Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 2 of 4)

Question #1: For those ignoring or dismissing the biblical requirement of women covering their heads in Christian assemblies today (1 Cor. 11:2-16), isn’t this a rejection of a straightforward reading of the text, subverting its clear teaching, and rationalizing disobedience?

Response: There is a considerable difference between a straightforward reading of the actual text, and a straightforward reading of a particular English translation of the text. Compare, for example, the respective renderings of 1 Cor. 11:16 in the ASV and the NASB, which set forth opposite, conflicting statements. Both cannot be correct. I have encountered individuals who apparently have their minds made up and attempt to explain each rendering to fit the position they have already embraced. But a more thorough investigation is necessary to discern what the inspired writer actually said before we can ascertain what he meant by what he said (in its original context).¹

A number of English versions have significantly altered the passage with unnecessary added words, mistranslation, paragraph headings, and interpretive commentary, not to mention the abundance of additional sources that promote further misconceptions. To insist that an artificial headdress is a biblical mandate for all women in all churches of all time not only misses the occasional nature of Paul’s letter and what it actually says and doesn’t say but seems to be reading the text through ahistorical interpretive lenses (see Part 1). 

Question #2: Female head-coverings in churches were practically universal until modern-day feminist movements, so it wasn't until fairly recent times that the head-covering went out of vogue and primarily in the West. How can we so readily dismiss a position held by the majority of Christendom for the past 2,000 years? 

Response: Historically both Christian and non-Christian women wore head-coverings, the former not only in church assemblies but generally in public, so consistency ought to accompany this line of reasoning. We should be wary of overgeneralizations about all churches in every culture worldwide since the apostolic age, seeing that head-coverings were not distinct among Christian women in all places through the centuries against their cultural environment.

In societies where head-coverings were not customary (e.g., African tribes, Pacific Island cultures, etc.), converts to Christianity have no doubt been influenced by the interpretations and cultural influences of European missionaries. In the North American culture of the 1950s, it was fashionable for women to wear hats, although it wasn’t considered inappropriate or shameful for a woman not to wear a hat. During this period in this particular cultural setting, sporting a hat as a fashion trend was very different than (and irrelevant to) the intended purpose of Paul’s message to the mid-first-century Greco-Roman readers of 1 Corinthians. 

     Irrespective of what people may or may not have believed and practiced through the ages, the crux of the matter is what Paul intended to communicate to his Corinthian audience, what he actually said, and how they would have understood the message in the context in which it was written. This cannot be adequately discerned without considering the real-life setting in which these directives were initially given, involving not only head-coverings and hair length, but also Greco-Roman idolatry, the preponderance and function of pagan temples, eating sacrificial meats, empire-wide slavery, miraculous gifts, et al. 

Question #3: Female head-coverings (at least in the assembly) have been understood through the ages to be binding, so wouldn’t it have been sinful when women first started removing them? As long as head-coverings are not worn by women (in the assembly), isn’t this blatant rebellion against God’s will?

Response: The question assumes Paul’s head-covering discussion constitutes a universal mandate for all churches of all time rather than a dialogue with a particular congregation grappling with its own questions and problems in a specific historical-sociocultural environment. Would the same reasoning apply to other culturally-relevant exhortations in 1 Corinthians? These addressees also practiced the customary kiss-greeting, and Paul instructs them to continue the practice in a holy manner (1 Cor. 16:20). Were Christians sinning whenever they stopped kissing each other and started shaking hands or hugging, and do we continue to disobey if we don’t practice the ancient Mediterranean kiss-greeting?  

How should we interpret other contextually-qualified directives, like, “Were you called as a slave?” (7:21a); “for if anyone sees you having knowledge eating in an idol’s temple …” (8:10); “but if anyone might say to you, ‘This is offered to an idol,’ do not eat …” (10:28); “be without offense both to Jews and Greeks …” (10:32); “Every man … prophesying …” (11:4); “every woman … prophesying …” (11:5); “eagerly desire the spiritual [gifts], but especially that you may prophesy” (14:1)?²

Question #4: If one rejects the biblical practice of women wearing head-coverings in Christian assemblies today, isn’t this explaining away and therefore negating biblical doctrine? 

