Truth Magazine

By Thomas C. Hickey

Bible students will recognize the question as a takeoff from the words of Proverbs 7:10, a passage which warns against the wiles of the immoral person who seeks to seduce another into the destruction of his soul. We now quote the entire passage:

Proverbs 7:6-27

6 For at the window of my house I looked out through my lattice,

7 And I saw among the naive, I discerned among the youths, A young man lacking sense,

8 Passing through the street near her comer; And he takes the way to her house,

9 In the twilight, in the evening, In the middle of the night and in the darkness.

10 And behold, a woman comes to meet him, dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart.

11 She is boisterous and rebellious; Her feet do not remain at home;

12 She is now in the streets, now in the squares, And lurks by every comer.

13 So she seizes him and kisses him, And with a brazen face she says to him:

14 1 was due to offer peace offerings; Today I have paid my vows.

15 Therefore have I come out to meet you, To seek your presence earnestly, and I have found you.

16 1 have spread my couch with coverings, With colored linens of Egypt.

17 1 have sprinkled my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.

18 Come, let us drink our fill of love until morning; Let us delight ourselves with caresses.

19 For the man is not at home, He has gone on a long journey;

20 He has taken a bag of money with him, At full moon he will come home.

21 With her many persuasions she entices him; With her flattering lips she seduces him.

22 Suddenly he follows her, As an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as one in fetters to the discipline of a fool,

23 Until an arrow pierces through his liver, As a bird hastens to the snare, So he does not know that it will cost him his life.

24 Now therefore, my sons, listen to me, And pay attention to the words of my mouth.

25 Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways, Do not stray into her paths.

26 For many are the victims she has cast down, And numerous are all her slain.

27 Her house is the way to Sheol, Descending to the chambers of death.

– New American Standard Version

In the scene described above, a foolish young man seeking sexual experimentation goes to a “worldly-wise and sophisticated” woman whose character is known by the manner in which she dresses. This is a loud-mouthed woman who despises to be in subjection to her husband. She is too busy to give adequate care to her home and children because she is occupied with running around town trying to appear seductive. She has a face hardened by sin, and can no longer blush (cf. Ezra 9:6; Jer. 6:15; 8:12). She pretends to be religious and is very concerned with her physical appearance, and with the things which create sexual interest. She persuades her victim using flattery to inebriate him.

This young man is described by the writer of Proverbs as a fool who goes blindly and willingly to his own destruction, not knowing just how great a price he must pay for his indiscretions!

To me, one of the striking characteristics of this seductive and immoral woman has always been the phrase, “dressed as a harlot” (NASB) or “with the attire of an harlot” (KJV).

The description of this woman makes it clear that she was a harlot. What is a harlot? The Hebrew word here translated is zanah, which means “to commit fornication, go a whoring” (Young’s Analytical Concordance). Therefore, the word “harlot” here describes a person who is willing to engage in sexual love with someone to whom she is not married.

If one is available for purposes of sexual immorality, how does one advertize this fact? One way, clearly, is to dress with “the attire or dress of a harlot.”

What is the attire of a harlot? Proverbs 7 does not give a description of the “attire of an harlot” or of anyone else’s attire, for that matter. So then, what is the attire of an harlot?

Quite clearly, the attire of an harlot is any manner of dressing which communicates the message of sexual interest and abandon so that there is the underlying implication of sexual availability, the freedom from shame and moral or spiritual restraints. If one wishes to know what is the attire of an harlot, he need only study the dress styles of those who boast of having no morals. If he or she wishes to communicate the same message, he will then imitate those dress styles.

On the other hand, one who wishes to communicate the message of chastity and moral restraint will studiously avoid dressing in a manner which raises doubt about moral character!

There are many modem ways to wear the “attire of a harlot.” Women may wear the attire of an harlot by either overdressing or underdressing. Dressing in a garish manner, wearing too much makeup, wearing slinky gowns, etc., may be as much the attire of an harlot as underdressing in the skimpy shorts, modern swim wear, miniskirts, cheerleaders and majorettes costumes, and the omitting of foundation or undergarments – all characteristic of those who wish to send the signal – “I am available.” The woman or girl who dresses in such a manner is saying, “Look at me – I’m sexy.” Every such woman is either telling the truth or lying by her manner of dress. If she is telling the truth, she is guilty of the sins of lasciviousness and fornication. If she is lying by her manner of dress (and she really isn’t that kind of person) she is guilty of the sins of lasciviousness and lying. There is just no “Christian” way to wear “the attire of an harlot.”

I personally believe that any woman who will wear the “attire of an harlot” will commit fornication. She may not commit it with just anyone who comes along, but she will commit it if “Mr. Right” comes along. If she does not have enough Christianity to dress like a Christian, then she will not have enough Christianity to act like a Christian in the face of sufficient temptation! If not, why not?

