, “This anecdote may not be especially relevant, but at least it is interesting.”

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “Why not a little bit of orange (slightly darker skin tone) in a modest way in appropriate places? Had Brother Ross considered that possibility? No. If dye was used, it must have been ladled on and rolled on in perverted fashion.”

    The Hebrew lexicon said that henna, when not used as a perfume, was used “to dye orange hair, nails, fingers and toes.” The lexicon did not say that it was used to produce a slightly darker skin tone, but to make one’s hair, nails, fingers, and toes orange. The lexicon could be wrong, of course, but we would have to prove that. Furthermore, I have already proved that henna was used as a perfume in the relevant passages, not as paint.

    Pastor Brandenbur wrote, “Yes, I believe that the terminology used to describe Jezebel was an extreme.”

    The only thing I can see about cosmetics in 2 Kings 9:30 is, “she painted her face.” What in the passage tells us it is only “excessive” painting that is condemned? The same thing is true in Ezekiel 23:40: “paintedst thy eyes.” No mention of anything excessive; indeed, I demonstrated that the context militates against an “excessive-use-only” position on that verse (we would not argue that she sinned in washing herself “excessively.”) The Jeremiah verse, in contrast, does speak of extremes. Pastor Brandenburg is correct on that verse. Note, though, that we do have there the only example in Scripture of a woman “making herself fair,” while there are many references to women who “are fair/beautiful,” even exceedingly so, elsewhere. The use of the reflexive form of the verb there is most noteworthy.
    By the way, the verb that the noun in Proverbs 7:16 is related to is used of things that are not sinful in many places in Scripture, such as Deuteronomy 19:5 (“to cut.”). This example does not work.

    Pastor Brandenburg concludes, “Because good people do improve their appearance with external substances, and God ordains it, modest (kosmios) amounts of cosmetics are acceptable for a Christian to wear.”

    The reader should analyze the discussion above, and see if, in Scripture, good women do indeed use face paint, and if God has ordained it. If so, then women should wear them. If God has not ordained it, and good women in Scripture do not wear it, then they should not.

  60. September 23, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Corrections to representations of the cosmetic discussion
    I’m hopeful for everyone that the issue is coming to the truth and not winning an argument. A debate can be won and the audience become the losers. I’m fine with women not wearing cosmetics, but what we are attempting to discern is whether it is wrong for them to wear them at all. To come to the correct position, we want to properly represent our sources. I can’t say that Brother Ross purposefully left out pertinent aspects in his quotes, but he did leave out some key aspects.

    Thomas Ross said: “I think there are people around who hold my position today, although they are in the minority. I believe I demonstrated historically that they were in the overwhelming majority.”

    Answer:  Brother Ross gave quotations of people who also, in many cases, were baptismal regenerationists, who most often believed in the catholic church. This is why he uses the word Christendom and doesn’t explain. True Christians most often did not have their writings preserved by the state church. This same category of people also originated monasticism, which was against all sorts of externals and for other ones that were not Scriptural. They were very much for absolutely plain dress, as a form of monasticism (a kind of works salvation) as seen in the example of the Roman Catholic nuns today.

    Thomas Ross said: “As I studied Psalm 104:15, I noticed that Keil and Delitzsch commented that “Corn, wine, and oil are mentioned as the three chief products of the vegetable kingdom . . . with oil God makes the countenance shining, or bright and cheerful, not by means of anointing . . . but by the fact of its [the oil—which, by the way, is the same Hebrew word as “fat”] increasing the savouriness and nutritiveness of the food.””

    Answer:  Notice Brother Ross’s ellipsis (the dots. . . .). He leaves out information. Why leave those few words out? You may notice that Brother Ross likes to include information, so what does he leave out? Between “not by means of anointing . . . but by,” the obvious pertinent location, we get his ellipsis. In the ellipsis, Keil and Delitzsch say, “since it was not the face but the head that was anointed (Matt. 6:17). This isn’t any kind of Hebrew issue. This is a decision by Keil and Delitzch, saying that the head was anointed, not the face, and they don’t even refer to anything in the OT, but something in the NT. The verse doesn’t even use the word “anoint.” This should be argument for putting it on the face. If Psalm 104:15 had used the word “anoint,” someone might think something here was ceremonial. Brother Ross should be trying to bring this out, since he is attempting to come to the truth.

    Thomas Ross said: “I would note as well that Matthew Henry (an excellent devotional commentary writer who also does often have good exegetical insights) does not actually say that the oil is applied to the face—he just says that we should be thankful for the oil.”

    Answer:  Matthew Henry says: “Thirdly, Is nature yet more humoursome, and does it crave something for ornament too? Here is that also out of the earth–oil to make the face to shine, that the countenance may not only be cheerful but beautiful, and we may be the more acceptable to one another.” Ornament is not something that someone puts in his mouth. This is not for health, but for beauty. He also says it is to be more acceptable to one another. Don’t let Brother Ross revise Matthew Henry for your confusion.

    Thomas Ross said: “By the way, if we are going to use the “glistering” argument (although it is of stones, rather than people, and the reason the KJV did not render it “painted” was, I believe, demonstrated by me in a previous post), but we are goint (sic) to use Psalm 104:15 to say that women can cause their faces to shine with cosmetics, I would like to know what the differentation (sic) is between glistering and shining for cosmetics.”

    Answer: Is there a difference between using glistening paint on one’s face or an oil that makes the face shine? I’ll let you determine.

    Thomas Ross said: “I don’t believe we can establish that any of the items mentioned in Esther 2:12 have to do with painting the face; the fact that Bible encyclopedias (Pastor Brandenburg cites Holman and the Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible) use the word “cosmetic” does not mean that they did.”

    Answer: I don’t believe Esther painted her face like Jezebel either, but she was putting stuff on her skin to change her appearance. Many call this cosmetics. Brother Ross doesn’t like the word cosmetics when it works against his argument. So now we’re changing the argument to against face paint, which none of us have been arguing for, that is, painting the face, like we see in his three examples.

    Thomas Ross said: “Furthermore, even if Esther 2:12 did refer to face paint, it would help my position more than the alternative, because Esther chose not to wear any when she was not being forced to do it (Esther 2:15). If I thought the verse actually did refer to cosmetics, I would be using it as an argument for my position, because it would prove that not only did ungodly women only wear face paint in Scripture, but godly women did not do so when they were not forced to by pagans. However, I don’t believe that would be a valid argument, because the verse does not relate to paint, but to purification.”

    Answer: What? Now he says that he would use Esther 2:12 against applying cosmetics because of v. 15. Verse 15 says, “Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed.” That verse doesn’t contradict anything in v. 12. She didn’t put on as much as the other women. That’s all someone could get out of that. Great! She was modest in her application. That supports our position.

    Thomas Ross said: “Est 212; the yellowish-brown to red lumps of resin are especially valuable….. I don’t think women usually wanted yellowish-brown lumps of myrrh on their faces. It would definitely change the appearance, though.

    Answer: Did his own quote say “yellowish-brown lumps?” No. It said, “yellowish-brown to red.” Do you see how Brother Ross uses his quotes. He leaves out the appropriate information. It refers to their color. It refers specifically to the color in the Esther text. It says nothing about the smell of the myrrh in this case, but the color. Are a lot of cosmetics anywhere from brown to red? Um. I would say so.

    Thomas Ross said: “Pastor Brandenburg quotes Ruth 3:3, where the word “oil” is not present but “anoint” is, to argue that Ruth put face paint on (although Boaz would not have been able to see it in the dark—perfume, though, would be noticeable). He also cites 2 Samuel 14:2, where the word “oil” is used with “anoint.””

    Answer: I used those two verses because they both say that someone washed and then anointed with oil. This does away with oil as cleansing. They differentiate between the use of oil and washing. Brother Ross misrepresents my usage of it.

    Thomas Ross said: “If Ruth’s anointing herself proves she put face paint on, do these verses prove that king David and Daniel used put on base layers, lipstick, eye shadow, or some other sort of cosmetic? (Compare also 2 Chronicles 28:15—they clothed the prisoners and put cosmetics on them???) I trow not.”

    Answer: RED HERRING.

    Thomas Ross said: “The Hebrew lexicon said that henna, when not used as a perfume, was used “to dye orange hair, nails, fingers and toes.””

    Answer: So yes, the camphire was used to color the body.

