Truth Magazine

By J. T. Smith

In order for us to have a clear understanding of the subject, we need to define the word “adultery,” find out from the Scriptures what conditions constitute an adulterous situation, and how one may “live in adultery.”

The word “adultery”is from the Greek word moicheuo and its basic meaning is “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 417). However, in the Old Testament, the word “adultery” was used to describe every kind of illicit sexual act, as the word was used in “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” in the ten commandment law. According to Young’s Analytical Concordance (p. 368), the word “fornication” is used only five times (Ezek. 16:15, 26, 29; 2 Chron. 21:11; Isa. 23:17) in the Old Testament. In every one of these cases, the word was used to describe a spiritual condition.

Unless we are going to take the position that a single man cannot look upon a single woman to lust after her, and commit adultery with her in his heart, we are forced to the conclusion that the word “adultery” is used in the New Testament to describe those who are unmarried as well as those who are married. Jesus said in Matt. 5:28, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Also, in 2 Pet. 2:14 Peter said, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin . . .”

In an effort to answer this argument, one of the respondents in a discussion I had on the West Coast took the position that “the definition of a word determines the meaning, not its usage in the context.” I will allow you, the readers, to determine whether or not this person’s conclusion is valid.

There are a number of passages I would like for us to consider in our discussion of this subject. In Matt. 5:32 Jesus said, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Again, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mat. 19:9). Then in Mark 10:11-12 we read, “And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Finally, in Luke 16:18 Jesus’ statement is recorded, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

In all of these passages, Jesus plainly points out that if one puts away (divorces) his spouse, for any reason other than fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery. And the one who marries the “put away one” (whether she is “put away” for fornication, a word which includes every kind of illicit sexual act, or for some other reason) commits adultery.

Another passage of scripture that I would like for us to consider that mentions one being in adultery is Rom. 7:2-3. Paul said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound-by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

The word “commits adultery” is a present active indicative word in the Greek language that describes continuous action. Thus, since Jesus allows freedom from the “marriage bond” with the right to remarry for only two reasons (fornication, Matt. 19:9; death, Rom. 7:2-3), then those who divorce and remarry for any other reason “commit adultery.” And as we noted above, this is not just a “one time act.” It involves continuous action. Every opponent that I have met in debate on the subject of divorce and remarriage freely admits that those who divorce, without the cause of fornication being involved in the divorce, when they remarry are nothing more than “legalized adulterers.”

In commenting on the expression “called an adulteress,” in Romans 7:2-3, Moses E. Lard said, “To render it, as in the E.V., `she shall be called an adulterous’ is without warrant. The apostle does not mean to tell what the woman shall be called, but what business she is in. She will act the adulteress.” Hence, as long as she continues to commit the act of adultery, she is living in that condition.

Sometimes the question arises, “Why would the guilty party, the one put away for fornication, commit adultery when she remarries? Isn’t the marriage bond broken when adultery is committed and one is put away for fornication – thus the guilty party loosed also? If so, the guilty party would not be ‘living in adultery’ when she remarried. Although this human reasoning may sound good, there are a number of things wrong with it.

In the first place, the-word “marry” is being equated with the word “bound.” But they are not equal. The word “bound” is from the Greed word dedesai and means, “to bind by a legal or moral tie, as marriage, Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27, 39” (Bagster’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 89). One can be bound and not married, or he can be married and not bound. Herod’s case is an example of one being “married” (according to the laws of the land) but not “bound” by God (Mark 6:17-18). In Rom. 7:2-3, we find an example of one who was “married” to another but was still “bound” to her first husband. Thus, according to the above definitions, the antithesis of “bound” is “loosed,” and the antithesis of “married” is “divorced.” Therefore, I can tell a person who has “put away” his mate for the cause of fornication that the Lord has “loosed” him so that he is free to remarry without committing sin. However, Christ nowhere indicates that the wife is released form “her obligation” to the law of her husband.

Christ’s teaching in Matt. 19:5-9 points out that there is both an “obligation” to “leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife” and both are “restricted” from having any sexual relations with anyone else. Thus the one who is put away for fornication is loosed from the obligation of “leaving and cleaving,” but is not released from the restriction of having sexual relations with another. If so, where is the passage that shows that release. I know she is released from the leaving and cleaving to the one to whom she was married. For, the Lord granted him, because of her fornication, the right to remarry. Thus, their mutual agreement to “leave and cleave” is dissolved by God with the God-given right of the one doing the puttting away to have a wife.

Again somene may ask, “What about 1 Cor. 7:27-28 which says, ‘Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned . . . ! Who are those who are loosed?” Yes, Paul said those who are “loosed” may be married. But who is loosed? The one who has never been married, or one whom God, not man, has loosed. As we have already noted, God only looses the one who puts his (her) spouse away for fornication, and the one whose spouse has died. All others are “loosed” by man and not by God; and if they marry they sin.

In Col. 3:5-7 we read, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupicence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” The word “fornication” in verse 5 is the general word for illicit sexual acts and when used by itself in a context would include adultery. Thus, we learn from the above passages that anyone, whether alien sinner or Christian, can “live in adultery.” To deny this is to deny what the Apostle said, Who, then, is willing to do it?

