I figured I was missing something on this whole “adornment” issue so I went to one of the Greek scholars I have access to (Alan Knox, who is actually the only Greek scholar I have access to) and asked: the Greek word translated into adornment, what is that all about?
Here is what Alan replied:
"The verb is kosmeo. It means adorn, make beautiful, decorate, etc. I think in 1 Peter 3, Peter is talking about the source of a woman's beauty being godliness, not outward appearances, whatever those outward appearances may be. Thus, if a woman finds her beauty in ankle length dresses and buns and covers and no makeup, and not godliness, then that's just as bad as fancy clothes and jewelry and makeup."
Which is pretty much what I suspected. Even people who are super plain like the Amish and Hutterites would admit that they run into issues where their “plainness” becomes an issue of pride for them. I also know many godly women who wear wedding rings that are both not adorned by that ring and who are adorned by a gentle and submissive spirit.
I don’t want to minimize what Paul and Peter are teaching but I also don’t want to go overboard. I would imagine that there words that would be rendered “wear” rather than "adorn" that these two men could have used. I didn’t buy my wife her wedding ring to adorn herself, I bought it because that was just what you are supposed to do and I was not only unregenerate at that time, I was also a month shy of my 19th birthday. Looking back I would probably choose to give my wife a plain golden band instead of a traditional ring with a solitaire.
So if you read here very often you may be thinking to yourself: “Self, this seems like a double-standard. This guy is all about a literal headcovering for women when they pray based on 1 Cor 11 but here he is saying that these passages might not require a total ban on gold”
I think this is a similar question but it is not exactly the same thing. The focus and principle are not equivalent. Paul and Peter are saying you should not be adorned with gold as the source of your beauty, you should be adorned with godliness. I don’t think what they are saying completely precludes the wearing of gold at all. On the other hand, Paul in 1 Cor 11 is presenting a pretty clear contrast, insisting that women do wear a headcovering when then pray and describing not wearing a headcovering as shameful. Perhaps I am quibbling but I don’t see that there is a one to one correlation between these two teachings. They do kind of wrap together with the teachings on women dressing modestly, being submissive to their husbands, etc. We could all stand to have more modesty among our sisters in Christ. But I digress…
Can you wear a gold wedding ring and not be adorned with it? It certainly seems that way. Can you not cover your head and still be covered? I don’t think so. In the “adornment” passages, gold is not the focus, godliness is and I think that “adornment” is not synonymous with “wearing”. In 1 Cor 11 I believe the headcover is the focal point. Maybe I am being inconsistent here, I need to think about it more. I am completely convicted on the headcovering issue, the complete ban on any gold not so much.
If you don’t wear a wedding ring because it is a point of pride for you and choose instead to sell it and use the proceeds to give to the poor, that is great. If you have a modest wedding band that you wear out of cultural tradition, that is probably also fine. I would suggest that women who wear lots of decorative jewelry designed to adorn themselves have pride issues that are dangerous and should be addressed and the same would go for men who buy expensive sports equipment or take pride in their new car. I trust a discerning Christian to be able to recognize the difference between a woman wearing a wedding band and a woman adorning herself with gold.
Arthur, you do the very thing you scoff at. You are waffling based on an interpretation from a scholarly perspective, as opposed to a plain reading of the preserved text.
ReplyDeleteConsequentially speaking, I think your logic in this post would be easily applicable to the text in Peter.
But Paul is not so vague. He is pretty conclusive. And just as he makes the purpose of the headcovering to exhibit shamefacedness, so to he does so with the non-adornment. BOTH are within the context of the meeting.
So conclusively I think we come to another tension, just like with the headcover, its for the meeting, not all the time, but Paul also makes reference to it being worn when praying, even outside of the meeting before he ever mentions its use in the meeting.
Same reason here, this is also an imperative statement made in the Greek in first Timothy, Paul states that he 'wants' them to, or likewise also,' referencing a strong emphasis on the direction to do so.
It also implicit to wives, and seems specific with the usage of women, just like the covers. But, still remains ambiguous in the application, should this be only for marrieds?
Since when did you leave your walk up to Greek interpretation?
