Resist the Drift
Not long ago, most mainline Christian denominations rejected the ornamental use of jewelry. With a few notable exceptions, most denominations have abandoned that stance and completely reversed course. It is of particular interest that the United Methodist Church, despite its current endorsement and promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism within its congregations and clergy, previously held a doctrinal position against the use of jewelry. I mention the languid liberalization of the United Methodist Church because of a statement buried in a CNN article gleefully celebrating the UMC’s embrace of LGBTQ ideology. It quotes the lesbian co-pastor of a United Methodist Church in Atlanta, near my church, named Anjie Woodworth, as saying, “This change in our church law is so huge because it means folks can choose to show up as who they really are and still choose to serve God.”1
Reading that comment triggered a flashback to countless statements I’ve read and heard over the years from people who have been “set free” from the “bondage” of anti-jewelry doctrines. They usually say things strikingly similar to the Anjie Woodworth quote: “I’m finally free to be me and just love God.” Well-meaning and less-than-well-meaning religious people have used refrains like that since Eve ate the apple (or whatever it was). As I write this, I feel an overwhelming sadness at the realization that unless America experiences a revival of epic proportion and a deep renewing of biblical adherence, the vast majority of Christian denominations will shun the few “radical extremists” who dare uphold “archaic” biblical truths regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. Those “judgmental neanderthals” will be regarded by the enlightened as weird and probably dangerous. Despite popular opinion or shunning, sincere Christians must resist the drift towards sin.
D.A. Carson sums human nature up better than I can:
People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated.
For Those Who Don't Know
Many sincere Christians have never heard of or considered this topic. Perhaps you’re reading this to understand better a lifestyle you already practice. Regardless of your motives for reading, I humbly implore you to examine the Scriptures presented prayerfully. One thing is certain: it’s always easier to loosen our standards than to tighten them. That’s because our flesh prefers the path of least resistance. If you dare to read with a sincere heart, you will see this is not a “man-made doctrine.” Instead, it is a straightforward command from Scripture to the Church.
Ultimately Judged by the Word of God
The Apostle Paul’s injunction to “study to show thyself approved” and to “rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)” rings urgently. All our actions will be laid bare before Jesus, and we will be judged according to the Word of God (John 12:48). Often, people say, “Only God can judge me.” While Christians have a right and a God-given mandate to call sinful actions sinful or unwise actions unwise, ultimately, God is the final judge (Luke 17:3, Galatians 6:1, Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 4:13). That reality should weigh heavily on our minds as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13).” And while it might tempt you to think of some biblical commands as more critical than others, that mindset is hazardous. Consider the words of Jesus:
…Heaven and earth will disappear before the smallest letter disappears from the Law. Not even the smallest mark of a pen will disappear from the Law until everything is completed. Do not ignore even one of the least important commands. And do not teach others to ignore them… (Matthew 5:18-19).2
The Grievous Sin of Pride
No one can genuinely claim to know the why behind every command God gives the Church. Three things are true: God knows and loves us better than we know and love ourselves (Psalm 139:1-4). God always wants what is best for us (Jeremiah 29:11). We cannot fully understand God’s holiness or righteous judgments (Romans 11:33-36). However, beneath every action God calls sin, there is a deeper root beneath that sin. Lurking beneath murder are deeper sins like hatred, envy, or greed. Lust lurks just below the evils of fornication and adultery. Yet, pride is possibly the most pervasive, pernicious, and perilous root sin imaginable. Psalm 10:4-5 says: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight…
God’s Grim View of Pride
The Bible uses some of the most damning language possible to describe God’s grim view of pride. We are told that God “resists proud people but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:6). “Resist” comes from the Greek word antitassō, which means “to rage in battle against.”3 A more literal reading is that God actively battles against the proud. The Bible says God hates pride and arrogance (Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 8:13). Interestingly, the word śānē translated as “hates” is the Hebrew antonym of the verb āhab, meaning “to love.”4 God’s abhorrence of pride is clearly stated in the Scripture, and it is anything but passive.
What Impresses God?
In Isaiah 66:1-2, God declares, “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” Then God says, and I’m paraphrasing, “Humanity can’t build a structure exceptional enough to impress me.” No building, artistry, or man-made wonder could ever impress the God who created everything. This oratorical setup wasn’t idle boasting; God was setting the stage before revealing the type of person who impresses the Maker of the Universe. The blueprint for impressing God is laid out in verse two: “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor (meaning humble, not financially impoverished) and of a contrite (repentant) spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Without question, pride destroys our relationship with God, and humility invites Divine favor. Therefore, issues involving pride are of paramount importance to sincere believers.
The World, the Flesh, and the Pride of Life
Before examining the specific biblical connection between jewelry and pride, we must consider the Apostle John’s sweeping command in 1 John 2:15-16:
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
That phrase “pride of life” is the Greek alazoneia tou biou, referring to ostentatious display and pretentious boasting about one’s lifestyle and possessions. Jewelry is perhaps the most common and visible form of the “pride of life” as John defines it. This verse categorically places such display in opposition to the love of the Father. It is not from God; it is from the world. James reinforces this with sobering clarity: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). These verses provide the overarching theological framework for everything that follows. When we adorn ourselves with ornamental jewelry, we must ask: Does this flow from the Father, or from the world?
God Links Jewelry and Pride
An honest reader of the Word can’t ignore links between jewelry and pride in the Old Testament. Consider what God says to the rebellious, idolatry-filled nation of Judah in Isaiah 3:16-21:
The Lord says, “The women of Zion are proud. They walk with their heads high5 and flirt with their eyes. They skip along, and the jewelry on their ankles jingle. So the Lord will afflict the foreheads of Zion’s women with skin diseases; the Lord will make the front of their heads bald. At that time, the Lord will remove their beautiful ankle jewelry, neck ornaments, crescent-shaped ornaments, earrings, bracelets, veils, headdresses, ankle ornaments, sashes, sachets, amulets, rings, nose rings.”6
Of course, a person can exude pride in countless ways. However, the prideful arrogance of backslidden Judah was displayed predominately and prominently through jewelry. Their outward adornment perfectly represented Zion’s lofty, godless attitude. The very nature of jewelry is to direct attention to the wearer and make a statement. Zion reveled in their accouterments, and God was disgusted by them.
