Adornment: A Double Standard?

Kevin D. Paulson ++ Originally published 31 October 2002 ++ Great Controversy.org

A recent article by the former editor of Ministry makes a claim long heard in the halls of modern Adventism -- that the church's historic opposition to adornment and jewelry is both duplicitous and unscriptural, and should either be applied consistently or not at all (1).

The article in question makes two key points: (1) the Bible verses commonly used by Adventists to condemn bodily ornaments do not in fact do this; and (2) the church's stand on this subject is inconsistent, since it allows for such purely ornamental attire as broaches, neckties, and scarves while such items as rings and necklaces are forbidden.

Assertions of this kind should not go unanswered. The historical heritage of the Seventh-day Adventist community of faith -- both doctrinal and behavioral -- is grounded in the Biblical consensus and amplified in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Those holding to the truth of our faith should not permit silence at moments such as these to convey the notion that Bible-based, sensible answers aren't to be found for the questions being asked. We cannot let the lie stand. The truth must be told.

The Biblical Evidence

Rather than simply allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves, the article in question actually argues with the text. For example, prior to quoting I Timothy 2:9-10, which commands women to dress modestly and without ornaments, the author complains that this passage "says too much" (2). This is because, in his view, we aren't consistent in forbidding the wearing of gold and haven't clearly defined what the expensive clothes that the passage condemns truly are (3). He later writes:

We can either develop a comprehensive list, omitting nothing, or we can teach the principles and leave it to each person to decide how to apply the principle (4).

We will address further the consistency issue later in the present article For now, we will observe that the author in question seems not to realize that there is another option besides the two stated above -- to simply use the list God gave, and allow for differences where God allows for them. If the counsel of God refrains from including every single action by which the no-adornment standard is transgressed, we should assume this is for a reason, and that the undefined matters are left to sanctified judgment. But what is definitely not an option is to ignore the Bible's explicit application of a principle and focus instead on the principle only. We may not know every precise way in which a Bible principle is to be applied in every situation. But where the Bible itself has applied it, as in the wearing of gold and jewels, we do well to honor it.

The author of this article, like so many others, almost sounds as if he is criticizing God -- the original Source of this counsel -- for bringing an issue up without comprehensively applying it. But the converted believer's task is to understand the counsel of God, not argue with it.

Commenting further on 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the author writes:

When interpreting Scripture we must read it in its context. Is Paul writing a treatise on adornment? No. He is giving counsel on how to worship God (5).

Has it occurred to this author that the two issues could be closely related? Certainly this is not the only passage in Scripture where the removal of ornaments is directly linked to God's acceptance of His people in worship. The story of Jacob and his family in Genesis 35:1-4 is another example of this. And this point is even clearer in Exodus 33:4-6, the author's disputing of which we will address shortly:

And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off the ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.

Several modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, translate verse 6 even more strongly: "Therefore the people of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, from Mount Horeb onward." The New English Bible says the same thing: "And so the Israelites stripped off their ornaments, and wore them no more from Mount Horeb onward." The Good News Bible states it most strongly of all: "So after they left Mount Sinai, the people of Israel no longer wore jewelry."

This clearly militates against the claim of the article in question, that "when read in context none of them (anti-jewelry texts) are forbidding the permanent use of adornment" (6).

Regarding this passage, the author writes:

Why did God ask the Israelites to strip themselves of their ornaments? They had just used those same ornaments to make a false god, and just as God poured out plagues on the symbols of the false gods of Egypt (river, frogs, flies and more)he again made the symbols of false gods objects of his wrath. They took off their ornaments as a sign of mourning, of sorrow, of repentance. There is no indication that this injunction was permanent. Indeed, just a short while later Moses was asking for donations from those same ornaments to construct the tabernacle (7).

But obviously, as we have already seen, evidence from other Bible translations indicates that this prohibition against ornaments was indeed permanent. And Moses' request for contributions from these ornaments to build the tabernacle in no way proves they were still being worn! Even when removed, they remained valuable objects needed in the construction of the sanctuary. One way or the other, it seems God was determined to take these objects from them.

