1 Timothy 2:9-10: Part 1 of 4

I am very excited, because I get to combine an assignment for my Master’s program with my interests represented in this blog. For my course, Reading and Teaching the New Testament, with Dr. Tom Yoder Neufeld, I am examining the passage in 1 Tim. 2:9-10:

“I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” (TNIV)

Or, as the NLT has it:

“And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do.”

To examine this text, I will be writing a series of posts. First, I will set the context by looking at women in the first century Greco-Roman society and the Jewish culture. Then we’ll look at different interpretations of 1 Tim 2:9-10, beginning with the historical Mennonite interpretations that lead to plain clothes and then looking at what  several Biblical commentaries, such as The New Interpreter’s Bible,  The New Century Bible Commentary: the Pastoral Epistles, and the Women’s Bible Commentary have to say. Finally, we’ll finish with some concluding remarks that brings this all together and looks at the passage’s relevance for today.

1 Tim. 2:9-10: Greco-Roman Women, Part 2 of 4

This is part two in my series on 1 Tim. 2:9-10 (see what this series is about here.) Today, we’ll be looking at women in the first century Greco-Roman world.

Women in Roman culture were ranked according to several standards. The first was their class — plebeians (lower class) and patricians (upper class). From there women were divided according to a moral standard that separated respectable women from those in a “disreputable” profession, from slave and free, and by age. A woman’s marital status was also a key factor in her social rank, following these distinctions: young virgin, celibate adult, wife, wife married only once, and widow.1

Hellenistic Style

Since 1 Tim. 2:9-10 is dealing with fashion, let’s look at that. The author of 1 Timothy’s appeal to modest attire would not have been news to his audience. In fact, Roman law went so far as to say:

“If anyone accosts young girls who are dressed in the clothes of slaves, his offence will be seen as minor, and even more so if the women are dressed as prostitutes, and not as [respectable] mothers of families. Therefore, if a woman is not dressed as a matron and some-one calls out to her or entices away her attendant, he will not be liable to the action for injury.”2

In other words, women who did not dress “respectably” were fair game. Furthermore, matrons had more protection under the law than the lower class women, but only if they looked respectable.

toga praetexta

Comparatively little academic work has been done on what freeborn girls wore, but it seems as though they wore what their brothers did — namely, the toga praetexta.3 The styles of a toga indicated a person’s status and function, and in the case of the toga praetexta, the reddish-purple (purpura) band woven along one edge signified a liberi ingenui (freeborn boy), or in this case, a puella ingenua (freeborn girl). Veiling was an important part of Roman attire, but would be more suitable to an examination of 1 Corinthians 11. For a quick discussion of this, see my previous post on Roman veiling.

Modesty

Modesty was considered an essential virtue in a respectable Roman woman. Many Roman authorities lamented the preference for Asian silk when it began to be imported, as they felt it revealed too much of a woman’s form.5 Horace notes this when he compares the dress of a matron and a prostitute:

“In a matron, one can only see her face, for … her long tunic conceals all else. But if you seek forbidden charms that are invested with a rampart … many obstacles will then be in your way — attendants, the sedan, hairdressers, parasites, the stola dropping to the ankles, the mantle wrapped round — a thousand things which hinder you from a clear view. In the other — no obstacle. In her Coan silk you may see her, almost as if naked, so that she may not have a poor leg, an unsightly foot; you may measure her whole form with your eye.”6

Class

Obviously, fashion was an important class distinguisher. Romans attached a great deal of religious and cultural significance to their attire. Everything from the colour of cloth used for certain garments at particular life stages to the way knots were tied represented ritual significance.7

1st Century elaborate jewellery

At a glance you could see if a woman was a slave or the mistress of a large household. Not surprisingly, part of these distinctions were marked by jewellery. In Rome, colour, rather than glitter, was most important. Therefore, the most sought after (and therefore the most expensive) jewellery was made from pearls. In fact, “during the first century, authors frequently used pearls as a symbol of expensive jewellery, and wrote disapprovingly of their use.”8 Gold, too, was the preferred metal for those who could afford it.9 Does this sound familiar? 1 Tim. 2:9 specifically states “gold or pearls” and the author was not alone in his injunction against them.