Arthur, Alan,
ReplyDeleteThe way you've stated this is right where I was a few weeks ago before some of my brothers pointed out 1 Timothy 2:9-10. Alan's statement about the danger of pride in modesty itself, while undoubtedly true, unfortunately omits the plain language of this passage. Alan states that taking pride in modesty is just the same as taking pride in wealthy dress. You could make that argument from Peter, but not that's not what 1 Timothy 2 is talking about. In this passage women are instructed to wear modest clothing and good works AS OPPOSED TO costly and complex contrivances (alliteration anyone?) It sure seems like what's being said is that the appearance of a godly woman ought to be a blank slate for her good works. She may go on to take pride in her "blank slate", and this would be wrong, but that latter sin is not what these passages are discussing.
I would challenge the notion that headcovering is better supported than this. I think we would do well to subscribe to both... and while we're at it, maybe the guys (I speak to my own shame) should deal with 1 Timothy 2:8. Alfred Edersheim notes that the language of this passage is the same as was used for the priests in the temple when they (quite literally) lifted up their hands in prayer to God.
"I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."
So, what should you see when you look at a man? Submission and dependence on God, free of wrath, free of doubt. What should you see when you look on a woman? Good works alone.
James,
ReplyDeletea) I don't think what Alan said was an overly scholarly persepctive although he is certainly capable of provising one. It struck me as a common sense interpretation and one that is consistent with the renderings in other translations.
b) There is a difference between thinking an issue through carefully and waffling.
Is it your contention that a woman cannot be adorned with a "gentle and quiet spirit" if she is wearing a wedding ring?
Arthur, I am picking on you with the waffling statement. Forgive me.
ReplyDeleteYour question is a false dilemma, and I don't feel it effects the interpretation of the text.
I have long been reading this portion of scripture without the insertion of wedding rings, bases solely on the fact that there were no wedding rings.
The argument from the Abraham account is not applicable there either, if anything that text makes a strong case for a dowry.
So am I saying it is impossible for a woman to adorn herself with good works and godliness while wearing a wedding ring? No. Like I said, false dilemma.
Am I saying that Paul said do not adorn yourself with braided hair, gold, or pearls, and costly array? Yes.
Does this include wedding rings? Which typically are the most expensive thing most of us own, and are quite frankly, sometimes the blingiest. In that case, I say, its a distraction, and contradictory to our witness to the world.
I am at a point where the emphasis states that its gold, therefore meaning gold. Am I reading it literally, yes, Paul so little uses hyperbole, if ever, so I think it is safe to see it literally. Does it mean that you cannot submit to a cultural definition by wearing a band of some sort signifying your marriage? No, I dont think so. But I do invoke once again the concept that wedding rings, were not even a thought in this exhortation from Paul.
Arthur,
ReplyDeleteYou already know that I have been down the road of ultra-modest dress. And, after going through that I really think that the way Alan briefly summed it all up is spot on!
I know that when I was "ankle length skirts" and headcovering full time (as well as no jewelry, no make up, no high heeled shoes, etc) I found pride in that! I boasted in that! And, we are told only to boast in Christ.
It is certainly a heart issue. I can cover myself from head to toe and still be immodest in my thoughts. I can leave off the wedding ring, wear a long skirt, and still carry myself in such a way to draw attention. I mean to say that a person's very attitude can be an adornment. Does that makes sense?
I am looking forward to reading other comments.
Bethany
Something to chew on: whether we are allowed to wear gold or not, it is a heck of a lot easier to refrain from wearing gold than it is to adorn one's self with a gentle and quiet spirit. Trust me--I am by nature anything but gentle and quiet. :) What I'm saying is, even if we are actually not permitted to wear gold, whatsoever, that is not the point. The issue is not the wearing of the gold in and of itself. As I pointed out yesterday, I could go gold-less, as it were, but slather on the makeup and wear super trendy clothes, all while still having a haughty, dominating spirit. I could also dress in jumpers and bonnets, and have a haughty, dominating spirit. If God truly does not want me to wear gold, I will gladly get rid of my wedding ring. But, I think He's really asking more of me than just abstaining from gold and pearls. I think we tend to make so many of the mistakes that the Israelites did--and it's much easier to follow the law than to have a circumcised heart.