The author cites a text which he claims has been "strangely overlooked" by opponents of jewelry in the Adventist Church (8). This is the one found in Exodus 3:22, where God is speaking to Moses at the burning bush:

But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

If you have a King James Version with the supplied words in italics, you notice that the word "them" in the above text is supplied. Thus it is not clear as to whether it was simply the raiment, or all of the foregoing, which was to be placed on the sons and daughters of Israel. But even if we assume that God was saying they would wear it all, it does not therefore follow that He approved of it. If this were the only passage in Scripture on the subject, we might safely conclude that. But all the evidence of Scripture must be considered before a conclusion on any subject is reached. A simple, straightforward reading of the above verse merely tells us this is what the Israelites would do in spoiling the Egyptians.

One is reminded of Psalm 137:9, which says concerning those who would destroy Babylon: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." This is an extreme comparison, to be sure. But it helps us understand that God doesn't approve of everything He predicts. The prediction about Israel spoiling the Egyptians doesn't mean God endorsed all that would happen when this occurred, any more than the prediction in Psalms about the prosperity of Babylon's destroyers means God approved of their conduct. The totality of Scripture must be consulted before conclusions are reached regarding any issue of doctrine, prophecy, or personal behavior.

The article complains that the Adventist standard on adornment is "directed chiefly against women" (9). But certainly men are as capable of wearing bodily ornaments as women. The verse we read earlier about both the sons and daughters of Israel wearing the jewelry of Egypt makes this plain (Ex. 3:22). Today, with earrings and nose rings and numerous other metallic pieces being worn increasingly by men, we can see that this issue is applying to both genders more evenly now than perhaps before. Nevertheless, we do find that the two key New Testament passages dealing with adornment each mention women as the primary focus (I Tim. 2:9-10; I Peter 3:3-4). This is for good reason. While both genders have found occasion throughout history to wear ornaments, it is certainly fair to say that women have done this, on the whole, more often than men.

The Biblical counsel on this subject, as with any other, must be compared with itself in order to be understood. When, for example, 1 Peter 3:3 is placed alongside 1 Timothy 2:9-10, it becomes clear that while the first passage -- by itself -- would seem to forbid the "putting on of apparel" as well as jewels, the second passage helps us understand that women are to wear modest apparel, which according to the text specifically excludes gold and jewels. Other passages, like the one from Isaiah three which the article in question takes issue with, could never be used by themselves to prove that ornaments should be removed. Only when each of the Bible's statements on this subject are considered does a pattern emerge -- that God's desire for the full consecration and humility of His people requires that bodily ornaments not be worn. The same cannot be said for the removal of hair, linen garments or shawls, or other items which some of the passages examined by the article in question make reference to. The consensus of Inspiration -- the whole always greater than the individual parts -- remains the unerring guide for the settling of all spiritual issues (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11; II Tim. 3:16).

The "Double Standard" Argument

Hypocrisy is a favorite label hung on those seeking to uphold standards of any kind. The logic behind the label says, in essence: "My behavior is no worse than yours, so let's just learn to accept our differences." In the years before the Civil War, defenders of slavery used this argument. They insisted that slaves on Southern plantations often fared better than paid workers in the mills and factories of the North. In many cases there was considerable truth to this argument. But it couldn't obscure the simple reality that slavery was still wrong.

When the drug culture first became popular, young people often called their parents hypocrites for condemning their drug use while holding a cigarette in one hand and a glass of wine in the other. Like the slaveowners, those making this argument had a valid point. But the fact still remained that popular recreational drugs were physically and socially destructive.

It is especially sad when Christians use such logic to question the lifestyle imperatives of Inspiration. One person's inconsistency is never an excuse for another's disobedience to the counsel of God. It isn't permissible to trash a Bible-based standard because others are hypocritical in the way they uphold that standard. Certainly none can deny that the Adventist adornment standard has at times been applied in a hypocritical fashion. Who can truly find a difference, for example, between a gold broach worn on a dress and a gold ring or necklace? Or between a diamond-studded watch as an engagement gift and a diamond engagement ring? But this hardly means that the standard should be ignored altogether, or reduced to an ambiguous principle which all are left to apply on their own. As was stated earlier, there may be areas where we can't be sure exactly how this principle should be applied. But where the Bible applies it for us, we should submit to the counsel given.

