Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

The question, “What shall I wear?” usually focuses on subjective preferences regarding style, taste and purpose. However, a more serious concern must also be addressed: What does God think about our choices in clothing? Is there a divine standard of modesty for males and females? If not, then anything goes. If society sets the norm, then no holds are barred. Ditto if my opinion is all that matters. However, in fact and truth, God has spoken on this vital subject.

This study will spotlight four related areas of thought: First of all, we will learn that God wants our clothing to be modest. Secondly, we will find that the Lord is not always satisfied with man’s choice of clothing. Third, we will discover that the Bible condemns all forms of public nakedness. Finally, we will note the distinct relationship between modesty and marriage. If we are submissive and obedient, these principles will impact our choices of clothing and attire. Let us, therefore, show spiritual discretion in this and all other areas of life (Phil. 1:9-10).

God Wants Our Clothing To Be Modest

In writing to Timothy, Paul said, “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; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10, KJV). Three significant Greek words appear in this passage: “modest apparel” is derived from kosmios, “shamefacedness” from aidos, and “sobriety” from sophrosune. An understanding of these terms will help us distinguish between that which is modest and that which is immodest.

Kosmios Defined. The Greek word kosmios is translated as “modest” (KJV, ASV, NKJ), “modestly” (RSV, NIV, NRS), and “proper” (NAS, NAU). Strong defines this word as “orderly, i.e. decorous.”1 Thayer says it refers to that which is “well arranged, seemly, modest.”2 Arndt & Gingrich say it refers to that which is “respectable, honorable.”3 Trench says this proper order “extends not only to dress and demeanor but also to the inner life, which expresses itself in outward conversation.”4 

This word appears twice in the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:9; 3:2). The word “modesty” has to do with that which is seemly or appropriate. It is derived from kosmos, which is usually translated “world.” However, Peter also uses it to describe the proper adorning of a Christian woman (1 Pet. 3:3-4). Just as we live in an orderly world, a universe governed by divinely ordained natural laws, so also Christians should dress in an orderly manner, as governed by God’s unchanging spiritual law. The concept of order necessitates the idea of law. Herein lies a fundamental truth: Regardless of the age, dispensation, or covenant, God has always prescribed modesty and prohibited nakedness. 

The clothing of a faithful Christian must be well ordered, seemly and appropriate. We must avoid the dual sins of over-dressing and under-dressing. One’s outward attire is a reflection of one’s inner spirit. Instead of announcing our gaudiness and pride, instead of proclaiming our lust and licentiousness, the clothing that we wear should speak of our commitment to that which is respectable and honorable, as befitting those who are sanctified and holy. 

Aidos Defined. The Greek word aidos is translated as “decency” (NIV), “decently” (NRS), “modestly (NAS, NAU), “propriety” (NKJ), “sensibly” (RSV), “shamefacedness” (KJV), and “shamefastness” (ASV). Strong says this word carries “the idea of downcast eyes” and describes “bashfulness, i.e. (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe.”5 Thayer defines it as “a sense of shame or honor, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect.”6 Arndt & Gingrich say it refers to “(1) modesty of women; (2) reverence, respect.”7 Trench says, “Aidos does not refer merely to the avoidance of open and manifest baseness, . . . It refers to complete control over the passions and desires, so that they are lawful and reasonable.” He continues, “In 1 Timothy 2:9, adios refers to that ‘shamefastness’ or modesty that shrinks from exceeding the limits of womanly reserve, as well as from the dishonor that would justly attach to doing so.”8 This Greek word only appears in this passage.

Faithful Christians adorn themselves decently, modestly, sensibly and with propriety. Their dress and decorum reflect a spirit of shamefastness. Just as modest clothing harmonizes with godly character, so immodest apparel suggests a spirit of insolence and impertinence (Prov. 7:10; Isa. 3:16). Instead of manifesting a brazen attitude, the people of God are restrained by a sense of shame that is deeply rooted in their character. While many people have lost the ability to blush (Jer. 6:15; 8:12), true disciples shrink back from anything that would be dishonorable, avoid anything that would leave the wrong impression, and shun anything that would cast doubts regarding their judgment, character and integrity. All that they do reflects a spirit of reverence and respectfulness. 

Sophrosune Defined. The Greek word sophrosune is translated as “discreetly” (NAS, NAU), “moderation” (NKJ), “propriety” (NIV), “seemly” (RSV), “sobriety” (KJV, ASV), and “suitable” (NRS). Strong defines this word as “soundness of mind, i.e. (literally) sanity or (figuratively) self-control.” 9 Thayer says it refers to “(1) soundness of mind; (2) self-control, sobriety.”10 Arndt and Gingrich say it means “(1) reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness; (2) good judgment, moderation, self-control.”11 Trench says this word refers to “that habitual inner self-control, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, that hinders temptations from overcoming the checks and barriers that aidos proposes.”12

This word appears three times in the New Testament (Acts 26:25; 1 Tim. 2:9, 15). It dictates a disposition of discreetness, and mandates a spirit of sobriety, and directs us toward that which is seemly and suitable. Primarily, moderation speaks of soundness of mind or sanity. When Jesus entered the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee, he encountered a demonic who for a long time had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but dwelt in the tombs (Luke 8:26-35). After the Lord cast out the demons that had tormented him, the man is pictured as sitting at Jesus’ feet, clothed, and in his right mind. This story suggests a modern parallel: When in the presence of one who is immodestly dressed, faithful Christians are sorely tempted to exclaim, “Are you out of your mind?!” This is especially true when the offender is supposedly a Christian.

