MODESTY

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. [1 Timothy 2:9-10 (NASB)]

peacockDo these verses mean I can’t wear my pearl earrings, diamond wedding ring, or gold cross to church? Do I have to say “farewell” to Nordstrom’s and start shopping solely at outlets and discount stores? Although my hair is short, it’s hard to believe my grand’s lovely French braids are inappropriate at church or anywhere else. What did Paul and Peter mean with their admonitions about women’s attire and modesty?

Let’s put the Apostles’ words into cultural context. The early church was a mix of Jew, Gentile, men, women, free, slave, wealthy, and poor. In the Roman Empire, jewelry and expensive clothing of linen, silk, and embroidered fabric were valued as much for the status they gave the owner as for their beauty. Behaving like a peacock by showing off one’s extravagant jewelry and lavish apparel was the ancient way of openly boasting about one’s position, bank balance, and investment portfolio. While it was as crass and insensitive in the 1st century as it is today, some members of the early church were doing just that!

More valuable than diamonds at the time, pearls represented both wealth and power. Rich women often embellished their clothing with pearls; the more pearls a woman wore, the richer and more esteemed she (and her spouse) were. Because only people of great wealth or high status wore them, pearls set the wearer apart from the rest of the public.

As for braids—when wealthy women plaited their hair during the Roman period, they’d entwine strands of gold, precious stones, and pearls into the braid. The Apostles’ issue with plaited hair wasn’t the braid; it was with the showy embellishments in the braid! Like lavish clothing, pearls, and excessive jewelry, such braids implied a sort of social “pecking order” or class system that was unacceptable in a community where all are to be one in Jesus Christ!

While we think of immodest dress as attire that leaves little or nothing to the imagination, neither Paul nor Peter were referring to things like cleavage, bare midriffs, miniskirts, or “booty” shorts; those things were not an issue in the 1st century. A woman’s lack of coverage wasn’t what concerned the Apostles nor were they establishing a “modesty patrol.” Nevertheless, taking these verses out of context, some denominations have established rules regarding women’s attire requiring things like hemlines below the knee and sleeves that extend to the elbow while prohibiting things like make-up, jewelry beyond a wedding ring and watch, and women’s slacks because “they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip.”

It wasn’t excess skin that concerned Paul and Peter; it was an excess in attire that demonstrated pride, self-importance, and arrogance! The modesty about which the Apostles were speaking was economic and social rather than sexual in nature. Addressing those who were flaunting their wealth and social status, the Apostles took issue with the ostentatious displays of opulence that threatened a sense of kinship and unity within the early church.

Rather than turn legalistic with an external set of rules regarding proper attire, Paul and Peter set a much higher standard for us all—that of godliness. Qualities like respect, humility, love, trust, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, and reverence are conditions of the heart—not an issue of clothing. The way we present ourselves to others isn’t supposed to point to us; it should point to Jesus. No matter how we’re attired, if we haven’t put on Christ, we’re not dressed properly!

Many come to bring their clothes to church rather than themselves. [Thomas Fuller]

Your adornment must not be merely the external—braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel; but it should be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. … clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God is opposed to the proud, but He gives grace to the humble. [1 Peter 3:3-4,5:5 (NASB)]

Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.

HATS OR NOT

A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering. [1 Corinthians 11:4-6 (NLT)]

I grew up attending the Episcopal Church at a time when women covered their heads during worship and the men worshipped bare-headed. While not a hard and fast rule in the denomination, it was a time-honored tradition. Women wearing head coverings in Episcopal and Catholic churches began to wane in the 70s and, by 1983, the Roman Catholic church no longer had rules regarding headwear for men or women. The last time I attended an Episcopal or Catholic church, the women were hatless and some of the men wore baseball caps! Although culture plays an important role in the way we dress and behave in church, how do we interpret Paul’s words today? Should I dig out my mantilla and must our pastor toss out his ball cap?