    Thomas Ross said: “By the way, the verb that the noun in Proverbs 7:16 is related to is used of things that are not sinful in many places in Scripture, such as Deuteronomy 19:5 (“to cut.”). This example does not work.”

    Answer: He says it doesn’t work against his usage of three examples of face painting to prohibit all cosmetics. Why? Because he found a verb for cutting. Wrong. This is a bed with designs cut into it and it is an example of someone using this in a bad way. It does work as an example.

  61. Thomas Ross
    September 23, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    An addendum:

    If the Jewish book of WHY, cited by Pastor Brandenburg, is a modern work concerning the views of modern Jews in a “popular” format, then its testimony is not valuable. If it deals only with Talmudic-era Judaism, then it would not deal with the views of the people of God, but only of the anti-Christ Judaism of the post-Pharisaic era. (Even if it dealt with these, I would be interested in the actual reference in the Talmud where face paint is approved of—just as I would be interested in finding one reference anywhere in any patristic writer, orthodox or heretic, Baptist or proto-Catholic, where a “moderate” use of face paint is approved of).

    Also, if one wished to argue that myrrrh itself was not used as a face paint, but myrrh mixed with oil was, based upon Esther 2:12, please note that the oil of myrrh and sweet odors as “OTHER things for the purifying of the women.” Since the last phrase does not refer to face paint, the other ones do not either, for they are of the same type. They are all for purification. This is also supported earlier in the verse, which speaks of the “days of their purification.”
    Note also Esther 2:9, where we have the items in v. 12 defined as “things for purification.” The word “purification” in that verse appears in Proverbs 20:30, “cleanseth,” or, as the KJV margin reads, “purging medicine.” This is the only other reference outside of Esther (where it appears in v. 3, 9, 12). Thus (as usual), the KJV is correct in viewing the items in Esther 2:12 as items for purification (and the Greek and Latin OT are correct in viewing them as items of this sort). Face paint is not in view in Esther 2:12 at all—which is too bad for an anti-cosmetic view, since Esther took none of these items with her [except what was “appointed” (though this is Heb. ‘amar only) by another], but obtained favor of all who looked upon her, v. 15.

  62. Thomas Ross
    September 23, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    When I posted the addendum, I did not realize that Pastor Brandenburg had already replied to my previous post. I appreciate his prompt reply and his desire to be faithful to the Word of God. I will comment on his comment quickly, and then go to flourish in my house and rejoice with the wife of my youth.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote: “I’m hopeful for everyone that the issue is coming to the truth and not winning an argument.”

    Amen.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote: “To come to the correct position, we want to properly represent our sources. I can’t say that Brother Ross purposefully left out pertinent aspects in his quotes, but he did leave out some key aspects.”

    See below.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote: “Brother Ross gave quotations of people who also, in many cases, were baptismal regenerationists, who most often believed in the catholic church.”

    It is true that many of the patristic writers were proto-Catholics. However, writers often claimed by Baptists (such as Tertullian) also condemned cosmetics. It is also true that the further we go back historically, the harder it is to find out what was going on. We don’t see any evidence of classically claimed Baptist authors among the patristics like Novatian, Donatus, etc. employing cosmetics. There does not seem to be any disagreement between the Catholics and the Baptists on this, just as they were in agreement on the classical doctrine of the Trinity.

    On Keil and Delitzch, Pastor Brandenburg is to be commended for looking up the passage in the commentary. They did indeed say that the head, not the face was anointed, as he mentioned. This is true, and it is related, but I don’t think it is the best argument. The best argument is that Psalm 104:14 defines the items in Psalm 104:15 as ones for consumption. The commentary points this out (as does the Expositor’s Bible Commentary). The point is not that Drs. Keil & Delitzch agree with me on cosmetics (I have no idea if they did or not), but that they brought out this contextual point very well. Concerning Matthew Henry, I would encourage the reader to look at his comments on the passages that clearly deal with face paint (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and see his opinion on that matter. If one reads the entire comment of Matthew Henry, he says that the bread supplies want, the wine supplies not only want but makes us cheerful, and the oil makes us beautiful as well as cheerful. He does not say that the way the oil makes us beautiful and an ornament is by applying it to our faces. The oil could make us beautiful in Matthew Henry’s opinion the way that the oil definitely made us beautiful to the psalmist—by consuming it. Note that Henry also includes “us” in his commentary—so if he meant that “our” faces shine by applying cosmetics, then he meant that they should be on men, indeed, on himself, as well as on others. I believe it would be extremely difficult to argue that a Puritan writer like Matthew Henry, and those addressed in his commentary, would employ face paint on men and women, when the Puritans outlawed cosmetics in England when they took power. Commenting on 2 Kings 9:30, Henry calls “painting . . . walking contrary unto God,” on Jeremiah 4:30 he comments, “But this painting, though it beautifies the face for the present, really rends it; the frequent use of paint spoils the skin, cracks it, and makes it rough; so the case which by false colours has been made to appear better than really it was, when truth comes to light, will look so much the worse. And, after all, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair . . .” and on Ezekiel 23:40 he comments, “just as harlots [use paint and the other things in the verse] do to make themselves agreeable to their lovers; who use washes and paint, as Jezebel did. . . Harlots . . . painted their eyes, to make them look larger; [and the pagan] Greeks . . . made use of a powder mixed with their washes, which shrunk their eyebrows, and caused their eyes to stand out, . . . and it seems that painting with something of this nature was used by the Jewish women, in imitation of the Heathens, for the same purpose, especially by harlots.” I left out Henry’s comments on clothing and other things. Readers are encouraged to follow up all these quotes and see if I have taken them out of context. I would be very surprised if a Puritan writer in an era when Puritans banned cosmetics in the nation actually endorsed them on men and women in a passage that did not deal with them, Psalm 104:15, but condemned them in the passages that actually clearly deal with them—but even if he did, Psalm 104:14 itself shows that the oil in Psalm 104:15 is for food, which is what really matters.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “Is there a difference between using glistening paint on one’s face or an oil that makes the face shine?”

    But Psalm 104:15 is supposed to justify painting, not just oil. It is supposed to show us that women (and men?) can use cosmetic face paint, just types that shine but do not glisten, unless I have misunderstood the point Pastor Brandenburg is making. BTW, thank you for pointing out typos. Since I posted this immediately after writing it, I did not have time to go through it and fix them. Differentiation is not a typo, though. Sic to the sic. ☺

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “So now we’re changing the argument to against face paint, which none of us have been arguing for, that is, painting the face, like we see in his three examples.”

    Applying lipstick, changing one’s cheek color, making one’s skin color different, is painting. The Hebrew word for this is “paint,” the one used in the three passages. One can rub Oil of Olay in and put chapstick on, and it won’t change the color of the skin. Modern cosmetics are Biblical “paint.”

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “What? Now he says that he would use Esther 2:12 against applying cosmetics because of v. 15. . . . She didn’t put on as much as the other women. That’s all someone could get out of that. Great! She was modest in her application. That supports our position.”

    I actually think the verse is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with face paint. If it did, however, it would not support cosmetics, but oppose them. “Nothing” but what was “appointed” by she who was over her does not sound like “moderate” use. It sounds like “nothing.”

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “Did his own quote say “yellowish-brown lumps?” No. It said, “yellowish-brown to red.” Do you see how Brother Ross uses his quotes. He leaves out the appropriate information. It refers to their color.”

    If I was trying to twist quotes, I would not be doing a good job by putting the actual original text immediately above what I wrote. I don’t think that yellowish-brown lumps, red lumps, or any kind of lumps at all, are especially popular with women on their face. They seem to do a lot of things to get rid of little lumps, often called zits—why would they add more lumps on? Also, the quote did say some lumps were yellowish-brown, and some were red, and some were in between, so I was being entirely accurate. Please note the text above.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “I used [Ruth 3:3 and 2 Samuel 14:2] those two verses because they both say that someone washed and then anointed with oil. This does away with oil as cleansing. They differentiate between the use of oil and washing. Brother Ross misrepresents my usage of it.”

    The fact that someone gets out of the tub does not mean that cleansing or washing is over. No one puts on the Oil of Olay before getting in the shower. Furthermore, anointing with oil is entirely different than applying modern cosmetics, unless one wishes to argue that men wore them, anointing feet means changing their color with rouge, lipstick, etc. (Luke 7:38); obviously when our Lord had His head anointed with oil (Luke 7:46) He did nothing like modern cosmetics.