QUESTIONS

1. What is the basic meaning of the word “adultery”?
2. Is the word “adultery” ever used in the Scriptures in a way different from the basic meaning given by lexicographers?
3. How do you determine the meaning of a word?
4. What are to two reasons given in the Scriptures for one being “loosed” so that he may remarry without sin?
5. What kind of action is involved in the Greek language for present active indicative?
6. What was Moses E. Lard’s comment on the expres sion “called an adulteress” in Rom. 7:2-3?
7. If the innocent party is “loosed” to be remarried without sin, why isn’t the guilty party “loosed” to remarry without committing sin?
8. What is the antithesis of the words “marry” and “bound”?
9. What two things are imposed on those who decide to contract a lawful marriage?
10. Which one of the two things mentioned in answer to question no. 9 does God release the “guilty party” from, and which one does He retain?
11. How would you answer the question, is it possible for one to “live in adultery”?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 376-377
June 7, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

Blatant immodesty was once limited to such haunts of unrespectable sin as houses of prostitution, bars, and night clubs. The circus has often displayed women in costumes which “hesitated to begin and ended almost immediately,” as one Kentucky preacher complained a hundred years ago (Apostolic Times, 6 May 1875, p. 186). Nowadays, it seems that all sins haveobecome “respectable,” no sin more so than the sin of exposing the body in lascivious attire. Extremely low-cut fronts and backs on dresses have appeared in a variety of styles, the latest being the “disco” look. The “mini” skirt, after being the rage for several years, has become one among many in the smorgasbord of lascivious styles in our do-your-own-thing society. Shorts, halters, tubes, and swimsuits have become a way of life for many people, no more to be questioned than apple pie, mother, and the American flag. Immodest dress is treated as a human right, involving the right of men to look with pleasurable lust upon the woman’s figure and the right of the women to entice his pleasurable lust by displaying her figure.

Proper Attitudes and Proper Clothing

When sin broke into the world through Adam and Eve, over the protest of God, the power of sinful lusts was unleased, cursing mankind to this day. Before sin entered, Adam and Eve had lived in fellowship with God, in marital companionship with each other, and in the same innocent nakedness which is still seen among small children. Immediately upon sinning, Adam and Eve experienced shame in nakedness and made apron-like girdles to wear. God replaced these with long coat-like garments (cf. Gen. 3:7, 21). Wherever mankind has gone, the bodies of men and women have been covered because of the influence of God’s Word, the shame of sin, and the reality of temptation. Lack of clothing has characterized cultures darkened by rejecting God, embracing sin, and delighting in pleasurable lusts.

Clothing reflects attitudes. Enticed by “the attire of an harlot,” foolish men have destroyed their souls in lust and sin (Prov. 7). Once a man possessed by demons went about with “no clothes” but was healed by Jesus and was then seen “clothed, and in his right mind” (Lk. 8:26-36). Godly women are inwardly adorned with “a meek and quiet spirit,” with an awareness of the shame of sin, and with a sober attitude toward the dangers of temptation. This inner spirit of submission to God is reflected in all facets of a godly woman’s life, including the clothes she wears (1 Pet. 3:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:9-10). She blunts, by her careful dress, the destructive powers of temptation in those who look upon her. Her dress stirs up admiration and respect rather than lascivious thoughts. What does the practice of men and women appearing before each other in modern swimsuits reflect: the darkness of sin or the high standards of God’s Word?

Understand and Respecting the Sexual Nature

It is not wrong for the woman to be sexually attractive to the man. Indeed, God convinced Adam that no creature was suitable to his needs; then, He created woman as a companion suitable in every way. This one man was given one woman, and this one woman as presented to one man, that the two might “be one f lesh ” (Gen. 2:18-24). The sexual relationship was thus a gift from God for the good of man and woman, rather than something ugly, shameful, dark, and unclean.

Our sexual capacity is a gift to be enjoyed, not an evil to be endured. The joy, stedfastness, faithfulness, and passion of love between man and woman are celebrated poetically in the Song of Solomon. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The beauty and purity of the bed upon which sexual love is shared can be preserved only as each partner shares that love with the one mate alone.

Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.

Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?

Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.

May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

A loving doe, a graceful deer —

may her breasts satisfy you always,

may you ever be captivated by her love.

Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?

Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife?

(Prov. 5:15-20 NIV)

The very sight of the woman’s body – unclothed or nearly so – stimulates sexual pleasure in the man, thus making her delightful, tantalizing, and desirable to him. It is a great blessing to find one’s mate attractive and to share the sexual privileges of marital love. The sexual union, intercourse, or companionship of marriage is a part of the creation which God pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both the personal needs and the pleasures of individuals are served, as is humanity’s need for reproduction (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; 1 Cor. 7:2-4).

Satan has perverted every gift of God, including the gift of sex. Fornication in its broadest meaning is any sexual intercourse which violates and abuses the law of God. Satan tempts unmarried people to experience sexual union, to commit the sin of fornication. He tempts married people to have sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married under God’s law, thus to commit a form of fornication called adultery. Our Adversary is smart enough to know that all sin begins in the heart (Matt. 15:16-20). Therefore, the first step to fornication is for a man to look on a woman, to whom he is not married, stirring up the desire, will, and intention for intercourse with her. Whether or not he gains the opportunity to unite his body with hers, he has “committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). Satan has many devices to encourage such lusts in the heart and these devices are called lasciviousness. The lascivious spirit weakens the sense of modesty and restraint by stirring up the fires of temptation and lust. This can be done through words, dances, pictures, and dress. Much of modern society accepts lasciviousness as a way of life, a legitimate means of pleasure, and even a business tool in advertising.