Kephalé, translated as “head,” meant both the body part on top of the neck as well as the master or person in charge and Paul used it in both senses in his letter. That is one of the reasons many scholars find this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 one of the most difficult in the New Testament to understand thoroughly. Leaving the semantics to the scholars, let’s look at Paul’s words about head coverings in their cultural context. 1st century Corinth was a cosmopolitan and prosperous city notorious for its corruption, idolatry, and immortality. The Corinthian church, a mix of men, women, rich, poor, slave, free, Gentile, and Jew, was jeopardized by various factions and spiritual immaturity. After attending to three specific problems within that church, the Apostle tried to unify this diverse community of new believers by addressing topics such as food sacrificed to idols, abuses at the Lord’s Supper, the Spirit’s gifts, the resurrection of believers, and proper conduct in worship.

Paul’s directive that men worship with bare heads and women with covered is better understood when we know that male officiants in pagan Roman rituals covered their heads with a fold of their togas when praying, sacrificing, offering drinks, and practicing divination. On the other hand, Gentile women participated in some cultic rituals with their heads uncovered and their hair unbound. With a large Gentile membership, such practices may have found their way into the new church. Worshipping Jesus in the same manner they’d worshipped gods like Apollo and Dionysus put Him in the same category as Rome’s idols and Paul disapproved of dishonoring Christ that way!

Paul’s main concern about women wearing head coverings probably had to do with propriety and respect. Although many upper-class Gentile Corinthian women found it socially acceptable to appear bare-headed in public, it was unseemly for Jewish married women to venture outside their homes without covering their heads. A woman’s covered head was a sign of modesty and regard for her husband and a wife who exposed her hair to the public dishonored her spouse. While an uncovered head was a sign of progressive freedom to a Gentile, it was a sign of impropriety and promiscuity to a Jew. Paul’s reference to the shame of a shaved head was because the Torah’s punishment for an adulterous wife was a shaved head.

In the Corinthian church, the issues of head coverings for both men and women caused discord between people of different backgrounds, social status, and spiritual maturity. Paul’s instructions were meant to ease those tensions and unify the church. Today, however, head coverings don’t carry the same meaning as they did in the 1st century Roman Empire. They’re little more than a fashion statement or a way to protect us from the sun. For today’s believer, Paul’s words aren’t as much about covered or uncovered heads at church as they are about dressing in a culturally appropriate way so that both our attire and demeanor in worship honor God, our spouse, and our fellow believers.

I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. [1 Corinthians 1:10 (NLT)]

Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony. [Colossians 3:14 (NLT)]

 Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.

TRUE LOVE

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. [1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (ESV)]

I was married fifty-seven years ago today. When I promised to love, comfort, honor, cherish, forsake all others, and to have and to hold my husband “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health” until we parted at death, I had no idea just how bad “for worse” could get, how little money “for poorer” might be, or that sickness could mean much more than a case of the flu. I certainly never pictured us growing old with wrinkles, white hair, hearing aids, bifocals, arthritis, and the limitations that come advanced years.

My husband and I had known each other for less than a year when we made our vows. Although we took them seriously and sincerely meant every word we said, at 20 and 24, neither of us had any inkling of the challenges that would accompany parenthood or how difficult it can be to cherish someone whose words or actions hurt us or with whom we disagree. With 43% of all first marriages ending in divorce, we’re not the only ones who entered into marriage so naively. Since 60% of second marriages fail and 73% of third ones do, some people never learn!

Like many couples, we had 1 Corinthians 13 read during the ceremony. Paul, however, wasn’t writing to young lovers or for a wedding—he was writing to the church in Corinth. The word he used for love wasn’t eros, the Greek word for romantic or sexual love, nor was it philia, meaning brotherly love, or storge, meaning familial love. It was agape and describes the kind of love that comes from God (who is love) and the kind of love believers are to have for all their fellow travelers on this planet. Agape is an unconditional love that doesn’t depend on appearance, physical attraction, or emotions. Unlike eros, agape isn’t something we fall into or out of. Agape is more than a feeling; it is a deliberate choice (and one that must be made daily if any marriage is to survive)!