ReplyDeleteArthur,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to first confess my complete and utter ignorance. I have not thoroughly read the scriptures that you mention regarding head coverings and adornment. In fact, in the last year I haven't read them at all. However, as i read these comments, and think about these issues as they've been discussed, I can't help but think that we've missed the forest for all the trees. Paul talks about the freedom we have in Christ. He states we have been released from the law. Having released us from the law, why would God lay down a different set of rules, about how women can't do this and should do this? Galatians 3:28 states "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (NASB). Maybe I am over-simplifying things, and again I haven't studied these specific issues to be able to make a judgement on these scriptures. However, based on principles I see in other parts of scriptures, the literal interpretation of these passages is hard for me. I think there is a greater issue at hand, like we talked about in the first adornment post. Whether it be a matter of the heart or something else. I will grant that our culture makes these passages especially difficult to accept, and I'll be honest and say that I don't WANT those things to be true. They seem oppressive to me. Again, I will profess ignorance on the subject, as I'm sure there's a deeper understanding that could make it make sense, and not be oppressive. I am certainly open to correction.
Thanks, Arthur. I love your blog.
Mark
One other use of "adorn" occurs in Titus 2:10 (v.9-14):
ReplyDelete"Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
Arthur,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this post when I was lying in bed awake last night. And, I remembered something that happened a few weeks ago at Sam's Club.
I took my 6yo Nelson in with me on that occasion. And, when we reached the check-out counter, he says "Wow, Mommy, look at that pretty lady!" I followed his gaze to a woman (apparently Muslim) covered from head to toe in silver-colored silken fabric. All we could see was her lovely little oval face. She wore gloves. And, you could not see her feet under all the veiling. No jewelry in sight.
Though she sat quietly on a bench waiting for the men, she drew a lot of attention. And, it was plain to see that all the men around were stunned by her beauty. I made a comment to my son about how she was one of the pretties ladies I have ever seen, and Nelson said, "Don't worry mama, you could be that pretty if you would wear a head covering like hers."
I know this is a silly anecdote. But, hear me out - the woman was *fully* covered. (And, if she wore any jewelry it was well-hidden.) But, the nature of her silver silken veils was still quite an adornment. In fact, when I got into the car, Paul said, "those men must be proud to be able to be seen with a woman so well-attired."
Was that modesty? Was that shamefacedness?
So, again, I submit to you - adornments certainly are a heart issue.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right about having liberty in Christ! Praise God, that He sent His Son to purchase our salvation, when there was nothing we could do to merit it on our own!
That said, this same liberty applies to those who *choose* to cover their heads, or adorn themselves plainly. Anyone who is truly in Christ has the liberty to follow their convictions on these issues, SO LONG AS they know that this will not earn their salvation.
My two cents,
Bethany
Bethany, with all due respect. And I mean that. Let me encourage you as a brother in Christ, if indeed that we be?
ReplyDeleteYou are making a comparison of scriptural obligation to Koranic and Sharia law. The problem here is not so much that there is a heart issue involved in the modesty/adornment exhortation, the problem is that the hi-jab, the veil of Islam, and the teachings of a false prophet do not stand as an equation to the admonitions Paul, an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, gives us.
Lastly, I would say, that this is an awful lot of extra-biblical text wrangling to get around what Paul has indeed said, the imparitive town in which he has communicated it, and the simple plain reading of it.
Once again, an argument that excess is ok as long as it not as excessive as someone elses excess does not stand against the authority of scripture.
So I want to ask a genuine question, are your results and findings based on experiential and reactionary terms, or are they based on scripture?
James (and to a lesser extent Gene),
ReplyDeleteYou made an interesting and obvious concession:
So am I saying it is impossible for a woman to adorn herself with good works and godliness while wearing a wedding ring? No. Like I said, false dilemma.
I don’t think that is a false dilemma at all given your argument. So if you can have gold on without adorning yourself, do the admonitions of Paul and Peter rise to the level of a complete ban on anything gold? It doesn’t seem to be the case. Again, using the headcovering comparison, it is clear that a woman can wear a wedding ring and still be adorned in godliness but there is no way in which a woman can pray with her head uncovered and still be faithful to the imperative of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.
Does this include wedding rings? Which typically are the most expensive thing most of us own, and are quite frankly, sometimes the blingiest. In that case, I say, its a distraction, and contradictory to our witness to the world.