Men can be tantalized by women in clothing which is arranged so as to reveal rather than to cover the woman’s body, or which is so brief as to present the body nearly unclothed. For a woman to appear this way before her husband alone, and thus to make herself attractive to him, is a privilege given to them in marriage by God. For a woman to appear this way before other men is lascivious. As pleasures and desires are stimulated in the hearts of these men, she becomes guilty of the terrible sin of causing others to sin. In this lascivious age, many men think they have the right to these sinful pleasures and desires, and many women think they have the right to “catch man’s eye” by dressing so as to stir his lusts. So terrible is this sin in God’s sight that Jesus said it were better for her that a millstone were hanged about her neck, and that she were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt. 18:1-14). Jesus also said it were better for these men if they had no eyes (5:29).

Modern Swimsuits: Reflection of a Lascivious Society

Exact styles of dress are not specified in God’s Word; differences from nation to nation, age to age, and person to person are allowed. Still, the Christian is regulated by divine principle in dress as in all facets of life. We may enjoy different styles and modes of dress, except when they violate the principles of God’s Word. If unlimited change is permitted and God has no concern for dress at all, then nudity itself can be justified. Does the modern swimsuit (worn by a female who is sexually mature in the presence of a male to whom she is not married) fall within the limitations of God’s word, or outside those principles in the lascivious spirit of an ungodly age?

Those who think that Christian women can appear before men in the abbreviated cloth wrapping which covers what little it covers in the formfitting style of a sausage casing, would be hard pressed to prove absolute nudity wrong. Yet, ocassionally some Christian conforms his or her ways so much to the ways of this age that it becomes necessary to rationalize certain practices. For instance, the danger of appearing in mixed company in swimsuits must be explained away by arguing something like this: “We can be like the world in innocent matters. Perhaps at one time people of the world were provoked to ungodly thoughts by the sight of a woman in her swimsuit, but the practice is now so widely accepted that no normal person notices such a thing any more. The practice no longer attracts attention and so has become innocent.” To be around our friends of the world and to hear them speak with lascivious delight about this or that woman in a swimsuit is to know how hollow the above rationalization is. Conscientious Christian men try to avoid the situation or look away when the sight of a woman in a swimsuit presents itself, in the effort to guard the thoughts of their hearts.

On other occasions, Christians who are determined to defend such practices will concede the lascivious thought are a problem for the sinner but not for the Christian: “It is alright for a group of Christians to go mixed swimming in modern swimsuits because our minds are pure and none of us would be tempted by ungodly thoughts.” While it is true that Christians strive to discipline their thoughts, it is untrue that a Christian male cannot experience lascivious lusts at the sight of the tightly-outlined or nearly-nude form of a female body. Baptism does not make eunuchs of men, does not change the chemistry of male-female biology. Men do not enter the baptismal water in bodies of flesh and emerge in bodies of stone or steel. Christians discipline their thoughts but also admit the ever-present reality of temptation and danger of sin so long as we are in the body. Remembering what happened to King David (“a man after God’s own heart,” Acts 13:22) when he chanced to look upon a woman’s exposed body, Satan knows that he may well take advantage of the modern Christian who is so arrogant as to assert, “Now, that I’m a Christian, lascivious thoughts cannot be stirred in my mind and fornication can never seriously tempt me again.” If the above rationalization has any merit, it could as well prove that a nudist colony populated by Christians alone would be all right!

The testimony of the world itself about whether swimsuits tend to stir up lascivious desires would be the most conclusive evidence possible. When the world speaks of its own things, the testimony is decisive. The funny papers, comic strips, and comedians reflect a common sense kind of psychology; they make us laugh at ourselves, at the real world. Among situations often made the brunt of a joke is the man who walks into a wall or drives his car into a telephone pole while craning his neck to see a woman exposed in shorts, a tight dress, or a swimsuit. The man’s accident under such circumstances may be funny, but the reality of his lascivious thoughts and of her exposure which stirred them are no laughing matters. Eloquent testimony also comes from the advertising industry, which has made untold millions of dollars by knowing what attracts the attention of people. In ads for everything from cokes to cars, advertisers utilize the lascivious effects of women in swimsuits to gain audience attention on billboards, in magazines, newspapers, and on television. Is this industry convinced that normal men today do or do not take special notice of a woman whose body is exposed in a swimsuit? The Bible teaches a woman to cover her body so that it will not be an object of lust, temptation, and lasciviousness.