The Holy Spirit used kosmios, aidos, and sophrosune to portray the dress and demeanor of a faithful Christian. We need to instill in the hearts of men who profess to be holy and women who profess to be godly an appreciation for the meaning of these terms. Translating their meaning from Greek into English, scholars use the words “decency, discreetly, moderation, modest, modestly, proper, propriety, seemly, sensibly, shamefacedness, shamefastness, sobriety, and suitable.” Taken as a whole, these terms portray an unmistakable sense of moderation and modest reserve. Rather than pushing us toward the brink of indecency and excess, they lead us away from all that is inappropriate and unseemly. Cumulatively, these words make it impossible for us to justify the various forms of immodest attire so prevalent in our culture.

The ancient Roman world was as decadent and immoral as our own time. However, the gospel of Christ had a dramatic effect upon the morals and mores of society. The 1915 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia contains an interesting comment on the changes in character and condition of women wrought by Christianity: 

They no longer needed the former splendor of outward adornment, because [they were] clothed with the beauty and simplicity of Christ-like character. They exchanged the temples, theaters, and festivals of paganism for the home, labored with their hands, cared for their husbands and children, graciously dispensed Christian hospitality, nourished their spiritual life in the worship, service . . . of the church . . . Their modesty and simplicity were a rebuke to and reaction from the shameless extravagances and immoralities of heathenism. That they were among the most conspicuous examples of the transforming power of Christianity is manifest from the admiration and astonishment of the pagan Libanius who exclaimed, “What women these Christians have!13

God Is Not Always Satisfied With Our Choices

Certain eternal and unchanging principles are set forth in the opening chapters of Genesis. In the beginning, God created man as a free-moral agent (Gen. 1:26; 2:16-17). In the beginning, God placed man in a position of dominion over all the creation (Gen. 1:26; 9:1-2). In the beginning, God instituted marriage and ordained the proper relationship between husbands and wives (Gen. 2:20-24). In the beginning, God emphasized the gravity and guilt of sin (Gen. 3, 4, 6). In the beginning, God accentuated the difference between authorized and unauthorized worship (Gen. 4:1-7). In the beginning, God stood in judgment of man’s vice and violence, wickedness and corruption (Gen. 6-8). In the beginning, God ordained capital punishment in order to ensure social justice and a respect for human life (Gen. 9:5-6). 

Christians recognize that the Law of Moses has been superceded by the Gospel of Christ (Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:13-14). Nevertheless, the aforementioned principles predate the covenant of blood that was instituted at Sinai. They are founded in the very character of God himself. Because they express the unchanging will of God, these ethical    ideals are eternally valid. Thus, we should not be surprised to discover that they are reflected in the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations. The New Testament repeatedly refers back to the opening chapters of Genesis to emphasize the unchanging nature of certain truths, especially in those passages that relate to marriage, the roles of men and women, and modesty (Matt. 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; Eph. 5:25-33; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). 

Let us give special consideration to how the third chapter of Genesis addresses the issue of modesty. In their original ignorant and innocent state, the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). However, after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized they were naked and were ashamed (Gen. 3:6-7). Please note that nakedness is not something shameful in the private and personal relationship of a husband and wife (Heb. 13:4). Rather, shame and embarrassment occurs when third parties are present. Adam and Eve were ashamed when God came to visit with them in the cool of the evening (Gen. 3:8-10).

Man’s Choice of Clothing 

When Adam and Even realized they were naked, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings (Gen. 3:7). Some Bible versions say “aprons” (KJV, ASV, RSV), while others say “coverings” (NIV, NKJ), “loin coverings” (NAS), or “loincloths” (NRS). Strong defines the Hebrew word chagowr as “a belt for the waist.”14 Brown, Driver & Briggs define this word as “(1) a girdle, a belt; (2) a girdle, a loin-covering, a belt, a loin-cloth, armor.”15 This Hebrew word appears in Genesis 3:7; 1 Samuel 18:4; 2 Samuel 18:11; 20:8; 1 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 3:21; and Isaiah 3:24. It always refers to a girdle, a belt, a sash, a loin-covering, a loin-cloth, or to armor that would cover the mid-section of the body.

God’s Choice of Clothing
Yet, their original efforts to correct this problem were wholly inadequate. Adam and Eve still felt ashamed at their naked condition even though they had made loin coverings for themselves (Gen. 3:7, 10). Furthermore, the Lord was not satisfied with their feeble efforts. To correct this deficiency, God gave them modest clothing (Gen. 3:21). According to the KJV and the ASV, God made “coats of skins” for Adam and Eve and clothed them. The RSV, NAS, NIV and NRS say that God made “garments of skins.” The NKJ says that God made “tunics of skin, and clothed them.”

Strong defines the Hebrew word kethoneth as “to cover, a shirt.”16 The KJV renders this word as “coat,” “garment,” or “robe.” Brown, Driver and Briggs say it describes “a tunic, an undergarment; a long shirt-like garment usually of linen.”17 Gesenius says the word refers to “a tunic, an inner garment next to the skin (Lev. 16:4); also worn by women (SOS 5:3; 2 Sam. 13:18); generally with sleeves, coming down to the knees, rarely to the ankles.)”18 Wilson describes “garments” as “a tunic, worn next to the skin       . . . generally with sleeves, to the knees, but seldom to the ankles.”19 This Hebrew word occurs in many other passages where it is usually translated “tunic(s).” It refers to Joseph’s coat of many colors (Gen. 37:3, 23, 31-33), the priestly garments of the Levites (Exod. 28:4, 39-40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14), etc.The Revel Bible Dictionary describes a cloak as “an outer garment. In biblical times, this important garment was typically a large square of cloth with armholes. It fell to or below the knee. Even though other clothing was worn under the cloak, and the cloak might be taken off when working in the heat, a man without his cloak was spoken of as ‘naked’” (1 Sam. 19:24, KJV). The cloak also served as a covering at night. There are several different Hebrew and Greek words for cloak in Scripture. These are sometimes translated as garment, wrapper, robe, coat, or merely clothes.”20

