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)]
Do 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]
In the category of “Newer Words,” the night’s Final Jeopardy clue was, “Philosopher’s use it for language that accompanies an action, like ‘I dub thee knight’; it also means done for show or signal.” The correct response was “performative.” A new word to me, I encountered it again the following day in an article by Rich Villodas about “performative spirituality.” After asking, ”If a good deed is not posted on social media, did it really happen?” Villodas continued with another rhetorical question, “If an act of generosity is not caught on camera and never goes viral, was it a worthwhile gesture?”
When a rich man asked Jesus what he needed to do to have eternal life, the Lord told him to sell everything and give it to the poor. More willing to part with eternal life than his riches, the disappointed man departed. When Jesus explained, ”It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” the disciples were astonished. Jewish tradition held that riches were a sign of God’s blessings and favor while poverty and sickness were God’s curse. If a rich man couldn’t get into the kingdom, they wondered who could.
Having previously warned people that not everyone who claimed to follow Him would enter the Kingdom, Jesus told the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in which He likened the last judgment to a king separating the sheep from the goats at the end of the day. Placing the sheep to His right and the goats to His left, the King invites the sheep into the Kingdom. The reasoning behind His selection is disarmingly simple: “For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.” [Matthew 25:35-36] Having failed to do those things, the goats are sent into eternal punishment.
When considering Solomon’s excess and riches, I recalled comedian George Carlin’s “Stuff” routine. First performed for Comic Relief in 1986, Carlin made fun of our obsession with having stuff. Along with being the King of Israel, Solomon was the King of Stuff. Denying himself nothing, along with his elaborate throne of gold and ivory, he displayed 500 ornamental gold shields on the walls of his palace. Rather than silver, all the king’s goblets and eating utensils were made of pure gold. He had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horseman.
God gifted Solomon with great wisdom and people from every nation journeyed to Solomon’s court to hear his wisdom. Although 1 Kings 3 tells us that Solomon wisely determined the identity of the real mother in a dispute between two women who claimed to have given birth to the same infant [3:16-28], one wise answer hardly seems newsworthy enough to make him famous beyond Israel’s borders. Even the king’s prolific writings and vast knowledge of botany and zoology don’t fully explain his renown. In a world without mass media, what caused his reputation to travel some 1,400 miles to Sheba (modern Yemen)? Sheba’s queen was so interested in meeting the king that she and her entourage made a journey which, including her stay in Judah and the return trip, took two to three years. What about Solomon caused her to travel so far to assess the king’s wisdom and wealth for herself?
Devotions of the Heart 