Adorned for Idolatry
Isaiah was not the only prophet to link jewelry with spiritual unfaithfulness. The prophet Hosea, using the marriage metaphor to describe God’s relationship with Israel, delivers one of the Old Testament’s most explicit connections between jewelry and idolatry. In Hosea 2:13, God declares:
I will punish her for the days of the Baals when she burned incense to them, when she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and went after her lovers. But Me she forgot, declares the LORD.49
The imagery is devastating. Israel is the unfaithful wife. God is the wounded husband. And the act of adorning herself with earrings and jewelry is explicitly tied to pursuing idolatrous lovers—the Baals—and forgetting God. The Hebrew word for “earrings” here (nezem) can also refer to nose rings—the same ornamental items removed in Genesis 35:4 and used for the golden calf in Exodus 32. Adam Clarke’s commentary notes that the jewelry described here includes nose jewels, rings, armlets, bracelets, and ankle-rings—all used to “grace the idolatrous worship and for the honour of the idols.”37
This passage is especially significant because Hosea’s husband-wife metaphor is the same metaphor Paul uses to describe Christ’s relationship with the Church (Ephesians 5:25-32). If adorning herself with jewelry was a hallmark of Israel’s spiritual adultery against God, what does it communicate when the Bride of Christ adorns herself the same way?
Hosea is not alone. The prophet Ezekiel uses nearly identical imagery to describe the spiritual adultery of Jerusalem and Samaria: “They even sent for men to come from afar, to whom a messenger was sent; and behold, they came. For them you bathed yourself, painted your eyes, and adorned yourself with ornaments” (Ezekiel 23:40). The adorning with ornaments is specifically associated with preparing for illicit spiritual encounters—dressing up for false gods as a harlot prepares for her clients.
Jeremiah echoes the same theme with even more directness: “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life” (Jeremiah 4:30). Here God tells backslidden Judah that her self-adornment with gold ornaments is futile. The very things she uses to attract her idolatrous lovers will not save her from judgment. The association between gold ornamentation and spiritual prostitution is unmistakable across the prophetic literature.
Jewelry, Pride & Lucifer’s Fall
Ezekiel 28:13-17 is a fascinating example of a prophetic double reference. Though the context is an oracle against the king of Tyre, it contains a dual reference to Lucifer.7 The prophet excoriates the king of Tyre’s prideful fall from God’s grace by paralleling it to Lucifer’s fall from Heaven. This text reveals God created Lucifer’s heavenly garments with a cornucopia of “precious stones and gold (Ezekiel 28:13).” Lucifer enjoyed the privilege of walking upon the “holy mountain of God” amid “stones of fire (Ezekiel 28:14).” Until the awful day God discovered “iniquity” in him (Ezekiel 28:15). A simplistic yet helpful definition of “iniquity” is self-will acted upon in deviation from God’s will.
Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the exact nature and cause of Lucifer’s iniquity: Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Yopiy, the Hebrew word translated as “beauty,” refers to the shining attraction or sparkle of jewels or precious stones.8 Taken in context, it becomes clear the king of Tyre and Lucifer were dazzled, enticed, and corrupted by their sparkling attire. As if to drive the point home, the text expounds on the origin of malignant sin, “thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness (Ezekiel 28:17).” That word “brightness” is uncommon in modern English. It comes from the Hebrew word yipʿāh, a feminine noun denoting brightness and splendor. It’s sometimes used to describe the glamour and glitter of a city or nation’s splendor or reputation. Such splendor often leads to pride and corruption.9
A Simple Word of Caution
Lucifer’s magnificence was undeniable, and he was fully aware of it, ultimately leading to his downfall. Pride played a significant role in transforming the once-highest angel into the lowest devil. To avoid succumbing to this dangerous trait, we must make every effort to steer clear of pride. If Lucifer’s adorned jewels contributed to his eventual arrogance, then it is essential for us as mere mortals to resist the allure of embellishment. Just as the highest angel became consumed by his own splendor, we should be vigilant against the insidious sin of pride and anything that might contribute to its onset.
Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?
The relationship between jewelry and pride is a chicken or egg conundrum. It’s challenging to determine which came first. Does pride lead to wearing jewelry, or does wearing jewelry lead to pride? I think that’s because it’s different from person to person. Indeed, for many people, wearing jewelry is an outward expression of pride. Only a deeply deceived person could deny that fact.
On the other hand, some wear jewelry because that’s what culture expects and demands. Those people often hardly notice its subtle impact on their spirit and demeanor. Regardless, the pride problem is ever persistent and deeply connected to jewelry. A word of caution to sincere preachers and believers who rightfully abstain from wearing jewelry: Be careful not to assume a person is wearing jewelry because they are prideful. They might be. However, it’s also likely that wearing jewelry will open the door to pride if it has not done so already. This might seem like an unnecessary distinction, but it’s crucial because assigning core motives to a person incorrectly is deeply offensive. If we assume a sincere person is acting insincerely, we lose credibility and, thereby, lose our ability to influence them.
Insights Into the Mind of God
While jewelry is not explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament, several passages give insight into the mind of God regarding their use. In Genesis, the Book of Beginnings, Jacob committed to serve God along with his entire family (Genesis 35:1-7). God commanded Jacob to go to Bethel to build an altar (Genesis 35:1). Obediently, he prepared to travel. He commanded his family to “put away their strange gods” and purify themselves (Genesis 35:2). They did so. In their efforts to approach God reverently, they gave Jacob all the “earrings which were in their ears (Genesis 35:4).” So, Jacob buried their idols and earrings under an oak tree before going to Bethel (Genesis 35:4).
As was often the case when Old Testament people’s hearts were sincere, their actions were intuitive rather than a response to an explicit command from God. They had no Bible, prophet, temple, church, or preacher, just a genuine desire to please God and approach Him with reverence and humility. Their undiluted yearning to please the Lord inspired them to remove their jewelry. Could it be they recognized their earrings were an outward expression of pride? I think so. Their instinctive removal of precious adornment starkly contrasts Lucifer’s opposite reaction when tempted by pride. Some may consider this passage insignificant, but it gains significance when we acknowledge that God instructed Jacob’s descendants to perform the same action in Exodus 33:2-6.
What God Does Not Wear
Before moving to the Exodus narrative, consider a remarkable observation about God Himself. In the Old Testament, the gods of every surrounding nation were depicted as lavishly adorned with jewelry and precious metals. The idols of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, and Canaan were gilded, bejeweled, and draped in finery. Yet in “total discontinuity with ancient Near Eastern practices, the God of Israel wears no jewelry. He never appears using ornaments, and He is never seen in vision by the prophets wearing them.”39 This silence is deafening. Furthermore, when God dressed Adam and Eve after the Fall (Genesis 3:21), there is no mention of ornaments. When the woman representing God’s people appears in Revelation 12, she is clothed with the sun, the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of stars—celestial glory, not jewelry. As we will see later, the woman representing false religion in Revelation 17 is loaded with gold, precious stones, and pearls. The pattern of conspicuous absence throughout Scripture reinforces the idea that God’s ideal for His people does not include ornamental jewelry.