How were the God-made garments different from the loincloths of Adam and Eve? First of all, animal skins were more permanent than fig leaves. Secondly, they were more effective in covering the body. The concealment afforded by fig leaves was flimsy and faulty, but animal skins provided an opaque, non-transparent covering. Finally, while the fig leaves covered only the generative portions of the body, the tunics that God made covered the body from the shoulders to the knees. In the third chapter of Genesis, God established clothing — specifically, modest clothing — as a permanent institution among men and women. 

It is also instructive to note that God prescribed tunics for the Israelite priests (Exod. 28:4, 40). Jesus wore a tunic (John 19:23-24), as did the disciples (Luke 9:3). Dorcas made tunics for the widows (Acts 9:39). Hence, from the beginning to the end of Holy Writ, God approved of tunics as decent apparel. In fact, they continue to be worn in the Middle East even today, and they still cover the body as they did in Bible times. Of course, the significant point here is not to bind a particular style of clothing, but rather to show the consistent manner in which God required the human body to be covered. 

The Bible Condemns All Forms  of Public Nakedness

The Hebrew and Greek words that are translated “naked” or “nakedness” can have several distinct meanings: First of all, these words may refer to one who is completely nude and bereft of any clothing (Gen. 2:25; 3:7; Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15; Amos 2:16; Mark 14:51-52). 

Secondly, these words may refer to a state of partial nakedness or inadequate dress. Often these words are used to describe someone who is raggedly, badly, or poorly clad (Gen. 3:10; Deut. 28:48; Job 22:6; 24:7, 10; Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 18; Matt. 25:35-44; Acts 19:16; Rom. 8:35; 1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Cor. 11:27; Jas. 2:15). On other occasions, they describe someone who, having taken off his mantle, is clad in his tunic only, without an outer garment (1 Sam. 19:24; Isa. 20:2-4; John 21:7). 

Thirdly, these words may be used metaphorically. In certain passages, these words carry a figurative and symbolic meaning. Nakedness may express desolation (Jer. 49:10), the soul without the body (2 Cor. 5:1-4), the things that are exposed to the all-seeing eyes of God (Heb. 4:13). It may describe the carnality of a local congregation (Rev. 3:17-18), the degradation of a soul unprepared to meet its Maker (Rev. 16:15), or the utter desolation that would befall imperial Rome (Rev. 17:16). 

While it may be difficult to determine which specific meaning applies in a given context, nevertheless, in all cases, except for Genesis 2:25, nakedness carries a distinct sense of shame. Adam and Eve were ashamed to meet with God after they ate of the tree of knowledge (Gen. 3:8-10). Dishonor is clearly manifest when Noah became drunk and uncovered himself (Gen. 9:20-27). Foreshadowing the overthrow of Egypt and Ethiopia, Isaiah said that prisoners from both countries would be led away captive, naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt (Isa. 20:3-4). Lamenting over the Chaldeans, the prophet pictures the humiliation of the virgin daughter of Babylon: She sits on the ground, stripped of her skirt, with her nakedness uncovered and her shame exposed (Isa. 47:1-3). Because the citizens of Jerusalem had given themselves over to idolatry, they would experience the humiliation of a harlot whose lewdness and nakedness are uncovered before the eyes of her lovers (Ezek. 16:35-39; 23:28-30). Finally, the shame and disgrace of nakedness is twice alluded to in the Book of Revelation. Jesus admonished the church at Laodicea to “buy from me . . . white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed” (Rev. 3:18). Emphasizing the need for continued watchfulness, the Lord said, “Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame” (Rev. 16:15). Each of these examples presupposes that nakedness outside the marriage relationship is dishonorable. If such were not the case, then all symbolism and significance is lost.

Recognizing that the biblical concept of nakedness refers not only to complete nudity but also to a state of being partially unclothed, an important question now arises: What parts of the body must be covered to insure that we are not exposing our nakedness? The clothing God provided Adam and Eve reached from the shoulders to the knees. A thorough study of Scripture reveals that, in order for apparel to be modest, it must cover the thighs, the hips, the waist, and the breasts. 

Someone might object by saying, “But your citations come from the Old Testament. You cannot refer to those passages without binding the Law of Moses.” No, we quote these passages, not to bind the Old Covenant, but to define and illustrate the biblical meaning of nakedness. Many important concepts are set forth in the Old Testament. Hebrews 11 refers back to the example of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. Their collective examples illustrate and define the obedient nature of saving faith. 

Furthermore, the Israelites were to be unrelenting in their opposition to idolatry. Moses said, “You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces” (Exod. 23:24). He added, “You shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire” (Deut. 7:5). These words apply directly to the nation of Israel, a political theocracy. Nevertheless, there is a spiritual application that must be made to the Christian era: namely, we must militantly oppose false religions. Paul said, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). These principles are clearly set forth in the Old Testament and carried forward to the New.

Consider the matter of adultery, which is condemned in both Covenants. God defined this word in the Old Testament (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; etc.). However, when the New Testament was written, the Lord did not have to go back and redefine the word. The Old Testament meaning was carried forward into the Christian age. Therefore, when someone today gives a new and radically different meaning to the word “adultery” (such as those who redefine adultery as mere covenant breaking), that ought to be a warning signal to those who know and love the truth.

