Proverbs 27:14 reads: “He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, It will be counted a curse to him.”

This seems to be a rather straight-forward statement, easy to understand. But upon further and deeper scrutiny, some very remarkable and easily overlooked truisms may come to light. This is a good example for the fact that the Bible must be read with great care and diligence, and that just a superficial glancing at biblical passages will not suffice.

(1)  First, we should note that the person blesses, praises or thanks his friend “with a loud voice.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary states:

“Verse 14 is aimed at insincerity in greeting concealed by a loud but hypocritical voice.”

The Lamsa Bible renders the verse:

“He who blesses his friend with a flattering loud voice is not different from him who curses.”

The person who flatters his friend by blessing him with a loud voice, while he has ulterior motives and insincerity in his heart, can be compared with those who pray to God with a loud voice, but who are unwilling to submit to Him. In either case, such a “blessing” or prayer of “thanks” will not produce positive results, as Ezekiel 8:18 states: “.. though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.”

It is also interesting that the harlot is described as “loud and rebellious” (Proverbs 7:11).

The Soncino Commentary gives the following explanation of the person’s blessing with a loud voice, in Proverbs 27:14:

“… ‘with a loud voice.’ His heartiness conceals feelings of animosity…”

Psalm 5:9 states that “… there is no faithfulness in their mouth… their throat is an open tomb; They flatter with their tongue.”

Proverbs 26:28 tells us that a “flattering mouth works ruin”; and Proverbs 29:5 states that “A man who flatters his neighbor Spreads a net for his feet.”

Psalm 12:3 states: “May the LORD cut off all flattering lips…”  and Job 17:5 warns also against the bad consequences of flattery for the flatterer and his offspring.

Paul states in 1 Thessalonians 2:5-6 that he and his fellow workers did not act as the flatterer in Proverbs 27:14, pointing out: “For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.”

We might also remember the many instances when the Pharisees and Sadducees came to Christ with flattering and praising words, in order to trick Him. For instance, we read this remarkable episode in Matthew 22:15-18:

“Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness [Mark 12:15 states: “But He, knowing their hypocrisy …”], and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?’”

The Benson Commentary gives an additional meaning to the use of a “loud voice” in Proverbs 27:14:

“‘He that blesseth his friend’… That saluteth, praiseth, or applaudeth him to his face, as the manner of flatterers is; ‘with a loud voice’… That both he and others may be sure to take notice of it…”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible elaborates as follows:

“‘He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice’… So as not only to be heard by him, but by others; who is extravagant in his praises and commendations of him; who exceeds all bounds of modesty, truth, and decency; who affects pompous words, and hyperbolical expressions; and shows himself to be a real sycophant [a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain an advantage] and flatterer, having some sinister end to serve by it…”

The Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers agrees:

“‘He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice’… If gratitude is to be acceptable, the time, place, and manner of shewing it must all be well chosen. A man who is so eager to express his thanks that he begins early in the morning, and in so loud a voice as to draw upon his patron the attention of all the bystanders, is looked upon as a nuisance; any one would as soon be cursed as blessed by him. So God loves heartfelt gratitude offered in secret (Compare Matthew 6:5-6.).”

The point is made that we ought to be careful not to praise another person with a loud flattering voice in the presence of others, while being motivated by a desire to be heard and acknowledged by them.

(2)  Next, we should again take note of the fact that he blesses his friend “early in the morning.”

The Soncino Commentary states that “early in the morning” describes “an idiomatic phrase denoting zeal [compare Jeremiah 7:13], but in this instance it is only feigned…”

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:

“‘He that blesseth his friend… rising early in the morning…’ it shall be counted to be a flatterer all the same as if he cursed his friend (cf. Proverbs 26:25). ‘Early in the morning’ implies the affected assiduity [constant or close attention to what one is doing] of the flatterer… The exaggerated praise and compliment engender suspicion and sinister motives.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states:

“‘rising early in the morning’… lest any should be before him, and get the benefit he seeks by his flattery; or as if he had not time enough in the day to finish his encomium, unless he began early in the morning, and continued it all the day; and so it denotes his being incessant at this work, always harping on this string, or expressing himself in this adulatory way; or, as some think, this is mentioned as an aggravation of his sin, that he should be acting this low, mean, and criminal part, when he should be employed in devotion and prayer to God…”

We find an interesting example in Judges 6:28 when men of the city arose “early in the morning” to worship before the altar of Baal. They had zeal to do something, but their zeal was totally wrong. Another example of a wrong kind of zeal by those who rise “early in the morning,” but who do not behave in accordance with God’s Will and who disregard His Plan, can be found in Isaiah 5:11-12: “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may follow intoxicating drink… but they do not regard the work of the LORD, Nor consider the operation of His hands.”