Response: This line of reasoning, which assumes a particular article of female attire is divinely enjoined, impugns either the competency or the moral integrity of those who have reached a different conclusion, unlikely to generate productive dialogue. Nevertheless, lacking additional biblical information, it is a mistake to wrest a local directive from the circumstances in which it was given and transform it into a universal decree. Without questioning the competency or moral integrity of those who may disagree, it boils down to a matter of hermeneutics. What methodology is being employed to interpret and apply the scriptures? I have major reservations about conclusions drawn and decisions made without having seriously considered the full range of contextual factors. 

     Charismatics have accused me of negating the biblical doctrine of tongue-speaking, but I regard their assessment as misguided. We should always strive to understand the original intent and application of any passage of scripture and avoid misappropriation. To affirm that the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty [ἐξουσία] and not a collective work of the church neither explains away nor negates any valid biblical doctrine. 

Question #5: It is impossible to understand the cultural practices of first-century Corinth involving hair length and head-coverings, because so many sources give conflicting information. Therefore, shouldn’t we just stick to what the Bible says rather than relying on historical-cultural information that we can’t be certain about?

Response: The sources that conflict with one another (and there are many!) are mostly secondary sources (commentaries, encyclopedia articles, etc.).³ If we consider primary sources (ancient contemporary works) that are most relevant to the context of 1 Corinthians as per time, place, and genre, there is greater uniformity.⁴ 

Question #6: To insist on learning ancient history to understand the Bible implies that the Bible isn’t enough by itself. What other biblical teachings would require knowledge of historical-cultural information in order to understand them? 

Response: To name a few: feet washing, laying on of hands, oil anointing, kiss-greeting, braided hair, Aramaic in the NT, Hellenists, synagogues, Herodians, the Roman Empire, et al. Why wouldn’t a serious Bible student want to know as much as possible about whatever is relevant to the Bible? 

     In 1 Corinthians Paul is responding to reports he has heard and questions he has been asked (1:11; 7:1; 11:18; 16:17). While the mid-first-century disciples at Corinth already knew what the issues and questions were, the best we can do is to draw inferences, with less specificity, from Paul’s responses. We only get to hear one side of the conversation. Paul repeatedly reminded his original readers, either directly or rhetorically, of what they already knew or should have known (5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24; 12:2). 

     We were not present to hear all that the apostle and his coworkers had taught in person (3:2; 4:17) or in previous correspondence (5:9), so we cannot demand, force, or expect precision of meaning that is just not in the biblical text. Even so, as modern-day interpreters we are advantaged by having access to God’s complete revelation that helps fill in gaps of assumed knowledge (albeit without comparable head-covering legislation), supplemented by a wealth of historical data. Pertinent information at our disposal should not be disregarded if it helps to understand the text as the first readers would have understood it. The alternative is trying to figure it out from a 21st-century westernized perspective, far removed from the original setting and the inspired writer’s initial purpose.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1): Translation,” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link>.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ³ Be aware of conflicting claims like the following: nearly all women wore veils in public (F. H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands 98-99) vs. the veil was exceptional in ancient times (Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary 719); Jewish women were always veiled in public (C. K. Barrett, First Corinthians 251) vs. they were usually not veiled in public (Encyclopedia Biblia 4:5247); reputable Greek and Roman women wore veils in public (ISBE 4:3047) vs. Greek women were not compelled to wear veils in public (TDNT 3:562)???

    ⁴ For more information from primary sources about ancient cultural practices relating to the head-covering, hair length, and worship conventions, see the author’s We Have No Such Custom 9-26.

 

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 1, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: https://myloview.com/poster-continuous-one-line-drawing-of-woman-with-earphone-girl-listening-no-A3AC6DF

Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms (Part 1 of 4)

Through the years as I have studied, written about, taught on, and had discussions concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with reference to women praying or prophesying with covered heads, I have been asked a number of thought-provoking questions and have also been challenged and criticized. My responses have mostly been in private exchanges, so the current aim is to offer clarity to anyone who might have similar queries or concerns.

