A Shameless Society

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down,” says the LORD (Jer. 6:15; also see 8:12).

The Lord’s rebuke of ancient Israel, especially the priests and prophets, ought to serve as a warning for our modern society. Israel had a two-fold problem: (1) they had committed abomination and (2) they were not ashamed of it. The Lord said they did not “know how to blush.”

It is bad enough to sin against the Lord, but to reach the point that one can openly do it without blushing compounds the guilt.

Have we not become a society that hardly knows how to blush? Things that were only done under the cover of darkness and behind the shield of privacy, in the very recent past, are now main street exhibitions – without any embarrassment. I can remember that even those who customarily practiced indecency, either in word or deed, were embarrassed when they slipped up and did it in the presence of those whom they thought were living by a higher standard. It seems that, as a society, we are becoming more and more shameless, not only in what we say and do, but also in the openness and boldness with which we do it.

Any society that loses its sense of shame and ability to blush is in deep trouble. It is well on its way to becoming a society that lives on the level of lower animals, satisfying every base appetite of the body and mind, without the restraints and direction of moral or spiritual consciousness.

The “sexual revolution” of recent years has brought a new openness in both language and conduct that ought to have us all blushing. Vulgarity and profanity are now common place. Things that should not be said at all are heard nearly everywhere we go, without it even raising an eyebrow with most people. Public displays of sensuality have become so much a part of life that most people think nothing of it any more. We are exposed to it daily on radio and TV, at theaters, on tapes, in the marketplace, at school, at work, at social functions, etc. I am fearful that so much exposure has caused many of us to lose any sense of shame that we may have once had concerning such. This is frightening because of what Paul wrote about the pagan society of his day in Romans 1:26-32:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (emphasis mine, E013).

One manifestation of how Christians are being more and more affected by the general lack of shame in society is the growing problem of immodesty in dress among us. Short shorts (sometimes rolled up a cuff), low cut dresses, see through garments, high slit skirts, skin tight clothing, and other sensually provocative attire are becoming all too common among those who profess to be New Testament Christians and the children for whom they are responsible. It is not uncommon any more for young ladies to show up at the services of the church wearing such attire – attire that is not only out of place in public worship, but should not be worn in mixed company anywhere. These have either never developed a sense of shame, with their parents’ help, or have lost it. Christians are to have a sense of shame that is deep rooted in the character, expressed by their clothing and general conduct: “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” (1 Tim. 2:9, ASV).

Shamefastness is from adios “perhaps from 1 (as a negative particle) and 1492 (through the idea of downcast eyes); bashfulness, i.e. (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance).

“A sense of shame, modesty,” is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church, 1 Tim. 2:9 (some mss. have it in Heb. 12:28 for deos, “awe”; here only in NT). ‘Shamefastness is that modesty which is “fast” or rooted in the character. . . The change to “shamefacedness” is more to be regretted because shamefacedness . . . has come rather to describe an awkward diffidence, such as we sometimes call sheepishness’ (Davies; Bible English, p. 12)” (An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, W.E. Vine, p. 568).

Thayer says it is “a sense of shame, modesty . . . prominently objective in its reference, having regard to others; while aisch. is subjective, making reference to one’s self and one’s actions . . . It is often said that aid precedes and prevents the shameful acts. . . “

So, one’s dress should reflect a sense of shame that is deep rooted in the character – a sense of shame that “precedes and prevents the shameful act” of indecently publicly exposing the body by immodest dress. Immodest dress is but a symptom of a deeper problem, a character flaw – an inward lack of shame that should characterize Christians.

Another disturbing thing that I am seeing is the lack of shame of those who are sexually promiscuous. Young unmarried people, even some who profess to be Christians or are children of Christians, publicly display their passions in a way that should be reserved only for married people and that in the privacy of their homes. It causes one to wonder what must go on when they away from the public eye. They are even heard to speak openly and frankly about their sensuality.