Actually my wife’s ring is not even close to the most expensive thing I own. Brand new 18 years ago it was less than $1000. My car is more expensive. My computers are by and large more valuable. I have several shotguns that are way more expensive. No one would view her ring as either an adornment or a damage to her witness. Conversely, I think that her gentle spirit and submission to me are a wonderful witness that is in no way impacted by her wearing a small modest cultural token on her left ring finger. Certainly the point still remains that a woman who focuses her appearance on costly apparel and fancy jewelry is not adorning herself with godliness but that does not in and of itself preclude her from wearing a wedding band. For example, when I first met Gene’s wife I remember that she had her head covered, that she was dressed modestly and that she was a kind and gentle woman. She was, I assume, at that time wearing a wedding ring which I didn’t even notice and couldn’t describe to you but I do remember her godly demeanor. Had she been a loud, bossy woman but not wearing a wedding ring, her behavior is what I would have remembered, not that she wasn’t wearing a ring.
(continued)
(cont.) With all charity it seems that the focus you are making here is more on the external piety via wooden literalism and not on the point these men were making, i.e. that a woman should be adorned with godliness. To take a hard line on this would necessitate that women don’t wear anything nice at all (costly attire) or perhaps not even brush their hair or bathe at all because that would be adorning themselves. The clear picture presented by Peter and Paul is a contrast between how a woman should adorn herself. i.e. with modesty, godliness, a quiet spirit versus adorning herself in such a way as to beautify herself and draw attention to herself.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the point remains that a woman who wears a wedding ring can adorn herself in godliness and be submissive to her husband and at the same time a woman can cover her head, wear nothing but ankle length skirts & full sleeve blouses and eschew the wearing of wedding rings, meeting all of the exterior criteria, and yet still be a quarrelsome, unsubmissive woman. I would rather we focus on what Paul and Peter are focused on, the quiet, submissive heart of a godly woman than on not wearing a wedding ring.
Having said all of that, I think there is something to be applied here when it comes to the wearing of wedding rings. I would encourage any young man who was courting my daughters and who wished to marry one of them to not make the presentation of a ring a focal point of the engagement or even to give her one at all. If they chose to exchange rings, I would certainly encourage them to at most exchange plain bands but also to not feel obligated to exchange rings just because the culture says so (nor to buy a special, “wear once” dress or any of the other cultural accessories that come along with western weddings). I think it is certainly fine and even admirable to not wear a wedding band or to stop wearing one if you already have one. Better yet would be to stop wearing them and sell them to give the proceeds to those in need. Still thinking this through but I am unconvinced at present that the intent of Peter and Paul would rise to the level of an absolute ban.
Arthur, you are completely omitting the words of the Apostle with an apologetic based on an appeal to emotion.
ReplyDeleteIt is not compelling to say the least.
The words are plain, let not the adornment be gold. In contrast to the command to the men to pray with uplifted hands without wrath and doubting, this is a command for men to do so without themselves being their piety.
Either you are a clean slate for Christ or you or not.
All this talk of the outward appearance just being exemplary contradicts what the word of God is saying, and it is not a wooden literalism being implied, it is a clear exegesis of the text.
Every contemporary commentary on these passages gloss over Pauls command and highlight Peter statement. They also rigidly make the argument that it is not the ring that gets noticed when a woman is submissive, gentle, meek, quiet, etc., but the actions and the nature of her heart.
This makes the argument against wearing of adornments all the more, if you do not need your 'cultural token' to be a definition of these things, or your marriage, as you implore with me she communicates just fine without a ring, why are you wearing the ring then? And why are you ignoring the words of the apostle in lieu of emotional appeal?
The slippery slope of bathing, brushing, and hygiene is also another bad line of reasoning because it is not what the text is addressing, and once again appeals to the emotions. Submissive vs. unsubmissive and wedding rings are not what is in question,
the words of the Apostle are.
James,
ReplyDeleteI am not omitting the words at all, nor am I adding to them. We need to deal with what the Scriptures actually say and what they say is that a woman should not adorn herself with gold but rather should adorn herself with godliness. You are interpreting what Paul and Peter are saying as a blanket prohibition on gold even though you admit that a woman can wear gold and still be adorned with godliness.
The words are plain, let not the adornment be gold.
Amen to that. That is not in question. How we apply that is. You admit that a woman can be adorned with godliness and still have a gold token, so by your own admission that issue is off the table. The mere presence of gold does not invariably lead to adornment. Both Peter and Paul say a woman should not be adorned with gold and both say she should be adorned with godliness. The presence of gold does not ensure that she is improperly adorned nor does the lack of gold ensure she is adorned properly. Not all gold is adornment and not all adornment is gold.
