Among the list of "evils" perpetrated by people, a popular one is women who braid their hair. Oh, you didn't know that one? Yep. Right there in Scripture. "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). "Oh, come on. That's just Paul." Oh? "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 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 3:1-4). It's repeated. Apparently wearing gold and pearls and expensive clothes is a sin, and women who do it are sinning. Right?
Clearly the text says it, but ... does it? Let's look at context. Paul urges prayer (1 Tim 2:1-7}. Then he tells men specific instructions. Pray without wrath and dissension (1 Tim 2:8). Then women (1 Tim 2:9-10). Read what he says carefully. "Likewise." As people pray and men avoid wrath and dissension ... what should women do? He urges them to adorn themselves ... "by means of good works." Why? It's proper for godliness. We have the "not with braided hair" and so on, but I don't think it's a ban, but a redirection. "I want you to adorn yourselves properly for godliness. No, I'm not talking about dressing well, but with good works." Surely, proper clothing, modesty, and discretion are suitable for godliness. But the real beauty is in character, not clothes ... good works, not good looks. Not convinced? Look at Peter's text. Peter wrote regarding submitting to authority (1 Peter 2:13-25). "In the same way," he says, wives are to submit to husbands. He urges them win their husbands by submission via chaste and respectful behavior. He says it's not external. It's "the hidden person of the heart." The NAS adds "merely" there to make the point that the point is not a prohibition, but, like Paul, a redirection. "I know society tells you looking good is important. Don't believe it. Adorn yourselves in character. Dress yourselves in a gentle and quiet spirit." Neither is banning this stuff. They're asking women not to focus on externals and pay more attention to character. Don't be calling attention to yourselves (especially by how you look), but to your Lord by having character that reflects Him.
God told Samuel, "God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but YHWH looks at the heart" (1 Sam 16:7). Jesus said, "The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders" (Matt 15:18-19). The problem is always the heart. God's concern isn't mere appearance. He wants a heart that reflects Him. So many have tried to make these texts say it's a sin to wear jewelry. That's looking on the outward appearance. Look at the heart. Let's not make rules that aren't there. Let's look at what it's actually saying. Women ... everyone ... needs to reflect Christ, not our own appearance. Our adornment isn't about looks, but character. Proverbs says, "Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears YHWH, she shall be praised" (Prov 31:30). That is the point.
5 comments:
That's good because I've always been fond of a good braid.
Jokes aside, it seems that outer beauty should be a result of inner beauty, not a covering for inner ugliness.
Being a woman, I have likely given more attention to this teaching than some others reading and/or commenting here (which is as it should be, of course). Upon reading 1 Tim. 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:1-4, I must deduce that “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments” (as written by Paul) and “braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on [fine] dresses” (as written by Peter) had certain connotations in the context in which they were written, which would not necessarily carry over to the current culture (or would need a bit of “translation” in order to do so). Upon learning a little bit about the historical context for those references (through information easily found online), it is easy to make that necessary translation in order to ascertain the crux of the apostles’ instructions and to then have the proper takeaway for our time and place.
It would be a shame if Bible students were to fixate on the specifics described in those passages and end their (mis)understanding there--missing the true message of Paul and Peter, which would inspire behavior that glorifies God. Indeed, this is a perfect example of what we were discussing at your 9/30/25 post (“Bad Math”)--how misinterpreting a text and being ignorant of the context for it (as well as committing the general error of not interpreting Scripture with Scripture) can lead to making certain “rules” that supposedly define holy living, when they actually do no such thing. The natural outcome of this legalism is wrongly judging others--and doing so out of one’s own spiritual ignorance, in this case (i.e. “The Bible forbids braided hair, gold or pearl adornment, or expensive clothing, you brazen hussy!”). Sadly, there is a large segment of “Christians” who hold such uninformed, “holier-than-thou” views as that…and worse.
But the real beauty is in character, not clothes ... good works, not good looks. Very well stated…and the proper focus for me today and every day. Rather than “dress to impress” or to turn heads, may I “let [my] light shine before others, that they may see [my] good deeds and glorify [my] Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).
This sounds like it could be applied to the church clothes discussion.
As always, it's much more abut what is inside than what is outside.
Craig, I agree that it applies there. It occurred to me that a diminished desire on my part (as a woman) to “dress to impress” might very well explain my personal views of “Sunday best”--i.e. I would not be led to “dress up” for church when I am admonished by Paul and Peter to “dress down.” So perhaps this is a gender-influenced “debate.”
Post a Comment