When a natural but undesirable consequence of their promiscuity evidences itself, there is still a disturbing lack of shame. When a sense of regret is shown, it is more in a vein of being sorry that they were so careless or stupid that they did not take adequate measures to avoid the consequences and not that they have done wrong and sinned against God until they are brought to repentance. This includes being genuinely ashamed of and sorry for what they have done to the God who created them. Well-meaning brethren, friends, and family members do them no favor by trying to make them feel less ashamed until they have repented. If we really want to “confirm our love toward them,” we will do all we can to make them feel as ashamed and guilty as possible until they show enough remorse to repent and get right with God. This can be done in a way that shows a love for their souls, rather than a self-righteous, moreholy-than-thou spirit. After they have sorrowed unto repentance is the time to apply 2 Corinthians 2:6-8: “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him.”

What are Christians, who must live in this kind of society, to do? Are we to be so overwhelmed by it that we conclude that we and our families cannot be expected to live right in such an environment? God forbid.

It is so easy for us to avoid our responsibilities as Christians and parents and blame our failures on the shameless society in which we have to live and rear a family. That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The societies in which early Christians had to live were no more conducive to living godly and rearing faithful children than ours is today. If anything, it was worse.

The Philippian Christians were told that they were expected to live “without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil. 2:15). The saints at Ephesus had to live in a city where a fertility goddess, Diana, was worshipped. Other cities had their idols. Licentiousness, drunkenness and sexual immorality were generally integral parts of idolatrous festivals and the pagan society in general. Could Christians be expected to live right and teach their children right under these conditions? Read what Paul wrote to the saints at Ephesus:

But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them (emphasis mine, EOB). . . . And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 5:3-7; 6:4).

Looks like they were expected to live above the society around them and to bring their children up right in spite of it, doesn’t it?

Righteous Lot lived in Sodom, a city so ungodly that a sin was named after it, but he did not get so used to it that it did not bother him. Peter says that God “delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds) – then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment” (2 Pet. 2:7-9). Lot did not lose his sense of shame and decency. It still bothered him greatly to see and hear sin. God delivered him, so will he us if we don’t surrender to the shameful conduct around us.

Remember what God said would happen to ancient Israel because of her shamelessness: “Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time I punish them, they shall be cast down.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, pp. 742-743
December 20, 1990

Is Jesus Human Now?

By Johnie Edwards

There are those who believe that since Jesus was human while he was one the earth, therefore he is still human in heaven. There are some real problems with this idea. Paul said, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50). If Jesus is human now, this Scripture has no meaning.

It is sometimes reasoned, that Jesus is high priest now, therefore he must still be a human being in heaven, since the priests of the Old Testament were human. Please observe.

1. The Priesthood has been changed. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made a necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12). The priesthood of Jesus is not like that of the Old Testament priest. The priesthood of Jesus is “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16).

2. After the order of Melchisedec. The priesthood of Christ differs from that of human priest for only his was of the order of Melchisedec. “Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec” (Heb. 6:20). Remember, Melchisedec was “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Heb. 7:3).

3. Old Testament Priests were men subject to death. The priests of the Old Testament law were only men, had sin in their lives, with a temporary priesthood and were soon replaced because physical death claimed their office. “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood . . . For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore” (Heb. 7:23-28).

4. Priesthood of Christ is Heavenly. We must remember that the priesthood of Christ is not earthly but heavenly. “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). The priesthood of Christ is from the right hand of God. “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (Heb. 9:1). Christ is high priest in the “perfect tabernacle”; “in heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:11,24).

If Jesus is human in heaven then Christians will also be human in heaven. “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:2 1). Paul didn’t think Christians will be human in heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, p. 749
December 20, 1990

Dear Abby, Newspapers and the Bible

By Don Willis

Newspapers attempt to keep the public aware of current ethics and attitudes. Enclosed is a letter to Dear Abby (Houston Post, 9/24/90, p. B-8) from a concerned brother. Paragraphing is deleted to conserve space.