    The verses with David, Daniel, and the prisoners show that anointing with oil has absolutely nothing to do with face paint. The same words are used. I don’t know how showing that the words have nothing to do with face paint is a red herring. However, I am not very skilled in debate, contrary to Pastor Mallinak’s assessement, so I could very easily be violating some law of debate of some kind and have no idea that I am doing it. Pastor Brandenburg has (I think) taught these things, so he knows much more about them than I do.

    Responding to the point about the Hebrew lexica, which said that henna/camphire was used as a spice, and when not used so was an orange die applied to the hair, etc., commented, “So yes, the camphire was used to color the body.”

    This is true, but the question is whether the people of God were dying their hair orange (which is also what the lexicon said happened when people used it as a dye), or whether the saints were using it as a perfume, while pagans were using it as a dye. The fact that the saints only used it as a perfume is established by each verse that is related to the subject in Scripture. We have to read into them to use this as an argument that they were actually dying their hair, etc. orange.

    On Proverbs 7:16, the Hebrew word is derived from the verb I mentioned. Proverbs 7:16 has the plural form of chatavah which is derived from the verb chatav. Prov 7:16 employs the participle form of the verb used in Deuteronomy 19:5. Cutting things is not sinful in Scripture, whether in verbs or participle forms thereof. Obviously people can cut things for bad or good purposes, but the example was to prove that we have something in Scripture that is not sinful but only bad people do it. I have proven that good people do what is mentioned in Proverbs 7:16 in the Bible. So the example does not work.

    The issue is also broader than this specifically. There is nothing in the Bible where we have chapter after chapter of godly women not doing something, and a number of examples of ungodly women doing it, and a contrast between the godly women not doing it and the ungodly doing it (as we have concerning cosmetics in Ezekiel), and a verbal differentation between the godly women and the ungodly (the godly being beautiful, the ungodly seeking to make themselves so artificially), that is not sinful.

    The anti-cosmetic conclusion is a result of the Biblical doctrine, which Pastor Brandenburg agrees with, that examples in Scripture are profitable for doctrine and for instruction in righteousness. Pastor Brandenburg is, nonetheless, to be highly commended for his attempts to argue otherwise Scripturally. In doing so, he shows a much greater respect for the Word of God then those do who just say, “I don’t care what these narratives say, and what all the examples are: I’m going to do it unless it specifically says “Thou shalt not do XYZ” (says this person as he sells cocaine). The reader who loves God should consider if his attempts (or mine) are the better Scripturally. (And you probably do love God if you actually care enough about honoring Him to read this entire debate!)

    Good night. I have not read over what I have written here before posting it, because I want to go home; so please be charitable to any typos, infelicities of manner of speech, etc. I am going home to my beautiful wife. I am glad I will not need to wipe anything off when I get home and give her a homecoming kiss. ☺

  63. Thomas Ross
    September 25, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    One argument that Pastor Brandenburg has used several times (and thus believes is valid, unlike, presumably, the many arguments for cosmetics that have been brought up and shot down, never to arise again) is that the normal noun for cosmetics, puk, “paint,” is translated “glistering” in 1 Chronicles 29:2. From this, the pro-cosmetic argument concludes that only “glistering” paint is condemned. There are a number of problems with this. 1.) In 1 Chronicles 29:2, the reference is to stones, not faces. 2.) I believe it was not simply translated “painted stones,” because the next clause says “of divers colours,” and it would be weird to say “colored/painted stones of divers colors.” 3.) If we want to argue that only “glistering” face paint is condemned, we are assuming from this one usage on stones that this is the only type of paint that is being condemned. This is a leap. We would hardly conclude that if God (theoretically) condemned examples of black, blue, purple, orange, and yellow houses with a phrase that said “don’t paint your house” that only that particular shade of black, that particular shade of blue, that special hue of dark purple, etc. were condemned; we would conclude that no paint at all was what God wanted. 4.) The word puk, in the only other reference besides the ones where it is rendered “paint” on women, and “glistering” (followed by “divers colours”) in 1 Chronicles 29:2, is Isaiah 54:11, where it is translated “fair colours” and speaks of stones. If a reference to “glistering” stones in 2 Chronicles 29:2 means that only “glistering” face paint is condemned (although the Hebrew word simply means “paint”—in 1 Chronicles 29:2, Keil and Delitzch say these are “stones of pigment”—for it is simply “paint,” not some special ultra-reflective face cosmetic alone, that is condemned by Scripture), then the reference to stones of “fair colours” in Isaiah 54:11 means that pretty colors of cosmetics are condemned and women can only put on ugly colors of cosmetics. No “glistering” paint because of stones, 1 Chronicles 29:2; then no “fair colours” of paint because of stones, Isaiah 54:11. No red lipstick—only black or lurid green. No skin-tone cheek powder—only a color that looks like leprosy. 5.) Ezekiel 23:40 condemns cosmetics with a verb, “paint,” that is entirely different than puk. God thus uses a variety of language to condemn cosmetics; the case is not based upon the noun puk alone. So no condemnation of only “glistering” (or pleasant looking, “fair colours”) of cosmetics can be derived from the pro-cosmetic analysis of puk that stakes it all on “glistering” in 1 Chronicles 29:2.

    On another note, a good example of what various oils were used for is seen in John 12:3: “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard (muron, “a strongly aromatic and expensive ointment — ‘perfume, perfumed oil,’” according to the Louw-Nida Greek lexicon), very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.” Mary was not changing the color of the Lord’s feet when she anointed them. Aromatic oils/perfumes are Scripturally countenanced and ordained of God, even (what Mary did was a “good work,”), but changing the color of one’s face (which is what lipstick, eyeshadow, base layers, powders for the cheeks, etc. all do) is always condemned.

    I believe I have refuted every argument that has been advanced in this discussion that is based on Scripture (and history) to support face coloring by women. The fact remains that in our infallible Rule of Faith only ungodly women used makeup, no godly women used it, the lack of use by godly women is contrasted with the ungodly women using it, godly women were fair but ungodly women sought to artificially make themselves so, and “these things are written for our ensamples” and are “profitable for doctrine . . . and instruction in righteousness.”

  64. September 25, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Brother Ross,

    Handing yourself the trophy at the end, the one that you purchased and engraved, doesn’t mean that you represent a Scriptural or historical position on this. If the right position is the one with the greatest amount of verbiage, yours wins here at Jackhammer. You gave answers, but I don’t count them as proving this point that you wish. You have way overstated Scripture on this case, especially with that ending statement: “changing the color of one’s face is always condemned.” It is hard to figure out exactly what it is you are arguing for. If a woman puts on sun tan lotion and spends any amount of time in the sun, she will change the color of her skin. The Shunammite had obviously changed the color of her skin when she said it was black. “Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me.” Song of Solomon 1:6. You might say, “The sun changed the color of her skin.” If it is wrong to change skin color, then she needed to stay indoors.

    I had a bunch of problems with you answers in comment #62, and I’ll read more carefully #63 tomorrow. Part of it is that you don’t actually answer my arguments. One that comes to mind immediately is this ridiculous argument that women wouldn’t have worn an entire lump of myrrh upon them. Oh really? And who actually argued for that? My assumption was that a woman wouldn’t put the whole lump on her face or body parts, any more than a woman today wouldn’t attach a chunk of facial powder to her face.

    Another that comes to mind is your lexiconal references. You quote a lexiconal reference that you depend on greatly, which anyone reading here knows. You speak like the lexicons are a final authority in interpretation. You know that isn’t true, but you talk like it for whoever is listening here. And then in your own lexiconal reference for Esther 2:12 it says, “oil of myrrh Est 212; the yellowish-brown to red lumps of resin are especially valuable.” In the case of Esther, the lexicon doesn’t make reference to perfume or fragrance, only to color, color that was yellowish-brown to red. Do you also not understand that a resin is something that you rub on, and that is used for coloring?

