1 Timothy 2:8-10, 1 Peter 3:1-4 interpretation and application

Actually, after more research, I found some more valuable info in the book, King Jesus claims his church. There are 6+ pages of info and history.

I'm with you in opposition to the wedding ring. In the interest of a balanced perspective, I'll present the strongest counterargument I can, though.

Insofar as it is jewelry, the Bible and church history are clear that it is forbidden. However notably, Clement of Alexandria allowed for signet rings on the argument that they were primarily functional, not decorative. I generally agree with the idea that primarily functional items should not be classified as jewelry. For example, nearly everyone accepts the wristwatch (while forbidding bracelets). There is something to be said for keeping such functional items as far from jewelry as possible;

for example, I deliberately wear a watch without any precious metals.

The question then becomes: Is the wedding ring functional? It obviously is not functional in and of itself; its only functionality is as a symbol. What then, is it a symbol of, and what function does proclaiming that via symbolism serve?

As you noted, there is no Biblical mandate to have an outward symbol of marriage; Kuruvilla makes an interesting point about the potential downsides of such a symbol (specifically the devaluing of singleness) on p. 188. If it symbolizes marriage, I fail to see what function proclaiming your marriage status serves.

The best argument is that it symbolizes chastity and sexual unavailability. If you wear a wedding ring, the argument goes, you're less likely to deal with unwanted romantic/sexual advances. This is argued to be particularly useful for men working in jobs that involve relating with non-Christian women. It cannot be argued that they prevent infidelity; as Kuruvilla aptly remarks: "Wedding rings protect against infidelity as much as belts do against overeating." (p.

188) Men must stand committed to Biblical standards regardless; the ring can only be argued to be a filter for some advances. On the flip side, not wearing a ring and being obligated to verbally state both your marriage status and commitment to Biblical principles arguably presents a positive opportunity to spread the light of Christ.

The other logical corollary of the chastity definition is that given Biblical sexual ethics for singles, if the ring has a useful function for the married, some kind of "purity ring" would be equally helpful for singles, and should likewise be recommended.

As to the ring itself, advances in modern materials have led to the silicone ring, which is less expensive, has less jewelry connotations, and offers greatly improved safety (accidents involving metal rings can be quite gory). I see no reason a Christian community that has chosen to allow the wedding ring would not gravitate towards this option.

In summary, the best argument for the ring I can think of would result in Christians, both married and unmarried, wearing a silicone ring in environments where they're likely to encounter unwanted sexual attention. I think this argument is quite tenuous, and is certainly a drastic shift in practice from what is traditionally advocated for by the wedding ring camp.

I wonder what your thoughts are on balancing all of this. I take issue with (in my opinion) "In King Jesus Claims His Chruch" part of the argument is to NOT draw attention to ourselves and I accept this argument on its face but in a world where we dress so radically differently from society, how will we ever start conversations to share the Gospel with a culture that will consider us to be freaks? The Apostel Paul said:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22

To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 1 Corinthians 9

I think taking this particular aspect to this degree on dressing is not historically accurate in that first-century Christians did not dress so differently that they did not just simply look as if they were a part of the poor community. So I do agree we should not be dressed in a way as to look affluent or for outward ways to puff ourselves up but to remove a wedding ring that may draw unwanted attention from the opposite sex and is a simple gold band seems out of context to me.

I most certainly believe the Apostel Paul would do this within a balance of the ability to seem normal enough to the culture to share his faith as commanded in Scripture. Ultimately it is a heart issue and I know that for me greed is not a heart issue I struggle with but there are other areas that I have in my past, so I simply believe we must know we are pure in our motives.

I believe biblically within the context of being in the world and not of it plays more of a role and like much of Scripture when it comes to sin and heart issues it is not as black and white as we would want it to be. My family and one of my children have already abandoned their relationship with me and my wife for being so radical to them in our walk with Christ that they want nothing to do with us.

Increasing that to the point that we become useless in sharing the gospel in our society seems counterintuitive. What am I missing?