Modesty Culture Part 6: The Real Meaning of I Timothy 2:8-10

What Saint Paul Was Saying in I Timothy 2

I want to circle back for a moment now to the passage in I Timothy and re-examine what Saint Paul was saying. I noted in earlier posts that I believe that the proponents of Modesty Culture not only “proof text” their preconceived beliefs about women, but they also ignore the most logical meaning of the text.

I have mentioned that I Timothy in general can be a confusing book to read, and interpretation is hardly easy or simple. One of the reasons for this is that it is loaded with cultural references. In some ways, it is very much as if it was written, for example, by someone immersed in the world of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Explaining this to someone who was unfamiliar with Tolkien’s invented world would be difficult at best; but just imagine explaining it to someone who had no concept of fantasy or mythology.

I Timothy is like that, because it is jam packed with references to the cult of Diana/Artemis, which was the central reality of life in ancient Ephesus. Without knowledge of this cult and its beliefs and practices, many things in this book make no sense at all, and seem to be completely contradictory to other parts of scripture. However, they do make some sense in light of the culture they were referencing. The details of that are beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that the whole “women will be saved through childbearing” didn’t make sense to me until I read Wade Burleson’s post on the Artemis cult - and why childbearing came into the discussion in the first place.

So, in light of that, I want to take a look at I Timothy 2:8-10 in context, and also in historical context. (All citations are NASB unless otherwise indicated.)

Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

The instructions to men and women form a matched set. Both deal with disruptions to the worship service. The men were quarreling, and the women were showing off.

How do we know this? The reference to braided hair and gold is not accidental. At all. As part of the cult of Artemis, women who were in her service would show off the wealth they attained by braiding gold into their hair. In addition, there is good evidence that braiding had become an elaborate art, requiring hours of labor - slave labor - to produce. It was a visible representation of being a wealthy slave owner. The style of one's hair made a clear statement about one's wealth and class. 

They were bringin’ the bling.

They were using a forum for the worship of God and the fellowship with others as a means to show off how wealthy they were.

Roman Hairstyle c. 90 CE

This wasn’t about sex!

That interpretation isn’t present in either the context of the of the passage or in the historical context of the problem Saint Paul was addressing. That was read into the passage later by those who decided this was about sex, not pride and money.

In fact, at some point, the very meaning of words changed to suit the new obsession with sex.

Not too long ago, “modest” didn’t have sexual connotations. It meant the opposite of “prideful.” The opposite of “ostentatious.” It still holds these meanings. A person is modest when he doesn’t tout his own accomplishments. He is modest when he doesn’t show off his wealth.

But a woman is modest when her manner of dressing doesn’t make men desire her. See the difference? See how it has changed?

This gets even more interesting for those who prefer the King James Version. As I quoted it in Part 2 of this series, the verse goes:

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 word in the previous translation rendered as “modest” now becomes “shamefacedness.”

Likewise, the word rendered as “proper” in the NASB and as “modest” in the KJV doesn’t mean what we have made it mean.

What Does “Proper” or “Modest” Mean?

For all discussions of word meaning, I have relied on a concordance and an interlinear Bible. I have also looked to online scholarly sources for meanings of Greek words. While I am not a Greek scholar by any means, even I can see that translation is hardly a mechanical process. Choices must be made in how to translate a word, and that choice often betrays bias about what the translator thinks the passage means.

The word translated “proper” by the translators of the NASB and as “modest” by the translators of the KJV is used in I Timothy just a chapter later in 3:2.

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…(NASB)

or

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(KJV)

Interesting, isn’t it? When referring to a man in leadership, the word means “respectable” or “of good behavior.” Other sources indicate that the word literally means “well ordered.” This is about respectability within the society. But suddenly, in our modern interpretation, it becomes primarily about sex when applied to women.

I could see in this an admonition to be respectable, neat, clean, and put together. That makes sense. Come to the house of God and show respect. But instead, this has been twisted to mean that women are to dress differently than the present culture (see Part 3) because they make men sin sexually.

And what about the other word?

What Does Shamefaced Mean?

This is yet another example of where the language gap between Elizabethan England and Twenty-first Century America is exploited by those with an agenda.

Unlike some of the translation errors I noted in a previous post, “shamefaced” is not an entirely wrong translation of the Greek word. True, it is translated as “reverent” the one other place it is used (Hebrews 12:28 - see note below.)

However, the concept of shame isn’t missing from that of the original word. I have seen it explained in terms of the honor culture of the day. Reverence was also a desire to avoid bringing shame. To doing what is shameful by failing to give proper reverence where it is due.