In like manner, God’s assessment of nakedness has not changed. The Bible consistently condemns all forms of public nakedness. The Lord’s commendation of modesty and condemnation of immodesty remains constant from dispensation to dispensation. Yes, the Law of Moses has been nailed to the cross.  Yet, let us also recognize that the things that were written beforehand were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11). In affirming that preachers of the gospel could receive financial support, Paul said, “I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?” Then he quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4, which says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (1 Cor. 9:9-10). Was Paul “binding the Old Testament”? No, he was emphasizing a principle that has remained unchanged from generation to generation. The same is true regarding the issue under discussion. 

Modest Apparel Should Conceal The Thighs

To this end, the Levitical priests were to wear linen trousers that reached to the knees (Exod. 28:40-43). Please note that the linen trousers or breeches were worn underneath additional outer layers of clothing. Yet, they were required so that, under all conditions, the priest would be modestly clothed. What area was to be covered by the trousers? The text says “they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs.” Does this mean that the garment merely extended into the thigh area? No, they fully covered the thigh. The Old Testament repeatedly uses “from . . . to” expressions that would define a range of things from one extreme to another, including everything in between (Lev. 13:12-13; Num. 6:4; 2 Sam. 14:25; Jer. 31:34). Accordingly, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “breeches” were “a garment, extending from the waist to or just below the knee or to the ankle, and covering each leg separately.”1 

Moreover, the altar was to be without steps so as to prevent indecent exposure while climbing up to offer sacrifice (Exod. 20:25-26). This commandment demonstrates that God required a higher moral standard than heathen religions, which were characterized by immodesty and immorality.

Another passage worth considering is God’s description of the overthrow of Babylon, wherein Isaiah likens that cruel northern nation to a woman whose nakedness is exposed. He said, “Take off the skirt, and uncover the thigh” (Isa. 47:1-3). This language clearly implies that a woman’s skirt should cover her thighs. If the thighs are visible, her nakedness is uncovered. Therefore, the people of God should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the thighs. Examples of inappropriate clothing include typical high-school cheerleading uniforms, mini-skirts, slit-skirts, shorts, swimsuits, etc.

The point can also be seen in New Testament terminology. In commenting on 1 Timothy 2:9, Adam Clark says, “The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stolee seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up on both sides, having room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body, just under the breasts. It was sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to discover a part of the thigh. These were termed phainomeerides, showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them thus.”2  

Before moving on to the next point, let us quote from Brother Connie Adams who made the following comments at the Hebron Lane Church of Christ in Shepherdsville, Kentucky on 9/2/97:

I want to say one more thing about Christians and shorts. Brethren often have pot lucks. I’m often hesitant about attending pot lucks in warm weather, because I know before I go that some of my brothers or some of my sisters will show up in attire which, so far as I am concerned, is immodest. They often come in what’s called “walking shorts.” The problem with shorts is that they don’t have as much material in them as a skirt does. A woman can have a skirt down to her knees, and when she sits down, she’s got enough cloth that she can protect herself and not be exposed to everybody. But you don’t have enough cloth with shorts. Those who wear walking shorts are fairly modest when they are standing up. But there is one thing about these walking shorts. Sooner or later, walkers get tired, and they have to sit down. Then when they sit down at a picnic table, and they cross their legs, it all the sudden becomes a leg show. I’m calling it what it is. It’s a leg show, and brethren didn’t used to go to leg shows! Christians used to know the difference between right and wrong on this subject, but somehow, it seems we don’t know the difference anymore.

Modest Apparel Should Conceal the Hips and Waist

We gain some insight into this issue by the harsh actions of Hanun, the son of Nahash, king of the Ammonites. When David sent ambassadors to console the Ammonite king on the death of his father, Hanun dishonored David’s ambassadors by shaving off half of their beards and cutting off their clothes in the middle, thus exposing their buttocks. Upon hearing of this scandalous disgrace, David declared war against the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:1-4).

Another example would be that of Isaiah, who walked naked and barefoot three years as a sign against Egypt and Ethiopia. This example showed that Israel should not make alliances with such nations because they would also be led away captive, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered (Isa. 20:1-4). Notice again that nakedness is defined as exposing the hips.

Therefore, Christians should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the hips. Many modern bathing suits expose more of the hips than they conceal. Tight clothing can also “expose” the buttocks. Many folks wear clothing so tight that the effect is the same as if they were naked. Leotards, Spandex, and tight fitting jeans only change the color of one’s skin. The world understands how men react to such clothing. Conway Twitty once popularized a ribald song about “the angel who was a devil in her tight fitting jeans.” Let’s not foolishly deceive ourselves in this regard.

One other point can be made from Exodus 28:42, which teaches that the priests were to be covered from the loins/waist to the thigh. Recognizing the inclusive nature of this passage, not only does it indicate that an uncovered thigh is nakedness, it shows that an uncovered loin/waist is also counted as nakedness. Hence, the waist must be covered as well. Bare midriffs are condemned based on this principle. 

Modest Apparel Should Conceal The Breasts

A woman’s breasts should give pleasure to her husband, not be put on open display for enjoyment of every carnal-minded man who walks along (Prov. 5:15-20). Again the same principle of modesty applies to this portion of the anatomy: A public display of the breasts is equated with nakedness (Ezek. 16:7-8). Therefore, Christians should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the breasts. This would prohibit men from appearing in public without a shirt. It would also exclude various kinds of female attire: halter-tops, sundresses, see-through blouses, low-cut styles that reveal cleavage, sleeveless tops with armholes that are too large, and strapless evening gowns.