"These Be Thy Gods"
Even casual observers of Christianity know the story of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and the Golden Calf debacle. Yet, most miss a significant subplot weaving through the narrative. While Moses was away on the mountain, the people grew restless and wondered if he would return (Exodus 32:1). So, Aaron inexplicably did something dreadful. He instructed the people to bring all their golden earrings to him, and they did (Exodus 32:2-3). Doubtless, those golden earrings were from the spoils taken while leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:35-36), which God intended for them to use in the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:22).10 Aaron fashioned the earrings into a golden calf and made a strange declaration, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 32:4).” Now the question needs to be answered: Why would Aaron say, “these be thy gods” when there was only one golden calf?
In the past, common conjecture has been that this calf worship was derived from Egypt, but that view is now generally abandoned. The Egyptians worshiped the living animal, not an image.11 And, although calf worship became an issue later, there is no evidence it was ever known or practiced among pre-settled Hebrews. Convoluting the question more, it seems Aaron, originally or as an afterthought, intended the golden calf to represent the Lord (Exodus 32:5). Or, perhaps, to represent the Lord in the eyes of the foolish people demanding representation in the absence of Moses. Aaron’s declaration regarding the golden calf appears more condescending, exasperated, and angry than a declaration of conviction or actual belief. Therefore, I am convinced Aaron explicitly referred to the people’s golden earrings used to create the golden calf when he said, “These be thy gods (Exodus 32:4).” At the very least, his declaration contained a double meaning. Aaron effectively said, “I have fashioned an idol from your idols.”
Not to beat a dead horse, or in this case, a dead calf, but the text provides further evidence to bolster my assertion that Aaron’s statement was an allusion to the golden earrings. Despite crafting the calf, Aaron was never punished for it. That’s astonishing, considering that God commanded the Levites to execute approximately three thousand men and sent a plague among the people because of their idolatry (Exodus 32:27-28, Exodus 32:35). After Moses tore down the calf, he asked Aaron, “What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them (Exodus 32:21)?” Aaron’s response was ludicrous. He passed the blame to the people, saying, “Thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief (Exodus 32:22).” God was deeply angry with Aaron’s actions (Deuteronomy 9:20). However, Aaron’s sin was that of weakness in resisting the evil will of the people rather than idolatry in his own heart.
As an aside, it’s easy for godly leaders to fall into the sin of submitting to the will of the people rather than the will of God. Every godly yet imperfect pastor knows the weariness that accompanies resisting the fleshly leanings of their congregation. Many, like Aaron, give in. Even as I write, I am exhausted by the battle, tired of the mischief. Sometimes, I feel like just letting people have their golden calf. Maybe they can have it and still worship God. After all, that’s what most “Christians” are doing these days. They seem happy with their parties, drinking, dancing, and playing. But no. I value the presence of God too much to give in to the pressure. I’m not alone. Countless better leaders than I shoulder the responsibility of godly leadership without submitting to the will of carnal majorities.
This Exodus narrative contains two more relevant things regarding the connection between earrings and idolatry. First, it’s thought-provoking that Moses ground the golden calf (previously earrings) into powder and made the children of Israel drink it (Exodus 32:20). Making them ingest and excrete the symbols and source of their rebellion. Second, when God said He would no longer travel amongst the Israelites, they mourned and took off their jewelry (Exodus 33:3-4). Apparently, many of them did so instinctively, much like Jacob and his family, when they desired to please God. However, God still told Moses to command the people to “Put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee (Exodus 33:5).” Obediently, the Israelites stripped themselves of more than just earrings, but all their ornaments (Exodus 33:6).
This was more than just a ceremonial symbol of mourning. God required the complete removal of objects representing their prideful, rebellious hearts, which they had used to build an idol. The idols on their bodies became an idol with an altar, and God said, “Get it all off.” For those who might scoff at this idea, imagine the average church in America requiring its congregation to remove their jewelry for a single day in humility before God. Very few would willingly participate. Now ask yourself, “Why is it so difficult to separate people from their adornments?”
A Pagan Distinction
At least two hundred years after the golden calf events, Gideon gained a miraculous victory over the Ishmaelites (Judges 7:1-25). After the war, grateful Israelites asked Gideon to be their ruler (Judges 8:22). He declined. Still, he had a request, “Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil…(Judges 8:23-24).”12 Then the text gives a vital piece of information, “The Midianites had gold earrings because they were Ishmaelites (Judges 8:24).”13 In the days of Gideon, wearing earrings had become the distinction of pagans. The implication is clear, and the reader is expected to take it for granted: Israelites did not commonly wear jewelry typical of neighboring pagans. Older commentaries astutely traced this Israelite taboo on ornaments to the sin at Sinai.14 Shortly, we will examine how the New Testament affirms the prohibition of ornamentation.
As in Exodus 32, where earrings were used to make the golden calf, Gideon used these earrings to manufacture an idol in the form of an ephod, a garment worn by the priests and used to determine God’s will (Judges 8:27). The amount of gold suggests that the garment included an idolatrous image. Gideon intended to glorify himself, founding his own cult, much like the Canaanite kings. The result was spiritually disastrous, ensnaring all of Israel in prostituting themselves.15 This is another tragic example of how easily jewelry morphs into an idolatrous object of pride. However, when jewelry is given to the Lord, it becomes a pleasing sacrifice (Exodus 35:22).
The Elephant in the Room
In the Old Testament, Rebecca, Esther, and other religious women wore gold and other ornamentations. Critics of holiness are quick to point this out. While the New Testament was written, harlots and wicked individuals chiefly wore ornamentation.16 The New Testament carefully forbids ornamentation, but God did not explicitly prohibit it in the Old Testament. And though popular dogma views the Church era as a time of Divine permissiveness, in reality, Jesus and the Apostles tightened many Old Testament standards. For example, Jesus tightened regulations concerning divorce and remarriage and ended the tolerance of polygamy (Matthew 5:31-32). Also, Jesus equated lust with adultery and linked anger to murder and hellfire (Matthew 5:21-30). Similarly, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter, under Divine inspiration, tightened the standards regarding ornamentation.
This tightening of moral standards shouldn’t be surprising. Jesus warned, “To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48).” The New Testament Church has received the most incredible gift possible: The Holy Ghost. We have daily access to God. We have been given a name that is above every other name—the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:9). There is deliverance, salvation, healing, and authority in the name of Jesus. We have been given much, and much is required of us.
New Testament Commands
Two Apostolic Commands – Paul
Both Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, give authoritative Apostolic admonitions against jewelry. They are very similar, a harmony that is even more striking since there was probably no collusion between the authors.17 We find Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:9-10. People ordinarily justify ignoring Paul’s sanction against ornamentation by claiming his statements were only intended as “advice” for how to dress for church. Not everyday life. Therefore, we need to back up to 1 Timothy 2:8. In this instance, the most accurate English translation is the New English Translation: So I want the men in every place to pray, lifting holy hands without anger or dispute.18
Paul made a general statement about worship and prayer that is not confined to church services or places of worship. Though his comments certainly apply to church etiquette, these are sweeping, opening remarks. The English Standard Version accurately renders 1 Timothy 2:8 as “In every place, the men should pray.”50 Notice the New Living Translation’s sloppy interpretation: In every place of worship, I want men to pray. The translators have incorrectly inserted their assumptions into the text. Paul commanded men to lift their hands and pray everywhere.