However, I do believe that difference in application of this verse may well reflect some latent sexism.

“Shamefaced” as interpreted by the Patriarchists

All it takes is a little perusing of the comments on one or more articles on “Modesty” to run across some asshole who decides to make the point that women should be “shamefaced.” (I know, I probably will live longer if I avoid the comments section on blog posts.)

What this means to those within the Patriarchal lifestyle is this: Women should be “shamefaced” when speaking to men.

For practical purposes, what this means is that women should not look men in the eye, but should have a properly “downcast” glance. I wish I were making this up, but this is really what is taught!

 Magdalen from No Name by Wilkie Collins, demonstrating a proper Victorian downcast glance. 

Illustration by John McLenan

 Nora from He Knew He Was Right, clearly NOT showing a downcast glance. 

But, she and Hugh were both of strong personality and determination, and thus made a delightful match. 

Illustration by Marcus Stone.

Let me unpack this a bit.

Looking someone else in the eye is a statement. It is a challenge. This is why, as lawyers, we are trained to do it. To look someone else in the eye and not turn away is to show that you think of him or her as an equal. It requires engagement. It will either end in some degree of respect or in a fight, in my opinion. At the risk of sounding sexist, men know this. Women within my profession do too, and that is why they look you in the eye. Woe indeed to the one who flinches.

There is a history to this, of course. If you want the nice little Biblical example, think of Mordecai, who refused to show deference to Haman, explaining that one bowed to God, not men.

A commoner who looked a nobleman in the eye was challenging him, and would be punished accordingly.

Likewise, woe to the slave who didn’t have a proper “downcast” glance. To look the master in the eye was to challenge: to assert equality.

So too for male/female relationships. The Victorian ideal was that women didn’t assert themselves by looking men in the eye. They needed to have a proper “shamefaced,” “downcast” glance. Demure. Unaggressive.

Make no mistake, this was based on a belief in the inherent, congenital inferiority of women. I’m not even going to argue this point further. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows this to be true. It is there in the public words of the vast majority of the men writing at that time. I intend to explore this and its link to Modesty Culture in a future post.

This basic belief is vital to the teachings of the Patriarchists, and thus they insist on “shamefacedness.” For women, of course.

This belief, by the way, is nothing new. Early church father St. Clement expressed the views of many of his and later ages when he said, “Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman."

Why was this word used then?

See, I believe that there is nothing in this passage that indicates that women ought to be “shamefaced” toward men.

I believe that the word is used to indicate a reverence toward God, and an embarrassment at using His house to show off.

I believe that the passage is telling women to show respect for the house of God. They were using his house to show off how wealthy they were. Bringin’ the bling.

Saint Paul was saying, Show some respect for the house of God!

I am reminded of one of the times that Christ himself was truly angry. He saw the temple being used by the sellers of animals and money changers as a means to profit off the backs of the devout. From Matthew 21:12-13

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den.”

At the risk of sounding profane, I might paraphrase this in the following way:

I intended that you enter my house to pray, so get your Goddamn money out of my house!

Note the parallels. Saint Paul exhorts the men to pray without quarreling, and the women to stop making wealth an issue.

This shouldn’t be about sex.

But we have perverted what was originally an instruction about the corruption of worship into quarreling and prideful display of wealth into a proof-text for forcing women to dress a certain way so that men don’t think about sex.

There are two huge problems with this:

1. Building an entire doctrine of women’s bodies by twisting scripture.

2. Completely ignoring the point of the passage, which is classism and materialism.

I have addressed much of problem number one in this and previous posts.

But I believe problem number two - the classism that plagues churches, past and present - is also vitally important. I’ll discuss it in the next installment.

Modesty Culture Part 1: Introduction - "Whaaat?"

Modesty Culture Part 2: How "Modesty Culture" became a "Thing"

Modesty Culture Part 3: "Modesty" in Practice

Modesty Culture Part 4: The Concept of "Defrauding" and Rape Culture

Modesty Culture Part 5: The Faulty Definition of "Lust"

Modesty Culture Part 6: The Real Meaning of I Timothy 2:8-10
Modesty Culture Part 7: Maybe Christian Women Should Buy Their Clothes at WalMart 
Modesty Culture Part 8: Sexism and Misogyny 
Modesty Culture Part 9: Inconsistent Application of Rules 
Modesty Culture Part 10: Social Signaling  
Modesty Culture Part 11: "Others May, We Cannot" is a Lie
Modesty Culture Part 12: Amanda's Story 

 

Further note on “Shamefaced”:

In Part 2 of this series, I wrote a footnote on Bible translations and the way different words are translated, depending on the person or persons to whom the word refers. Often, the word choice betrays an obvious sexism.