Preliminary Considerations

The Bible is the inspired word of God consisting of sixty-six ancient (albeit pertinent) documents produced as a result of our Creator having chosen to communicate through real people in actual historical-geographical-sociocultural-linguistic-literary environments that happen to be fundamentally and unavoidably foreign to our own. Before any biblical text speaks to you or me, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. A shallow hermeneutic ignores this divine process, gives little attention to the Sitz im Leben (“life setting”) of the sacred writings, and immediately asks, “What is this saying to me, and how does it apply to my life?” 

A sound hermeneutic approaches scripture asking, “What was the inspired writer seeking to convey to his original (targeted) audience, and how were they expected to understand the message in the context in which it was first communicated?” If this is our preliminary concern, we are in a much better position to apprehend the original intent of the passage, less likely to misunderstand or misconstrue it, and better equipped to make application to our often very different circumstances.¹

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, the head-covering and hair-length discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 (which is without scriptural parallel) is not unique or innovative or countercultural in relation to Corinthian social conventions of Paul’s day. One of the closest contemporary sources relevant to this topic comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (ca. AD 46-120), who served as procurator of the Achaia province of which the Roman colony of Corinth was the capital. In his Moralia, responding to questions from a Greek perspective about irregular practices in special situations among the Romans, he observed as the standard custom: “it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered …. for it is usual for men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow” (Roman Questions 14, vol. 4 LCL). Apparently when Paul addressed hair length and head-coverings, he was not enjoining a distinctively “Christian” peculiarity.

There are clearly teachings and principles in 1 Corinthians applicable to all churches (4:17; 7:17; 14:33), but the correspondence itself is addressed specifically “to God’s church in Corinth” (1:2a),² an actual group of Christians in a real place at a real time in history. While they shared the same spiritual blessings “together with” [σύν] all other believers (1:2b), Paul’s manuscript was produced as an occasional letter dealing with issues and questions particularly relevant to the designated addressees (note, e.g., 1:11; 4:18-21; 7:1; 16:3-12). The discussion in 11:2-16, which is only a tiny segment of a much larger discourse, does not concern what all churches are doing but rather a customary practice all churches “do not have” (v. 16). 

Some commentators make reference to what they call the biblical (even universal) head-covering “command,” yet the only real command in the entire paragraph is the emphatic aorist imperative, “You all judge among yourselves” (v. 13), directed to the Corinth church based on what they already understood as proper.³ When 1 Timothy (2:9-10) and 1 Peter (3:3) were later written and sent to Asia Minor, the issue at hand was different, not cloth headdresses but women’s expensive clothing and ornately braided hairstyles (see further here).

Brief Overview

For those unable or unwilling to read all the detailed materials I have tried to make available over the years,⁴ here is a brief synopsis of my understanding of the passage. 

Paul does not formulate a rule the mid-first-century Corinthian church had to follow but offers a few reasonable premises and then calls on them to make their own judgment. Gender roles are according to God’s design, so a Christian ought to be careful not to do something that might give the impression this arrangement is being disrespected or ignored. In ancient Corinth men were not expected to routinely cover their heads, with the opposite applying to the opposite gender. A Christian woman, therefore, in her demeaner and appearance, especially when engaged in religious activity, should modestly reflect her God-given submissive role. At the same time, she ought to have freedom over her head and be trusted to use it responsibly. In the Lord neither man nor woman is independent of the other, and all things are from God. You [Corinthians] must decide among yourselves, already knowing what is proper. But if it is going to generate strife, be aware that “we do not have such a custom,” i.e., this is not a religious mandate. As a social convention it should not be an issue that causes disputes among brethren.

Concluding Thoughts

The passage makes sense and is far less confusing when read through mid-first-century Corinthian glasses in the context of the entire letter. Applied in today’s world, the wearing or not wearing of a head-covering is a matter of personal liberty and is not a collective work of the church. Therefore, it still should not be a contentious or divisive issue.