Some argue that the aforementioned passages cannot be used today to define nakedness because they come from the Old Testament. Since the Old Covenant has been set aside, we are told that it cannot be used to define terms that are used in the New Covenant. However, this is patently false. Yes, the Law of Moses has been removed. Nevertheless, many laws found in the Mosaic standard are repeated in the Gospel of Christ. They are binding today, not because they are affirmed in the Old Covenant, but because they are commanded in the New. When laws are repeated in the New Testament, we may rightly use the Old Testament as a basis for our understanding of those laws, unless something in the New Testament modifies or expands its meaning. Nakedness stands condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Modesty is commanded in both dispensations.

God created the human body with its assorted appetites, including mankind’s innate craving for sexual gratification. Men have always been stimulated when viewing the form of a naked or inadequately clothed female. The same could also be said of women, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Are we to believe that people in the Old Testament experienced such longings, but today we are not affected by similar desires? Does the fact that we live in the Christian dispensation make us physiologically different? Of course not! The male-female attraction is a universal, unchanging characteristic of human nature. God’s regulations concerning public exposure of nakedness can change only in as much as human nature has changed since the creation. So far, it does not appear that human nature has changed. 

The Relationship Between Modesty And Marriage

God created the sexual impulse and ordained that the expression and fulfillment of this desire should occur only within the relationship of marriage (Heb. 13:4). Let us realize that the very concept of modesty is tied to the sacredness of the marriage relationship. Not only is one’s body to be preserved for his spouse in the sexual relationship, but the body is also to be covered until one enters into the marital relationship. Sadly, too many people miss the point of modest dress. When a person exposes his body in public, he is exposing something that belongs to his spouse or future spouse. If you have exposed yourself to others, you have given your mate used goods. You are not giving him anything that hundreds of other men have not seen before. Therefore, we should not dress in ways that would be visually stimulating to members of the opposite sex, except in the privacy of the marital relationship. In all other circumstances, husbands and wives should be chaste and pure in their public dress and demeanor (2 Cor. 11:2; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-2). 

Immodest clothing is wrong for the same reason that dancing and pornography are wrong: They are all lascivious, i.e., sexually suggestive. Smutty movies tend to produce lusts. So does dirty dancing. So does immodest clothing. Each is a different manifestation of the same problem. Therefore, let us resolve to avoid that which is lustful, lewd, and lascivious (Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-24; 1 Pet. 4:1-4).

Purity requires a distinct effort by both men and women. Like the patriarch Job, we should determine not to look lustfully at members of the opposite sex. He said, “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl” (Job 31:1, NIV). Lecherous and licentious thoughts are just as sinful as overt immorality (Matt. 5:28). However, we should wear modest clothing ourselves, so that we do not cast a stumblingblock in the pathway of another (Rom. 14:13). God will not deal lightly with those who lead others to sin (Luke 17:1-2). Therefore, let us glorify God in our bodies and our spirits (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Conclusion

Our study leads us to an inescapable conclusion: God intends for men and women to be clothed in public. Far too many professing Christians want to see how short, how low, how tight, how revealing they can wear their clothes. They push the limits of modesty and decorum. 

How do you distinguish between modest and immodest clothing? If your clothing exposes the thighs, the hips, the waist, or the breasts, it is immodest. If you have to pull it up, tug it down, walk funny, or if your clothing is so form fitting that it only changes the color of your skin, it is immodest.

This matter requires eternal vigilance. One generation may show admirable restraint in their dress and demeanor, but unless parents diligently impress their children with the importance of modesty, the next generation will likely show considerably less reserve. Before long, Christians have moved from being a modest people to a grossly immodest people. Brethren, we are drifting.

Notes

1. BibleSoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary (Seattle, WA: BibleSoft & International Bible Translators, Inc., 1994), s.v. “Kosmios,” #2887.
2. The Online Bible: Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and Brown, Driver & Briggs’ Hebrew Lexicon (Seattle, WA: BibleSoft & Ontario, Canada: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1993, 1996), s.v. “Kosmios,” #2887.
3. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Translated By W. F. Arndt & F. W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised & Augmented by F. W. Gingrich & F. W. Danker, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, c1957, 1979), s.v. “Kosmios.”
4. Richard Chenevix Trench, ed. Robert G. Hoerber, Synonyms of the New Testament (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 364.
5. Strong, s.v. “Aidos,” #127.
6.  Thayer, s.v. “Aidos,” #127. 
7.  Bauer, s.v. “Aidos.”
8. Trench, 83-85. 
9. Strong, s.v. “Sophrosune,” #4997.
10.  Thayer, s.v. “Sophrosune,” #4997.
11. Bauer, s.v. “Sophrosune.”
12. Trench, 85.
13. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915 Edition, ed. James Orr (Seattle, WA: BibleSoft, 1996.), s.v. “Woman.”
14. Strong, s.v. “Chagowr,” #2290.
15. Brown, Driver & Briggs, s.v. “Chagowr,” #2290.
16. Strong, s.v. “Kethoneth,” #3801.
17.  Brown, Driver & Briggs, s.v. “Kethoneth,” #3801.
18.  H.W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, (1857; Reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), s.v. #3801, p. 420.
19.  Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, 81.
20.  The Revell Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1990), s.v. “Cloak.”
21. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Breeches.”
22. Adam Clark, Clark’s Commentaries (Electronic Database, Copyright, 1996 by BibleSoft), s.v. “1Ti 2:9.” 1305 Bayou Drive, Alvin, Texas 77511

By Steve Curtis

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:5, 6). In this passage, the apostle Paul makes a clear connection between worldliness and the mind. It will do us well to recognize this connection. Furthermore, it will do us well to recognize that the mind is the beginning place of all worldliness. Jesus said, “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45).