Now we can examine 1 Timothy 2:9, which is a discourse on holiness: 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. First, women are to “dress modestly.” This compact translation of “adorn themselves in modest apparel” represents the thought correctly.19 The Greek word for “decency” is aideos. The translation “shamefacedness” is obsolete in modern English. (Paul is not urging women to go around looking ashamed of themselves, with faces averted or veiled.) Instead, the Greek word signifies a modesty that shrinks from overstepping the limits of womanly reserve. This should apply to both dress and deportment.20 Next, Paul demands “sobriety”—“self-restraint” or “sober-mindedness”: The well-balanced state of mind arising from habitual self-restraint.21 These first three Pauline principles aren’t intended to address the nuances of female fashion except to ban clothing and demeanor that’s sexually suggestive, sensual, or revealing.
The text zooms in, mentioning “broided hair.” “Broided” simply means “braided”22 or “interwoven.” Taken in context, it’s clear that braided hair isn’t the intended issue; rather, weaving “gold” into hair is forbidden. Paul bars the use of “gold” and “pearls” as items of adornment. However, assuming this is an exhaustive list of banned jewelry would be incorrect. That would be legalism, following a list to the letter while ignoring the spirit of the law (2 Corinthians 3:6). Paul uses “gold” and “pearls” as examples of jewelry that should not be used for accessorizing the body, hair, or clothing. For example, substituting gold with another precious metal like silver breaks the spirit of the text. Paul emphasized gold and pearls because they were the most coveted items in that culture. Pearls were three times more valuable than gold. Women used them to adorn their hair as rings and earrings or decorate their garments and sandals.23
Last, Paul condemns wearing “costly array” or exorbitantly expensive clothing. The best garments could cost as much as seven thousand denarii. For those of inferior quality for commoners and slaves, the cost would be between eight hundred and five hundred denarii (the average wage of the working man was one denarius a day).24 A denarius would be the equivalent of about fifty dollars in today’s money.25 Which is a fact worth knowing when determining if something is indeed a “costly array.” In that time, a wealthy person’s garment could cost three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in today’s money.
1 Timothy 2:10 closes out Paul’s instruction on outward holiness: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. That is, it is not appropriate for women who profess to be the followers of the Savior to seek to be distinguished by personal, external decorations. If they are Christians, they have seen the vanity of these things and have fixed their hearts on more substantial realities. They are professed followers of Him “who went about doing good (Acts 10:38),” and performing good works especially becomes them.26
Two Apostolic Commands – Peter
The Apostle Peter’s Apostolic instructions regarding accessorizing the body are found in 1 Peter 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. Literally, “To whom let there belong (as their peculiar ornament) not the outward adornment of ‘plaiting’—weaving or braiding hairs with precious materials. The ‘wearing of gold’—literally, ‘putting round,’ namely, the head, or the arm, as a bracelet, the finger, as rings. ‘Apparel’—showy and costly.”27
Like Paul, Peter gives a godly alternative to such decorations: 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 (1 Peter 3:4). In other words, the inward spirit should not be tarnished by outward vanity. “Meek” is best understood as meaning “gentle,” and “quiet” as “peaceable.”28 These things are invaluable to God.
Notice the wording “that which is not corruptible” in 1 Peter 3:4. A pure inward heart is not transitory nor tainted with corruption, as are all earthly adornments. The Apostle intended to compare the beautiful yet corruptible elements of the world to a godly spirit. Corruptible elements often have a corrupting effect on a person’s heart. The bottom line is that wearing ornamental jewelry violates the principle of avoiding personal ornamentation. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter addressed this aspect of adornment.
The Mother of Harlots
Without trying to decode what “Mystery Babylon (Revelation 17:5)” is or delving into prophetic symbolism, I’ll make a generally accepted statement regarding the “great whore” mentioned in Revelation 17:1-6. The “great whore” represents an ungodly, end-times religious system. In the famous vision, John saw: A woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 17:3). What makes this passage relevant to the jewelry topic is found in the following verse: And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication (Revelation 17:4). On her forehead was a name written, “Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth” (Revelation 17:5). John saw she was drunk from drinking the blood of the saints, and with “the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6).”
I could wax eloquent about prophetic implications. However, I’ll avoid speculation and stick to observable facts. God portrayed the compromised, prostituted, blasphemous, drunken, abominable end-time religious system as being “decked with gold and precious stones and pearls.” These are the exact items forbidden by the Apostles. Now, that doesn’t seem like a coincidence! This passage alone should pause the wholesale acceptance of jewelry within the Church. From the preceding passages in the Old and New Testaments, we learn that our appearance and dress should display humility, modesty, and moderation. We should not wear ornamental jewelry or costly, extravagant clothing. For example, earrings, necklaces, and bracelets are exclusively ornamental, while a watch is primarily functional rather than ornamental. However, even a watch could become ostentatious and vain.
Two Women, Two Destinies
The contrast between the Revelation 17 harlot and the woman of Revelation 12 is one of the most visually striking in all of Scripture—and it directly reinforces the jewelry question. In Revelation 12:1, the woman representing God’s people appears “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” Her adornment is entirely celestial—light, not jewelry. There is a total absence of gold, precious stones, or pearls on her body. In contrast, the harlot of Revelation 17 is “arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls” (Revelation 17:4)—the exact items forbidden by the Apostles.
The renowned commentator J.A. Seiss observed, “These two Women, thus related, and set over one against the other as opposites and rivals, must necessarily be interpreted in the same way. As Antichrist corresponds to Christ as a rival and antagonist of Christ, so Great Babylon corresponds to the Woman that bears the Man-child, as her rival and antagonist.”38 One theological journal put it even more bluntly: “The woman representing the enemies of God’s people is described as loaded with jewelry. Yet, the woman representing God’s people has a total absence of jewelry on her body.”39 This cannot be coincidental. God could have adorned the Revelation 12 woman with anything. He chose light. He could have dressed the harlot in anything. He chose gold, precious stones, and pearls. The message is unmistakable: God’s people are characterized by heavenly radiance, not earthly ornamentation. The false religious system is characterized by the very items the Apostles forbade.
Literary Insights
Two of the 20th century’s greatest Christian authors recognized the connection between jewelry and spiritual corruption. Both C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien aptly chose jewelry to represent pride—and they did so from different directions.