In an attempt to add further clarity, future posts will respond to the more pertinent questions and criticisms I’ve encountered over the past three decades.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Among copious hermeneutical models, the Impressionistic Approach equates the meaning of the text with the interpreter’s immediate thoughts, an easy, subjective, and emotive exercise practically guaranteeing missing or misconstruing scripture’s original intent. On the idea of Holy Spirit Illumination, see The Holy Spirit’s Role in Biblical Understanding. The Dogmatic Approach views scripture as a storehouse of proof-texts to be selected and arranged to bolster a preconceived doctrine or set of beliefs, giving little attention to context or authorial intent. The Grammatical-Historical Approach is a concerted attempt to understand what the words of scripture meant in their original setting, i.e., what the inspired author intended to communicate to his targeted audience. For exegetes with a high view of scripture, this methodology is also concerned with current-day application.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. 

     ³ There is no English equivalent to the Greek third person middle imperative (v. 6), so it is difficult to translate and must therefore be somewhat idiomatic, typically rendered “let her …” The context determines how much stress the imperative mood carries, though the present tense (especially in a conditional statement) is far less pressing than the aorist (especially in an emphatic statement). The significance of the term ὀφείλω (“ought”) with a negative (v. 7) can be either “bound not to” or “not bound to.” The only other time this construction occurs in Paul’s extant correspondence to Corinth is 2 Cor. 12:14 (using almost identical wording), where there is no obligation to do a certain thing rather than an obligation not to do it. Before attempts are made to draw a command out of v. 10, the usage of ἐξουσία (“authority”) should be consistently interpreted within the broader context and thematic flow of thought (7:37; 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18) without the distortion of unnecessary added words and subjective surmising. 

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings (Part 1 of 5),” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link> and accompanying articles. This five-part series is an abbreviated version of the author’s We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui NZ: By the author, 1998), which is a revised version of the author’s “A Critical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11.2-16,” FHU Graduate School of Theology Master’s thesis (1996), <Link>, an extension of in-depth personal and congregational studies initiated in Wellington NZ a couple of years earlier that have continued to this day. Also Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship (2010), Polishing the Pulpit (2016), Southeast Institute of Biblical Studies Lectureship (2023).

Related Posts: Female Head-coverings: Questions & Criticisms Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

 

Image credit: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/704109722978732897/

Braided Hair, Jewelry, and Expensive Clothes: Modesty According to 1 Timothy 2:9-10

Aristocratic woman of the Flavian Dynasty

Introduction

From Macedonia Paul wrote 1 Timothy (ca. 62-64), sending the letter to his young colleague who was working with the church in Ephesus at the time (1 Tim. 1:1-3).¹ Although addressed to an individual, it is apparent that behind the apostle’s thought of Timothy was that of the congregation with which he worked, the letter ending with a grace-wish to “you” plural (6:21).

In the main section of the letter, addressing proper conduct in the church (2:1–6:2), the topic of collective prayer (2:1-7) merges with the deportment of men and women (2:8-15). While it was understood that the men of the congregation would be leading the prayers in public assemblies (v. 8), Paul continues: “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (vv. 9-10).² 

The Issue At Hand

The comparative “likewise also that women” indicates godly attitudes and behaviors are in view with respect to both genders. “Nothing is to take place in the church, neither among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual dignity.”³ Paul then addresses how women are to “adorn themselves.”

The phrase, “in respectable apparel,” is translated from the Greek en katastolē kosmiō, lit. “in respectable⁴ deportment,” involving demeanor and dress. The noun katastolē (its only occurrence in the NT) refers to “deportment, outward, as it expresses itself in clothing … as well as inward … and prob[ably] both at the same time” (BAGD 419), accompanied “with modesty ...” The noun rendered “modesty” [aidōs] (its only occurrence in the NT) carries the sense of “reverence, respect” (BAGD 22), which ought to consume a Christian woman’s entire being, inside and out. “The outward modesty which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account.”⁵