It is important to remember that Romans were ambivalent about their women’s jewellery. In Jewelery as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire, Ann M. Stout notes, “Throughout Rome’s history a tension existed between the desire for showy gold, gem-encrusted jewelry and the restraint appropriate to republican values of simplicity and modesty.”9

We know that Hellenistic thought influenced the writers of the New Testament. We also know that these people lived amidst these Hellenistic social influences. Wouldn’t it make sense that this discomfort with excessive jewellery would extend to the Hellenistic Jesus community? But I don’t think that’s all that’s going on here.  1 Tim. also specifies hairstyles.

Hairstyles

Throughout the Roman Empire, women who wanted to keep up with the fashions could do so by using official statues and coin portraits in order to follow the latest hairstyles from the Imperial court.10

Roman hairstyles

Many of these hairstyles were (obviously) quite ornate, and required false hair, pads, or wigs. The complexity of these styles, as well as the time they would take and skill of a hairstylist to complete, restricted them to the leisured classes. A poor woman would, of necessity, wear a much simpler style.11

Hmmm, could there be a theme here? 1 Timothy 2:9 does not want women wearing expensive clothing, or wearing jewellery or hairstyles that would distinguish them as wealthy. Here’s a hint: maybe the author is getting at what is supposed to be the egalitarian nature of worship. We’ll get to that in a later post.

Worship

But as long as we’re talking about worship, let’s take a look at what worship looked like for Roman women.

Aphrodite

Religion provided an outlet for women whose lives were quite restricted. In Roman society there were essentially two kinds of religion: the native state-sponsored cults, and the imported Oriental cults. Some of the cults (the ones that tended to be most popular) provided opportunities for “joy and release.” There were religious festivals exclusively for women where “drunkenness, obscene jests, and lewd behaviour were appropriate.”9

So, in summary, you have a group of women whose lives are strongly defined by their class and gender — largely in a restrictive way. You also have a group of women who are used to religion as a means of “letting go.”

Keep this in mind as we take a look at first century Jewish women in the next post.

1 Tim. 2:9-10: Jewish Women, Part 3 of 4

This is part three of my series on 1 Timothy 2:9-10. In order to understand this post, please see the previous one on Greco-Roman dress.

The Samaritan Woman - a modern rendition

Unlike for Roman styles, there are no contemporary images of first century Palestinian attire. In fact, there are very few sources that deal with ordinary Jewish women at all. With no statues or paintings to go on, reconstructing what Jewish women wore in the first century Mediterranean is piecemeal work. The only surviving material we have from that time was found in the Cave of Letters, located near En-Gedi in the Judean desert. This cave was occupied by the followers of Bar Kokhba during the second Jewish war against Rome. Therefore, assuming that the garments were brought to the cave, and not manufactured there, we have representative textiles for 100 to 135 C.E. We also have a great deal of Jewish literature that discusses clothing, particularly from the Mishnah.

Together, these sources tell us that Jewish dress was essentially the same as it was throughout the Roman Empire, but with some modifications to meet Jewish law. Most particularly, the laws of shaatnez and tzitzit. Shaatnez is from Deuteronomy 22:11: “Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together” (TNIV). This meant that the Roman style tunics (which, incidentally, used the same colour coding to denote status) were woven exclusively of wool or linen. Likewise, the tzitzit came from Deut. 22:12: “Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear” (TNIV).1

The infancy of Moses, west wall of the synagogue of Dura-Europos. One of the earliest representations of Jewish clothing.

Head Coverings

Like Roman women, Jewish women covered their heads. A woman could be divorced without payment of her marriage contract if she went out in public showing her hair.2

Again, this would better suit a discussion of 1 Corinthians 11, but it is relevant to see the importance placed on women’s modesty. It is also interesting to note that the Mishnah allows for the differences in local customs: “Women of Arabia may go out veiled, and women of Medea with their cloaks looped over their shoulder.”3 This allowance for local custom will come back in a later post as we discuss the relevance of these texts for us today.