Time Magazine (11 December 1978), in the “American Scene” column, points out that what keeps many football fans from running for hot-dogs at halftime is the sight of females in their twirling costumes. What better way is there “to catch a man’s eye” than in these costumes which are “tight,” “stretchy,” and “skimpy”? The article adds that the performances reflect “dance lessons” and include attractive “struts and tosses” of the female body. In other words, people of the world freely admit that such costumes and performances are enjoyed in pleasurable lusts by men who live in an age which accepts such lasciviousness as commonplace and justifiable. Twirling costumes are designed on the same pattern as one-piece swimsuits. While the world freely admits the pleasure of looking at female bodies exposed in lascivious attire, the worldly minded in the church deny that (1) such attire is lascivious, and that (2) normal men take any special notice of such attire. Brethren who make these denials are grossly ignorant (perhaps unmarried or sexually inactive), are sexually naive (sheltered from the real world and unexposed to the realities of temptation), or are intellectually dishonest (refuse to admit the facts condemning a practice they are determined to continue).

What Shall We Do Then?

Some who were once in the world have been baptized but not converted, and so have brought the world into the church. Others who once opposed the practice of mixed bathing in lascivious swimsuits have surrendered to the increasing power of worldliness, like Gideon who compromised the truth after having fought for it. Feeling the worldly pressures from within the church, they say, “If we preach on this, we will run off the members.” Feeling the worldly pressures from without, they say, “If we preach on this we will be viewed as fanatics by the community.” Forgotten in many cases is the heavenly call to preach the truth “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Let us not surrender to the gloom! When we teach those within, the honest of heart will repent and only the hypocrites will be driven away. When those without hear stirring condemnations of sin, they will be touched by the power of the gospel as the Spirit intended (Jn. 16:8; Rom. 1:16). The consciousness of sin will bring them to the cross. This writer recently baptized the same hour of the night a young adult who heard one gospel sermon and who wanted to hear more afterwards because, she said, “I know what you said about swimsuits is true; I’ve been there -I’ve been guilty of the very things you warned of and know them to be true.” Faithful Christians can determine to teach modesty and to oppose sinful modern swimsuits. Many are so teaching, and many elders are standing behind this teaching. Irven Lee says that a church which tolerates such worldliness as gambling, social drinking, and immodesty of mixed swimming is a “garbage church” – and every town needs a garbage dump to collect unconverted brethren who persist in worldliness so they cannot ruin good churches. Consistent teaching keeps the church pure by encouraging the strong to stay strong, helping the weak to grow, and causing the stubborn to exit in search of their own kind.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 373-375
June 7, 1979

By Jefferson David Tant

Immodesty, lust, adultery, deceit, drunkenness, murder. Not a very pleasant listing of words, is it? And some might wonder why we would put immodesty and murder in the same category. The reason is that all of the words listed belong in the same narrative, and are listed in the progressive order of events, beginning with immodesty and ending with murder. You should recognize the story of David and Bathsheba from 2 Sam. 11-12:25.

Do women realize the power and influence they exercise over the thinking and actions of men by way of sexual attraction? Surely this is well illustrated by the sad story of Israel’s great king and his beautiful neighbor. Who knows the reasons for Bathsheba’s displaying herself immodestly within the view of David? But we can see that this action, however innocent it may have seemed to her, brought forth sin, sorrow and death, and its consequences reached into the distant future for the king of Israel. From his rooftop, David was able to look upon Bathsheba while she was bathing within his view. Her beauty and lack of discretion contributed to lust within David’s heart. Their resulting adultery caused a child to be conceived. To cover the sin, Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, was recalled from the battlefront, as David sought to provide opportunity for others to think that the child was by Uriah. But this loyal subject and soldier refused to go into this wife while his comrades were on the battlefield. David then got Uriah drunk so he might go to his wife, but Uriah still refused. David finally sent a sealed message by Uriah to his captain on the battlefield, which caused Uriah to be placed where he was certain to be killed. Who would ever have thought that such a vile deed would have come from such an “innocent” beginning? But such is the way of the world – both then and now.

We truly live in an age that worships at the feet of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of sexual love. The manifestations of this sex-worship are evident and plentiful. We have an increase of “living together” arrangements, an epidemic of venereal disease, one million illegitimate pregnancies among teenagers each year, a flood of pornographic literature and movies, and a vast expanse of bare skin. They all go together, and to try and determine which came first would result in a “chicken-or-egg-first” type of debate. But there may be some substance to the idea that the trend towards a more revealing style of dress in previous years has in turn created an atmosphere that has fostered a decline in moral standards everywhere.

Question: Is the Bible teaching on modest apparel relevant to this age? Yes, if we believe in an all-wise, all-powerful and all-knowing God. Therefore, God had the ability to design laws and commandments and principles suited to all men of all nations of all time (Matt. 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23). Man’s nature has not changed, and a reading of the Bible will reveal the same emotions, passions and human attributes that men have today. Therefore, what God teaches through the Bible is relevant. And it is obvious that it needs to be made relevant to those who profess to be Christians today who adorn themselves in their shorts, mini-skirts, swim suits, low necklines, tight outfits and see-thru styles.

Biblical Principles. Governing Dress

Nakedness has always been a symbol of shame, beginning with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:7. The aprons they made for themselves might well have covered about as much as a modern swim-suit, but God was not satisfied with this, as he made for them “coats of skins” (Gen. 3:21) to clothe them. Nakedness was also used as a symbol of spiritual shame (Isa. 47:3, Rev. 3:18). Note that you can have clothing on, and still be naked in the Biblical sense. The word is used in the sense of “thinly-clad” in such passages as Job 22:6 and James 2:15-16. According to this, you are “naked” in many of the modern costumes that are accepted as normal attire.

