ON JEWELRY AND ATTIRE : “PUT OFF THY ORNAMENTS FROM THEE”
It is a cardinal principle of scriptural interpretation that the most clear and explicit scripture passages on a doctrine should be our guide in interpreting those that are less easy to discern the implication thereof. Even as the Westminster Confession points out, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
Arguably the most explicit passages in scripture on the ethics of attire are I Timothy 2:8-10 and I Peter 3:3. There are many other passages in scripture where jewelry and attire are mentioned, but a clear and explicit command regarding what Christians should actually wear is not offered in most of these other passages like it is in I Timothy 2:8-10 and I Peter 3:3.
Before we consider I Timothy 2:8-10 and I Peter 3:3, we should first note that
jewelry and lavish attire are signs of wealth and luxury in scripture. For example, in James 2:2-3 we read:
"For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly
apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect
to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto
him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or
sit here under my footstool…" We
should also note that wealth per se is not forbidden in scripture. For example, I Corinthians
Now let's consider the passages themselves. In I Timothy 2:8-10 we read: "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."
Contained within this passage is the command for women to " adorn themselves in modest apparel". The apparel is to be characterized by shamefacedness and sobriety. Shamefacedness means "a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect." But why would shamefacedness be especially called for in clothing?
People are wont to forget the primary purpose of clothing in the first place: to show due shame for our sin before a righteous and holy God. Clothing is first mentioned in Genesis 3:7: " And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Matthew Henry comments upon the shame attendant with their sin: "The text tells us that they saw that they were naked, that is, [1.] That they were stripped, deprived of all the honours and joys of their paradise-state, and exposed to all the miseries that might justly be expected from an angry God. They were disarmed; their defence had departed from them. [2.] That they were shamed, for ever shamed, before God and angels. They saw themselves disrobed of all their ornaments and ensigns of honour, degraded from their dignity and disgraced in the highest degree, laid open to the contempt and reproach of heaven, and earth, and their own consciences. "
The Geneva Bible commentators wrote this concerning Genesis 3:7: "They began to feel their misery, but they did not seek God for a remedy."
Calvin comments on Genesis 3:7,
"In short, the cold and faint knowledge of
sin, which is inherent in the minds of men, is here described by Moses, in order
that they may be rendered inexcusable. Then (as we have already said) Adam and
his wife were yet ignorant of their own vileness, since with a covering so
light they attempted to hide themselves from the presence of God."
So clothing first arose because man had a "cold and faint knowledge of sin", and were rightly ashamed (at least to some extent), even if they did not seek the right solution. Nevertheless, God graciously supplied man with clothing, and in so doing taught man many lessons, as we read in Genesis 3:21: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." The Geneva Bible comments as follows on Genesis 3:21:3:21 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God {u} make coats of skins, and clothed them. (u) Or, gave them knowledge to make themselves coats."
One lesson of God's provision of clothing for the man and woman was that the man and woman were right in being ashamed of their sin, and in putting on clothing as a mark of that shame. God gave them clothing, which means He must have approved of it, even if it was something else than Adam and Eve had made for themselves.
Another lesson was what the nature of the apparel should be. John Calvin supplies the following comments concerning it:
"21. Unto
Adam also , and to his
wife , did the Lord God make , etc
. Moses here, in a homely style, declares that the Lord had undertaken the
labor of making garments of skins for Adam and his wife. It is not indeed proper
so to understand his words, as if God had been a furrier, or a servant to sew
clothes. Now, it is not credible that skins should have been presented to them
by chance; but, since animals had before been destined for their use, being now
impelled by a new necessity, they put some to death, in order to cover
themselves with their skins, having been divinely directed to adopt this
counsel; therefore Moses calls God the Author of it. The reason why the Lord
clothed them with garments of skin appears to me to be this: because garments
formed of this material would have a more degrading appearance than those made
of linen or of woolen. God therefore designed that our first parents should, in
such a dress, behold their own vileness, — just as they had before seen it in
their nudity, — and should thus be reminded of their sin. In the meantime, it is not to be denied,
that he would propose to us an example, by which he would accustom us to a
frugal and inexpensive mode of dress. And I wish those delicate persons would
reflect on this, who deem no ornament sufficiently
attractive, unless it exceed in magnificence. Not that every kind of ornament
is to be expressly condemned; but because when immoderate elegance and splendor
is carefully sought after, not only is that Master despised, who intended
clothing to be a sign of shame, but war is, in a certain sense, carried on
against nature."
So, in Calvin's opinion, the fact that God has subsequently allowed men to dress in cloth is luxurious enough. To seek excessive extravagance- such as the wearing of jewelry - is to forget the purpose for which God gave us clothing in the first place. It is as it were to thwart the purpose of apparel being a mark of due shame for our sin and nakedness. The fact that mankind was given animal skins was to accentuate the fact that man's clothing was to be plain and not fancy or extravagant, and to reflect an attitude of shame and repentance for sin. It is analogous to the way God accentuated that men should not make images of Him by not appearing visibly at the giving of the Law (Deut 4:415-16), even though there have been other times in history that God has appeared in visible form (eg, in the person of Jesus Christ).
We witness that John the Baptist – a man who most significantly was to call the Jews to consider their shame and sinfulness before God – wore camel hair and a leather girdle (Matthew 3:4). Matthew Henry comments upon this attire of John the Baptist as follows:
"His dress
was plain. This same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a
leathern girdle about his loins; he did not go in long clothing, as
the scribes, or soft clothing, as the courtiers, but in the
clothing of a country husbandman… John appeared in this dress, (1.) To show
that, like Jacob, he was a plain man, and mortified to this world, and
the delights and gaieties of it. Behold an Israelite indeed! Those that
are lowly in heart should show it by a holy negligence and indifference
in their attire; and not make the putting on of apparel their adorning, nor
value others by their attire. (2.) To show that he was a prophet, for
prophets wore rough garments, as mortified men (Zec.
13:4); and, especially, to show that he was the Elias promised; for
particular notice is taken of Elias, that he was a hairy man (which,
some think, is meant of the hairy garments he wore), and that he was girt
with a girdle of leather about his loins, 2 Ki. 1:8.
John Baptist appears no way inferior to him in mortification; this therefore is
that Elias that was to come. (3.) To show that he was a man of
resolution; his girdle was not fine, such as were then commonly worn,
but it was strong, it was a leathern girdle; and blessed is that
servant, whom his Lord, when he comes, finds with his loins girt, Lu. 12:35; 1 Pt. 1:13."
We are reminded too
of Jesus, whose appearance is described in this wise: "For he shall
grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath
no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him,
[there is] no beauty that we should desire him. For he shall grow up before him
as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is]
no beauty that we should desire him."
(Isaiah 53:2). Commenting upon this
verse, A.R. Faussett points out:
and when we shall see--rather, joined with the previous words,
"Nor comeliness (attractiveness) that we should look (with delight)
on Him."
there is--rather, "was." The studied reticence of the New Testament as
to His form, stature, color, &c., was designed to prevent our dwelling on
the bodily, rather than on His moral beauty, holiness, love, &c., also a
providential protest against the making and veneration of images of Him.
Although it seems
Jesus wore cloth raiment (Matthew
Jesus is the second and last Adam, and the very plainness of Jesus’ appearance seems to be a mark of the New Creation He is ushering in for His elect. As Jesus well pointed out, “why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” We do not need worldly “fashionable” embellishments to be beautiful, for true beauty is moral in nature. Even in Solomon’s day this was known, even if in New Testament times it is to be more consistently implemented: “Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [JPM- that is worldly beauty] [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.”
We should recall that in the original Creation Adam and
Eve’s beauty was a simple and plain beauty.