(3)  Finally, we read that such early and loud blessings “will be counted a curse” to the flatterer.

The Soncino Commentary gives the following explanation:

“… ‘counted a curse to him.’ The clause… can mean that God will punish the insincere man for his greeting as though it had been a curse…”

The Benson Commentary states:

“…‘It shall be counted a curse to him’… His friend will value this kind of blessing no more than a curse: because it plainly discovers a base design, and is a high reflection upon him, as if he either did not understand such gross and palpable flattery, or were so ridiculously vain-glorious as to be pleased with it.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible agrees and adds:

“… ‘it shall be counted a curse to him’… either to the flatterer, by his friend whom he blesses, and by all wise men that hear him, who will despise him all one as if he cursed him…  such an one differs [nothing], or nothing seems to differ, from one that curses: or else to the person blessed, whom others will curse or however detract from his character, because of the profuse praises bestowed upon him; nay, sometimes God himself curses such a man, who listens to, is fond of, and receives the fulsome flatteries of wicked men, as in the case of Herod, Acts 12:22.”

In regard to the above-quoted comment that a “blessed” person may be “cursed” by others, we might think of Jacob’s concern when his mother persuaded him to trick and deceive his father Isaac to receive a blessing from him. He said to his mother Rebekah: “Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be a deceiver to him; and I shall bring a curse on myself and not a blessing” (Genesis 27:12). His mother persuaded him to carry out his deception and stated that Jacob’s curse should be on her. Jacob acquiesced, but as a consequence, he had to flee from his twin brother Esau and stayed away for twenty years (Genesis 31:38, 41), while being deceived repeatedly by this uncle Laban (Genesis 29:24; 31:7). When he returned, his father Isaac was still alive, but it appears that his mother Rebekah had died in the meantime (she is not mentioned anymore after Genesis 27:46), which means that she never saw her son again.

In conclusion, the Bible does not speak against truly thanking or blessing our friend at any time. What is addressed here is the motive and the manner of the ones who bestow and receive the “blessing”—the insincere flattery of a person who acts with a loud voice to be heard by others, while he might harbor feelings of animosity towards his “friend,” and who acts early in the morning to be the first in line and before others have the opportunity to bless his friend and may receive appreciation and benefits instead of the flatterer. Again, we might think of Jacob who was able to get to his father Isaac with the savory food that had been quickly prepared by his mother, before his brother Esau arrived with his savory food.

Proverbs 27:14 addresses the insincere person who does not act because of genuine love, but because of sinister motives. For his conduct, he will either be punished by God directly or his friend will see right through him and reject his flattery, treating it as the utterance of a curse. Proverbs 27:14 might also include the warning for his friend not to accept such a “blessing” which might have been encouraged to some extent by his own improper conduct (compare Jacob’s behavior), and which might turn out to become a curse for him—including the admonition not to embrace and enjoy the hypocritical loud and boisterous flattery bestowed upon him in the presence of others (compare Herod’s behavior), as this might lead to his downfall.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Proverbs 27:10 reads: “Do not forsake your own friend or your father’s friend, nor go to your brother’s house in the day of your calamity; Better is a neighbor nearby than a brother far away.”

This statement could be easily misunderstood if we do not read the passage carefully. First of all, we must understand that Proverb 27:10 does not address “spiritual” brothers and sisters, but physical “brothers.”

The Pulpit Commentary states the following:

“A father’s friend is one who is connected with a family by hereditary and ancestral bonds… Such a one is to be cherished and regarded with the utmost affection… The tried friend is more likely to help and sympathize with you than even your own brother, for a friend is born for adversity, and there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother… The mere blood relationship, which is the result of circumstances over which one has had no control, is inferior to the affectionate connection which arises from moral considerations and is the effect of deliberate choice.

“We must remember, too, that the practice of polygamy, with the separate establishments of the various wives, greatly weakened the tie of brotherhood. There was little love between David’s sons; and Jonathan was far dearer to David himself than any of his numerous brothers were.