The Ax at the Root of the Tree

The article in question quotes the following Ellen White statement, which others have at times used to "prove" the supposed insignificance of the adornment issue:

Talk of Christ, and when the heart is converted, everything that is out of harmony with the Word of God will drop off. It is only labor in vain to pick leaves off a living tree. The leaves will reappear. The ax must be laid at the root of the tree, and then the leaves will fall off, never to return (10).

Certainly none should argue here. Unless conversion takes place, no lifestyle issue can be successfully addressed in someone's life. But this principle not only applies to lifestyle issues some might consider minor. It applies also to those issues which all of us -- including the author in question -- would view as significant. No embezzler, adulterer, or racist can be expected to renounce his sinful ways without first falling on the Rock Christ Jesus. So while we wholeheartedly affirm that the ax must be laid at the root of the tree in addressing the sinner's need of Christ, this principle applies to all behavioral issues, not just those that some try to dismiss as unimportant.

Another point needs to be carefully considered. The article in question implies, by quoting the above statement, that once people are brought to Jesus they will take their jewelry off. One is tempted to ask the author of this article if in fact this is happening to the people he -- and others of like mind -- are bringing to Jesus. Is their jewelry dropping off, never to return? If the answer is no, one can rightly question if in fact the ax has truly been laid at the root of the tree. The fact is that unless the written counsel of God is presented, thus showing the sinner's need for the pardon and power of Christ (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:24), there is no way that accepting Christ can lead to true obedience. Only if the law is presented to show our need of Christ can the law, through conversion, be written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-10). If, by contrast, Christ is presented apart from the law, and salvation offered without obedience as its condition (Matthew 19:17; Luke 10:25-28; Romans 2:6-10; 8:13; Hebrews 5:9), no serious lifestyle changes can be fairly expected in the lives of those professing such a religion.

Moreover, laying the ax at the root of the tree doesn't mean specific lifestyle counsels become unnecessary once a person accepts Jesus. If this were true, God would certainly not have wasted the church's time by giving so much explicit counsel in such areas through both Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. While Ellen White is clear that the need for conversion is paramount, she certainly didn't contradict herself when in other settings she gave explicit counsel against the use of ornaments (11). She no more contradicted herself in this matter than did the apostle Paul when he wrote, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), then spent the following 14 chapters giving the Corinthians a detailed lecture on correct doctrine and behavior. Jesus Himself declared that man shall live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). In Ellen White's words: "The whole Bible is a manifestation of Christ" (12). When the Biblical message is proclaimed in its totality, Jesus is found at the heart of every doctrine, every prophecy, every lifestyle command.

Another contemporary Adventist author also seeks to dismiss the jewelry issue as minor (13), and states at one point: "The real issue is not jewelry -- it is Jesus Christ" (14). But it was Jesus who stated, concerning minor matters: "He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much" (Luke 16:10). If we truly seek a Christ-centered approach to this and other lifestyle issues, it is time we considered these words of Christ Himself.

1. J. David Newman, "Too Hot to Touch: The Double Standard in Adornment," Adventist Today, July-August 2002, pp. 18-19.
2. Ibid, p. 18.
3. Ibid, pp-18-19.
4. Ibid, p. 19.
5. Ibid, p. 18.
6. Ibid, p. 19.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ellen G. White, Evangelism, p. 272.
11. ________, Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 630; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 180-181.
12. ________, Desire of Ages, p. 390.
13. Keavin Hayden, Lifestyles of the Remnant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 2001), p. 126.
14. Ibid, p. 74.

Warning: filemtime() [function.filemtime]: stat failed for http://www.greatcontroversy.org/trunk/pau-adornment2002.trunk in /usr/www/users/drogue/reportandreview/pau-adornment2002.php3 on line 17

Pastor Kevin Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the speaker for "Know Your Bible," a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.