Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness (1 Tim 2:9-10).I seem to be the odd-man-out on the topic of women wearing gold. Not to worry. I'm not surprised. I'm kind of used to it. They all tell me that this, indeed, is a very clear statement about what women should and should not wear. "Yes!" they assure me, "Paul was making a fashion statement in the middle of the passage on men praying and women not exceeding their authority." (Of course, most will also assure me that the whole thing about women and authority is also no longer an actual command, so we are free to toss that one.)
I seem to have a somewhat unique take on the passage. Here's what I see. I see Paul saying, "I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing. What kind of clothing am I talking about? No, no, I'm not talking about braids or gold or garments. I'm talking about the clothing of character. Women should be best known for modesty and discretion, for godliness and good works." To me that's all that makes sense.
I suggested in a comment section that if Paul was actually making a fashion call here, it would seem to me that it's a call to nudity. "Don't wear anything!" Of course, I intended that as hyperbole, but then I came across Peter's parallel and was surprised to find the very same thing. Speaking to wives he says:
Your adornment must not be external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on clothing; but let it 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 (1 Peter 3:3-4).The King James Version inserts "fine" in front of "clothing" and the New American Standard inserts "merely" in front of "external", but neither word appears in the actual text.
So what do we see? First, we see that Peter and Paul are in agreement, whatever they are saying. Women should adorn themselves with godliness. What else? Well, if we are looking at an agreement between Peter and Paul in making a fashion statement, then what exactly has Peter said? "Do not adorn yourself externally with braids or jewelry or clothing." My hyperbole from Paul becomes genuine text from Peter. So ... are we to conclude that Peter and Paul were commanding women to go about without clothing, or is it possible that the ever-popular "This passage clearly says women shouldn't wear gold" is perhaps not right at all? Is it remotely possible that both Paul and Peter were simply telling women "Adorn yourselves with godliness" in contrast to "outward appearance"?
14 comments:
"Is it remotely possible that both Paul and Peter were simply telling women "Adorn yourselves with godliness" in contrast to "outward appearance"? "
That is exactly what I think they were saying.
Thanks!
Another excellent post. Thank you, Stan. And thank God, too, because a whole lot of us humans happen to like sparkly, shiny bracelets, earrings, and the classy look of French braids. They're pretty things. And c'mon, God was obviously "into" pretty things when He created this planet. Just check out all of its adornments.
I just got back from that little hole in the wall state Sarah Palin governed and you can't tell me God has some big "issue" with breathtaking beauty.
He just exhorts us (via Peter, Paul, and Mary) to keep our priorities straight.
Wow ... a nice, quiet, friendly thread! :)
That's only because I'm passing on pointing out yer errors... (ha!)
Stan,
At first glance I like this. It certainly makes sense to me, though I have never heard this take on it.
I like the 'call to nudity' interpretation :)
I think the key word is 'adorn'; which here does not mean 'dress at all' but 'the important part of your 'dress''.
So while I think it is a fashion statement, I think that fashion statement (like so many statemetns in Scripture) is a reflection of the heart.
Dan is wrong, of course, since he starts out wrong he can hardly help it.
But I wouldn't want my wife to be loaded down with fancy clothes and gold and such and then have her try to tell me, 'but I realize none of this is important'... 'out of the mouth the heart speaks' is probably true in dress as well.
N'est pas?
May I ask, what reasons would you have for not taking it literally?
I failed to point out that the last question was not meant to heckle or to be hostile. I was just wondering what reasons would cause you to think, "Hey, maybe THIS particular passage should not be taken literally."
Likewise, do you think these fashion statement-type commands ought not be taken literally?
Men ought not have long hair?
Men ought not pray WITH a head covering on?
Women ought not pray unless they have a head covering or shave their heads?
As found in 1 Cor. 11.
We shouldn't have tattoos?
Men shouldn't "round off" their hair at the temples or trim their beards?
As found in Lev 19.