“Better is a neighbor that is near than a brother far off. ‘Near’ and ‘far off’ may be taken as referring to feeling or to local position. In the former case the maxim says that a neighbor who is really attached to one by the bonds of affection is better than the closest [blood] relation who has no love or sympathy. In the latter view, the proverb enunciates the truth that a friend on the spot in time of calamity is more useful than a brother living at a distance… one is sure of help at once from the former, while application to the latter must occasion delay, and may not be successful…”

As we can see, the proverb has many facets and applications in a given circumstance.

The Soncino Commentary explains:

“‘thine … father’s friend.’ The text signifies ‘thy friend who is thy father’s friend,’ i.e. an old and tried friend of the family… ‘forsake not.’ … The teaching… is that in a grave emergency, look for assistance from a proved friend rather than from a kinsman, even a brother…”

We see, then, that the term “your father’s friend” does not only refer to the relationship between the father and his friend, but it also includes the tried and tested friendship between the father’s friend and the father’s son—he is a close friend of the entire family.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible agrees that a father’s friend is a person who has been “long tried and proved, and found faithful,” adding: “Solomon valued his father’s friend Hiram, and kept up friendship with him; but Rehoboam his son forsook the counsel of the old men [who were] his father’s friends and counsellors, and followed the young men [who were] his new friends, and thereby lost ten tribes at once.”

Insofar as the “near” neighbor is concerned, Gill remarks that “a neighbor that is a fast and faithful friend, and who is not only near as to place but as to affections is more serviceable and useful to a man in time of distress than a brother though near in blood, yet as far off in place, so much more in affection, and from whom… little is to be expected…”

The understanding that the “near” neighbor and the “far away” brother include not only physical locality and distance, but also, and most importantly, spiritual and mental closeness or the lack thereof, is also expressed in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“Joseph found more kindness with strangers than with his brethren… A neighbor near in heart, as well as in loyalty, is better than a brother as far off in love as he is in distance.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible agrees:

“‘Better is a neighbor’ who is really ‘near’ in heart and spirit, than a brother who though closer by blood, is ‘far off’ in feeling.”

Similarly the Amplified Bible, which renders Proverbs 27:10 as follows:

“Better is a neighbor who is near [in spirit] than a brother who is far off [in heart].”

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary adds this further admonition regarding a “brother”—regardless of whether he is near or far in locality:

“Depend not for relief upon a kinsman, merely for kindred’s sake; apply to those who are at hand, and will help in need.”

One of the most obvious applications regarding true friendship and brotherhood by blood can be seen in the life of Jesus Christ. His brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5), and they tried, at least once, to prevent Him from teaching God’s Word and to actually seize Him, because they thought that He was mad and “out of His mind” (Mark 3:21; 31-32). On the other hand, His disciples—the early Apostles—showed Him love and loyalty, generally speaking; especially Peter and John. But even they forsook Him in His time of need, prior to their conversion, showing that only the indwelling Holy Spirit can give us true godly love and establish lasting friendships.

A similar thought, as expressed in Proverbs 27:10, can be found in Proverbs 18:24: “A man who has friends must himself be friendly, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”

True friendship is not to be judged (merely) by blood relationship, but by spiritual closeness and reliability of character.

At first glance, Proverbs 17:17 might appear to contradict the foregoing, but this is not really the case. The proverb states: “A friend loves at all times, And a brother is born for adversity.”

In conjunction with the other statements discussed herein, the obvious reference is to a true friend and to a brother who is ALSO a true friend.

The Benson Commentary states:

“A sincere and hearty friend not only loves in prosperity, but also in adversity, when false friends forsake us… [The brother] is so, not only by name and blood, but by brotherly affection. [Such a brother] is born for adversity… that he might comfort and relieve his brother in his adversity.”

The Ryrie Study Bible writes:

“When you are in trouble, you see who your friends are and how helpful a brother can be.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible goes a step further and explains that “in adversity” the true friend is born (i.e., becomes) a brother.”

This seems to be the correct understanding, as supported by the Soncino Commentary, which writes:

“… ‘a bother.’ Synonym for a true friend. David called Jonathan ‘my brother’ (2 Samuel 1:26), and Solomon used the word in connection with his friend Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 9:13).”

The German Menge Bible agrees and renders Proverbs 17:17 in this way: “The (true) friend shows love at all times, and he is born as brother for the time of need.”

