Makeup/Jewelry- What the Bible says #3
Is it sin for women to use makeup? The truth of the matter can be known
THE PRINCIPLE OF PERFUME WITH REGARDS TO MAKEUP by Keith Hunt I will give credit where credit is do. The following is taken from the book by Ralph Woodrow called "Women's Adornment - What Does the Bible Really Say?" pages 28-30. Quote: "Churches which equate a plain look with salvation, commonly look with suspicionon women who wear makeup. After all, didn't wicked old Jezebel paint her face? Some feel that women who use makeup are 'not saved.' Others would not carry it this far, but they would regard makeup as a sign of low spirituality........what does the Bible say about the use of things such as perfume, powder, and lipstick? First, consider perfume. The use of perfume is generally acceptable - even by those who would frown on the use of lipstick. In Bible times, perfumes were highly regarded and used in a variety of ways.......References to perfume in one form or another are found from Genesis to Revelation.......Gen.37:25. Gilead was the home of a number of fragrant shrubs and plants, including (as mentioned in the text) the 'balm of Gilead' (Jer.8:22). Two of the most ancient recipes for perfume are found in the Bible. One perfume was made form sweet spices, stacte, inycha, galbanum, and frankincense - 'a perfume.....pure and holy' (Exodus 30:34-38). The other contained myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, and cassia (Ex.30:22-33). These ingredients were mixed with oil and poured upon Aaron's head and flowed down to the skirts of his garments (Ps.133:2). While this particular perfume was reserved for anointing the high priest, the general idea of using perfume could not be wrong or it would have been entirely out of place here. That various perfumes and spices were held in high regard is repeatedly seen in the Song of Solomon......(1:12-14; 3:6; 4:6,10,13,14; 5:1,5,13). In Psalms 45:6-8, we read: 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever......all thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassis, out of the ivory palaces.' In Ecclesiastes 7:1, a 'precious ointment' is likened to a good name. And Proverbs 27:9 says: 'Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart; so doth the sweetness of a man's friend by hearty counsel.' In all these references, perfume is used in a good sense; is likened to good things; is highly regarded! Esther, commonly considered a great champion of women among the Jews, was perfumed for one year before she was taken unto the king - 'six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odours' (Esther 2:12,13)! There are several references to perfumes in connection with Christ. Following His birth, 'frankincense and myrrh' were presented to Him(Mat.2:11). A very strong perfume was put upon Jesus when Mary took ' a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus.....and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment' (John 12:3). Jesus did not criticize this act; Judas did. When Jesus died, Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in linen cloth with myrrh and aloes (John 19:39,40). In view of these Biblical references, certainly today's use of perfume, cologne, shaving lotion, and things with a good smell, sensibly used, should not be questioned. Likewise, it is our opinion that a sensible use of makeup is not contrary to the principles of the Christian faith. NONE CAN RIGHTLY OBJECT TO MAKEUP ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS 'ADDING TO NATURE', ANY MORE THAN HE COULD SAY THAT USING PERFUME IS ADDING TO NATURE. THE ONE SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH APPEARANCE, THE OTHER WITH SMELL............." End of quote If God has no CLEAR scripture or command or teaching to say that the use of "makeup" is evil, sin, an abomination to Him, and is not to be used - period, then the PRINCIPLE from God's word concerning the use of perfume, oils, and the like, should naturally and logically be applied to the subject of cosmetics. As Ralph Woodrow said, one simply has to do with smell, the other with appearance. The same principle would also apply to the use of jewelry. Now some will say there are two NT verses that teach against the use of jewelry for the Christian woman(men also I guess), one by Paul and one by Peter. We shall look in detail at those verses and what the real truth of the matter is, in what they teach, in another study on this subject. I will say here, they do not contradict the many verses in both OT and NT that show God's people did use jewelry as an adornment with His blessing. It is also interesting in the examples Woodrow gave(the one on Esther and Jesus), to note a principle. Under certain circumstances and in certain situations what would be possibly looked upon as extreme and very unbalanced use of the physical in way of time, effort, and expense, could be quite normal and fully approved of by the God of heaven. Would be a none issue with Him. We must always be careful to view all things physical within their context, history, setting, culture, time and purpose, intent and attitude, God's freedom of liberty within his law, before we make any judgment on the matter. Let me go back to the book by Ralph Woodrow, pages 32- 35. Quote: " Luke tells about a woman with long hair whose sins were many(Lk.7:37-47). Would this prove that all women who have long hair are sinners? Would the fact that Proverbs 7:17 mentions a harlot using perfume prove that all women who use perfume are harlots? Or because an esteemed woman such as Esther was bathed and perfumed for one year(Esther 2:12,13), would this mean that women today should go to this extreme? Would the fact that an unfaithful wife wore jewelry(Hosea 2:13), prove that all women who wear jewelry are unfaithful? Of course not. On the same basis then, the fact that three scattered references to women painting their eyes (along with such things as taking a bath, fixing their hair, or putting on clothing) cannot prove that the use of cosmetics is wrong. It is the motive, the attitude, the intention of the heart that can make such 'fixing up' right or wrong........" Sin by association is not necessarily sin at all. Let's suppose it was written about Jezebel: "And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she put on her wonder bra, red panty hose and shiny black patented leather high heeled shoes, together with her silk yellow dress. And combing her hair loose so it hung to her waste, she looked out of a window." Would this make wonder bras sin per se? Would silk yellow dresses become a sin to wear? How about black patented shoes or having a head of hair loose to the waste, would they be sin also? What if it had been written that Jezebel perfumed herself and put on a pearl necklace, would that nullify the verses where such are used in a good sense, and so become sin for all women to use perfume or a necklace? Back to Woodrow: " .......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.' Henna was also used on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. Considering how well-known and how widely used these various forms of make-up were in the land of the Bible, if God was against its use, why is it nowhere stated in the Bible? Out of 31,101 verses in the Bible, not one gives a direct command against make-up.........How true is the statement: 'Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart' (1 Samuel 16:7)! Some have opposed the use of makeup on the basis that it is decoration. But what is wrong with decoration? Wearing a dress with pretty colors might be considered decoration. Joseph had a coat of many colors. Was this wrong? The idea that any decoration is wrong has led to some foolish extremes. Some groups wear only dark clothing. In one such group, the people were told to paint the grills and bumpers of their cars, black! Chrome, they reasoned, was too flashy for God. We wonder where men ever got the idea that God wanted people to look drab. Nature is not this way. Suppose God had not included color in nature. Suppose the grass, trees, mountains, lakes, and oceans were without color! Imagine orchids, lilies, violets, poppies, and roses without color! The garments of the high priest were bright and flashy. The temple was decorated with gold. The 'new Jerusalem' is described as having all sorts of dazzling stones and jewels. We recognize of course, that the use of bright colors in makeup and jewelry could easily be overdone and fail to convey a spirit of humility. But the extreme view that God requires a dull appearance(often accompanied with a dull personality) is certainly not consistent with the over-all teaching of the Bible. The very drabness can be made a display of vanity." Some wise, and true, and balanced words from Mr.Woodrow, I would say. Yes in deed I do say. .................... To be continued |
No comments:
Post a Comment