Dear Abby, I have a sister who taught at the local high school until she was found guilty of fornication with some of the students. She lost her teaching credentials, her husband left her and she moved in with a man she just met. Now she’s announced that she’s going to marry him in December. Abby, Jesus stated plainly in Matthew 5:32 and again in Matthew 19:9 that marriage under these circumstances would be considered adultery. My sister claims to be a good Christian, but her conduct shows otherwise. I realize that sins can be forgiven if the sinner repents and prays (Acts 8:22), but true repentance would require that she first get out of her adulterous marriage. I have asked her to read the Scriptures to see if they apply to her situation, but she refused, and accused me of judging and condemning her. Should I persist in trying to teach her the truth? Also, should I attend her wedding? If I did, I would feel obligated to do my Christian duty and voice my objections to this adulterous marriage before man and God. I love my sister and want her to have a chance at heaven. HER LOVING BROTHER.” P.S. Abby encouraged, “please do not attend her wedding.”

Common community standards accepts adultery, fornication, and all kinds of sexual impropriety. The Bible condemns the same! This concerned brother has laid out scriptural teaching very curtly and accurately!

Why are people having this moral dilemma? Some who claim to be Christians are led into this erroneous marital teaching and society is going downhill as a consequence.

In the very same Houston Post, same section, and page B-3 under the heading “‘Till Death Do Us Part’ Unlikely Vow as Marriages Shorten,” a glimpse into community ethics is manifest by a census (observe: no one has ever consulted me in such a census). Over 40 percent of male students “do not think it very likely they will stay married to the same person for life.”

Current attitudes are money, position and power; not family, children, contentment! Observe these article conclusions:

Divorce has become so widely accepted that about 45 percent of women ages 18 to 44 approve of an “unhappy couple” getting a divorce.

There is no evidence of a new Puritanism in sexual relations as a reaction to fear of AIDS. In fact, only one quarter of women ages 18 to 24 disapprove of unmarried 18-year olds having sexual relations. (Wow! No wonder we have a problem!)

The number of couples living together (this is what fornication and adultery are all about, DW) is up dramatically. Although 40 percent marry within two years, the divorce rate is higher than among couples who did not live together.

One sage observed that “it is difficult to sleep with the hogs without smelling like the hogs!” This is nothing more than God-rebellion; and the only solution must come from respect for God!

The marital and immoral dilemma must come back and responsibly reside upon those responsible for this problem: parents have miserably failed to discharge their God-given responsibility! We have courted the world, flirted with the Devil, sold our soul to the economy, and shown too little genuine interest in our children!

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Too many parents push their children to be the star football player, or cheerleader; to marry a doctor or lawyer; get a good education so you can make a lot of money . . . and fail miserably in training those children that their foremost obligation is to God!

Parents! Wake up! Our nation is depending upon us! Our children are crying out for spiritual leadership! Stand up and be counted for the Lord! Remember, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32); and “Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). This is the only moral answer for America for our youth, and for me!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, p. 741
December 20, 1990

What Is the “Washing of Regeneration”?

By Ferrell Jenkins

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5, NASB).

In Titus 3:5 the apostle Paul declares that “God saved us” and that such was done “according to his mercy.” It was the mercy, grace and kindness or goodness of God that made salvation possible. Praise God for this grace toward man!

The passage also announces that he saved us, “not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness” but that he saved us “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” What is this “washing of regeneration” by which he saved us? One thing is clear: it is not a deed or work “which we have done in righteousness.” The chart should aid us in the analysis of this passage.

He Saved Us

Not By But By

Works Washing of Regeneration

According To His Mercy

What is the “washing of regeneration” by which he saved us? We have collected the comments of various outstanding Bible scholars from a diversity of religious groups. These men often differ on some of the details in this passage, but they all agree as to what the “washing of regeneration” is. We do not cite them as our authority, but ask that you weigh their arguments carefully.

