Wading through the wedding rings

[OP_Carl]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 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;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 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.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

I'm not asking for another clothesline "discussion." I'm just asking for folks to sound off, kind of like a poll, on what their reasons are.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

I agree with you brother. I am just left wondering because I know people that own wedding rings, but don't wear them. I met another one yesterday. People who give each other bibles as their token of their wedding vows, I can understand why they don't wear wedding rings, because they decided from day 1 that they weren't going to. But people who use rings as the token in their wedding ceremony, and then later decide not to wear them, that seems a little confusing.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 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;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 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.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Then the wedding ring itself is pagan in nature and was christianized by the Roman church thus it is not pleasing to the Lord. Rome is not only the Mother of Harlots, she is also the Mother of Abominations.
I realize jewelry was suffered in the OT as was polygamy-divorce-vengence-etc. but in times of consecration both personally and nationally they ridded themselves of their jewelry. Jewelry has a long association with Idolatry & pride in Scripture datign back to the fall of Lucifer.
NO Apostolic child of God should wear ornamental jewelry and every true man of God should teach against it.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

yOU GO BOY

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

Taking off jewelry brought revival to your Pastor's church so he said. Revival is NOT dispicable. He never bought her a ring. I am in compnay with him.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none. . . .

Brother Epley,

Thank you for your response. This is a little more than what I had in mind.

May I infer that you take a literal meaning of these verses? How do you deal with the admonition against wearing clothing, (yikes) or the fact that they only mention women, in a single-verse literal meaning?

The word 'jewelry' isn't in there, either.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Brother Epley,

Thank you for your response. This is a little more than what I had in mind.

May I infer that you take a literal meaning of these verses? How do you deal with the admonition against wearing clothing, (yikes) or the fact that they only mention women, in a single-verse literal meaning?

The word 'jewelry' isn't in there, either.

Gold & pearls are mentioned and the clothing there is costly elaborate clothing not just clothes. Paul makes clear in 1Tim. what is being addressed he and Peter are saying the same thing.

[AGAPE]

I'm with Elder Epley on this (surprise, surprise)

[Steve Epley]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.