Examining Teachings #2: Jezebel And Shamefaced

You don’t want a Jezebel spirit. She used it. Prostitutes use it. Do you want to associate yourself with them?

You would think the subject matter would be most serious to prompt such statements, but think again. We are speaking of make-up.

The Bible mentions no prohibition against the use of make-up and actually shows its use. Because of this, those who teach things such as the above, have to resort to other means to promote their doctrine. You are likened to Jezebel, an unsavory woman from the Old Testament, who died in a brutal manner. You would think her death was at least in part from wearing make-up the way some spin the story. Or perhaps you are likened to a prostitute, because many of them wear make-up. Surely then if one wears make-up, their motive must be to entice and seduce others. This is hardly the case with most people who use it.

These two examples are easily debunked. Just because people do sinful things, doesn’t instantly mean that anything associated with them is wrong, sinful, or will cause others to be likened to them. As a for instance, Jezebel also fixed her hair, but you don’t hear these same people preach that a woman fixing up her hair is wrong. (In Apostolic circles, some of their hairstyles can be elaborate and/or time consuming.) Yet hair can be used in an effort to seduce, too. How many men find long hair attractive?

If a woman wears modest make-up today, people aren’t whispering and pointing fingers as she walks down the street, saying she must be a prostitute. Men don’t proposition her. Certainly no one is thinking she is like Jezebel, unless they come from a church that teaches this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvqX6GSs5d8

When these two thoughts didn’t work to convince you to not wear make-up, they went on to a twisted meaning of a  New Testament word. Don’t you know you are to be shamefaced? That is found right here in the Bible. See? 1 Timothy 2:9, in black and white. Shamefaced, sister, be shamefaced.

This is one of numerous words that is given a faulty definition in order to give the appearance that it supports their teaching. It is often taught as meaning plain, as in not having anything on your face. Here is where I encourage you to look up the original word that was translated ‘shamefaced.’ It doesn’t come close to meaning what some proclaim it does. It has nothing to do with make-up or being plain.

The word translated ‘shamefacedness’ in the KJV is a noun. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance it is #127. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states it means “a sense of shame, modesty“. It further states it “is prominently objective in its reference, having regard to others”.

A Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature concurs, showing the meaning as modesty in 1 Timothy 2:9 and reverence and respect as used by other writers.

In The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament it shares, “Modesty, an innate moral repugnance to a dishonorable act or fashion. Aidós is grief due to the personal sense of evil. Aidós finds its motive in itself. It implies reverence for the good as good, not merely as that to which honor and reputation are attached. Only in I Tim. 2:9; Heb. 12:28, reverence, veneration.”

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words also agrees with the others. “‘A sense of shame, modesty,’ is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church, I Tim. 2:9 (some mss. have it in Heb. 12:28 for deos, “awe”: here only in NT). ‘Shamefastness is that modesty which is ‘fast’ or rooted in character… The change to ‘shamefacedness’ is the more to be regretted because shamefacedness…has come rather to describe an awkward diffidence, such as we sometimes call sheepishness” (Davies; Bible English, p. 12).”

Word Meanings In the New Testament further explains, “This unfortunate translation leaves the implication that Christian women should go around in public with heads bowed and eyes averted, as if they were ashamed of themselves. Not so. Actually this rendering appears to be in error. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the adjective “shamefaced” was “originally an etymological misinterpretation of shamefast” (9:620) which carries the idea of discreetness. Wyclif’s earliest English version of the Bible (1382) has the correct term here, “shamefastness.” This is used in the ASV (1901), but, of course, even this word is obsolete today.” It goes on to add, “Bernard says that it implies “(1) a moral repugnance to what is base and unseemly, and (2) self-respect, as well as restraint imposed on oneself from a sense of what is due to others.” He goes on to say: “Thus aidos here signifies that modesty which shrinks from overstepping the limits of womanly reserve” (p. 45). In our opinion, that states the case with accuracy and relevance.”

