Does the Bible warn women against earring makeup? As patriarchal blogger Lori Alexander explains in a recent post<\/a>, she<\/em> doesn\u2019t think so! It\u2019 starts out very oddly, to say the least:<\/p>\n A woman on my YouTube video asked why I wore lipstick and jewelry. She told me this was a vain thing to do and women who wore these things did it to draw attention to themselves. Are Christian women not to wear these things?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look as some verses on this topic. \u201cLikewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands\u2026.Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price\u201d (1 Peter 3:1-4). Then we are told that the \u201cin the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands\u2026\u201d (1 Peter 3:5).<\/p>\n Are these verses telling women that they should not adorn themselves with makeup and jewelry? No. If this were the case, then these verses are telling women to not put on apparel (not wear clothes). This could not be the case since God wants women to dress modestly and wear clothing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wha\u2026?<\/p>\n Oh my lands. This is like the absolute extreme of what happens if someone takes the KJV literally and doesn\u2019t care what the Greek says, what cultural norms were at the time, or literally anything else. Lori read \u201clet it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel\u201d and concluded that, if the passage is meant to bar things like makeup,\u00a0it means women\u00a0should be naked.<\/i><\/p>\n The first thing to note is that the KJV, which Lori quotes, is a very odd translation.<\/p>\n The NIV translates the passage somewhat differently from Lori\u2019s KJV:<\/p>\n Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even the New King James Version makes this change:<\/p>\n Do not let your adornment be merely<\/i> outward\u2014arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine<\/i> apparel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What\u2019s going on in the text? The word for garments is there (\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd), yes, but there\u2019s another word that all of the things (the hair, the gold, the garments) are dependent on: \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. We may recognize the word \u201ccosmos\u201d today, but\u00a0at the time<\/a>\u00a0it was also used to mean a beautiful arrangement. Here\u2019s an explanation from a university website<\/a>:<\/p>\n The universe, the totality of things, they named cosmos\u00a0<\/strong>because this word meant an orderly arrangement that is beautiful (hence our word \u201ccosmetic\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Oh and look, an entry in a dictionary of Ancient Greek<\/a>:<\/p>\n II.<\/b> ornament, decoration<\/i>, esp. of women, Il.14.187<\/span><\/a><\/b>, Hes.Op.<\/u> 76<\/span><\/a><\/b>, Hdt.5.92<\/span><\/a><\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Oh hey and guess what, I\u2019ve studied Ancient Greek, and I know how to use the internet. So take a look, here\u2019s a description of the use of the word \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2<\/a> in the Iliad 14.187:<\/p>\n Without this notion of ownership, the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 of the ivory cheekpiece would be simply a \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, an \u2018ornament\u2019, \u2018adornment\u2019, as it is for the horse. \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, then, is something that enhances physical attractiveness, as does Hera\u2019s \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 in her seduction of Zeus. The scene of Hera\u2019s toilette is perhaps the most emphatic representation of any character\u2019s beauty in Homer. This is conveyed not just by the repetition of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 four times in short succession\u2014her skin, hair, veil and sandals are all \u2018beautiful\u2019\u2014and the fact that \u2018great beauty [\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2] shone from\u2019 her earrings, but also by the appearance of some familiar physical properties: her hair, veil and feet are radiant; her dress is decorated with \u2018many cunning embellishments\u2019 (\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac); the pins fastening her dress are golden. The sum total of these beautiful adornments is \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u2026 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u2018all her finery\u2019\u2014fit for seducing and deceiving Zeus, just as Aphrodite\u2019s \u2018beautiful, golden\u2019 and radiant \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 seduces Anchises in her Homeric Hymn.<\/strong><\/p>\n The examples of Hera and the horse suggest that \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 is more than conceptually contiguous with other terms and expressions for beauty: it denotes material adornment that has a beautifying effect.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Ahhahahahahah \u2026 wow.<\/p>\n Note that in that case, like in I Peter 3:3,\u00a0\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 describes the whole range of things discussed in the passage, marking them all as beautiful finery designed to entice and seduce. She\u2019s getting sexy<\/em>.<\/p>\n I Peter 3:3 does not say don\u2019t put clothes on.\u00a0<\/em>It says don\u2019t put\u00a0sexy\u00a0<\/em>clothes on. It\u2019s funny, because that seems like the kind of thing that\u2019s right up Lori\u2019s alley. In her eagerness to argue that the passage meant\u00a0all clothes\u00a0<\/em>so that she could insist that she\u2019s allowed to wear makeup, she undermined a passage that ought to have been one of her favorites.<\/p>\n Lori\u2019s claim that that passage isn\u2019t a condemnation of elaborate hairstyles, etc., because if it were it would be a condemnation of\u00a0wearing clothes,\u00a0<\/em>is a complete misunderstanding of what the passage says based on her insistence on treating the passage as though it was written and inspired in King James\u2019s English.<\/p>\n Okay, but she cited a second passage, right? Let\u2019s go back to what Lori wrote:<\/p>\n Let\u2019s look as some verses on this topic. \u201cLikewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands\u2026.Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price\u201d (1 Peter 3:1-4). Then we are told that the \u201cin the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands\u2026\u201d (1 Peter 3:5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s slightly unclear because Lori does not say it outright, but it\u2019s odd that she quotes the second passage at all. The way she quotes it draws attention to the statement that holy women of old \u201cadorned themselves\u201d when in fact, that\u2019s a reference to exactly what the first bit said: that women\u00a0shouldn\u2019t\u00a0<\/em>adorn themselves physically, but instead spiritually.<\/p>\n Maybe her claim is that because Sarah and Rebecca weren\u2019t naked, the passage can\u2019t mean what Lori thinks it says because she only reads the KJV but doesn\u2019t know enough old English to understand what it says? (I bring up the idea that Lori does not understand what the older English of the KJV says because she was able to read \u201cthat outward adorning of\u201d before \u201cputting on apparel\u201d and yet not realize that it meant anything besides wearing clothes, when the word \u201cadorning\u201d meant decking oneself out in extras<\/a> as late as 1828).<\/p>\n This is also odd because there are other Bible passages that say\u00a0the exact same thing\u00a0<\/em>as I Peter 3:3, except more clearly. In fact, even Lori is aware of this, and she does address it:<\/p>\n \u201cIn like many also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But which becometh women professing godliness with good works\u201d (1 Timothy 2:9,10)<\/p>\n God absolutely does not want us spending a lot of money on adoring ourselves. He doesn\u2019t want us to dress in a way that draws attention to our wealth or our bodies. We are to be modest in the money we spend on adorning ourselves (unlike most women these days) and modest in covering our bodies. We should not look nor act like the world. Others should be able to tell by the way that we dress and act that we are believers in Jesus Christ and He is the One we live to glorify, not ourselves.<\/p>\n Ask your husband how much money you can spend on clothes. Most of us have WAY more clothing than we need. The same goes for makeup, jewelry, and shoes. These should not consume our money or time. Find feminine clothing that your husband likes and be content with what you have. Wear a little bit of makeup if your husband likes it, and do what you can to look your best but the way that you treat others and the good works that you do for them is a far higher priority to God than anything that you could wear.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I mean? Why did she have all the earlier argument over I Peter 3:3 when this passage very clearly states the exact same thing, and without the bit about getting naked? What even was the point of that?<\/p>\n Look, here\u2019s I Timothy 2:9 in the NIV:<\/p>\n I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n