This is particularly pernicious in I Timothy.

When the passage speaks of all people or of men, “well ordered” or “respectable” is used. “Modest” is used when referring to women.

Thus, when speaking about women:

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. 

When speaking about all people:

Hebrews 12:28: Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.

Similarly, all persons are to have reverence for God, but women are to be shamefaced. (And the word is generally used to mean women should be shamefaced toward men.) And this doesn’t reveal a sexist bias? Really?

One more, for the fun of it. A few verses later in I Timothy, a certain word is translated as “silent” or “silence” when referring to women. Women are to be “silent” in church. (This is often taken very literally.) However, that exact word is used in other contexts as an admonition to all persons to lead “quiet” and sober lives. While a few religious orders do indeed believe in silence, few believe that all persons should be silent at all times.

The translation thus reflects the bias. The translators started with a particular view of women, and the translation shows that the gender of the person referred to determines the meaning of words that are exactly the same.

My response to a common objection to my viewpoint:

I have heard some say, "well, the women with gold in their hair were prostitutes, so this is about dressing like a hooker." 

Assuming that this interpretation is true, which seems dubious, my point still stands on two fronts. As I pointed out above, there is no evidence that Saint Paul was referring specifically to the dress styles of prostitutes. Rather, there is significant proof that hair styles were indeed used as a status symbol. But what if they were prostitutes? First, dressing in a respectable manner - one in line with cultural norms - is a great idea for a number of reasons. "Modesty Culture," though, takes the opposite approach. DON'T dress in a culturally normal manner, because culture is evil. It's only "dressing like a hooker" if the culture says that it is. If a large portion of the population dresses like that, and they aren't streetwalking, it - by definition - isn't "dressing like a hooker." 

The second point is that if the problem were women showing too much skin in church, Saint Paul easily could have made that point. Instead, he points to the gold in their hair. The "bling" they (maybe) got from their prostitution. They are not showing off their bodies, but their wealth. Exactly what I said before. A more direct modern example would be showing off the huge ring and fast car from one's sugar daddy.  

No matter what way you slice it, it still comes down to parading wealth and fitting in with the culture - not sex.  

The Pursuit of Glory by Tim Blanning

Source of book: Borrowed from the library.

Over the last several years - perhaps even the last decade - I have been working through a variety of works on history. I had a pretty decent education, but it was largely focused on United States history, and suffered from the usual deficits of high school curriculum. It is difficult to really do more than give an overview and foundation given the constraints of time and memory. Thus, it has been fun and enlightening to go back and fill in details, particularly the cultural and practical ones usually eclipsed by war and politics.

Tim Blanning has made a career of study and writing on the history of continental Europe from the Seventeenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. In particular, he has written several books on different facets of the French Revolution.

I put this book on my list because a colleague and former boss of mine was reading it at a volunteer event we were at, and recommended it - from one book nerd to another. I was not disappointed.

To try to express the scope of this book in a blog post would be impossible. It ostensibly covers the five revolutions: scientific, industrial, American, French, and romantic, but that isn’t quite true. Because it focuses on Continental Europe, the American Revolution enters the book only as it affected Europe itself. More than that, the book goes far beyond the scope of these revolutions in an attempt to present a wealth of information about the era. The title, too, is a bit of a misnomer. The pursuit of glory applies perfectly to Louis XIV, a major figure to be sure, but his is hardly the only or even the dominant story. I suspect that there was no good title that would completely fit the book, so the author (or publisher) went with something that sort of fit and would grab attention.

I might compare this book with England Under The Stuarts, which I read last year. Both paint a historical picture of an era and a transition.

Starting and ending points are arbitrary, of course. The author justifies using 1648 as the beginning because he considers the political settlements of that year as an acknowledgement that confessional pluralism within greater Europe. The endpoint of 1815 likewise represents an arbitrary point by which the author considers the development of the modern state to have been completed.

Although the entire book was interesting, I particularly found the first section, “Life and Death,” to be fascinating. One of the benefits of learning the history of the everyday is that it makes it harder to glorify the past. It is fun, perhaps, to imagine being part of the nobility of the past, but the lives of everyday people were not so glamorous.

The three great killers of earlier times, greatly reduced these days: war, famine, and plague. The book explores these three, and the way that they all gradually shrank during this period, allowing significant increases in population.