John Wesley: “Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign), and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, which purifies the soul, as water cleanses the body, and renews it in the whole image of God” (One Volume New Testament Commentary, Wesley, Clarke, Henry, et. al.).

William Barclay: “When we think of baptism in the earliest days of the Church, we must always remember that it was the baptism of grown men and women who were coming direct out of paganism into the Christian Church. It was the deliberate leaving of one way of life to enter upon another and a new way. When Paul writes to the people of Corinth, he says: ‘Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified’ (1 Cor. 6:11). In the letter to the Ephesians he says that Jesus Christ took the Church that “He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). In baptism there came to men the cleansing, re-creating power of God” (The Letters to Timothy, Titus, Philemon in the Daily Study Bible).

Cambridge Greek Testament (J.H. Bernard): “That the ‘washing of regeneration’ is the Water of Baptism is undoubted; see Eph. 5:26 . . . It is the instrument (dia) of salvation (cp. 1 Pet. 3:21 . . . ), the means, that is, through which we are placed in a ‘state of salvation,’ in union with the mystical Body of Christ; cp. Gal. 3:27. . .”

The New Bible Commentary (A.M. Stibbs): “In status this salvation is made ours through the outward seal of baptism; in vital experience it comes through the inner quickening by the Spirit.”

The Pulpit Commentary (A.C. Hervey): “Here we have the means through or by which God’s mercy saves us . . . (regeneration) therefore, very fitly describes the new birth in holy baptism, when the believer is put into possession of a new spiritual life, a new nature, and a new inheritance of glory. And the laver of baptism is called ‘laver of regeneration,’ because it is the ordained means by or through which regeneration is obtained.”

William Hendriksen: “It is clear from such passages as John 3:3,5 and especially Ephesians 5:26 (cf. Heb. 10:22) that this ‘washing of regeneration and renewing’ stand in some relation to the rite of baptism. Undoubtedly, also here in Titus 3:5 there is an implied reference to this sacrament” (New Testament Commentary).

Albert Barnes: “The word (washing) itself would naturally be understood as referring to baptism (comp. Notes on Acts 22:16), which was regarded as the emblem of washing away sins, or of cleansing from them” (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament).

Henry Alford: “Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: Baptism is taken as in all its completion, the outward visible sign accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus complete, it not only represents, but is the new birth.” At Hebrews 10:22, Alford says the clause having our body washed with pure water “refers directly to Christian baptism” and cites washing of water (Eph. 5:26) and washing of regeneration (Tit. 3:5) as “analogous expressions” (The Greek New Testament).

James Macknight: “Through the bath of regeneration: through baptism; called ‘the bath of regeneration,’ not because any change in the nature of the baptized person is produced by baptism, but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin. . . ” (Apostolical Epistles).

G.R. Beasley-Murray: Beasley-Murray said in 1962 “of all the commentators who have written on these Epistles [1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus], I can find but one who denies” that this refers to baptism. He says, “All things considered, it requires a real hardiness of spirit to refuse the weight of this evidence. . . ” (Baptism, pp. 209, 210). I have come across one additional more recent commentator who denies that baptism is under consideration.

What is the “washing of regeneration” by which he saved us? These commentators all agree and most of them cite biblical evidence to back up their position. The “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 is baptism. In the chart below we have replaced the phrase “washing of regeneration” with the word baptism. This is proper since this is the meaning of the phrase.

He Saved Us

Not By But By

Works Baptism

According To His Mercy

Now observe that he saved us not by works, but by baptism. This passage clearly shows that baptism is not a work of man “done in righteousness.” Baptism is not a work of man; it is a work of God because it has been commanded by God (Acts 2:38; 10:48). Baptism is a work of God in the same sense that believing on Jesus is “the work of God” (and John 6:29 says just this). Those who believe that he saved us by works should give up the view. And those who disregard baptism should realize that they can not be saved without obeying God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, pp. 737, 751
December 20, 1990