    And regarding Psalm 104:15 you read Matthew Henry into something that is putting oil into the mouth, when a plain reading of his oil section, making the face to shine, says that it was applied directly to the face, changing the appearance of the face. Spurgeon, who read the Puritans, writes: “And oil to make his face to shine. The easterns use oil more than we do, and probably are wiser in this respect than we are: they delight in anointing with perfumed oils, and regard the shining of the face as a choice emblem of joy.” He adds this later in that section: “Verse 15. — The ancients made much use of oil to beautify their persons. We read of “oil to make man’s face to shine”. Ruth anointed herself for decoration (Ruth 3:3), and the woman of Tekoah and the prophet Daniel omitted the use of oil for the contrary reason (2 Samuel 14:3 Daniel 10:3). The custom is also mentioned in Matthew 6:17 Luke 7:46. –Ambrose Serle in “Horae Solitariae”, 1815.” WOW! The ancients made much use of oil to beautify their persons! Go back to the drawing board, Thomas. And the Ruth passage is mentioned. Thomas’ deep exegesis for this: “Boaz couldn’t have seen her in the dark.” How credible is that?

    I’m not done yet. I just got back from a Bible study up in a different area where we are seeing a new church start. I’ll say more tomorrow.

  65. September 26, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    the many arguments for cosmetics that have been brought up and shot down, never to arise again

    Oh dear.

    Ummm…

    I suppose that means Thomas won the argument. He’s convinced, and now he’s convinced that he should be convinced. And he’s also convinced that we should be convinced as well. And I’m convinced that he’s convinced of these things as well.

    I hardly have time to read what you’ve written. Let alone reply. That could be why things shot down have not re-arisen. Sheer exhaustion killed them.

    I’ll not be back to this discussion.

  66. Bobby
    September 26, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Kent and Dave,

    Just so you know, when I read Thomas writing like this, it reminds me to death of how the two of you write! I don’t have a problem when any of you three do it, but rest assured, you all do it. BTW, some of Thomas’ barbs are hilarious to me.

  67. Thomas Ross
    September 26, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Let us commend Pastor Mallinak for his time in writing on this post to this point. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you.”

    I look forward to hearing what Pastor Brandenburg has to say. BTW, this discussion should, Lord willing, be helpful in the dress book, since it is still pre-publication. Hopefully we can get a publisher that will print it before the 2nd edition of Thou Shalt Keep Them gets out–it would be nice to have the book before the end of the Millenium.

  68. September 26, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    Pastor Mitchell, thanks for the peacemaking, and we are grateful for your composed and tranquil spirit. When you enter the room I feel washed over like a gentle ocean breeze. Thomas does need your help, so I hope he appreciates it. When you say I write like Thomas, do you mean bad arguments? Or not answering arguments? Red herrings? Or are you talking about a kind of combative spirit?

    I have one thing to show. Good women put something on their faces to change their appearance, to make them more beautiful. If I find one, his position melts away like the spokes in a transcendental wheel.

  69. Bobby
    September 27, 2007 at 6:18 am

    I was reffering to the “barbs” that cause me to laugh. Like the “I’m going home to kiss my wife and I’m glad I don’t have to wipe anything off first.” Or the, “Shot down, never to rise again” stuff.

    I’m not commenting on bad arguments, red herrings, smoked salmon, or paper dolls. Just the stuff that cracks me up.

    Now I shall float on out like a downy feather on the gentle breezes of the southern pacific.

  70. September 27, 2007 at 9:35 am

    I’m going to space some of these out, just to make it easier for me and for the readers. I’m also going to argue here more in the spirit of Thomas, to show Pastor Mitchell the difference. You’ll see it, Pastor Mitchell. And then you can enjoy my barbs (not to be confused with Barbie, who has unnaturally rosie cheeks).

    Is anyone besides me struggling to know what I’m arguing against. It started with this: Scripture forbids women from wearing any cosmetics. That’s what I thought it was. He argues that by showing, first, there are three examples of women painting their face and they are always evil. Second, he claims that no Godly women were seen to wear cosmetics. Third, history before the 20th century has Christians forbidding cosmetics. Fourth, God made us beautiful and we are denying that by adding anything to change that look. NOW he is arguing against face painting (Where are the clowns?). At one moment in the latest posts, he says, God condemns women changing the color of their skin. It changed midstream without any announcement. Why do you think? No, really. Why do you think?

    I’ve argued against his no-cosmetics position in three ways. First, having an activity three times practiced by evil people and no good people does not prohibit the activity. I have given numerous examples of other activities only evil people engaged in and that those activities are not prohibited by God. The latest one was that only evil women had carvings in their bed (Proverbs 7:16). Thomas’ comeback—Good people did carve things. There we go. He dealt with my example, so let’s move on. Did I say only evil people carve things? No. I showed that evil women alone had carved beds. They like to use them to lure men into those beds—the carved beds are associated with their luring. I am sorry to report that I sleep nightly in a rice bed, which has carved bedposts. Since I live according to Biblical examples and only evil people had carved beds, should I give mine up? Please help me. By the way, is Thomas against painted things? We do have the existence of painted rocks by his own admission. That would be a parallel with good people carve things.

    My second line of argumentation was showing that God did endorse applying oil based products to the face to change the appearance and to beautify. These oil based products are referred to as cosmetics. I gave Psalm 104:15 and showed the Matthew Henry and C. H. Spurgeon agreed with my position. Psalm 104:15 says to use oil to cause the face to shine. That does away with his historical argument as well. I argued that we see this with Esther 2:12 and Ruth 3:3 as well. I said that Solomon accumulated camphire, which was used to apply on the face to beautify. Esther applied her products to get ready to see the King. The lexiconal entry refernced by Thomas indicates the use of color. Ruth applied her products to see Boaz. The Shulammite in Song of Solomon 1:6 changes the color of her skin out in the sun. She isn’t considered evil in Scripture. My contention is that products can be applied to the face, but should be used modestly in the spirit of 1 Timothy 2:9. I also contend that the examples of face painting are extremes, describing how a harlot would fix herself up.

    Thomas argues against this with a kind of scorched earth methodology, throwing out whatever he can to cause doubt. He says oil is soap and if it isn’t that, then it is oil of oolay, and if it isn’t that, then it is pouring it all over the head like what Mary did with Jesus, and if it isn’t that, then they ingested the oil like a poorly running engine, drinking it in, causing the face to shine. Most of you know that when we eat large amounts of oil how that helps our complexions, you know. Mark it down, next time you are dieting, add a quart of oil and see how that helps you look. Who needs yellowish-brown face paint when our faces will turn yellow and perhaps green from oil ingestion. Oh, and he also says that the oil for Esther was for purification alone, not for beauty. Why? Because the text says that these were days of purification. It doesn’t say that the oil was for purification, but who cares. Let’s just make the jump to connecting the days to the purpose of the oil. It doesn’t work at all grammatically, but if it helps the cause of a position, we should do it, right? Wrong.

    Third, I’ve shown that Jewish women in Jewish history are shown to wear beautifying products on the face (cosmetics). They are also worn by other Christians in history, at least according to Spurgeon, if we can trust him on this.

    I have more that can be said, but I’m trying to keep this to something smaller than Oxford English Dictionary.

  71. September 28, 2007 at 9:12 am

    Bro. Brandenburg,

    In addition to carved beds you could also refer to birthday celebrations (you may have done this and I missed it). The selective use of the regulative principle is employed by the Watchtower Society to shun birthday parties. For instance, in “Reasoning from the Scriptures” (and other publications) they argue that all references in the Bible to birthday celebrations show that the wicked practice them (Pharoah in Genesis 40, Herod in Matthew 14). And they argue that no righteous people in Scripture are seen celebrating birthdays. They also cite Neander and Fairbairn to show that ancient Jews and early Christians shunned birthday celebrations. And they cite Zeitung and Linton to show scores of examples of magic and idolatry accompanying birthday celebrations through the years. And of course they deal with passages which they feel may be misconstrued to argue in favor of birthdays. Plus they note that Jesus gave instructions to commemorate His death not His birthday. As you know, they deal with this subject at length in many of their publications, such as the two volume “Insight on the Scriptures.”

    Their wives probably don’t expect to receive makeup for their birthdays.

  72. September 28, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Maybe you missed it, but Job’s children celebrated one another’s birthdays – in fact, they died at one such celebration. According to all indications, his children were saved.

  73. Thomas Ross
    September 29, 2007 at 12:40 am

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote:

    “Is anyone besides me struggling to know what I’m arguing against.”

    My contention is that cosmetics, defined as objects that artificially change the color of the case for the purpose of making onself beautiful, are not countenanced (pun intended) in Scripture.

    Pastor Brandenburg represented my position as: “Fourth, God made us beautiful and we are denying that by adding anything to change that look.”