I am striving to understand which clothing/hairstyle/"fashion" type commands in the Bible you think are not to be taken literally and which ones are? And I am striving to understand THAT to try to understand what your process is for setting aside some scriptures as not literal (even ones that seem pretty intentionally literal) and when you don't.
Given your newest post, I will probably make this my last series of comments, as I am hearing you say you're not really writing to me and that's fine. No problems at all.
But I was curious about this line of questions as regarding your post so I thought I'd ask at least one more set of questions before leaving. Ignore if you wish.
Thanks for the conversations...
As to your first question, I don't understand the question. As far as I can tell I took it literally. As far as I can tell I took it exactly as written. As far as I know, "literally" means "as written" and I simply explained what was written.
As for the second comment, this is what is known as "red herring". "Let's not actually discuss the content. Let's run down rabbit trails. I know you're talking about this passage, but let's throw off the discussion by talking about these other passages." Red herring.
Accepting the red herring, what I always do when I read Scripture is "What is it saying? What are the principles involved?" In the vast majority of cases the principle involved is in the words used. If not, the principle is explained. (Why, for instance, does Paul forbid women to be pastors? Because of the order of creation and because Eve was deceived. When that principle changes, let me know and I'll consider changing my view on ordination of females.) So ... when you go back to those questions and find the principle involved, you let me know and we can discuss them ... some other time. Of course, since the principle of, say, qualifications of bishops is explicit and clear, yet you reject the qualifications, I don't anticipate you'd agree on this.
A couple of general comments:
Apparently I'm not alone in my understanding of these passages. It's not ... novel. It appears that my understanding is, actually, the fairly common one. I just explained it with exegesis.
Taking it "literally", on the other hand, can take you to some bizarre places. Assuming these are actual fashion prohibitions, look at what they say: "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments". Braided hair is out. What about other styles? Is the prohibition braiding or all hair styles? Must women wear their hair straight only, or can it be curled? Styled? How about perms? I don't know. To be on the safe side, ladies, better go with straight ... and long. I think cutting hair can be styling it. On the other hand, there is gold and pearls that are prohibited. Silver, platinum, diamonds, rubies, all that stuff isn't mentioned. You're okay there, ladies. Why gold I can't say, but we're taking it "literally", right? Oh, and then there is "costly garments". Now that's a tough one. What is "costly"? If you buy a dress that looks like ... oh, I'm not really good at this ... how about Vera Wang, but at Target so it doesn't cost so much, is it "costly"? If you buy a Halston at Ross's so it didn't cost so much, is it "costly"? Or do you start from the bottom. "Well, women in Africa wouldn't pay much at all for their dresses, so anything over, say, twenty-five cents would be 'costly'." See? So hard to say. And don't even go over to 1 Peter, because that's written to "wives". Apparently Peter didn't worry much about the unmarried wearing whatever they wanted. In fact, Peter only seemed to be concerned about wives with unbelieving husbands, so the rest should be able to wear whatever they want ... right?
And hopefully we begin to see that "literally" (as it seems so often to be touted) doesn't seem to make sense ... as it would literally have been taken.
The passage literally says, "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves... modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments
Paul ALSO talks about having good works, but he IS quite literally saying he does not want women wearing braided hair, gold, pearls or costly garments. Do you think the audience who heard these directions from Paul were NOT being admonished to not wear costly clothes in addition to "wearing" good works? It's not what the text directly says.
As to the others, I don't believe it to be a red herring at all. The reason for this is that part of your argument is that you are mocking the notion that "Paul was making a fashion statement" offering up opinions about actual hair and dress. And so, since YOUR argument is that God does not care about fashion (ie what they are wearing and how they are wearing it), does that ALSO mean that you think Paul was not literally suggesting men should not have long hair? That all these other fashion opinions offered in the Bible don't mean what they literally say?
Now, it can be argued that YOU have offered a straw man in your argument. No one is suggesting that Paul is making comments on fashion. Rather, Paul is making a pretty strong statement on modesty and simplicity and against garish displays of wealth - which have to do with how we clothe ourselves. Literally. But since you brought up the topic, I don't see how it can be a red herring to follow up on what you have brought up.
Stan said...
Taking it "literally", on the other hand, can take you to some bizarre places.
Indeed. Which is why I return to my contention that the Bible is a book of Truths primarily. The specifics of a given situation may change, but the Truths remain.
The literal Truth that Paul is getting at here is a warning against ostentatiousness, in favor of modesty, against garish displays of wealth and in favor of simple living. These are Truths that are supported throughout the Bible.
So, taking these Truths literally, we can decide for ourselves whether or not "braided hair" or wearing gold in OUR culture is lacking in modesty or a garish display of wealth. We can realize that IF ostentatious displays of wealth are what are being warned against that it might not just apply to gold, but silver and diamonds (or whatever), too.
Paul is quite literally warning against immodesty and I think, quite literally in his day, against wearing gold and braided hair. I don't see how one could get to any other position reading what is there, and that is why I asked what your process for determining "THIS ought to be taken literally, but THAT ought not..."
In that regard, you read the Bible exactly as I do. You look for the Principles involved. Very good, that is how it should be. Look for the principles involved and realize that the exact literal details may or may not currently be valid in this different culture and time, but the Truths will remain.
I just don't see how you would think that Paul is not literally saying what he is literally saying.
And with that final analysis (unless you have a question for me) I bid you all adieu and pray that God's Peace and Wisdom may fill us all.
I'm checking ... I'm checking ... nope, can't see anywhere that I said, "God doesn't care about fashion." Odd. Well, thanks for correcting me, because I didn't know that was my argument.
No, Dan, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the context didn't fit with a fashion statement. And my argument was that your view that this is what the text directly says is questionable. And my argument will be (wasn't, but becomes) that if that was Paul's argument, then we ought to do it. Your argument is "Who cares? That was just then, not now. Paul's comments about wives submitting to husbands, women not being ordained, and all that elder qualification stuff is all cultural and we're free to toss it out."
Why don't I think that Paul was saying, "Women must not wear gold"? Because it makes no sense in context. And because there is another problem. There are multiple passages in the Old Testament where God tells His "bride", Israel, that He would adorn her with jewels, gold, and costly garments. "Oh, my, my, God, you are so wrong!" Paul would say. "That's so bad!" Really? Paul is not only making a fashion statement in the middle of a text on how women should function in church, but he is doing so in opposition to God's ideas on how things should be. Now that makes sense ... right?
Paul gives his principle. "Adorn yourselves with good works." The principle remains. Paul gives his principles on men's hair and women's headcoverings in the text. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." The issue at hand? Authority. Your answer? No one is in authority. That's not even rational. "We're all equal in authority." Oh, good, then all we have to do is erase 1 Cor 11 because it has NO bearing on anything.
What is the principle God gives on tattoos? "You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." He was demanding that His people be set apart, not like the idolaters around them. I take it that this is still the case. So ... if there is idol worship today that centers on marking your body as a form of worship, I'd suggest Christians don't imitate it.
But all of this doesn't help you understand at all, does it? So, it would seem to me that I should be asking the reverse. All of these passages that you've trotted out ... what do you do with them? The principle doesn't seem particularly relevant. The abundantly clear qualifications of elders aren't applicable to you. You say the Bible is a "book of truth", but it seems like it's largely a book of ignored content. Leviticus? Gone. Rules on marriage, patriarchy, parenting, church polity, submission ... gone. And all those clear statements about "there is none righteous" and such? No, not to be taken at face value. What do you take at face value? Anything? Since it appears that it's simply a "book of wisdom" to you, it becomes simply a matter of personal opinion and ... useless as a book of instruction because it's whatever I feel like I think it says. It looks that way. Why isn't it?
Stan, really, my last comment. You have totally misrepresented my position. I guess you just have a hard time comprehending my position and apparently you think I have a hard time comprehending yours.
Suffice to say, no, I did not say that (to pretty much everything you said about me).
Now, peace, y'all...
Post a Comment