Although Paul was addressing his words to the church and specifically speaking about the necessity of love when using spiritual gifts, his description of agape love holds true in marriage, as well. In the decades since our wedding, we’ve experienced good and not so good times. There have been periods of plenty and sparseness, illness and well-being, tragedy and joy, fullness and emptiness, anger and forgiveness, excitement and tedium, labor and leisure, vulnerability and security, loss and gain, turmoil and peace, discontent and satisfaction. Although eros brought us together, eros alone couldn’t have gotten us through those times. Only agape love could have kept us together all these decades.

Agape mirrors the love God showed us on Calvary and, by the grace of God, our marriage survives because of agape! While Jesus’ sacrifice saved mankind, the sacrifices made in marriage save the unity of the relationship! The unrestricted, unrestrained, unselfish, and sacrificial love of agape is a conscious choice. None of us are loveable all of the time; we can, however, choose to be loving all of the time!

The love that is affirmed at a wedding is not just a condition of the heart but an act of the will, and the promise that love makes is to will the other’s good even at the expense sometimes of its own good—and that is quite a promise. … A marriage made in heaven is one where they become more richly themselves together than the chances are either of them could ever have managed to become alone. [Frederick Buechner]

So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. [1 Corinthians 13:13 (ESV)]

Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.

MORE THAN THESE

sunrise - Cancun MexicoWhen they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” [John 21:15 (ESV)]

Following His resurrection, Jesus remained on earth for forty days during which He was seen by His family, disciples, and followers (more than 500 of them at one time). The time frame of Jesus’ appearances, however, is unclear. Some time after He appeared to the disciples Resurrection Sunday and again eight days later when Thomas was present, Peter told the others he was going fishing. The disciple wasn’t referring to an afternoon of sport fishing—Peter was going back to fishing for species like tilapia and sardines rather than men. The kingdom had not arrived and, unsure of what was next, the disciples were at loose ends. Leaving Jerusalem, Peter and at least six others went to back to their homes and livelihoods in Galilee.

Fishing on the Sea of Galilee was done at night so the fish wouldn’t see the nets. Although the disciples cast their nets several times that night, nothing was caught. As dawn approached and the men again pulled in an empty net, a man on shore called out and told them to cast the net from the other side. Whether it was the morning mist, low light, or sweat in their eyes, the men didn’t recognize the stranger. Nevertheless, after a fruitless night on the water, the discouraged disciples did as instructed. When their net got so full they couldn’t haul it in, John realized the man was Jesus! After all, this wasn’t the first time He’d filled their nets. That first time, the men left everything to follow Jesus to become “fishers of men” and this miracle repeated Jesus’ call to them.

Upon recognizing Jesus, Peter immediately jumped out of the boat to greet Him while the others brought their enormous catch into shore. After enjoying breakfast on the beach, Jesus asked Peter if the disciple loved Him “more than these.” He asked Peter that question three times and scholars and theologians have written hundreds of treatises about His questions and Peter’s answers. They discuss the relationship of Jesus’ three questions to the disciple’s three denials and ponder the significance of Jesus calling the disciple by his old name of Simon rather than Peter. They analyze the use of agape (sacrificial love) and phileo (brotherly love) in both questions and answers while some even try to find hidden meaning in the number of fish caught (153). I’ll leave those issues to them.

My attention was caught by Jesus’ first question to the man who would be the foundational “rock” of the new church: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” Although Peter asserts that he loves Jesus after each question, who or what are the “these” to which Jesus referred?

Was Jesus asking Peter if the disciple loved Jesus more than any of the other men did? That last night, when Jesus predicted He’d be betrayed and deserted before night’s end, Peter seemed to think he loved Jesus the most. The cocky man even boasted that, “Even if everyone else deserts you, I never will.” Was the one who denied the Lord three times that night still so sure of himself?