In this world, not too many close family relationships exist. Throughout man’s existence, we read about strife and fight between brothers. In addition to the examples mentioned so far, we might think of Cain who slew his brother Abel and the animosity between the twin brothers Jacob and Esau. We might also remember the parable of the “lost son” and the hostile reaction of the elder son when his younger brother repented (Luke 15:11-32). The Bible warns that in these end times, there would be friction and animosity in human families, especially due to the fact that some will understand and live by the truth, while others will oppose it (compare Matthew 10:34-36).

Christ made very clear as to who His true brothers and sisters were. When His half-brothers were trying to “speak” with Him, “He answered and said to the one who told Him, ‘Who is My mother and who are My brothers?’ And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12:48-50).

This would include blood brothers who do the will of God. And so, the Bible speaks of blood brothers who were or became true friends. We read for instance of the early apostles and blood-brothers James and John, as well as Peter and Andrew (Matthew 10:2). Also, Christ’s half-brothers would have become TRUE friends towards each other AND, most importantly, of Jesus Christ, after Christ’s resurrection, continuing “with one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1:13-14). (For more information on Christ’s relatives and their conversion, please read our free booklet, “Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery.”)

If we want to be true Christians, then we must be true friends and true (spiritual) brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ (John 15:14) and towards each other. Then, we will be nearby “neighbors” in times of need; sticking closer to each other than (unconverted) physical blood-brothers would do. As true friends, we will love at all times and as true spiritual brethren, we are “born” to help each other in adversity.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Some have advanced the idea that Christians should not wear wedding rings, as this custom is allegedly pagan, and some have even gone so far as to claim that it was adopted from occult practices. We understand that the Bible prohibits us to worship the true God with pagan symbolism or activities which were adopted from the way in which pagans worshipped their gods. But we must be careful that we do not carry this injunction too far and prohibit everything, whether it is used in worship services or otherwise, only because pagans might have engaged in it.

We addressed this issue in a recent Q&A, which answered the question as to whether Christians should use symbols which are used by pagans. Among other symbols, we discussed the symbol of the heart, certain symbols which are being used in sign language, the Star of David and the symbols of stars in general. We also pointed out that the mere fact that pagans and occultists attach a particular meaning and human interpretation to certain symbols should not compel a Christian to refrain from using these symbols.

This same principle applies to wedding rings. Some claim that wedding rings were “invented” by pagans and occultists with certain supernatural applications in mind. At the same time, everything else pertaining to weddings and wedding customs could be—and has been—labeled as pagan and forbidden, including honeymoons, bridesmaids, wedding cakes, kissing the bride, the bride wearing white or carrying flowers, and even a bride wearing a veil, which is allegedly linked to sorcery (compare, Reader’s Digest, “Why in the World?”). It can be clearly seen that such extreme views are not sound and must be rejected.

The website of gotquestions.org published the following article about wedding rings:

“The signet ring is the earliest type of ring mentioned in the Bible… Jeremiah informs us that the Israelites wore the signet ring on the right hand (Jeremiah 22:24)… Pharaoh gave his signet ring to Joseph as a symbol of authority (Genesis 41:42)… Upon his return, the prodigal son received a ring from his father as a symbol of dignity and restored position (Luke 15:22)…

“The custom of wearing the wedding ring on the fourth finger of the left hand is based upon a romantic, although unscientific, Greek fable that the artery from that finger flows directly to the heart. However and whenever the custom of the wedding band developed, it is seen today as a symbol of an unending commitment to the marriage relationship. As such, it certainly has a biblical basis in that marriage is to be a lifetime commitment (Romans 7:2). This is not to say that wearing a wedding ring is a requirement for married Christians…”

There is really no evidence that the custom of wearing wedding rings on the fourth finger of the left hand is BASED on a Greek fable. As we will see, the wearing of a signet ring (which is the ancient equivalent to the modern wedding ring) was NOT based on such a fable at all.

The website of biblicalperspectives.com published an article on the matter, which is strictly written from a Seventh-Day Adventist perspective and addresses the transformation from the view point of the Methodist Church (which rejected wearing of jewelry in all of its forms, including rings) to the understanding of the Seventh-Day Adventist position which basically allows the wearing of wedding rings. Although we would not agree with much which is written in the article, especially when addressing all kinds of unverified “superstitions” about the history of the wedding ring, here are some noteworthy comments:

“The story of the finger ring is in a way like the ring itself, without beginning and without end. No one can tell for certain how far back the ring goes. Finger rings appear to have originated with the ancient Egyptians, evolving from the seal or signet… The reason Christians did not oppose the adoption of the betrothal ring [similar to our modern “engagement rings”] is because they perceived it to be not an ornament but a symbol of marital commitment… The ‘sealing’ function of the ring suggests that it was a signet ring that apparently functioned also as a marital ring.”