They did not have to put on costly array to be beautiful, for their
beauty was in their innocence and moral uprightness. The Fall changed
that, and there became a rationale to look for costly array to emphasize
grandeur and beauty, since man lacked it in the inner man. It seems God tolerated more use of costly
array in Old Testament times, just as He tolerated a bill of divorcement and
the more ornate vestments of the priesthood and
Returning then to I Timothy 2:8-10, we can better understand why it commands attire that is plain, modest, and shamefaced. There should be an appropriate shame for sin, and that shame should even be expressed in the manner of clothing worn. Namely, it is to be plain. This hearkens back to Exodus 33:5-6, where the people were commanded to “take off thy ornaments from thee” in order to express their shamedfacedness for sin:
“For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of
Too, there should be modesty of attire to convey humility and lowliness appropriate to a disciple of Jesus Christ, and in anticipation of a consummated New Creation where moral purity is our adornment. So the term "modest" in I Timothy 2:8-10 not only seems to address the matter of being covered (as opposed to being naked), but also the matter of plainness and simplicity of appearance. This exhortation is apparently directed to women in particular, for women are peculiarly wont and feel peculiarly compelled to violate it.
The scriptural passage provides examples of excessive or
extravagant attire, so that we might be better informed as to what is
meant. The examples include "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly
array." As John Calvin notes, God
here "expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled
hair, jewels, and golden rings…" It
should not surprise us then when we read of Calvin's
Nor was this prohibition of jewelry limited to
I Timothy 2:9 - {7} 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;
(7) Thirdly, he appoints women to learn in the public assemblies with silence and modesty, being dressed pleasantly, without any overindulgence or excess in their clothing.
Accordingly, the Puritans of England and
For clothing to be plain and modest, it must avoid that which is excessive, such as "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array". Scripture offers an illustrative example of a woman dressed in that which is the opposite of modesty and sobriety. Revelation 17:4 says "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication."
Matthew Henry comments on I Timothy 2:8-10 as follows:
"They must be very modest in their apparel, not affecting gaudiness, gaiety, or costliness (you may read the vanity of a person’s mind in the gaiety and gaudiness of his habit), because they have better ornaments with which they should adorn themselves, with good works. Note, Good works are the best ornament; these are, in the sight of God, of great price. Those that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes, they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called good works."
And John Calvin offers this commentary on the passage:
“9 In like manner also women As he enjoined men to lift up pure hands, so he now prescribes the manner in which women ought to prepare for praying aright. And there appears to be an implied contrast between those virtues which he recommends and the outward sanctification of the Jews; for he intimates that there is no profane place, nor any from which both men and women may not draw near to God, provided they are not excluded by their vices.
He intended to embrace the opportunity of correcting
a vice to which women are almost always prone, and which perhaps at
Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress. But because hypocrites commonly avail themselves of all the pretexts that they can find for concealing their wicked dispositions, we are under the necessity of pointing out what meets the eye. It would be great baseness to deny the appropriateness of modesty as the peculiar and constant ornament of virtuous and chaste women, or the duty of all to observe moderation. Whatever is opposed to these virtues it will be in vain to excuse. He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings; not that the use of gold or of jewels is expressly forbidden, but that, wherever they are prominently displayed, these things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned, and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source.
10 Which becometh women; for undoubtedly the dress of a virtuous and godly woman must differ from that of a strumpet. What he has laid down are marks of distinction; and if piety must be testified by works, this profession ought also to be visible in chaste and becoming dress.”
Some have been confused on reading Calvin, and thought he
taught something different on attire from the Puritans (of England) and the
Presbyterians (of Scotland), as they have thought he does on the topic of the
Christian Sabbath. But a closer examination
of all his writings and his endorsement of the practices in
Calvin wanted to be very careful that he
did not give the impression that "gold is evil" or "pearls are
evil", when in fact "all things are lawful", if used
lawfully. So he differentiated their use
for functionality and their use for ornamentation in attire (i.e.,
"superfluous display"). When
Calvin wrote the following, he simply wanted to make clear that there are
lawful uses for things such as gold, silver and pearls :
"He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair,
jewels, and golden rings; NOT THAT THE USE OF GOLD AND JEWELS IS
EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, but that, wherever THEY ARE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED, these
things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned,
and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source." There are a wide variety of uses for these commodities,
from use as currency, table instruments, etc.
A passage paralleling I Timothy 2:9 is I Peter 3:3. God had both the Apostle to the Jews as well as the Apostle to the Gentiles speak in uniformity on this issue, to emphasize that both Jews and Gentiles were to comply with the doctrine. I Peter 3:3-4 reads: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”
Matthew Henry insightfully comments upon this verse: “In preferring the ornaments of the mind to those of the body. [1.] He lays down a rule in regard to the dress of religious women, v. 3. Here are three sorts of ornaments forbidden: plaiting of hair, which was commonly used in those times by lewd women; wearing of gold, or ornaments made of gold, was practised by Rebecca, and Esther, and other religious women, but afterwards became the attire chiefly of harlots and wicked people; putting on of apparel, which is not absolutely forbidden, but only too much nicety and costliness in it. Learn, First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of a harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron. [2.] Instead of the outward adorning of the body, he directs Christian wives to put on much more excellent and beautiful ornaments, v. 4. Here note, First, The part to be adorned: The hidden man of the heart; that is, the soul; the hidden, the inner man. Take care to adorn and beautify your souls rather than your bodies. Secondly, The ornament prescribed. It must, in general, be something not corruptible, that beautifies the soul, that is, the graces and virtues of God’s Holy Spirit. The ornaments of the body are destroyed by the moth, and perish in the using; but the grace of God, the longer we wear it, the brighter and better it is. More especially, the finest ornament of Christian women is a meek and quiet spirit, a tractable easy temper of mind, void of passion, pride, and immoderate anger, discovering itself in a quiet obliging behaviour towards their husbands and families. If the husband be harsh, and averse to religion (which was the case of these good wives to whom the apostle gives this direction), there is no way so likely to win him as a prudent meek behaviour. At least, a quiet spirit will make a good woman easy to herself, which, being visible to others, becomes an amiable ornament to a person in the eyes of the world. Thirdly, The excellency of it. Meekness and calmness of spirit are, in the sight of God, of great price-amiable in the sight of men, and precious in the sight of God. Learn, 1. A true Christian’s chief care lies in the right ordering and commanding of his own spirit. Where the hypocrite’s work ends, there the true Christian’s work begins. 2. The endowments of the inner man are the chief ornaments of a Christian; but especially a composed, calm, and quiet spirit, renders either man or woman beautiful and lovely.
The Geneva Bible comments on this passage as follows:
I Peter 3:3 {3} Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
(3) He condemns the unrestrained indulgences and excesses of women, and sets forth their true apparel, such as is precious before God, that is, the inward and incorruptible, which consists in a meek and quiet spirit.
1 Peter 3:4 But [let it be] the {a} hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is {b} in the sight of God of great price.
(a) Who has his abiding place
fastened in the heart: so that the hidden man is set against the outward
adorning of the body.
(b) Precious indeed and so taken of God.
And John Calvin comments:
“3. Whose
adorning. The
other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to
adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this
respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does
not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves
generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in
particular, -- that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as
it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the
fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things
in which excesses especially appear.
It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly
condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these
words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold;
for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of
clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and
elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has
created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter
did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to
which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness
and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a
woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an
extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused.
They who object and say, that to clothe one's-self in this or that manner is an
indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily
confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all
excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides, ambition, pride, affectation of
display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly
order all things, so as not to exceed moderation.