Braids

Likewise, it is somewhat ironic that the author of 1 Timothy tells women not to braid their hair, because as far as we can tell from the limited sources we have, respectable Jewish women wore their long hair braided and pinned up. Letting your hair down was associated with the orgiastic ecstatic worship in Hellenistic cults.4 Again, this is edging near the discussions around covering women’s hair and the role of women in worship. By the way, if this interests you, be sure to check out my bibliography. Several of the sources have excellent discussions on women in first century synagogues (see, for example, Women & Christian Origins). While undeniably connected, that conversation warrants its own study. Let’s get back to fashion.

So, in summary, Jewish women’s social attire was pretty much the same as it was for Roman women. That means that the admonition in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 would have sounded very familiar to both Hellenistic and Jewish believers.

1 Tim 2:9-10: Interpretation, Part 4 of 4

It is frustrating trying to research 1 Tim. 2:9-10. That’s because few people are writing about it, and those who do are talking about the next part – the role of women in the church. As I have already said, while that is an important discussion, it’s not what I’m after. I’m trying to ascertain what 1 Tim. 2:9-10 is really talking about, and how that affects Christian women today. Even go-to sources, such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza‘s In Memory of Her focus their discussion of this text on the role of women in worship and ministry.

What Schüssler Fiorenza, as well as other scholars such as Judith Plaskow, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Janice Capel Anderson, and Alison M. Cheek (among many others) have done for me (with regard to this study) is to create a lens through which I can examine 1 Tim. 2:9-10. In other words, I read their works to learn how to engage a biblical text in a critical (as in thoughtful, not cynical) way.

So, in order to get at the question I’m asking, I’ll have to go in through a back door, so to speak, by looking at how this passage has been used and interpreted in the past. And where else should I begin, but with Mennonites (seeing as how I am one, after all – but check out my Why Third Way page to understand that my branch of Mennonites dress like the general public).

Mennonite Interpretation

Most people, when they think of Mennonites, think of the Old Order or Amish: horses and buggies, prayer caps and plain clothes. While the majority of Mennonites actually dress “like everyone else,” clothing is inextricably linked to the Mennonite faith.

In 1943, John C. Wenger, Dean of the Bible School at Goshen College wrote:

“The Mennonite Church is today confronted with the question, Shall simplicity of dress be maintained? In the final test only one foundation is strong enough to guarantee the perpetuation of this distinctive Christian witness: that foundation is the personal conviction that Christian simplicity of dress is a Biblical truth.”1

This is very telling. He goes on to say that while,

“Ministers may plead, and conferences may pass resolutions … the battle against worldliness will not have been won until each believer has decided for himself to live the nonconformed life … and that this break finds application even in one’s dress.”2

So, according to Wenger, and many Mennonites of his day, simple attire was a biblical and essential aspect of the Christian witness against worldliness. Guess what Bible verse his book, Christianity and Dress, uses to support this thinking? That’s right – 1 Tim 2:9-10, in which (according to Wengel) “The Bible dares to be specific in giving instructions on the dress and appearance of the Christian.”3

(If you are interested to know how this discussion evolved, as well as a 1989 update, read this article on dress from GAMEO).

