Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

According to the November 1999 issue of Look Magazine 50,000 Americans are in the need of a new heart. As I read this article, I got to thinking about the number of people who need a new heart spiritually. Thus we study:

• The Bible Heart: The Bible heart is not the blood pump, as many seem to think, but the mind or intellect of man. It’s like the wise man wrote, “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth” (Eccl. 7:4). Perhaps there is a death of friend and we cannot be with them and we say, “my heart is with you.” That is, the thoughts of our mind are with you. This is the way the Bible uses the word heart. Where is your heart right now?
• New Hearts Save Lives: The Look article stated that new hearts save lives. To be saved from sin and have the hope of heaven we must have a changed heart. The old hard heart must be changed into an obedient heart. As Paul penned, “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17-18). The “form of doctrine” one obeys is that which Paul described in Romans 6:1-8 when one is “baptized into the death of Christ.” Are you in need of a new heart?
• New Hearts Are Costly: Do you have any idea what it cost to get a new heart? The cost can be as much as $162,000.00. Did it ever occur to you that when you get a new heart, it is not without cost. It cost God “his only begotten son” (John 3:16); it cost Christ his life (Rom. 5:8); it will cost you the giving up of sinful things as you repent (Acts 17:30); it will cost you bowing your heart in obedience to the gospel of Christ (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9) as you are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), for the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38). No wonder Paul said, “For ye are bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20). Peter affirmed, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). The Ephesian elders were told that the church had the “purchased price” of the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). Are you willing to pay the price for a new spiritual heart?
• Shortage: When it comes to heart transplants there is a real shortage. Ninety-five percent of Americans who need a new heart, will not get one. There is no shortage of new hearts for those who want to change their spiritual heart. The Lord says, “Come” (Matt. 11:28-30); “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athrist come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). If you needed a new physical heart, I expect you would be getting in line to get on the list for a transplant. Why not obey the Lord and get a new spiritual heart while you can?
• Waiting: The average wait for those on the transplant list is 207 days. This wait is often fatal. Your waiting to change your heart for a new spiritual one can also be deadly. Paul put urgency of obedience in these words, “. . . behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). In the words of the Psalmist, “And now, Lord, what wait I for? My hope is in thee” (Ps. 39:7). For what are you waiting. Get that new heart while you still can!

21 Woodyard Rd., Bloomington, Indiana 47404

In Ephesians 5:32 Paul says, “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church” (NASB). In the context, although he has been saying much about marriage (Eph. 5:22-33), from this statement Paul shows that the central point has had more to do with the relation of the church to Christ and Christ’s relation to the church. In many ways the relation between Christ and the church is like marriage, and the picture Paul draws here is a beautiful one indeed.

Each individual member of the Lord’s church is married to Christ, as Paul shows elsewhere (see Rom. 7:4 and 2 Cor. 11:2-3).

There is much said here about the church’s relation to Christ, but much is also said about what Christ is to the church, and that is our concern at this time. What is Christ to the Church, according to these verses?

“Christ is the Head of the Body”

The first thing that is said in these verses about Christ’s relation to the church is that he is the head of it. “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church” (v. 23). Earlier in this same book Paul has shown that Christ became head after his ascension into heaven (Eph. 1:20-23).

As head, Christ gives direction to the members of his body, the church, because he has absolute authority over it.  “And he put all things in subjection under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). Because Christ is head, each member must hold fast to him as head and not be moved away from him (Col. 2:19). One may be moved away from Christ by following after “philosophy and vain   deception,” as was to be the case with the Colossians if they did not continue to hold on to their faith in Christ (Col. 2:6ff.). 

As head, Christ also provides nourishment to each member, so that each may grow up in him (Eph. 4:12-16). After naming the various gifts God has given to men (v. 11) so that all the saints may be brought to the point of maturity and thereby equipped to do the work of ministry and the building up of the body of Christ (v. 12), Paul shows that God’s desire and plan is that all the saints may “grow up in all aspects in Him, who is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15). The whole body is fitted and held together by Christ who is the head, and it experiences growth as each member shares in the work for the building up of itself in love (v. 16).