God has said, “In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works” (Tim. 2:9-10).

“Modest” from the Greek means “well-arranged, seemly . . . .” Thus dress is to be orderly, in good taste, and in such fashion as to cause a women to be respected, to be thought highly of. Some argue that “good taste” is reflected in whatever the current fashions are. That may be true to a certain extent, but custom can go beyond the principles of godliness, and the Christian is told to “be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). With this attitude, we are not so eager to ape the fashions of this world and justify ungodliness just because “everyone else is doing it.”

“Shamefastness” is “a sense of shame, modesty, reverence, the ability to blush.” This is more akin to our modern use of “modesty” which is defined as “. . . not forward; shy or reserved. Behaving according to a standard of what is proper or decorous; decent; pure; now especially, not displaying one’s body.” In keeping with this definition, can one honestly defend many modern styles? To put it plainly: Girls (young or not so young), would you be embarrassed for a man to walk into your room and see you in your underwear? If you have any shamefastness at all, your answer is “Yes.” Then why not show the same attribute in public and refuse to wear the shorts and halter and otherwise revealing costumes that so many try to defend? Does the fact that the name of one is shorts and the other is underwear make the difference between modesty and immodesty? Honest, now.

Clothing indicative of shamefastness is opposite that type which is a bold display or which is forward in nature. This rules our clothing which exposes and emphasizes the private parts of the body and which therefore tends to produce unwholesome thoughts. If you could hear some of the comments the men and boys make concerning the girls who pass by in tight outfits, shorts, low-cut blouses and the like, surely it would bring a blush. Such clothing may be considered lascivious (encouraging lewd or lustful thoughts or emotions), and is condemned as a work of the flesh in Gal. 6:19-21.

Our text in 1 Timothy also uses “sobriety,” which indicates “soundness of mind, self-control . . .” and “good judgment, moderation . . . especially as a feminine virtue, decency” (Arndt and Gingrich). Here is clothing that is moderate, kept within bounds, restrained, in keeping with good judgment.

When these unchanging principles are destroyed, immodesty results, and sin comes. But when one seeks to conform to God’s standards rather than those of the world, modesty will be sought, rather than shunned, and godliness will be practiced rather than worldliness defended.

The Results of Immodest Clothing

Even the world recognizes the significance of the emphasis on sex in clothing. In the first place, it tends towards exhibitionism. “The women on the beach whom the men can’t help watching are . . . the ones with figures who want men to watch them and are bold enough to show this in their manner . . . . But one complication is that some people have a greater-than-average urge to make the opposite sex loop at them, by means of clothes or the lack of them. Certain of these people know it. Others of them don’t admit it, even to themselves” “Dr. Spock Talks With Mothers,” Ladies Home Journal, Sept., 1955, pp. 26, 28). “Women no longer wince at revealing their bodies in this `naked era,’ deliberately adapting their clothes for the purpose of attracting the male, and to call a spade a spade, often to get men hot and bothered” (Woman! The Dominant Sex, p. 115). Mary Quant, the well-known fashion designer and mother of the mini-skirt: “Mini-clothes are symbolic of those girls who want to seduce a man . . . .” Whether the mini-skirt itself is in or out of style at any particular time is not the point. The point is that that particular garment is but one symbol of the whole idea of the sexual revolution.

Another problem is that such clothing is recognized as contributory to crimes. “Some rapists, Dr. Hoffman points out, are harmless until their inhibitions are freed by drink or dope. Others however, need only the sight of a scantily clad female to trigger sexual violence. `And the way some girls run around the streets today,’ Dr. Hoffman says, `is practically asking for it”‘ (“How to Protect Your Family,” Cosmopolitan, Jan., 1962, p. 47). We could go on with page after page of similar quotes, including a comprehensive survey conducted among the Police Departments around the United States, concerning the sharp rise in sex crimes against women in the last several years. Ninety percent of the officers responding related sex crimes to immodest styles of clothing. And these officers are not the psychiatrists sitting in their ivory towers giving forth their lofty philosophies, but the men who have to deal with crime and its victims in the streets day after day. A major city’s vice squad commander agreed with others that husbands and fathers have “some responsibility to uphold sensible standards” in clothing for their families, because men know more clearly what may be provocative. These officials suggested the sex crime rise might be slowed by responsible action of school officials, employers and proprietors, designers and manufacturers, entertainers, religious leaders, writers and advertisers.

Such clothing also sends a message. In a discussion with a group of young people, the question was asked why girls (and boys) go around with shirts or blouses unbuttoned to a daring extent and wear otherwise suggestive clothing. The consensus was that it was done for advertising purposes. In the police survey, 76% of those responding said a girl is more likely to “involve herself in immoral behavior by the subjective effect” of wearing daring clothing. It also sends the message that they no longer care what God thinks, for if they did, they would never appear in public in clothing that is purely of, by, and for the world. They no longer care about themselves, for they have given up self-respect and care about personal safety. And they no longer care what effect they have on others, having no concern that their unchaste display may create lust in the heart of some youth who is growing into manhood, but still lacks the maturity of self-control.