Could “these” have been the other disciples? Was Jesus asking Peter whether he loved Him more than he loved his brother Andrew and the rest of the men gathered on the beach? Could his love for those men ever draw him away from following Jesus? If he had to decide between Jesus and family or friends like James and John, who would he choose?

Or, could “these” have referred to the boat, nets, and amazing catch of fish on the beach that morning? In Jesus’ day, the fishing industry was quite profitable and the day’s catch represented a great deal of money. Did the disciple love Jesus more than his life as a Galilean fisherman? Was Jesus asking Peter if he loved the Lord more than the world in which he lived?

It was after Peter’s third affirmation of his love for Jesus that the Lord predicted Peter’s violent death. By describing Peter with his hands stretched out while others girded or bound him and took him where he didn’t want to go, the Lord was describing a martyr’s death, likely crucifixion. After making clear the true price Peter would pay, Jesus repeated the words He’d spoken to Simon the fisherman three years prior: “Follow me!”

Indeed, for Simon the fisherman to become Peter the apostle and leader of the twelve, he had to love Jesus more than any of the other disciples did, had to love Jesus more than he loved his friends and family, and had to love Jesus more than his life as a Galilean fisherman. In fact, since he knew how it would end, Peter had to love Jesus more than his own life!

Repeating the call He made to Peter, Jesus tells us, “Follow me.” Peter did; will we? Do we love Him more than these?

Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. [John 12:25-26 (ESV)]

Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.

FACING GOLIATH

I will be your God throughout your lifetime—until your hair is white with age. I made you, and I will care for you. I will carry you along and save you. [Isaiah 46:4 (NLT)]

While writing Monday’s devotion about the seemingly insurmountable giants we face, I wondered about the identity of my Goliath. Of who or what am I afraid? What giant looms over me and blinds me to the presence of God?

Unlike David’s Philistine foe, my Goliath doesn’t look imposing, strong, or powerful. Rather than being nearly nine feet tall, he has osteoporosis and is stooped, frail, and weak. Instead of wielding a sword and being accompanied by an armor bearer, this fearsome enemy uses a cane and has a caregiver. My Goliath isn’t surrounded by an army because he’s outlived his spouse and most of his friends. It’s the inadequacies, limitations, and loss that accompany old age that frighten me.

Back in 1819, Thomas Jefferson painted a vivid but grim picture of those limitations with these words: “First one faculty is withdrawn and then another, sight, hearing, memory, eucrasy [physical well-being], affections & friends, filched one by one till we are left among strangers, the mere monuments of times past, and specimens of antiquity for the observation of the curious.” My in-laws lived to the ages of 96 and 102 and we saw first-hand the toll those years took both physically and mentally. Unfortunately, no matter how well we care for ourselves, as the years progress, our bodies and minds start to wear out and cease operating at full capacity.

It was when our family gathered to celebrate our youngest child’s 50th birthday that my eyes were opened to the gifts accompanying advanced years. As I relished the time with family that weekend, I thought of my parents. Having died at 47 and 56, they never celebrated a child’s 30th birthday, let alone a 50th­, nor did they get to celebrate their 100th surrounded by their great-grands as did my mother-in-law! Although they’d planted the field, they never got to enjoy the harvest! It wasn’t just the red-letter days like weddings, birthdays, and graduations they missed; they never enjoyed the special moments that come with grands and greats—another round of soccer matches, Legos and Tinker Toys, tea parties and dress-up, and endless games of Crazy-8s and LCR.

Although my parents avoided things like arthritis, memory loss, hip replacements, cataracts, and assisted living, I think they would have accepted all that and more to have had additional years with their children and to hold a grandbaby or a great. A walker, hearing aids, and macular degeneration are a small price to pay for watching one’s children and grands develop into the kind of people you’d want to spend time with even if they weren’t family! Indeed, as daunting as it is, old age is a privilege granted to few and should be embraced.