4. But let
it be the hidden, man of the heart. The
contrast here ought to be carefully observed. Cato said, that they who are
anxiously engaged in adorning the body, neglect the adorning of the mind: so
Peter, in order to restrain this desire in women, introduces a remedy, that they are to devote themselves to the
cultivation of their minds. The word heart, no
doubt means the whole soul. He at the same time shews
in what consists the spiritual adorning of women, even in the
incorruptness of a meek and quiet spirit. "Incorruptness,"
as I think, is set in opposition to things which fade and vanish away, things
which serve to adorn the body. Therefore the version of Erasmus departs from
the real meaning. In short, Peter means that the ornament of the soul is not
like a fading flower, nor consists in vanishing splendor, but is incorruptible.
By mentioning quiet and a tranquil spirit,
he
marks out what especially belongs to women; for nothing becomes them more than
a placid and a sedate temper of mind. 1 For we know how outrageous a being is an imperious and a
self-willed woman. And further, nothing is more fitted to correct the vanity of
which Peter speaks than a placid quietness of spirit.
What follows, that it is in the
sight of God of great price, may be
referred to the whole previous sentence as well as to the word spirit; the
meaning indeed will remain the same. For why do women take so much care to
adorn themselves, except that they may turn the eyes
of men on themselves? But Peter, on the contrary, bids them to be more anxious
for what is before God of a great price.”
And, finally, A. R. Faussett comments as follows:
3. Literally, "To whom let there belong
(namely, as their peculiar ornament) not the outward adornment (usual in the
sex which first, by the fall, brought in the need of covering, Note, see
on JF & B for 1Pe 5:5)
of," &c.
plaiting--artificial braiding, in order to attract
admiration.
wearing--literally,
"putting round," namely, the head, as a diadem--the arm, as a
bracelet--the finger, as rings.
apparel--showy and costly.
"Have the blush of modesty on thy face instead of paint, and moral worth
and discretion instead of gold and emeralds" [MELISSA].
Clearly I Peter 3:3-4 is contrasting two types of human ornament: the material versus the spiritual. It avers the far greater worth of spiritual ornament over material ornament. An analogy will help us understand the implications here. Suppose that in a museum display we were to see the Hope Diamond and some Cracker Jack jewelry. (The Hope Diamond is a large (45.52 carat), deep blue diamond, currently housed in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.) Would we not be discomfited that a thing of such meager value as Cracker Jack jewelry would be placed on display beside something of such high value? But is not the difference in value between material ornaments such as jewelry and spiritual ornaments like meekness even greater? If we think rightly about the value of spiritual ornaments with which we ought to ornament ourselves, then we shall not be so prone to ornament ourselves with things such as jewelry.
There are a number of verses in the Old and New Testaments which have led people to reject some of the doctrinal conclusions I have come to. For instance, these passages have led some to believe that jewelry is now all right, since some godly people in the past have worn jewelry. But, in my opinion, these fail to see the progress the church should be making in its path to the New Creation. Along these lines we read in Mark 10:4-5: "And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept." And in Acts 17:30 we read: "the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent".
For example, here is how the Geneva Bible addresses the case in Genesis 24:22-30:
“And it came to pass,
as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a
shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten [shekels] weight of
gold…And it came to pass, when he saw the earring and bracelets upon his
sister's hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah
his sister, saying, Thus spake the man unto me; that
he came unto the man; and, behold, he stood by the camels at the well."
"(k) God permitted many things both in apparel and other
things which are now forbidden especially when they do not suit our humble
estate."
John Calvin in his
Commentaries addresses the same passage as follows: "
His
adorning the damsel with precious ornaments is a token of his confidence. For
since it is evident by many proofs that he was an honest and careful servant,
he would not throw away without discretion the treasures of his master. He
knows, therefore, that these gifts will not be ill-bestowed; or, at least,
relying on the goodness of God, he gives them, in faith, as an earnest of
future marriage. But it may be asked, Whether God approves ornaments of this
kind, which pertain not so much to neatness as to pomp? I answer, that the
things related in Scripture are not always proper to be imitated. Whatever the
Lord commands in general terms is to be accounted as an inflexible rule of
conduct; but to rely on particular examples is not only dangerous, but even
foolish and absurd. Now we know how highly displeasing to God is not only pomp
and ambition in adorning the body, but all kind of luxury. In order to free the
heart from inward cupidity, he condemns that immoderate and superfluous
splendor, which contains within itself many allurements to vice. Where, indeed,
is pure sincerity of heart found under splendid ornaments? Certainly all
acknowledge this virtue to be rare. It is not, however, for us expressly to
forbid every kind of ornament; yet because whatever exceeds the frugal use of
such things is tarnished with some degree of vanity; and more especially,
because the cupidity of women is, on this point, insatiable; not only must
moderation, but even abstinence, be cultivated as far as possible. Further,
ambition silently creeps in, so that the somewhat excessive adorning of the
person soon breaks out into disorder. With respect to the earrings and
bracelets of Rebekah, as I do not doubt that they
were those in use among the rich, so the uprightness of the age allowed them to
be sparingly and frugally used; and yet I do not excuse the fault. This
example, however, neither helps us, nor alleviates our guilt, if, by such means, we excite and continually inflame those depraved
lusts which, even when all incentives are removed, it is excessively difficult
to restrain. The women who desire to shine in gold,
seek in Rebekah a pretext for their corruption. Why,
therefore, do they not, in like manner, conform to the same austere kind of
life and rustic labor to which she applied herself? But, as I have just said,
they are deceived who imagine that the examples of the saints can sanction them
in opposition to the common law of God…"
When
mention is made of Genesis 24:22-30 by supporters of the wearing of jewelry,
Genesis 35:1-5 is often forgotten. There
we read of the reformation and purification of the Hebrews. It consisted not only of the putting away of
idols, but also changing the garments, including the taking off of
earrings. This reformation was surely
preparative for the New Testament reformation, which would call for a complete
and abiding cessation of the wearing of jewelry, as part of a broader
reformation.
Another such passage is James 2:1-4 (“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?“). Commenting on this passage, Calvin points out: “Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem.” We should not infer from James 2:1-4 that all is fine in a man wearing ornamental jewelry. It was rather to be admonished that the people fawned upon him who had the worldly emblems of wealth.
Yet another case is
Proverbs 25:12 : “[As] an earring of gold, and an
ornament of fine gold, [so is] a wise reprover upon
an obedient ear.” It would be wrong to
deduce from this passage that we should wear earrings of gold. This proverb is simply borrowing on the idea
that ornaments and earrings of gold are precious, for so they symbolize that
which is precious. We do not deny their
symbolic value, simply because we insist that their usefulness in attire for
that purpose has passed.
We encounter a
similar case in Luke
“22. Bring out the best robe. Although
in parables (as we have frequently observed) it would be idle to follow out
every minute circumstance, yet it will be no violence to the literal meaning,
if we say, that our heavenly Father not only pardons our sins in such a manner
as to bury the remembrance of them, but even restores those gifts of which we
had been deprived; as, on the other hand, by taking them from us, he chastises
our ingratitude in order to make us feel ashamed at the reproach and disgrace
of our nakedness.”
The parables are
typically earthly stories with heavenly signification. The father in the parable
represents God our Father, while the prodigal son represents saved
sinners. The luxurious robe and ring
accordingly signify the precious blessings and graces that will be showered
upon the elect in the new heaven and new earth.
We should not think such carnal trifles as a robe and ring will be the
primary blessings of the hereafter, nor should we imagine that we should now
labor to wear such carnal trifles here on earth.