Eustace Becomes a Dragon
In C.S. Lewis’s epic Narnian story, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, an obnoxious boy named Eustace temporarily turns into a dragon. Before becoming a dragon, Eustace was a thoroughly selfish and bratty child. One day, he stumbled upon a vast treasure in a cave. In awe, he slipped a golden armband above his elbow near his shoulder and eventually fell asleep. He awoke with throbbing pain in his arm. Eventually, Eustace realized he’d become a dragon, and the beastly golden band was excruciatingly tight on his dragon arm. He desperately wanted to take it off, but it was stuck.
In Lewis’s classic tale, the golden armband and the boy’s transformation into a dragon are imaginative allegories of how a person’s inward beastliness can become outwardly dragonish. Eustace was the personification of pride, selfishness, and greed. Lewis insightfully symbolized those traits with the arm ring and the dragon. Ultimately, Eustace couldn’t become human again or take the painful band off his arm without help from the regal lion, Aslan. For the uninitiated, Aslan represents Jesus in the Narnia adventures. Once Eustace learned his lesson and regretted his dragon ways, Aslan transformed him by clawing away his dragon skin and sending him to bathe in a well. With his leathery dragon exterior removed and freshly cleansed by healing waters, Eustace no longer wanted the gold band. He changed from the inside out. Here’s my favorite excerpt from that chapter:
The Lord Octesian’s arm ring had a curious fate. Eustace did not want it and offered it to Caspian, and Caspian offered it to Lucy. She did not care about having it. “Very well, then, catch as catch can,” said Caspian and flung it up in the air. This was when they were all standing looking at the inscription. Up went the ring, flashing in the sunlight, and caught and hung, as neatly as a well-thrown quoit, on a little projection on the rock. No one could climb up to get it from below, and no one could climb down to get it from above. And there, for all I know, it is hanging still and may hang till that world ends.29
The Destruction of the Ring
Lewis was close friends with J.R.R. Tolkien, famed author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In Tolkien’s epics, twenty rings forged from mithril, gold, and jewels represent the corrupting nature of evil. Eventually, the rings destroy everyone who wears them. One remaining ring and one sincere Hobbit named Frodo become the centerpiece of the tale. Frodo is called upon to undertake a journey to destroy the ring. Throughout the arduous journey, he resisted wearing the ring. Over time, however, he succumbs to the enticement of the ring. Slowly, he changes from the picture of goodness and innocence to that of selfishness and pride. The only hope for goodness to prevail was for the ring to be cast into fire. Here’s one of my favorite quotes:
“Now, at this last, we must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril—to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire.”30
Lewis used the arm ring as an outward display of inward corruption. Conversely, Tolkien used the rings to represent how external factors can corrupt us. In both cases, the rings became a symbol of bondage that needed to be cast away. I doubt either Lewis or Tolkien considered jewelry off-limits for Christians. Yet, they cleverly captured the essence of what Christians should do with jewelry—cast it away along with its corrupting associations.
The Early Witness of the Church
Some may wonder whether the Apostles’ instructions were unique to their era or intended for all generations. The answer is found in how the earliest post-Apostolic Christians—those who learned directly from the Apostles’ disciples—understood and applied these commands. The evidence is overwhelming and virtually unanimous: the early Church Fathers opposed ornamental jewelry for Christians.
Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD)
Tertullian, often called the “father of Latin Christianity,” wrote an entire treatise titled De Cultu Feminarum (“On the Apparel of Women”) in which he explicitly condemned jewelry. He wrote: “Let us cast away earthly ornaments if we desire heavenly. Love not gold; in which one substance are branded all the sins of the people of Israel. You ought to hate what ruined your fathers; what was adored by them who were forsaking God.”40 Tertullian also made a striking argument for his generation: he asked Christian women to consider whether necks accustomed to pearl and emerald necklaces would “give room to the broadsword” of martyrdom—essentially arguing that luxury ornamentation is incompatible with the readiness to suffer for Christ. He told women to draw their “whiteness from simplicity,” their “ruddy hue from modesty,” and to “paint their eyes with bashfulness.”
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD)
Clement devoted an entire chapter of The Instructor (Book II, Chapter XIII) to arguing “Against Excessive Fondness for Jewels and Gold Ornaments.” He recommended that instead of wearing precious stones and pearls—things to which “silly people” are attracted for show—Christians should adorn themselves with the “Word of God,” Jesus the Pearl of great price.41 He also pointed out that Christian women who wore gold and occupied themselves in curling their locks were, in truth, “imitating the Egyptians.”
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210–258 AD)
Cyprian in De Habitu Virginum (“On the Dress of Virgins”) cautioned Christian women against the vanity of decking themselves with rings and gems.42 And the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375–380 AD), an early church manual, explicitly protested “against the ostentation of Christians in decking themselves with rings and gems” and stated: “Do not superadd ornaments to thy beauty, in order to please other men… the lascivious additional adorning of what is already good is an affront to the bounty of the Creator.”43
One historian summarized: “The early centuries are marked by strong resistance to the use of ornamental jewelry by believers. After the fifth century, jewelry became the official adornment of the clerical orders, and during the remainder of the Middle Ages was very popular among Christians.”44 In other words, the acceptance of jewelry in the church was a medieval corruption, not the apostolic norm. The Church Fathers who lived closest to the Apostles understood their commands as prohibiting ornamental jewelry—not merely prioritizing inner beauty while permitting outer display.
An Ancient Tradition Worth Noting
I want to briefly reference a Jewish tradition that is not inspired Scripture. The Book of 1 Enoch is not part of the biblical canon and should not be treated as the Word of God.45 However, it was widely known in Second Temple Judaism, and portions of it are referenced in the New Testament (Jude 14-15 directly quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, and 2 Peter 2:4 alludes to similar traditions about fallen angels). The early Church Fathers were deeply familiar with it. I mention it here not for doctrinal authority, but for historical context—because this tradition profoundly shaped how the early Church viewed jewelry.
In the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6-8), the origin of ornamental jewelry is attributed to rebellious angels who corrupted humanity:
And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.46
Again, this is not Scripture, and I do not present it as such. But it is historically significant for this reason: the early Church Fathers—Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and others—all connected the fallen angels’ teachings to the ongoing spiritual danger of ornamentation. They associated jewelry-making with demonic corruption at its very origin. This tradition, whether literally true or not, reveals a deep and ancient conviction in the people of God that ornamental adornment is entangled with rebellion against the Creator. That conviction was not invented by modern Pentecostals; it predates the Church itself.