The associated “self-control” [sōphrosúnē], variously rendered “sobriety” (ASV), “moderation” (NKJV), “discreetly” (NASB), “good sense” (CSB), “propriety” (NIV), is highlighted again at the end of the paragraph (v. 15) and involves soundness of mind, rational thought, and good sense (Acts 26:25). It is the “well-balanced state of mind resulting from habitual self-restraint,” and “speaks of the entire command of the passions and desires, a self-control which holds the reins over these.”⁶

Modesty of Dress, Hair, and Beautification 

With respect to clothing and outward appearance, this passage is mainly concerned about over-dressing and gaudiness, adorning oneself in such a way that draws undue attention to oneself. More specifically, in the cultural setting of ancient Ephesus,⁷ “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” This type of extravagant luxury and adornment was apparently not uncommon among the affluent (cf. 6:9-10, 17) throughout the Roman provinces of Asia Minor at the time (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 3:3), while reminiscent of the well-to-do, spiritually anemic, pre-exilic Jews (Isa. 3:24). 

The expression “braided hair” is translated from the single noun plégma (its only occurrence in the NT), alluding to something “interwoven” and comparable to “the external braiding [arranging] of hair” (1 Pet. 3:3), or “elaborate hairstyles” (NIV). Both Paul and Peter issued these directives on the threshold of the Flavian dynasty, a time when women’s hairdos required lengthy grooming sessions and were increasingly ornate.⁸ The arrangement of a woman’s hair, sometimes including hair extensions and wigs, was regarded as a major determinant of her attractiveness and social status, along with leisure, luxury, and vanity.⁹ Clement of Alexandria,¹⁰ promoting practicality over elegance, denounced personal decoration inconsistent with Christian simplicity, including “superficial [artificial] plaiting of hair” (Paedagogus [The Instructor] 3.11). 

Another problem in this cultural environment was the eroticism associated with a woman’s hair, making “it appealing to most male observers and writers (the Christian moralists … are an important exception) …. In the Roman world … hair’s erotic potential made it a lightening rod for anxieties about female sexuality and public behavior. Hence the ancient sources preserve many references to veiling and other strictures regarding female headwear.”¹¹

The “gold or pearls” would include expensive jewelry, like earrings, necklaces, and bracelets (cf. Pliny, Natural History 9.56; 33.12), but also costly ornaments weaved into flamboyant hair designs to exhibit affluence and extravagance.¹² The “costly attire,” along with its adornments, draws attention to the wearer, displays haughtiness and worldliness (cf. Rev. 17:4), and magnifies social distinctions (cf. Luke 7:25; Acts 12:21; 20:33), contrary to the Lord’s design for his church (cf. Jas. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 3:3). Christian worship assemblies are not intended to be fashion shows. 

Proper Adornment

With the strong adversative allá (“but”), the apostle also affirms that women should adorn themselves “with what is proper [prépō]¹³ for women who profess godliness—with good works.” The noun translated “godliness” [theosébeia], its only occurrence in the NT, conveys the sense of “God-fearing” in a reverential way (an inner conviction), but also the observable lifestyle it produces (cf. Gen. 20:11; Job 28:28, LXX). The word “profess” is rendered from the compound verbal epaggéllomai that usually refers to making or announcing a promise,¹⁴ also carrying the sense of “profess” or “making a claim” (NASB). Although unscrupulous persons make fallacious assertions (6:21), the apostle surely expects God-fearing women to be true to their word, demonstrated “with good works” (cf. 5:10, 25; 6:18; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; Heb. 10:24; 1 Pet. 2:12).

Conclusion

The modern-day application is to avoid dressing in such a way that would unnecessarily direct the focus of onlookers to one’s outward appearance as opposed to one’s inward character. “The body is the shell of the soul, and dress the husk of that shell; but the husk often tells what the kernel is” (Anonymous).¹⁵ A person does not have to expose a lot of skin to be immodestly dressed (cf. Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46). Immodesty in today’s westernized world would include skimpy outfits, excessive makeup and jewelry, outlandish hairstyles, countercultural attire and body art, etc. “Culture should never change the basic principle of modesty in that the Christian woman should always seek to draw more attention to God than to her own beauty and body. Christian women and men on every continent should be mindful of how their speech, actions, and dress can potentially affect others.”¹⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “What Happened After Acts?” in Entrusted With The Faith, ed. D. Y. Burleson (Henderson, TN: FHU, 2018): 79-82.

     ² Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (2016).

     ³ Johann E. Huther, in H. A. W. Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the NT: Handbook to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, <Web>. C. J. Ellicott observes that the duties of these women were “sobriety of deportment and simplicity of dress, at all times, especially at public prayers. It would seem almost as if the apostle intended only to allude to demeanor and dress at the latter, but concluded with making the instructions general” (Critical and Grammatical Commentary 50, emp. in text).

     ⁴ The adj. kósmios (“respectable,” “virtuous”) occurs only twice in the NT, both in this letter (2:9; 3:2).

     ⁵ J. E. Huther, op cit. Compare 1 Cor. 7:34; 1 Pet. 3:3-5.

     ⁶ C. J. Ellicott, Critical and Grammatical Commentary 51; K. S. Wuest, Pastoral Epistles 46. Cognate with sōphrōn (3:2; Tit. 1:8; 2:2, 5), it would be comparable to egkráteia (“self-mastery,” “self-restraint,” “self-control”), cf. Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6.

     ⁷ Ephesus was located on the west coast of Asia Minor (modern-day western Turkey), the principal city of the province of Asia, controlled by the Romans since 129 BC. Augustus appointed Ephesus as the capital of the province, replacing the former capital of Pergamum. Ephesus, because of its strategic location, wealth, and influence, was greater in prominence. The city was a commercial center, a wealthy metropolis, and home of many nationalities. The Romans conferred upon it the status of “a free city,” with the right of self-government under Roman supervision.

     ⁸ See Elizabeth Bartman, “Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment,” JSTOR 105:1 (Jan. 2001): 1-25. The above image is the bust of an aristocratic woman (ca. 69-96) on display at the Capitoline Museum in Rome. “Apparently hairstyles from this period were made to be flamboyant with hair arranged in high layers of ringlets and then braided and coiled in the back” <Link>.

     ⁹ E. Bartman, “Hair” 1-4; “its appearance derived as much from culture (cultus) as from nature” (5). The hair arrangements of aristocratic women included abundant shaped curls in the front, elaborate braids in the back, as well as crafted buns.

     ¹⁰ In the latter part of the 2nd century Clement of Alexandria, a convert from paganism to Christianity, was well-traveled and well-studied in Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt.

     ¹¹ E. Bartman, “Hair” 4-5. See K. L. Moore, We Have No Such Custom 9-26. 

     ¹² E. Bartman, “Hair” 3. Pliny the Elder, a late contemporary of Paul, writes, “let women wear gold upon their arms and all their fingers, their necks, their ears, the tresses of their hair … let sachets filled with pearls hang suspended from the necks …” (Natural History 33.12.3).

     ¹³ Acting appropriately in a way that is suitable, fitting, proper (Matt. 3:15; 1 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 5:3; 1 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 2:1; Heb. 2:10; 7:26).

     ¹⁴ Mark 14:11; Acts 7:5; Rom. 4:21; Gal. 3:19; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:13; 10:23; 11:11; 12:26; Jas. 1:12; 2:5; 2 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 2:25.

     ¹⁵ Tryon Edwards, A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclopedia of Laconic Quotations (Detroit, MI: F. B. Dickerson, 1902): 127.

     ¹⁶ Ryan and Sarah Davis, quoted in Chad and Amanda Garrett’s To the Ends of the World 92. 

 

Related Posts: How is "Modest" Apparel to be Measured?, Supply in Your Faith Godliness, A Woman can be a Preacher?, Female Head-coverings: Questions and Criticisms Part 1, Part 4 

Related articles: Adam Faughn, Modesty: Overlooked Verse

 

Image credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2yap1k/a_bust_of_an_aristocratic_flavian_woman_showing_a/