Why is it that many places, including U.S. Military installations around the world, prohibit the wearing of shorts and halters and like clothes in public? Why are such styles prohibited in prison? When I visited an inmate in prison recently, I was interested in the regulations concerning clothing posted in the visitors room. No shorts, no halters, no low necks, etc. Do you really have to guess at the reason? See Matthew 5:28 for a clue.

I want to share with the readers part of a letter I received from a teenaged girl after she had read something I had written on modesty. “How some of the girls I know who call themselves Christians can wear the clothes they do, I just don’t know. Some of them don’t know better and some of them do . . . . I don’t know about all of the parents but I know some of them think their teenage girls are justified in the way they dress and act. It really bothers me that the parents and preachers and class teachers don’t talk about modesty . . . . When I think of all the Christian girls I know of going around in Hip-hugger jeans and midriff blouses, and mini-skirts and body shirts, it really bugs me. From the teenagers’ point of view, I’ll tell you some of the arguments I’ve heard: (1) “The latest fashionis and I just don’t want to look different.” (2) “All of my friends will think I’m crazy.” (3) “My boyfriend will drop me fast if I dress like that” (modestly). (4) “No one’s ever told me it was wrong.” (5) “The preacher has never said a thing to me about my short dresses.” (6) “My parents say it’s alright, so Do you see the main ingredient in such reasoning? It is dressing to please others, rather than dressing to please God! It is seeking to be “fashioned~according to this world” rather than dressing in a way “which becometh women professing godliness.”

The Bible describes two types of clothing: the attire of a harlot (Prov. 7:10), and modest apparel (1 Tim 2:8). If you honestly consider the matter, it should take no intellectual giant to figure out in which category to place the miniclothes described by their creator as “symbolic of girls who want to seduce a man.”

What this all leads to finally is just plain sin. Do we really want to dress like, act like, and be like the world? Or do we want to “walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called” (Eph. 4:1). Do we not desire to be that “elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out .of darkness into his marvelous light . . . . Beloved, 1 beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; have your behavior seemly among the Gentiles; that, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:9-12).

When all is said and done, do we want the approval of the world or of God? The final reward of heaven or hell will depend upon our answer.

QUESTIONS

• Is it possible for one to be naked, in one sense, and still have clothes on?
• Can the Christian go along with the world in dress fashions, so long as it is generally accepted?
• Does a Christian bear any responsibility for the thoughts and actions of others?
• If shorts and halter and like apparel are not im modest, what would it take to be immodest?
• “Seemly, the ability to blush, shy or reserved, decent, pure, not displaying one’s body, moderation,” are all words which describe what?
• A sure way to keep out of heaven is to engage in what works?
• Is it possible for the Christian’s manner of dress to set him or her apart from the world?
• Is there any hint that God may have been displeased with clothing that humans wore?
• Should Christians be careful about things which may lead to sin?
• What responsibility do we have to follow Christians who dress immodestly?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 23, pp. 370-373
June 7, 1979

By T. G. O’Neal

An older preacher friend told me several years ago that fornication was the most often committed sin. I am inclined to agree. An article I read in the Nashville Banner, Sept. 9, 1973, page 11, said the Playboy Foundation commissioned The Research Guild, Inc. to make a survey, the results of which were published in Playboy, October, 1973. Those surveyed were 2,026 in number over seventeen years of age; 982 were men, 1,044 were women. Seventy-five percent of the single women surveyed said they had sexual relations before they were 25; 32% of the married men under 25 said they had sexual relations since married with someone besides their wife, and 24% of married women said the same thing. Current statistics if available would not show an improvement.

Added to the practice of sin, now there are some preachers who are giving their voice to the sanction of fornication and adultery. While they would deny that they favor adultery or fornication, their voice or pen says otherwise. Concerning the. exception of Matt. 19:9, Leroy Garrett said Matthew “inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it” (Restoration Review, November, 1978, quoted by Mike Willis in Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, page 93).

Some brethren on the West Coast have started a paper called “The Bible Forum” which they say is “dedicated to the open discussion of Bible subjects.” It either had a short life or is way behind schedule for I only have received three copies, the last being November, 1977. All three copies are devoted to a discussion of marriage and”the truth J.T. Smith and H.E. Phillips have taught. The “editorial staff” consisted of Bob Melear, Kenneth Cheatham and Glen Lovelady. Glen Lovelady in his debate with J.T. Smith charged that the exception of Matt. 19:9 is “an addition” to the word of God, and is “what the copiest added” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, pp. 176-177). Also, in this debate Lovelady raised the question of whether “the latter part of Matthew 19:9 is considered by the translators to be an interpolation of copyist” (page 23). By his implication, he cast doubt upon the genuineness of the text. This is what nearly all of us who have debated Baptist preachers have run into with them on Mk. 16:9-20. True, some manuscripts do not contain the latter part of Matt. 19:9, but then there are probably just as many that do. The translators believed there was sufficient evidence to include it. The whole point of this is to get away from what Jesus said.