The battle against any form of worldliness must begin in the individual’s mind. One must control his thoughts. We should never underestimate the power of our mind in defeating worldliness. When Paul wanted the brethren at Colosse to “put to death your members on the earth,” what did he encourage them to do (Col. 3:5)? “Set your minds on things above, not on things on the earth” (Col. 3:2). If one wants to defeat worldliness, one must think on those things that promote moral purity (Phil. 4:8-9). One must not allow stimuli to enter his mind that leads to ungodly thoughts, stirs fleshy passions, and seeks fulfillment in various forms of worldliness.

Worldliness overcomes many because they have not guarded their minds against earthly thoughts. One form of worldliness that has caught many young people off guard is an event called the prom. Despite the fact that many social ills have become associated with the prom, it is still promoted as one of the greatest events in a young person’s life. 

The Prom Is A Form of Worldliness

Webster’s Dictionary defines the word prom as “a formal dance held by a high school or college class.” Many treat a school prom as just a social event or another school activity. Some view the prom as an important event in a young person’s life that will make life long memories. For one arming his mind against worldliness, how people view the prom should not blind him to the fact that the prom is still a dance. One who is familiar with dancing and possesses some understanding of the sexual desire between males and females must understand that dancing is a form of worldliness.

In Galatians 5:16-26, Paul contrasts walking according to the flesh and walking according to the Spirit. These walks are so contrary to one another that to walk in one is to be at war with the other. Paul admonishes us to “walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). Among those things by which “the works of the flesh are evident,” Paul mentions “lasciviouness.” When one understands the definition of “lasciviousness,” one can understand why dancing is a work of the flesh that will keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

Webster’s Dictionary defines “lasciviousness” as “tending to excite lustful desires.” Does dancing tend to excite lustful desires? Vine’s Expository Dictionary states concerning “lasciviousness” that it “denotes excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness; the prominent idea of shameless conduct.” Does dancing promote an absence of restraint, indecency, and shameless conduct? Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines “lasciviousness” as “unbridled lust, excess, . . . indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc.” If the apostle Paul could view a prom today, would he not use the term lascivious to describe the attire and the bodily movements between the sexes?

I have often wondered what would happen if all the fanfare used to dress up the prom was removed. A young man and young woman wrapped up in each other’s arms firmly press their bodies together, moving them back and forth against one another. If a formal dress and tuxedo are the attire and added with some music and decorations, people would call this a prom or a dance. However, remove the fancy clothing and the party supplies, and this activity between the young man and woman becomes “making out.” It becomes an activity arousing and enticing sexual desires. It is no wonder that one of the things involved in making preparations for the prom is getting a room at a hotel to satisfy those desires ignited on the dance floor.

A great battle in the life of a young person is keeping oneself sexually pure. God designed the only honorable way to fulfill the sexual desire in the marriage relationship (Heb. 13:4) . Any way outside the marriage relationship of fulfilling the sexual desire is a form of worldliness (Heb. 13:4; Gal. 5:19). Fornication includes premarital sex. Those young men and women who engage in premarital sex after the prom are fornicators.

The battle to overcome committing fornication begins in the mind. Going to an activity such as the prom is not going to prepare the mind to overcome this form of worldliness. However, it will sow the seeds that stirs lust in the heart leading to sexual immorality.

Other Sins Associated With The Prom

Immodesty is rampant at a prom. Young ladies and their parents lack complete discretion in this area. Dresses that are backless, low cut in the front, above the knee, or slit in the side up to the hip bone define the attire of many young ladies on prom night. There is no need to wonder why a young girl who chooses to wear such attire loses the battle of worldliness. One’s attire is a reflection of who one is inwardly (1 Pet. 3:3-4). The attire young ladies wear to a prom does not reflect a mind that is “set on things above,” but reflects a mind that is “set on things of the flesh.” The attire added with the indecent bodily movements overwhelm many young men.

Fornication is another sin closely connected with the prom. Many schools now have groups that promote abstinence before a prom. They ask students to sign statements promising not to engage in sexual activity. I have heard of some parents who give their children rings or other jewelry to remind them of their commitment to abstinence. Of course, there are those on the other hand who believe young people are going to have sex. So, instead of teaching them to behave morally, they teach them the importance of safe sex. Regardless of the view taken, evidently most people associate fornication with the prom.

The nature of the prom itself tends to promote fornication. It is often reserved for the upper grades. Some promote it as one of the key events in an individual’s scholastic career. Young people are told the prom is an event they will look back on the rest of their lives. Some proms are conducted in the convention room of a hotel with the convenience of private rooms only minutes away. Furthermore, because the prom is a formal occasion for young men and women, it provides them an opportunity to act grown up. Should we wonder why those attending the prom would consider fornication as “icing on the cake”?

Another sin closely associated with the prom is drunkenness. Again there are those who promote abstinence from alcohol on prom night by asking students to sign pledges of sobriety. Some schools even use a breath test on any one suspected of using alcohol at the prom. There are parents who provide safe environments for their children to drink by renting hotel rooms for their children, chauffeured limousines, or having parties in their home. Again, regardless of one’s view toward alcohol and the prom, evidently students, parents, and school officials associate drunkenness with the prom.

Alcohol numbs the senses and disables the mind against worldliness. Proverbs 23:31-33 says, “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart will utter perverse things.” Later in Proverbs 31, notice why the warning is given to kings and princes against drinking intoxicating drink: “Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted” (Prov. 31:5). If intoxicating drink has this effect on kings and princes, imagine the effects it has on young men and women.