The Jews used “betrothal rings” and also wedding rings, as Reader’s Digest, “Why in the World?,” points out, “to seal the bond between husbands and wives.”

We need to note that the Bible does NOT say that the wearing of finger rings ORIGINATED in ancient Egypt. But signet rings are mentioned approvingly in the Bible. Scripture does not tell us on what finger the signet ring was worn; Jeremiah 22:24 associates in that particular passage a signet ring with the “right” hand, but it does not say that this is to be understood exclusively, nor, on which finger the ring was worn. It appears that the signet ring could be worn on any finger, including the fourth finger. At least, the Bible nowhere states that it could not have been worn in that way. As a matter of interest, the engagement ring is worn on the left hand in some European countries, and the wedding ring is worn on the right hand (in the USA, the UK and some other countries around the world, the wedding ring is worn on the left hand).

The Worldwide Church of God, under its late human leader, Herbert W. Armstrong who died in 1986, carefully evaluated the question as to whether Christians can wear wedding rings, and it has concluded the following, as stated in a letter from the Letter Answering Department:

“Exodus 35 records that rings were included with the offering the Israelites gave for the building of the Tabernacle. There is not the slightest indication that God was displeased with their wearing rings.

“The Bible records that God was with Joseph when he was sold into slavery in Egypt. Joseph served God, and God caused him to find favor in the eyes of the Pharaoh. In Genesis 41:41-42, we find that Joseph accepted a ring from the Pharaoh. It is plain from the context that the ring was a symbol of the very high office which had been bestowed upon him. God was not displeased with this, and the next few chapters show that God continued to bless and guide Joseph.

“In principle, the ring given to Joseph served much the same purpose as that of a wedding ring. A wedding ring is merely a symbol of the marriage vows that have been made.

“One further example is the famous story of the prodigal son. Jesus used this parable to illustrate God the Father’s love toward a repentant sinner. The father, who pictured God, ordered a ring to be put on the son’s hand (Luke 15:22).

“All of the evidence is positive. The Bible nowhere criticizes the wearing of rings in general or wedding rings in particular.”

In addition, the hands of a bridegroom or husband are compared with gold rings set with beryl (Song 5:14, Authorized Version). We might also mention Esther 8:2, stating that “the king took off his signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai; and Esther appointed Mordecai over the house of Haman.”

Another meaningful and conclusive passage, which should settle the question once and for all, can be found in Haggai 2:23: “‘In that day,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel My servant, the son of Shealtiel,’ says the LORD, ‘and will make you as a signet ring; for I have chosen you,’ says the LORD of hosts.”

This passage clearly compares the signet ring with a wedding ring, as Zerubbabel had received the Holy Spirit and was already spiritually betrothed to Christ before he died, and when he is resurrected at the return of Christ, he will be spiritually married to Him—the time setting in the above-quoted passage is “in that day”—the time leading to and including Christ’s Second Coming (For the parallel between physical and spiritual betrothal and marriage, please read our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”).

Inasmuch as the Bible has to be our guide on whatever questions might arise, it is immaterial as to what superstitious meanings pagans and occultists may give to their use of wedding rings. Since the Bible clearly allows the wearing of wedding rings, pagan and occult interpretations are meaningless for us—as long as we do not wear wedding rings with a superstitious understanding of occult practices. Some quote 1 Corinthians 10:19-22 for their refusal to wear wedding rings, claiming that in doing so, we would come in contact with demons. This objection is ill founded. Apart from the fact that there is no credible evidence proving that wedding rings are the invention of occultists, the quoted passage speaks, in context, of worship services and warns against partaking in religious activities which might resemble Passover activities, but which are in fact derived from and directed towards honoring and worshipping demons. But Paul also makes very clear that for us, “an idol is nothing,” and that we can even eat clean meat which was sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:4), as long as we don’t eat it IN HONOR OF idols (1 Corinthians 8:7).