Either you are a clean slate for Christ or you or not.
You are adding a whole new level to the standard, demanding a “clean slate” which is not explicit or even implicit in the text. In fact, that is not at all what Paul and Peter are saying. Far from a blank slate, women are to adorn themselves in humility and godliness which is not only not a blank slate for Christ, it is a powerful witness to the world. In doing so you are creating demands far above what the apostle is saying and in thereby you are not simply speaking what the Bible says, you are adding an entire layer and demanding more than Paul and Peter do. We should be faithful to Scripture where it speaks but we need to be careful to not add to it or to presumptuously speak where Scripture does not. As you pointed out, wedding rings were not even in the picture back then but you are applying these texts to make demands that are not supported at all in the Scriptures. I think you are latched onto the gold issue and aren’t seeing the broader picture. I am not saying you are wrong abotu wedding rings but I don't think you are seeing the overarching issue.
Arturo,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how I communicated that I said a woman could still wear gold. If I communicated that, I did not intend to. I made provision for a cultural expression in the form of ring if need be, not gold, but of some sort, hematite, wood, onyx, what have you. I do believe the text to be a prohibition on gold, that is why I have removed the ring I wear, not so much as a command for men, for it is not there, but because I once had much jewelery, in places one should not have them, but took them out long ago as well. This is not a new conviction of mine. But a mere reflection that the head of man is the head of Christ, we reflect His glory, and should strive to do so in appearance as well.
I do believe the application is much plainer that we might argue it is not. How can we read - LET NOT YOUR ADORNMENT BE GOLD - and get this para-psychological assessment of what justifies wearing it and not..again the godliness exceeds the wearing of gold, therefore it is ok to violate the imperative?
I do not think I am adding a new level to the standard regarding the clean slate. If you consider the that the reading states a contrast between godliness and adornment you can see that Paul and Peter both make it obvious it is one over the other, not more of one and less of the other.
I will post some more scriptural references later.
Wait--what? So it's okay to wear a ring--sterling silver, platinum, whatever--as long as it's not gold? Do you really think that's the issue? Because by this interpretation, it would be fine for me to have a platinum wedding band (more expensive than gold) as long as the physical material is not gold. Could I also wear a diamond necklace as long as it had no gold or pearls in it?
ReplyDeleteGodliness is not the opposite of a specific metal. It is the opposite of pride. To say that gold is prohibited but other metals are fine misses the entire point of the passage. I'm sorry, but that is the most wooden literalism I have ever seen.
Would you also advocate that we literally cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin? Because that is exactly what the text says, and if we are to take that completely literally, then we'd better bust out our cleavers and forks.
April sez:
ReplyDeleteGodliness is not the opposite of a specific metal. It is the opposite of pride.
For once, I have nothing to add.
Ok. Do I believe that the Lord Jesus was quite so literal when he said pick up your cross and follow me? How about eat my flesh and drink my blood? Maybe he was only kidding when he said that hell was a place where the worm never dies and the flames are never quenched. You know, hyperbole, Jesus used it all the time, so he was only making philosophical statements that help us live a better life.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand are not something the Holy, Righteous, and Perfect God-Son would want us to do, I mean, he knows we aren't perfect. It is ok to sin a little here and sin a little there.
No cutting necessary, no death necessary, no repentance necessary. Free ticket to heaven everyone.
Note on the comparison of jewelery, it is yet another slippery slope, which this discussion is full of by the way, to say that a prohibition on gold is permission to use everything else. The provision in my statements are for those who's conscience cannot bear to part with their wedding ring.
April, you keep placing value on the ornament, monetary value, which by gold standard, fluctuates, regardless the type of metal, therefore the conclusion that a more costly metal that is NOT gold would be permissive and then tosses out this whole notion. It is Post Hoc at its best.
All the proponents for the "Its a heart issue argument" keep making appeals to the emotion, and the dilemma of pride, but keep forgetting the willingness of the servant to be stripped of everything to enter into the presence of the Lord, and as the Israelites, so shall we, be willingly stripped of our outward 'bling'
For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb. And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.
(Exodus 33:5-7)