The following is from a tract published and written by Irvin Barnes.
1 Pet. 3:3-6 “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”
This publication is dedicated to my mother who during her long life on the earth has carried wood and water thru harsh Ozark winters, gathered fruit from the orchard and from the wild, assisted in caring for the poultry and livestock on the family farm, raised numerous beds of beautiful flowers, tended acres of berries and vegetables, yet has always adorned herself in a way that is unquestionably modest and has, regardless of the circumstances, refused to compromise her strong principles of shamefacedness and sobriety. This is but one of the many reasons why she is loved and respected by all who know her.
Emotion and Prejudice
It is the purpose of this publication to deal with the way Christians should and should not dress. Since every adult must decide every day what he or she will or will not wear, apparel becomes somewhat of a personal matter. In dealing with personal matters it is easy to become emotional. This is spiritually dangerous, for truth can be locked out of ones mind by emotionalism. When allowed to do so, emotionalism can become a villain of truth: standing at heart’s door, forbidding it to enter. It is extremely important that Bible subjects be examined on the basis of logic and truth as opposed to personal feelings. In the final judgment all will be judged, “out of those things which were written in the books,” Rev. 20:12, and not by a standard of self-will and bias. Some have implied that apparel should not be mentioned in the pulpit. They seem to regard preaching or writing on the subject as an invasion of privacy or an infringement of their individual rights to decide for themselves what they will wear. On the other hand, there are others who have expressed serious concern over the question and seem determined to hear and learn all they can on the subject. It is the plea of this small effort that those who read the following pages will do their best to abandon emotion and prejudice and examine each premise in light of Bible truth.
If the things affirmed in this tract are true it is equally true that there is a terrible tide of sin sweeping across the land by way of the ungodly dress being so carelessly worn by people of the world and even by some Christians. It may prove to be no more than a straw in the wind; nevertheless, it is the purpose here to help equip God’s people with a sense of truth and conscience with which to combat the present era of lasciviousness.
How Important Is It?
Does it matter to God how his people dress? Is it possible for people to sin by the way they dress? Is this an issue of importance? Some would answer, “No! dress is not all that important. What is on the inside of man is the important thing. What is worn on the outside is relatively insignificant!” Obviously, many who consider themselves God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians feel that dress has little or nothing to do with their relationship with God.
Some time ago, a group of professed Christians were interviewed for public television. The interview was held beside a swimming pool at a religious retreat. The folks who spoke on the air definitely considered themselves Christians for they testified of their love for the Lord and what he meant to them. The shocking thing was the way they were dressed! Most of them were very scantily clothed in swimming apparel! Some of the men had on swimming trunks which covered only the mid-section. Some of the women had on only enough clothing to cover part of the upper bust area and the mid-section.
This past summer a mixed group of teenagers were seen playing soccer. What is so unusual about a group of boys and girls playing soccer? Nothing, except, this group was playing on the lawn of a rather large evangelical church, so-called, while the rest of the church was apparently in session inside the building. You guessed it! This church sponsored athletic group was dressed in all kinds of ungodly sports apparel, including shorts and cut-offs! Members of another religion were said to have worn bathing suits while baptizing new converts. It is the purpose of this tract to show from the scriptures that clothing is very important. It will be herein affirmed that Christians must choose between apparel that is holy or unholy, godly or ungodly.
The Attraction Principle
One of the first obligations given to man by God was to multiply and replenish the earth. See Gen. 1:27-28. “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
To accommodate this responsibility, God created within man an instinctive natural desire for the woman. He also created in the woman an instinctive natural desire for the man. This is termed in our modern world as sex appeal. It is commonly understood that due to environment, education, body chemistry and possibly other factors, this desire runs stronger in some individuals than in others. Nevertheless, it is God’s will for such an attraction to exist. Notice Gen. 3:16.
“…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
The desire here spoken of is Eve’s desire for her husband Adam. As will be emphasized later, this desire was to be “to thy husband,” or, as some render it, subject unto thy husband. Strong’s’ defines the word, desire, “in the original sense of stretching out after, a longing: desire.” Another passage which sets forth the attraction principle is Rom. 1:26-27.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman; burned in their lust one toward another;…working that which is unseemly.”