Using a search engine on the Internet or investigating some of the web sites of the groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) or Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD), one can find statistics confirming the ills of alcohol and prom night. People have been killed as a result of drinking and driving on prom night. Statistics will not show the number of young men and women who engage in fornication on prom night because alcohol has lowered their inhibitions. Results of fornication often produce shame and regret, unplanned pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases. Yet, despite these ills, schools still include the prom among the social activities for students. Since the prom is seen as a school activity, many parents and students do not view the prom as a dangerous form of worldliness.

Conclusion

If a school had a service club that produced the same ill effects as the prom, how long would school officials continue to allow it? How many parents would allow their children to be involved in extra-curricular school activities that produces the fornication, immodesty, and drunkenness that is associated with the prom?

We must arm our minds against worldliness. Once this barrier has been broken down, it will be next to impossible to keep worldliness out. When one is sober minded and has set his mind on things above, it will be easy for him to recognize the dangers of prom night. However, if one allows his mind to think the prom is just another school activity or social event, it opens the door to unchaste handling of males and females, fornication, and drunkenness.

9119 Wanlou Dr., Louisville, Kentucky, scurtis@megsinet.net

By Paul K. Williams

David Sox, on pages 13 and 14 in his book The Gospel of Barnabas writes:

“In conjunction with the London-based Union of Muslim Organizations in 1981 a handsome little volume for English-speaking Muslim children was published entitled The Prophets. The prefatory ‘Letter to Muslim Parents and Children’ states: ‘This book has been written for your children so that they may know something about our great prophets.’ Chapter 9 deals with Isa (Jesus). Under the section ‘Isa (peace be on him) Is Taken Up’, we read:”

Some of the Israelites did not believe in Isa (peace be on him). They were jealous. They reported lies to the Roman governor against him. At last Judas, one of those disciples who were with him, decided to betray him. Saint Barnabas, one of his closest friends, has written about this. Isa (peace be on him) was staying in a disciple’s house. Judas had told the Roman soldiers that they should catch the man whom he would kiss on the cheek. He went and kissed Isa (peace be on him). But the whole room became dark and there was confusion. When the room became bright, the soldiers caught Judas because Allah had changed his features. He looked like Isa (peace be on him). He protested. He appealed. But the soldiers laughed. They put a crown of thorns on him and said, thinking he was Isa (peace be on him), “Now you are the King of the Jews.”

He was taken to the gallows and crucified.

Most of the disciples of Isa (peace be on him) were either confused or believed that it was Isa (peace be on him) who was crucified. Some of them went and buried him. Later on some of them dug up the grave and took away the dead body and told people that he had gone to Heaven.

Saint Barnabas, one of his nearest disciples, says in his written account, that he was not crucified and that he was alive. He came in the company of angels in order to tell his mother that he was alive so that she could get some peace of mind. 

As stated, this story of the crucifixion is based on what these Muslims claim Barnabas wrote about Jesus. Thus we see why The Gospel of Barnabas is being touted by them as the “real” gospel. 

David Sox tells the story of his investigations into the origins of this document. Here is a paragraph from his book which summarizes the story.

As we have seen, there is overwhelming evidence that Codex 2662 is a medieval production: the handwriting, paper and its watermark alone are enough to decide the issue for any museum. The internal evidence is equally decisive: the tell-tale clues given in the “Jubilee Year” and “true book of Moses” episodes (see pages 29 and 43-44); a medieval Italian flavor to much of the writing; spectacular geographical and historical errors no first-century Palestinian writer could have made; and the enthusiasm of a “convert” which sometimes make Barnabas more Muslim than the Koran (50).

 The Gospel of Barnabas first appeared in the latter part of the sixteenth century in the hands of Fra Marino, a monk who had converted to Islam. The document was written in Italian. It is likely that Fra Marino himself put it together, using a number of sources. It did not become known until this century. The manuscript is now in the imperial library of Vienna. 
In recent years Muslims have been claiming that The Gospel of Barnabas was written by the Barnabas of the Bible and is the true story of Jesus. They take great delight in charging Christians with “hiding” this “gospel.” It is worthwhile, therefore, for Christians to know at least a little bit about this fraudulent book.

(Reference: David Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas, 1984, London, George Allen & Unwin)

P.O. Box 324, Eshowe, 3815 South Africa bible@netactive.co.za 

By Steven J. Wallace

My son, keep my words, and treasure my commands within you. Keep my commands and live, and my law as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart. Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and call understanding your nearest kin, that they may keep you from the immoral woman, from the seductress who flatters with her words. For at the window of my house I looked through my lattice, and saw among the simple, I perceived among the youths, a young man devoid of understanding, passing along the street near her corner; and he took the path to her house in the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night. And there a woman met him, with the attire of a harlot and a crafty heart . . . she caught him and kissed him . . . I came out to meet you, diligently to seek your face, and I have found you. I have spread my bed with tapestry, colored coverings of Egyptian linen. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until morning; let us delight ourselves with love     . . . With her enticing speech she caused him to yield, with her flattering lips she seduced him. Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter . . . (Prov. 7:1-10, 13, 15-18, 21, 22). 

 Unfortunately, many make the same decision as the young man and woman whom Solomon peered at through his window that night. Likewise, God looks down through heaven’s window upon the sons of men and sees a world that is obsessed with and seemingly fanatical over sexual gratification. One can see the marks of this craze through nearly every outlet of society. Look at the advertising community; it is overwhelming obsessed with exploiting the woman’s body for sales. Television sitcoms frequently aim the blunt of their jokes in the area of a sexual nature. One cannot pass through the supermarket without easily seeing magazines of nearly nude woman on display. Many movies thrive on some kind of fornication to sell their movie. Imagine if they would make a sensor that would automatically cut out, not only all the filthy language, but also all the fornication and sexual situations that actors frequently find themselves in? Most two hours movies would probably be cut in half.