The Reformers and Onward
The corruption was challenged again during the Protestant Reformation. The Reformers condemned the church’s embrace of jewelry and called Christians back to a life of simplicity. This was particularly the case among the Anabaptists, who sought to reform the church not only in terms of doctrines but also in biblical lifestyle. This tradition was continued among the Mennonites, Brethren, early Methodists, the Church of God, and many Holiness and Pentecostal bodies.51 The rejection of ornamental jewelry was not an obscure Pentecostal invention; it was the consistent position of serious Christians throughout church history. Those who abandoned this standard in the 19th and 20th centuries were the innovators, not those who maintained it.
Addressing Common Objections
Didn’t God command Moses to tell women to take silver and gold jewelry and put it on their daughters in Exodus 3:22?
First, as previously stated, God did not expressly forbid jewelry in the Old Testament. However, a close examination of the verse reveals that God did not tell women to put jewelry on their daughters. Second, the King James Version renders Exodus 3:22, “Jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and ye shall put them upon your sons and daughters.” In context, we see it was “raiment” that the Hebrew mothers put on their daughters and sons, too. “Raiment” from the Hebrew semaloth, often translated as “clothing,” doesn’t refer to festive or regal garments but daily apparel.31 Remember, the Hebrews had been slaves for 430 years. They lived under harsh, oppressive conditions and needed clothing for the wilderness journey.
Second, although several dynamic equivalent translations insert the word jewelry (and the King James Version is imprecise, “jewels”), the Hebrew word is keli. It is a masculine noun indicating an article, a vessel, an instrument, or a jewel. It has a broad, inclusive sense and indicates useful objects of all kinds.32 The best English translation of Exodus 3:22, in terms of adherence to the literal text, is the New English Translation, which says, “Every woman will ask her neighbor… for items of silver and gold and for clothing. You will put these articles on your sons and daughters…”33 The plundered gold and silver vessels contained more than just jewelry.
Doesn’t God love jewelry? He speaks of it as a good thing in several Scriptures. Why would God do this if jewelry is evil?
This answer might surprise you, but I believe God likes jewelry. He created Lucifer with a jewel-studded garment, and the High Priest wore a breastplate inlaid with precious stones in the Old Testament. God created precious stones and metals. Even a quick study of the materials used in Heaven’s construction reveals God must really like exquisite ornamentation. However, God does not like what jewelry does to us.
The specific passage people typically reference when asking this question is Ezekiel 16:8-14. It’s a symbolic passage about Israel’s unfaithfulness to God. This parable describes the Lord taking Israel as His bride. Among many other incredible items, Ezekiel 16:11-13 declares, “I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver…” The wording was carefully used to conjure an image of ancient royalty. God planned to take Israel beyond betrothal and make her His queen (as He does the New Testament Church).34 Nothing mentioned in this text is intended as fashion advice from God to His people. The actual point of this parable is revealed in Ezekiel 16:14-17:
And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them.
They took the gifts the Lord gave them and turned them into idolatry. In God’s eyes, they prostituted themselves in their prideful iniquity. Furthermore, even within the parable, God’s gifts of adornment led directly to pride, which led directly to spiritual adultery. The parable is itself a cautionary tale about the corrupting potential of beautiful things.
Why do Peter and Paul only address women’s jewelry, not men’s? Is it ok for men to wear jewelry?
It’s important to remember that the Apostles wrote the epistles for real churches with actual issues. It’s only reasonable to extrapolate that the injunctions against jewelry are the same for men and women. Just as Paul’s instructions directed at men to lift holy hands in prayer and praise also apply to women. However, in the immediate social context, the temptation to use jewelry was primarily a female issue.35 A reality that remains generally true today.
Peter says “not merely outward”—isn’t he talking about priorities, not prohibition?
Many modern translations render 1 Peter 3:3 as “Do not let your adornment be merely outward” (NKJV, ESV) rather than “let it not be that outward adorning” (KJV). Critics argue Peter is simply establishing priorities (inner beauty over outer), not prohibiting jewelry outright. They further point to the parallel structure: if “wearing gold” is banned, then “putting on of apparel” (clothing itself) would also be banned—and obviously Peter isn’t commanding nudity.
However, the word “merely” does not appear in the Greek text. The Greek reads: ōn estō ouch ho exōthen—literally, “of whom let it not be the outward.” The “merely” is an interpretive insertion by translators. While Peter is certainly establishing priorities, the force of his language goes beyond simple prioritization. Additionally, the clothing objection is addressed by the context itself. The Greek word for “apparel” (himation) in this context refers to fine, showy clothing, not clothing in general. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown render it as “showy and costly.” The items listed alongside it—braided hair interwoven with gold, and wearing of gold—establish the category of ostentatious display, not the basic act of being clothed.
Furthermore, even if one grants the “priorities” reading, the practical question remains: If a Christian woman truly prioritizes the “hidden person of the heart” and “the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit” as Peter instructs, how much emphasis does she place on gold and ornamental display? The answer reveals itself. And we should remember that the early Church Fathers—who spoke Greek natively and understood the cultural context firsthand—did not interpret Peter’s words as mere prioritization. They applied them as prohibition.
These are cultural commands, not universal ones—Paul was addressing Roman excess.
This is one of the most common and most dangerous objections, because its logic is a wrecking ball that demolishes far more than the jewelry question. If Paul’s command against gold and pearls was merely cultural, then his command for modest apparel in the same sentence was also cultural. His command for women to adorn themselves with “good works” was also cultural. And his command in the preceding verse for men to “lift holy hands without anger” was also merely cultural. The “cultural context” argument, applied consistently, guts the epistles of any binding authority.
Moreover, as already demonstrated, Paul explicitly frames his instruction with “in every place” (1 Timothy 2:8), making his remarks universal—not confined to a single church or culture. And the remarkable harmony between Paul and Peter, who were writing independently to different audiences, suggests a universal apostolic principle rather than localized cultural advice. The Early Church Fathers—who lived in that very culture—did not interpret these commands as culturally limited. They applied them universally and energetically.
The Prodigal Son received a ring from the father (Luke 15:22). Didn’t Jesus endorse jewelry?
In Jesus’ parable, the father places a ring on the returning son’s hand. Some argue Jesus would not use a sinful object as a symbol of restoration. However, the ring in Luke 15:22 was a signet ring—a symbol of authority and reinstatement, not an ornamental accessory. In the ancient world, giving someone a signet ring meant delegating authority (compare Pharaoh giving Joseph his signet ring in Genesis 41:42). The father was restoring the son’s position as heir, not accessorizing him. Functional, symbolic rings of authority are categorically different from ornamental jewelry worn for self-display.
Similarly, when people point out that Jesus in Revelation wears a golden sash (Revelation 1:13) and a golden crown (Revelation 14:14), they confuse the Creator’s glory with the creature’s display. These are symbols of Divine kingship and priesthood, not personal ornamentation. The High Priest wore a gold plate and breastplate as part of his sacred office (Exodus 28), but this was God-ordained priestly function, not personal vanity. To argue from Christ’s glorified appearance that Christians should wear gold jewelry is to confuse categories entirely.