W. E. Vine defines the word, natural, as “produced by nature.” Strong’s says it means, “instinctive.” It is then instinctively correct for a woman to desire the physical relationship with man. It is equally correct for a man to desire the physical relationship with woman. The employment of the body of one spouse by the other is taught in I Cor. 7:4, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”
In Solomon’s Song, chapter 7, verses 1-10, the wise man portrays the passion a man can have for woman. To conserve space the entire passage will not be here quoted. However, verse 10 summarizes the passage by telling of man’s instinctive desire for woman. “I am my beloved’s and his desire is toward me.” In the same book, chapter 5, verses 9-16, Solomon speaks of the passion a woman can have for man. Verse 16 summarizes the principle here affirmed. “His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, 0 daughters of Jerusalem.”
Law and the Image of God
Natural attraction is in harmony with God’s plan for mankind to procreate or multiply. Unbridled and unrestrained, this natural phenomenon leads to sin and ungodliness. God has set boundaries or rules by which this natural passion is to be contained and directed. Gratification of natural desire is to be fulfilled only within the framework of God’s law for marriage. In the passages already mentioned, the woman’s desire was unto her husband. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled:” Heb. 13:4. Any single man or woman who relinquishes the power of his or her body to another is guilty of fornication. Any married man or woman who steps outside the marriage bond for physical gratification is also guilty of immorality.
Animals have also been given a sense of desire for the purpose of procreation. See Gen. 1:20-25. Man, however, was created in the image of God. This puts him on a higher plane of life than that of animals. He is totally capable of controlling and directing his natural and instinctive physical desires. To allow the natural desire to run rampant and uncontrolled is to lower man to animal standards. When the human body is displayed in nakedness before the world it lowers the human being to the animal sphere where the shame of nakedness is unknown. Humans are capable of reserving their natural affection for marriage and keeping themselves to one mate only, according to God’s divine arrangement.
When those areas of the human body designed to accommodate the procreation process are not concealed by clothing it is as if the body which God created in His own image becomes no more than some animal which might be looked upon for its natural beauty. It is one thing to parade animals before a group of judges in competition and quite another thing for the bodies of men and woman to be put on display. The single man must conceal his body to be reserved in its attraction for the marriage bed. The married man must conceal the physical attraction of his body from all others save his wife. The same is true concerning the woman who must also adorn herself in a way which reflects a sense of shame and decency. To do otherwise is lascivious and sinful.
Strong’s defines lasciviousness as licentiousness, wantonness. Thayer defines it as unbridled lust, shamelessness, insolence. Lasciviousness is condemned in the scriptures as a sin of the flesh, Gal. 5:19-21, was included by Jesus in a list of evil things of which He said defile the man, Mark 7:22, and is the thing to which the Gentiles had given themselves over to and caused them to work all uncleanness with greediness, Eph. 4:19.
Lasciviousness and Nakedness
The Bible teaches that nakedness is shameful! One who feels no shame in public nakedness is guilty of shamelessness or lasciviousness. According to Gen. 3:7, when Adam and Eve realized they were naked they immediately attempted to cover themselves by sewing them aprons of fig leaves. One of the reasons they tried to hide from God was because they were naked. In conversation with God, Adam stated, “…I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Hiding from God because of nakedness and making aprons to cover themselves indicate an inherent sense of shame.
The shame of nakedness is proven again in Isaiah 47:1-3. Here the spiritual condition of Israel is com- pared to a woman who in crossing a stream of water on foot would, “make bare her leg,” and “uncover her thigh.” The prophet declared, “Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:”
Another passage Which proves the shame of nakedness is Rev. 16:15. “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.”
It seems appropriate to here introduce the word shamefacedness as used in I Tim. 2:9, “In like manner also, that women adorn them- selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety:” Shamefacedness means simply, ” a sense of shame.” Public nakedness is something people should be ashamed of! Folks who have no sense of shame are guilty of lasciviousness. When there is no shame in nakedness the command to adorn with shamefacedness is disobeyed.
What then constitutes nakedness in God’s sight?