And what about the men? Can they, and do they, not also wear the “attire of an harlot”? Yes, they can, and they dol It is becoming more characteristic for men to communicate their lack of morals through various stages of undress and various manners of dress. The more abbreviated male swim wear is coming into vogue which is designed to emphasize the male genitals; porous “net shirts” are becoming more popular in the summer time; shirts are worn unbuttoned to reveal the chest hair; trousers are worn slung low in some countries, the “fly” is left unbuttoned or unzipped apparently to communicate availability. Male homosexuals sometimes wear a ring in one ear to advertize themselves; in some communities the wearing of a turtleneck shirt is taken to indicate male homosexuality. Men are more commonly running around the yard and even going to the store in very abbreviated shorts.

All of these things shout one message loud and clear; they are the signals of the decay of the morals of a nation. We are b6coming a nation of fornicators – and we advertize itl Celebrities seek a public forum to boast of itl And slowly citizens seek opportunities to imitate the lifestyles of the rich and famous!

The whole question of what is the attire of an harlot can be summed up with the following:

Years ago when Mary Quant (fashion designer) and others had succeeded in introducing the miniskirt into mainstream use, Miss Quant was asked the question, “What is the point of the miniskirt?” She answered very simply, “Sex.”

No thoughtful Christian who wants to do right will be guilty of wearing the “attire of an harlot” because to do so is to be guilty of lasciviousness, which is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). The penalty for lasciviousness is that those guilty cannot “inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, those guilty will spend eternity in a Devil’s Hell.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 67-68
February 6, 1986

By Mike Cox

Isaiah 42:3

With divine foresight, Isaiah foretold of the “servant” who was to come, Jesus. Of Him he said, “A bruised reed shall he not break, and a smoldering flax shall he not quench . . . … What was then a somewhat obscure glimpse, would later become more clearly understood, for he spoke of the compassion of the Savior, which could not be clearly understood until He came.

Jesus came to “seek and save that which was lost” (Lk. 19: 10). The Pharisees, in their own arrogance, saw themselves not as “sheep without a shepherd” (lost), but looked only upon others as such. Jesus spent little thine with those who saw themselves without the need for a Savior, but went to those who would receive him. As He ate and associated Himself with the publicans and sinners (Lk. 5:27-32), the Pharisees murmured, not understanding how someone could bring himself to eat with such people. and especially perhaps He who claimed to be the son of God, for even God knew they were sinners. Jesus replied to their pride, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” It is with some irony, I suppose, that Jesus should say this, because the Pharisees truly needed a “physician.” The difference is, they did not think so. They “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (cf. Lk. 18:9-14).

The tax-gatherers and the sinners, the drunkards and the harlots might rightly be pictured by the “smoldering flax” and the “bruised reed” of Isaiah’s prophecy. But it might also be said of all who are bruised by sin and of those who see only a glow of hope (us). It is of these Isaiah says, Jesus will not complete the work of ruin and despair, but will lift them up and heal them. He is “a God (savior, mc) ready to pardon, gracious and merciful. . . ” (Neh. 9:17). To the Pharisees, these publicans and sinners were the “lowest” of society, unworthy even of their company, but to Jesus, these were the ones for whom He had come – for the “poor in spirit,” for those who see themselves destitute of the grace of God, lost without His favor. These are the ones who would receive Him!

What is just a little surprising is that things haven’t changed much. I wonder if the “righteous” are still that way? We can take comfort in the fact that Jesus is still “‘full of compassion and is merciful” (Jas. 5:11). The compassion of Jesus toward sinners is clearly seen. He could look beyond the sin to the sinner; to see the person, and the potential for good; to see that they too, regardless of what their life had been, needed to know the love of God and the forgiveness of their sins by obedience to His will. I have often wondered why it is so much easier to see the bad in people, rather than the good. Maybe it is because we are looking for it. Yes, we need to teach people that they might change their evil ways, but unless we see a, potential for good, and are willing to “eat with the tax-gatherers and sinners” we will not have that opportunity.

If we could be more merciful and compassionate, like Jesus. And remember while we are on the mountain, there are still those in the valley. Sinners are sinners, regardless of what sins they commit.

Finally, we might find more people with an honest and good heart, if we just look in the right places. “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, p. 70
February 6, 1986

By Aude McKee

One of the most basic problems in our divided religious world is a lack of appreciation for the authority of Jesus Christ. In some cases there is lip service paid to His authority, but when it comes to actual practice, there is a woeful lack of compliance. In this article we want to look at the extent of the Lord’s authority and the foundation upon which it stands.