Proverbs compares virtues to jewelry positively (Proverbs 1:9, 25:12). Doesn’t this prove jewelry is good?
Several Proverbs use jewelry as positive metaphors: “They will be a graceful ornament on your head, and chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9). “Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise rebuker to an obedient ear” (Proverbs 25:12). Some argue that if jewelry were shameful, these comparisons wouldn’t make sense.
But the use of jewelry as a metaphor for something valuable does not endorse its literal use any more than Jesus calling His followers “the salt of the earth” endorses a sodium-heavy diet. A metaphor works precisely because the audience recognizes the referent—people in that culture understood gold earrings were considered beautiful and valuable, which is why the metaphor communicates. Solomon is saying: “You know how people value gold earrings? That’s how valuable a wise rebuke is.” The comparison works without endorsing the literal practice. Proverbs also compares wisdom to “rubies” (Proverbs 3:15) and “silver” and “hidden treasures” (Proverbs 2:4). Nobody uses these metaphors to argue that Christians should hoard rubies or bury silver in their yards.
Isn’t this just legalism? The heart matters, not outward things.
This is perhaps the most emotionally compelling but logically weakest objection. First, the verse most commonly cited—1 Samuel 16:7 (“man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart”)—is about God’s criteria for choosing a king, not a blanket dismissal of outward behavior. God absolutely cares about the heart, but the heart and outward behavior are not disconnected. Jesus Himself said, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matthew 12:34), and “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). What we put on our bodies flows from what is in our hearts.
Second, calling obedience to apostolic commands “legalism” misdefines the term. Legalism is attempting to earn salvation through works. Obeying Scripture out of love for God is not legalism—it is discipleship. By this logic, any command could be dismissed as “legalistic.” Modesty? Legalism. Honesty? Legalism. Faithfulness in marriage? Legalism. The term becomes meaningless.
Third, the very apostles who wrote about the heart and grace (Paul and Peter) are the ones who issued the commands against ornamental jewelry. They apparently did not see a conflict between heart-religion and obedience to outward standards. If Paul and Peter were not being legalistic, neither are those who follow their instructions.
You can be prideful about NOT wearing jewelry. Isn’t this standard itself a source of pride?
This is a valid and important pastoral concern. Many holiness people do, sadly, develop a sense of superiority for their standards, looking down on Christians who wear jewelry. The preacher condemns the lady with a modest necklace but never says a word about the pride of the deacon who makes a show of his offering. The hypocrisy is real and should be acknowledged.
But as a logical argument against the standard itself, this objection fails entirely. The fact that a standard can be practiced with wrong motives doesn’t invalidate the standard. The Pharisees were proud of fasting, praying, and giving—but Jesus didn’t abolish fasting, prayer, and giving. He corrected the heart posture while affirming the practice (Matthew 6:1-18). The solution to pride in obedience is humility in obedience, not disobedience. And the hypocrisy objection is valid as a call for consistency, not as a case against the jewelry standard. The answer is to extend the principle of modesty and humility to all areas of life, not to abandon it in the one area where Scripture is most explicit.
A cross necklace or religious jewelry can be a witness or evangelistic tool.
While the motive may be sincere, this argument has several problems. First, the early Church explicitly rejected this reasoning. Clement of Alexandria allowed only a simple signet ring bearing a religious emblem (a dove, fish, or anchor)—and even then, this was a seal (a functional object), not an ornamental pendant.47 Second, wearing a gold cross necklace to “witness” while the Apostles specifically forbid gold for adornment creates a contradiction: we are disobeying the Word to tell people about the Word.
Third, and most importantly, a more powerful witness than any piece of jewelry is the absence of jewelry in a culture obsessed with it. When a woman’s beauty radiates from “the hidden person of the heart” rather than from gold and pearls, that distinction itself becomes a testimony. The Apostolic standard, faithfully practiced, is its own evangelistic statement.
A Personal Word
Until now, I’ve resisted offering anecdotal reasons to reject the ornamental use of jewelry. My opinions and experiences are irrelevant compared to the authority of God’s Word. However, in conclusion, I’d like to leave you with a few sincere personal opinions and experiences. Many years ago, I was gifted an expensive watch. At least, it seemed expensive to me then, but I thought Taco Bell was fine dining in those days (I still kinda do). Anyway, over time, I noticed a subtle change in my demeanor. I ensured my sleeves didn’t cover it so people could see it. I started propping my arm up so it would be visible. Wearing it made me feel, I don’t know… superior… unique… cool… important. Or, at least, I thought it helped people perceive me as those things. No one ever advised me to get rid of that watch. I didn’t hear a convicting sermon or read an article like this. But one day, while in prayer, the Lord very clearly convicted my heart. He told me in no uncertain terms that I needed to get rid of that watch. Also, I was told watches of any kind were off-limits for me. The allure of a status symbol was too great for me to handle. Now, arguably, watches have a function beyond ornamentation. Although many use watches as a loophole to accessorize in a way that borderlines disobedience to the biblical ideal. I consider my refusal to wear watches a personal conviction. One that I would not impose on others. But that experience did teach me a valuable lesson about the insidious nature of vanity and showiness.
I’ve heard what many of you are thinking: “Hats, gloves, ties, shoes, and clothing can all be worn in a showy, conceited, prideful, ostentatious manner too.” That’s absolutely true, and I believe every Christian should be mindful of that when buying and wearing attire. We should examine our motives in everything we do, say, and wear. And nothing in Scripture mandates that Christians dress drably or drearily. However, jewelry has no redeeming or functioning value except to adorn, make a statement, project an image, or symbolize status. In my opinion, wedding bands serve a reasonable and even necessary function in our culture—they operate as a visible covenant symbol, publicly marking a person as belonging to their spouse. This distinguishes them from jewelry worn purely for aesthetic purposes. However, I think precious metals, diamonds, and pearls can and should be rejected in favor of alternative materials that can be purchased for reasonable prices. Like watches, many Christians justify wearing a piece of wildly gaudy expensive jewelry because it is a wedding ring. That concerns me. But I digress.
Those already trapped in the vice grip of vanity will struggle to even consider the series of questions I’m about to pose, but I ask that you think about it as dispassionately as possible. What good and noble purpose does jewelry serve? Why are people so passionate about jewelry? Why would giving it up create such strong emotions? What motives are buried in our hearts when wearing jewelry? What feelings does wearing jewelry plant in our hearts? How much jewelry is too much jewelry, and why? What image are we trying to project when wearing jewelry? What image do we unintentionally project when wearing jewelry? If God told us audibly to give up jewelry, would we do it? Could we quit wearing jewelry for a month? If not, why?