On a related note, it was also interesting to read some of the writings on contraception from the early 1700s. It is easy to forget that even seemingly innocuous methods, such as withdrawal,  were both widespread and widely condemned by church authorities. I also found the quotes from very early feminists to be intriguing. The Ladies’ Defense by Mary, Lady Chudleigh is quoted extensively, as are a few other poems by women of the era. As someone raise in an environment where feminism was both oversimplified and vilified, it is good to have a reminder of the ills that women once bore - that some would have us return to: absolute control by parents, arranged and forced marriages, difficult or impossible divorce, acceptance of domestic violence, and so on. It was also enlightening to see the debate between those who claimed women were intellectually stunted, and those women who pointed out that they had been systematically denied educational opportunities. This debate may seem settled by the accomplishments of women, but it continues to play out in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria today.

The line between poverty and utter destitution was thin, and easily crossed in those days before a public safety net. For women, this meant that the slightest slip could easily lead to a life of prostitution as the only alternative to starvation. London in 1750 was estimated to have 10,000 prostitutes, while in Paris, one in thirteen women was a sex worker.

While poverty certainly was not ended by the industrial revolution, rural life was also less glamorous than often portrayed.

I never really thought about where the word “robot” came from. It was applied to its current context by Czech playwright Karel Čapek in 1920, but he merely used a word for the involuntary servitude owed by a serf to the lord. A serf wasn’t just required to pay a portion of his crop to the lord, like a sharecropper might. He was required to spend a good amount of his time working directly for the lord - and these days really added up. In exchange for this, the lord - in theory - had obligations to make sure his serfs didn’t starve, and so forth. The justifications made for the system sound strikingly like the justifications made for American Slavery - just with classism substituted for racism.

To a degree, the liberation of the serfs from these duties granted them some opportunities, but even then, impoverishment was widespread - and accepted.

It is always interesting to find parallels between the past and our own times. This quote from England’s John Howlett could have been written about 21st Century America - particularly the Ayn Rand conservatives:

There is, indeed, I cannot help thinking, something peculiarly ungenerous in our complaints of the burdensomeness of our poor. Within the last forty years the rent of our houses and land are increased eight or ten millions; the wealth of our farmers and tradesmen is augmented in similar proportion; that of our merchants and leading manufacturers in a degree infinitely greater. And shall we grudge to allow of this abundance two millions a year towards the support of those from the labour of whose hands and the sweat of whose brows we have derived the whole? Shall we grind their faces, and squeeze them to death, and then have the cruel absurdity of ascribing their fate to their increasing vice and profligacy?

It is so easy to forget that both the French Revolution and Marxism arose in response to real problems, and that societies ignore those problems at their peril.

On the political side, the author did an excellent job in tracing the rise of nationalism - a plague that still infects our thoughts. Pride in one’s own nation isn’t necessarily an evil. There is nothing bad about lauding Shakespeare or Beethoven (or Twain perhaps as an American example). However, this benign pride was also accompanied by a corresponding denigration and dismissal of other nations and their accomplishments. As is all too common, this then led to demonization of others, attributing moral defects to the “enemy.” In particular, it is striking how each nation believed the other was a pit of sexual immorality and disease.

Particularly good was the list of the elements of nationalism: a foundation myth, a mythical hero or heroes, special assistance from God, cultural achievement, an alibi for failure, and a gnawing sense of grievance at foreign oppression. It’s not difficult to see these beliefs in the great wars of the 20th century - and indeed the three centuries before that. More immediate - and disturbing - is the way these ideas are central to a certain segment of conservative Christianity these days, those still preaching Manifest Destiny and so-called Providential History. All the elements are there.

There were some humorous political quotes too. There is the (probably apocryphal) statement by Cardinal Lambertini before he was elected pope.

I advise you to come to a decision: if you wish for a bigot, choose Aldobrandi; if you prefer a man of learning, elect Coscia; if you like a buffoon, here I am.

Come to think of it, that would have made a great political slogan.

Also hilarious was a Russian noble’s cynical description of the political system as “Despotism tempered by assassination.”

A few more interesting observations I felt were worth jotting down:

The amusements of the nobility were plenty bloody, and are looked on with horror today in most cases. However, at the time, they were considered to be “manly” pursuits. Then, as now, there was a horror of perceived “effeminacy” and a variety of prescriptions for preventing it.

One was cockfighting. Robert Howlett put it thusly:

There is not a surer sign of a Nation or Peoples degenerating into effeminacy, and so consequently falling into Poverty and utter Ruin, than when they totally change the Warlike Exercise of Cocking for mimical Plays, silly Dancing, and such like Fopperies. Cocking fits a Man either for Peace, or War, and creates both Courage, and Constancy, with Good-nature, and ingenuity all glued together.