Some have raised the issue that the wearing of rings or wedding rings—especially by women—allegedly violates biblical injunctions such as 1 Peter 3:3-6 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10. This assumption is wrong. First of all, let us note in general that James 2:2-4 speaks about a “man with gold rings, in fine apparel,” coming into our assembly or church services. James is not saying that the man should stop wearing gold rings or fine clothes; rather, his point is that the brethren should not show favoritism towards him and look down on those in the church who do not possess such fine things. In addition, we have seen that God approves of signet rings. You might also look at Ezekiel 28:13 to see how God adorned Lucifer when He created him.

In regard to women, the Bible does not prohibit them to wear jewelry or wedding rings. In Ezekiel 16:9-13, God describes figuratively how He adorned His Old Testament bride, Israel, by clothing her “in embroidered cloth” and “with fine linen” and “silk”; with “ornaments,” “bracelets on [her] wrists, and a chain on [her] neck”; with “a jewel in [her] nose, earrings in [her] ears, and a beautiful crown on [her] head”; and thus He “adorned [her] with gold and silver…” The passage in Isaiah 3:16-23 does not contradict this. It merely points out that in the end time God will take away all these fine things from Israel, including her bracelets, headdresses, rings and nose jewels, due to her sinful and haughty conduct.

The above-mentioned passages in 1 Peter 3:3-6 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 do not prohibit women to wear jewelry or fine clothes or rings per se (otherwise, this would be in opposition to the passages mentioned herein), but as we also read in Isaiah 3:16-23, they warn against the overemphasis and misuse of the same for wrong purposes, in order to draw undue attention to themselves and their riches. Notice how the Amplified Bible translates 1 Peter 3:3-4: “Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes; But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart…”

Likewise, the Living Bible renders 1 Peter 3:3 as follows, by accurately conveying the intended meaning: “Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty that depends on jewelry, or beautiful clothes, or hair arrangement. Be beautiful inside, in your hearts, with the lasting charm of a gentle and quiet spirit which is so precious to God.”

At the same time, these passages do not say that women should dress inappropriately or sloppy, without adorning themselves in some way, when attending Sabbath services. The Sabbath is a holy feast day, and we are appearing in front of God on that day, who is our King. We would not appear before a worldly king with dirty clothes or in a sloppy and casual attire. When God appeared to Israel to give them the Ten Commandments, He insisted that the people were to “wash their clothes” (Exodus 19:10).

We stated the following in our Q&A on proper attendance in Sabbath services:

“We must understand that we are appearing before GOD. God is a great King. God is the Creator of everything that is good and costly and priceless. He is the Creator of beauty. He most certainly is the Creator of quality. He owns all the gold and silver, and it is He who made it all. If we were to be invited by an earthly king, how would we appear in front of him? Would you want to appear in unwashed, dirty clothing, wearing washed-out jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers?

“How much more should we appear before GOD, the KING over His creation, in proper clothes! The famous parable in Matthew 22:10-13 about the king’s wedding feast for his son contains a spiritual lesson, but it also describes a physical principle–that we dress appropriately for the occasion. It DID matter to the king—God the Father—how the guests were dressed for the wedding of His Son, Jesus Christ…

“When God gave instructions for the creation of ‘holy garments’ for the priests of Israel, He specifically wanted them made ‘for GLORY and for BEAUTY’ (Exodus 28:2). Regarding how both men and women dress when attending Church services, we find a meaningful example in the time when the children of Israel were commanded to wash their clothes in advance of appearing before God (Compare Exodus 19:10,14).”

In comparison, we must be aware of our awesome responsibility which we have today, when we appear before God and His heavenly throne and majestic surroundings in Sabbath services, compare Hebrews 12:18-24.

Continuing with quoting from our above-mentioned Q&A:

“Likewise, the priests were to wash themselves when appearing before God (Compare Exodus 30:19-20); and, they were to wear special clothing (Compare Exodus 28).”

Note that we are today a “holy” and a “royal priesthood,” as 1 Peter 2:5, 9 points out, also showing our duty to appear before God during Sabbath services with washed and special clothing.

We make the following observations in our Q&A:

“It has been the practice of the Church of God to recognize that we are appearing before God when we assemble for Sabbath services along with other special commanded assemblies as given by God [such as commanded worship services throughout the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles, even though only the first day is a Holy Day]. As such, we do recommend that each person present himself or herself in the best apparel they have available. The foremost idea is to specially prepare to appear before God to honor HIM!”

To conclude, the wearing of wedding rings is most certainly not contrary to biblical injunctions. To believe otherwise would not be in accordance with the Word of God and the binding decision of the Church of God (compare Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link