So it should be
obvious enough that Christ is not necessarily commending to Christians the
wearing of rings or festive dancing, simply because they are elements present
in this parable. They are not there
because they are necessarily commended, but because they are commonly present
in human society. Christ makes spiritual
points from stories of human experience in this world. He does this in other parables as well, such
as the parable in the very next chapter of Luke concerning the unjust
steward. As John Calvin points out, “The leading object of this
parable [of the unjust steward] is, to show that we ought to deal kindly and
generously with our neighbors; that, when we come to the judgment seat of God,
we may reap the fruit of our liberality. Though the parable appears to be harsh
and far-fetched, yet the conclusion makes it evident, that the design of Christ
was nothing else than what I have stated. And hence we see,
that to inquire with great exactness into every minute part of a parable is an
absurd mode of philosophizing. Christ does not advise us to purchase by large donations
the forgiveness of fraud, and of extortion, and of wasteful expenditure, and of
the other crimes associated with unfaithful administration.” We best take care not to allow such elements
in a parable to serve as justification for behavior prohibited elsewhere in
scripture.
And another passage is Ezekiel 16:12 :
“And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and
earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.”
The Geneva Bible comments on this verse: “(h) By this he
shows how he saved his Church, enriched it, and gave it power and dominion to
reign.” Again, we have a case of the use
of symbolic language. This is not
condoning the present use of such ornamental attire, but rather is using its
common signification to make a spiritual point.
It is instructive as
well to consider even Old Testament passages like Isaiah 3:17-23 and Hosea
2:12.
Isaiah 3:17-23 reads:
“Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the
daughters of
The Geneva Bible says on this verse: “(s) In rehearsing all these things particularly he shows the lightness and vanity of such as cannot be content with comely apparel according to their degree.”
Hosea
The Geneva Bible says on this verse: “(o) By showing how harlots trim themselves to please others, he declares how superstitious idolaters set a great part of their religion in adorning themselves on their holy days.”
Judges
One
common argument against what we have said in this article is that jewelry is
fine if it serves a function as a custom (e.g., by distinguishing male versus
female, by distinguishing married versus single, etc.). First, we should note that its use to
distinguish male versus female is more justifiable than its use to distinguish
married versus single. There actually is
a Biblical principle that male versus female attire should be different,
whereas there is no such principle calling for married versus single people to
have different attire. But, in truth,
use of jewelry in attire even to distinguish male versus female is Biblically
unwarranted. Scriptural principles supersede customs, when customs contradict
scriptural principles. Jewelry, tattoos,
etc. are inappropriate means to distinguish marital status, gender, etc. If we go down the path of justifying such
ornamentation in attire by saying it serves such a function, we could imagine
some island where females or married people are distinguished by having the
following: a finger ring on every finger, an earring, 10 gold necklaces, a
tattoo on the arm, painted faces, etc.
So should these customs stand because the jewelry, etc. has a function?
Does function really justify such ornamentation? We think not.
To take another analogy, it would be improper for a society to
distinguish married from unmarried persons by having unmarried persons walk
around in public without any clothes, while singles have clothes. This custom would contradict the general
scriptural principle that people should not walk around naked in public. So when a Biblical principle prohibits
something (in this case, the wearing of ornamental jewelry, as indicated in such
passages as I Timothy 2:9, etc.), an end (in this case, societal distinction of
married versus unmarried) cannot justify the means (such as wearing finger
rings).
Another common objection is that God is
indifferent about the nature of our appareling, so that those who advocate
positions like the one in this article are guilty of unwarranted legalism. This objection fails to account for the many
Biblical directives concerning attiring, as well as verses such as Zephaniah
1:8 (“And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that
I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed
with strange apparel.”) where God
expresses concern about the nature of attire.
Yet another objection is that God would not use jewelry as symbols of what is good if He prohibited their wearing. This objection is contradicted by God’s use of worship elements like incense as symbols of that which is good (e.g., see Revelation 8:3-4: “And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer [it] with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, [which came] with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.”), even though incense is prohibited as an element in New Testament worship.
Another objection is that a man with a gold ring is described in James 2:2, but his wearing the gold ring is not explicitly condemned. That is true, but appareling was not the focus of James’ instruction in this context, but rather “if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin” was the focus. So it is wrong to read too much into this passage on the topic of appareling.
Another common retort is to point out real or perceived inconsistencies in the advocates of the no jewelry position, such as other perceived extravagances in attire. This retort typically fails for one of two reasons. First, even if perceived inconsistencies are indeed real, it is no disproof of the no jewelry position. At most, the argument simply proves other areas where more restraint is required. Second, to quote Calvin again, “"He [God] expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings”, in such passages as I Timothy 2:9. Where we do not have such express censure in scripture, we need to be especially guarded in our judgments of others, lest we wrongly condemn that which is innocent.
Finally, some object that passages like I
Timothy 2:9 are really just prohibiting wearing of too much jewelry, but not
any jewelry. One problem with this
interpretation is that the passage does not say “too much”, nor does it or
other passages give any guidelines of what constitutes “too much”. Not surprisingly, those churches which
interpret the passage as forbidding “too much” jewelry generally do not
regulate wearing of jewelry among their communicant membership at all.
Let us now outline how the Christian church has addressed
this issue over the course of history.
Much of the material for this outline of church history comes from the
following websites: http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/christian_dress/4.html
, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,641-613916,00.html
, http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-17.htm
and http://www.bible.ca/history/eubanks/history-eubanks-35.htm
.
As already pointed out, in the Apostolic era plainness and simplicity of attire was commanded as a general rule, and the wearing of ornamental jewelry was expressly forbidden. This put Christian culture in conflict with Greco-Roman culture, even as Christian culture was in conflict with the surrounding pagan culture on matters like the theater and stage-plays.
The early church maintained the Apostolic rule. Let’s consider the writings of four church fathers from the time- Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine – as well as the Apostolic Constitutions.
One of the great men of the early church was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who was martyred for his faith in Jesus in the year 258. The following quotation (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Roberts and Donaldson, Scribner's, 1925, Vol. V, pp. 275f.) is a touching account of his conversion and his new life in Christ, which provides a telling statement on his view, and that of the Christian church at the time, on attire:
While I was still lying in darkness and gloomy night, wavering hither and thither, tossed about on the foam of this boastful age, and uncertain of my wandering steps, knowing nothing of my real life, and remote from truth and light, I used to regard it as a difficult matter, and especially as difficult in respect of my character at that time, that a man should be capable of being born again-a truth which the divine mercy had announced for my salvation-and that a man quickened to a new life in tile laver of saving water should be able to put off what he had previously been; and, although retaining all his bodily structure, should he himself changed in heart and soul. . . . When does he learn thrift who has been used to liberal banquets and sumptuous feasts? And he who has been glittering in gold and purple, and has been celebrated for his costly attire, when does he reduce himself to ordinary and simple clothing?. . .
But after that, by the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart-after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man-then, in a wondrous manner, doubtful things at once began to assure themselves to me, . . . what before had seemed difficult began to suggest a means of accomplishment, what had been thought impossible, to be capable of being achieved. Epistle I, 3, 4.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), who headed the catechetical (baptismal) school of Alexandria from 190 to 202, in his book The Instructor went to considerable length to explain why Christian women should not wear luxurious clothes, rings, earrings, or elaborate hair styles, and "smear their faces with the ensnaring devices of wily cunning."
Tertullian's treatise On the Apparel of Women is a lively pointed attack on contemporary Roman fashions. Tertullian encouraged Christian women to eschew elaborate forms of clothing, jewelry, hairstyle, and cosmetics. Here is a sample quote:
”There must be no overstepping of that line to which
simple and sufficient refinements limit their desires-that line which is
pleasing to God. For they who rub43
their skin with medicaments, stain their cheeks with rouge, make their eyes prominent
with antimony,44
sin against Him… I see some (women) turn (the colour
of) their hair with saffron. They are ashamed even of their own nation,
(ashamed) that their procreation did not assign them to Germany and to Gaul:
thus, as it is, they transfer their hair52
(thither)!