“Christ is the Savior of the Body”

Not only is Christ the head of the body, the church, but as the last part of Ephesians 5:23 affirms, he is also “the Savior of the body.” This should not surprise us because he came into the world to be Savior. See the announcement made beforehand, and that made at the time of his birth: “And she shall bear a son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). “For today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). When presented to the Lord in Jerusalem, Simeon an aged prophet who had been promised that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s Christ (Luke 2:26), said of him, “For my eyes have seen Thy salvation, Which Thou has prepared in the presence of all peoples, A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, and the glory of Thy people Israel” (vv. 30-32). Jesus said of himself, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

But what is the “body” of which Christ is Savior? Paul says it is the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). But if Christ is the Savior of the body, the church, what of those not in the body? Where does it say Christ is the Savior of those not in the body? This is an important question in light of the common view that it is not necessary for one to be a member of the church in order to be saved. It is often contended that we ought to preach Christ and not the church, that Christ saves and not the church. It is true that the church does not save, but we cannot preach Christ and not preach the church for that would be to preach Christ the head but not the body over which he rules, or Christ the Savior without preaching about what it is that he saves, i.e., the body, which is the church. The church is not the Savior, but the church is the saved; the church is that of which Christ is the Savior. He is the Savior of the body, the church. That being the case, then we ask again: What of those not in the body, the church? Are they saved?

How is Christ the Savior of the body, the church? The answer to this question is found in out next point.

“Christ Loved the Church and Gave His Life For It”

The second part of Ephesians 5:25 says that husbands are to love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.”  If one asks, then, to what extent did Christ love the church, the answer lies in the supreme sacrifice he made for it, i.e., he laid down his own life for it. In anticipation of his own sacrifice for the church, Jesus taught his disciples that he would willingly make this sacrifice for them (John 10:17-18). But he also taught them that for them to practice the “new commandment” which he was giving them, they too would be required to be willing to do the same for each other (John 13:34-35).

Paul later would say, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8).

What is the significance of Christ’s death for the church?  For one thing, as just seen, it served as a great demonstration of his love for it. But there is more. Scripture also shows that Christ’s death also serves as the purchase price for the church (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). 

What value do these things place upon the church? The thing purchased is of equal value with the purchase price. Since Jesus gave himself, the church is of equal value with Christ.  Because Jesus purchased the church with his own blood the church is equal in value with his blood (Acts 20:28). Saved outside the church, or without being a member of it? Then saved without the blood of Christ!

“Christ Died That He Might Sanctify and Cleanse the Church”

According to Ephesians 5:26, Christ gave himself for the church for two reasons: “that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her . . .” The word “that” introduces the purpose of his death, why he gave himself. The word “her” identifies the thing that he loved supremely, and the thing he died for, i.e., “the church” of verse 25.

To “sanctify” the church is to separate or consecrate it, to set it apart unto God for sacred use. It is to make it holy for service. To “cleanse” is to purify or make clean. Christ sanctifies by cleansing, and he cleanses, first, “with the washing of water.” Both here and in Titus 3:5 “washing” evidently refers to baptism (cf. Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet. 3:21). Compare “bodies washed with pure water” in Hebrews 10:22.

But, secondly, he cleanses “by the word” — thus, in sanctifying by cleansing, the medium of teaching is involved. It is, literally speaking, “in a word,” or as the word is taught, that one is brought to “the washing of water,” or to the waters of baptism (Matt. 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22). See John 15:3; 17:17.

“That He Might Present it to Himself 
a Glorious Church”
In Ephesians 5:27 Paul tells us what Christ wants to do for the church which he has sanctified and cleansed. He wants to present the church to himself “in all her glory.” His plan is that the church shall remain clean and pure. At his coming Christ expects the church as his bride to be “pure, free from sin,” and he will make it so by her glorious resurrection from the dead (2 Cor. 4:14). To be without “spot” is to be free from moral blemish. To have no “wrinkle, or any such thing” conveys the same idea. When Christ presents the church to himself it will be “holy and without blemish.”

One who lives in hope of Christ’s coming will keep himself pure even as he is pure (1 John 3:3). Remember, God “is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24). Is this not why God chose us (Eph. 1:4), and is this not the reason for our having been reconciled to God (Col. 1:21-22)? We must not be moved away from the hope of the gospel if we expect Christ to present us to himself as “holy and blameless and beyond reproach” (Col. 1:22-23). We are moved away from this hope when we lose connection with the head (Col. 2:19).

Conclusion

This is a beautiful picture of Christ’s relation to the church: his supreme love for her, his relation to her as head, how he sanctifies and cleanses her, and how he finally will present her to himself. The other side: What is our love for Christ and for his church? That is reflected in how much we are willing to sacrifice for them. Let us examine our behavior as citizens in relation to Christ and his kingdom (Phil. 1:27-28; 3:21), and our support of the work of the church in our efforts to help it grow and experience increase as the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-16).
300 S. 8th Ave., Paragould, Arkansas 72450

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