His Authority Is Universal

In Matthew’s account of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), Jesus said, “All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” The words “all,” “heaven,” and “earth” emphasize the universality of that authority. And then the words that follow do the same. What justification could Jesus have for instructing His apostles to “teach all nations” if all nations were not included in the scope of His authority? In a debate between E.C. Fuqua and Thomas B. Warren in 1954, brother Fuqua affirmed the proposition that those in the world were not amenable to the authority of Christ. “While in the world,” Fuqua said, “people cannot be with or without a scriptural cause for anything, seeing they are not under Christian law, but under civil law exclusively.” It seems to this writer that if this were true, we might be able to go to heaven on the basis of works. Observe speed laws, be honest in the payment of taxes, etc., and so having met the requirements of the only law binding on us, we would stand before God free of sin. The truth of the matter is, all of us are duty bound to observe civil law because of the authority of Christ. No one in the world would be duty bound by God to observe civil law were it not for passages like Romans 13.

In Acts 2, Peter preached to Jewish people. After a number of arguments relative to Jesus’ Sonship, death, etc., he said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v. 37). Many in the audience then cried, “What shall we do?” Their response to the sermon had to come as a result of a recognition of Jesus’ authority and the reply Peter gave to their question had to be obeyed for the same reason. Acts 2 shows clearly that Jews were subject to the law of Christ.

Then in Acts 10, the same preacher went to the house of Cornelius and delivered a message that resulted in salvation for those who obeyed it. These people were not Jews, they were Gentiles. But as you read the account of their conversion, you have to be impressed with the fact that their obedience sprang from a recognition of the authority of Christ over their lives and destiny. In fact, one of the first things Peter told them was that “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

In Romans 14:9, Paul wrote, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.” With this passage before us, we have added another dimension to our outlook. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, He has authority over both Jew and Gentile, and now His authority extends to both the dead and the living!

Writing to the Colossian Christians (3:17), they were told that “whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and the Father by Him.” “In the name of” means that all our words and deeds must have the Lord’s approval. “Words and deeds” cover a lot of ground, but if someone should think that our thoughts are not governed by the Lord’s authority, attention should be given to Matthew 5:27-28. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ” Jesus Christ has the right (authority) to look into the recesses of a person’s heart and judge those desires that might never come to light in overt action.

Perhaps Moses reduced this matter of Jesus’ authority and the extent of it to the simplest form possible in Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Peter quotes this passage in Acts 3:22-23: “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” The words “all things whatsoever He shall say” and “every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed,” are too clear to be misunderstood.

The Lordship Of Jesus

When the subject of authority is under consideration, attention needs to be given to the word “Lord.” The Greek word means “master, ruler; one in possession of absolute power and authority. ” Jesus, in Luke 6:46, asked the question, “Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” In John 13:13, “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. ” In Matthew 22:41-46, we learn that David called Jesus “Lord,” and this really caused the Jews a problem. Jesus wanted to know if the Christ was the son of David, then how could David call Him “Lord”? He was indeed David’s son (in the flesh), but He was at the same time David’s Lord because He is the Son of God. Then in Philippians 2:5-11, there is a passage that deals both with the humiliation of Jesus and His authority. In verses 5-8, we are told of His becoming man and of His obedience even unto death. The following verses (9-11), tell of His exaltation and the authority He now possesses. As a result of the fact that He has been given a name that’s above every name, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Expression Of Christ’s Authority

The metropolitan government of Nashville has authority over all of Davidson County. There are hundreds of intersections where thousands of automobiles converge every day. If the government had no visible way of expressing its authority at those intersections, Nashville would be a mess. So stop lights are installed and traffic moves pretty well as long as people understand and respect those signs. In religion, Heaven must command and man must obey or chaos will reign. We have learned that Jesus is Lord, but the question facing us just now is how does the Lord express His authority to man? In Hebrews 1:1-2, we are told that “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in the times past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son . . .” God’s written expression of authority in the past was made known by the Old Testament Scriptures. However, in this passage we are told that now it is different. God’s spokesman in our time is Jesus Christ. When we turn to Hebrews 9:15, we are told that Jesus “is the mediator of the New Testament. . . .” The Old Testament is God’s Word, but the laws of that document have been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). As we learned a moment ago, Moses (the one through whom God gave the Ten Commandments) himself said that Christ was to be heard in all things, and anyone who would not listen to Him would be destroyed. We need to recognize that the New Testament is Heaven’s way of guiding all who live on this earth, and none can ignore it and at the same time show respect for the authority of Christ. Indeed, Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, He has the right to command both Jew and Gentile, all our words, deeds and thoughts must be brought into harmony with His Will, and not only the living but also the dead are subject to His authority. Jesus’ authority is expressed in the New Testament and to that book we must turn, believe it, love it, and obey it in order to go to heaven when we die.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 75, 77
February 6, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

In his book, How Christianity Grows in the City, Alvin Jennings says the first century saints of a city met for worship in small “house churches,” and all such churches of a city were under one group of elders. If this plan is followed he says, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area.” Further, “Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city and individual congregational growth consciousness will give way to the overall growth of the urban church with all its congregations regardless of their place of assembly.” In a previous article we discussed “One Eldership Over Many ‘House Churches,”‘ and in this article we examine scriptural uses of the word “church,” and what is meant by such expressions as “the church in their house” (Rom. 16:5).