…First, then, blessed (sisters), (take heed) that you admit
not to your use meretricious and prostitutionary
garbs and garments: and, in the next place, if there are any of you whom the
exigencies of riches, or birth, or past dignities, compel to appear in public
so gorgeously arrayed as not to appear to have attained wisdom, take heed to
temper an evil of this kind; lest, under the pretext of necessity, you give the
rein without stint to the indulgence of licence. For
how will you be able to fulfil (the requirements of)
humility, which our (school) profess,83
if you do not keep within bounds84
the enjoyment of your riches and elegancies, which tend so much to "glory?
"Now it has ever been the wont of glory to exalt, not to humble.
"Why, shall we not use what is our own? "Who
prohibits your using it? Yet (it must be) in accordance with the apostle, who
warns us "to use this world85
as if we abuse it not; for the fashion86
of this world87
is passing away." And "they who buy are so to act as if they
possessed not."88
Why so? Because he had laid down the premiss, saying,
"The time is wound up."89
If, then he shows plainly that even wives themselves are so to be had as if
they be not had,90
on account of the straits of the times, what would be his sentiments about these
vain appliances of theirs?”
And
Augustine wrote as follows:
“As to the use of
pigments by women in colouring the face, in order to
have a ruddier or a fairer complexion, this is a dishonest artifice, by which I
am sure that even their own husbands do not wish to be deceived; and it is only
for their own husbands that women ought to be permitted to adorn themselves,
according to the toleration, not the injunction, of Scripture. For the true
adorning, especially of Christian men and women, consists not only in the
absence of all deceitful painting of the complexion, but in the possession not
of magnificent golden ornaments or rich apparel, but of a blameless life.” (Augustine's Letter CCXLV To Possidius, My Most Beloved Lord and Venerable Brother and
Partner in the Sacerdotal Office, and to the Brethren Who are with Him, Augustin and the Brethren Who are with Him Send Greeting in
the Lord.)
The
Apostolic Constitutions outlawed the use of all
finger rings: "Neither do thou put a gold ring upon thy fingers; for all
these ornaments are signs of lasciviousness, which if thou be solicitous about
in an indecent manner, thou will not act as becomes a good man."
Nevertheless, there was a progressive trend towards compromise on this issue. Interestingly, it was in the area of wedding rings that the compromise began, even as it did in a later era of history. There is a plausible, albeit incorrect, case that can be made for Christians to wear such wedding rings in societies where such is the custom. But the end of such a stance is worse than the beginning. Once rings of any kind are allowed, it is logically difficult (yea, impossible) to prohibit other rings, and then other jewelry, and finally other ornamentation and make-up. The logic only takes time to run its full course.
Probably by the end of the second century some or even many Christians had adopted the Roman custom of wedding rings. The earliest Christian betrothal rings have been found in the Roman catacombs, underground burial-places dug outside the city of Rome, from about A. D. 200. From about the same time we have the testimonies of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria about the Christian use of the betrothal ring. In the light of these archeological and literary evidences we can assume that Christians adopted the use of betrothal ring in the latter part of the second century. The most common material of the betrothal ring found in the catacomb is bronze, though a few iron rings have survived. "As a rule, early Christian rings of gold are rare. This might be expected, as the use of rich and numerous ornaments was not in accordance with the teaching of the early church." Contrary to the pagan fashion of wearing a "ring on nearly every joint," the early Christians wore only one ring, the marital ring. Roman iron wedding bands – worn by the women - were not so much a symbol of love, as a binding legal agreement of ownership by their husbands, who regarded rings as tokens of purchase. As with the Egyptians, the Romans believed in vena amoris and wore the bands on the fourth finger of their left hand, just as Americans do today. They apparently believed a vein ran straight from this finger to the heart.
One website notes: ““Ancient Roman wedding rings were made of iron. In early Rome a gold band came to symbolize everlasting love and commitment in marriage. Roman wedding rings were carved with two clasped hands. Very early rings had a carved key through which a woman was thought to be able to open her husband's heart.”
Here are some additional interesting historical insights on the Roman customs from one website:
“Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans refined the art of making ornamental rings. Throughout the period of the Roman Republic (449-31 B.C.), however, only iron finger rings were worn by most of the citizens. Slaves were forbidden to wear rings on their fingers. This policy of austerity came to an end at the beginning of the Imperial period (about 31 B.C.). Gold finger rings appeared but the right to wear them was restricted to ambassadors, then extended to senators, consuls, and chief officers of state.
Different laws were passed during Imperial Rome to govern the wearing of finger rings. Pliny informs us that Emperor Tiberius required that those who were not of free descent be owners of large property before having the right to wear gold finger rings. Emperor Severus extended the right to wear gold finger rings–jus annuli aurei–first to Roman soldiers and then to all free citizens. Silver finger rings were worn by freedmen, that is, slaves who had become free. Iron finger rings were worn by slaves. Under Emperor Justinian these restrictions were abolished. It is interesting to note that during Imperial Rome gold, silver, and iron finger rings were worn in accordance with the social class to which one belonged. The finger ring, so to speak, tied a person down to his or her social class.
"Binding" Finger Rings. The use of a ring to "tie" a person to a social class may have derived from the legendary origin of the finger ring. In his Natural History Pliny tells us that the ring first entered Greek mythology when Prometheus dared to steal fire from heaven for earthly use. For this wanton crime Zeus chained him to a rock up in the Caucasus Mountains for thirty thousand years, during which time a vulture fed daily on his liver. After straining at the chain for many years, Prometheus finally succeeded in breaking away, taking a chunk of the mountain with the chain. Eventually Zeus relented and liberated Prometheus from the chain. However, to avoid a violation of the original judgment, Prometheus was ordered to wear a link of his chain on one of his fingers as a ring. On the ring was set a piece of the rock to which he had been chained as a constant reminder that he was bound to the rock.
Apparently Pliny’s legend became a superstition
which eventually evolved into a custom. "When a Roman slave was allowed
his liberty," wrote James McCarthy, "he received, along with cap and
white vest, an iron finger ring. The slave had been fastened, so to speak, by a
Caucasian chain of bondage. When granted his freedom he still had to wear, as
Prometheus wore, an iron ring by way of remembrance. He was not permitted to
have one of gold, for at that time that was a badge of citizenship."
Betrothal Ring. The Romans were also the first to use finger rings to "tie" people not only to their social classes, but also to their marital partners. During the betrothal ceremony the bridegroom gave a plain iron finger ring to the family of the bride as a symbol of his commitment and financial ability to support the bride. Marriages were not made in heaven but over a negotiating table. Originally the betrothal ceremony was more elaborate and important than the marriage rite, which was a simple fulfillment of the betrothal commitment. It was only much later in Christian history that the ring was made part of the wedding ceremony.
In his book How It Began Paul Berdanier claims that the binding use of the ring for betrothal ceremonies developed from an older superstitious practice in which a man tied cords around the waist, wrists and ankles of the woman he had fallen in love with, to make sure that her spirit would be held under his control. The pagan superstitions surrounding the origin of the Roman betrothal ring did not deter early Christians from adopting its use.”