    What I did was point out that many times in Scripture godly women “are” fair/beautiful, but only ungodly women “make [themselves] fair” by applying color-altering substances to their faces.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “NOW he is arguing against face painting (Where are the clowns?). At one moment in the latest posts, he says, God condemns women changing the color of their skin. It changed midstream without any announcement. Why do you think? No, really. Why do you think?”

    The word “paint” is the word in Scripture for applying lipstick, blush, etc. Those are forms of paint. Do we really think that the pagan nations around Israel were putting clown faces on, or that is what Jezebel, Israel pictured as a harlot, etc. were doing to seduce men?

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “First, having an activity three times practiced by evil people and no good people does not prohibit the activity. I have given numerous examples of other activities only evil people engaged in and that those activities are not prohibited by God.”

    All the examples so far have not worked, however, since I have shown for each one that there was no comparison. Even if we found one somewhere, we would need to find one where we have chapter after chapter after chapter about godly people and their actions in this area, and a number of references to ungodly people doing differently. One word that is found only once in Scripture is a radically different situation. Please note again that there is no verse that condemns polygamy outside of the examples. Furthermore, When God clothes Israel, and makes her “exceeding beautiful,” He puts no cosmetics on her (Ezekiel 16:13); when she rebels and goes her own way, she puts cosmetics on (Ezekiel 23:40). There is a definite and deliberate contrast between the godly absence of cosmetics and the ungodly appropriation of them.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “I showed that evil women alone had carved beds.”

    The verse actually does not say they had carved beds. It says “carved works,” which is the participle form of a verb that is used very frequently with reference to godly people.
    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “My second line of argumentation was showing that God did endorse applying oil based products to the face to change the appearance and to beautify. These oil based products are referred to as cosmetics. I gave Psalm 104:15 and showed the Matthew Henry and C. H. Spurgeon agreed with my position. Psalm 104:15 says to use oil to cause the face to shine.”

    The main problem with the Psalm 104:15 argument is that Psalm 104:14 makes it clear that the oil was ingested, just like the wine and the bread. I believe I dealt with Matthew Henry already. Applying Oil of Olay to make one’s skin nice is a different thing than changing one’s skin color. Please note that the quotation from Spurgeon referenced Matthew 6:17 and Luke 7:46—so if we are going to use these verses to justify eye-shadow, blush, etc. then we have to say that the men in the audience Christ spoke to, and our Lord Himself, regularly used such things, which is, of course, false.

    “I argued that we see this with Esther 2:12 and Ruth 3:3 as well.”

    I have demonstrated that neither verse has anything to do with modern face-painting. All the arguments in this paragraph have already been answered; if the reader has read the comments to this point, I am satisfied with what I have said on them. The only thing that I have not answered is Song 1:6. The fact that we get a tan in the sun seems rather different than the universal negative on applying face-paint (eye coloring, liptstick, etc.).
    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “I also contend that the examples of face painting are extremes, describing how a harlot would fix herself up.”

    It is true that this is his contention, but how “she painted her face” (period, no other comments; nothing like “she overly painted her face” “she immodestly painted her face” is found anywhere, and no godly women, in chapter after chapter describing them, have anything like “she modestly painted her face.” There is not even one reference.)

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “Most of you know that when we eat large amounts of oil how that helps our complexions, you know. Mark it down, next time you are dieting, add a quart of oil and see how that helps you look.”

    Did Psalm 104:15 say, “a quart of oil”? Did it specify any amount at all with which to season one’s food? We could argue the same way that fat is bad, but in Scripture the fat of the animal (same word as oil, BTW) is the best part, the part offered to God. When people are often in danger of starvation, their view of what is good to eat is rather different than it is in 21st century America where overeating is a huge problem and there is no starvation.

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “It doesn’t say that the oil was for purification, but who cares. Let’s just make the jump to connecting the days to the purpose of the oil. It doesn’t work at all grammatically, but if it helps the cause of a position, we should do it, right? Wrong.”

    So their “days of purification” were accomplished without using things for purification? The verse says, “six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odours, and with other things for the purifying of the women.” These things are not for the purifying of the women?

    Pastor Brandenburg wrote, “Third, I’ve shown that Jewish women in Jewish history are shown to wear beautifying products on the face (cosmetics).”

    How? Where? Where is the source for godly Jewish women in the OT era wearing face paint? I would like to examine it.

    “They are also worn by other Christians in history.”

    I would be happy to see one quote by any patristic writer, or medieval writer, etc. that commends them. The Spurgeon quote has been dealt with already. Please note that in making this contention, Pastor Brandenburg is going against the conclusion of one who wrote a book on this subject (the author of Powder and Paint, which I cited above). We need strong evidence to conclude that someone who wrote a book on it is in error.

    Bro Grassi mentioned birthdays. The problem is that Job mentions birthday celebrations in a positive way, so the Watchtower people simply need to study their Bibles instead of Watchtower literature. That is a far better way to tank the Watchtower than to argue that we are not to make the examples normative. BTW, this discussion is not strictly on the Regulative Principle of worship—that is a worship principle—this is a discussion on the matter of getting doctrine from examples.

    During the course of this discussion, I wanted to see if there were any descriptions of ungodly women adorning themselves where there was NOT a reference to face paint. Obviously there are women who are ungodly in the Bible where we do not know what they looked like at all; but are there any passages where there is not a reference to paint in descriptions of ungodly women? Please consider on these lines the two following possible (though not certain) references:

    Is. 3:16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

    Here, the word “wanton” comes from the Hebrew saqar (rqc), which may refer to cosmetics. K-B reads, “the cognate languages offer two possibilities: —a. MHeb. rqs qal to look at, nif. to be looked at; JArm. råqVs to look; Syr. s´qar to observe, regard with an oblique, squinting look (Gesenius-B. following Payne Smith 2721); —b. MHeb. råqDs to colour red, pi. to paint one’s face; JArm. sbst. a∂rVqIs red colour of facial make-up; Syr. s´qar to make red, sbst. s´qaœrtaœ red colour; cf. Arb . . . pi. (Jenni Pi{el 245): pt. pl. fem. twør;VqAcVm (var. iAvVm): with MˆyÅnyEo Is 3:16: several possibilities emerge which are suggested by the cognate languages, on which see Gradwohl Farben 84: —a. following the versions, to make seductive glances, ogle, blink, wink Gesenius-B.; KBL; Zorell Lex.; König Wb. 470a; —b. to paint the eyes with a red colour, use facial make-up, on which see Gradwohl Farben 84 and also p. 22, rqc by metathesis

  74. Thomas Ross
    September 29, 2007 at 12:44 am

    Somehow, the bottom part of this got cut off. Here is the rest of it:

    Is 3:16: several possibilities emerge which are suggested by the cognate languages, on which see Gradwohl Farben 84: —a. following the versions, to make seductive glances, ogle, blink, wink Gesenius-B.; KBL; Zorell Lex.; König Wb. 470a; —b. to paint the eyes with a red colour, use facial make-up, on which see Gradwohl Farben 84 and also p. 22, rqc by metathesis

  75. T. Ross
    September 29, 2007 at 12:45 am

    It didn’t let me paste after the word “metathesis.” Here is the rest from right after that:

    on these alternatives see also Wildberger BK 10:138; [note that qrc also seems to mean (from cognates) “to colour something red . . . to put on make-up, . . . red colour, make-up; . . . to put on make-up, rub, paint . . . red coloured make-up”]—c. with respect to the versions the first suggestion is preferable.”
    The Jewish Targum on Isaiah 3:16 reads, “they walk with their eyes painted” (John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament, on Isaiah 3:16).
    Thus, while it is not certain, Isaiah 3:16 could well refer to cosmetics as well.

    On Proverbs 6:25, “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids,” commentators state: “One of the cautions of this instruction, avoid alluring beauty. . . . eyelids–By painting the lashes, women enhanced beauty” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary). “[T]o paint the eye-lids [is here spoken of]. I have many Asiatic drawings in which this is expressed. They have a method of polishing the eyes with a preparation of antimony, so that they appear with an indescribable lustre; or, as one who mentions the fact from observation, ‘Their eyes appear to be swimming in bliss’” (Adam Clarke).