My Goliath really isn’t old age; it’s my fear of old age! I can’t vanquish the indignities and decline of the oncoming years nor can I evade my body’s final defeat, but God will give me the power to rout my defeatist attitude. Knowing He is with me, I can confidently face the future with confidence. As long as God gives me breath, He will continue to calm my fears and give me both purpose and strength in the coming years (whatever they may bring).

My health may fail, and my spirit may grow weak, but God remains the strength of my heart; he is mine forever. [Psalm 73:26 (NLT)]

That is why we never give up. Though our bodies are dying, our spirits are being renewed every day. [2 Corinthians 4:16 (NLT)]

Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.

YOUR NEIGHBOR – Luke 10:25-37

And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength. [Deuteronomy 6:5 (NLT)]

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against a fellow Israelite, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. [Leviticus 19:18 (NLT)]

monarch butterfliesWhen a nomikós (Scripture lawyer, an expert in religious law) tested Jesus by asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, the Lord countered with his own question, “What does the law say?” When the man responds with the words of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, Jesus says he’s answered correctly. Wanting clarification, he then asks, “Who is my neighbor?” His query tells us the nomikós is more interested in the letter of the law than its spirit. Apparently, he wouldn’t want to waste any love on someone who wasn’t his neighbor or miss loving someone who was! Jesus answers the man’s question with one of his best-known stories—the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Since this expert in the law was testing Jesus, he probably wasn’t alone. His question was another attempt by the religious leaders to trap the troublesome rabbi into saying something that would get Him into trouble with the authorities or show His ignorance of Scripture and expose him as a Messianic pretender. They never seemed to understand that you can’t outsmart the one who wrote the Law!

Because we’re not 1st century Judeans, we fail to appreciate how shocking this story was to Jesus’ audience. Divided by racial, ethnic, and religious barriers, the Samaritans and Jews had a long history of enmity going back 900 years to the kingdom’s division. When the Samaritans’ offer to help rebuild the Temple was refused, they built their own temple on Mt. Gerizim which the Jews destroyed in 128 BC. In retaliation, Samaritans defiled Jerusalem’s Temple by throwing bones into it on Passover. The feud grew and, by the time of Christ, the Jews hated the Samaritans so much they crossed the Jordan river rather than travel through Samaria. The two groups fed their mutual hatred with insult and injury.

Even though Jesus’ audience would have been offended by the priest’s and Levite’s failure to help the dying man in the parable, they still expected the third man to be a Jew. Can you imagine the gasps when Jesus deliberately chose a Samaritan as the hero of His story? To a Jew, the Samaritans were a “herd” not a nation and, because of their mixed Jewish-Gentile blood, they were racial “half-breeds.” The worst insult a Jew could use was to call someone a Samaritan. A common saying in Judah was, “A piece of bread given by a Samaritan is more unclean than swine’s flesh!” Yet, in Jesus’ parable, it was a Samaritan who showed compassion for the nearly dead Jew when his own countrymen ignored his need. When Jesus asked the lawyer which man was a neighbor to the injured man, unwilling to say it was a Samaritan, he answered, “The one who showed him mercy.”

To the parable’s priest, the injured man was nothing but an inconvenience and, to the “rubbernecking” Levite, he was a curiosity. Their failure to help the injured man wasn’t because they didn’t know he was their neighbor; it was because they lacked compassion! To the Samaritan, however, the wounded man was neither Jew nor Samaritan. He was a person in desperate need of help and the Samaritan only did what a good neighbor does—he responded with love.

People today continue to be divided by racial, ethnic, religious, and political barriers. If Jesus were telling this parable today, He’d have no difficulty finding people who define “neighbor” by skin color, language, rituals, values, ancestry, history, customs, or politics. The lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?” The question we should ask ourselves is, “Am I a good neighbor to everyone?”

Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These—and other such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” [Romans 13:8-9 (NLT)]

Copyright ©2024 jsjdevotions. All rights reserved.