The book places great emphasis upon the vast number of saints in Jerusalem, and the physical problems of getting such a number together for worship. The author is a bit careless with his statistics: p. 31 says 50/100,000 saints before the close of the first century; p. 50, 100,000 by 50 A.D.; and p. 74, 50/100,000 by the time of the dispersion (surely meaning the destruction of Jerusalem). (1) We do not believe the validity of worship depends upon all saints of a local church being assembled at the same time or place. (2) The early multiplication of saints at the beginning of the church was a special situation; and there is no reason to suppose they suddenly formed independent congregations, and by the Lord’s Day following Pentecost were “gathered about the Table” Texas style. (3) The “all things common” (Acts 4:32) and treasury “at the apostles’ feet” (v. 37) were not patterns for all time, as is apparent from later information. It was some time after Pentecost before deacons were appointed (6:1f); and we first read of elders ca. 45 A.D. (11:30).

We believe the practice of the first saints was consistent with truth as a whole, but those who cite the early Jerusalem situation to further their special cause may find they have bitten off more than they can chew. Since the first converts made up the universal body of Christ, how about a universal treasury? Truth is, we do not know many details about the worship and work of early saints in Jerusalem. Jennings says “the patterns given to us through Jesus Christ and His special spokesman, the apostles, (must) be followed explicitly.” But patterns are not established by assumptions concerning some portion of revelation. We must search the total record for a pattern.

The “house churches” of How Christianity Grows . . . are sometimes churches, sometimes not churches. The author equates them with “groups” and “assemblies”; and says in large cities of the first century many such groups made up each city church. He says each church should be independent and autonomous, but his drawing of the “Urban Church of Tomorrow” (p. 64), shows churches with elders (no treasury), plus a panel of city elders who control the total city treasury. Independence and autonomy become empty words under such circumstances. Clearly, we must determine the use of “church” as it is applied to what the author calls “house churches.”

In the New Testament ekklesia is usually translated “church.” This collective noun groups its objects, the people of God, and treats them as one. “On this rock I will build my church,” i.e., my people, those who rest upon the divine foundation. Christ bought the church (Acts 20:28) when He died for all who will obey Him (Heb. 5:9). So, “the church” in its universal sense consists of the Lord’s people, metaphorically assembled in this term. The “grouping” does not necessitate their being physically assembled. They are “the general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones) who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). God “established” and “instituted” this church like He “instituted” marriage, or civil government. He made plans and gave instructions for this relationship. He also gave plans for brethren to act collectively, with overseers, servants, and a treasury (see previous article); and “church” in this sense is an organized body politic, which we usually call a “local church.”

But there are other scriptural uses of the term. Faithfulness is the essential ingredient for coming to Christ, and for remaining in His fellowship; hence “church” has a qualitative sense, referring to a certain kind of people. In Acts 5:11 “the church” is distinguished from “as many as heard these things”: viz., from some other than the saints. And the word may also be used in a distributive sense. In Acts 9:31 “The church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” refers not to some tri-state institution, but to saints in these three territories. (See ASV, and proper textual studies. Nestle’s text shows all verbs in this verse are singular.) One may speak of “the church in Texas” without implying there is an organized statewide institution. We have been slow to recognize the distributive use of “church,” but I am persuaded it is far more common than supposed. Try reading through Acts and think distributively (saints) when you see the word “church.”

There are four passages that speak of “the church in house” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2). This could mean “saints in – house,” in the same way we might write to a church, and make particular mention of close friends and brethren in their household. Nothing in this would imply they worshiped separately or were units of some metropolitan system. But “church in house” could refer to a local organized church, meeting in a private home. In this case Acts 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 would authorize oversight and a treasury there. Twice in my life as a preacher I have done resident work for such churches, meeting in a private dwelling places. Of course some early saints met in private houses; but it will take more than a string of Scriptures which use the word “house” to prove one group of elders should control all the money and direct activities of all the churches in a city. Remove assumptions, while keeping scriptural principles, and “church in their house” poses no problem.

One more suggestion. If you have the book How Christianity Grows in the City, try reading every Scripture citation given, and compare what you find in the Bible with its usage in the book. You will be amazed at where the author finds “house churches,” overseen by city elders. Our “church building” mentality could do with some revision, and more home prayer and Bible studies are certainly in order; but city elders are not the scriptural solution.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 71, 79
February 6, 1986