|
.
. Quit Whining and Get Moving! by Greg Landry, Author and exercise Physiologist
NOTE: I realize this article may offend
some people, but I believe that you need to hear the truth about weight loss rather than some watered down "feel-good"
version of the truth!
I receive hundreds (yes, hundreds) of questions every month with this general theme... "HELP...
I'm doing all the right things but I'm still not losing weight." After talking to hundreds of these people over
the years, I've come to a few general conclusions. Keep in mind that these are generalizations, but they would apply to
over 95% of people in this situation. Also, please note that these ARE in order of importance...and I'm not pulling any
punches! :)
1. The vast majority of these people (I call them "non-losers") are not exercising anywhere
near enough (if at all)! You can only decrease your caloric intake so much. Your other alternative is to increase your caloric
expenditure. You can write this in stone... ** VERY FEW people are successful at losing weight AND keeping it off without
exercising almost everyday!!
If you're having trouble losing weight, 20 minutes of exercise three times a
week isn't going to cut it! Most people who tell me they are *really serious* about losing weight are not willing to do
what it takes to get where they want to be. If you're not willing to make exercise a *serious* priority in your life,
your chances of succeeding at losing weight and keeping it off are VERY small! Many of my clients who are serious about weight
loss are exercising 1 to 2 hours per day. Many split it up and do some in the morning and some in the late afternoon or evening.
If you're having difficulty losing weight, I would recommend that you average at least 30 minutes *everyday*, ideally
more.
2. Most "non-losers" that are exercising are not weight training. Weight training is *critical*
to maintaining your muscle mass and tone. If you're not weight training while trying to lose weight, you will lose muscle
mass and tone and your basal metabolic rate will decrease causing you to burn fewer calories 24 hour-a-day!
3.
"Non-losers" are actually consuming about 600 calories more per day than they think they are. Recent research with
a large group of "non-losers" determined that they were significantly under-estimating the number of calories they
were consuming on a daily basis. If you're not sure, write down everything you eat for a few weeks.
4. "Non-losers"
want *instant* results. When it doesn't happen they either give up or go on some crazy diet. You HAVE to be resolved to
the fact that it WILL be slow!
5. "Non-losers" are actually consuming more fat than they think they are.
Limiting fat intake to 20 to 30 grams per day is critical for "non-losers".
6. "Non-losers"
are notorious for skipping meals! This is really bad news because it slows your metabolism causing you to burn fewer calories
24 hours-a-day.
7. "Non-losers" consume far too much sugar or simple / refined carbohydrates such as
white rice, white (non whole wheat) flour products, white (non whole wheat) pastas, soft drinks ("pop" for you northerners),
sweetened drinks, and the hundreds of products that contain addded sugar that's deceptively listed on ingredient lists
with names like sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, etc.
8. Some "non-losers" don't want to give up
their alcohol. Alchol is a triple whammy...it stimulates your appetite, slows your metabolism, and it's loaded with calories!
Enough said.
9. Many "non-losers" consume far too few fruits and vegetables.
10. Many "non-losers"
always eat until they're full. Practice stopping before you're "full" and see how you feel 30 minutes later.
You will probably feel satisfied by then.
11. Many "non-losers" consume artificial sweeteners which stimulate
the pancreas to release insulin just like sugar would. Insulin causes your body to store fat and prohibits your body from
burning fat for fuel.
Weight loss is VERY difficult! Simply put, If you don't want it bad enough to do what
it takes, it's NOT going to happen. If you really want to lose weight, quit playing around with it. Get serious about
it and make it an absolute, non-negotiable priority in your life... and it will happen! :)
 . Pat Greer made a suggestion for the following articles on Modesty to be
included on this page which I think is a very good idea. Thanks to Margaret Head for forwarding these articles to us. Click on the "Inspiration" link, above, to view the article on Modesty by Mark Mayberry.
When Fig Leaves Are in Style (a letter sent from a brother to a congregation of the Lord's people)
It's everywhere in our culture today. Nakedness and lust have become
"normal" in our society
and their affect is seen in the church.