It is important to take the time to check for yourself when some minister or pastor (or anyone else) teaches on a subject. Unhealthy churches often give words meanings which are not in line with what the scriptures show. Thus you end up believing something which is not true and think God is demanding it.

Some might be interested in two short articles on the website which also address make-up: Make-up And Fingernail Polish Are a Sin and Make-up.

Examining Teachings #1: Drunk In The Spirit?
Examining Teachings #2: Jezebel and Shamefaced
Examining Teachings #3: Peculiar And Separate
Examining Teachings #4: What Must I Do To Be Saved?
Examining Teachings #5: Faith Without Works Is Dead

The Wave Movies

The Wave was a made for TV film. It was based on a book about the alleged experience of a high school class in Palo Alto, California in 1967, whose teacher wanted to explain the rise of the Nazi party to his students. Those who have been involved in an unhealthy church will be able to relate to aspects of it. The quality isn’t very good, but don’t let that stop you from watching.

Years later, a newer versionset in modern day Germany, was released. It is in German with English subtitles.

Examining Teachings #1: Drunk In The Spirit?

You may have seen people in Pentecostal type churches, acting like they were drunk during a service. Perhaps even the minister said something like, “We all need to get drunk in the Spirit!” Is this thought biblical? What passage is used to justify such behavior?

This is a good area to examine as there is a teaching that because some onlookers referred to those on the day of Pentecost as being drunk (Acts 2), that it must mean they were exhibiting drunken behavior such as we see allowed in some churches today. I believe this is far, far from the truth.

Since the Bible warns us against drunkenness, why would God cause a behavior which would make us appear to be exactly what he tells us we should not be? Stop and think about it. It makes no sense. The Bible warns us to abstain from the appearance of evil in 1 Thessalonians 5:22. In Galatians 5, we see a list of some of the acts of a sinful nature and drunkenness is listed. Furthermore, we see no biblical instances which show the type of behavior seen today which is termed being drunk in the Spirit.

Let’s look at Acts 2. Verse two shows us that they were sitting when the Holy Spirit came upon them. So what attracted others to go and see what was happening? Verse five says it was because the crowd heard the believers speaking in their own languages. If you were in a different country and heard someone speaking your language instead of that of the country you were visiting, it would likewise get your attention. It doesn’t mention anyone was slurring their speech or stumbling around or acting incoherent, laughing like people often do when they are drunk, or passed out on the floor. What attracted them was the sound they heard as they were hearing their native languages being spoken. This is made very clear in the passage.

This stirred conversation. They knew the believers shouldn’t be speaking in their languages. They questioned why and what it meant. This is when some mocked and proclaimed they had too much to drink. That remark was in reference to the speaking in tongues that they heard and not any drunken type behavior. Nowhere in Acts does it show believers as exhibiting any evidence of possible drunkenness.

Haven’t we ever heard someone give a lame reason for something which they observed but couldn’t understand? How would being drunk cause someone to be able to speak a foreign language they did not know? In no way does this passage give any indication that the believers were acting in a drunken manner as some teach today. This is when Peter and the other apostles stood up while Peter proclaimed Jesus to them and let them know that drunkenness had nothing to do with what was happening.

This teaching is one which really bothers me. The Bible is clear about the issue of drunkenness and being careful when drinking and that those who follow Christ should not drink excessively. It is evidence of our sinful nature, the works of the flesh, and not the fruit of the Spirit. There is absolutely no way that God would teach against this and then cause believers to act like they just finished drinking several Long Islands.

Some may also be interested in reading a related article: The Presence of God.

Examining Teachings #1: Drunk In The Spirit?
Examining Teachings #2: Jezebel and Shamefaced
Examining Teachings #3: Peculiar And Separate
Examining Teachings #4: What Must I Do To Be Saved?
Examining Teachings #5: Faith Without Works Is Dead


Click to access the login or register cheese
YouTube
YouTube
Set Youtube Channel ID
x  Powerful Protection for WordPress, from Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
ShieldPRO