Does one have to be stark naked or have on no clothes at all to be regarded as naked? To answer this question it will be helpful to return to some Old Testament passages. In writing concerning adornment, the apostle Peter wrote the following, I Pet. 3:3-6.
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”
By making a reference to the old law Peter is in no way advocating a return to the Mosaical system. On various occasions New Testament writers refer to portions of the old scriptures for the purpose of teaching New Testament lessons. See I Cor. 10:1-11, I Cor. 9:9, and Rom. 15:4. The holiness principles concerning dress which are from the Old Testament apply to Christians today because the apostle Peter used those who lived in the old time as examples for New Testament Christians to follow. To deny this is to reject the obvious.
When Adam and Eve realized they were naked they sewed them aprons of fig leaves, Gen. 3:6-7. Gen. 3:21, says God made them coats of skins and clothed them. The word from the Hebrew translated aprons is defined as girdle, loin covering, belt. The word translated coats, Gen. 3:21, and Gen. 37:3, is described as a tunic with long skirts and sleeves. 8 It is clear that an apron of fig leaves which covered only the loin area was not sufficient in God’s sight to prevent nakedness. The coats which God provided must have covered a great deal more than did the aprons of fig leaves.
Please notice again and in more detail, Isaiah 47:2-3.
“Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:”
Israel had come to have no shame before God. The prophet compares their spiritual condition to that of a shameless woman. The illustration is of a woman who would cross a stream of water on foot. In crossing over the river this person seems to make no attempt to keep herself covered. It is implied that she uses the circumstances as an excuse to uncover her nakedness. She is pictured as raising her garments to expose herself from hip to ankle. When she did so, her nakedness was uncovered and her shame was seen. In the Old Testament, the word, leg, is sometimes used to refer to the portion of the body from the knee to the ankle and sometimes from the hip to the ankle. If the writer had said only, “uncover the thigh,” the logical progression in which a woman would prepare to cross a stream would not have been conveyed. If he had said only, make bare the leg, it would be unclear as to how much or what part of the leg he was referring to. So, apparently to avoid any misunderstanding as to what constitutes nakedness, the passage has been translated to include, “uncover the thigh,” pointing out that in so doing she would uncover her nakedness and reveal her shame. Therefore, any garment that uncovers the thigh should not be worn! Short dresses, shorts, cut offs, sportswear, swimwear, ball uniforms, theatre costumes, cheerleading uniforms, and any other garment that leaves the thigh exposed is sinful for Christians to wear, for such constitutes nakedness in God’s sight.
Although more references are made to women and apparel in the Bible than men and apparel, men are not excluded from this principle. Adam was just as naked in the garden as Eve. His apron was no more sufficient to cover him than was hers. A man who will uncover the thigh is certainly just as naked as a woman who does the same.
Garments That Conceal in Order to Reveal
Shamefacedness is only one of three things commanded in I Tim. 2:9-10. Modesty is also mandated by the apostle Paul. “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.”
The terms modest and immodest are often used to point out the sin of nakedness. In its more correct usage the term, modest apparel, deals with the manner in which a garment is fitted to the body. It is defined as, “orderly, well arranged, decent.” Although nakedness is indecent and therefore immodest, the term, modest apparel, involves more. It is possible for a garment which covers from shoulder to ankle to still be sinful! The attraction principle is again here involved. It is immodest to adorn areas of the body that are particularly attractive to the opposite sex in a way that draws attention. To cover the body in a fashion which conceals in a way which reveals is as lascivious as nakedness!
Shirts and blouses with coarse and improper words written across them in conspicuous places must certainly fall into the immodest category. In spite of the fact that such might cover quite well, their purpose must surely be to draw attention. Jeans and slacks are also immodest for they tqo are usually worn in a way which not only reveals the feminine figure quite clearly but even serve to magnify and draw attention to the hip and thigh area of the body.
Will Christians Deny What Sinners Affirm?