Brethren are not sure what's modest or immodest and often deny the
consequences
or danger inherent in skimpy clothing or watching
provocative programs on TV. Would you not agree with me that fig
leaves are in style? We need to sound a reminder that Adam
and Eve
were wearing clothes but were still rebuked by God for being naked.
Preachers need to preach it. Brethren
need to confront it. The
older need to train the younger. Parents need to be stern. Elders
need to guard the flock
from it. The young need to heed the warnings
within scripture. We should treat immodesty as any other sin.
Certainly
it should not be found within our worship services. Guys, you
don't need to take off your shirt to prove you're a man. The
standard of modesty for men and women is not different
according to
scripture. If one believes it is, I am willing to carefully consider
the scriptures upon which he
bases his judgment. There is a standard
set forth by God on modesty. If one does not agree that God has
given
us guidelines by which we can make righteous judgments, then I
do welcome some time to study and consider the scriptures
leading to
that conclusion. I have heard it said a number
of years ago that
elders cannot discipline members who wish to attend services
"naked." In addition,
it has been said that it is a private decision
how to dress. If someone looks in the mirror and decides that she is
modest, then to her it is modest. I do not believe God has left such
an important subject purely to men to judge
without guidelines or a
standard. However, I do recognize the scriptures never specifically
say how long is long
enough or how short is too short. There is
certainly room for individual judgment, but we should stay far from
the
line and not exploit this as an opportunity to throw out all that
God has said on the subject. I hope to provoke some thought on this important issue facing
individual Christians, families, and churches today. I have attached an article that I believe provides a very thorough study
of the scriptures. Please read it and make application. It should be easy for us to look at our society and see the trends,
then guard against them as they slowly creep into the church. Let us strive for purity in our hearts and our lives.
Sincerely,
Kent Berman
Modesty in an Immodest Age
The question, “What shall I wear?” usually focuses
on personal
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. In today’s society, styles
are defined by Hollywood , Madison Avenue and MTV. However,
in fact
and in truth, God has spoken on this vital subject. The Bible helps
us determine the type clothing that
is appropriate.
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 ( Philippians 1:9-10 )
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
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 . Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV:
3 p19 February 3, 2000
Copyright © 2003
http://truthmagazine.com
.Gluttonyby Jarrod Jacobs
The subject of gluttony is misunderstood by many people. Sometimes,
during the Thanksgiving holiday, or after some big meal, someone will jokingly say, "I hope the preacher doesn't
preach on gluttony." At other times, I have been accused of "not preaching on gluttony" or "not condemning
gluttony" when this is not the case. When I have preached against such sins as smoking, drinking alcohol, and other things,
some who try to justify their sins will ask, "People today are also guilty of eating too much, so how about preaching
on gluttony? Isn't that a sin, too?" Friends, gluttony is a sin. What we fail to recognize is that the sin of gluttony
encompasses more than merely eating too much at a meal. It is indicative of a wrong attitude and a wrong manner of life that
needs to be corrected. Defining The TermThe word "glutton" is found only twice in the KJV (Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21). Similarly, the word "gluttonous" is only found twice in the
KJV (Matthew 11:29; Luke 7:34). (By comparison, the ASV, NKJ, and ESV include Proverbs 23:20; 28:7; and Titus 1:12.) When we look up "glutton" in a Bible dictionary and other similar
references, we see that the word means something far deeper than just someone eating too much at a meal. Therefore, let us
study this word and learn the truth. In the Unger's
Bible Dictionary, we learn that "glutton" means, "(Hebrew from zalal, "to shake," hence
to "be loose" morally). A debauchee (Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21); "gluttonous" (Proverbs 23:20; 28:27), meaning a free liver, one who is unrestrained (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34)" (p. 480). Another definition for "glutton" comes from The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which says, in part, "zalel, "to be lavish; ... To