United Mennonite Church, Yarrow B.C. 1938

Biblical Commentaries

When I turned to Biblical Commentaries, I found (by this point, not surprisingly) that 1 Timothy 2:9-10 was only referenced in passing. However, some of these passing comments provide important puzzle pieces. The New Interpreter’s Bible and the New Century Bible Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles both point out that this text is part of a larger domestic code, seen in the larger society that surrounds the first century believers (think back to the similarities of rules regarding Hellenistic and Jewish dress). This means that each group in the community has conduct that is considered appropriate to them.4

In the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, P.H. Towner notes that a wife whose husband was an unbeliever might “win him” to faith in Christ if her own behaviour was exemplary, and by extension connected to her own faith. “Outer adornment is the specific aspect of respectable conduct given to illustrate [this] teaching.”5

The New Interpreter’s Bible commentary on 1 Timothy also points out a key piece to the puzzle:

“The warning presupposes the presence of some wealth in the congregations being addressed and a tendency on the part of well-to-do women (often severely limited in their freedom of action …) to find satisfaction in costly attire (the tendency illustrated in poems, paintings, and sculptures of the time). A religion that saw its end result in such terms would be no more than a club for social advancement.”6

While I’m not big on the hint that “girls like pretty things,” Dunn’s final point is crucial – the community of believers was not a club for social advancement. Where I disagree with Dunn is his next statement that this passage makes modern readers cringe (true) and does not apply to modern women.

A stark example of how 1 Tim. can be interpreted

Similarly, in her commentary on 1 Timothy in the Women’s Bible Commentary, Joanna Dewey simply points out that such a description of virtue is common to “Greco-Roman men’s rhetoric describing their ideal of a virtuous woman.”7 Her interpretation is, essentially, that this passage puts women in their place.

John Temple Bristow starts to get where I want to go in his book What Paul Really Said About Women. Not surprisingly, he proposes that the author “was not forbidding the wearing of gold nor the braiding of hair per se, but the practice of braiding gold items into one’s hair.”8 This, he argues, was the practice of prostitutes, and had been adopted by fashionable Roman women. Likewise, he notes that the arrangement of the wording urging women to avoid expensive clothing places the emphasis on “expensive”, or “costly.”9

Like in other commentaries, Temple Bristow says the author is advising women to wear clothing that is tasteful and attractive, not disheveled or ostentatious, and to avoid jewellery that is extravagantly expensive, or prostitute-like. He notes that these qualities can be divisive in the community, and that the author illustrates this with the previous passage.10 1 Tim 2:8 asks men to pray “without anger or disputing” (TNIV). Verse 9 begins with “likewise” or “also” indicating a continuation of his thought.

What I Think

This is, for me, where the rubber meets the road. I believe that 1 Tim. 9 is not so much a dress code as it is asking believers in the community to avoid division. Any study of Greco-Roman fashion shows pretty clearly that it was strongly class based, and that the fashions mentioned in verse 9 were those of the upper class. The author of 1 Timothy doesn’t want believers coming together in order to judge each other by what they’re wearing – isn’t it ironic that that is precisely how this verse has been interpreted in many cases?

Customs have changed, and styles no longer mean what they once did. Therefore, many people argue the author of 1 Timothy’s instructions are no longer relevant to modern Christians — that this is an obsolete passage. I completely agree that the Hellenistic context in which the passage was written is different from our context today. I also don’t think this passage should be used to restrict women and what they wear. I don’t even think there is a “should” to how Christian women dress.

Anne Hathaway in the Devil Wears Prada

But I think the passage still is relevant, and still is important for us. Verse 8 asks us to avoid divisions in the community, verse 9 asks us not to dress in a way that would isolate members of the community, and verse 10 tells us that what is most important in Christians is not how we look, but how we act. What if, instead of using this passage to restrict women from wearing specific items (which are part of an obsolete social context), it was used to remind Christians that in Christ there is to be no difference between believers (Gal. 3:28). What if, instead of using this passage to advocate for denim jumpers over “flashy” clothes as “befitting a Christian woman” we took verse 10 to heart. It’s true, a woman should not be defined by her clothes. This means that Prada shouldn’t define her. But it also means that preferring haute couture is not a sin. Don’t judge a book by its cover, and don’t judge a woman by what she wears. Instead, look at the person and see how she treats others. How should she do that? Try James 2:14-18, 3:9, 13, and 18 for starters. And who knows, maybe to finish off we should read 1 Tim. 2:9-10 alongside James 4:12: “who are you to judge your neighbour?”