    If these two verses are references to cosmetics, there are no descriptive passages concerning ungodly women in the Bible where cosmetics are not mentioned—the exact reverse of the situation with godly women, where in tremendous numbers of descriptive passages cosmetics are never mentioned! Even if one wishes to argue that these two passages do not deal with face paint, one still has a majority (60%) of passages that describe the adorning of ungodly women where face paint/cosmetics are mentioned, and 0% in the hundreds of verses on godly women and their appearance where face paint is on them. However, even without these, the three plain texts are more than sufficient. No godly women adorned themselves with cosmetics in Scripture, but when Scripture describes the adorning of ungodly women, they either very frequently or always wore cosmetics.
    For a while I thought that the whore of Babylon (Revelation 17-18) was an exception, since nothing about cosmetics is specifically mentioned in Revelation 17-18. However, she is compared to Jezebel (Revelation 2:20-23; 17:2; 18:3, 9), and thus cosmetics are part of her description, in contrast with the pure bride and wife of Christ, who did not wear any (Revelation 21:2; Isaiah 61:10; 62:5; Revelation 19:7-8; 2 Corinthians 11:2; etc.).

    I thought it would be good to be thorough demolishing the “glistening” argument. Some of what follows has been said before, a lot of it has not. The following only needs to be read if one still considers that argument valid. Then I conclude this post. I will likely not be able to post again until next week sometime, because I am going away on the Lord’s day to preach at a church a number of hours away, and I cannot guarantee Internet access.

    One might also attempt to argue that JK…wÚp, puk, “paint” in 2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30 refers only to “extreme” cosmetics because the word is rendered “glistering” with reference to stones in 1 Chronicles 29:2. However, this assertion, has many problems. 1.) It is possible (though not certain) that the word in 1 Chronicles has an entirely unrelated meaning, possibly even from a different root (The Koehler-Baumgartner (subsequently K-B) Hebrew lexicon suggests “hard mortar.”) Even if it has the same root, it could have an entirely different idea; this happens in Hebrew (cf. the verb chalal, which can mean “be defiled,” “profaned,” or the apparently unrelated “to begin”). What is certain is that 1 Chronicles 29:2 refers to stones, not faces. 2.) On the assumption that 1 Chronicles 29:2 does relate to the matter of “paint” as in 2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30, the KJV likely did not render it “painted stones,” because its next clause says “of divers colours,” and it would be strange to say “colored/painted stones of divers colors.” 3.) If we want to argue that only “glistering” face paint is condemned, we are without warrent assuming from this one KJV usage on stones (where the Hebrew word simply means “paint”—in 1 Chronicles 29:2, for example, Keil and Delitzch’s commentary states that these are “stones of pigment”—for it is simply “paint,” not some special ultra-bright face cosmetic alone) that this is the only type of paint that is being condemned. This is a leap. It assumes that Jezebel wore only an especially bright form of face paint. It assumes that the other instances of the ungodly were also this especially bright form of paint. It assumes that the reason the paint is condemned is that the paint was bright, rather than the substance itself being condemned. It assumes that godly women wore non-brilliant cosmetics. All these assumptions are unwarranted. It would be like arguing, “Jezebel wore bright red lipstick, so light red, hot pink, blue, purple, yellow, green, black, etc. are all OK—in fact, even bright 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.” 4.) The word puk, in the only other reference besides the ones where it is rendered “paint” on women, and “glistering” (followed by “divers colours”) in 1 Chronicles 29:2, is Isaiah 54:11, where it is translated “fair colours” and speaks of stones. If a reference to “glistering” stones in 2 Chronicles 29:2 means that only “glistering” face paint is condemned, then the reference to stones of “fair colours” in Isaiah 54:11 means that pretty colors of cosmetics are condemned and women can only put on ugly colors of cosmetics. No “glistering” paint because of stones, 1 Chronicles 29:2; then no “fair colours” of paint because of stones, Isaiah 54:11. No red lipstick—only black or lurid green. No skin-tone cheek powder—only a color that looks like leprosy. Indeed, the Hebrew structure of Isaiah 54:11 is identical to that of the “paint” verses 2 Kings 9:30 & Jeremiah 4:30 (bapuch), while 1 Chronicles has a different structure (puk without ba and in a construct state with ‘even connected with maqquef), so the argument that “fair colours” of paint are forbidden is stronger than the argument that only “glistering” cosmetics are condemned. 5.) Ezekiel 23:40 condemns cosmetics with the verb kahal “paint,” an entirely different word than puk. God thus uses a variety of language to condemn cosmetics; the case is not based upon the noun puk alone. So no condemnation of only “glistering” (or pleasant looking, “fair colours”) of cosmetics can be derived from a pro-cosmetic analysis of puk that stakes it all on “glistering” in 1 Chronicles 29:2.

  76. September 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Does anyone feel filibustered? Through sheer exhaustion, we give in weighed down by pounds of verbiage. Does something so clear require this much effort?

    Again, I remind you that he is arguing the prohibition of all cosmetics based on three Scriptural examples of evil women who painted their faces. In comment 72, he says that cosmetics are not countenanced in Scripture and then in comment 74 he comes back to them being condemned by God’s Word. Earlier he had said that any changing of the color of the skin is condemned, but with an example of the Shulammite changing the color of her skin in SSol 1:6, he doesn’t retract that statement. He does not retract. Why? He can’t say that it is fine to change the color of the skin. She did change the color of her skin, but he can’t say that it is permissible. The sun is natural and natural products are, um, natural. God made the sun and God made camphire. Both are natural.

    Oh, and lipstick and blush and ETC. (he uses “etc.” fairly ambiguous here—no “etc.” allowed with Thomas Ross)—those are all face paint. Why? He says so. Can women use face powder? Can they use a base to smooth out the skin? Where do we draw the line? Is an eye pencil actually paint? Um. Um. We need answers. Break it down for us, Thomas.

    He applies this scorched earth methodology to oil on the face. He attempts to argue away all products on the face that change appearance, but in the end, he makes it just paint, but not really, because that is actually lipstick, blush, and ETC. He argues against any products used to beautify, but NOW it is only face paint that beautifies, and he does this without retraction. Why? Well, if he gives in on the oil products on the face, then that opens the door for putting things on the face.

    A woman leaves Wisconsin pale white and goes to Florida in December with a bottle of Coppertone and she comes back golden brown. What does the Bible say about that? That’s permissible color changing in the make-up handbook of Thomas Ross.

    And none of my examples of evil people activities work according to Thomas Ross. They just don’t. There we go. They don’t. Proverbs 7:16 doesn’t work. We have an evil woman who specifically carves her bed. I like Bro. Ross “carved works” reference. He knows that “works” isn’t in the Hebrew, but here it is convenient. He says it is a verb, when it is a noun. When it is convenient, he uses it, and when it isn’t, he doesn’t. It is italicized in the King James Version. Does he not recognize the providential use of italics in the King James? The bed has decorative carvings on it and it is being used to lure. Only evil women in Scripture have those. We have chapter after chapter after chapter of good people sleeping in beds with no mention of carvings and here we have a mention of carvings on the bed with an evil person and she is actually using those carvings to lure men.

    Most people would have understood my clown reference as a joke, but even so, if any kind of color changing substance cannot be practiced, then clowns are condemned. This is an important subpoint in the Ross make-up handbook.

    Psalm 104:14 doesn’t make it clear that the items in v. 15 were ingested. The word ingested, nor anything like it, is used. Spurgeon believed it was applied to the face and he quotes another who does. He says this was done for beauty. That also gives information for the historic argument. Regarding a quotation that Spurgeon used in the NT, Psalm 104:15 was written in the Hebrew, Thomas, and those gospel passages were written in Greek. The OT was written in the Hebrew language, which is a different language than what the NT was written in.

    This is what Gill says about Ruth 3:3, “and anoint thee; not with aromatic ointments, as great personages, both men and women, used as Aben Ezra notes, but with common oil, Ruth being a poor widow that she might look sleek and smooth:” She wasn’t looking sleek and smooth for Boaz, so she put on an oil product that made her look sleek and smooth. As a Godly woman, why didn’t she just trust the Lord with her present appearance? Why change it?

    Enough for now.

  77. September 29, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    I will admit, I have cheated and not read the reeeeaaallly long responses – but I wanted to comment on something stated in reply #71 about the Bible only showing birthday celebrations as evil.

    In Job we see his children observing one another’s birthdays and having a feast on that day. In fact, it was on such a day that all ten of his children were killed.

    Job 1:4-5 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

    Job 3:1-10 After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day. And Job spake, and said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months. Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein. Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning. Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day: Because it shut not up the doors of my mother’s womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes.