Sex appeal of women’s blue jeans is openly celebrated in America today! As unfair as it is, almost unbearable pressure is brought upon teenage girls by their high school peers for refusing to wear jeans. Popular country and western songs glorify the attraction principle of women’s jeans. One song speaks about the attraction of a woman in “those tight fittin’ jeans.” Another song suggests that a woman whose husband has gone astray from the marriage vow would try to compensate for the loss by reaching for the night-life, which included “wearing her jeans a little bit tighter.” In the opinion of this writer one of the most lascivious tunes ever recorded is the song, Baby’s Got Her Blue Jeans On. The song is filled with subtleties and contra- dictions. The lyrics describe a young lady who, by putting her blue jeans on, stops traffic and turns heads. The song turns right around and argues her innocence and helplessness in the matter. The song speaks of everyone looking as she goes by. They turn their heads and watch her until she’s gone. The implied reason she has attracted so much attention is because she has her blue jeans on. The song attempts to remove any guilt or shame on her part by arguing that she can’t help it if she’s made that way, she doesn’t mean to cause a scene, she’s only acting naturally, etc. Does this not prove that jeans do indeed conceal in order to reveal? Who can deny that women of the world wear blue jeans to flaunt the feminine figure. Isn’t this the central theme or idea of the whole song? If this theme is not applauded by the general public, why did this song make its way to the top on the country music charts? Women’s blue jeans are indeed designed to magnify the feminine figure! It is true she can’t help it if she’s made that way. But, a woman can, whether she considers her body attractive or unattractive, help the way she adorns herself, or as the song says, what she’s “got on.”
This song goes on to suggest that men need the help of heaven to restrain themselves from sinful lust for this woman who has put in appearances down on the corner, by the traffic light, up by the bus stop and across the street, up on main street and by the taxi stand…with her blue jeans on! Jesus taught according to Matt. 5:28, it is a sin for man to look upon a woman for the purpose of lusting after her. A man who does so sins regardless of what kind of clothes the woman is wearing. He is solely responsible for his sin and has no right to blame the woman for whom he lusts, even if she is not properly dressed. At the same time, however, a woman, any woman, attractive or unattractive, young or old, obese or slender, also sins when she covers her body in a revealing manner. What she puts on is her responsibility!
What About Men?
A question heard frequently is, ” If jeans and slacks are immodest for women, why not also for men? It first needs to be said that men can sin by the kind of clothing they wear. One example is to wear apparel which would cause ones to look feminine, in other words, to be effeminate. Any clothing worn to draw attention of the opposite sex is just as lascivious for men as for women. Perhaps one of the biggest problems on the male side of the question today is the Mr. America, Mr. Macho, playboy look, so to speak. To exercise for health purposes has its value. To build muscle to try to attract the ladies and to dress accordingly is lascivious! The collarless shirt, opened down the front with a necklace to draw attention to the chest area is questionable, to say the least. No shirt and a pair of cut offs constitutes nakedness!
But what about equality? If jeans are wrong for women, why not also for men? Surely those who ask this question have never considered the ramifications of such a position. One might as well ask, “Is it okay for women to wear dresses?” Most would say, “yes.” “Since they are right for women, why not also for men?” The modern day outcry for equality seems to have jarred people’s ability to reason a bit off center. It seems very popular for women to seek equality counter to men. Little is said about men seeking equality with women. The obvious is surely being overlooked here! Had God created man and woman with bodies that were exactly alike and given them the same sphere of function in life then what is lascivious for one would be also for the other. Man was given a body which happens to be different from what God gave woman! God never intended for them to be the same!
Equality of the sexes is man’s idea. It did not originate with God.
The Role Factor
In the structure of life as God designed it, man has been given the leadership role and woman has been given the subjective station or function.
Eph. 5:23-24, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
I Cor. 11:3, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
The roles are well defined. There is no question as to which station in life male and female belong. In spite of this easy to be understood language, much strife prevails in America today between the roles of men and women. The women’s liberation movement and the unisex movement were created in an attempt to abolish discrimination between the sexes. Uni means one. Unisex promotes the idea of male and female becoming as much alike as humanly possible. This concept is in opposition to God’s plan for the human family and is in violation of the above scriptures. It is simply not in God’s plan for man and woman to be equal. This is not to suggest superiority on man’s part or inferiority on the part of woman, but simply to point out that God made man and woman differently in body, therefore in function.