When we talk about the danger of fornication, it is essential that we define what we mean. By “danger” we mean the pitfalls and consequences of such a sin. By “fornication,” we mean unlawful sexual intercourse (i.e., premarital, extra-marital or adulterous, homosexual/lesbian, etc.). It should be understood that lawful sexual relations are honorable only between a man and woman who are lawfully married. Any other scenario is sinful. The notion that a husband and wife commit fornication when they have sexual relations is an erroneous assumption that flies in the face of Scripture. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The marriage bed is not a bed of defilement but is honorable for the procreation of mankind (Gen. 1:28) and for the gratification of sexual affection (see 1 Cor. 7:1-5). Note that Paul informed the Corinthians of a way to avoid sexual immorality — marriage. Also notice that the spouse is to “have,” render the “affection,” give one’s body to the other marriage partner, and not “deprive” the other of this right. A spouse who deprives the other of sexual gratification is not only asking for marital problems, but is also violating God’s word and robbing or “defrauding” (KJV) one of his right. Husbands and wives need to remember that they promised to “have” and to “hold” one another, and then they should actually have and hold one another (cf. Prov. 5:15-20). An unlawful marriage, on the other hand, always results in an unlawful sexual union, adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Likewise people who are unmarried and yet practice sexual relations are in a state of rebellion against God’s word (1 Cor. 6:16-18). While we live in a sex crazed world, the word of God still says, “Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord . . .” (1 Cor. 6:13b).

The dangers of fornication are real. Too often a young man or woman who has a promising career throws it all away because he/she is in love with love rather than each other. Likewise parents who have more dollars than sense force their daughter to have an innocent and pure life brutally aborted simply because of appearance’s sake. Fornication also wrecks families when a husband or wife throws the family’s welfare aside to follow the lust of one’s heart for a fleeting moment of passion with another. A church may be left in shambles when a preacher, deacon, elder, or teacher is found out for being sexually involved with another member or so forth. Reputations are shattered, good examples are gone, and influence is lost in the muck of such scenes. The wise man was correct when he penned, “For by means of a harlot a man is reduced to a crust of bread . . .Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one walk on hot coals, and his feet not be seared? So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; whoever touches her shall not be innocent? (Prov. 6:26-29). 

Fornication is a real problem that even the “strong” have succumbed to (Prov. 7:26). One can simply ponder on David, a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22), a man of faith (Heb. 11:32), and one who valiantly opposed and victoriously overcame the enemies of God, yet one who was overcome by lust and committed a grievous transgression, giving Jehovah’s enemies reason to blaspheme (2 Sam. 11:1-12:15). While David repented and was forgiven, the rest of his days were not the same. Do not be deceived, dear reader, fornication is dangerous. What makes it so dangerous, however, is not the physical consequences that may befall such a one (as if they were not dangerous enough) but the actual severance from God Almighty, from the Father of spirits and his Son, Jesus, the Lord of all life. Fornication is not “alternative” or “wise” or “acceptable”; it is sin and rebellion against God’s holy word that comes with ugly consequences. “For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death, and her steps lay hold of hell” (Prov. 5:3-5). Fornication damns the soul and will keep one out of heaven if not repented of (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11).

What then can one do to avoid the tragedies of walking down such a pathway of doom? First one should seek to watch over the heart. Solomon wrote, “Keep (watch over, NAS) your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life . . . Let your eyes look straight ahead, and your eyelids look right before you. Ponder the path of your feet . . .” (Prov. 4:23, 25, 26a). When inflamed with evil passion, we need to stop and think about the way that we are going. The fact of the matter is that we train our heart to become what it is. Peter wrote of some as having their “. . . heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children” (2 Pet. 2:14). If we want a heart that is trained for purity then we must meditate on pure things (Phil. 4:8). Beware, harlotry enslaves the heart (Hosea 4:11).

Second, we must live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age (Tit. 2:11-12). It is one thing to train our heart for righteousness, but we must become practitioners of godliness. This means that we must utilize some discretion about the environment which we subject ourselves to. Recognize that dance halls, and “parking” with our date are breeding grounds for all sorts of sexual immorality. Men and women need to acknowledge that suggestive or immodest dress portrays a statement about themselves. Often we are creatures of desire. When we see something that we like and it looks good, we seek ways to get it (cf. Eve in Gen. 3:6). When you dress in a suggestive or provocative way, you are laying a stumbling block for those who have eyes to see; there is such a thing as the “attire of a harlot” (Prov. 7:10). Don’t only be concerned with clothing, but also bodily movement and speech. The Bible takes note of the way that a woman can tempt a male. “Her mouth is smoother than oil . . . the flattering tongue of a seductress . . . Nor let her allure you with her eyelids . . . the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, making a jingling with their feet” (Prov. 5:3; 6:24, 25; Isa. 3:16). Men are very easily visually stimulated. 

Third and finally, just flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18). If such a situation ever presents itself to you, don’t linger around and try to reason with it, just flee! Run for you life and escape! Flee like Joseph did in Genesis 39.

Christian, fornication is sin that is destructive to the soul. Don’t lead a double life. If you are presently living in this sin, get out of it and then pray God that you may be forgiven (Acts 8:22). If Jesus peers through the window of your heart, what does he see, one void of understanding or one who seeks his great counsel? “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke . . . Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies” (Prov. 13:1; 31:10).

1002 Bloom Ave., Grandview, Washington 98930