Esther's Great Body

And a twofold principle for modest adornment

This post reworks application from a sermon on 1 Tim 2:8–15. Readers will be relieved to know that the sermon was not titled “Esther’s Great Body.”

In 1 Timothy 2:9–10, Paul instructs that “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.”

This is a classic example of a universal principle expressed through culturally specific illustrations. Paul’s instruction is more than a comment about clothing; he is speaking about adornment—jewelry, hair, makeup, the whole presentation of one’s self—done in a way that is externally dignified.

Modesty and Self-Control

We tend to remember the call to modesty, but Paul also emphasizes self-control—or sober-mindedness (Gr. sōphrosynēs). He is not saying to women, “Don’t trip when you put your dress on.” He is saying that there is a self-controlled way to present oneself, and godly women ought to be attentive to it. “Does this outfit exude self-control?” is not a question most women routinely ask themselves—but it may be a more helpful angle for understanding dignified adornment.

In Ephesus, Paul’s contrast points to hair and clothing arrangements that signaled showy displays of wealth, extravagance, self-absorption, or even sexual invitation.

First-Century Fashion

A specialist in first-century culture writes that Paul is referring to:

“The elaborate hairstyles fashionable among the wealthy and the styles worn by courtesans. Sculpture and literature from the period show women with enormously intricate arrangements—braids, curls piled high like towers, decorated with gems, gold, and pearls. Courtesans wore numerous small braids with jewels every inch or so, creating a shimmering screen of their locks.”

In other words, extravagance was intertwined with promiscuity.

The same combination appears in Revelation 17:4, where the great prostitute is “adorned with gold and jewels and pearls” and linked to sexual immorality.

So Paul is expressing a twofold desire that women be free from

• extravagance and self-absorption

• sexualized presentation or invitation

What Should Adorn a Woman Most?

Interestingly, Paul doesn’t replace one style of jewelry with another. Instead he says:

“…what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (v. 10)

A woman’s most compelling adornment—what should be most beautiful about her—is not her hair or makeup but the quality of her life. This does not forbid external beauty. It simply puts beauty in its proper place.

John Stott puts it wonderfully:

“The church should be a veritable beauty parlor because it encourages its women to adorn themselves with good deeds. Women need to remember that if nature has made them plain, grace can make them beautiful; and if nature has made them beautiful, good deeds can add to their beauty.”

Just as Paul doesn’t want men’s theological debates devolving into speculation, anger, and quarrels (1 Tim. 1:3–4; 2:8), he doesn’t want women’s desire to express their God-given beauty devolving into self-absorption, extravagance, or sexual invitation.

A Practical Principle of Adornment

I’ll now ask readers to bear with me as I set out into a landscape fraught with peril. I refer, of course, to the practice of giving women practical counsel about modest dress as a man. With tremendous courage, I offer the following principle:

A woman should feel free to adorn herself in a way that simultaneously (1) clarifies her distinct beauty and body, and (2) clarifies her distinct commitment to godliness.

1. Clarifying Beauty and Body

Consider Esther 2:7:

“The young woman had a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at.”

Esther—godly, faithful, above reproach—had a visible figure, not just a visible face (cf. NASB’s translation “beautiful of form and face”). She was not hiding under a burlap sack. She was not required to mask her embodied femininity or make herself invisible. In other words, Esther’s external adornment was consistent with others’ ability to straightforwardly discern that her body and beauty were superior.

Some women prefer very loose clothing on account of comfort. Other women prefer clothing that disguises (for different reasons). Of course, neither of these preferences is problematic.

But what we cannot do is shame the “Esthers” among us in the church, or suggest that they wear clothes or adorn themselves in ways that artificially suppress—perhaps in some cases, physically—their God-given constitution. God has made each woman to be different, and we should not suggest that there is something wrong with clothing or cosmetics that acknowledge those differences from head to toe, front to back.

Women do not need to disappear beneath their clothes or look intentionally plain, as if holiness requires appearing as though one is perpetually fasting with the Pharisees (Matt. 6:16–18). At this point, the Mennonites have it wrong—women are free to allow the beauty of their forms and faces to be public without being provocative.

2. Clarifying Commitment to Godliness

Women are free to clarify their embodied femininity through external adornment, but such adornment should simultaneously clarify their dignity and respectability as women of God. The two are not mutually exclusive, and those believing they are may be listening more to secular culture (or to church subculture reacting against it) than to Scripture itself.

A helpful exercise for those who struggle here is to take inventory of the Old Testament instances in which women are described as beautiful. One example is particularly compelling for our discussion.

In 1 Peter 3:5–6a (after largely rehearsing 1 Tim. 1:9–10), Peter writes, “For this [dressing modestly and adorning themselves with good works] is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”

Readers should not forget that Genesis not only records that (then) Abram thought (then) Sarai was beautiful, but that the Egyptians thought she was “very beautiful,” and the Pharaoh thought she was so beautiful that he took her as a wife (Gen. 12:11–20). Clearly, displaying internal and external adornment are not mutually exclusive.

Having said that, Paul is extremely aware that clarifying one's beauty can take a wrong turn very quickly. But that’s what sin does in every part of life—sneak into good things and ruin them, often bringing along pious-sounding excuses. That’s why he says what he says.

I trust that listing a host of sinful reasons that women might have for dressing extravagantly or promiscuously is not necessary. What is likely more necessary is explaining why what I have suggested will cause some people—men and women—to raise an eyebrow in discomfort.

The reasons vary. For some, it’s a generational thing—some women still aren’t comfortable wearing pants to church. Other women have been told that their form and face (but particularly their form) are the cause of male lust; should perky breasts cause Bradley Perkins to burn with passion, then the bearers of such breasts are always one wardrobe choice away from bearing responsibility for Bradley’s mammary-induced mental misstep.

Of course, this is not close to true—everyone is responsible for their own sin—but it’s what a lot of well-intending women were told growing up, particularly those coming out of more fundamentalist backgrounds and those influenced by the Purity Movement (for an excellent take on recovering biblical modesty from the Purity Movement, see here). Instead, what poor Bradley Perkins really needed was for a mature man to tell him to take ownership of his thoughts and desires and to exercise disciplined eye-control. And probably to stop watching porn.

Women are responsible for dressing with self-control, but men are responsible for demonstrating it themselves, even if they find themselves in the midst of a visual wonderland.

Others will struggle because, with regard to external adornment, they lack confidence about where to land on the spectrum of adornment possibilities; the gap between Mennonite and Moulin Rouge is indeed cavernous. Alas, at this point I will not be of much practical help—I still wear sweatpants from high school and the only jewelry I own is a wedding band I bought off Amazon for $20.

However, it’s worth noting that with regard to clothing, the desire to wear “clarifying adornment” is not to be confused with dressing up (down?) as a melanin exhibit, begging the next gust of wind to display one's backside or inviting the public to take a visual descent into bosom valley. Moreover, I doubt most women in our context are in danger of wearing hair and makeup that looks like the rich women in The Hunger Games.

Finally, as a plain matter of fact, most women do not normally dress at either extreme of the Mennonite-Moulin Rouge spectrum. This causes one to wonder if the aforementioned “uncertainty” is less about the ability to discern what it looks like to wear clothes that fit or makeup that enhances, and more about something else (like fear of what “those women” might say or think).

The bottom line is that women are to be godly, self-controlled, and dignified in their embodied beauty. The two are not mutually exclusive; indeed, they belong together.

And if this is true, then what God has joined together, let not fear of judgmental church ladies or poor church subculture, separate.