It was no accident that women’s slacks and jeans came on the fashion scene about the same time longer hair for men became popular. There was a movement in the 1960’s which called for men and women to appear as much alike as possible. During this time one could see a girl and a boy walking side by side. If view- ed from the back it was next to impossible to say if they were two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Their hair length and style would be the same. Their blouses and jackets would be of the same fabric and style. The same was often true of their slacks and chances are they would be wearing the same type of sandal or shoe. One would have to get a front view of them to determine if it was actually a boy and a girl.
This serves to illustrate the emulation of men by women and vice versa. It is wrong for men to emulate women or to appear effeminate. It is equally wrong for women to emulate men and appear masculine. Can the movement which insists on unisex be wrong and the clothing designed to promote the movement be right? How can Christians wear such clothing and avoid the appearance of believing in and promoting these movements? It is noteworthy that during this era new attitudes began to surface regarding the terrible sin of homosexuality.
In some areas a permissiveness toward this sin began to be advocated. Perhaps this, above all else, shows how rotten the unisex movement really was. Christians ought to go out o1 their way to wear clothing that resists and opposes the movement rather than wear garments that promote it!
Satan was subtle in his introduction of garments to promote the women’s liberation and unisex. First came the slacksuits. These received mixed reviews by church members. Some accepted them readily, some reluctantly and others have never worn them. Preachers found some difficulty in getting a grip on why or if they were wrong. Some took positions in their defense. Others spoke out strongly against them. Others spoke of what they might lead to. Those who wore them often pointed out that the pantsuits were not designed for men, they covered the body well, and that the skirt part of the garment covered the thigh and hip area sufficiently to thwart any charges of immodesty. The controversy was short lived. The skirt part of the fashion was soon abandoned and few, if any, of the original styles can be found anywhere today. Satan succeeded in getting women to wear pants by starting with the slacksuits which had slacks over-lapped by a skirt. From this the trend went almost without resistance to slacks and on to the blue jeans craze!
Why is it wrong for women to wear slacks? They more often than not conceal in a way which reveals and are therefore immodest. Women’s slacks are an emulation of men’s apparel and therefore a product and symbol of women’s liberation and the unisex movement.
For women to say, “But, I don’t wear them for that reason,” is equal to a man wearing a dress and saying, “I don’t wear this for the purpose of emulating women nor to appear effeminate.” Is it really a completely honest evaluation of the subject to try to deny the obvious fact that sinful and worldly women who do not profess Christ at all, blatantly wear slacks and jeans as an expression of individual rights, liberation from old- fashioned dress codes which they deem cumbersome and in resistance to the Bible concept of subjection?
Can the practice of women wearing slacks really be indicted as an act of competition against the role of men? Some time ago a married couple, David and Felicity Hall, appeared on the Phil Donahue show. Mr. Hall was dressed in an uncommon manner. He was wearing a blouse and skirt. The skirt was a rather long flowing style which covered from the mid-section to well below the knee. He was covered well enough to avoid any possibility of being naked. There was nothing about the garment that would lewdly emphasize any particular area of the body. He argued in favor of this new style of men’s clothing on the grounds of being warmer in winter and cooler in summer than men’s traditional styles. He claimed the skirts were less constrictive and therefore more comfortable than trousers. He also argued for equality with women. When asked by Mr. Donahue, “Why are you doing this?” he replied,”
“…I really think the time has come for men to change. …And if we’re talking about equality, let’s have the appearance of equality. And the only way we can do this is for men to change into the only alternative garment that exists. Let’s face it, there are only two kinds of garments; pants and skirt….”
The garment designed by Mr. Hall was made for men, not women. He was neither naked nor immodest. Now, what was wrong with his garb? Will women who insist on wearing slacks advocate this new fashion for men? Let’s face it! Such a garment causes a man to look effeminate. Who will deny it is an emulation of women’s apparel? He who goes public with such is bold and daring. In a comment about her personal feelings concerning her husband’s new line of fashions, Mrs. Hall affirmed that men should have the right to emulate women through apparel since, in her opinion, women emulating men has been accepted in American society for some time now. Her statement was as follows:
“Honestly, I can tell you I didn’t accept it just like that. And so, I’ve done a lot of thinking and one of the things I thought about was that it’s fine in this society for women to emulate men but it’s not fine for men to emulate women. Now, why is that…?”
Why should anyone be shocked or even surprised at skirts for men arriving on the fashion scene? When the seeds of equality were sown the harvest should have been anticipated. Women who are unwilling to accept skirts and dresses for men should stop and take a second look at their acceptance of slacks for women.
Another term used by Paul regarding clothing in I Tim. 2:9, is sobriety. As it is here used it refers to “habitual inner self government with its constant rein on all the passions and desires.”” The apostle Peter also mentions inner control as something reflected by how one dresses when he speaks of a “meek and quiet spirit,” I Pet. 3:3-6. These terms indicate a spirit of caution and deliberation about what one is going to put on! When a new fashion comes on the market Christians should stop and consider. Can this new style be worn with shamefacedness, modesty and sobriety? Does it reflect a meek and quiet spirit or is it bold and daring?
Many mothers need to stop and think about how they are dressing their little children. Children must wear what they are told to wear or as they row a bit older they will naturally want to dress as their friends and schoolmates do. They will then wear what they are permitted to wear. Some parents just can’t seem to bring themselves to ask their children to face the peer pressure caused when they dress soberly and modestly. As a result, children are growing up today completely unaware of what is proper and improper. Some parents are allowing their children to wear what they themselves will not wear! Then they wonder why their children as they reach adulthood are frustrated by sermons on the subject or why, when they become Christians, they continue to dress like the world. When children are dressed in immodest apparel from the time they are able to walk until they are grown, with little or no restriction on what they can wear, what can you expect? Some have pointed out that little children are sinless and innocent, so what harm can be done by allowing them to dress in a way that would be considered sinful for grownups? The answer is simple. Young children should be taught about sinful apparel for the same reason they should be taught about sinful language. Once young children are old enough to talk there is always the possibility of them repeating bad language they have heard from older children. Would such be overlooked without corrective teaching? This illustrates the need to teach children a sense of propriety early in life!
Sex appeal is out of control in America today. It is being confused and abused on every side. There seems to be no limit to the exploitation of the same. Christians need to stop and think about what is being flashed before their eyes every day. T.V. programs are replete with scenes of scantily clad, (naked), men and women. The same is true of magazine, newspaper and T.V. advertisements. Will the church be swept along on this tide of sin until it finally moves in total concert with the world? Or will Christians stop and think! Realize how far we have come on this issue and the eventual consequences if church members don’t come to grips with the problem and begin to speak out in rejection of ungodly styles and fashions.
Your Dress is Showing!
In conclusion please consider I Pet. 3:5, once again, followed by a paraphrase of the passage for the purpose of emphasis and explanation: “For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.”
For after this manner in the old time, women who were holy adorned themselves, women who trusted in God, adorned themselves, women who were in subjection to their husbands adorned themselves.
If this passage proves anything at all, it proves that God expects women to adorn themselves in a manner which reflects holiness, trust in God and subjection. If the right kind of apparel reflects all the above, then what does the wrong kind of apparel reflect? What is the opposite of holy? Unholy! What is the opposite of trust? Doubt and refusal to believe! What is the opposite of subjection? Rebellion! Just as surely as the right kind of clothing is an indication of holiness, trust, and subjection, the wrong kind of apparel suggests lasciviousness, immodesty, insobriety, rebellion and emulation.
Christian, fear not to change your dress habits for the better. Give thought to what you wear each day! Wear nothing questionable! Do not be ashamed to adorn yourself in honor of the most high God!
1.Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, No. 8669, p. 126
2. Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 102
3. Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, No. 5446, p. 77
4. Ibid, No. 766, p. 16
5. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa-
ment, p. 79
6.Vine’s,p.17 – . .
7. Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 292 8. Ibid, p. 509
9. Vine’s, p. 79
10. Rom. 1:21-32
11. Multimedia Program Productions, Syndications
Services, P. 0. Box 2111, Cincinnati, Ohio-45201,
Donahue Transcript Number 04071, p. 5 12. Aid, p. 43
13. W. E. Vine’s, p. 44