Olan Hicks has recently come out with a book called What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, which should be called “What Hicks Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” for it does not teach what the Scriptures says. Hicks charges brethren who teach the truth on Matt. 19:9 with a “need to remove the glasses which have been provided for us by the Catholic Church” (p.26), that the truth we teach “comes from the Vatican, not from the apostles” (p.29). He charges brethren with teaching “tradition” and not the Bible.

Whether they are willing to admit it or not, these men are giving comfort to the idea that the put-away fornicator can remarry without committing sin.

Definition

What is fornication? Vine defines it as “illicit sexual intercourse” and that “it stands for, or includes adultery” (Vol. 2, p. 125). Thayer says “of illicit sexual intercourse in general . . . used of adultery” (p. 532).

What is adultery? Vine defines it as “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” (Vol. 1, pp. 32-33). Thayer defines it as “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (p. 417).

Webster defines “illicit” as “not permitted; improper, unlawful” (p. 413). For a thing to be unlawful implies a law somewhere to which one has not complied. Now, what is the Law that says sexual intercourse with one to whom one is not married is sinful? It is God’s law, for man’s law says such is neither illicit or unlawful.

Fornication is a general term including all unlawful sexual activity. Lesbianism and homosexuality would be included here as well as adultery. Adultery is a more specific term used in reference to unlawful sexual contact with the husband or wife of another.

New Testament Teaching

In view of what men are teaching, we need to look at New Testament teaching and a good way to do this would be to look at some specific passages.

(1) Matt. 5:32. Beginning in verse 31, Jesus said, “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Here Jesus said the man that puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery unless he puts her away for fornication. The one who marries her who is put away commits adultery. That is not “the traditional view” or what some preacher said, that is what Jesus said.

(2) Mk. 10:11-12. In this passage Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

God’s law given to man “from the beginning of the creation” when “God made them male and female” said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (vs. 6-9). God’s law, even before the church and before the law of Moses, was for “a man” to “cleave to his wife.” When this was done no longer were they “twain, but one flesh.” “God hath joined them together.” God joins a man that leaves mother and father to his wife. This passage does not teach that God joins a man, who up and leaves his wife, to another woman to be his wife. Jesus said the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. The putting away of a wife is a sinful action and the marrying another is a sinful action, but it is not until he has sexual relations with her that he commits adultery. He has no right to her, it is unlawful for him to have her and every time they cohabit they commit adultery. The first act is adultery and the last one, even if twenty-five or fifty years later, is still adultery. Time does not change the unlawful to the lawful.

If a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. That is not the teaching of Catholicism or the traditional “Church of Christ view”; that is what Jesus said. All of the cases of Mary leaving Ed to marry John, even with the approval of the preacher and the elders will not change what Christ said. God will not change His will just because Hicks, Lovelady and others are teaching error any more than he will because a Baptist preacher is teaching error.

(3) Mt. 14:3-4. Matthew records, “For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. For John said -unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.” Observe Herod “had” a woman by the name of Herodias, but she was not his wife. He “had” his brother’s wife. He “had” Philip’s wife. John said what we had done was not lawful. According to whose law? Here is one who is not subject to the law of Christ, for the gospel of Christ had not yet been preached, yet he- was not acting according to the law. God’s law said Herodias was Philip’s wife but Herod “had” her. Herod “had” her but God still had her joined to Philip. This shows God does not loose a wife just because man does. The court can say Mary is not longer Ed’s wife and can marry John, but God did not say that.

(4) Luke 16:18. Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” It is plain from this passage Jesus said he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. All of the human wisdom of earth will not explain it away. Then Jesus said that the man that marries the woman put away commits adultery. Jesus said the man that puts away his wife commits adultery when he marries another, and the woman commits adultery when she marries again. Thus, four people commit adultery. That is what Jesus said.

(5) Rom. 7.-2-3. By the Holy Spirit Paul wrote, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Paul said a woman with a husband “is bound . . . to her husband so long as he liveth.” The way “she is loosed from the law of her husband” is “if her husband be dead.” If her husband is not dead, she is not loosed from him; she is still bound to him. If she is married to another while her husband is alive `she shall be called an adulteress.” The expression “shall be called” in this verse is from the Greek “chrematizo” and is also used in Acts 11:26 where the text says “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” This word means to be divinely called. God called the disciples Christians and God calls a woman an adulteress who is married to another man while her husband liveth. From this passage we learn that a woman can be “married” to another man while having a husband. It should be obvious that the term “married” is not used in the sense of married in the sight of God or that God has joined these two together when at least one of them has a mate.

(6) Matt. 19:9. Jesus said, “I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

I have waited until this point in this article to introduce this passage. Previous passages noted in the article state the general law of marriage “from the beginning.” However, this passage states the “exception” given by Jesus. True, it is the only passage that says “except for fornication,” but if Jesus said it once, it is the truth. Are we willing to do away with everything taught just one time in the Bible?

Christ said, “whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The exception Jesus gave was where the putting away was “for fornication.” If one puts away a wife but not “for fornication” or if one puts away a wife “for fornication,” Jesus said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

Brother Hicks says in his book on page 25 that “everything said in the passage is addressed in the first line to this kind of case, the married man who divorces a wife who was faithful to him and marries another. It is not addressed to other situation . . . .” I deny it; that is not so. Brother Hicks needs to read the verse. There is more than one case in the verse.