That sounds utterly ludicrous now, but we still do the same thing when we prescribe whatever “manly” exercise of the day is trendy, selling it on the fear of “effeminacy” and the degeneration of culture and manhood.

Another interesting fact was that French was at one time the universal language, replacing Latin as the language of the educated classes. In turn, it would be replaced by English, in large part because Napoleon managed to alienate pretty much the entire rest of the world.

Speaking of Napoleon and his wars, it strikes me that World War One really should have been called World War Two, and Napoleon’s campaigns given the honor or disgrace of being the first. The parties involved were similar, and the war engulfed as much of the world as WWI. (Both were less worldwide than WWII.) Even more telling, the casualty rate compared to population was actually higher in the Napoleonic wars than in WWI.

Despite the fact that the subject is rather involved and the scope broad, the author is able to make everything interesting with his excellent writing and obvious enthusiasm for his topic. It isn’t a “page turner” for the simple reason that there is much to digest, but it is compelling, and I found myself eager to return to reading it.

One final bit that I cannot help but share. During this period, literacy went from a luxury of the privileged classes - and usually only males - to a widespread and egalitarian necessity. More than that, it became a source of pleasure to a great many. Some were rather appalled at the unwashed lower classes taking to books, but others were delighted to see reading run rampant across social boundaries. As clergyman Johann Beyer put it, “No lover of tobacco or coffee, no wine drinker or lover of games, can be as addicted to their pipe, bottle, games or coffee table as those many hungry readers are to their reading habit.”

Guilty as charged.

Thirteen

Thirteen is a portentous number. Perhaps because there are twelve full lunar months in a year, with the leftovers serving as an odd 13th, it has been an object of numerology and superstition in pretty much every culture. It even gets its on seriously cool word: triskaidekaphobia. The fear of 13. I love saying it, because of the way it rolls off my tongue.

I’m not a superstitious guy, so I have tended to embrace the number. When I can, I use 13 as my soccer jersey.

Thirteen is also the age at which a Jewish boy comes of age, or a kid becomes a teenager.

Whatever the reason or the belief, it isn’t an everyday number.  

Today, June 9, I celebrate 13 years of marriage to my best friend, the lovely, intelligent, and sweet Amanda Joy.

Thirteen years ago, I walked down the aisle with my bride to the strains of Mendelssohn’s march. No mix-up of identities, but I do suspect we had a little of the wild pansy in our eyes at the time.

Soon, we set off together - as we had done before - but with a difference. Our lives were now together.

There is a lot I remember from our honeymoon, because we had a delightful time. Hawaii wasn’t in our budget, so we just took a few days on the Central California coast - a place we both still love. Like our future trips, it contained explorations, good food, and of course the best company possible.

Amanda at Julia Pfieffer Burns State Park, on our Honeymoon

I remember driving through Atascadero. We intentionally forewent the silly bouquet and garter toss, but Amanda still found a garter somewhere or another, and I hung it from the rearview mirror. We got honks and thumbs up from a few people. I wonder if they thought I had eloped with a bridesmaid.

It was thrilling and yet foreign to check into a hotel together. Husband and wife. Only one bed needed.

The one thing that still sticks with me, though, is the sweetest part of starting married life together. Before, every night, we would have to part. I would go back home and go to bed, and wake up by myself.

For the first time, though, we fell asleep in each other’s arms. And woke up lying next to each other. That first morning kiss, with our tousled hair and sleepy eyes.

Perhaps I still love this so much because I can’t take it for granted. Amanda works two night shifts a week, and she doesn’t join our camping trips, so there are plenty of nights that I don’t get to hold her. But still, more often than not, we drift off to sleep together, and see each other as we open our eyes. It never gets old. My best friend, my lover, the one I always wish to wake up to. Thirteen years. And, I hope many more to come.

Amanda at the LA Music Center, on our (slightly early) anniversary trip this year

This was one of our favorite songs while we were dating:

Wouldn't it be nice if we were older

Then we wouldn't have to wait so long

And wouldn't it be nice to live together

In the kind of world where we belong

You know its gonna make it that much better

When we can say goodnight and stay together

Wouldn't it be nice if we could wake up

In the morning when the day is new

And after having spent the day together

Hold each other close the whole night through

Happy times together we've been spending

I wish that every kiss was neverending

Wouldn't it be nice

Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true

Baby then there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do

We could be married

And then we'd be happy

Wouldn't it be nice

You know it seems the more we talk about it

It only makes it worse to live without it

But lets talk about it

Wouldn't it be nice

Good night my baby

Sleep tight my baby

 I’m a hopeless romantic. Here are past anniversary and other mushy posts: