Inside and Outside the Cup

[ken_sylvania]

The first part of this basically says women should not dress to be seen. But it doesn't talk very specifically about how they should dress, it does not call for uniformity in dress, and it does not call for building a culture around distinctive dress.

The second part emphasizes what women should adorn themselves with instead of these fancy clothes- good deeds that are fitting for women who profess to worship God. The proof that they do worship God is in these good deeds, not in their clothing. Which is consistent with the other passages I quoted.

What makes you say that the proof that they do worship God is not exemplified by wearing modest clothing. Paul says that godly women should wear modest clothing and not wear costly array. Obedience to this can very well be indicative of being sheep.

I think "but with good deeds" is pretty clear here, in both Greek and most translations. Adorning themselves ... not with ... but with:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Hold on there - you're totally ignoring the first part of (and actually the base of) the sentence!

The part about "adorning themselves ... not with ... but with..." is part of a clause that modifies the phrase "to dress modestly." The base of the sentence is "I want the women to dress modestly" - the mention of good deeds would read "I want the women to dress modestly, ... adorning themselves ... with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

If he would have said "I want the women to dress gaily, adorning themselves with gold and jewels, appropriate for those who are rich and happy" everybody would very easily understand that the gay dress, the gold, and the jewels are all connected with "those who are rich and happy." But somehow, take the same sentence structure and drop in modest dress, good deeds, and worship of God and it gets so terribly difficult to understand...

[ken_sylvania]

I see no negative reflection against sheep's clothing in that passage. What I do see is a warning against ravening wolves.
A warning against counterfeit currency is not an implication that real currency isn't a good thing.

But I think Jesus tells us the inside of the cup is the real currency. If you want to be clean, clean the inside of the cup, not the outside - and the outside will be clean too!

Here's Matthew:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Here's Luke:

Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

So the best way to clean the outside of the cup, according to Jesus, is to clean the inside of the cup. And that includes our good deeds. It includes mercy and justice and practicing the weightier matters of the law with others. It's not just thinking nice thoughts - that's not what Jesus means by the inside of the cup.

If we do that, it will have visible fruit:

You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

But we do not do these things in order to be seen:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Your repeated protestations that our deeds must not be done as a show for others seems, to me, to be a strawman argument. I don't think I've suggested in any way that our deeds should be done for show.

Would you agree that it is appropriate to do things like give generously, speak kindly, and do nice things for others even if we feel no love for the person to whom we are relating? Is this different from washing the outside of the cup, and if so, how?

[GaryK]

It's just as possible to do good deeds and not be clean on the inside as it is to wear modest clothes and not be clean on the inside.

Matthew 7:22-24 New King James Version
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:

If you "practice lawlessness", I don't think your life is a life of good deeds.

So Jesus didn't mean what He said about these people prophesying in His name, casting out demons in His name, and doing many wonders in His name? I thought you have been promoting the idea that it's possible for the outside of the cup to appear clean but the inside to be unclean. Why doesn't this idea apply to this passage?

Verse 24 seems to suggest what this lawlessness is that Jesus is referring too. It's referring to people who call Him Lord but don't DO His teachings. They really believe they are followers of His. They really believe they have done good things in His name. But because they have chosen not to DO these good things the way He taught, Jesus says He doesn't know them.

I'll repeat, it's just as possible to do good deeds and not be clean on the inside as it is to wear modest clothes and not be clean on the inside.

Another question we could discuss is whether or not it's possible for the outside of the cup to be unclean and the inside to be clean?

[Neto]

....
Another question we could discuss is whether or not it's possible for the outside of the cup to be unclean and the inside to be clean?

I would say definitely not. I think everyone here would agree, but I'm throwing this out here because I don't want anyone to think that I would have any doubts about that. I want to clarify that in regards to what I said earlier, I did not intend in any way to question the important injunction to dress with modesty. I was only speaking to the question of, within the category of "modest dress", if the Scripture text is supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC clothing design as being necessary. I say it is not. I do not mean that it is wrong to do so, but only that it should be classified as a cultural practice, not a "Christian" (or religious) one. Each people group is free to determine their own cultural expression of modest dress, although I would also limit this statement with an understanding that the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, must be allowed to speak into and guide their understanding in this.

For instance, the traditional Banawa understanding of 'modest dress' would have to be re-shaped, eliminating toplessness for women. They had that dress style, but it was coupled with a very strong practice that said that no man should look at or speak to any woman other than his mother, wife, sister, or daughter. And incest was also strongly prohibited. The fact that their practice was toplessness does not mean that it was totally 'modest' in their cultural concept - the other 'rules' demonstrate that they knew it to be an incomplete approach. These things must always be understood within the complete cultural context. (It may seem that I here negate what I said above, that their practice would need to be modified to comply with Scriptural modesty. I don't know exactly how to answer that, because it refers to two completely different eras of their culture. The availability of cloth has made things possible that were very difficult before outside contact. Plus, the people themselves changed their practice toward more modest clothing as they increasingly came under the influence of the Holy Spirit. They did this without us ever saying a single thing about it. Sure, there was the example of my wife and daughter, but there were other missionaries and visitors there who did not follow our practices, and current Brazilian dress standards are generally very immodest.)

[Bootstrap]

What makes you say that the proof that they do worship God is not exemplified by wearing modest clothing. Paul says that godly women should wear modest clothing and not wear costly array. Obedience to this can very well be indicative of being sheep.

I think "but with good deeds" is pretty clear here, in both Greek and most translations. Adorning themselves ... not with ... but with:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Hold on there - you're totally ignoring the first part of (and actually the base of) the sentence!

I don't think so. Look at the question I am answering - what are the "good deeds" in this sentence? I don't think the sentence says that modest dress is the same thing that is called "good deeds". It does call for women to dress "modestly, with decency and propriety", but then there's a twist - it draws attention away from clothing and towards good deeds.

By the way, could we please discuss this in terms of "what does this passage say", from each of our perspectives? The accusations do not help direct attention to the text.

The part about "adorning themselves ... not with ... but with..." is part of a clause that modifies the phrase "to dress modestly." The base of the sentence is "I want the women to dress modestly" - the mention of good deeds would read "I want the women to dress modestly, ... adorning themselves ... with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

If he would have said "I want the women to dress gaily, adorning themselves with gold and jewels, appropriate for those who are rich and happy" everybody would very easily understand that the gay dress, the gold, and the jewels are all connected with "those who are rich and happy." But somehow, take the same sentence structure and drop in modest dress, good deeds, and worship of God and it gets so terribly difficult to understand...

I don't think the sentence is hard to understand in either Greek or most translations. I do find the KJV a bit hard to understand, but I think I understand it.

[Bootstrap]

Your repeated protestations that our deeds must not be done as a show for others seems, to me, to be a strawman argument. I don't think I've suggested in any way that our deeds should be done for show.

You seem to be framing this as a fight rather than a Bible study. I think you are saying you agree with me, that our deeds must not be done as a show for others. I am not accusing you of anything, I am merely asking what the Bible says about these things.

Would you agree that it is appropriate to do things like give generously, speak kindly, and do nice things for others even if we feel no love for the person to whom we are relating? Is this different from washing the outside of the cup, and if so, how?

In general, I think we should also ask God to help change our hearts toward the other person. To me, cleansing the cup always combines the inner man with our actions.

If we don't change our hearts, our feelings often show up in passive aggressive ways that we may not even be aware of, that we may be in denial of. And we may feel very, very self-righteous about ourselves when we do that. Again, I am not saying this as an accusation, but this has been my personal experience. What I am feeling on the inside does show itself.

[Bootstrap]

If you "practice lawlessness", I don't think your life is a life of good deeds.

So Jesus didn't mean what He said about these people prophesying in His name, casting out demons in His name, and doing many wonders in His name? I thought you have been promoting the idea that it's possible for the outside of the cup to appear clean but the inside to be unclean. Why doesn't this idea apply to this passage?

Verse 24 seems to suggest what this lawlessness is that Jesus is referring too. It's referring to people who call Him Lord but don't DO His teachings. They really believe they are followers of His. They really believe they have done good things in His name. But because they have chosen not to DO these good things the way He taught, Jesus says He doesn't know them.

Because they have chosen not to do these good deeds, right? Because if they are practicing lawlessness, they are not doing the good deeds that the Sermon on the Mount teaches us to do. Even with a few impressive good deeds like powerful religious signs. So I don't think it's enough to do a few impressive things and practice lawlessness on the side. I think God wants us to live a life of good deeds. I think that is what makes us a light to others.

I think there needs to be a consistency in our spiritual walk. If God looks at my life, does he see me as a person of good deeds? If someone preaches powerful sermons but abuse little boys, I think God would say "no". But I think we have to ask this about the other sins we tend to ignore - greed, hatred, jealousy, gossip, etc.

I'll repeat, it's just as possible to do good deeds and not be clean on the inside as it is to wear modest clothes and not be clean on the inside.

Another question we could discuss is whether or not it's possible for the outside of the cup to be unclean and the inside to be clean?