I’m painfully aware that modern Christendom doesn’t think God cares about anything we wear or don’t wear, which is weird because the Bible has a lot to say about our outward appearance. I also know people want the “why” for every biblical command. I’m sure the Israelites wanted good reasons why they couldn’t eat bacon or shrimp. I would wrestle with that, too. God doesn’t have to answer to us or give explanations. Sometimes, He does, and sometimes, He doesn’t. There are a great many mysteries I plan to ask God about in Heaven. I’ve laid out several reasons to reject wearing jewelry from Scripture. Even if we had no explanation, obedience would still be required. I’ll leave you with a final bit of educated speculation that goes beyond the issue of pride. I believe the Golden Calf at Sinai stripped humanity of its privileges regarding jewelry. I believe that God desires for the Church to be free of pride, and He has removed the stumbling block of jewelry from our list of dangerous privileges.
I’ve seen churches transformed from humble places of righteousness into gnarly pits of pride. I’ve seen modest Christians transition from modesty into “spiritualized” arrogance. Jewelry always plays a role in those changes.
I’ll close with one more story—one that solidified my position on this issue for good. Many years ago, a friend of mine really liked gold stuff. He knew it was wrong but bought a giant gold pinky ring anyway. He wore it for a long time and convinced himself that God didn’t care about his ring. One day, the Lord nudged his heart in prayer and told him that the ring had to go. He didn’t listen. When he got out of bed the following day, he was shocked to see dark, black, inky blotches radiating from the ring to his shoulder. The ink-like stain moved rapidly towards his neck. He tore the ring from his finger, and immediately, the stain disappeared. He hasn’t put gold on his body since that day.
Endnotes
1. Bailey, C. (2024) ‘A Better Church is possible:’ Methodists celebrate as the church embraces the LGBTQ, CNN. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/us/united-methodist-church-embraces-lgbtq-reaj/index.html (Accessed: 15 August 2024).
2. Holy Bible: NIrV, New International Reader’s Version. 1996. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House.
3. Thayer, Joseph. Thayer’s GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT. OakTree Software, 2017.
4. Baker, Warren, and Eugene E Carpenter. 2003. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament. Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers.
5. Harris, W. Hall. “Isaiah 3:16-4:1.” The NET Bible Notes. Thomas Nelson, 2019.
6. Bible Gateway Passage: Isaiah 3:16-21 – New English Translation. Bible Gateway, 2019. (Accessed 18 Aug. 2024).
7. Blum, Edwin A., and Jeremy Royal Howard. “Notes.” HCSB Study Bible. Holman Bible Publishers, 2010.
8. Baker, Warren, and Eugene E Carpenter. 2003. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament.
9. Baker, Warren, and Eugene E Carpenter. 2003. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament.
10. Alexander, T.D. Exodus. InterVarsity Press, 1994.
11. CALF-WORSHIP – JewishEncyclopedia.com, 2021. (Accessed 20 Aug. 2024).
12. Bible Gateway Passage: Judges 8:23-24 – English Standard Version. Bible Gateway, 2015. (Accessed 20 Aug. 2024). ESV: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2001.
13. Bible Gateway Passage: Judges 8:23-24 – New English Translation. Bible Gateway, 2019. (Accessed 20 Aug. 2024).
14. Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. InterVarsity Press, 1973.
15. Blum, Edwin A., and Jeremy Royal Howard. “Notes.” HCSB Study Bible. Holman Bible Publishers, 2010.
16. Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible (Unabridged). OakTree Software, 2004.
17. Earle, Ralph. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy. Zondervan, 1978.
18. Bible Gateway Passage: 1 Timothy 2:8-10 – New English Translation. Bible Gateway, 2019. (Accessed 21 Aug. 2024).
19. Earle, Ralph. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy. Zondervan, 1978.
20. Earle, Ralph. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy. Zondervan, 1978.
21. Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. OakTree Software, 1996.
22. Burer, Michael H. and Jeffrey E. Miller. A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Kregel Publications, 2008.
23. Rogers Jr., Cleon L. and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan, 1998.
24. Rogers Jr., Cleon L. and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan, 1998.
25. “How Much Is a Denarious Worth?” APMEX, 20 Dec. 2023. (Accessed 21 Aug. 2024).
26. Barnes, Albert. Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament. OakTree Software, 2006.
27. Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. OakTree Software, 1996.
28. Thayer, Joseph. Thayer’s GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT. OakTree Software, 2017.
29. Lewis, C. S., and Pauline Baynes. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Harper Collins Publishers, 2014.
30. Tolkien, J. R. R. The Lord of the Rings. Harper Collins Publishers, 1954.
31. Ex. 3:22. Expository Bible Commentary Notes, Edited by Gaebelein, Frank E., Zondervan, 1990.
32. Baker, Warren, and Eugene Carpenter. AMG Publishers, 2003.
33. Bible Gateway Passage: Exodus 3:22 – New English Translation. Bible Gateway, 2015. (Accessed 25 Aug. 2024).
34. Dyer, Charles H. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Ezekiel. Victor Books, 1985.
35. Batten, Alicia J. “Neither Gold nor Braided Hair.” New Testament Studies, vol. 55, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 484–501.
36. Bible Gateway Passage: Hosea 2:13 – New International Version. Zondervan. The NIV renders the passage with particular clarity regarding the jewelry-idolatry connection.
37. Clarke, Adam. “Commentary on Hosea 2:13.” The Adam Clarke Commentary. StudyLight.org.
38. Seiss, J.A. The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation. Charles C. Cook, 1901.
39. Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. “A Foundation for the Standard of the Church.” Elder’s Digest, vol. 12, no. 1, 2006.
40. Tertullian. De Cultu Feminarum (On the Apparel of Women), Book I, Chapter 9. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
41. Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor (Paedagogus), Book II, Chapter XIII. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.
42. Cyprian of Carthage. De Habitu Virginum (On the Dress of Virgins), Chapter 21. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5.
43. Apostolic Constitutions, Book I, Chapter III. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7. Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.
44. Lee, Rosalie Haffner. “Dress Standards in the Early Christian Church.” Ministry Magazine, February 1968.
45. 1 Enoch is not part of the inspired biblical canon and should not be treated as Scripture. It is referenced here solely for historical context, as it was widely known in Second Temple Judaism and the early Church. Jude 14–15 quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, and 2 Peter 2:4 alludes to similar traditions, but neither citation confers canonical authority upon the whole work.
46. 1 Enoch 8:1–2. Translation from R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912).
47. “Rings.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company, 1912. NewAdvent.org.
48. Scripture quotation from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission.
49. Scripture quotation from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®
50. Scripture quotation from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway.
51. Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Christian Dress and Adornment. Biblical Perspectives, 1995. Cited in Rodriguez, Elder’s Digest, 2006.