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The “whosoever” is party number one, and “his wife” is party number two. The number one party, “whosoever,” marries “another” which is party number three in the verse. When party number one marries party number three without putting party number two away for fornication, Jesus said he “committeth adultery.” But even this is not all the verse says. Jesus continued by saying, “And whoso (which is party number four) marrieth her which is put away (which is party number 2 of the verse) doth commit adultery.” If party number one puts away his wife (party number 2) and then the two of them marry, you have four people committing adultery, if party number one did not put away his wife for fornication, despite what Brother Hicks and others say. If party number 2 is put away by her husband for fornication, and all remarry, then only two people are living adultery, the put away fornicator and her “husband.”

In the beginning of this article, I was careful to define “fornication” and “adultery” as being “unlawful or illicit sexual intercourse.” Part of Brother Hick’s problem, in an effort to get around what Jesus said, is that he does not know what adultery or fornication is. He has people guilty of such without having “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Observe what he says about Matt. 19:9 on page 28: “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another, or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the latter when Jesus specifically said it is the former.” Notice Brother Hicks has a man (1) putting away a wife and (2) marries mother, which in his second “wife,” and he says Jesus said he commits adultery before he cohabits with her. If a m; n has no right to put away his wife, and does so, his action is sinful but putting away or divorcing a wife is not adultery or “unlawful sexual intercourse.” When he “marries” another, standing before a justice of the peace or a preacher and saying some words will in the eyes of the law of the land make him married, but whatever ceremony is said is a sinful action upon his part for he has no right to her, but this legal ceremony is not the sin of adultery. He commits the sin of adultery with her every time he cohabits with her. On page 29, Brother Hicks says “the two actions,” “putting away” and “marrying another” is what “consists of” adultery.

Twice in verse 9 Jesus used the term “marry” or “marrieth” but he used it in what we would call an accommodative way. Each time he used the term, he said the parties involved “committeth adultery.” These people committing adultery were not married in the sight of God, unless God joins together those committing adultery. One may be “married” in the sight of men or the laws of the land, but when God looks at them, God says they “commit adultery.” Does God sanction by joining together those committing adultery?

Other Errors

In addition to what has already been said in this article, there are a few other errors that need to be noticed.

(1) No reason for any divorce. Reacting to the extreme of divorce for any reason, there are those that have gone to the opposite extreme and have said there is no reason for any divorce. While it may be true that few divorces are “for fornication,” it is true that Jesus did give this as the reason. When there is the reason, one has the right to exercise the right. The fact that many people do not follow what Jesus taught does not give one the right to ignore what Jesus did say.

(2) No alien subject to God’s marriage law. This is commonly been called in recent years the “Fuqua Position” but I doubt he originated it. The position stated says that alien sinners, those outside the spiritual relationship described in the New Testament as being “in Christ” do not live under the law of God as it pertains to marriage, divorce and remarriage. Therefore, before becoming a Christian, one could have married and divorced any number of times, but when they learn the truth and obey the gospel, they are to live with the one to whom they are married at the time of gospel obedience.

However, the Bible does not teach this idea. Writing to Gentiles in Corinth, Paul said “such were some of you” referring to the sins of fornication and adultery, but said ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). How could they have been fornicators and adulterers if they were not living under God’s law pertaining to marriage before “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)? If they were not under the law, they could not have violated the law. Among some sins Paul said the Colossians “walked” and “lived in” was the sin of “fornication” (Col. 3:5-7). If these Gentiles were not under God’s law from the beginning concerning marriage, how did they get to be fornicators?

(3) Not living with husband or wife, free to marry. Another error that is being taught is the idea that when a man puts away his wife, they are no longer married, thus free. Then the theory says that those free are able to enter into marriage. Glen Lovelady affirmed in debate with J.T. Smith that “the Scriptures teach that the put-away adulterer can remarry without committing sin” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, p. vi, and pp. 159-242). This is what the late Brother Lloyd Moyer advocated in his tract entitled “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” when he said on page 3, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else . . . . Where is the passage or passages which teach that the guilty person whose marriage has been destroyed cannot be married again. They are not married. What law would prohibit those not married from getting married?” (all emphasis is Moyer’s, T.G.O.).

The Holy Spirit said, “The woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . . . so then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress . . .” (Rom. 7:2-3). Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18). The teachings of Lovelady, Moyers, Hicks and others will not set aside what the Holy Spirit said. Preachers would do well to preach the word and quit trying to justify the guilty.

QUESTIONS

1. What are two very common sins discussed in this article? (One might gather articles and clippings from papers showing how common these sins are.)
2. Define “fornication” and “adultery.”
3. In what way does adultery differ from fornication?
4. What two people did God say a man should leave in order to be Joined to his wife?
5. Of those whom God joins together, what is man not to do?
6. Are people married if God has not Joined them together?
7. Is it possible for two people to be married legally in the eyes of men but not married in God’s eyes?
8. What reason did Jesus give for one to put away his mate and marry ‘a second time without committing sin?
9. What “reasons” does the state in which you live give for divorce? How many more reasons is this than Jesus gave?
10. Can unrepentant fornicators go to heaven?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 362-365
May 31, 1979