shake or pour out, ... to be lavish, a squanderer." (Deuteronomy 21:20 and Proverbs 23:21) In Greek, the term is "phagos", meaning an eater, a
glutton. This was a term applied to Christ in His freedom from asceticism (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). Also, Titus 1:12 ("slow bellies" = "Idle gluttons"); Proverbs 23:20; 28:7" (Vol. 2, p. 1239). "Asceticism" means one employed in devotions,
a recluse, a hermit A third definition of "glutton"
is from the Holman Bible Dictionary. "...greedy and voracious eating... Associated with stubbornness, rebellion,
disobedience, drunkenness, and wastefulness (Deuteronomy 21:20). A more general ... term ... good-for-nothing is reflected as, "wastrel",
"profligate", "riotous". When Jesus was accused of being "a glutton and a drunkard" (Matthew 11:19) it was in this expanded sense of being one given to loose and excessive
living. Gluttony makes one sleepy, leads to laziness, and eventually to poverty (Proverbs 23:21)." (p. 656). True GluttonsWhen we take the time to define the
word "glutton," we see that merely thinking of gluttony as being guilty of eating too much does not give us an accurate
picture of what God is saying. Yes, there are passages which condemn eating too much (as an example, Proverbs 25:16, 27). However, "gluttony" is far more than that. Overeating is but
a symptom of the larger problem of laziness, of being idle, of having a sense of entitlement, having loose morals, and being
unrestrained. (Can we not see this multiple times in this society?) All of these actions are condemned by God in Scripture,
and are all included in the word "gluttony"! Once we know this, we must examine ourselves to make sure that we,
in this land of plenty, are not gluttons. Truly, this is just another example of how we who are Christians must live in the
world, but cannot be like the world (cf. I Corinthians. 5:10). Jesus -
A Glutton?By knowing the true meaning of the word "glutton,"
we get a picture of just how insulting the people were to Jesus when they called Him a "glutton" and "drunkard"
(Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). When the Pharisees saw Him teaching the publicans, sinners, and others,
they turned this into an opportunity for scorn (Think: "Birds of a feather flock together."), rather than what it
was - an opportunity Christ took to teach those who were lost in sin and needed salvation (Matthew 9:11-13). The result was that the people accused Jesus of being a gluttonous drunkard!
In other words, they were calling Jesus a lazy man with loose morals who was associating with folks who were like-minded! We know this was not the case at all. Jesus did not condone their sins, but went
to them to teach them and bring them out of their sins. To Zacchaeus the publican, Jesus said, "For the Son of man
is come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10), and this included him (Luke 19:9). To Nicodemus the chief of the Pharisees, Jesus told him what to do to
be in the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5). Jesus knew how folks showed favoritism (Matthew 5:46-47), but Jesus was not a respecter of persons! He taught the same thing to
all people! (cf. I Corinthians 4:17). Jesus was
not a glutton. Rather, this insult was hurled at Him because the Jews who saw and heard Him did not like what He was doing. ConclusionWhen
we understand what the word "glutton" truly means, then we must say that the subject of "gluttony" has
not been ignored or "glossed-over" by any true preacher of the gospel! When sins such as debauchery, loose living,
laziness, etc., are condemned (cf. Acts 24:25; Philippians 4:6), then gluttony has been condemned! The question is are we guilty of gluttony? Let us examine ourselves and see (II Corinthians 13:5). Let us see whether or not we are guilty of loose morals, of laziness,
idleness, and the like. Are we idle or lazy in the work of the Lord? We better not be (I Corinthians 15:58). Are we guilty of having a sense of "entitlement" when it comes
to spiritual blessings? May this never be the case, but may we always recognize the Source of all spiritual blessings who
is above and be thankful (Ephesians 1:3; Hebrews 5:8-9; Colossians 3:15, 17). Gluttony is a terrible sin. However, we can be forgiven of it and can
avoid future temptation by being in a right relationship with Christ Jesus (Mark 16:16; James 4:7-8; Ephesians 6:11).
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org
|