    Based on the usage of the term “his day” in chapters 1 and 3 of Job, and the context of chapter one, we can conclude that there are godly people that do observe birthdays and God is not against that celebration. There are no words of censure about their feasts – the only negativity attached to their celebration of the eldest brother’s birthday was the fact that it was the specific day they were killed together as part of the test by Satan.

  78. Sonya
    September 29, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    hmmm…. yesterday was my birthday.

  79. September 29, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Happy belated Birthday!

    Just don’t have any feasts in your house… 😉

  80. T. Ross
    October 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    My Concluding Remarks On Cosmetics

    Dear brethren,

    I have not had time to post anything for quite a while, having started teaching 2nd year Greek and Prison Epistles at Baptist College of Ministry, and continuing to hold my tentmaking security job, so that I have been working, if one includes travel time, 14 hour days Monday through Friday. There is not time to comment on the Lord’s Day, really, because Sunday afternoon I am doing an evangelistic Bible study or doing other forms of soulwinning, and Saturday is the only day left for everything else. (Resting on the sabbath has been quite a nice thing—we aren’t offering bullocks, though—but we might roast things with fire in the oven.). I have scraped together a few moments at long last to post some concluding remarks on the subject at hand. Unless Pastor Brandenburg puts up new verses or very different arguments, I will cease at this time and say no more. If he wishes to put up concluding remarks as well, I will let him have the last word. One who reads this entire discussion can, I believe, come to an informed conclusion on this subject without further comment. I will also mention, though, that I have posted an in-depth analysis of this subject, with some revisions based on this discussion, on my blog, http://www.agapekaiphilia.blogspot.com . It deals with the Scriptural and the historical evidence on this subject. Also, I commend Pastor Brandenburg for the time and effort he has put into this discussion, as well as all others who have commented, and all who have considered obeying the “least of his commandments” important enough to read through all of this. May we all come to the mind of the Spirit on this. (We certainly will in heaven—where, BTW, I don’t think anyone will be wearing face paint. Another aside—if you don’t like that last sentence, you are free to strike it from the record.)

    This is how I believe the situation stands, after all this discussion. I will summarize the anti-cosmetic arguments, and the pro-cosmetic replies, as they appear to me.

    1.) We have several clear passages where ungodly women altered the color of their faces with cosmetic articles (2 Kings 9:30; Ezekiel 23:40; Jeremiah 4:30). We also have a number of passages where it is possible that cosmetics/paint are used on ungodly women (Isaiah 3:16; Proverbs 6:25). If the possible passages are included, there are no passages in Scripture where ungodly women are described where their description does not include cosmetics (As proven earlier, the potential exception of Rev 17 is a Jezebel image). If the possible passages are excluded, cosmetics are specifically mentioned in the large majority of passages where ungodly women are described in Scripture.

    This testimony was argued against by affirming that the cosmetics of the ungodly women were extreme. They were alleged to be brilliant, glistening, extreme because of the word “deckedst,” etc. All of these objections were shown to be unsustainable and violations of grammatical-historical exegesis. The fact remains that it is simply recorded that the ungodly woman “painted her face” (2 Kings 9:30), with nothing at all that states that God really meant “she painted her face too much.” On the contrary, the context militated against only excessive use (e. g., Eze 23:40, “didst wash thyself” is not the “sin” of “excessively washing”) being in view.

    2.) No passage of Scripture states or implies that godly women painted their faces/used cosmetics. Despite chapter after chapter with specific details about what godly women looked like, dressed like, their perfumes, detailed descriptions of their faces, lips, noses, cheeks, eyes, etc. in the Song of Solomon and other passages, absolutely nothing about them wearing cosmetics was found—and these things are “written for our ensamples.” 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), the Shunnamite in the Song of Solomon (and she who gave hospitality to Elisha), Sarah, Rebekah, Elizabeth, Priscilla, Deborah, Leah, Dorcas, Jochebed, Phoebe, Miriam, Joanna, Rachel, Hannah, Anna, Salome, Esther, Martha, Abigail, Ruth, and all other godly women in Scripture have absolutely nothing mentioned that has to do with applying cosmetics.

    This testimony was argued against by finding encyclopedias where the word “cosmetics” were used for oils, soap, and other cleansing agents; but this was confusing a very broad use of the word by the encyclopedias and other sources (which even spoke of things like “cosmetic massage”) with the narrow issue of cosmetics as face paint, that is, things like lipstick, blush, etc. that women employ to change their color to make themselves appear beautiful. Verses such as Song 4:3 and Esther 2:12 were advanced to support godly women employing cosmetics (defined as face paint), but these were found to deal with the unrelated question of using oils to soften the skin, etc., with cleanliness, or other unrelated matters. Verses that dealt with eating food (Psalm 104:14-15) and with anointing with oil (Ruth 3:3) were advanced, but since men like king David and Daniel did the same anointing with oil (2 Samuel 12:20), these verses were found to be entirely unrelated, since nobody would want to allege that David put on eyeshadow or lipstick. Finally, verses that dealt with perfumes were brought forward, and encyclopedias were cited to show that the substances made into perfumes were also used in the near East to color the face. However, the verses were godly women used these perfumes in Scripture were shown by their contexts to be for the use of perfumes only. Furthermore, the fact that these perfumes, when used for paint, created colors like orange made it extremely unlikely that godly women would somehow be “unnoticeable” but dye their hair orange, so it was concluded that ungodly women outside of Scripture may have used these perfumes for paint, but nothing in Scripture indicated that this use related in any way to the godly.

    Attempts were also made to find things that are self-evidently non-moral that only ungodly people did in Scripture to undercut the testimony that the godly women did not wear face paint. Around seven examples were set forth, but all of them did not work, since godly people also did them in Scripture, as was proven with verses. The final example that was set forth was Proverbs 7:16 (“carved works”) which was defended based on an apparent misunderstanding of the Hebrew text by cosmetic proponents. Although the fact that the word there was a feminine plural substantival participle (and thus labeled as a noun) from the common verb “to cut,” and cutting was something godly people did throughout Scripture (Deut 19:5, etc.), it was argued that the word was a noun, not derived from cut. However, the fact is that it is a noun derived from the verb, and one who wishes to continue to argue otherwise would do well to explain why the word in question is absolutely identical in form to the feminine plural participle of the verb “cut.” It was also argued that the word “works” was not in the verse, so I was misinterpreting the passage. However, the word is a plural participle, hence the supply of the plural “works,” which is absolutely a correct and accurate translation.
    It was also argued “that evil women alone had carved beds,” and since throughout Scripture people are sleeping on beds, we have an example of something people were doing throughout the Bible in chapter after chapter, but was not immoral, despite specific mention only by evil people (note godly people were on beds as well, Genesis 48:2, etc.). However, apart from the very obvious fact that Proverbs 7:16 simply does not say “carved beds,” but “carved works,” a very powerful point in favor of the anti-cosmetic position was brought out by this pro-cosmetic argument. The best example an intelligent cosmetic advocate who searches the Scriptures very carefully could bring out of something only ungodly people did, but godly people did not do, that was not a sin, was the use of carved works on a bed. Even granting the false premise that the word in Prov 7:16 was unique to the ungodly, the gigantic contrast between this example and the Scriptural testimony on cosmetics is striking. There are hundreds of verses that deal with the matter of the appearances of godly and ungodly women in Scripture. The closest thing that could be brought against the fact that godly women never wore cosmetics in hundreds of verses of descriptions of them in the Bible, and ungodly women regularly did so, as evidenced by a number of passages, was a word used one time in one verse. There are not chapter after chapter of description of the beds of the godly in Scripture, where very detailed descriptions of the items on them are found. There are not numbers of examples of the beds of the ungodly where very different items were found. The best thing a very intelligent and diligent student of the Word who believed in cosmetics could bring against the hundreds of verses that described godly and ungodly women was a single verse employing a single word that was supposedly only found on the ungodly (and this example didn’t even work, anyway, since godly people did the same things). The anti-cosmetic point that there is nothing at all in the Bible that has a comparable amount of information on it where a contrast is set up between the godly and the ungodly has been powerfully vindicated. The fact that in hundreds of verses godly women never wore cosmetics, but in all or at least the definite majority of descriptive passages of ungodly women they were worn, is powerfully vindicated as a testimony—nothing comparable that is moral or amoral can be brought forth by the pro-cosmetic position.