Can you think of any Bible passages that complain about that? For instance, is there a letter in the Revelation that says something like this: "Yes, you have loved both God and people fervently, faithful to your spouse, holy in all your ways, serving the poor, loving those who most needed it, but I have this against you: you did not wear the right clothes." Or any other passage along those lines?

I do think the Old Testament, under law, emphasized the outside of the cup in its regulations. But I don't see that in the New Testament.

[JayP]

What is interesting to me , in the war over works, is not the verses that are quoted because really, does anyone think there are NEW arguments for the various points of view, but rather the verses that are not.
Notice folks shy away from quoting things like the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Lecture me all day on your emphasis on faith alone, I am sure looking from afar the first two travelers seemed righteous.
We live in this world. How we live reflects our hearts and love more than what we say.

Works do not replace salvation nor create it. But the verse stands for itself. Faith without works is dead. Period.
What works are called for by each vary with situation and circumstances. But works is like a meat thermometer.
It does not cook it, it supplies no heat but it tells you if the food got cooked. That is what works does…..tells you if you got sufficiently cooked by your faith.

[Bootstrap]

What is interesting to me , in the war over works, is not the verses that are quoted because really, does anyone think there are NEW arguments for the various points of view, but rather the verses that are not.
Notice folks shy away from quoting things like the parable of the Good Samaritan.

I don't think this thread is a "war over works" at all.

Lecture me all day on your emphasis on faith alone, I am sure looking from afar the first two travelers seemed righteous.
We live in this world. How we live reflects our hearts and love more than what we say.

I think everyone who has expressed views in this thread agrees with you.

Works do not replace salvation nor create it. But the verse stands for itself. Faith without works is dead. Period.
What works are called for by each vary with situation and circumstances. But works is like a meat thermometer.
It does not cook it, it supplies no heat but it tells you if the food got cooked. That is what works does…..tells you if you got sufficiently cooked by your faith.

Let's look at the entire passage:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

It does not call for faith without deeds. It does not call for deeds without faith. It calls for the kinds of actions we see Jesus call us to - through the same transformed heart. But not for appearances. Not as a way to polish the outside of the cup.

[GaryK]

If you "practice lawlessness", I don't think your life is a life of good deeds.

So Jesus didn't mean what He said about these people prophesying in His name, casting out demons in His name, and doing many wonders in His name? I thought you have been promoting the idea that it's possible for the outside of the cup to appear clean but the inside to be unclean. Why doesn't this idea apply to this passage?

Verse 24 seems to suggest what this lawlessness is that Jesus is referring too. It's referring to people who call Him Lord but don't DO His teachings. They really believe they are followers of His. They really believe they have done good things in His name. But because they have chosen not to DO these good things the way He taught, Jesus says He doesn't know them.

Because they have chosen not to do these good deeds, right? Because if they are practicing lawlessness, they are not doing the good deeds that the Sermon on the Mount teaches us to do. Even with a few impressive good deeds like powerful religious signs. So I don't think it's enough to do a few impressive things and practice lawlessness on the side. I think God wants us to live a life of good deeds. I think that is what makes us a light to others.

This passage seems to reference judgement day.

You seem to be attempting to separate the good deeds these people have done from their "practice of lawlessness on the side". I'm suggesting these people believe they are living good lives (not lawlessness) and doing good deeds. I'm also suggesting the lawlessness Jesus mentions here is the fact that they don't take seriously all of what Jesus and the Apostles taught and think they can get away with doing a few good things while overlooking other things Jesus and the rest of the NT teaches.

I think there needs to be a consistency in our spiritual walk. If God looks at my life, does he see me as a person of good deeds? If someone preaches powerful sermons but abuse little boys, I think God would say "no". But I think we have to ask this about the other sins we tend to ignore - greed, hatred, jealousy, gossip, etc.

I agree

I'll repeat, it's just as possible to do good deeds and not be clean on the inside as it is to wear modest clothes and not be clean on the inside.

Another question we could discuss is whether or not it's possible for the outside of the cup to be unclean and the inside to be clean?

Can you think of any Bible passages that complain about that? For instance, is there a letter in the Revelation that says something like this: "Yes, you have loved both God and people fervently, faithful to your spouse, holy in all your ways, serving the poor, loving those who most needed it, but I have this against you: you did not wear the right clothes." Or any other passage along those lines?

I do think the Old Testament, under law, emphasized the outside of the cup in its regulations. But I don't see that in the New Testament.

I can certainly think about a passage in the NT that talks about how women should and should not dress and I believe every Christian woman should take this to heart and dress accordingly. Do you believe Jesus, at judgement day, will overlook what the NT teaches about this?