What started simple, grew large in practice. James McCarthy has noted his view of the reason for this development: "The trouble with the Romans, as with others enamored of anything, was that they began to overdo the wearing of rings. They covered their fingers with them. Some even wore different rings for summer and winter. They were immoderate not only in the number of rings worn but also in their size. Even on the little finger extremely heavy rings of gold were worn during the twilight days of the Empire. Thumb rings of even more gigantic size were sported. It would seem as though the flash of rings paralleled the inevitable fall of the Roman Empire." McCarthy continues noting that in spite of the moralists’ denunciations of their own countrymen for wearing too many rings, "rings continued to be worn and Rome continued to decline. “ Like so many other pagan Roman customs, the use of jewelry became incorporated into Roman Catholicism, even as Biblical Christian culture declined.
”The use of rings in wedding ceremonies is traced back to the early part of the
fourth century.30 However, the
first explicit description of the ring’s usage seems to come from Isidore of Seville, who became archbishop of that city in
595. He wrote: "The ring is given by the espouser to the espoused either
for a sign of mutual fidelity or still more to join their hearts by this
pledge; and therefore the ring is placed on the fourth finger because a certain
vein, it is said, flows thence to the heart." The belief that the fourth finger (counting
from the thumb), has a vena amoris–a love vein
running directly to the heart–is obviously pure superstition. The annular
(ring) finger shares the same "route" to the heart as the other
fingers. In spite of its superstitious origin, the custom of wearing the
wedding ring on the fourth finger of the left hand has prevailed in most
Christian countries to this day.
“Knowing the attraction that rings have exerted upon the laity, it is not surprising that the clergy also adopted the use of rings. The most famous ecclesiastical rings are the "episcopal ring" that was conferred upon the newly elected bishop and the "fisherman’s ring" worn by the Pope. The latter derives its name from the gemstone which carries an engraving of Peter in a boat pulling up a fishing net. The episcopal ring, as The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, "was strictly speaking an episcopal ornament conferred in the rite of consecration, and it was commonly regarded as emblematic of the betrothal of the bishop to His Church." The Gregorian formula, still used today in delivering the ring, says: "Receive the ring, that is to say the seal of faith, whereby thou, being thyself adorned with spotless faith, may keep unsullied the troth which thou pledged to the spouse of God, His holy Church." The idea of conjugal fidelity is symbolically present also in the episcopal rings.
“It is noteworthy that the same encyclopedia traces the origin of the episcopal ring back to the golden ring worn by ancient pagan priests consecrated to the worship of Jupiter: "Knowing as we do, that in the pagan days of Rome every flamen Dialis (i.e., a priest specially consecrated to the worship of Jupiter) had, like the senators, the privilege of wearing a gold ring, it would not be surprising to find evidence in the fourth century that rings were worn by Christian bishops." The same source, however, questions the validity of the fourth century’s evidence, arguing instead that the first unmistakable evidence comes to us from a Decree issued by Pope Boniface IV in 610, requiring monks elevated to the episcopal dignity to wear the ring.”
Referring to episcopal rings, The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "In many cases an antique gem was mounted in the bishop’s ring, and often an inscription was added in the gold setting of the gem to give a Christian name to the pagan figure." In other cases, according to the same source, no change was made to the pagan engraving and "the gem appears to have been merely regarded as an ornament without meaning."
So we witness in all of this the corrupting trend as the church endured its 1,260 “wilderness years”. The corruption reached its height during the High Middle Ages.
God graciously gave the world a reprieve from these “wilderness years” during the Protestant Reformation, starting with John Wyckliffe and culminating by the mid-17’th century. Previously in this article we have shown how the Reformed churches took a strong stance for plain and simple attire and against jewelry. As previously noted, jewelry was prohibited in Calvin’s Geneva. We have already in this article quoted John Calvin at length on the topic of modesty, but some additional quotes would be helpful at this point:
Calvin notes
in his sermons on 1 Corinthians, "St. Paul is not addressing what may take
place at home; for, if a woman combs her hair, she will surely have it
uncovered then, but she also retires to her place of privacy. So, St. Paul is
not discussing what may happen with individuals at home."
Again, Calvin
notes that, "should a woman require to make such
haste in assisting a neighbor that she has not time to cover her head, she sins
not in running out with her head uncovered" [Institutes Book IV, Chapter
10, Sec. 31]. Calvin interprets Paul as saying "that women should not go
out in public with uncovered heads" (Institutes Book IV, Chapter 10, sec.
29). Factors suggested by Calvin that
should go into why women should wear headcoverings in
public include:
"They forget their nature: for women ought to be modest. If there be no
shame, but that they will needs be out of order: it is a very beastliness. That
is the effect of God's intent in saying that men
ought not to put on women's apparel, nor women ought
not to be clothed in men's apparel: For it is good reason that there should be
a difference between men and women. And although there were
no law
written, doth not even nature teach it us? And when Paul (1 Cor.
11.5,) telleth us that women must come to the Church
with their heads covered & not with their hair about their ears: he sheweth the same
thing. What saith he? have
we need to speak to you of such things? For if a woman were polled
, durst she shew her head abroad? A man may
well be bold to shew his head bare, though he be polled: and shall a woman do so too? That were a shame,
everybody would mock at her, and she should be fain to hide her head. Now since
ye know this without any scripture or word written: do ye not see how God hath
shown as it were a seed of modesty in you, to the intent that every man should
have a regard to that which is comely for him? So then, let us mark that here
God intended to shew us that everybody's attiring of
themselves ought to be such, as there may be a difference between men and
women." -Calvin's sermon on Deut. 22:5-8.
"Men use not to hang out a sign at a tavern, unless they meant men should
come in who list. And while women deck and trim themselves after this sort, to
draw men's eyes to them, and to have men stand
gazing at them, what is this else but a spreading out of their nets? &
therefore it is as much as if they kept open tavern of their own bodies. True
it is, that all of them will not do so: but this is the end of their prancking, and it is not almost to be found, but that such
gorgeous deckings, and such braveries do always bear
one smack of bawdery with them although whoredom do
not always follow. So then let
us mark well, when Paul speaketh of this, shamefastness and modesty, that in correcting one fault he taketh away all those superfluities wherewith women are so
set on fire, that they can keep no measure in them, & therefore it booteth not now, to reckon them up by piecemeal. And if
this affection and perverse desire were well purged, no doubt women would deck
themselves modestly, and we should see no more of these disguisings.
See there cometh out a woman like a painted idol; all our age is full of colours, there is nothing but laying on of gold, perukes and false hairs, and such like: again, we see such
pomp, and bravery, that when such a Diana cometh forth, we may well judge and
think that she is at defiance with all shame, with all modesty, with all
honesty, as a stews, & strumpet, ready to say on
this wise: 'I will show myself here as a salt bitch, I will be impudent and
shameless, and show my filthiness to all the world.' We should I say, see no more of these things.
If women observe this rule
of modesty, they would not be so bespangled with gold as they are, they would
not have their heads uncovered as now they have: to be short, they would not so
exceed measure in gorgeousness as they do,
wherein they do but fight against modesty & honesty, which Paul speaketh of in this place, if all this (as I said) were cut
off." -- Calvin's Sermon on 1 Timothy 2:9-11.
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show
their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and
they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will
become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will
forget the duty of nature... So, when it is permissible for the women to
uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach
also?' And then after that one will plead something else: 'Now if the women go
bareheaded, why not also this and that?' Then the men, for their part, will
break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain
themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong
overboard." -- Calvin's Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3.
Immodesty was similarly opposed by the Church of Scotland, the Puritans of England and North America, as well as others.
The Puritans even opposed the use of the wedding ring, which High Church Anglicans were so reluctant to abandon. The Puritans fought against much opposition in England. One website records: “Queen Elizabeth I, though Protestant, tried to steer a very moderate course. As much of the old Roman order of organization and worship as Protestant sentiment would permit was retained. Naturally, then, there were those who felt that Elizabeth was not sufficiently aggressive in pressing the Protestant cause. These wanted to purify the Church of England of all vestiges of Roman Catholicism. Therefore, they were known as "Puritans." Among the changes that they desired to make was the procurement of genuine Protestant preachers in every parish, rejection of clerical vestments (Matt. 23:5 , 8), kneeling at the reception of the Lord's Supper, the wedding ring (because it was thought to be indicative of matrimony as a sacrament), crossing, and sabbath-like observance of Sunday with a commensurate suspension of amusements such as games and dances (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16,17; Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1,2). English officialdom was not prepared for such far-reaching changes and thus proscribed religious practices contrary to them and punished those who did not submit by imprisonment or deprivation of ecclesiastical positions.” But the Puritans were undeterred, for they knew God’s word regulates custom, not custom God’s word.
The Scottish Presbyterians were no less strict about
the wedding ring than the English Puritans.
In fact, in "The Charge of the Scottish Commissioners Against Canterbury and the Lieutenant of
"The large declaration professeth, that all the
variation of our booke, from the booke
of
with that which stood in the English service. These popish innovations
therefore have beene surreptitiously inserted by him
[Canterbury], without the Kings knowledge, and against his purpose. Our
Scottish Prelates do petition that something may bee abated of the English
ceremonies, as the Crosse in Baptisme, the Ring in
marriage, and some other things. But
So widespread was objection to the use of the
wedding ring in
As a consequence of the Protestant Reformation, a great change was effected in the area of attire, as well as in so many other areas of life and culture. As one website describes it: “There was a strong prejudice against wedding rings for centuries. In its early days, the Church of Scotland did not make provision for wedding rings in its liturgy. And the Puritans in Cromwell's time thought of rings as Popish relics and attempted to abolish their use. The custom of wearing a wedding ring continuously is of modern origin, and some brides in the past were bequeathed their rings by their mothers or mothers-in-law.” Representative of the Puritan view is this by Thomas Taylor from "a Glass for Gentlewomen to Dress themselves by," London 1633:
"No ornament or attire may be vsed,
which may become either a snare to our selues or
others. There are some habits framed to draw, yes, to get louers, and to occasion vnlawfull
desires. The daughters of Sarah detest such whorish habits, and
are carefull that by nothing about them any eye or
heart may bee entangled. Their endeuour is not
to auoyd onely apparent euils, but appearances of euill.
To discouer by our habits some naked parts, as many
doe, is a danger of temptation to many beholders. And as in the Law, hee that digged a pit and left it
vncouered, must answer for the oxe,
or asse, or beast that fell into it: so here;
although they are beasts that fall into the pit of lust vpon
such spectacles, yet are they not free, that couered
not the pit. Neither will it excuse, to say, But I intend no such thing
by my habit; for if thou knowest it may bee an
occasion of mouing euill
lusts, and doest not preuent the occasion, thou art
blame-worthy as the first in that sinne. Thou
hast filled a cup of poyson to the beholder, although
there be none to drinke it, saith Chrysostome."
And the Westminster Directory of Public Worship read as follows:
“A religious fast requires total abstinence, not only from all food, (unless bodily weakness do manifestly disable from holding out till the fast be ended, in which case somewhat may be taken, yet very sparingly, to support nature, when ready to faint,) but also from all worldly labour, discourses, and thoughts, and from all bodily delights, and such like, (although at other times lawful,) rich apparel, ornaments, and such like, during the fast; and much more from whatever is in the nature or use scandalous and offensive, as gaudish attire, lascivious habits and gestures, and other vanities of either sex; which we recommend to all ministers, in their places, diligently and zealously to reprove, as at other times, so especially at a fast, without respect of persons, as there shall be occasion.”
God’s word became more the norm during and because of the Protestant Reformation.
Even groups that were otherwise heretical- like the Methodists, Quakers, Amish and Mennonites – on the matter of plainness of attire and opposition to jewelry were in agreement with the Reformed position. John Wesley (1703-1791), for instance, advocated plainness of dress and avoidance of jewelry in general and rings in particular. Here is how one website describes it: “In his Advice to the People Called Methodists, with Regard to Dress, he wrote: "Wear no gold, no pearls, or precious stones . . . . I do not advise women to wear rings, earrings, necklaces." Wesley went to great length to give Scriptural support for his position, quoting among other scriptures the words of Peter, "Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and the wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit" (1 Peter 3:3). Wesley’s preaching brought results. Both in England and America the Methodists dressed as "plain people," without jewelry or rings. At the organizing conference of the Methodist Episcopal church in 1784 the question was asked "should we insist on the Rules concerning Dress?" The answer was, "By all means. This is no time to give encouragement to superfluity of apparel. Therefore give no ticket to any, till they have left off superfluous ornaments . . . . Allow no exempt case, not even of a married woman. . . . Give no admission to those who wear rings."41 Tickets were given for the admission to the communion service. Those who did not comply with the very high standard of the church were not admitted to this service. Such a strict policy sounds unreasonable to many today. We must understand this policy in the social context of eighteenth-century America where the church regulated the lifestyle of its members. The original rule regarding dress and ornaments became part of the Methodist church manual, known as Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church and continued in this form until 1852. The early Methodists took the admonitions of their founder seriously. They lived a plain lifestyle, avoiding gambling, dancing, cosmetics, and jewelry, including rings. “
As I have pointed out in such books as Thy Kingdom Come and Let My People Go, the church fell from its spiritual height of the Protestant Reformation, even as the Jews became corrupted not many generations after their entrance into the Promised Land. The Christian church has again become corrupted, in this modern era of secular humanism. And, not surprisingly, history has repeated itself in the matter of attire and jewelry.
Here is how one person has described it:
“We have found that in the early church the use of the marital ring evolved through three main stages. In the first stage of the apostolic period, there was no apparent use of the marital ring. In the second stage of the second and third centuries, there was a restricted use of only one plain inexpensive conjugal ring which served also as signet ring for sealing purposes. In the final stage from the fourth century onward there was a proliferation of all kinds of ornamental rings and jewelry. This pattern of no marital ring in the first stage, plain marital ring in the second stage, and all kinds of ornamental rings and jewelry in the final stage, has recurred in the internal history of various denominations that grew out of the Reformation.”
One compromise led to the next. In the United States the Puritans had renounced wedding bands altogether, because they considered all jewelry frivolous. But over the course of the colonial era Colonial Americans came to trade wedding thimbles instead of rings, arguing that thimbles were acceptable because they were practical. Some daring but ignorant women, after marriage, would slice off the bottom of the thimble, thereby creating a wedding band.
Today hardly any of the Protestant denominations forbid use of the wedding ring. In the US Methodist Church, the change seemed to take place in 1872. As described by one: “The first mention of the wedding ring as an option in a marriage ceremony, occurs in the 1872 manual of the Methodist Church, known as Discipline: "If the parties desire it, the man shall here hand a ring to the minister, who shall return it to him and direct him to place it on the third finger of the woman’s left hand. And the man shall say to the woman, repeating after the minister, ‘With this ring I thee wed, and with my worldly goods I thee endow, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’" One year later, in 1873, the Presbyterian Church followed the example of the Methodists by changing their manual to allow for the use of the ring in the marriage ceremony: "If they desire to pass a ring, the minister, here taking the ring, may deliver it to the man, to put it upon the fourth finger of the woman’s left hand." Gradually other denominations relaxed their standards of dress and ornaments, allowing the wearing of rings and jewelry in general.
“In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the use of the ring in wedding ceremonies became very popular in America. A book on etiquette published in 1881 says: "All the churches at present use the ring, and vary the sentiment of its adoption to suit the custom and ideas of their own rites." This statement is not quite accurate, because there were churches which did not use the ring in the wedding ceremony…”
So it seems the Methodist Church upheld Wesley’s standard on dress and ornaments until 1852, and after that date the Methodist manual no longer regulated the dress and jewelry of the clergy or the people. The nineteenth century witnessed a similar change in many other American denominations, including Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. C. G. M'Crie mentions that the English Presbyterian Church was the first to "amend" the Directory in the late 19th century. He records, "The Order for the Solemnisation of Marriage provides for a ring being placed by the bridegroom on the left hand of the bride, 'in token and pledge of the covenant now made.'" (Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland, p. 437.) This was in contrast to the original Directory, where such mention of wedding rings is conspicuously absent. Indeed, in "The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland," 1641, a document which some scholars regard as bearing influence on the Westminster Directory, it is stated, "nor do they use any idle rites or superstitious ceremonies, in the time of the solemnization," p. 27. So there was apparently a great shift in practice on this matter between the 17th century and the 19th century among Presbyterians.
Men followed women in this foolishness, even as Adam followed Eve at the first. As one website notes: “The practice of men wearing wedding rings is relatively new. Up until the middle of the twentieth century, it was mostly only women who wore wedding rings, perhaps a reminder of the days when women were regarded as property, or perhaps a harmless custom akin to women wearing engagement rings that their husbands do not. When World War Two broke out and many young men faced lengthy separations from their wives, men began wearing wedding bands as a symbol of their marriages and a reminder of their wives.”
Since the mid-twentieth century we witness the rise and proliferation of all sorts of jewelry and ornamental attire. People are placing rings on all sorts of unhealthy places, from the nose, to the face, to the belly button, to the tongue, and even implanted in the eyeball. Tattooing is becoming more popular. Not stopping at merely ornamental attire, people are resorting to cosmetic plastic surgery in ever increasing numbers (face lifts, tummy tucks, etc.), all in order to obtain a beauty that is only skin deep, but generally lacking in the moral beauty which really counts. Romish custom has again invaded the church, and historic Protestantism has waned. Secularism is at its height, and attire is one barometer of the sad spiritual state of affairs. Some of the more conservative Presbyterian denominations have sought to limit some of these excesses, but few if any even of these have the same position that was maintained during the Reformation.
In summary, in I Timothy 2:8-10 we read: "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." The Apostolic Constitutions , representing the position of the early church on this topic, outlawed the use of all finger rings: "Neither do thou put a gold ring upon thy fingers; for all these ornaments are signs of lasciviousness, which if thou be solicitous about in an indecent manner, thou will not act as becomes a good man." John Calvin in his Commentaries on Genesis 24 wrote: " His adorning the damsel with precious ornaments is a token of his confidence. For since it is evident by many proofs that he was an honest and careful servant, he would not throw away without discretion the treasures of his master. He knows, therefore, that these gifts will not be ill-bestowed; or, at least, relying on the goodness of God, he gives them, in faith, as an earnest of future marriage. But it may be asked, Whether God approves ornaments of this kind, which pertain not so much to neatness as to pomp? I answer, that the things related in Scripture are not always proper to be imitated. Whatever the Lord commands in general terms is to be accounted as an inflexible rule of conduct; but to rely on particular examples is not only dangerous, but even foolish and absurd. Now we know how highly displeasing to God is not only pomp and ambition in adorning the body, but all kind of luxury. In order to free the heart from inward cupidity, he condemns that immoderate and superfluous splendor, which contains within itself many allurements to vice. Where, indeed, is pure sincerity of heart found under splendid ornaments? Certainly all acknowledge this virtue to be rare. It is not, however, for us expressly to forbid every kind of ornament; yet because whatever exceeds the frugal use of such things is tarnished with some degree of vanity; and more especially, because the cupidity of women is, on this point, insatiable; not only must moderation, but even abstinence, be cultivated as far as possible. Further, ambition silently creeps in, so that the somewhat excessive adorning of the person soon breaks out into disorder. With respect to the earrings and bracelets of Rebekah, as I do not doubt that they were those in use among the rich, so the uprightness of the age allowed them to be sparingly and frugally used; and yet I do not excuse the fault. This example, however, neither helps us, nor alleviates our guilt, if, by such means, we excite and continually inflame those depraved lusts which, even when all incentives are removed, it is excessively difficult to restrain. The women who desire to shine in gold, seek in Rebekah a pretext for their corruption. Why, therefore, do they not, in like manner, conform to the same austere kind of life and rustic labor to which she applied herself? But, as I have just said, they are deceived who imagine that the examples of the saints can sanction them in opposition to the common law of God..." Jewelry was outlawed in Calvin’s Geneva, and the Puritans of Britain rejected jewelry as well. We ought therefore not quickly disdain this testimony.
This issue carries with it various ecclesiological implications. The relationship between a husband and his wife is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:25-32, Psalm 45, Song of Solomon). Now in the Original Creation when man was righteous and innocent, neither the man nor the woman wore jewelry or other ornamental attire, for such artificial ornamentation would have been contrary to their righteousness (“…not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.“- I Timothy 2:9-10), the latter being too precious to have been cheapened by the former (“faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth“- I Peter 1:7). It would have been analogous to cheapening an expensive wine by pouring a poor quality wine into it. But in the Old Testament church God tolerated the wearing of jewelry and artificial ornamentation, for the church was in its infancy and immaturity. Accordingly, even godly wives wore jewelry, even as the Old Testament church which they pictured was similarly adorned with gold and jewels. This Old Testament ecclesiastical adornment was reflected in the architecture of her structures (e.g., the tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, etc.), the ornamentation in her worship (incense, candles, musical instruments, etc.) and the attire of her ministers (e.g., their vestments). But with the inauguration of the New Testament, jewelry and other ornamental attire are no longer tolerated on the women (or the men) of Christ’s church (I Timothy 2:9-10, I Peter 3:3). The New Creation, in this specific respect, is a return to the condition of the Original Creation. The attire of the Christian woman too reflects the attire of the New Testament church which she pictures. The New Testament church is to be characterized by simplicity, and not adorned with jewelry and other artificial ornamentation. This is reflected in the architecture of her buildings, the nature of her worship, the attire of her ministers, etc. The church’s beauty is to be her righteousness and good works, not artificial ornamentation, which is a cheap shadow of what is truly precious. So those who would argue for the use of jewelry on a Christian woman, must acknowledge the implication for the church which she pictures. It is to throw the church in the direction of the Church of Rome, decked in gold and artificial ornamentation. But those who recognize the command for simplicity in the attire of the Christian woman should not fail to recognize its implications for the New Testament church.
In
addition, this topic may have confessional implications. The Westminster Larger Catechism reads:
Q. 138. What are the
duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in
the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,[767] words,[768] and behavior;[769] and the preservation of it in
ourselves and others;[770] watchfulness over the eyes and
all the senses;[771] temperance,[772] keeping of chaste company,[773] modesty in apparel;[774] ...
774- 1 Timothy 2:9. 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.
From
what I can tell, the Puritans that wrote the Westminster Standards perhaps
meant them to forbid jewelry, as an application of question
138. Prohibition of jewelry was the policy of their churches,
based upon their interpretation of I Timothy 2:9. This should at least be
a matter for further study and of interest to those who subscribe to the Westminster
Standards.
As
with all of God's commands, there is really mercy in God's command for our
attire to be modest, sober, plain and simple. It liberates man from this
race towards increasing artificial ornamentation. Body piercing, tattoos,
etc. become consuming and unhealthy. All of these things become
slavery. How kind of God to say, "consider
the lilies of the field..."