    3.) It was also demonstrated that Ezekiel employed a deliberate contrast between rebellious Israel wearing cosmetics and righteous Israel not wearing them. It was demonstrated that a deliberate contrast exists between the numbers of verses where godly were “were/are beautiful” to the Lord and to the people of God, and the ungodly women sought to “make [themselves] beautiful” but “in vain” through the application of cosmetics. It was demonstrated that, like cosmetics, polygamy is only condemned by example in Scripture. Some of these arguments were challenged, some were not, but they all were unshaken.

    4.) It was demonstrated that the universal testimony of godly OT Israel in history, and the universal testimony Bible-believing ancient, medieval, reformational, and post-reformational Christiandom (and even the great body of unsaved “Christianity”) was against cosmetics until relatively recently. The writing of researchers who have actually written books on this subject (i. e., Powder and Paint) were quoted to show that cosmetics were condemned by those who followed Scripture. It was thus demonstrated that history is firmly on the anti-cosmetic side.

    Against this, the testimony of modern Judaism was given, but the fact that modern anti-Christ post-Christian Judaism, the development of the religion of the Pharisees, thinks cosmetics are OK was shown to have no relation to the practice of the OT saints of God. It was alleged that the patristics did not really oppose cosmetics, but not a single quote from them could be brought forth in favor of “moderate” use in any of the reams of their writings, nor could the pages of quotes available on my article on my blogsite be overthrown. It was alleged that very little was written in the medieval era, and this is why absolutely nothing in favor of cosmetics could be adduced, but this was shown to be a rather shocking misunderstanding of medieval history, since a great deal was written, apart from the simple fact that archeology can demonstrate if cosmetics were used, just as it can validate the use of spoons, bowls, etc. by digging them up. It was alleged that the Puritan writer Matthew Henry wrote in favor of cosmetics in his commentary, but the fact that this was a very dubious assertion was demonstrated by the fact that Henry condemned them in all passages that actually dealt with cosmetics, and that he included himself in the allegedly pro-cosmetic assertion brought forward by the opposing position, and thus would be the enormity of a Puritan that would endorse men wearing cosmetics if this was actually what he was saying. Furthermore, the fact that the Puritans passed laws against the use of cosmetics when they took power in England makes it very unlikely that they would be in favor of their use. It was also alleged that the anti-cosmetic assertions on history were inaccurate for other reasons, but nothing in any way comparable to the research of those who actually wrote books on the subject could be brought together. The fact that the writers who have spent enough time to write books on the history of the use of cosmetics said that cosmetics were condemned by Christianity was not challenged by the pro-cosmetic position.

    Thus, in my opinion, the Scriptural case against cosmetics is much stronger than the case in their favor. Even if the burden of proof were on the anti-cosmetics case, when it really is on the pro-cosmetic position (since if one “doubteth,” the matter in quesion should not be done, Romans 14:23—so all the anti-cosmetics position needs to do is show that there is some possibility that it is sinful to wear paint, while the pro-cosmetics party must clearly prove that paint is of necessity moral or at best amoral), Scripture would be decisive against the use of cosmetics.

    I commend again all those who have cared enough about pleasing God to have read this long discussion, and commend the more those who have cared yet the more and have thus put time into putting in comments upon it.

  81. October 16, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    To close this post about regulating our lives by Scriptural example(otherwise known now as, “why or why not cosmetics?”), I give these concluding remarks.

    Thomas Ross says Scripture condemns any cosmetics on women and that it does that by showing that three evil women wore cosmetics, not excessive cosmetics, but just cosmetics. In his conclusion above, in order to make his point he chooses to misrepresent our defense of permission to wear some cosmetics. It is easier to argue a strawman, as you might know, but I would rather you just read me to get me, instead of reading Ross to get me. If you read him to get me, you won’t get me. I’m not going to show how he did this, but he repeatedly does it above. His summation of me is the summation of a bumbling, village idiot. He wipes up in his imaginary battle. I’ll leave you wondering why he does so too, except for one point about why. Someone’s points aren’t working against real arguments, so to keep his points alive, he must defeat fake ones to look like his points are superior.

    He says that the burden of proof is upon us to show that some cosmetic is OK for a woman to wear. Scripture never prohibits cosmetics, but the burden of proof is upon us to show how that Scripture never prohibits cosmetics. OK, here we go: Scripture never prohibits cosmetics. I don’t have any verses for that, because there aren’t any. So where is the burden of proof? Clearly it’s on us. You can see that, right? Um.

    We say that we have examples of evil women using face paint. Mind you, those verses don’t say that cosmetics are wrong. Those verses don’t even say that face paint is wrong. Those verses say only that evil women wore face paint. Now, in those contexts, it’s obvious that those three women are dressing up like prostitutes to lure men. We would assume that there is a way that evil women wear face paint that does what prostitues would want face paint to do. We think Christian women should avoid that. But Thomas Ross thinks that this equals no-cosmetics. Essentially he’s saying that women with any cosmetics on their face are acting like prostitutes. The verses have more to do with not being like a prostitute—really nothing is being taught about cosmetics.

    What did I do Scripturally?

    I showed a verse, Psalm 104:15, that said it was a good thing for oil to make one’s face to shine. I showed how that Matthew Henry (someone that Ross used earlier and applauded when he backed one of his points) said this was applying oil to the face, and I showed how that Spurgeon said the same. Of course, this also means that historically these two men believed that godly people have applied external substances to their face to cause a difference in their appearance. That would be, um, cosmetics. Ross says that Psalm 104:15 is about eating or drinking oil to make one’s face shine, consuming oil in some fashion as a facial enhancer. I think it is true that you will have to decide on whether Psalm 104:15 is speaking about applying it on the face as Henry and Spurgeon agree or whether it was ingested for facial improvement as Ross argues.

    We looked at Ruth in Ruth 3:3 to see that Ruth applied oil to improve her looks. We see Esther in Esther 2:12 to do the same. Both of these of course smash Ross’ original argument that enhancing looks on the outside was wrong for women. He never did retract that particular teaching, but it disappeared amidst our conversation when he saw the Ruth 3:3 and Esther 2:12. He also said changing the color of the face was wrong, but then we saw the Shulammite did that in the sun in the Song of Solomon until finally it became only face paint that was wrong. And Ross said that face paint was all cosmetics and any application was wrong.

    Ross says that what Ruth and Esther did in those verses was the same thing as what Samuel did to David when he became king (this was one of his straw men). He said that you would be arguing that David wore make-up if you think that the oil of Ruth and Esther was a beauty enhancer. He also says that Esther was using oil for purification, not for her external appearance. He says that because she put it on in her days of purification preparing her for the king and that she put on other things for the purifying of women. The text doesn’t say that the oil was for purification, but it needed to be for the Ross argument to win, so it was to Ross, and, therefore, must be to all others (since the burden of proof is upon them).

    Ross’ best argument is his argument from history (it isn’t a biblical one) in which he mainly takes Catholics, the inventors of nuns and monastics, to show that in history “Christians” were against cosmetics. He also says that the Puritans were against them, and then I showed how that Matthew Henry was for them. Was he often read during those days? Hmmmm. But I showed some quotations that said that Jews did wear them in history and so did women period. Of course, Queen Elizabeth was well-known for painting her entire face white after a mid-life case of small pox. History ends up working only with the selective quotations of those who were opposed to cosmetics.

    Ross essentially mocks our criticism of his hermeneutic and application here. It was no in depth study I did. I spent about 5 minutes thinking of other activities only evil people did. In the Ross’ hermeneutic and application standard, those would also be forbidden activities. One of them was the carved bed of the strange woman in Proverbs. That is the only bed with carved works in Scripture. Ross says that it is OK because some people carved things and they weren’t evil people for carving. Oh. Well some people painted things too. Is all painting evil? We’re talking about an activity done by a strange woman and it is tied into her luring men into her bed. This was one example of many and perhaps at some point in the future, I could think of more of these, but I believe my point was made. He doesn’t like that the point was made; nevertheless, it was made.

    I end here by saying that I have never been for excessive cosmetics and many Christian women wear them excessively. I believe the example of these evil women stands as a warning against that. I would like to think that some women that have had some blemish problems in life could wear something to make their face look smoother or that a teenage girl could touch-up a bad zit with a bit of coloring to dampen the bright red of a cyst, but Ross is saying that this is prostitute behavior. I don’t believe so especially because of my arguments above.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: