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]
Back in in 1586, during the Eighty Years’ War, Sir Philip Sidney was fighting for the Protestant cause against the Spanish when he noticed another soldier was without leg armor. Believing that he shouldn’t be better protected than his men, Sidney gave the man his cuisses (armor that covered the thigh). During the Battle of Zutphen, Sidney was fatally wounded in his thigh during the final charge and, three weeks later, he died of gangrene from the injury. While heroic, his death was avoidable if the man had worn his complete set of armor!
God’s armor includes the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, and the helmet of salvation. No soldier, however, would go into battle without a weapon. While a soldier might go into battle without armor as did David when he met Goliath, he’d never go without a weapon. The young shepherd’s weapon was a handful of stones but the Christian’s weapon is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
As a young child, I loved singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” in Sunday school. My enthusiasm for the hymn waned as I grew older and learned about the evil and horrors of the Crusades and the World, Korean, and Vietnam wars. With its mention of war, soldiers, mighty armies, battles, and foes, the hymn seemed to glorify war. Even though the martial imagery comes from Biblical texts, the hymn’s combination of soldiers marching into battle and Jesus (the Prince of Peace) has caused controversy and some denominations have eliminated it from their hymnals.
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.
The email from my dentist asked, “Would you recommend us?” When I answered in the affirmative, I was hyperlinked to a site that added my five-star rating to that of other patients. The following day, I received a longer survey regarding my recent visit. Once done, it again asked if I would recommend his services and requested use of my name in an on-line testimonial. It’s clear that my dentist wants more than feedback; he wants the public approval of his patients. Although I like him, I like my privacy more, so I declined!
